Is cutting the colonial tie with Britain the dominating issues that the Liberals need?

Is cutting the colonial tie with Britain the dominating issues that the Liberals need?

As a Canadian traveling abroad, the symbolism doesn’t strike a cord for me either way. When I think of home, I don’t think of the Queen, the Govern General, or even the Prime Minister. I think of the flag, the landscape, the maple syrup, the crisp autumn air, or the snow…if I’m thinking unhealthy then poutin and beaver tails…

I’d much rather see a movement on environment or a push to tackle some of the existing inequalities among minorities or gender…Cutting the colonial tie is more symbolic and visual that it is influential…so maybe it would be a tangible issues to campaign on.

I’d be interested to see what the Canadian population wants to do….

ps, maybe working on reducing barriers for Canadians in the UK would be better ;)

S.

***

Cutting the last colonial tie
ANTHONY WESTELL

Special to Globe and Mail Update
September 6, 2007 at 12:30 AM EDT

The curious case of the prince and the Catholic, as Dr. Watson might have called it, has aroused little attention — but it should, because it reveals that we are still a semi-colonial country. It prompts the question of whether the time has come to thank the Queen and end the monarchy in Canada — it could be just the dominating issue the Liberals are looking for as they prepare for the next election.

Prior to 1981, our Constitution was simply an act of the British Parliament, and when we wanted to make a change, we had to send a polite request to Westminster. The British were always happy to oblige, so there was no practical problem. But symbolically — and symbols count — it made us a colony. Then, prime minister Pierre Trudeau "patriated" the Constitution (it couldn't be "repatriated" because it had never been here), springing it from Westminster and bringing it under the control of Ottawa and the provinces. He emphasized our new independence by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is more in the U.S. or French tradition than the British.

With our new Constitution proclaimed in Ottawa, we were able to cry, "Free, free, free at last from colonial rule," except that we now discover that we weren't free, as Norman Spector explained in The Globe and Mail last week. After centuries of often bloody struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants for the British throne, Westminster settled the matter in 1701 by declaring that in future, no Catholic could be king or queen, or even be married to one.

Now, Princess Anne's son Peter, 10th in the line of succession, wants to marry a Montreal Catholic girl with the delightful name of Autumn Kelly. But first, he must renounce his claim to the Crown. "Who cares?" you might well ask. Peter is so far down the line that he would never become king.

But Canadians should care, because as long as we accept the British monarch as our own, no Catholic can become our head of state. There goes the guarantee against religious discrimination in our revered Charter.

Again, it's a symbolic problem rather than a practical one: The monarch delegates his or her Canadian powers and duties to a governor-general nominated by the prime minister, and is often a Catholic. But, again, symbols count.

Mr. Spector, formerly a highly regarded public servant, finds this religious discrimination an intolerable affront to Canadian values, and urges Prime Minister Stephen Harper to request that London scrap its 18th-century law. Gordon Brown's new government may have other priorities as it prepares for its first election — but regardless, why should we have to petition Westminster to change their law to comply with ours? The bottom line is that so long as we accept the British monarch as our head of state, we shall remain tinged by colonialism.

Liberal governments have been slowly dismantling the colonial connection for many years, often in the face of opposition by Conservative loyalists. Prime minister Lester Pearson replaced our old national flag, based on the British red ensign, with the Maple Leaf. The opposition was fierce, but now the red-and-white flag is flown with pride everywhere. Mr. Trudeau went a step further with the Constitution.

The argument can be made that the Queen has served us so well that we should wait for her reign to end before ending the monarchy in Canada, but might not that be seen as a rejection of her successor? Ending the monarchy would not necessarily cut all Canada's links to Buckingham Palace; like other former British colonies, we could still recognize the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.

Of course, it's easy to write about ending our monarchy, but it would be immensely difficult to bring it about. There would have to be a powerful consensus on a new republican system, and then changes to the Constitution. Only public opinion could override political opposition.

However, the process has to start somewhere, and the initiative lies with the Liberals if they wish to take up the task of making Canada fully independent. They might find it a popular cause with young Canadians and immigrants who feel no historical connection to Britain, and in Quebec, which has always been suspicious of the British connection.

Anthony Westell is an admirer of the Queen in Britain, but not in Canada.

Liberally abroad...

I've been so bad at keeping up my blog, as my work has me traveling a lot and also has me posting blog entries on our site www.iflry.org.

But I'll try to keep up my blog from time to time with politics that include Canadian and international issues

I've been working for the International Federation of Liberal Youth, so I've still kept up my Liberal heritage but have been gaining a wealth of knowledge from liberals from around the world.

It's been great! There are so many ideas to be utilized and projects to be employed.

While it will be odd to be away for the provincial election, it will be interesting to follow as an outsider.

S.

Canada looks for a new animal image

What is Harper thinking??

The wolverine: A large land weasel that is know to give off an unpleasant odour and has an unstable nature...and is also known as "skunk bear" and "nasty cat".

Apparently in a battle fight between a wolverine and a moose, it could take a moose with the help of a snow bank but not a black bear...but how does it fair against an elephant or an eagle...that's the question...lol...if there really is any real significance to the animal/country representation...

Okay, so the beaver or the loon may not be the fiercest of animals...but if I was driving down the highway and I had to face a moose or a wolverine, I am sure my car could withstand the wolverine...but the tall Canadian moose, that's an animal you don't want to mess with.... and be able to walk away from…

The wolverine is not a good depiction of Canada.

S.



TENACIOUS, SMELLY--AND UNCOOL
Feb 15th 2007

Canada looks for a new image

CLOSE your eyes and think of Canada. Perhaps the picture that comes to
mind is one of a country of cold winters and civilised prosperity. But
Stephen Harper, the country's Conservative prime minister, has another
idea. This month he suggested that the national image was best captured
by the wolverine, a sort of weasel.

That seems odd. Wolverines have some unpleasant habits. They emit a
foul-smelling musk and eat carrion. They are close relatives of skunks
and their name translates as "glutton" in French. But Mr Harper was
thinking of their reputation for aggression and tenacity in the face of
much larger predators. Canada is no mouse beside the American elephant,
but a wolverine next to a grizzly bear, he said. "We may be smaller but
we're no less fierce about protecting our territory."

Mr Harper knows something about rebranding. He has changed his own
image from angry western neo-conservative to congenial centrist. He is
busy trying to repaint in green a government of climate-change
sceptics. The wolverine image is presumably designed to assure
Canadians that his friendliness towards George Bush is not softness.

In fact, Canada already has an official national animal: the beaver. It
is industrious but shy, and spends most of its time eating through
trees in order to create dams. That worthy, but undynamic, image is
just the one that some Canadians would like to live down.

So what would the image consultants have advised? Animals are fine,
they say. The United States is symbolised by the bald eagle, and then
there are the Chinese dragon, the Russian bear, and the British lion.
But the prime minister may have tried too hard. The chosen beast has to
appeal to the heart rather than the head, which the wolverine does not,
says Nicolas Papadopoulos, a country-branding specialist at Ottawa's
Carleton University.

THE ECONOMIST has already made its suggestion. We put a moose in
sunglasses on our cover[1] in 2003 when we argued that Canada's
combination of muscular North American capitalism and socially tolerant
democracy was rather cool. With global warming melting the frozen
north, the image is bang up-to-date. But the competent Mr Harper just
doesn't do cool.

Back to blogging…sort of…

I’ve been bad at keeping my blog up…but I am back. I am going to be following politics from abroad as I accepted a new post to be the new Executive Director of the International federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) out in London, UK. I am excited at this new challenge but it meant that I had to leave Canada before the leadership convention.

I watched it from afar (which is not nearly as fun). With Dion as our newly chosen leader, it’s an exciting opportunity to move forward and not get bogged down by division…especially now since the other opposition parties are trying to divide on the topic of Dion’s citizenship.

I think Pat Martin is wrong and his demands are disgusting. As Canadian’s, we pride ourselves of being multicultural and not requiring homogenization of cultures. We take pride that citizens of Canada can hold dual citizenship, that we can celebrate our ancestral roots while being proud to be Canadian. Pat Martin has no right to ask Dion to give up his dual citizenship. Dion is Canadian citizenship and asking him to give up part of his heritage is ridiculous.

Let’s not create different classes of Canadian citizens. Pat Martin’s comment seems something more along the lines to come from the conservative bench, not the NDP.

gone for a week and I miss the biggest school yard fight

So I am gone for a week and I miss Peter Mackay's horrible remark....

I can not believe that PM Harper is letting his comment slide!!! What a disgrace for the Conservative government. First they destroy the ministry for women's equality and now they let cabinet minister's make sexist remarks.

It's not even fair to just say "grow up Peter". There are not enough women in politics to begin with, and a government that allows such disrespectful sexism to pass by does not reflect the values of Canadians. It's just sad.

what a disgrace for Canada's government.
S.

politics abroad

It was a long trip but I am in France at a young Liberal Conference.

I am a guest of LDYS (Liberal Democrat Youth & Student) from the UK. I will be representing the organization at a conference on multiculturalism. Participants will be travelling from all over the world and there seems to be quite a few people from Eastern Europe. It will be exciting to hear the discussions that develop between all of the participants.

I already almost left my purse at the train station…and while I didn’t get lost, I did stop to ask for directions to make sure I was heading the right direction since it was very late, dark, and I was in a country I had never been before.

I am all class…I stop and asked for directions at the European Parliament…lol. The security gaurd was rather helpful.

wow...Harper to cut funding for women's advocacy work

I can't believe this!

This is basically the Harper government saying to the women groups of Canada:

"You can have funding for your group as long as you don't promote equality for women, speak to the government about women issues, or do any real research on how women are still unequal....just keep cleaning and baking...and you can have your money under these new terms and conditions for grants."

It's a little difficult to inspire change if you're not allowed to even suggest it...

S.

Tories to cut funding for womens' advocacy work
Updated Wed. Oct. 4 2006 5:16 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research, leaving some to wonder what's left.

The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality'' when listing the agency's goals.

Previous objectives such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing the public's understanding of women's equality issues have been eliminated from government literature.

Organizations that receive funding from the Trudeau-era agency were stunned.

"When you look at this Conservative government's policy it's like, `Be good girls, be quiet.' It's shocking really,'' said Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

Groups initially thought the agency's core program had escaped the axe during a government-wide spending review announced last week, when only the administrative side of Status of Women Canada was cut.

But they were told this week by Status of Women Minister Bev Oda that they would no longer be able to receive funding for projects that involved advocacy work, lobbying of the government or general research, as part of new terms and conditions for grants.

Oda was not available for comment Wednesday.

The changes are consistent with program cuts the government made to policy branches and advisory committees in several departments. Government watchers say it's indicative of a move away from "government-funded lobbying,'' in favour of results-oriented projects.

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of the Muslim Women, argues without the funding the government provided her group, it would never have successfully struck down the use of Muslim shariah law in Ontario family court cases.

"That makes it very difficult, because if you don't lobby and you don't advocate, you're not going to make systemic changes,'' said Hogben.

"A majority of us are new immigrants, we don't know all the systems, we have to struggle with adaptation . . . to say we're going to get money, or any large sums of money to do this work is just not reasonable.''

Also in the new terms and conditions for grants is a general statement of objectives for the women's program.

The last document, published in 1993, said the program supported organizations that sought to "advance equality for women by addressing women's economic, social, political and legal situation.''

It also had a list of four other key objectives that included women's involvement in the decision-making or public policy process.

The new, shorter stated objective is to "facilitate women's participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations.''

Michele Asselin, president of la Federation des femmes du Quebec _ the largest women's organization in the province _ said Canadians expect their government do what's necessary to uphold Charter equality rights, and sometimes that includes funding outside groups to raise issues.

"It's fundamental to Canadian democracy because all groups and lobbyists aren't all equal. There has to be financing that supports independent groups that can question and analyze and give different perspectives to government,'' said Asselin.
"That's part of a democratic society to finance groups that defend rights.''