Historically illiterate: Canada’s baffling quandary

Share this
Share

VANCOUVER, Canada — The fondness that I hold for this nation and its institutions is something which has been instilled in me since my youth. I always nitpicked and stacked my books on Canadian and British history, making sure that I knew the stories of the people who have not only let me live in this country, but also become a part of their culture, and heritage.

Democracy, constitutional law, and liberty are ideals which have been passed down from the English-speaking peoples and which have permeated into different arms across different parts of the world, from Australia and New Zealand to the West Indies to, arguably, the United States, and of course Canada. The nation which shared  great sacrifices alongside Great Britain in both world wars, and also provided its mother country with a great deal of aid

Undeniably Canadians have formed an identity which is unexampled across the globe, particularly because of its parsimony to its giant neighbor, yet we forget that the institutions which still govern this nation are frankly British. They are simply cogeneric, which means that to an extent the history of Britain, and even that of the Commonwealth — old and new — is a compulsory part of ours.

Black, Bliss, Pearson. All great historians which have had an immeasurable effect on the manner in which I view the history of a nation, who to this day remains heavily tied to its motherland. However there is a baffling quandary that is affecting most of those that are in my age group presently: there is an incessant approval of apathy towards this fact, and any history for that matter.

When you ask a young Canadian today what he/she is most proud of they will proudly answer: Canada’s natural beauty. Not the Canadian Pacific Railway which is a crowning achievement of human reason, and was built through unthinkable drudgery to connect this grand nation together. Another may say that he is proud of the fact that Canadians are nice — an asinine bromide — rather than say that to date Canada has participated in 54 peacekeeping missions around the world.

We live in an age where the greatest Canadian is not Alexander Graham Bell which has left humanity a gift which they could not fathom, but rather David Suzuki, who become a millionaire through collective activism. An age where people no longer read of the great strides and pains of Federick Banting, Terry Fox, and John A. Macdonlad; rather of the whims of Rob Ford, Justin Bieber, and Michael Buble.

What is most worrying, however, is not that people do not know Canadian history, but rather that they do not know the most basic functions of its government, both at the provincial and federal levels. They do not realize the crowning glory of British democracy which still runs smoothly today. They are ready to attack Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and so on blindly without actually understanding any particular issues at hand, nor the political processes which make our lower and upper houses battle it out in the name Westminster-style democracy.

Still, the issue is not that most youth fail to read any British history, rather that they even make no attempt at Canadian. Where the source of this philistinism derives from one cannot say, especially in a culture where a library card is gratuitous. Even more so in a culture where information is so widely accessible.

Do not be fooled by the common university student who at first glance might seem intelligent because of his/her ability to quote some famous men and women. Their understanding of history, culture, and the arts starts with the “Introduction” and ends at “Chapter 19.” They usually are against mainstream politics, but cannot name the mechanism and historical principles that produced them. They are the ones who embrace deconstructionism readily, without grasping the ideas and basics of what they should be “deconstructing.”

They do not read the history behind parliament, capitalism, socialism, Canadian conservatism and liberalism, yet both those on the left and right attack them, without expanding their historical research beyond half a Wikipedia article. It is apparent that we are now in an age where our youth is located in an eerie world of “educated” illiteracy.

Rant By Milad Doroudian

Image by Tamar

Harper to introduce new anti-terrorism bill in Parliament

Harper to introduce new anti-terrorism bill in Parliament
Share this
Share

In light of the attacks that shook Canada at the end of last year, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has become more intensely committed to fighting terrorism at home and abroad. This coming Friday will be the day that Harper’s government will unveil new anti-terrorism legislation that will attempt to do just that.

The new bill is designed to make the verbose forces of terrorism diminish both online and on other mediums. What this means is that the new legislation will make it a crime to promote terrorism, or any sort of harmful activity, thus cutting out the arm by which foreign elements try to persuade Canadian youth to turn to violence.

In addition he said that the bill will give the police the necessary tools and powers to combat terrorism and prevent events such as the shooting of soldiers in front of war memorials — obviously alluding to the recent attack on the Canadian Parliament last year, but also to label those suspected of terrorist activities and prevent them from going on flights.

On the Oct. 22, 2014, Michael Zehad Bibeau entered Parliament Hill and murdered Col. Nathan Cirillo, who was standing guard at the National War Memorial. The attack occurred only two days after another Canadian serviceman, Patrice Vincent, was struck by a car and killed in Montreal.

Read more: Canadian parliamentarians were warned days earlier about threat

At first this seems reasonable as a means to counter such despicable activities as home-grown terrorism, but a great deal of people are concerned with what the increase of Canada’s policing powers will lead to, and how it will affect Canadians individually, as well as the nation as a whole.

“To be clear,”  Harper added, “In doing so, we shall be safeguarding our constitutional rights of speech, of association, of religion and all the rest.”

This comes a few weeks after the egregious attack on Charlie Hebdo office that shocked the world, and sparked talks of increasing policing measure in the European Union, and most Western countries.

“These measures are designed to help authorities stop planned attacks, get threats off our streets, criminalize the promotion of terrorism, and prevent terrorists from travelling and recruiting others,” he said in Ottawa.

Harper’s office has always been a vanguard amid Canada’s political leadership in the fight against terrorism, and although the infringement of free speech is exceptionally worrying, the climate which has bred such policies seems almost understandable. Almost.

Although it an imperative to minimize the dangers that terrorism poses, it is also exceptionally important to maintain a balance between the infringement of violent speech, and that of what may be considered as coercive speech.

When issues such as the containment of “free speech” come into play it is difficult not to feel weary, regardless of the good it maintains to set out an accomplish.

Analysis by Milad Doroudian

Image By: Style416