From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Canadian Collectivism
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Aug13.192925.5638@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:10:25 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug13.192925.5638@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

   In article <CLAMEN.92Aug11022850@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   >I don't believe the Steele's perspectives apply to the Native and
   >Quebecois cases.  The Natives have ALWAYS been sovereign; Canada has
   >just not treated them as such.  In the case of the Quebecois, they
   >have had self-government since Confederation; there is no doubt that
   >they have the right to self-determination, so long as they take the
   >non-Quebecois in as equal citizens.

   I think Steele's observations do apply.  But they may not be
   visible to you as long as you see "them" as Natives and "us" as
   non-Natives, as long as you see francophone Quebecois as "distinct"
   and the rest of "us" as "not distinct" (although that of course
   would be logically impossible...by definition).  Remember that
   while my ancestors may (or may not) have colonized the ancestors of
   the Aboriginal peoples in this country, I do not colonize anyone
   now, nor are the "Natives" now living here the "original peoples."
   The original peoples and the original colonizers are all dead.  We
   have left now those people who live here. The choice is whether or
   not we should have different rules for people based on difference
   or not.  If we choose such (and many do) then we will be
   establishing an (initially) voluntary apartheid regime, where
   rights are contingent on "race" or language.

Why do the laws passed in Paris, London, Washington or Tehran not
apply to us?  Why are Canadian women entitled to abortions when Irish
women are not?  How can our hospitals distinguish between a Canadian
resident and an American tourist when it comes to settling the bill?
Are we, as Canadians, not distinct from citizens of other countries?

Most native Canadians communities have NEVER ceded their sovereignty.
Unlike you and me, some of their ancestors were not naturalized
Canadian citizens.  And Canada, in the past, has recognized this
sovereignty, by making TREATIES with these people.  Canada has never
made a treaty with the French-speaking residents of Chicoutimi, nor
with the Chinese speaking residents living in the vicinity of Dundas
and Spadina, nor with the Jews of Cote-St-Luc, Quebec.  Native
communities have been recognized specially by Canada, and by the
international community (eg. the Five Nations issue their own
passports, and have had a national team at an Olympiad).

Quebec, as a province with autonomy in certain areas, is a recognized
political unit.  Like many other Canadian provinces, it has diplomatic
offices in cities worldwide (London, Paris (where Maison du Quebec
employs more than Maison du Canada), New York, Atlanta, Brussels).
It's political leaders are accorded diplomatic recognition abroad.
Quebec (and New Brunswick) have their own representatives at the
Francophonie conferences.  By allowing this degree of autonomy, Canada
has recognized a certain "distinctiveness".

   In terms of self-determination, other than in rhetorical terms, WE
   ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.  So what. Peoples may
   want to separate: the question then is whether the new separate
   states will have equal laws for all and if so, why separate in the
   first place?  If the laws are not democratic or equal for all NOW,
   then surely we should change the laws, not leave them to oppress
   those who are left behind. 

Are all sets of laws that are democratic and equal necessarily the
SAME?  Are not Canada, France, the United Kingdom, the United States
all democratic?  But a citizen of Canada is subjected to restrictions
on the distribution of so-called "Hate Literature", a male citizen of
France is obliged to spend a year of his life in military service, a
citizen of the United Kingdom cannot own a revolver, and the citizen
of the United States is prohibited from spending money in Cuba.

   Separatism seems such the cowardly course to me. But what I object
   to is the decision of some political leaders to define
   "self-determination" only for SOME people and not for others. If
   the Quebecois and aboriginals decide NOT to separate and thus not
   to seek sovereign status outside the Canadian unit, then they
   should accept equal rights for all. I see no positive outcome from
   federalism being maintained ONLY by way of emasculating the concept
   of equal and democratic rights.

No legitimate political leader in Quebec has ever spoken about denying
non-Francophones rights in a sovereign Quebec.  For consistency, the
moment Quebec becomes independent (I don't want it to happen either,
by the way), I would expect you to defend any Quebec nationalist who
wanted to shut down publically-funded English schools on the grounds
that every Quebecer is equal, and thus not entitled to anything more
than the neighbourhood French-language public school.

Now personally, I hope that an independent Quebec would be at least as
sensitive to the concerns of its English-speaking minority as it is
now, granting them certain rights and privileges that they would not
have the political power to demand independently (at the founding
constitutional convention).  Such actions would be the act of a
Liberal Democracy.  But a more right-wing Quebec, committed to
assimilating its minorities by granting everyone EQUAL access to
French-language public education, French-language government services,
French-language radio and television stations, a French-language
judiciary, and French-language electoral ballots could still be
democratic.

   Nations are arbitrary and not real units. Let's not inflate the
   concept of nation and separatism, sovereignty and division to the
   extent of creating artificial barriers between people. We are all
   different.  Let's not create laws that create different rights
   based on difference.  Democracy means we have the same rights and
   law, DESPITE diffferences.

Then I expect you to be posting about Canada's restrictive immigration
policies.  Anyone with the means to travel to Canada should be granted
immediate citizenship on demand.  After all, why is someone born in
Halifax entitled to something denied to someone born in Port-au-Prince
or Sarajevo?  Why does Canada reserve some rights only for Canadians?

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
Xref: sparky can.politics:6060 soc.culture.canada:5922