By Matt Turnbull
The land claims process in Canada is meant to be a crucial service whereby aboriginal groups can be compensated for breaches of treaties or trust by the Canadian government or gain rights to traditional lands not otherwise legally granted or protected. However, the bureaucratic machinery responsible for this process has been admonished by several groups for its sluggish pace and controversial rulings. This, in part, has led to tension and sometimes conflict, including several well-publicized (and other less known) confrontations. How can the theory or structure of the land claims process be altered to provide justice and improve relations between groups?
The department of Indian and Native Affairs Canada (INAC) distinguishes between two different types of land claims. Comprehensive claims deal with “where Aboriginal land rights have not been dealth with by past treaties or through other legal means” and provide an avenue to secure traditional lands, whereas specific claims deal with “past grievances of First Nations related to Canada’s obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed First Nations’ funds or other assets” according to the INAC website. The overall process, as explained by the Canadian Encyclopaedia, is designed to “make economic and social adjustments between two different societies.” It is thus meant to provide a recourse to aboriginal groups and reduce disparity.
Land claims can not only provide justice but also, in some cases, change the political and social environment. The largest claim in Canadian history is, by far, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 which led to the establishment of Nunavut as a territory in 1999. Although the territory has its share of difficulties to overcome, Nunavut still represents an incredible land mark in the scope of land claims. It also incorporates several progressive and integrative structures in its governance, such as the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth which is mandated to preserve traditions and heritage. But should the federal government be doing more to improve the standard of living in Nunavut and promote Inuit culture? Or is governance and cultural preservation best left to provincial and local authorities?
In some cases there is significant friction between aboriginal groups and corporations, government projects, or even civilians attempting to use land already protected by treaty or for which a claim is being negotiated. The most recognizable example is probably the Oka crisis in 1990, when protesters from the Mohawk community of Kanesatake built barricades to block the expansion of a residential area and golf course onto ancestral lands which included a grove and burial area. These lands were originally given to a missionary group by France in 1717. Suggestions from the 1991 assessment of the crisis by the Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs were reported into Canadian land claims policy. However, twenty years after the crisis, the CBC reported that the land claim negotiations were still in process and that residential construction and niobium extraction now threatened the area. What lessons have we taken away from this, or failed to learn? How can leaders on both sides communicate more effectively to prevent these situations from occurring? And to what extent is the structure and efficiency of the land claims process to blame?
Another land claim conflict which many Queen’s students remember is the uranium mining dispute between Frontenac Ventures and the Shabot and Ardoch First Nation groups around Sharbot Lake just north of Kingston. Both disputed (in the process of claim negotiation) and private land was staked for exploration; according to a Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 2008 booklet, “Any area of Crown land can be staked, including land traditionally used by Aboriginal people and communities.”This led to a series of protests, despite court injunctions barring any protesters from the site and permitting their arrest.Queen’s University professor Bob Lovelace was sentenced to six months in jail and a $25,000 fine, but charges against him and several others were dropped a week after Lovelace was released after serving 100 days of his sentence.
Despite successes, even major ones, land disputes such as these (among many others) send the message that the claims process is insufficient for the needs of aboriginal communities. In 2007, Steven Harper announced $250 million dollars every year for 10 years would be contributed to reducing the back log (approximately 3000 cases) of land claims and appointed a tribunal to make final decisions. Whether this money will have the intended effect remains to be seen. Is the land claims process an efficient one, or is there a better way? How can the goals of the government, First Nations groups, and businesses be reconciled? What does the future of aboriginal in land claims in Canada hold – and, if different, what should it hold?
Sunday 23 January 2011
Canada's Melting Mosaic
By Amanda Charbon
In 1971, Canada enacted a policy that officially recognized itself as a nation with multicultural ideals. Historically, Canada has been a Christian hegemonic nation. The emergence of multiculturalism created a change in the values, traditions, and identity of the Canadian citizen. Immigration laws, affirmative action, and sociopolitical policies are a few examples of the impact Canada’s official multicultural policy has had on its citizens. Since immigrants are entitled to citizenship after only three years of lawful residence, the majority of immigrants (85 percent) become Canadian citizens, giving Canada one of the largest proportional immigrant populations in the world. However, I predict that Canadians will see a future trend towards their historic Christian roots and away from the idealism of cultural pluralism.
It is apparent that multiculturalism is an issue for some Canadians, as Bill 94 in Québec moves that, “all public sector employees will be required to have their faces uncovered, as will any citizen using government services… The ban on such face coverings as the niqab or burqa also applies to the entire education sector, from daycare centres to universities, as well as hospitals, public clinics and social services.” The burqa is a perfect metaphor for the sentiments fueling Bill 94: a lack of identity among Canadian citizens and a feeling of insecurity with the unknown (whether it be the face behind a burqa, or the understanding of the culture itself). As Professor Alex Macleod from the University of Québec states, “concepts of culture and collective identity, especially national identity, are very closely linked… one has to be very careful about linking culture and security, let alone human security, since culture very often evokes exclusion rather than inclusion.” The cultural exclusion will create a sense of insecurity within and between Canadians, and Canada will see a backlash against multiculturalism.
It can be argued that the need for a collective identity extends to Toronto, arguably the most multicultural city in Canada, which just elected right-wing hardliner Mayor Rob Ford. His policies and personal sentiments reflect support for a cohesive identity, and his (big and little ‘c’) conservative approach have the ability to make Torontonians feel safe, secure, and protected. A fractured identity (rather than cohesive) can attribute for what Carleton Professor Phil Ryan calls “multicultiphobia.” This fractured identity is apparent in Canadian society, and was especially noticeable in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. In the closing ceremonies, we construed our Canadian national ‘identity’ by a massive inflatable beaver, girls in RCMP dresses, and large board cutouts of hockey players. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Vancouver Olympic Committee sat around the table scratching their heads in frustration over how to portray Canada and Canadian citizens during the ceremonies. Our identity consists of an amalgamation of many other identities, which makes it difficult to pinpoint just what exactly a “Canadian” is, and therefore the idea of Canada being a cultural mosaic is inescapably true. Yet, I argue that the mosaic will ‘melt’ in order to create the feeling of a safe, easily identified community. As Professor Macleod posits, “Identity is clearly a fundamental part of us as individuals, at least in liberal democratic societies, but the most important form of identity… is that of collective identity, and in particular national identity.” As Canadians, we pride ourselves on being a cultural mosaic, and rightly so. However, I believe there will be a growing need for a stable and cohesive identity, and Canadians will respond to that need by melting the mosaic in order to achieve a sense of security between citizens, and as a nation.
In 1971, Canada enacted a policy that officially recognized itself as a nation with multicultural ideals. Historically, Canada has been a Christian hegemonic nation. The emergence of multiculturalism created a change in the values, traditions, and identity of the Canadian citizen. Immigration laws, affirmative action, and sociopolitical policies are a few examples of the impact Canada’s official multicultural policy has had on its citizens. Since immigrants are entitled to citizenship after only three years of lawful residence, the majority of immigrants (85 percent) become Canadian citizens, giving Canada one of the largest proportional immigrant populations in the world. However, I predict that Canadians will see a future trend towards their historic Christian roots and away from the idealism of cultural pluralism.
It is apparent that multiculturalism is an issue for some Canadians, as Bill 94 in Québec moves that, “all public sector employees will be required to have their faces uncovered, as will any citizen using government services… The ban on such face coverings as the niqab or burqa also applies to the entire education sector, from daycare centres to universities, as well as hospitals, public clinics and social services.” The burqa is a perfect metaphor for the sentiments fueling Bill 94: a lack of identity among Canadian citizens and a feeling of insecurity with the unknown (whether it be the face behind a burqa, or the understanding of the culture itself). As Professor Alex Macleod from the University of Québec states, “concepts of culture and collective identity, especially national identity, are very closely linked… one has to be very careful about linking culture and security, let alone human security, since culture very often evokes exclusion rather than inclusion.” The cultural exclusion will create a sense of insecurity within and between Canadians, and Canada will see a backlash against multiculturalism.
It can be argued that the need for a collective identity extends to Toronto, arguably the most multicultural city in Canada, which just elected right-wing hardliner Mayor Rob Ford. His policies and personal sentiments reflect support for a cohesive identity, and his (big and little ‘c’) conservative approach have the ability to make Torontonians feel safe, secure, and protected. A fractured identity (rather than cohesive) can attribute for what Carleton Professor Phil Ryan calls “multicultiphobia.” This fractured identity is apparent in Canadian society, and was especially noticeable in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. In the closing ceremonies, we construed our Canadian national ‘identity’ by a massive inflatable beaver, girls in RCMP dresses, and large board cutouts of hockey players. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Vancouver Olympic Committee sat around the table scratching their heads in frustration over how to portray Canada and Canadian citizens during the ceremonies. Our identity consists of an amalgamation of many other identities, which makes it difficult to pinpoint just what exactly a “Canadian” is, and therefore the idea of Canada being a cultural mosaic is inescapably true. Yet, I argue that the mosaic will ‘melt’ in order to create the feeling of a safe, easily identified community. As Professor Macleod posits, “Identity is clearly a fundamental part of us as individuals, at least in liberal democratic societies, but the most important form of identity… is that of collective identity, and in particular national identity.” As Canadians, we pride ourselves on being a cultural mosaic, and rightly so. However, I believe there will be a growing need for a stable and cohesive identity, and Canadians will respond to that need by melting the mosaic in order to achieve a sense of security between citizens, and as a nation.
The True North Strong and Free?
By Lauren Sampson
In the late 1960s, political scientist Gad Horowitz commented that “in North America, Canada is unique” (Horowitz, 1968). In stark contrast to the United States, Canada has a viable social democratic party and is presumed to possess a culture of liberality and acceptance (distinguishable from mere tolerance). But the reality is that the United States is “unique”, for its relatively politically backwardness amongst economically developed countries. Thus, the social progressiveness Canadians predicate their identity upon is notable only when compared to the United States. In a European or Australian context, Canada’s legislative bodies are comparatively lackluster, reactive and tenuous, most visibly in the arena of minority rights.
Canada’s historical and contemporary records speak to this reality, most nominally in the country’s navigation of the thorny issues of abortion and homosexuality. In the first instance, Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s success in striking down Canada’s abortion laws relied upon significant personal initiative and the utilization of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a relatively new human rights tool. Indeed, the 1969 amendment to Canada’s abortion law, which he challenged, was one of the most backward in the industrialized world (Howe and Russell, 2001). The Supreme Court lacked the judicial capacity to repeal the legislation but in 1983, Morgentaler was able to wield the Charter as a weapon against the government for its violation of a woman’s right to “security of person” under s.7 (Morgentaler, 1998).
The key sentiment there is against the government. The Morgentaler case pitted institution against institution, symbolizing the venture of the judiciary (a significantly non-representative body) into a controversial ethical debate that legislators regarded as a political minefield and were loathe to become involved in, despite the lobbying efforts of Morgentaler and partner women’s groups (Howe and Russell, 2001). If said legislators are intended to represent the Canadian populace and thereby Canada itself, what does their complacency, their inaction say about Canadian attitudes to social change?
Moreover, all the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately did was invalidate provisions of the law that forced a woman to prove her life was endangered before permitting her an abortion (Manfredi, 2003). The legislature then had an opportunity to introduce measures that rectified oversights – such as the failure to consider cases of rape or incest – but preserve restrictions (Manfredi, 2003). Parliament’s response? Silence. It was this non-response on the issue after the ruling that rendered abortion effectively legalized in Canada, in opposition to the original intention of the Supreme Court. Abortion’s legalization then reflects not a bold, momentous step for the Charter or for Canadian social conscience on behalf of those deprived of their “essential humanity”. Instead, it was merely an accidental position Canada was cast into because of the paralysis and apathy of its government.
The situation has not improved with time. Provincial governments only incorporated sexual orientation into their human rights codes after Delwin Vriend launched a Charter challenge in the 1990s in Alberta (Vriend, 1998). Subsequently, in 2003, it wasthe Ontario Court of Appeal who ruled in Halpern v. Canada that the common law definition of marriage as between one man and one woman violated Section 15 of the Charter (Kelly, 2006). The president of the advocacy organization EGALE Canadanoted that “This ruling now affirms that our right to equal marriage can no longer be put on hold while we wait for Parliament to act” (Kelly, 2006).
It was that definition that impelled provincial and territorial courts to legalize same-sex marriage, while politicians like Ralph Klein spoke publicly about their intentions to invoke the notwithstanding clause to defend “traditional marriage” andConservative leaders threatened to appeal the courts’ decision (Kelly, 2006). When in 2005, the federal government finally relented and enacted the Civil Marriage Act, which universally legalized same-sex marriage, 90% of the Canadian population already lived in areas where same-sex couples could legally wed (Kelly, 2006).
The message here? Credit for the legalization of same-sex marriage and the illegalization of institutionalized homophobia cannot truly be laid at the feet of forward-thinking Canadian lawmakers, whose role was and continues to be more reactionary than anything else. When social progress is made, it is done so in spite of the Canadian state, not because of it. Two major landmines of social politics – abortion and gay rights – regularly touted as evidence of Canadian liberality speak only to the adversarial nature of a disjointed system, wherein it falls to individuals to pay, in money, time and tears, for change. Indeed, when that change occurs, it is often for narrow legal rationales, rather than any real desire to redress discrimination or cruelty.
Last year, immigration minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship (CBC, 2010). Such a decision forces a difficult question – when our own government chooses not to represent the country as a protector of minority rights overseas, can we truly call Canada a socially liberal democracy?
In the late 1960s, political scientist Gad Horowitz commented that “in North America, Canada is unique” (Horowitz, 1968). In stark contrast to the United States, Canada has a viable social democratic party and is presumed to possess a culture of liberality and acceptance (distinguishable from mere tolerance). But the reality is that the United States is “unique”, for its relatively politically backwardness amongst economically developed countries. Thus, the social progressiveness Canadians predicate their identity upon is notable only when compared to the United States. In a European or Australian context, Canada’s legislative bodies are comparatively lackluster, reactive and tenuous, most visibly in the arena of minority rights.
Canada’s historical and contemporary records speak to this reality, most nominally in the country’s navigation of the thorny issues of abortion and homosexuality. In the first instance, Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s success in striking down Canada’s abortion laws relied upon significant personal initiative and the utilization of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a relatively new human rights tool. Indeed, the 1969 amendment to Canada’s abortion law, which he challenged, was one of the most backward in the industrialized world (Howe and Russell, 2001). The Supreme Court lacked the judicial capacity to repeal the legislation but in 1983, Morgentaler was able to wield the Charter as a weapon against the government for its violation of a woman’s right to “security of person” under s.7 (Morgentaler, 1998).
The key sentiment there is against the government. The Morgentaler case pitted institution against institution, symbolizing the venture of the judiciary (a significantly non-representative body) into a controversial ethical debate that legislators regarded as a political minefield and were loathe to become involved in, despite the lobbying efforts of Morgentaler and partner women’s groups (Howe and Russell, 2001). If said legislators are intended to represent the Canadian populace and thereby Canada itself, what does their complacency, their inaction say about Canadian attitudes to social change?
Moreover, all the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately did was invalidate provisions of the law that forced a woman to prove her life was endangered before permitting her an abortion (Manfredi, 2003). The legislature then had an opportunity to introduce measures that rectified oversights – such as the failure to consider cases of rape or incest – but preserve restrictions (Manfredi, 2003). Parliament’s response? Silence. It was this non-response on the issue after the ruling that rendered abortion effectively legalized in Canada, in opposition to the original intention of the Supreme Court. Abortion’s legalization then reflects not a bold, momentous step for the Charter or for Canadian social conscience on behalf of those deprived of their “essential humanity”. Instead, it was merely an accidental position Canada was cast into because of the paralysis and apathy of its government.
The situation has not improved with time. Provincial governments only incorporated sexual orientation into their human rights codes after Delwin Vriend launched a Charter challenge in the 1990s in Alberta (Vriend, 1998). Subsequently, in 2003, it wasthe Ontario Court of Appeal who ruled in Halpern v. Canada that the common law definition of marriage as between one man and one woman violated Section 15 of the Charter (Kelly, 2006). The president of the advocacy organization EGALE Canadanoted that “This ruling now affirms that our right to equal marriage can no longer be put on hold while we wait for Parliament to act” (Kelly, 2006).
It was that definition that impelled provincial and territorial courts to legalize same-sex marriage, while politicians like Ralph Klein spoke publicly about their intentions to invoke the notwithstanding clause to defend “traditional marriage” andConservative leaders threatened to appeal the courts’ decision (Kelly, 2006). When in 2005, the federal government finally relented and enacted the Civil Marriage Act, which universally legalized same-sex marriage, 90% of the Canadian population already lived in areas where same-sex couples could legally wed (Kelly, 2006).
The message here? Credit for the legalization of same-sex marriage and the illegalization of institutionalized homophobia cannot truly be laid at the feet of forward-thinking Canadian lawmakers, whose role was and continues to be more reactionary than anything else. When social progress is made, it is done so in spite of the Canadian state, not because of it. Two major landmines of social politics – abortion and gay rights – regularly touted as evidence of Canadian liberality speak only to the adversarial nature of a disjointed system, wherein it falls to individuals to pay, in money, time and tears, for change. Indeed, when that change occurs, it is often for narrow legal rationales, rather than any real desire to redress discrimination or cruelty.
Last year, immigration minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship (CBC, 2010). Such a decision forces a difficult question – when our own government chooses not to represent the country as a protector of minority rights overseas, can we truly call Canada a socially liberal democracy?
Print Media: Friend or Foe?
By Lindsay Kline
On August 24th, 2006, an article appeared in the Economist and stated that “the most useful bit of media is disappearing, a cause for concern but not for panic.” The article was attempting to discredit the myth that print journalism is facing a future of irrelevance and suggested that a switch to online publishing will rehabilitate print media. Questions regarding the future of print continue to be asked, however, there seems to be an increase in tension and competition between the supporters of print and those looking to enhance technological modes of communicating.
Technological advances in the 21st century have surpassed those in any other time period due to a variety of increases in accessibility and consumer knowledge. Social media outlets such as Facebook with 500 million, Twitter with 200 million, and LinkedIn with 80 million users all over the world, provides a space for people to express their opinions, and share facts on what they think is important. Blogging also aids in this exchange of information so much that the term “citizen” journalism has been created to exemplify the role people take while providing information online. Yet, with this increase in social media and people’s awareness of the world around them, the spread of misinformation- regarding breaking news in particular- occurs to a greater extent than ever before.
Increases in online activity all over the world constantly provide people with a forum to discover new information from friends and family, rather than the six o’clock news or daily newspaper. However, The problem with social media lies in its legitimacy as a source of information: “citizen” journalists can be commended for their intelligence and ability to be at the right place at the right time to produce a story, but hard-lined facts and research are done by professionals in the field of journalism. The occurrence of breaking news such as the congresswoman shooting in Texas requires unwavering facts and reporting that is grounded in true circumstances. Furthermore, an ability to relate stories and educate readers entails a particular skill set that bloggers and “citizen” journalists cannot provide professionally.
There remains a problem not only with how citizens handle information they receive but also in the field of journalism itself. In the past, journalists were considered the groundbreakers of worldwide news due to their ability to hold governments and companies accountable and transparent. The reputation associated with journalists and their job as information providers skyrocketed in the 1960’s and 1970’s with political turmoil and issues such as the Watergate Scandal and John F. Kennedy assassination in the United States. In Canada, the media effectively shed light on Quebec separatism, the rest of Canada as well as Trudeau’s leadership capabilities in such a tumultuous time.
In recent years, however, journalism has been greatly affected with the increase in online activity. The production of Iphones, Ipads, Blackberries, Kobo e-readers and various social medias has resulted in the ability of citizens to become better connected with domestic, national, and international issues. As a result, the field of journalism has needed to play catch-up. While broadcast journalism continues to maintain relevance, print journalism has faltered in comparison and been stereotyped as an old fashioned and tedious method of acquiring information.
Those who support the existence of newspapers continue to create and recreate new ways for print to succeed. For example, Jacek Utko delivered a TED talk where he describes the need for publications to redesign their layout in order for readership to increase. Utko explains that by enhancing and modernizing a newspaper’s image, more people will be interested in reading a visually pleasing publication. Recently the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail made this change by revamping not only their print newspaper but also their online version. These changes have included more visuals, white space, and font experimentation. The result has been an increase in people purchasing the national newspaper, further increasing production and profits.
Current day newspapers are also responsible for maintaining an online profile where news is continuously uploaded to provide citizens with breaking news. The result of maintaining an off and online profile has resulted in an increase in readers from all over the world. Newspapers such as Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have experienced an increase in readers from different parts of the globe, thus, thereby increasing interconnectedness in the 21st century.
Print journalism continues to struggle in the face of technological changes and more people turning to the internet for their information. I question this phenomenon and its credibility as a way for people to connect due to the alienating experience of being online day in and day out. The experience of reading a newspaper, having the pages in your hands, and being able to have an interactive experience that enlightens and supports our ability to communicate face to face with others is irreplaceable and reflective of our human nature. While the decline of print media steadily continues, the problem does not seem pressing due to online newspapers, new layout strategies and social media that are created to replace the fading image of the newspaper. However, I question whether this is really necessary. Perhaps some traditional forms of media are worth holding on to in order for people to have more diversity in their ways to communicate and learn about the world around them.
Why We Need the Draft
By Lindsay Waterman
When Canada’s combat operations in Afghanistan end this year, everyone will heave a sigh of relief. Many too will heave a sigh of regret. Our military and nation-building goals in Afghanistan remain unachieved: a maternal mortality of 1.9% makes it the second most dangerous country to give birth in, and a child mortality of almost 25% makes it the most dangerous country to be born in. 70% of the population lacks clean water and 35% of the population is food-insecure. Almost a tenth of Afghans are opium addicts - that’s twice as many as in 2005. Tens to hundreds of women immolate themselves every year.2 The 2010 elections were stolen. Corruption is rife. Despite Obama’s troop surge, a White House review released in December calls the resulting gains “fragile and reversible.” More than 8,800 Afghan civilians have died for these disappointments.
The war has taken a toll on Canada too: 154 of our soldiers have died. Many more will suffer the fallout of post-traumatic stress disorder and injury. We are 15 billion dollars poorer.
None of this is really news - Afghanistan’s agonising growing pains are common knowledge in Canada. That’s part of why support for the war has skulked at 30 to 40 percent for five years. What should be news is this: despite long-term public opposition to the war, we’re still in Afghanistan.
That we are still involved in this war reveals a profound problem with Canadian democracy. We have little say in whether our government kills in our name. And we have little say in whether our government sacrifices billions of dollars and hundreds of Canadian lives to that end.
There have been times in history when the people have had a say in such things during war. Those times have usually been when normal citizens were pulled into conflicts against their will, or in countries where there is a strong social ethic of participation in the military. Public engagement in the military seems to be part of making public opinion on wars count.
So Canada, already a socialist country in its healthcare, may be able to prevent another nightmarish conflict like Afghanistan by socializing another organization: the military. And the form this socialization could take is the draft.
The draft has traditionally been used for homeland defense, and is still used for that purpose around the world. But I propose the draft be employed to different ends in Canada: to increase public engagement and debate in Canada’s wars, and to increase the diversity of opinion within the military.
The best known example of a draft that increased public engagement and debate is perhaps the Vietnam draft, which over 200,000 inductees3 resisted in what a Draft Resistance flyer called “a mass movement of American men.”3 Conscription made many Americans participants in the war either directly, or indirectly through family or friends. So for many, opposition to the war was not a matter purely of principle but a matter of life and death. Because of this Americans did more than discuss the war around the dinner table as we have done for the past eight years. They marched in the streets and wrote songs, went to jail and gave speeches. And their efforts helped bring the war to an end.
A more recent example of how the draft can increase public debate comes from Norway. Norway deployed 150 troops to Iraq in 2003, but the subsequent death of four soldiers had an immediate effect on the country’s involvement in the war. In an interview, Fourth year Queen’s film student and Norwegian draft resister Henrik Zwart described what happened:
“The public perception was that we said no to war, but now that it’s happening Norway should help out because we're such a peaceful nation. This view was really shaken up when the 4 soldiers died. These guys were about 21-22, and when they died in what was obviously a war action, the public reacted very strongly and the politicians had to answer for it. Very soon thereafter we were out of Iraq.”
Why these 4 deaths caused a backlash much stronger than 154 deaths have have caused in Canada is up for debate. As Alexander Harang of the Norwegian Peace association noted in an email to Inquire, “the Norwegian government has been very careful not to send ordinary troops [overseas] as part of the compulsory draft.” The situation differed from Vietnam in that no one was forced to fight.
The draft could be an indirect cause of the Norwegian withdrawal. According to Hendrik, Norwegians have a sense of personal participation in the military that we lack in Canada:
“It's really instilled into the conscious of the Nation that everyone is an automatic participant [in the military] by being Norwegian.”
In other words, Norway has a socialist attitude towards war, an attitude that both perpetuates and is perpetuated by the draft. And this socialist attitude may be the reason Norwegians care about what their military is doing - to the point that the 2004 election was, according to the Norwegian peace association, decided largely on the withdrawal of the ten remaining Norwegian soldiers:
“The last withdrawal of the Norwegian NATO contingent (ten training officers) was a direct result of the election campaign in 2005, whether the Red-Green government won. This issue was an important theme of the 2005 election campaign,” the organization said in an email to Inquire.
Contrast this to the Canadian reaction to the Harper government’s plans to maintain a training force of around 950 training personnel in Afghanistan until 2014. It’s hard to imagine the mission extension becoming a major issue in the next election.
Were there a Canadian ethic of participation in the Canadian Forces (CF), we might not be so apathetic. Were there a the draft in Canada, so might Canadians feel personally involved in what the military does. And the resulting public debate might cause the military to act more in accordance with Canadians’ wishes.
The draft could also increase private debate within the military. The CF today recruits mostly white males between the ages of 17 and 24 from towns of fewer than 100,000 people,6 so on average, military personnel are more conservative than their civilian counterparts. Decisions made among conservative officers within the military don’t receive the same debate they would were officers more politically diverse. Dr. Cox, a professor in the department of political studies at Queen’s University, says that a draft could change the politics of the military, and thus improve its internal oversight.
“The draft might change the composition of the Canadian forces and may make them more open to being self-critical of what they’re doing [in a conflict],” he said in a recent interview with Inquire.
The CF’s ability to self-criticize should matter to Canadians because military personnel make decisions with political relevance. For instance, in 2006 the CF released the “Ground Rules Agreement” which defined limits on reporters embedded with Canadian troops. The purpose of the limits is to “protect members of the armed services from the release of information which [sic] could potentially threaten their security or safety during ongoing operations.”7 But many of the limits restrict reportage of critical information. One particularly worrying restriction is on “details of Rules of Engagement” (ROE), which define how much force soldiers can use in confrontations with real or perceived enemies. The rationale for the ban is that insurgents might read about Canada’s ROE in the news and adjust their tactics.
But there are arguments for transparent ROE as well - for instance, that ROE are more likely to be brutal when not subject to public scrutiny. The Iraq War logs and soldier testimony paint a chilling picture of lax U.S. ROE in Iraq that led to mass slaughter of civilians.8 And, until pressure from President Karzai led to more stringent ROE in Afghanistan in 2009, the NATO ROE appears to have been similarly calibrated towards the use of force and endangerment of civilians. For instance, the “Afghan war diary” released by Wikileaks revealed how French troops strafed a schoolbus, wounding eight children, U.S. troops strafed a bus wounding fifteen, and Polish troops mortared a village in a putative revenge attack, murdering a wedding party that included a pregnant woman. These and other such incidents were uncovered in the Guardian’s investigation of the diary, and resulted partly from ROE hidden from the public eye.9
Concealment of the ROE helps protect soldiers. But it’s also true that a transparent ROE would protect civilians. Were officers more politically diverse, private debate within the military may have led to more transparent ROE, which would have in turn led to more public and political oversight of the military’s behaviour. Similarly, private debate between politically diverse officers may have functioned in the same way as public oversight - it may have lead to ROE that were less brutal, and that caused fewer civilian casualties.
Debate and dissent can, when more extreme, lead to insubordination - not necessarily a good thing. Dr. Cox described a recent example in Israel’s 2006 conflict with Lebanon.
“Israel has mandatory military service that applies to all Jews including those that don’t live inside Israel. It’s often regarded as one of their family or national commitments ... some military air force operators became very concerned about the conflict in Lebanon. Several captains flew their jets over the Mediterranean and dropped their bombs in the ocean,” he said.
Similarly, towards the end of the Vietnam war, internal dissent was common and helped bring the war to an end. The introduction to 1971’s The Collapse of the Armed Forces10 described how “the army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”
These examples give a new meaning to Dick Cheney’s comments about the draft in a 2008 CBS interview:
“I suppose you could have created a sense of sacrifice if you’d gone back to the draft, but that would have, in my opinion, done serious damage to the state of our military,” he said.
The vital role the draft played in bringing the Vietnam war to a close by increasing public debate and private, intra-military debate, is largely why the U.S. and UK didn’t turn to the draft in Iraq despite recruitment shortfalls.
Instead of turning to the draft - and this is another reason to consider conscription - the U.S. and U.K. turned to security companies such as Blackwater. According to Dr. Spearin, a specialist in mercenaries and the privatization of international security at RMC, the countries hired security companies partly to fill their recruitment gap.
“The US and UK and to a lesser degree Canada, have gone on board in contracting private companies for a variety of services...generally speaking the private sector allows for compensation of the fact that you don't have numbers to do the sorts of operations you want to,” he said in an interview with Inquire.
A shift from citizen-soldiers to private mercenaries should be debated in Canada. Such a shift will likely occur because the CF’s traditional recruitment pool of young, white, rural males is shrinking.6 To maintain enrollment, the military has tried to recruit from other populations, such as aboriginals, immigrants, and urbanites. But a 25 year effort to do this has been unsuccessful. And if the military continues to fail it may turn increasingly to security companies to fill its ranks.
Besides the practical issue of enrollment levels, the CF has been trying to recruit from new populations for another reason: since the Employment Equity act in 1985, government employers must maintain a population representative of Canadian society. In other words, our government has legislated diversity. Which is good, because, as discussed above, diversity would increase public and private debate in the CF.
But, again, for the past 25 years the CF’s attempts to reflect Canadian society have failed. If the CF continues to fail, it will remain a monoculture. The 2007 paper “Can the Canadian Forces Ever Truly Reflect Canadian Society?” commented that, “it is likely that the only time the Canadian Forces ever truly ‘reflected’ Canada was when conscription was in force during the two great global conflicts of the 20th Century. Thus, within a professional and volunteer force such as the CF, it is questionable if the CF can truly ‘reflect Canada.’”6
In other words, it may be that the draft is the only way to ensure diversity, and all the benefits that would accompany it.
Canada has traditionally considered itself a peacekeeper rather than a warmonger. An essay on the CF website says that “The image of Canadians as international do-gooders is a part not just of the national mythology, but of Canadian foreign policy . . . no other country gives peacekeeping such a defining role in its international politics. It is in our genetic code as a nation.”
With Afghanistan this international role is challenged. Our country may be about to enter a new era of interventional war. Enforced public participation in the CF might not be necessary when the military is engaged in moral actions like peacekeeping. But enforced public participation may be helpful in preventing the military from engaging in immoral actions when it goes to war - and in preventing war in the first place.
When Canada’s combat operations in Afghanistan end this year, everyone will heave a sigh of relief. Many too will heave a sigh of regret. Our military and nation-building goals in Afghanistan remain unachieved: a maternal mortality of 1.9% makes it the second most dangerous country to give birth in, and a child mortality of almost 25% makes it the most dangerous country to be born in. 70% of the population lacks clean water and 35% of the population is food-insecure. Almost a tenth of Afghans are opium addicts - that’s twice as many as in 2005. Tens to hundreds of women immolate themselves every year.2 The 2010 elections were stolen. Corruption is rife. Despite Obama’s troop surge, a White House review released in December calls the resulting gains “fragile and reversible.” More than 8,800 Afghan civilians have died for these disappointments.
The war has taken a toll on Canada too: 154 of our soldiers have died. Many more will suffer the fallout of post-traumatic stress disorder and injury. We are 15 billion dollars poorer.
None of this is really news - Afghanistan’s agonising growing pains are common knowledge in Canada. That’s part of why support for the war has skulked at 30 to 40 percent for five years. What should be news is this: despite long-term public opposition to the war, we’re still in Afghanistan.
That we are still involved in this war reveals a profound problem with Canadian democracy. We have little say in whether our government kills in our name. And we have little say in whether our government sacrifices billions of dollars and hundreds of Canadian lives to that end.
There have been times in history when the people have had a say in such things during war. Those times have usually been when normal citizens were pulled into conflicts against their will, or in countries where there is a strong social ethic of participation in the military. Public engagement in the military seems to be part of making public opinion on wars count.
So Canada, already a socialist country in its healthcare, may be able to prevent another nightmarish conflict like Afghanistan by socializing another organization: the military. And the form this socialization could take is the draft.
The draft has traditionally been used for homeland defense, and is still used for that purpose around the world. But I propose the draft be employed to different ends in Canada: to increase public engagement and debate in Canada’s wars, and to increase the diversity of opinion within the military.
The best known example of a draft that increased public engagement and debate is perhaps the Vietnam draft, which over 200,000 inductees3 resisted in what a Draft Resistance flyer called “a mass movement of American men.”3 Conscription made many Americans participants in the war either directly, or indirectly through family or friends. So for many, opposition to the war was not a matter purely of principle but a matter of life and death. Because of this Americans did more than discuss the war around the dinner table as we have done for the past eight years. They marched in the streets and wrote songs, went to jail and gave speeches. And their efforts helped bring the war to an end.
A more recent example of how the draft can increase public debate comes from Norway. Norway deployed 150 troops to Iraq in 2003, but the subsequent death of four soldiers had an immediate effect on the country’s involvement in the war. In an interview, Fourth year Queen’s film student and Norwegian draft resister Henrik Zwart described what happened:
“The public perception was that we said no to war, but now that it’s happening Norway should help out because we're such a peaceful nation. This view was really shaken up when the 4 soldiers died. These guys were about 21-22, and when they died in what was obviously a war action, the public reacted very strongly and the politicians had to answer for it. Very soon thereafter we were out of Iraq.”
Why these 4 deaths caused a backlash much stronger than 154 deaths have have caused in Canada is up for debate. As Alexander Harang of the Norwegian Peace association noted in an email to Inquire, “the Norwegian government has been very careful not to send ordinary troops [overseas] as part of the compulsory draft.” The situation differed from Vietnam in that no one was forced to fight.
The draft could be an indirect cause of the Norwegian withdrawal. According to Hendrik, Norwegians have a sense of personal participation in the military that we lack in Canada:
“It's really instilled into the conscious of the Nation that everyone is an automatic participant [in the military] by being Norwegian.”
In other words, Norway has a socialist attitude towards war, an attitude that both perpetuates and is perpetuated by the draft. And this socialist attitude may be the reason Norwegians care about what their military is doing - to the point that the 2004 election was, according to the Norwegian peace association, decided largely on the withdrawal of the ten remaining Norwegian soldiers:
“The last withdrawal of the Norwegian NATO contingent (ten training officers) was a direct result of the election campaign in 2005, whether the Red-Green government won. This issue was an important theme of the 2005 election campaign,” the organization said in an email to Inquire.
Contrast this to the Canadian reaction to the Harper government’s plans to maintain a training force of around 950 training personnel in Afghanistan until 2014. It’s hard to imagine the mission extension becoming a major issue in the next election.
Were there a Canadian ethic of participation in the Canadian Forces (CF), we might not be so apathetic. Were there a the draft in Canada, so might Canadians feel personally involved in what the military does. And the resulting public debate might cause the military to act more in accordance with Canadians’ wishes.
The draft could also increase private debate within the military. The CF today recruits mostly white males between the ages of 17 and 24 from towns of fewer than 100,000 people,6 so on average, military personnel are more conservative than their civilian counterparts. Decisions made among conservative officers within the military don’t receive the same debate they would were officers more politically diverse. Dr. Cox, a professor in the department of political studies at Queen’s University, says that a draft could change the politics of the military, and thus improve its internal oversight.
“The draft might change the composition of the Canadian forces and may make them more open to being self-critical of what they’re doing [in a conflict],” he said in a recent interview with Inquire.
The CF’s ability to self-criticize should matter to Canadians because military personnel make decisions with political relevance. For instance, in 2006 the CF released the “Ground Rules Agreement” which defined limits on reporters embedded with Canadian troops. The purpose of the limits is to “protect members of the armed services from the release of information which [sic] could potentially threaten their security or safety during ongoing operations.”7 But many of the limits restrict reportage of critical information. One particularly worrying restriction is on “details of Rules of Engagement” (ROE), which define how much force soldiers can use in confrontations with real or perceived enemies. The rationale for the ban is that insurgents might read about Canada’s ROE in the news and adjust their tactics.
But there are arguments for transparent ROE as well - for instance, that ROE are more likely to be brutal when not subject to public scrutiny. The Iraq War logs and soldier testimony paint a chilling picture of lax U.S. ROE in Iraq that led to mass slaughter of civilians.8 And, until pressure from President Karzai led to more stringent ROE in Afghanistan in 2009, the NATO ROE appears to have been similarly calibrated towards the use of force and endangerment of civilians. For instance, the “Afghan war diary” released by Wikileaks revealed how French troops strafed a schoolbus, wounding eight children, U.S. troops strafed a bus wounding fifteen, and Polish troops mortared a village in a putative revenge attack, murdering a wedding party that included a pregnant woman. These and other such incidents were uncovered in the Guardian’s investigation of the diary, and resulted partly from ROE hidden from the public eye.9
Concealment of the ROE helps protect soldiers. But it’s also true that a transparent ROE would protect civilians. Were officers more politically diverse, private debate within the military may have led to more transparent ROE, which would have in turn led to more public and political oversight of the military’s behaviour. Similarly, private debate between politically diverse officers may have functioned in the same way as public oversight - it may have lead to ROE that were less brutal, and that caused fewer civilian casualties.
Debate and dissent can, when more extreme, lead to insubordination - not necessarily a good thing. Dr. Cox described a recent example in Israel’s 2006 conflict with Lebanon.
“Israel has mandatory military service that applies to all Jews including those that don’t live inside Israel. It’s often regarded as one of their family or national commitments ... some military air force operators became very concerned about the conflict in Lebanon. Several captains flew their jets over the Mediterranean and dropped their bombs in the ocean,” he said.
Similarly, towards the end of the Vietnam war, internal dissent was common and helped bring the war to an end. The introduction to 1971’s The Collapse of the Armed Forces10 described how “the army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”
These examples give a new meaning to Dick Cheney’s comments about the draft in a 2008 CBS interview:
“I suppose you could have created a sense of sacrifice if you’d gone back to the draft, but that would have, in my opinion, done serious damage to the state of our military,” he said.
The vital role the draft played in bringing the Vietnam war to a close by increasing public debate and private, intra-military debate, is largely why the U.S. and UK didn’t turn to the draft in Iraq despite recruitment shortfalls.
Instead of turning to the draft - and this is another reason to consider conscription - the U.S. and U.K. turned to security companies such as Blackwater. According to Dr. Spearin, a specialist in mercenaries and the privatization of international security at RMC, the countries hired security companies partly to fill their recruitment gap.
“The US and UK and to a lesser degree Canada, have gone on board in contracting private companies for a variety of services...generally speaking the private sector allows for compensation of the fact that you don't have numbers to do the sorts of operations you want to,” he said in an interview with Inquire.
A shift from citizen-soldiers to private mercenaries should be debated in Canada. Such a shift will likely occur because the CF’s traditional recruitment pool of young, white, rural males is shrinking.6 To maintain enrollment, the military has tried to recruit from other populations, such as aboriginals, immigrants, and urbanites. But a 25 year effort to do this has been unsuccessful. And if the military continues to fail it may turn increasingly to security companies to fill its ranks.
Besides the practical issue of enrollment levels, the CF has been trying to recruit from new populations for another reason: since the Employment Equity act in 1985, government employers must maintain a population representative of Canadian society. In other words, our government has legislated diversity. Which is good, because, as discussed above, diversity would increase public and private debate in the CF.
But, again, for the past 25 years the CF’s attempts to reflect Canadian society have failed. If the CF continues to fail, it will remain a monoculture. The 2007 paper “Can the Canadian Forces Ever Truly Reflect Canadian Society?” commented that, “it is likely that the only time the Canadian Forces ever truly ‘reflected’ Canada was when conscription was in force during the two great global conflicts of the 20th Century. Thus, within a professional and volunteer force such as the CF, it is questionable if the CF can truly ‘reflect Canada.’”6
In other words, it may be that the draft is the only way to ensure diversity, and all the benefits that would accompany it.
Canada has traditionally considered itself a peacekeeper rather than a warmonger. An essay on the CF website says that “The image of Canadians as international do-gooders is a part not just of the national mythology, but of Canadian foreign policy . . . no other country gives peacekeeping such a defining role in its international politics. It is in our genetic code as a nation.”
With Afghanistan this international role is challenged. Our country may be about to enter a new era of interventional war. Enforced public participation in the CF might not be necessary when the military is engaged in moral actions like peacekeeping. But enforced public participation may be helpful in preventing the military from engaging in immoral actions when it goes to war - and in preventing war in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)