Many
people have noticed. Ontario with 103 seats voted Liberal. The west with 88
seats voted Alliance. The Liberals win again. Gordon Gibson, Steven Harper,
David Frum, Ian Hunter and a lot of other commentators have commented on all the
negative reasons for western separation.
But
as one who has publicly advocated western separation for the past 25 years, I
believe one should avoid simply negative emotions which quickly pass, and focus
rather on positive reasons for Western Canada separating and becoming a new
nation.
The first and most obvious advantage separation allows to a Western Canadian is a clean slate. We could write our own new constitution for the first time a solid foundation of values like the constitutional right of referendum, initiative and recall. This idea was ridiculed by the “Doris Day” proposition, which Eastern Canadians and some westerners quickly turned into a farce much like children given paint to paint an artistic master piece instead paint clown faces on each other. An effective right of referendum, initiative and recall combined with technology available through the television, telephone, internet and teleconferencing, could give ordinary citizens real power and when seriously presented, would be seriously discharged. Only a new Western Canadian constitution can effect such referendum rights and diminish the power of politicians between elections.
Similarly a triple E or
regionally representative senate cannot ever really be achieved in Canada.
Ontario with 103 seats out of 301 in the House of Commons has a clear vested
interest in the present balloting arrangement. They have all the power now and
will not give it away. After independence, Western Canadians have only
themselves to please and I believe they would establish an elected senate as a
balance to the House of Commons. Thus each province would restrain the power of
the densely populated provinces and the senate would be a regional voice
mechanism.
Indian land claims, which today create insolvable problems and tribal
homelands with special rights based on race, are in Canada being
constitutionally entrenched. Many
people see the danger of this institutional minority racism, but can see no
solution. As the captain of the ship of state the Western Canadian government
can constitutionally establish that the land belongs to all the people
individually and the individual rights of Indian people can be recognized
without the deadening hand of separate status. This solution breaks the division
between peoples and builds the option of a new future where every
individual has equal rights. Institutional racism is no way to fight racism, and
equal rights for all is the only solution.
A further positive advantage of independence lies in the common language and culture which has tried to emerge in the last 50 years. English as the official common language could be declared as Western Canada becomes free of the stultifying hand of the ancient custom and constitution of Canada with its entrenched confusion and conflict of bilingualism and biculturalism. We can be better friends and neighbours with Quebec after we separate from Canada compared to now, burdened with the resentment of watching our equalization dollars bribe Quebec to remain in Canada. In Western Canada only one official language would be necessary. Proficiency in English would be the only linguistic requirement for success in the military or civil service of Western Canada. All forms and laws could just be written in English.
Another obvious advantage of independence is in the ability to keep
ourselves free from debt as we experience huge returns for the export of wheat,
timber, minerals, coal, petroleum, fishery, maybe even fresh water, as well as
our own manufacturing. The chances of this happening in Canada are nil. The
nation of Canada now brags that its rate of debt increase has been eliminated.
This is a long way from escaping debt. International exports from Western Canada
would create a favourable balance of payments. A Western Canadian dollar would
be much more powerful in purchasing ability.
The emergence of a means to define and protect our own culture would
finally enable us to avoid cultural genocide as is now being practiced by Ottawa
against us by its immigration policy. We could, along with preserving our
linguistic unity, begin to prescribe and develop standards of anticipated
behaviour which are only capable of definition when we are not open to vast
quantities of cultures who decline to assimilate and demand instead our
accommodations to the invading culture. In essence we could by legal, social and
cultural means promote the development of a common culture formed in freedom and
dedicated to honest research and expressive of our common goals and values.
Without common language and culture we are incapable of literature, values, or
agreed upon heroism. Without culture there is no community for which to fight
and die or struggle and live.
With all these positive reasons for Independence, what possible reason
for confederation remains? It used to be considered by some ignorant people
illegal to separate. The Clarity Bill has now established what was in doubt. Can
a province separate from Canada? The Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament
of Canada have both answered a resounding “yes.” All that is required is a
clear referendum question and a clear majority. The legal obstacle has vanished.
Separation is legally attainable. All that is necessary is political will. That
will I hope to articulate, form and stimulate with reason and all the passion I
can muster.
The
Clarity Bill also provides the logical answer to the question of which provinces
would be included. Clearly it would be whichever provinces chose by a clear
referendum, and a clear majority. It could be British Columbia, alone. It could
be Alberta, alone. Or in combination, if each chose in a referendum at the same
time. It could be Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and
Northwest Territories, or as they’re now called by some other name. The people
of each province and territory, would for once, have a significant decision to
make for themselves. For once, their opinion would matter. For once, their
choice would be historic and significant. They could choose to create a new
nation, peacefully, democratically and rationally.
What are the arguments against
separation? Sometimes Mr. Mulroney used to argue membership in the G-7 as a
reason not to separate, as if this gained us anything. Mr. Chretien speaks
vaguely of a tolerant society but is tolerance of evil a virtue and intolerance
of corruption a vice? The CBC tells us geography makes Canada great, but
geography is a physical reality and Canada is a political construction totally
unrelated to geography. The Soviet Union was geographically beautiful. Those are
all emotional arguments, with no basis in fact. So what makes Canada endure?
The answer is really inertia and lack of vision. That is being solved. The
arrogance and contempt of Jean Chretien is finally breaking through what I had
begun to fear would never move, that is the stolid obedience and apathetic
acceptance by the average Western Canadian. We are “a different kind of
people” as he said. A new nation of Western Canada is, in the end of the day,
all that we have to look forward to.
With the 7 million English
speaking people of Western Canada, a land mass the size of Europe, extensive
agricultural land, oil, gas, fresh water, beautiful scenery, vast wilderness,
minerals, forestry and fishery in potential abundance, why would we tolerate a
government in Ottawa? It despises our people and their democratic choices. It
exploits and taxes away our resources. It steals our land through grants to
racial groups. It oppresses our freedom. It bankrupts our economy. What do we
really lack to govern ourselves better?
Having
worked for Western Canadian Independence for 25 years, after this last election
I see the willpower finally emerging.
The media attention has died down. The Attorney General has
congratulated the good people of Oliver. Now might be the right time to ask the
important questions and have a rational dialogue on the issue of free speech. Is
it justified to close down a meeting of alleged racists and hate mongers before
they can speak? How do we know that they are racists or hate mongers until we
hear them? “Because the media has told us so and so, why do we need to hear
them” seems to be the answer. We know who and what they are from a thousand
sources; they can’t all be lying. This at least is the media’s implicit
reasoning. Well can’t they? Are they really a thousand sources or just one
source repeated 1000 times. Does the media really represent a large number of
independent assessments or just one copied by all the rest of the lazy reporters
who don’t want to write unique perspectives or perhaps cannot due to lack of
depth, ability, or time. The reporters who attended Oliver went with a fixed
agenda shared it seems by the attitude of the Attorney- General. It is in their
view better to “shut the racists down”. The fact is however that the people
are really prevented from making their own informed assessment because the most
fundamental rule of learning has been broken. What rule is that? The rule audi
alteram partem - hear both sides.
The real bigots, and hate mongers are those who say there is no other side. “My point of view is the only one and there is nothing to learn from ‘racists’,” they claim but the difficulty arises in determining who is a racist and what does it mean. Isn’t it necessary first to hear a person before judging the speaker? This is precisely it seems what the Simon Wiesenthal representatives, the town of Oliver Mayor Larson and the Attorney- General of BC wanted to prevent. They all congratulated the decision to prevent a speaker from speaking. Then to rub salt in the open wound they asked Doug Collins “what have you been prevented from saying”? The supposed racists and bigots were not allowed a single direct quote on the TV news while their critics and protagonists were quoted ad nauseam recasting accusations against them. Is there no shame in the media or sense or justice? It is ironic that the media in Canada are so shallow and foolish that they are unable to stand by the simple principle that upholding free speech has nothing to do with the approbation of any speaker or the content of their speech. The media is in a sad state when they cannot see the value of defending other peoples right to free expression. They have lost their courage, objectivity and perception. As a result of such ignorance in the media, the established authorities, the mayor of Oliver, and the RCMP, we see those who threaten violence getting applause and approbation by the establishment, and the victims of this violence threatening tactic told to go away and be quiet. My father fought in the Second World War, my grandfather in the First World War in the trenches of France. My great grandfather against the Fenian Raids in Ontario, all for freedom or so they thought. I am told I cannot hold a public meeting in my own country. Where do I go for the defense of freedom from violence and intimidation. I have to stay and fight here and I will. This should be the same goal as responsible persons everywhere who believe in Free Speech for everyone. We only judge after we have heard from someone - not gossip about them. We are capable of deciding for ourselves. If anything wrong was said, charge the people responsible. Don’t silence people before they can speak. If violence or threats of violence defeats free speech why do we have free speech at all? Or is it only for those the media tell us we can agree with?
By
Douglas Christie
Will Canada continue to exist? Canada has only existed for some time now as a tax-gathering and patronage agency which bribes certain groups with funds to stay in business. Canadian culture when it actually existed until just after the second World War, was really just a remnant of British traditions of law, politics and parliamentary democracy.
The
Christian church, which played a major role in the establishment and maintenance
of Canada as an institution from at least the conquest in 1759 to the Second
World War, has lost its influence since the Second Vatican Council. Canada as a
multicultural nation is in fact just a transitional phase to disintegration into
various cultural ghettoes. Surrey and Richmond B.C. are the legacy of
multiculturalism and the wave of the future.
The
real nature of multiculturalism is European genocide. Canada simply does not
exist as a cultural, economic, political or philosophical entity. It is a
remnant of the British Empire, held together by the power to tax and spend. It
will disappear even as that in twenty years. Nothing in the heart holds it
together. It is ripe for the invasion which is occurring
Should
it continue to exist? A better question is: Why should Western Canada with 75%
of Canada’s agriculture, 90% of its oil and gas, 60% of its fishery and
forestry, 60% of its hydro-electric power potential and vast quantities of other
minerals including coal and gold allow it to continue to dominate our way of
life and resources from 2,500 miles away in Ottawa?
Why
should all four western provinces be satisfied with 88 seats in the Commons to
Ontario’s 105 and Quebec’s 75? Why should the English-speaking west which
produces 70% of Canada’s international exports continue to allow Ottawa to
decide on immigration, language, banking, international trade, foreign policy,
and more while Ontario and Quebec run Ottawa?
When all practical matters are considered, a Western Canadian who watches everything from gun control registries to energy policy, to the federal equalization, transportation and Wheat Board policies, to the media control by Central Canada to federal immigration policies, must clearly realize that Canada is a disaster. Reform is impossible. Separation and a new nation of Western Canada remains the only solution.
By
Douglas Christie Published in the Times Colonist, February 17, 2011 Police deserve to be admired and respected to the extent they protect society from violent criminals, theft and fraud, rape and other social evils. But the respect they deserve can only be earned by careful attention to the law themselves and respect for the citizens they serve, whether they be drunk or sober, rich or poor, right or wrong, good or bad. Respect is a mutual thing. It is shocking to hear of a police woman stabbed, perhaps just because she was in uniform. It is equally shocking to hear police have shot to death Jeff Hughes, Ian Bush, or kicked a couple of people into unconsciousness to prevent a fight, or arrested someone like Mike Stebih for no good reason. The point of this is simple. If police continue to be respected, they must earn public respect through a transparent scrutiny of their own dubious acts or questionable conduct. To think police don’t break the law on occasion would be naïve. To think prosecutors who rely on them every day as professional witnesses can impartially determine if they have broken the law or that lawyers who work with them every day can be counted on to look with dispassionate objectivity is downright childish. There is a growing gulf between the police and public trust, which can only be fixed and crossed with any hope of restoration of faith when the police are judged for their conduct by the public themselves and not by their constant co-workers in the system itself. This can be accomplished by an equally simple modification to our law. Every police action causing death or grievous bodily harm to a citizen should be subject to an inquest, which must commence within a short and reasonable time. At this inquest a jury should be empanelled, which has the power to attribute fault and law charges under the Criminal Code. Any aggrieved party should have standing to appear, testify and be represented to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses, just like at a coroner’s inquest today. The results of the jury’s verdict would be binding and unappealable. They could lay charges and could recommend remedial action. The minor modifications to the coroners act and the appointment of legally trained coroners would cost money but respect for law is not cheap and the absence of it causes a violent break down of the whole society and the safety and security of police and the public. If police want respect, and they should deserve it, they must stand before the public as equals not above us with the protections of their friends, in a legal system most of us do not even understand. I do not want to wait from October 23, 2009 to perhaps April 2011 for an inquest into the death of Jeff Hughes, who was shot to death in the presence of over five police officers, to know what happened and why. Is there a shortage of witnesses? Can’t they remember what happened? If we wait much longer, they may have that excuse. Are the public satisfied when a teenager is shot in the back of the head by a lone RCMP officer, less than an hour after his arrest for having an open beer bottle, and the Attorney General declares no charges are warranted? If Dziekanski had not been on video would there be a public inquiry? How difficult is it for us to see a person kicked in the head and hear that a prosecutor in the privacy of his or her office has decided no charges are warranted and hence we are assured justice is done. The essential ingredient of a society where citizens and police are in agreement on the enforcement of the law is simply that the law applies to police and citizens in equal measure. The police cannot be above the law. With the present system of accountability, that impression is well founded. To remove the present lack of trust, true accountability must be restored. My suggestion would go a long way to achieving that end.