Category - Canada

1
Religion runs through the rate cut
2
The Politics of Hypocrisy
3
Canada Has Not Changed

Religion runs through the rate cut

The collapse of oil has shocked any number of economies over the last few months. The Russian central bank has scrambled to prop up the ruble, running rates as high as 17% to attract foreign capital. Canada’s own Bank actually cut rates by a quarter point, dropping the Canadian dollar significantly. All these responses look like good old fashioned supply and demand economics, but there is more than a little political theology that runs through these rates.

Oil prices aren’t set to recover quickly. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, chairman of Kingdom Holdings, nephew of the late King Abdullah, made it clear that Saudi Arabia will continue to double down on these prices. Saudi Arabia, a country that takes nearly 90 per cent of its budget from oil, remains committed to its levels of production, which is to say its supply. The prince blamed the fall in price on demand. The country will not be the first to blink.

“Eventually there’s no doubt that some countries have to blink and reduce their production…I don’t see Saudi Arabia or OPEC countries blinking,” he said.

Students of religion and history can clearly see at least two countries in the crosshairs of this game of brinkmanship: America, and its boom in fracking, and the rival Shia state of Iran. A fringe benefit has been the near collapse of the Russian ruble.

The list of Saudi grievances is long. Riyadh has been annoyed by American unwillingness, or incapacity, to resolve the Palestinian problem, its détente with Iran and seeming tolerance of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Far more than annoyed, it has been heavily engaged in the civil war in Syria, which has now spilled out and threatens the tenuous remains of the Iraqi government after the American withdrawal. Some have even labelled this a proxy war funded by the oil money of religious zealots around the Persian Gulf, lined up on Sunni/Shia religious lines.

Among the many sides of that war include somewhat famously Iran, its subsidized Shia brigades, and its increasingly unsteady overtures to the Kurds and to the West to protect Shias in the brutal path of destruction ISIL is cutting.

We may never see $100 a barrel again, warned Prince Alwaleed on Jan. 23, a statement that if true will cripple (North) America’s comparatively expensive oil production, and gut the state finances of its religious rival Iran. Maybe that’s a happy coincidence.

The oil politics of the Middle East will always have an Islamic political theology, or maybe more to the point rival theologies, running through it. And that’s a lesson that Governor Stephen Poloz, pun intended, took to the Bank.

The Politics of Hypocrisy

Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, is one of those things pundits like to cry foul on for hypocrisy, partly because it’s so easy, partly because there’s so often some truth to it. Some truth being the operative, and highly misleading watch phrase.

In the forthcoming issue of Convivium Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom, Dr. Andrew Bennett, gets the question put to him in Turkey when calling, very frankly, for the restoration of both civil and ecclesiastical properties to Jewish and Christian communities. In response, one of the people talking with him said: “Well, thank you, Ambassador Bennett, for engaging with us on these questions and raising these issues with us. Perhaps we could come and help you with Quebec.”

Foreign affairs always runs a  hypocrite’s gamble: pressuring and encouraging the virtues that Canadians hold dear abroad, when our practice at home is far from perfect. The launch of the Office of Religious Freedom in 2013 dovetailed a little too conveniently for some with the (defeated) Charter of Quebec Values, raising the now often repeated charge to ‘get our own house in order’ before going abroad. This argument makes two very important political mistakes.

First, it intentionally ignores the spectrum on which political and social problems take place, falsely presuming that scale and severity does not matter. To say that the Charter of Quebec Values would have been a violation of religious freedom of the same kind as Turkey’s seizure of places of worship is to say Canada is a lawless society of the same kind as, say, Somalia and its infamous offshore piracy because there is jay walking in Montreal during rush hour. Both are lawless acts, but prudential politics recognizes degree matters.

The second major mistake in this argument is the expectation that Canadian society will have worked out to a nearly perfect degree the fullest expression of its most cherished virtues before preaching them. Obviously this will never be true. Canada’s most cherished virtues are aspirational. We aspire to be people of generosity, of fairness, of tolerance, of justice, and of genuine pluralism. Societies and people do not arrive at these things. They aspire to them. And it is, after all, what we love, what we aspire to, that is the best definition of a people and of a country.

The same basic mistakes are scrawled across editorial pages after the terrible events of Paris. We are not all Charlie, of course, and that I choose not to use my freedom of speech to post satirical cartoons of other’s faiths does not somehow make me complicit in this terrible violence. I can defend the right of those who do without joining in. I can defend the virtues of freedom even wishing we used those virtues different ways. Degree – how and why I disagree – and intent – what I am aiming for – matter.

Every liberal society worthy of its name treasures freedom of speech, just like freedom of religion. And every society on opening its mouth to say so is a hypocrite. That’s not a reason to stay close mouthed. But it is a good reason to try harder.

Canada Has Not Changed

Ottawa is my home, but yesterday I was in Toronto. Today I’m in Washington, reading words from friends, texts, phone messages, about where they were, that they’re shaken, unsettled, but fine. My friend and former colleague Peter Stockland was there, and I’ll share his words verbatim, because they’re as good as I’ve found, from the Cardus blog this morning:

Toronto Liberal MP John McKay was, at that moment, the admirable embodiment of the honest politicians who lead us.

“That is an excellent question,” he said. “I have absolutely no idea what the answer is.”

We were standing at the corner of Metcalfe and Albert streets in Ottawa, a few hundred metres south from where a gunman was shot dead in the Hall of Honour of Canada’s Parliament and a few blocks west of the War Memorial, where Hamilton-based soldier Nathan Cirillo had just been murdered by that same gunman.

The question put to McKay was the obvious ambient mystery of the day: how on earth, after killing Cirillo in broad daylight, could that gunman have made his way onto Parliament Hill carrying a loaded long gun, then gotten past Parliamentary security into the building itself?

Because of the location of the Liberals’ weekly caucus meeting room, McKay and his colleagues were able to exit the building, unlike their Conservative and New Democrat counterparts who barricaded themselves inside rooms that flank the entrance hallway where the shooting occurred.

He was close enough, though, to hear the “pop, pop, pop” of gunfire—“more than three, fewer than 10”—which he thought was the sound of construction work before he was ordered to dive for cover.

And, having made his way to safety, what was McKay doing? His duty. He was standing patiently talking to a group of reporters in a “scrum,” trying his best to explain what had just happened, openly acknowledging what he did not know. To state the blindingly obvious, he was experiencing shock from the terror mere moments old. He had to fight to control tears. Yet he did his polite, deferential, instinctive duty to communicate, through the media, what he could to his fellow citizens.

Another ambient mystery already percolating even as police teams swarmed through cordoned-off downtown Ottawa hunting no-one-knew-what was: Will this change us? Will we be a different Canada the day after than we were in the minutes before the killing of Nathan Cirillo, the gunfire assault on our Parliament? Watching the sheer, utter normalcy of John McKay dutifully answering questions at the confluence of the chaos, I knew the answer was “no.” It won’t change us. Why? Because we are Canadians.

To say that we are Canadians is not to say that we imagine ourselves as some agglomeration of super heroes—or hyper stoics—immune from the vicissitudes of an outside world gone mad. To say that would be to say that being Canadian is being delusional. In our hearts, if not always on our lips, we acknowledge we have no such immunity. To pretend we believe otherwise is either myth making or mischief making or both.

We know, in our present moment and in our history, that we are indelibly, painfully marked by the world. Nathan Cirillo was guarding our War Memorial when he was killed. In less than three weeks, on November 11, we will lay wreaths there as an act of memory for those who died doing their duty all along the boundary where the world touches Canada. We will be reminded, contra myth makers and mischief makers, that we are a people who fight and die to stand on guard.

We are known as a polite and deferential people, because by and large we are. During Wednesday’s events, a group of us snuck up to a spot outside the National Arts Centre to watch activity at the police command post. Spotting us, an officer rushed over and ordered us out, telling us that we were putting ourselves in danger.

“You don’t have to shout,” I said. “There was nothing that said we couldn’t be here.”

“I’m sorry,” he said, “but you’ll have to move.”

I’m sorry but you’ll have to move. In the middle of that emotional tinderbox. I have been in other countries where the response in such tense circumstances was a gun barrel pointed at my head.

Though we are dutifully deferential, however, we do not defer to fear. We never have. I believe we never will. There is something in us, as people, that will not admit it.

Sure, there will be reviews and inquiries and reports and reassuring sounds that we’re looking into it so it never happens again. Sure, there will be “security upgrades” for access to Parliament Hill, whatever that means in an age where, as Wednesday’s events proved yet again, security means enduring time-consuming inconvenience to obtain the illusory comfort of the impossible.

But we will not be changed by fear. And if the question of how that is possible when much of the rest of the world reacts by hunkering down, blockading in, assuming the protective position, is put to us, we will answer, following the admirable lead of our honest politicians: “That is an excellent question. We have no idea what the answer is. We’re just being Canadians.”

© Daniel Philpott The views expressed in this forum are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent those of Daniel Philpott, CCHR, or the University of Notre Dame.