Gay marriage in Canada

Seeing as the debate is heating up down south of here, and the Canadian experience is getting invoked fairly regularly on both sides of the debate, I thought I would offer my two cents on what happened up here, and how, and why, and what I would have preferred to have happened.

The debate, as I recall, began with the issue of spousal benefits.  Namely, gay couples wanted to be able to claim the benefits for the plans into which they were required to pay, or the tax benefits which they could never have.  In that, I agreed.  Other aspects of the social safety net, like unemployment or welfare, we pay into in the hope that we never need them, but also in the knowledge that help will be available if we need it.  Taking their money for spousal benefits knowing full well they would never get it back nor derive any benefit from it, was a palpable wrong. The choice was to either exempt them from those payments, or recognize their unions.

The debate was circumvented, or ratcheted up a notch, depending on your point of view, when a gay couple in Ontario launched a Charter case, claiming that denying the right to marry was a denial of a fundamental human right, according to our Charter, or Bill of Rights.

(Side note:  The Charter came about with the repatriation of our constitution in the'80's.  It was decided that it was time we had a Bill of Rights like the Americans, but somehow they thought they could do a better one.  Frankly, the '80's were not the time to create a document for the ages.  Under pressure from feminist and minorities, the Charter was written to include the right not to be discriminated against on any grounds.  It sounds like a good right, but the problem is that discrimination has no definition: it can be anywhere, it can be anything, and right now, the person who decides if discrimination is happening is the person to whom it is happening.   There are people out there who are ready and willing, even looking for the chance to be offended at every possible turn. As it now stands, the right not to be discriminated against is a right that includes the right not to have hurt feelings, and the motives of the accuser were irrelevant.)

The gay couple found a sympathetic judge who overturned law and precedent and allowed them to marry.  The Government of Ontario mulled over this decision, and whether or not to appeal- they had every single legal precedent on the issue behind them, whereas this new decision had none- and opted not to, and they legalized it.  The Federal Government soon followed suit.  I should point out, none of these governments had raised this issue during an election, therefore none of them had a mandate for their actions.  And that is how gay marriage became law in Canada.  Some groups vowed to fight it, but the fight died out fairly quickly, as the reaction of the majority of Canadians was "meh."  Whether or not Canadians were swept away by a wave of tolerance or indifference is a matter of debate.

That is how it happened, to the best of my knowledge.  The action I would have supported at the time was not something that came up for debate, or was ever seriously considered, so I will outline it here.  I wanted the Government to get out of the marriage business entirely, and to recognize domestic unions, and to leave marriage up to the religious institutions.  I would have preferred it if we had a system like in Italy, where, if you get married, you go a judge and get legally married, then to a church and get sacramentally married.  I wanted this for a few reasons.  First, it would help protect the Church.  While it is convenient to have churches that do both right now, I think it could bite us before long, and I would prefer to have a firewall between government and religion.  Secondly, there was another group searching for spousal benefits at the same time as the gay community, one that is unfortunately not as well organized and does not get a sympathetic hearing, and was ultimately pushed aside and ignored as the debate became more heated, and that group was siblings.

It occasionally happens that some siblings, for whatever reason, never marry or move out and end up living together all their lives.  The benefit they were looking for in particular was survivor benefits, normally doled out to the widow or widower.  Almost inevitably, one sibling dies first, and the survivor is left in a  lurch, half the household income gone, and without any other support.  Domestic union recognition would have given them access to that benefit.  Notice, I am not saying siblings should be allowed to marry, that would be loopy, at least for now.

My solution was never seriously brought up, to the best of my knowledge, which is a pity.  I believe that this solution would have been hated by everybody and would have made everyone miserable, which in my estimation is the hallmark of a perfect compromise.

One of our Prime Ministers once famously remarked that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  That line was invoked fairly often during the debate, but ultimately it legalized relationships that are fairly much based in the bedroom.  It would have been better, in my opinion, for the government to say "We are out of this business entirely.  How you set up house is your business."  I know the objection: this would also open up the gates for bestiality and polygamy.  Perhaps, but not yet.  But, should these ever become legal, as it seems they might, at least they would not be called "marriage".

Youth of Toronto, I Salute You!

Following in the footsteps of the MIT Beer cooler in space program, and the Brooklyn Space Program, comes two Toronto Teens who put a beercooler PLUS  LEGOMAN INTO SPACE. 

Here's their own video of the flight.





This combines three of my favourite things:  Canada, Space, and Lego.

America has NASA with scientists and billions of dollars.  Canada has two teens, one of their mom's sewing machine,  four hundred bucks and a few free weekends.  The outcome is inevitable:  We shall win!

(Except the US also has the MIT guys and a father and son in Brooklyn.  This may be tighter than I thought.)

Post Script:

These programs often raise the question:  Why do these people do it?  The answers could be as varied as "Because we can!' or "Because we want to!"  Or various declarations in the name of science and learning.  To me, that is not the question.  The guys at MIT showed the way for a cheap and easy near space program, made possible by a mix of old technology and new.  It is easy and cheap.  It could be a class project for an upper grade school class, or a science project for a family, as is the case with the Brooklyn Space Program.  So the question, for me, isn't: why do these people do this, but why aren't more people doing this?

On the Recent Riots in Vancouver

It appears Canada finally has it's very own version of the British soccer hooligans.

The police have already rounded up a fair number of the rioters and are laying charges with the help of a the Vancouverites who were not involved in the riots (which would be the vast majority of Vancouverites), the Internet, and... the rioters themselves!  It appears that, in their drunken rampage, many of the rioters actually did everything in their power to make sure their actions and faces were caught on camera.  So, not only are they rioters, they are dumb rioters, although I  am willing to concede the point should any one point out that adding the word "dumb" to the word "rioter" is redundant.

At the risk of sounding not very Christian- seriously?  A riot over a game?  Disappointment I understand.  Dashed hopes I understand.  Drowning your sorrows in  a bucket of suds with your buds is not something I approve, but I understand.  But going on a criminal rampage  (I should mention that several stores were broken into and looted.)  and making sure that your criminal actions are then caught on camera?  Many of them will now go to jail and all that entails, including rape.  I can only wonder: during their stint in the big house, will they think it was worth it?

Over a game.  This is a game which, in its purest form, isn't played by overpayed professionals on teams carefully assembled by a non playing managerial body according to computer models designed to maximize both winning and profits, on a perfect ice rink surrounded by thousands of screaming fans, but by a bunch of kids on a frozen patch of ice somewhere, playing on teams they picked just before they dropped the puck.

New Canadian Saint

Brother Andre, founder of the oratory in Montreal, has been approved for sainthood.

It's that time again!

It's time for the nations of the world to get together and see which one has the best drug program!  Yes, it's Olympic time!  O Joy!  O Bliss! Time to get together!  Time to end every sentence with an exclamation point! Huzzah!

The Olympics are to be held in Vancouver, Canada, this year.  All my contacts over in Vancouver were sick of the Olympics months ago, and can't wait for them to be over.  Some trivia: apparently, Curling is the only Olympic sport where there is a smoking circle for the athletes.  Canada is the only nation to host the Olympics and not win a gold medal,and we did it twice.   We did it in Montreal in '76 and again in Calgary in '88.  My wife has an Italian saying:  Never two without three.

So, here we go again.

The Paths of Glory

Yesterday was the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, perhaps the climactic battle of the Seven Years' War, an event which determined and has cast a long shadow over the history of Canada. This despite the fact that there was no Canada at the time and no Canadians in any recognizable sense present at the battle.

The Seven Years War was one of the first, if not the very first, global war. It was fought in continental Europe, across the seas to places as far flung as India and the Caribbean. It's climax was fought outside a small garrison town which was the capital of a large but very sparsely populated New France. The combatants were mostly British and French Regulars, with some militia and native North Americans. But for the natives, the two armies could have fought anywhere- outside Paris, south of London. They were two European superpowers, fighting a European war, in a an unlikely place.

The Generals of the army were an interesting pair. Montcalm, the French general, was a retired colonel when he was appointed general of Quebec. He was chosen only because every other French officer ahead of him had turned down the position as beneath their dignity. He and his family would be given a large pension, whether he lived or died. He accepted the commission, was promoted to General, and sent across the ocean. He had never before commanded a large body of men in battle. France was not making the defence of New France a top priority.

Wolfe, on the other hand, was the youngest British General at 32, but had already proven himself as a capable commander and tactician. A well read Renaissance man, he was also engaged to be married to the daughter of a very wealthy family. His future was very bright. He was also sickly, and spent the coming campaign in constant pain. He was given the largest British fleet yet assembled, thousands of marines and other troops, over a thousand cannons, and he sailed for Quebec. When he arrived in the summer of 1759, he had but a hundred days to capture the city, before the freezing St Laurence river would force the fleet back out to sea.

In a campaign that would be marked by surprises, the first surprise for the French was the arrival of the British fleet near Quebec. They had trusted the treacherous narrows of the river to keep much of the fleet back, believing the British would lose many ships trying to reach Quebec. They didn't count on a young British navigator by the name of Cooke (who later gained fame and immortality for his explorations of the Pacific) scouting out and mapping a channel. The British arrived, took up positions near Levy, on the banks of the St. Laurence opposite Quebec, and began using their cannon to blast the city to pieces.

The summer wore on, and the hundred days ticked down. The first British attempt to cross the river and engage the French met with disaster. The British continued their bombardment, and began to lay waste to the surrounding countryside in an attempt to draw the French out of their fortifications and into battle. The French stayed put. (Though later historians have harped on the brutality of the bombardment and the burning of farms by the British, it was one of the least bloody campaigns. Almost all of the civilians left Quebec before the bombardment, and Wolfe gave strict orders that any British soldier found to do any harm to any women and children would be put to death.)

With his time of campaign nearing an end, Wolfe scouted the river looking for a good place to land. He saw a location at the foot of the cliffs just a few kilometres outside the city. He waited for a night where the tide and the moon would favour an operation, and chose the twelfth of September. It was a perfect night, and the location was also perfect. Montcalm had decided, against the advice of the Quebec born governor, not garrison that part of the river, believing, as he said, that the English "will not grow wings."

As Wolfe prepared to leave his ship and lead his men into battle, he recited the words to Thomas Grey's "Elegy Written in a Country Church-yard."

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow’r,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave,
Awaits alike th’inevitable hour.
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

When he finished, he told his astonished listeners that he would rather have written those lines than capture Quebec on the morrow. He boarded his boat. The signal was given, and the boats set out. Wolfe had picked the perfect night. Even better, the few French guards who were present were waiting for a flotilla of French boats to be coming up the river. The French boats were cancelled for unknown reasons, but news never reached the guards. When the British sailed past, they assumed they were the French boats.

At four in the morning the British landed unopposed. Montcalm and the French forces were occupied fighting a diversion made by the British on the East side of Quebec. Through the morning the British scaled the cliffs, brought in more men, and even carried up two cannons. By morning, over four thousand British regulars stood on the plains of Abraham (named for a farmer who owned the field and used it as a pasture) facing the walls of the city. The British had set stakes forty paces in front of their lines. They were not to fire on the French until the French were inside the stakes. Wolfe had ordered each soldier to load two bullets into their guns.

Throughout the summer Montcalm had argued with the governor of Quebec. The governor understood the best way to use the Indian allies and the Quebecois, as guerrilla fighters. Montcalm, on the other hand, believed in set piece warfare, and regular armies. He even tried to get the governor to rein in the Indians and their methods, as he found them to be ungentlemanly. Now, as Montcalm pulled his exhausted troops away from the diversion to face the real threat, he had a choice to let the snipers take care of the enemy, or to charge. At that moment, the snipers and the Indians were doing real damage to the British lines. Over three hundred British men had already fallen. But Montcalm would not wait. He ordered the charge. The French line pushed forward, firing as they proceeded. The British, lined up in three ranks, held their fire, waiting for the French to step into the forty pace kill zone. Then the British fired as one. The first double shot rang out, then another, then a third. The French line broke and ran for the city. For all intents and purposes, the battle was over. It had lasted ten minutes.

The British chased the French to the city gates, but were fired upon by the militia and native snipers. They fell back, the militia having stopped the advance, but all knew it was over for the French.

It was also over for the generals. Wolfe lay dead on the field. Montcalm was mortally wounded. he made his way back into the city and lay in his bed awaiting death. When told the city would surrender to the English in the morning, he said his last known words: "At least I will not live to see the English in Quebec." He was laid to rest in a shell crater. Where his remains are now, no one knows. A body believed to be his was tested recently, and found to belong to another.

So passed the battle of the Plains of Abraham. Large commemorations were planned in honour of the 250th anniversary, but a small group of Quebec radicals threatened to disrupt the event. and intellectuals proclaimed that it would open more wounds. Our 'leaders', acting with their usual gutlessness, backed down, cancelled the commemorations, and let the day pass without notice.

The protesters claims of British brutality notwithstanding, it was the least brutal British occupation I know of. The British, perhaps following Wolfe's lead, (for Wolfe composed generous terms of Quebec's surrender shortly before the battle) let the French North Americans keep their land, their names, their religion and their institutions and even passed laws to protect them. Compare this with the occupation of Ireland and Scotland. There was no breaking of any clans, no starvations, no mass exodus, no absentee landlords, no attempts of cultural or literal genocide, not at first. For the habitants, life continued much as it had for another sixty years. In fact, when twice given opportunities to revolt against the British, first in the American Revolution, and again in the war of 1812, the people of Quebec sided with the British.

The British conquest of North America was rather short lived, in part due to the conquest of North America itself. The cost of the Seven Years War was so great the British were forced to place heavy taxes on their empire, particularly on the North American part of it. The bitterness caused by this heavy taxation had the effect of causing a certain thirteen British Colonies to revolt, successfully, against the British rule just a few short years after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

As time passed, other generals took inspiration from Wolfe's audacious tactics and emulated him. A general of those aforementioned 13 colonies by the name of Douglas MacArthur took Wolfe as his model in planning the Inchon landings at Korea. "I will land behind enemy lines," he said. "Like Wolfe at Quebec."

Here and elsewhere, the events of that long ago summer morning cast a long, long shadow.

The Punchline.

A minor kerfuffle seems to have erupted in Canada over the weekend due to some remarks made by some American Comedians on a show called 'redeye' about Canada and the Canadian military. The remarks were made on March 17th, but as the show is not carried in Canada no one up here really knew about it until segments of the show were posted on Youtube.

The inspiration for the comedians and their commentary, jokes or what you will were a statement issued by the head of the Canadian military which said that the Afghanistan mission has so depleted our military resources that, after our pullout of Afghanistan in 2011 we will be unable to perform similar missions for at least a year. For this the panelists on the show took shots at Canada for five minutes. Among their witticisms:

"I wasn't aware that Canada had troops in Afghanistan."

"Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!"

"(Canadian military) wanted to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants."

Hilarious. In order: Canada has been in charge of the international mission in Afghanistan. To date we have lost 116 troops, good people all, the kind our country can ill spare, all of whom died in a war that began when one of our allies was attacked. What has made the reaction on this side of the border even more bitter, the day these remarks were made another four of our men died. This comment is simply utter ignorance and as such was more demeaning to man who said it, rather than to Canada or the Canadian military. A man who can be so blindly uninformed about a topic he is supposed to discuss, even as a comedian, is not worth listening to, even as a comedian.

Second: actually, that would be the perfect time to invade.

Third: Hardly, but the truth is possibly sadder and more pathetic. Our military has been grossly underfunded for decades, in the name of funding the Canadian welfare state. The average Canadian would like to see funding increase for the military, but at the same time they do not want to lose the social benefits. It's a rather literal manifestation of the old 'guns and butter' theory. Namely, a country which produces two products- guns and butter- will eventually reach a point where they can only increase production of one by decreasing production of the other. In the States there was a point where it seemed cows were going to start making howitzers. Up here, we went to the opposite absurdity, and our troops may have to start carving their weapons out of cheese. Canada cannot have it both ways, and it is time we admitted it.

The soldiers deployed in Afghanistan do not have enough equipment. Much of the equipment they do have is old, and no one is ponying up the money to replace it. Even when our vehicles and equipment aren't being blown up, the rough Afghanistan terrain is beating the heck out of them, and the vehicles are now in need of an overhaul, or are simply useless. Still our troops go on, doing the best with what they have, serving our country with honour and distinction. Our political leaders continue to ask the men to do more with less, and somehow they deliver. The general who told Ottawa the military needs a year off was trying to remind the politicians that this is not a state of affairs that can go on indefinitely.

The comedian apologized, stating he had no intention of insulting the honour of our soldiers. But for the line about capri pants, I may agree with him. However, I confess myself to be weary of reading about my beloved homeland in American news, or on the blogs, or anywhere, really. For the most part we are ignored, and I prefer that, because it seems the only time Canada is mentioned to the south is as a punchline.

Our Weakness

There is a trial brewing on the West Coast of Canada that may have extensive ramifications for Canadians. I am speaking, of course, of the polygamy trial.

In brief, the leader of a polygamist sect is being put on trial for being, well, a polygamist. There are some allegations of child abuse, or that the welfare of children is at stake, but I do not know the details.

For the last while Crown attorneys have turned a blind eye towards polygamy, as they know the trial may start a Charter of Rights case that could very well overturn the law. And now, here it is.

I have several thoughts on this.

First, I would like to reflect once again on just what a bad idea the Charter of Rights was. The country went along just fine without a Charter, and then some bonehead decided that we needed something similar to the Bill of Rights of our neighbours to the south. Unfortunately, the '80's were not the time to make a document for the ages.

Most troubling among our `Rights' is the right not to be discriminated against. Although it sounds nice, it is troubling because it is an amorphous right. The rights of the Americans tend to be more concrete. The right to bear arms means just that. The right to speak freely means just that. The right not to be discriminated against means- what, exactly? Discrimination has no form, can take any shape, and exists in the mind of the victim. Potentially any law can be overturned as it discriminates between those who choose to obey the law, and those who don't.

Plus, the recent study that states that whites are racist, no matter what they do, and you got me shaking in my boots.

Second, and related, the Charter put the Supreme Court in charge of the land, and not our elected officials. Any law made can be overturned. In fact, they can even make new laws, despite all precedent, despite all democracy. They did so when they overturned our marriage law.

The Supreme Court has shown, spectacularly, an inability that has swept our land: the inability to make distinctions. They will see no difference between someone who chooses to have one spouse, and someone who chooses to have two, or three, or four, etc. This problem will only increase. Our society has lost the places where we once stood, the certainties we once believed. The truths of the past are now the opinions of some dead people, and now there are no givens, no first principles, no nothing. One thing is as good as any other thing.

Lastly, there will be predictable calls about how allowing polygamy will further damage the family and so on. I happen to agree, but with one caveat. The polygamists could not destroy the sanctity of marriage, nor could gay marriage, nor any other new twist, were it not already damaged by straight couples. It is hard to argue sanctity of marriage when we have revolving door marriages, and adultery, and pornography, and a hundred other abuses crawling into straight marriages. How is marrying and divorcing repeatedly different from polygamy? The one man, one woman model of marriage could not have been damaged from without if it had not first been attacked from within. Only in our weakness are they strong.

A moment to reflect upon politics.

I've had more than a few conversations about the current political situation in Canada. I am not as distressed about the situation as I am by the fact that so many people are distressed about the situation. I often forget just how deep my cynicism runs.

The current situation, as it stands, is a little like this: We have recently had a federal election. The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons was the Conservative party, however the Conservatives did not hold a majority of the seats. Shortly after the election, the Liberal party formed a coalition with the NDP party with some support from the Bloc Quebecois party. Together the coalition had more seats than the Conservative Party, and the new coalition threatened to pass a vote of non confidence upon Harper if Harper did not turn power over to the coalition. Harper, in an effort to avoid the non confidence vote, prorogued parliament until the new year. It all sounds dicey, but it is legal.

As is often the case with me, I look to the past and see what lessons history can hold. Unfortunately, history holds no direct analog to this. The closest we have is the King Byng Wing Ding of 1925-1926.

That went down a little like this:

The 1925 General election was one of the first in Canadian history for which Canadians could vote for three parties, in this case, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Progressive party. The Conservatives took 115 seats to King (the standing Prime Minister) won 99, with the Progressives taking 24. Instead of resigning and handing over power, King instead requested of the governor general, Lord Byng Of Vimy, (that Vimy. He was the commander of the Canadian forces when they stormed the ridge. Oh, and you hockey fans, the Lady Byng Trophy was donated by his wife) to be allowed to continue to form the government with the support of the Progressives.

Over the course of the next few months King lost several seats through questions of order and, ultimately, when one of his members was found to have taken bribes. King was in danger of losing the confidence of the government and facing charges of scandal. King went to Lord Byng and requested to be allowed to dissolve parliament for the second time in one year to hold another federal election. Byng used his reserve power and told King to allow the Conservatives, as the holders of the largest number of seats in the house, to form the government before calling another election. King stepped aside and allowed Arthur Meighan to become Prime Minister. Sort of.

At that time, if a member of parliament changed his status, that is, if he went from a normal member- a 'backbencher'- to a more prominent position, usually a position in cabinet, they had to resign their seat and seek re-election in a by-election, to allow their constituents to decide if they wanted a representative who would, in effect, no longer represent them, but would now be focused on national issues.

Arthur Meighan's Conservatives would have needed to have far too many resignations for the party to remain viable in parliament. Meighen himself had briefly been Prime Minister in 1920-1921, and was a capable man with only one problem: he doesn't seem to have been able to do math. Meighan himself resigned, and he appointed a shadow cabinet. The Liberals and Progressives pounced, and passed a non confidence vote almost immediately. It passed by only one vote.

The election was run in a predictable way. The Conservatives claimed corruption on the part of the Liberals, and the Liberals claimed a constitutional crisis caused by Byng's disregard for parliament. The Liberals were returned with a majority, Byng was recalled as Governor General, and laws were changed to make the Governor General an almost completely ceremonial post.

After all this, it is hard to see how this situation will play out in the new year. All I see here is evidence that this power play could blow up in both their faces. I should stress here again: What both sides have done thus far is all legal.

There are few things I keep hearing over and over again. I'll address a few here.

1. The Liberals are wimps/wussies/corrupt and trying to get power over the clear winners of the last election.

I'll grant the wimps wussies corrupt thing. It is my opinion of politicians in general, regardless of party. But, as I said, this is legal. There was no clear winner in this last election. The conservatives had the most votes, it is true, but together the Liberals and the NDP had more votes than the Conservatives. If you wish to argue against this, the best argument I can think of would run like this: while it is true the NDP and Liberals do have more votes when added together, during the last election not a single vote was cast for a coalition of the two parties. No one mentioned a coalition during this campaign.

2. The Liberals are counting on the support of the Bloc, who want to break up Canada.

True. And Stephen Harper also formed a loose coalition with the Bloc when he formed his first minority government a few years back. Everyone has dirty hands on this one, and you can't claim that the Liberals should be disqualified from ruling on this point unless you concede the Conservatives are likewise.

3. We should do away with this problem altogether and replace the governor General with and elected one and introduce proportional democracy.

The G.G. is just a figurehead with no real power, so I don't really care one way or the other about that. I don't particularly want a 'president' either, which is what most of those suggesting this idea call the replacement.

As for proportional democracy, I find the idea fascinating, and therefore I am against it. I have seen far too many interesting ideas turn into disasters. Proportional democracy, for those who don't know, is the idea that seats will be allotted in the House of Commons according to the proportion of votes each party gets. I see several problems with this: 1. We are now voting for no one in particular, we have representatives who really don't represent anyone or anything concrete, and can't get voted out, as long as they are on their party's list. 2. The idea of a list isn't another one of my favourites either. I think the only people who will be put on such lists will most likely be the party's fawning bootlickers. Mavericks and free thinkers need not apply. This system will most likely perpetual minority governments such as this one, making the possibility of coalitions and other issues like this more likely, rather than curing these situations.

In conclusion, this is the kind of problem that is going to happen from time to time. These people are politicians, and they're acting like politicians. My respect for them is so low this little 'crisis', if you can call it that, really has no effect on my opinion of them. Everyone is dirty in this game and there are no angels up on Parliament Hill. Only Angles and Advantages. Right now, all the parties are playing for their angles. In the end, it will blow up in all their faces, save one. Which one, I can't say. The new year will tell.

Proroguing Parliament - A rant that has everything to do with the

For background to this rant

A new election would have been preferable to this horrible precedence. It is the nature of Minority governments that they must seek the consensus of the majority of the House in all confidence-involving issues, like budgets and fiscal statements. Mr Harper did not receive a majority mandate in the last election, he should have been careful. 51 days have passed since the Conservatives took power in the last election and it will be 53 days before they have a new session and a new Speech from the Throne etc etc etc. If a repeat of the King-Byng affair was undesirable, and I would agree it would have been, an election would have been preferable, or even just a referendum. (But this isn't exaclty the same- in that Lord Byng refused the Prime Minister, whereas in this mess she granted the PM his request)

It will be 53 days before the house sits again. The last election was had in 39 days from the call to the voting, so an election owuld have had them back at work faster. Canada needs a working parliament. This one is not only still dysfunctional it isn't even sitting.

I guess until Harper has enough courage to face parliament again, all Canadian industries should hire all the unemployed in Canada, and have them begging on every street corner in the country. [They can work out a 60/40 deal (Beggar get 60% of the take and the Canadian auto industry gets 40% )]- Actually that might garner them more money in less time than asking parliament for a bailout, or an economic stimulus package.

Wherefore our country is sailing without a helmsman through the stormy seas of this crisis, therefore it is not out of disrespect but as a call for help:

What should have happened: the Opposition should have offered to pass the economic statement if amendments were made, and present the government with those amendments. We are in a crisis, work together, or would that have been too easy.

It's a good thing our Patron Saint is Saint Joseph, the Worker. At a time when the Parliament needs to be working, so that Canadians will have a chance to keep working, and thereby support their families as Saint Joseph supported his family - well repeat after me

Memorare to St. Joseph
Remember, O most chaste spouse of the Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who implored your help and sought your intercession was left unassisted. Full of confidence in your power, I fly to you, and beg your protection (for Canada, and all families in her). Despise not, O foster-father of the Redeemer, my humble supplication, but in your bounty, hear and answer me. Amen.

You can send your comments to the PM
by e-mail to pm@pm.gc.ca

or write him at:
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

or fax the Prime Minister’s office at: 613-941-6900

Reflection which has absolutely nothing to do with the current political nonsense in Canada

It's a complete mystery to me why political assassination has not enjoyed a more popular history in my country. We have only a few murders of people who held high office- D'Arcy McGee and George Brown, and Brown was out of political office and back at work as editor of the Globe when he was shot by a disgruntled ex-employee he had fired the day before. We have no iconic prime ministers cut down before their time by the assassin's stroke. I wonder why this is. Perhaps it is because we have never had a prime minister worth the price of a bullet, or any other projectile beyond a pie.

And now, a not-so-great moment in Canadian history

Several of my readers said they enjoyed my little tidbits of Canadian history, particularly the military kind. I tend to dwell on some of our more valorous deeds. Today I will tell the story of one of our less noble events. This is the story of the HMCS Uganda.

The Uganda was a light cruiser, with a main armament nine six inch guns. Originally built by the British, she was heavily damaged during actions in the Mediterranean in 1943. While she was undergoing repairs and a refit the Canadian government negotiated with the British for the acquisition of the ship. On October 21, 1944, the Uganda was transferred to the Canadian Navy.

She quickly became the pride of the fleet (at the time Canada had one of the largest navies in the world) she was the largest and most powerful ship in the RCN (unless you count our escort carriers), and served as the flagship for the fleet. She was transferred to the Pacific theatre of operations where she received battle honours for Okinawa, and partook in operations at Formosa and Sakishima Gunto. Her conduct was honourable and noteworthy, and she was considered to be a valuable asset to the British Pacific Fleet and the US Third Fleet, both of which she was attached to at various times during her tour of duty in the Pacific.

So far, so good. What happened, then, that she is in the less-than-heroic category? In a word, politics.

The Wartime Government run William Lyon Mackenzie King (one of the biggest nutjobs to ever run a country or political entity- and remember the list of nutjobs to run a geographical area includes Nero, Caligula,etc) had just run an election which turned on the conscription crisis and the Zombie crisis. If he supported conscription he was in danger of losing Quebec, a major power base for him. Under the ambiguous slogan of "Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" the Liberals had squeaked out a narrow victory. Eventually King was forced to send some of the Zombies (men who had signed up or been conscripted into the army but refused to volunteer for overseas duty) to Europe. Because of this, tensions were increasing in Quebec, where (lead by the clergy, I am sorry to say) conscription was extremely unpopular. To keep Quebec at least somewhat mollified, King promised that the war against Japan, when the invasion occurred, would be fought totally and entirely by volunteers.

Back to the Uganda. As a result of the politics, the Uganda received a strange transmission from the RCN headquarters in early May, 1945. The captain was ordered to take a poll of his crew and see how many wished to volunteer to fight Japan. I stress, this occurred while they were actually fighting Japanese forces. The poll took place on May 7, and the result was 605 of the 907 member crew voted not to volunteer to fight Japan. As a result, the ship detached itself from the American Third Fleet and sailed for home, arriving in BC on August 10th, the date of the Japanese surrender.

The ship was mothballed 1947, but recommissioned in 1952 for the Korean War. As it was recommissioned the Uganda was rechristened the HMCS Quebec, a rather fitting name, considering its history. It served two tours in Korea. In 1956 the ship was taken out of service and in 1961 it was sold for scrap- to Japan.

To this day, the Uganda remains the only known warship in history to democratically vote itself out of a war.

At the 11th Hour on the 11th Day of the 11th Month

IN FLANDER'S FIELDS

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved, and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders Fields.

-John McCrae

HIGH FLIGHT

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung

High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,

I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung

My eager craft through footless halls of air...

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace

Where never lark, or even eagle flew -

And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod

The high untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Officer John G. Magee, Jr. - November, 1941

THE ACT OF REMEMBRANCE
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn [sic].

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

RESPONSE: We will remember them

Laurence Binyon (An excerpt from For the Fallen)

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER, OTTAWA, ON CANADA

KNOWN ONLY UNTO GOD

Canada remembers

Pope's message to Canada: Things are bad, but I know you can change.

The Pope greeted Canada's new ambassador to the Vatican last Thursday. He noted his concern over the trends Canadian society has been taking over the last decades. He goes on to address all Canadians:

"Nevertheless, profound changes can be noticed today, which are seen in different sectors and at times cause concern to the point of asking ourselves if it does not mean a regression in the understanding of the human being," he said. "These changes mainly concern the areas of defense and the promotion of life and the family based on natural marriage."

"In this context," said the Pope, "I would like to encourage all Canadians to reflect deeply on the path that Christ calls us to follow." That path, he said "is bright and full of truth." Speaking of turning to a culture of life, Benedict XVI said, "I know it is possible and that your country is capable." He said, "A culture of life can nourish anew the personal and social existence of Canada as a whole." "To help," said the Holy Father, "it seems necessary to redefine the meaning of freedom of expression too often invoked to justify certain excesses." He noted that freedom is often wrongly perceived as an absolute value, disregarding its divine origin and its communal dimension. In such an interpretation of freedom, he suggested, "only the individual can decide and choose the form, characteristics, and ends of life, death, and marriage."

"True freedom," he observed, "is ultimately based on and develops in God." He added: "It is a gift that can be accepted as the seed from which the person and society can grow responsibly and be enriched. The exercise of this freedom implies reference to a natural moral law that is universal, which precedes and unifies all rights and duties. In this perspective, I would like to show my support to all the Canadian Bishops' initiatives in favor of family life and thus of the dignity of the human being."

As my Italian in-laws sometimes say: From your mouth to god's ear.

The full text in French is available here.

Hat Tip to Lifesite.

Here and There

A few quick notes.

First:

The other day I was with mother and I was telling her about how a local priest conducted Mass, and the number of abuses he committed. (note: this is not my parish priest. I normally avoid my local parish, but there are times when it is the only option.) Mother listened patiently, and then said: "Instead of being critical, you should pray for him."

To which I said: "You mean, like for God to send an avenging angel or purifying fire?"

She just gave me The Look.

She was right. We should do what we can to bring an end to abuses, and our major tools are prayer, letters to appropriate officials, followed by more prayer.

I decided a while ago I was going to try and avoid airing dirty laundry over the internet, but I realized my heart never really changed, and wherever I went I often found myself rating the Mass and cataloguing mistakes, rather than praying and worshipping. I need to adjust my attitude. So while I pray for God to open the eyes and mend the hearts of some of His priests, I pray for him to do likewise for me.

Second:

I have been toying with the idea of doing a series of posts on Canadian history, particularly but not exclusively its history of war- I mean, more posts on that subject than usual. I realize that these posts don't get much in the way of comments and probably aren't the most popular, but after watching Passchendaele and the poor job it did in representing our history I feel like trying to do something to rectify the situation, even if it is for my thirty or so daily readers. So I have decided to go ahead with the series of posts.

I don't know why Canadians do so badly with our history. So often we try to make the figures of our past like the people of the present. In our history and media the writers and artists seem to honour people most like themselves: not those who believed, but those who doubted; not those who stood firm, but those who wavered; and anyone who seemed to have a sign of greatness must be reduced to the merely human, (unless they happened to be the personal hero of the artist) and if no wavering and weak character can be found in history, one must be invented so the modern audience can 'relate'.

So I'll be preparing a series of posts over the next few weeks, mainly leading up to Remembrance Day, telling the stories of some good people and a few rogues from our past. The stories will mainly come from war, but not all of them. I hope to start by the end of the week.

IT'S HALLOWE'EN

Elder's the vampiress
Younger's Queen Anne Boleyn
Puff's the seamtress
Bear's the Haberdasher

Not sure who is more frightening.

Now if only I could kind a Vet from whom to purchase a few poppies.

Decision, 2008, part two

Well, folks, we have just completed the second week of campaigning for the Canadian election, and Spirit Sword's reporters have returned with this late breaking scoop:

Absolutely Nothing Has Happened!

All three- or four- or possibly five- parties have made a fair amount of noise, ranking up there with MacBeth's Tale told by an idiot. Climatologists are concerned for the negative effect the sudden release of all this hot air will have on our climate, and fear an increase in global warming. Other Eco Scientists are experimenting with ways to harness this potential energy source, which is apparently boundless.

The negative ad campaign which marked the Tory effort thus far has spread to the other parties. So while no party seems to be able to think of a reason why we should vote for them, they are providing Canadian voters with a plethora of reasons why we shouldn't vote for the other guys.

In all seriousness, this is not good enough. If any politician out there who happens to read this blog really wants my vote, give me a reason to vote for you. Not why why I should not vote for your opponent, but why I should vote for you. Right now, the only vote I'd like to cast for any of you is the kind of vote they have on Survivor, where I'd would get to vote you off the island. Or perhaps onto an island, or better yet, an ice floe.

Day of Nation and Memory

Warning: Yet another meandering post about WWI.


July first is Canada Day, formerly known as Dominion Day, the 141st anniversary since Confederation in 1867. At the time, only four provinces elected to enter into the new Dominion- Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland opted to stay out. Prince Edward Island joined the confederation a few years later, and was later joined by BC, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Newfoundland, the last to join, only joined the Dominion in 1949 after a hotly contested plebiscite won by the narrowest of margins for the Dominion side. There are those in Newfoundland who believe the plebiscite was rigged by the British government who wished to shed themselves of a poor colony.

For Newfoundlanders, July First holds a double meaning. It is Canada day, but the day holds another meaning to which they are dedicated- memory. It is the memory for which the provincial university- memorial university- is named and dedicated: to perpetuate the memory of the 1st Newfoundland Regiment and the events of July First, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

The Battle of the Somme has its roots in 1916's other and greater bloodbath, Verdun. The French were sustaining huge losses at Verdun, to the south of the British sector of the Western Front. The French appealed to General Haig, the British commander, to launch an offensive in his sector in an attempt to draw German units out of Verdun and to relieve the pressure on the French. According to legend, Haig took a pushpin and placed it randomly on the map. "We will attack there," he said. "At the Somme."

By this time, the war had reached a stalemate. Each side had adopted defensive trenches as a way to fortify their position, and no advance was made on either side. The trenches were a complicated affair. Each side laid out series of parallel trenches to create a defense in depth. Running perpendicular to the front line, second line and third line trenches were another series of trenches allowing movement back and forth between the trench lines, called communication trenches. The ground between the trenches was often covered in barbed wire, as was the area in front of the front lines. It was a formidable defense.

The battle plan, such as it was, called for the largest bombardment yet to destroy the German lines- trenches, barbed wire and all- at which point the British forces would push through unopposed and continue straight on to Germany. The British quickly amassed the shells necessary for the bombardment, and began the shelling on June 24, 1916. The attack was originally scheduled for June 29, but inclement weather caused the attack to be postponed. The delay also allowed an additional two days to the bombardment. So confident were the British of the utter destruction of the Germans that the units of the first wave of the attack were told they could walk upright and erect to the German lines. The trenches, the barbed wire, the Germans themselves would long since have been destroyed. The British generals even ordered the men to sew metal reflective plates onto their backs that would flash in the sunlight as they moved, so the generals could better observe their advance from aerial reconnaissance photographs they would peruse from their safe positions far in the rear.

In the meantime, the Germans stayed in their bunkers. The Somme region was known for having a bedrock of chalk, which could be easily excavated and provided excellent protection from shelling. The Germans dug their bunkers deeper and moved in more troops, as the French had desired. Far from obliteration, the only result of the bombardment was to warn the Germans of an impending attack, and allowed them time to reinforce their line. It did not destroy the trenches. It did not clear the barbed wire. The German position was actually stronger after the bombardment than before.

On the morning of July 1st at about 7:30 the guns fell silent, whistles were blown, and the British climbed from the trenches and began their advance. The Germans could not believe their eyes- thousands upon thousands of British troops advancing in parade ground marching formation, many of them lead by bagpipers. Their shock did not last long. They reached for their rifles and machine guns, sent signals to their own batteries, and opened fire.

It was a massacre. For almost the entire length of the Somme sector, the first wave was wiped out. The second wave was ordered over the top and met the same fate. Communication was a shambles. The only reports that reached the British Command came from the few units who had succeeded in their attack. Thinking the attack was successful, the third wave was ordered to prepare to go over the top.

The Newfoundland Regiment was at a place called Beaumont Hamel when orders came through at 8:45 am. The command had confused flares sent up by the Germans to their gunners to be flares from British troops calling for reinforcements, and believed the first and second waves had been at least partially successful.  They issued the orders for the third wave go prepare to go over the top.  The 1st Newfoundland and 1st Essex were to move forward and occupy the enemy's first line of trenches. At the time they were about two hundred metres back from their own front line, out of sight of the enemy. The Newfoundlanders tried to move to the forward trench, but the communication trenches were clogged with wounded and under shell fire. The commander of the regiment, Colonel Hadow, decided to move immediately to attack positions by ordering his men out of the trenches and to march on the open ground above the trenches to the front lines. Meanwhile, the first Essex decided to try and move through their communication trenches, and as a result were not in a position to launch an attack until 10:30. At 9:15 The Newfoundland men, about 780 of them, rose from their trenches. Colonel Hadow gestured with his stick the in the direction of the Germans, and gave the order. With that, the 1st Newfoundland Regiment began to move in rehearsed formations through their own front lines to the jump off point.

At first they were protected by a small rise that lay in the middle of the British trenches, but before long they crested the top of the little hill and were completely silhouetted against the morning sky. By then, they were the only thing moving on the battlefield. Every German gun in the sector turned towards them and opened fire.

Men began to fall. Men from tight knit communities, men who had served together, knew each other as friends and as brothers fell to the ground. Those who remained continued on. As one witness later said, they moved forward "with chins tucked down as if walking into a blizzard". More men fell. They continued their advance. They had not yet cleared their own front lines.

They marched on because they believed. They believed in courage and honour. They believed in truth and justice, they believed in their cause. Those who had been educated had learned the words "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori"- "it is sweet and just to die for one's country" These words had meaning, such meaning that men were prepared to die for these words, and also for an empire that would shake off their beloved homeland the first chance it got. They were men of a generation that proved beyond all others that they believed. And because of days like this, because of four years of days like this, they were the last generation that could believe so honestly, so naively, so blindly, and so totally.

They marched deeper into the storm. By the time they had cleared their own barbed wire and crossed into No Man's Land they had suffered perhaps 30 per cent casualties. With every step they drew closer to the German guns. The fire became more accurate, more concentrated, more deadly. They stepped over the dead and wounded from the earlier attacks, swelled the number of dead and wounded with their own, and pressed on. There was no cover.  There was no retreat. There was no escape.

Perhaps forty or fifty men made it to the German trenches. They fought bravely, aided by a few of the survivors of the earlier attacks, but the end was never in doubt. Their fate had been sealed when they first rose from their trenches. It was over by 9:40.

For the wounded in the field the nightmare continued. As a final, terrible joke the wounded found thy could not move at all. The metal plates sewn onto their backs so the Generals could observe their movements also betrayed their movements to the German snipers. They had to lie still on the field, and hope they survived until nightfall. In the Northern Hemisphere, July First is one of the longest days of the year.

The 1st Essex attack was cancelled, but due to the communications chaos of that day, the order never reached them. They went over the top at 10:30, and suffered 280 casualties before the attack was called back.

July First remains the greatest one day disaster in the history of the British Army. Up and down the Somme front the casualties totalled 57,470, of which 19, 240 were fatal. For the 1st Newfoundland Regiment, 780 went over the top on July First. The next day, 68 answered roll call. The Regiment suffered the second highest rate of casualties of all the units that went over the top that day. Ultimately, tragically, the day was merely a prelude to slaughter. Before the Battle of the Somme was finally ended by Autumn rains it would claim over a million casualties. It was second only to Verdun for blood.

News of the disaster soon winged its across the Atlantic to the Island home of the men in the form of telegrams telling their families and friends of their death. To an Island of small tightly knit communities, everyone was touched in some way by that day. The British tried to put a good face on the disaster by invoking the words that once meant something in ways that ring hollow today. The Divisional commander paid a grim tribute to the men: "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault failed of success because dead men can advance no further." Later the reconstituted unit received the unique honour of adding the word "Royal" to its name, so they were now the "Royal Newfoundland Regiment". More men signed up, followed their people back across the ocean to the desperation of No Man's Land. The war would continue for another two years.

After the war Beaumont Hamel was ceded to the Newfoundland Government. The ground of the attack was preserved as much as possible as it was during the war. The government placed a statue of a caribou, the regimental symbol, standing over the British trenches, forever facing the German foe. The ground has been cared for, as a reminder of that desperate morning 92 years ago. Near the entrance to the park an epitaph is inscribed in Bronze. It reads:

And with bowed head and heart abased
Strive hard to grasp the future gain in this sore loss.
For not one foot of this dank sod
But drank its surfeit of the blood of gallant men
Who for their Faith, their Hope, for Life and Liberty
Here made the sacrifice.
Here gave their lives, and right willingly for you and me.