Monarchy Rebuttal

About our white paper recommendation regarding Monarchy, Mr David Steventon writes:

Interesting editorial. Seems like one requirement is missing. That the new monarch be a past employee of CBC.

That's how stupid the concept is. Heck we have trouble finding sufficient statesmen. (Thinks, do we have any?) So how are we going to find an individual to inspire our nation, including Quebec?

And who would appoint this nation inspiring monarch? The Prime Minister? What an opportunity for a patronage appointment. Considering the wealth of qualified people for the position of Governor General, the past two have left a lot to be desired. And of course who could forget Jean Sauvé, who thought of herself as royalty, by banning the streaming masses from Rideau Hall.

Come on, you have a great web site here. Don't waste time and effort on such trivialities.

David Steventon

Thanks for the comment. Allow me to respond.

First, the onus is on you, Mr Steventon, to defend the relevance of the House of Windsor in 21st century Canada. Given that our Prime Minister has declared the Quebecois a nation, what relevance has the Queen to them?

Ask yourself: where is the Queen physically right now?

Second, in our proposal, we would not be appointing a new Monarch. This person would be our head of state, but no monarch. We would be abolishing the Monarchy from Canada.

We left open the options for appointment of the officer. It doesn’t matter terribly to us, as we’re satisfied as long as there is no election, there is also no republic.

I do not consider it trivial at all that we have this middle age vestige still at the centre of our governmental structure. That, coupled with the sheer irrelevance of the Monarchy to Canadians of non-British descent, make a strong case for reform.

The new Australian PM just announced they will have a go at a Republic; I'm suggesting we have a go at reform in our own way, too.

graham at uni dot ca

Atlantic Canada Speaks Out

Here is an interesting letter from a fellow Maritimer. He's more subtle than I am in calling these Upper Canadians "unwittingly imperialist."

graham at uni dot ca

Being a bit of a political junky, I looked through your website with some keen interest. It seems that there is an honest attempt to so-called 'solve' the county's problems, but there are major problems in your writing as concerns people, like me, from Atlantic Canada. Historically, few in this region wanted to join Canada to begin with. Arms were twisted by imperial powers to force integration. Things have changed in many ways, but latently, at least, most Atlantic Canadians feel somehow that it is our destiny to be shafted by 'Upper Canada'. From Joseph Howe to Joey Smallwood, the idea in Atlantic Canada was that the powers that be didn't want us to be independent so we had to cut the best deal we could. They predicted that our banking, agricultural, industrial, and trade standards would be dictated by the demographic core of the country and we, consequently, would lose control of them. On these counts, you would have to be lying to yourself to believe that they were in any way wrong. As this was foreseen, the hope was that some minimal guarantees of governmental service and political representation could allow our cultures to withstand the new imperialism that would inevitably try to reinvent our cultures and industry.

But alas, the good hearts of Unity believe somehow that the "martimes" are overrepresented in the senate. They are not wrong in proportion to the population. They are wrong, however, to characterize Newfoundland as being part of the Maritimes--it is not and never has been. They are also wrong to suggest that this "over-representation" somehow needs to be corrected. It was a minimal guarantee to the loss of our respective sovereignties. I could go on for hundreds of pages on how this destroyed thriving small economies and diverse cultural groupings, but instead would invite contributors just to make an effort to understand different regions' histories with balanced reviews of artifacts and historical documents rather than the unwittingly imperialist underpinnings of Toronto/Montreal publishers.

Hopelessly yours,

Malcolm Smith
Sent July 2007

«Je me souviens de ce qui me convient»

Reconquérir le Canada : les fédéralistes veulent reprendre le crachoir

Gérald Leblanc, La Presse

Léon Dion, réputé professeur de l'Université Laval et père du chef libéral Stéphane, se définissait comme «un fédéraliste fatigué».

Si on lui demandait quand viendrait la réponse à l'éternelle question de l'avenir politique du Québec, il répondait: «Sans doute jamais, à moins de changer la question, notre modèle de pensée.»

Changer le paradigme, comme on dit maintenant, c'est justement ce que veulent faire la douzaine de fédéralistes québécois rassemblés par André Pratte, éditorialiste en chef de La Presse. «Un appel à la nation québécoise pour qu'elle conçoive autrement le fédéralisme canadien et sa relation avec les autres régions du pays», écrit-il en introduction au volume.

On veut profiter de l'accalmie pour reprendre le crachoir, laissé trop longtemps aux adversaires séparatistes, estime-t-on.

Reconquérir le Canada - Un nouveau projet pour la nation québécoise. Un titre étonnant que n'aurait certes pas endossé Pierre Trudeau et que le fils de Léon aimerait sans doute nuancer.

…

Histoire collective

André Pratte lui-même nous invite à revoir notre façon de raconter notre histoire collective. Pourquoi toujours parler de la conquête des Anglais et jamais de l'abandon des Français? Pourquoi ne pas remettre en question notre opposition à la conscription pour la guerre contre Hitler? «Je me souviens de ce qui me convient» parodie le directeur de la publication.

Articles complet ici

Pour lire les réactions des indépendantistes, voir leurs conneries anti-fédéralismes ici.

A Canadian perspective

Please FW to Kevin Myers ---> Re: British newspaper salutes Canada

To Kevin Myers

RE: Canadian perspective on "The country the world forgot - again -- By Kevin Myers"
http://www.uni.ca/country_forget.html

Sometimes I'm not so proud to be a Canadian. While Canada has a great history of accomplishments, most of them come as the result of following. Canada seems to love the US so much that they followed them into Iraq and Afghanistan. Harper's not-so-secret agenda of deep integration with the US today, just another example of Canada's political will not to be a leader and not to be it's own country in this world. So why did Canada scrap their world-leading Avro Aero anyway? US pressure? So sad. Canada still has to answer to someone else's queen. How primitive is that? Canada is a nation in it's infancy. Until Canada grows up and takes control of their own ecomony without depending on the US economy and until it follows it's own path, the world will not change it's view on Canada.

If Canada wanted to be a leader in the world, then they would need to start doing the right thing and fighting the good fight. Not this crap that's going on in Afgahistan and Iraq. That's not their war. They need to stop following the US in unjust conflicts. The US is the last country in the world Canada should be following.

Look at the Canadian dollar? It's nice and high, yet people here panic. Why? Because everyone is too tied down to the US economy instead of creating their own global economy. Why is that???? We too primitive and to wimpy to do things ourselves? We still need the big bad USA to hold our hand? Our gov't is pathetic. We need someone in charge that would stick it to the US (and get rid of the queen). We need our independance.

Look at the environment. Such a sad story, and who does Caanda follow? The damned US. The worse polluter in the world.
I'm so sick of the US. That's the last country anyone should follow.

Harper totally sucks.

We need to burn their White House down again like in the war of 1812. Talk about a proud moment. The US lost that war. :)

We need to get economically independant from them.

We need to fight our own wars, just wars, not wars over oil and terrorist ghosts.

Why wasn't Canada fighting apartheid in South Africa?

Why wasn't Canada in Rwanda? In Darfur? Why isn't Canada fighting the US invasion?

Why is Canada destroying all our natural resources for the benefit of the US way of life?

Why are the Canadian forces doing more than peacekeeping in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why isn't Canada the environmental leader of the world?

Because of our damn corrupted government and the greedy people that live here. It pisses me off. What ever made this country great is being lost because of greed and US values. This is a good site: http://www.canadians.org/ I wish these people ran the country.

Thanks,
Brian

PS: To the London Telegraph, start providing e-mail addresses so the people can be more interactive.

« Le nationalisme c'est la haine des autres, le patriotisme c'est l'amour des siens » - Romain Gary

U.S. Unity vs. Diversity

View unity video

So I'm sitting in New Orleans.
A place that has had challenges,
some recent, some much longer lived.

Many people talk about how they were abandoned by the country, even before the Hurricane. How they deserve a greater share of their natural resources, about how different they are from the rest of the country, their culture, their food, music, way of life, indeed, the colour of their skin. Their history one of slavery and civil war, poverty and racism.

And yet, not one person talks about separation.
That is crazy talk: they are Americans. Period.

When you make a bond that has any meaning, it is a foundation from which you can draw strength and unity from even in the the face of diversity and adversity. The diversity of the United States is quite extreme and in fact quite bloody at times. And yet they find strength in unity. Even now, many disagree with their governments, and yet, federalism survives and a national identity continues, even with such vast diversity of geography and demographics.

Some might say that perhaps some parts of the U.S., geographic or demographic, should separate, should assert their rights. Well that is happening, through the democratic and legal institutions. Perhaps it is slow, but it is a real alternative to bloodshed. Perhaps it was the violent history of the Civil War that has the U.S. united never to do that again, at least not to themselves.

So it seems strange, sitting here, in a place with so many problems and then I think of home, Canada, and the places I love in Ontario, Quebec and PEI where I grew up and still live a lot of the time. Where are these gross injustices, these terrible challenges, these human rights abuses that would justify separation? There are none. Argue all you want, you will never convince me that there is anything that is so wrong with Canada or Quebec or any particular part the justifies or even brings some benefit from separation. The only benefit is for a small group of provincial politicians that have been getting elected by pulling this emotional chord without a rational plan or good reason other than a drive for personal power. That's it, it's about one group of politicians wanting to grab power for themselves, and they'll mutate the issues to make it seem like it's everything else but that. And they'll take their federal pensions along the way.

Rather than being actual freedom fighters, reading the news I see those who claim to be so oppressed are themselves taking so well to being the oppressor, with mean spirited moves to prevent Muslim women from wearing their veils by choice and now a hierarchy of democractic and human rights based on the languages you speak.

Shameful and ridiculous and so inconsistent with a country like Canada.

This world needs unity, it needs to be constructed level by level with families, towns and cities, provinces, countries, continents, and the human race coming together, unifying as best we can. Canada needs to be an example of unity, not an example of an opportunity for peace and prosperity thrown away.

That's how it looks from here.

Pour le capitaine des Habs, le français, et puis après?

Guy Bertrand et Pauline Marois critiquent le fait que le capitaine du Canadien de Montréal ne parle pas assez le français.

Extrait – Radio Canada "En regard du projet de loi péquiste sur l'identité québécoise, le capitaine du Canadien ne serait pas Québécois, car il ne maîtrise pas assez bien le français. Me Guy Bertrand a fait une sortie en règle contre Koivu, Pauline Marois en a fait de la récupération politique.

Je ne veux pas vraiment me mêler de politique, mais on mélange les choses...

D'entrée de jeu, je tiens à dire que je suis moi-même un fervent défenseur du français. En revanche, les meilleurs joueurs au monde viennent au Québec pour faire un travail: jouer au hockey. Et la langue de travail dans la LNH, c'est l'anglais.
…

Le mandat du Canadien est d'être compétitif. Si l'équipe n'est pas bonne, on peut critiquer. Si l'équipe n'est pas assez francophone, je ne suis pas sûr. On doit aller chercher les meilleurs joueurs disponibles, peu importe leur langue."

Article complet

Hommage à René Lévesque... 20 ans déjà... Du moyen âge jusqu'à demain...

Malgré le fait que nous, à Uni.ca croyons dans une Canada uni, nous reconnaissons sans hésitation la grandeur de M. René Lévesque qui est décédé il y a 20 ans aujourd'hui. Quel Québécois... quel Canadien!

Voici un extrait de canoë.ca

"… Le premier ministre Jean Charest l'a qualifié de grand homme et de personnage marquant de l'accession du Québec à la modernité.

Notant qu'il avait marqué l'histoire journalistique avant d'en faire autant en politique, le premier ministre Charest a notamment souligné son rôle dans la nationalisation de l'hydroélectricité, l'adoption par son gouvernement de la Charte de la langue française, de la loi sur l'assurance automobile, et de celle sur le financement des partis politiques.

M. Charest n'a pu éviter de faire allusion au débat actuel sur les accommodements raisonnables et l'identité québécoise, rappelant que René Lévesque avait connu l'horreur du nationalisme extrémiste lorsqu'il avait découvert les camps nazis en tant que correspondant de guerre. M. Charest a insisté sur le fait que M. Lévesque s'était dissocié du nationalisme ethnique, xénophobe et intolérant pour plutôt embrasser des valeurs d'ouverture et de tolérance.

Auparavant, le chef de l'Action démocratique, Mario Dumont, avait aussi insisté sur l'assainissement des moeurs politiques, qualifiant la loi sur le financement des partis politiques d'héritage extraordinaire laissé par René Lévesque.

M. Dumont n'a pas manqué de souligner, d'ailleurs, que cette loi avait servi de modèle à travers le monde entier.

Rappelant lui aussi certaines réalisations marquantes, le chef adéquiste a par ailleurs souligné les qualités de clairvoyance et de courage qui habitaient M. Lévesque…."