Citizenship and the Right to Vote

I read somewhere last week that the Supreme Court had ruled that Canadians who lived outside of the country should be allowed to vote in federal elections regardless as to how long they have been out of the country. Previously, the limit had been five years.

I am not sure how many Canadians this ruling applies to. I would imagine that there are some fairly young Canadians who are finishing their university education somewhere other than Canada and it is conceivable that they could be gone for five years. There are also employees of the Canadian government or NGOs who may spend extended times in some other countries as well as those who are employed by the numerous multi-national for-profit companies. But it is difficult for me to understand why anyone with the exception of students or public service employees, would want or need to be away from their home country for more than five years. If the individual is only away because they can make more money in some other part of the world, then I would wonder if perhaps they should not move permanently there. If they are maintaining Canadian citizenship only because it offers them some business advantage or perhaps even some safety, then it feels as if it is inappropriate that the individual gets a vote.

Being a Canadian citizen is not a one-way street. There are numerous advantages to being a citizen but along with those rights and protections come some responsibilities. I am assuming that those Canadian citizens who work outside of the country pay some income taxes etc. but being a good citizen is more than just paying taxes, it is about contributing to their community, it is about participating in the lives of their neighbours, and in the lives of their children's friends. Being a good citizen is at least partially about buying locally, using local service such as dry cleaners or mechanics or the corner store to buy milk - not just because it adds income to the local economy but because those type of service build and strengthen the local fabric of a community. Being a good citizen is about developing, maintaining and adding to the social networks that sustain us and our neighbours; it is about shovelling the driveway of an older neighbour, or feeding someone's cats when they are away or about volunteering at a neighbourhood centre. Being a Canadian citizen should mean that you are involved in the very fabric of the country you chose to call home. If you are gone for five years - you are doing none of those things. I do not know how they would decide what their community, their country needed if they were not there.

None of the articles I read discussed what riding their votes would be registered in? Is it the last place they lived, the home of their corporate headquarters, or some random place that they might want to live in the future?

I believe in democracy and in the concept that all citizens have the right to vote - but sometimes I wonder if we need to re-visit what being a citizen means.

First Nations - Who Decides?

The hereditary leaders of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, in northern BC, are insisting that the proposed natural gas pipeline not go through their traditional territory. In spite of a ruling by the BC supreme court that the company be allowed to proceed, the leaders and other supporters are blocking the road, knowing that arrests are likely.

I am not sure what all of the fuss is about. I think the law is clear: on land that is not governed by treaty, the traditional Indigenous peoples have the right to control what happens on their land. If the corporation does not have permission from the people to build a pipeline - the pipeline cannot be built. End of story.

My only question is who - within that specific First Nation, gets to decide what is allowed. The present situation is confused because the elected leaders agreed to the pipeline being built while the hereditary leadership did not. In fact, they may not have been even asked.The elected leadership system imposed upon those people by the Canadian government is flawed. One person, one vote is not part of the cultural heritage of most (any?) First Nations. The other option, based on centuries of tradition is that leadership is hereditary. The right to lead is passed down through either the maternal or paternal line (1).

As someone who believes in democracy, the concept of someone inheriting power and control is an anathema. It is contrary to every social, economic or political value I have. There are far too many examples in our collective histories where an individual, because they believed that they had the right to have control due to who their parents or grandparents were, oppressed their people. We do not have kings or queens ruling our lives for a reason.

While I fully appreciate that in our drive to create lives that are easy and comfortable, we may have lost some of those core values that may be critical for our survival as a species. In our never-ending search for maximum comfort with a minimum amount of energy expended, we have willingly destroyed hundreds of thousands of hectares of irreplaceable resources. Having a leadership that is at least in part immersed in cultural values would have perhaps insured that the destruction would not have been so complete. But at what cost? Would such immersion in past cultural practices limited our capacity to grow? However, regardless of my opinions as to who should govern - it is not my decision. It is the decision of each First Nation.

But they must decide who gets to have control. We cannot demand that governments and companies engage with Indigenous communities in a meaningful, respectful way if those communities cannot agree who should be at the table. There is no point having negotiations if the signed agreement will be contested by members of that community.

I am not too sure how a consensus could be reached. But the communities themselves must find a way. The national government can not/should not decide for them



1) https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/hereditary-chief-definition-and-5-faqs

The Russians are Coming!!!!!

It seems as if almost every type of media from the CBC, to the Globe and Mail to the Walrus are talking/writing about the Russian attempts to influence public opinion in Western countries, specifically through social media. All of the articles suggest that we, as Canadians, need to be particularly concerned in part because there is a federal election this fall and therefore there is an increased opportunity to manipulate our opinions. As well, our governments have done so very little to ensure that we are protected from this type of attack. While there are a variety of reports that indicate differing levels of involvement, it seems likely that some foreign power has consciously attempted to manipulate public opinion in the USA, in Europe and in Canada. I have no doubt that other countries such as China are/have been engaged in a process of subtlety manipulating and circulating information that is designed to influence our decisions. Canadians should be well used to this sort of distorted and biased information. After all, we have lived next door to an extraordinarily powerful and arrogant neighbour for the past couple of centuries. A country that has never been shy about using the media to influence the hearts and minds of its citizenry and anyone else who lives within their media umbrella. I have no doubt that other countries may have tried to influence us. For all I know - New Zealand or Patagonia could have some nefarious designs upon us.

If one looks at the various levels of propaganda for the last century or so, it is clear that countries (including Canada) have used the media to manipulate/influence its own citizens and anyone else close to them. Such manipulations have been singularly successful. Take for example the governments insistence that residential schools and adoption was the best way to deal with the "Indian problem", of the incarceration of Japanese Canadians, or unemployed men into work camps or the dangers of marijuana, or the need to sterilize women who had a disability. The singular difference between then and now is that rather than using newspapers, radio and conversations in bars, meeting halls or boardrooms, various groups are now using social media to share/disseminate information. Because millions of people have instant access to anything that is posted regardless of whether or not it is false or at the very least, highly biased information, social media has become a powerful weapon. A weapon that is hard to catch or notice. A weapon that is effective because it is impossible to determine where the information comes from. In 1943, if the German High Command had penned a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, most Canadians readers would have been instantly aware that the information contained in that letter would be false or misleading; when information is contributed anonymously and then re-posted on Facebook (quite frequently by computer programs) thousands of times - it is virtually impossible to determine who the original was posted by, or what was their purpose.

The obvious solutions suggested by the pundits is that social media giants such as Facebook need to be more vigilant about screening what gets posted. It has been argued that it is their responsibility to ensure that the information that is being circulated is accurate. One gets the sense that if these companies which are private, for-profit corporations whose platforms are completely voluntary would only do their job better, there would be no problem. And that may be correct. If some huge corporation, influenced primarily by how much money they could make, were to censor what information was available, then the problem (or at least one problem) would go away.

There is, however, a less draconian solution. Individuals could start to think critically. Just because it appears as if thousands of people apparently have read and re-post an article or a picture, does not make it true. Just because it appears as if the person who wrote it was an expert, does not make it true. Just because the article sounds factual, does not make it true.

Facebook is not, cannot be held responsible for my inability to think critically. That is my job. I should never re-post anything unless I know it to be true or at least have some value. I should never re-post anything unless I am prepared to defend it. While I wish there was a way for someone to stop the Russian, the Chinese or even the Patagonia governments from filling social media with their propaganda - there isn't. The best that we can do is to stop reading it - to stop believing it because we have checked the facts.

If the government of Canada wants to fix the problem - maybe they could start to fund public schools so that there would be sufficient funds to teach children how to think for themselves.