Liberty Under Threat

My read on the reaction to the Paris attacks is that most of the outrage centres on the events as an attack on liberty. This explains the fads of adopting peace symbols, tricouleur filters, and of course all the messages of solidarity that I've written about before. Westerners can sympathise with France as victim with readiness; we fail to extend that to those who live in societies that don't epitomise that liberty.

This has, of course, gotten me thinking. How does liberty fit into the narrative of combatting terrorism? Largely, contemporary extremism is viewed as an attempt to lash out at the decadence of the West - to oppose the liberty and democracy of societies such as France or the United States. These ''progressive'' places welcome difference and promote equality of opportunity, so the narrative goes.

But this is a convenient way to conceptualise the conflict: as a struggle between progressive, liberal societies and the extremist other. This so perfectly fits into the process of othering (us versus them). It also positions the West as defenders of liberty.

Moreover, it discounts our collective responsibility in creating an environment where extremism fluorishes, negating the role of imperialism. As I have continued to repeat, there are clear historical reasons for this conflict. Just in the past century, France conspired with the other allied powers to create zones of influence in the Middle East, violently resisted movements to decolonise North Africa and the Middle East, steadfastedly supported Israel, created a domenstic situation which led to the disaffection of six million of its immigrant citizens, and continually opposed refugee resettlement during the Syrian crisis.

This allows us to not even consider that France isn't the victim.

France, like the United States, is a society whose history is lauded as the manifestation of liberty. It's easy for us to rally around that image (think liberté, égalité, fraternité). But we must go beyond the façade and see that France does not embody these values in practice.

Let's change this narrative. Have we not learned that, in the fourteen years since 9/11, that this message of liberty under threat serves as the main thrust for increased militarism?

Solidarity

I seldom find anything more heartwarming than displays of unity. It is genuinely nice to see solidarity manifest. However, what I find truly problematic is shows of solidarity that are inspired by a superficial movement and that highlight that an issue is only relevant in a certain context.

I am referring to the recent attacks in Paris and the stances taken by world leaders, the press, and people on social media.

It is either a disengenuous political statement about terrorism that rings hollow, or an unequivocal proclamation that some acts of terrorism are more equal than others. This, to me, is a serious problem.

The attacks in Paris, to be perfectly clear, were atrocious acts of terrorism. But acts of terrorism do not occur in vacuums. They are products of complex political, social, and economic climates. France has been rocked twice in 2015 - in fact, this was the subject of my most popular post with over a thousand views. We're dealing with Je Suis Charlie, the reprise.

The question to ask has to be: why has France been targeted twice?

The answer is surprisingly straightforward: France has an awful track record for integrating minorities. And this is not a new problem. France has a large, disaffected population of largely North African immigrants. Islamophobia is a massive problem in France, fueled by the War on Terror as well as the recent refugee crisis. This happened to be largely related to my MA thesis.

Unequivocally, France has been committed to the rhetoric of fighting terrorism, not backing down, closing off borders, and ultimately punishing moderate muslims as well as radicals. This was certainly true before the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, but certain political movements have further pontificated these values (like le Front national), furthering the xenophobic movement in France. (Consider for example that these attacks do not happen in moderate European states like Germany).

To take a "stand with France" is necessarily supporting these values of xenophobia, however intentional. It's not easy to hear. Especially when we consider that the expressions of this nature are unique to the attack on France, not to other acts of terrorism that have been confirmed in the past week alone - Nigeria, Lebanon, and Syria. It's plain and simple selective outrage.

What can we be doing instead? Acknowledge the value of all lives. The catastrophe in France is an expression of the same conflicts occuring in other parts of the world that are much more challenging for us to sympathise with. Let's be fair about violence: attacks of this nature, if we are to be appalled, necessitate that we are always appalled by them no matter where they happen.

Why Remember

At this time of year we are inundated with messages to never forget, but just what exactly are we implored to remember?

Is it the the armistice of 1918? The incomprehensible carnage of the First World War? The participation of Canada in numerous conflicts around the world? War more generally?

The significance of remembrance is that it should seek not to glorify conflict; it should somberly direct us to reflect on the impacts that war makes on humanity - from the individual to the society. 

We should remember the people who served our country, brave or not, by choice or by force. We should likewise remember those who we met as adversaries. We should remember their families. We should remember those who did not return, or who came back forever marked by their experiences. We should remember the civilians who witnessed the horror of war, targeted or caught in the crossfire. We should remember the victories, the defeats, the ceasefires. We should remember the atrocities, regardless of who committed them or against whom. We should remember the reasons why people took up arms against one another, both the iniquitous and the justifiable. We should remember why remembering is useful.

In short, we should consider Remembrance Day a moment to collectively and individually reflect on all the facets of war and peace.

Moreover, we should acknowledge that the act of remembrance is inherently personal. We thankfully live in a society that awards us this liberty, but it is only useful if we can see beyond what we are being told to remember.

NB - this is an English translation of a presentation I am going to be making tomorrow at a remembrance ceremony.

Because It's 2015

Today the new federal cabinet was sworn in. As promised, women make up 50 per cent of the cabinet positions. After viewing the appointments as well as the discussion around them, I reflected on the meaning of this moment. Trudeau's justification of ''because it's 2015'' really points out how simultaneously exciting and unremarkable the announcement was.

To start, it's easy to see why this is momentus. While the previous government was not known to be friendly toward women in politics, Canada has in fact had a pretty long history of women's absence from cabinet. 27 per cent of the Liberal MPs elected to Parliament were women - that's 50 of the 88 female MPs elected. This broke a few records, and the cabinet announcement is really an achievement that goes well beyond this. 

However, it's perhaps a bit more difficult to see this event as merely a requirement. The time for this has, to some degree, come and gone. Canada ranks poorly in terms of female representation in federal politics, below the 30 per cent threshold that is encouraged by the United Nations. The fact that it took until 2015 to have anywhere even close to this level of parity is, frankly, rather embarrassing. Trudeau's decision should be lauded, but it is nowhere near as progressive as some people are making it out to be.

It's worthwhile noting that there are existing quota systems in play in federal government. The most evident are regional differences, language, and affiliation. A good cabinet has largely been one that is meant to look good on paper, so the fact that so many people are bent out of shape about Trudeau's choices not being about merit are rather misguided. In fact, this truly reinforces the idea that quota systems are short-term solutions, because eventually we come to expect a certain diversity.

As such, I'd like to briefly outline the importance of affirmative action. There was barely an increase over 2011 in terms of women elected to the House of Commons. However, the media will have you believe that the 1 percentage point increase is a massive coup. This, as mentioned above, plays out both negatively and positively depending on people's values (to scare or encourage). But the idea should functionally be that a cabinet with parity should encourage more women to become engaged in the political system and, perhaps more importantly, it should convince the public that women are in fact capable of holding a portfolio and delivering like their male counterparts.

I'll leave you with an important notion: that diversity will lead to a greater degree of experience, a sharing of values, and hopefully better governance. Let's see what the next four years will hold.

Electoral Reform: It's Time

The election of the Liberals ten days ago should signify some changes to the way our electoral system works in Canada. In this post, I'm going to talk about the importance of democratic reform being a consultative decision, as well as what I believe to be the best solution - single transferable vote.

Having won roughly the same proportion of the popular vote as the Conservatives in 2011, the Liberals won a majority government with less than 40 per cent of Canadians' support. The Liberals, Greens, and NDP had all promised some form of electoral reform during the campaign, and now that we have a majority Liberal government, the pressure is on.

Trudeau recently mentioned that a solution will be created within eighteen months. It is my hope that the solution will be troven through thorough public consultation. I think it would be an excellent idea to form a commission, engaging civil society in order to establish what Canadians want.

However, my concern is less whether there will be reform; I'm truly concerned that, almost by default, electoral reform will consist of adopting proportional representation. Throughout the campaign, the visibility of proportional representation was very high, to the exclusion of alternatives.

To me the value of proportional representation is that for most voters it is the easiest to comprehend. It also ensures that no vote whatsoever is wasted and that results are parallel to the popular vote. However, I firmly believe that our system is based on value of local representation and this is why I am opposed to proportional representation. Members of Parliament are responsible to their constituents, not the electorate in general. Moreover, voters should be able to select who they are voting for directly, not selecting a party from the list having no idea for whom they are voting directly (this would be true both in closed party lists and open party lists).

This is why I believe that Canada should adopt single transferable vote. This system still uses ridings, albeit larger ones with a greater number of candidates. In this case you have a ballot where you can make a determinate amount of choices, ranked by number. A threshold is set whereby a certain number of candidates must meet this target to win. There will be multiple winners in a riding, reflecting the voting intention of the constituents.

A practical example of this would be looking at New Brunswick's results. The Liberals won all ten of the seats in the province. In this particular case, the Liberals won all these seats by taking at least 40 per cent of the vote. Despite having won more than 50 per cent of the vote on average in the province, they were awarded all the seats. In this particular setup, if we considered using all of New Brunswick as a riding and selecting ten winners, there is no way that the Liberals could have won all ten seats; they likely would have won six. This allows for other candidates to represent the 45 per cent of voters who didn't vote Liberal.

No system is going to be perfect, but I feel that single transferable vote best balances the need for local representation with the need for results that better fit with voter choices. The longer term implications for reform will mean that strategic voting will no longer be a looming problem. Voter intention and voter choice should theorectically be fully correlated. For more information view this explanation or this report.

Most importantly, there is a significant lack of awareness about single transferable vote in Canada. I propose the creation of a non-profit organisation to lobby for its adoption and to educate voters about its benefits. I hope to find other people who are equally interested in this particular reform.

Concert Diplomacy and the Conflict in Syria

I first wrote about the ongoing conflict in Syria in July 2013. The torrent has been raging now for nearly five years and shows little sign of slowing. In the time since writing, the context has changed - most notably with Western powers now coming to face the fact that Bashar Al-Assad will likely be part of the solution to the crisis, if only for the time being.

The news that the United States and Russia may work together to back the authoritarian regime has caused its share of controversy, but this concert diplomacy is taking place in the context of what has repeatedly been called the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. As the sheer magnitude of the volume of refugees is becoming clearer, more and more in Europe are erecting baracades to keep assylum-seekers out. The question of how to deal with this influx was one of the major election issues during this fall's General Federal Election in Canada.

The political pressure of the refugee crisis is meeting up with the failure of the West to contain or eradicate ISIS. These two phenomena, though largely unrelated at the onset, have coalesced into a diplomatic nightmare that has required cooperation from the likes of France, the United States, Iran, and Russia. There has been much made of the United States working collaboratively with Russia in order to achieve peace in the region. Moreover, the idea of supporting a dictator who has been directly implicated in killing his own citizens has been viewed with, at the very least, scepticism.

Leaving aside the ethical questions of this quandry, it's worthwhile considering the practical consideration that the United States will be finding itself in another version of a situation from which it has failed to properly itself. The American withdrawl from Iraq is viewed as the principal cause for the rapid spread of ISIS - not to mention that Washington has redoubled its commitment in Afghanistan.

As someone who opposes foreign state intervention as a general rule (and as someone who believes in sovereignty), I view attempts to impose a solution with great disdain. However, as someone who also believes in the right to national self-determination, I have strong feelings that Assad is not a legitimate representation of power in Syria. The proposed solution, thus, fails both criteria: it imposes a decision from outside the country by backing a leader that does not represent Syrians. Even if the longer-term solution is to depose Assad, it's ethically flawed.

Unfortunately, there aren't many reasonable alternatives. Intervening unofficially by supporting various rebels has proven to only exacerbate tensions. Intermittent participation in the region is arbitrary and generates new power vacuums and radical political movements like ISIS. The development of a reasonable settlement will require various stakeholders to be able to negotiate together in good faith. However, as we've seen with other conflicts in the Middle East, this is not easily attainable. There are so many divergent groups - all with differing visions of a united Syria.

Instead of focusing on how to restructure Syria, we should be taking a harm reduction perspective, helping to resettle as many refugees as possible. If we are all truly moved by the image of the young Syrian boy who washed onto a beach in Turkey, we should be organising in a way that can make a serious difference. The international community does not have a legal obligation to fight Assad; it has a moral obligation to ease the suffering of ordinary Syrians, those who have uprooted themselves and made arduous journeys that meet never-ending obstacles. Making a difference is possible and actually quite feasible, but it's going to take a collective will to act.

Our Forty-Second Parliament

Most of you are probably aware of the degree to which I was surprised with the election results. I was stunned to see the electoral map painted red, particularly the early results in Atlantic Canada. So the story goes that people took strategic voting to the extreme, but I see many fundamental shifts that underlay the sweeping changes we saw on Monday. The next four years are going to be interesting, and we have to make sure that we navigate the fine line between holding the new government accountable and allowing them to establish themselves.

I'll start out by saying that I have very mixed feeling about the result. I'm so relieved that we are now living in a country where, not only is Harper not our prime minister, but where he has abdicated his role as the leader of a unified Conservative party. Conversely, the tide that elected a majority Liberal government is unsettling. I had been prepared for a minority government and spent the entirety of the 78-day campaign conceptualising this. A majority changes not only my expectations for the future, but also those of most in my social circles. Especially when this majority is a mirror of its predecessor, winning less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. This means that not only do the Liberals have complete control in the legislature; they will be directing us until the fall of 2019.

That said, I firmly believe that mixed feelings are probably a good thing. I'm trying to be open-minded. I've seen a fair amount of anger from supporters of everyone (including some Liberals) about the election result, and while I'm surprised, I'd prefer to consider myself cautiously optimistic about this government. My perspective at present is very much let's not judge until the government starts doing things. And I'm not saying this as a partisan.

However, the question of the NDP is one that will take some time to unravel. I've heard a lot about strategic voting as the cause for the collapse of the NDP. This is likely true in the sense that the NDP didn't make many gains, but it fails to explain why many veteran NDP members of parliament like Paul Dewar, Megan Leslie, and Andrew Cash were all defeated in rather impressive upsets.

Perhaps a better explanation lay in the fact that the NDP has changed direction significantly under Mulcair compared to under Layton. Layton's progressive vision of Canada was inspiring to Canadians and, in particular, Québec. Mulcair failed to build on this; instead focusing on jobs and the economy. I'd have to atribute this shift not only to ideological changes within party leadership, but to the fact that the NDP were leading in polls and were seeking to be viewed more seriously. It's no surprise to me that this led Trudeau to run on a platform of positivity this time around.

Having largely avoided taking policy positions, there are many pseudo-commitments made by the Liberals that I intend to watch carefully. Chief among these are the review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the omnibus Bill C-51. In both instances the Liberals failed to adopt real policy positions during the campaign, opting instead to review them after forming a government. Progressives hope that we see the Liberals undo the damage socially and economically that will be caused by these two pieces of legislation. More importantly, for the future of our democracy, I sincerely hope that the Liberals will in fact commit to reforms to our electoral system. The massive majority mandate that Trudeau received may allow him to escape dealing with this issue for the time being.

At any rate, I'm happy we have a more progressive parliament, one that better exemplifies the values of Canadians. I wish Trudeau luck.