Public Opinion
I have no intention of commenting on the current political mess in Canada; the pundits have said it all and I have nothing to add. What I find distressful, however, is the ignorant public opinion I encounter every day online in the comment threads following news stories at CTV.ca/news and CBC.ca/news. Some of these citizens are reasonable and calm, others are delusional, some go on ranting and raving about socialists, traitors and other such scum. Let's deal first with socialism.
Socialists in Canada are few and far between, and there are no socialist political parties. Normally the NDP is tagged with this epithet, but they are a social democratic party, quite different from socialist. Their predecessor, however, was the CCF founded by folks who could fairly be labelled socialists. They introduced medicare and championed such things as old age pensions, mothers' allowances, and unemployment insurance. Bad, bad socialists!
Although pure socialism is a nice theory, it doesn't work because of the nature of humans. "To each according to his need; from each according to his ability." This Marxian maxim was quoted by Lenin - (Communists considered themselves socialists and thus gave them a bad name). The first part of the dictum is just fine - there are always people ready to receive, but the difficulty with the second part is that fewer people are ready to give. We remember the hippie communes of the 60's where twenty or so people would get together. Work and it's rewards would be shared. What actually happened was that two or three would do most of the work while the rest sat under trees and strummed their guitars. The communes broke up in discord. So much for socialism.
Those who wish to topple Stephen Harper via the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition are labelled everything from anti-democratic to traitors. This is nonsense, of course, but name-calling is a tradition in our politics. Harper is a leading practitioner of the art. It is the democratic right of the duly elected members of the House to choose their leader, but this logic is lost among the fanatics. I think the proposed coalition is doomed to fail, but that is another matter.
And now we come to the Bloc Quebecois. These people are the recipient of any amount of vitriol, they are accused of wanting to break up Canada, and in a certain sense that's true, but it would be more accurate to say they wish to withdraw from Canada. They have nothing against Canada, they wish us well, but they'd like to have their own country. Does that make them traitors? By that logic, George Washington was a traitor. But what do we mean by "breaking up Canada"? If it's meant in the geographical sense, then the Atlantic provinces would no longer be connected. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Alaska which is separated from the main U.S. body, or for Hawaii which is off in the middle of the ocean. So we'd have to go through Quebec customs to get back and forth, certainly an inconvenience but not all that much of a problem. It's not going to happen anytime soon, I doubt that I'll see separation in my lifetime, so why foam at the mouth?
If there is antagonism between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it doesn't come from the Quebec side. I know what I'm talking about because I've spent at least a dozen years of my life in Quebec, among the Québecois. Generally speaking, they like Canada, they love travelling to Nova Scotia, PEI and Ontario. There are a few negatives. For instance, the service industry in Montreal is not noted for excessive courtesy and one has to be careful not to be taken in that city, be you a visitor or a native. But Montreal is not Quebec, in the same way that Manhattan is not the United States. They see no problem in bringing their best English when visiting Ontario, but they wonder why Ontario visitors make no effort to try a little French in Quebec. There are long memories among the elders of being rudely told to "speak white". Most Anglo-Canadians haven't a clue what Quebecers are all about.
How can we have a truly decent and civilized country if such opinions are the common currency?
Socialists in Canada are few and far between, and there are no socialist political parties. Normally the NDP is tagged with this epithet, but they are a social democratic party, quite different from socialist. Their predecessor, however, was the CCF founded by folks who could fairly be labelled socialists. They introduced medicare and championed such things as old age pensions, mothers' allowances, and unemployment insurance. Bad, bad socialists!
Although pure socialism is a nice theory, it doesn't work because of the nature of humans. "To each according to his need; from each according to his ability." This Marxian maxim was quoted by Lenin - (Communists considered themselves socialists and thus gave them a bad name). The first part of the dictum is just fine - there are always people ready to receive, but the difficulty with the second part is that fewer people are ready to give. We remember the hippie communes of the 60's where twenty or so people would get together. Work and it's rewards would be shared. What actually happened was that two or three would do most of the work while the rest sat under trees and strummed their guitars. The communes broke up in discord. So much for socialism.
Those who wish to topple Stephen Harper via the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition are labelled everything from anti-democratic to traitors. This is nonsense, of course, but name-calling is a tradition in our politics. Harper is a leading practitioner of the art. It is the democratic right of the duly elected members of the House to choose their leader, but this logic is lost among the fanatics. I think the proposed coalition is doomed to fail, but that is another matter.
And now we come to the Bloc Quebecois. These people are the recipient of any amount of vitriol, they are accused of wanting to break up Canada, and in a certain sense that's true, but it would be more accurate to say they wish to withdraw from Canada. They have nothing against Canada, they wish us well, but they'd like to have their own country. Does that make them traitors? By that logic, George Washington was a traitor. But what do we mean by "breaking up Canada"? If it's meant in the geographical sense, then the Atlantic provinces would no longer be connected. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Alaska which is separated from the main U.S. body, or for Hawaii which is off in the middle of the ocean. So we'd have to go through Quebec customs to get back and forth, certainly an inconvenience but not all that much of a problem. It's not going to happen anytime soon, I doubt that I'll see separation in my lifetime, so why foam at the mouth?
If there is antagonism between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it doesn't come from the Quebec side. I know what I'm talking about because I've spent at least a dozen years of my life in Quebec, among the Québecois. Generally speaking, they like Canada, they love travelling to Nova Scotia, PEI and Ontario. There are a few negatives. For instance, the service industry in Montreal is not noted for excessive courtesy and one has to be careful not to be taken in that city, be you a visitor or a native. But Montreal is not Quebec, in the same way that Manhattan is not the United States. They see no problem in bringing their best English when visiting Ontario, but they wonder why Ontario visitors make no effort to try a little French in Quebec. There are long memories among the elders of being rudely told to "speak white". Most Anglo-Canadians haven't a clue what Quebecers are all about.
How can we have a truly decent and civilized country if such opinions are the common currency?
posted by puzzled @ 6:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home