Canada Act 1982 and Canadian Actions generally
A reply to an article discussing Canadian vs American Citizenship
This is a reply to:
Note: I think of Canada as a set of institutions, not a place or a group of people. The following is commentary about institutions, not about individual people.
I’m not wanting to contradict “Canadian Retournee”, but quite a bit of that article reads as Canadian marketing. I know the emotional desire to make the USA look worse in comparison, but those with Canadian citizenship should be willing to consider the “warts and all” reality of the Dominion of Canada institutions.
For instance, check out Canada Act 1982’s promise to no longer legislate for Canada.
Contrast that against the marketing suggested by the use of the neologism “patriation” where a subsidiary of the (foreign to this continent) British Government was finally granted a formula to amend that subsidiary’s constitution. This neologism was intended to suggest the “bringing to the fatherland” something that never had anything to do with this motherland (more appropriate language given the domestic nationalities of this continent) or its peoples. The Dominion governments have always been foreign project built on foreign worldviews and laws – an ongoing attempt to fully replace the laws of this land.
The more appropriate use of the phrase “Termination of power to legislate for Canada” would have been more honest about the foreign nature of the Dominion of Canada institutions. Those holding Canadian Citizenship should be willing to be honest about the fact that the Canadian Crowns require dishonesty and misinformation to remain intact.
Given fear that French/British colonial loyalists (Like P.E. Trudeau) had that the British Government might move towards decolonization, and inevitable complexity created by the unique jurisdictional split with provinces, the amending formula in Canada Act 1982 was made deliberately hard to ensure that the antique 1867 Dominion Constitution wouldn’t ever be replaced.
On average, written constitutions have a mean lifespan of only 17 to 19 years. Canada and the USA, along with only around 10 other governments with such outdated constitutions, exist as exceptions to the general rule.
The Charter is held up as some “universal” protection of rights, but it is fixated on Western European “Age of Enlightenment” worldviews: individualism, linear time, “universalism”, “equality”, etc (Translation: Conformity to Western European worldviews, and the eradication of diversity). I see it merely as a Charter of Eurocentric Privileges.
One of the confusions many Western worldview loyalists have is around the difference between Western Conservatism and Western Liberalism when it comes to diversity (including diversity in conceptualizations of sovereignty).
For Western Conservatives they recognize the existence of diversity, and want to eradicate it within their domain of influence (strict immigration/extradition policies, etc).
For Western Liberals they want to discount the relevance of diversity, and want all diversity to assimilate into Western “Age of Enlightenment” ideology – which allows land and life to be more easily manageable by the centralized hierarchical administrative state.
In both cases, diversity isn’t intended to remain within their exclusive control over land and life within imaginary lines (Westpalian borders), but one appears more “polite” than the other.
Westphalian sovereignty exists in opposition to the Genos/peoples/relational sovereignty that has existed for much longer and remains far more representative of the diversity of peoples on this planet, and denies rights that do not conform to the narrow silos of Western worldviews. While those loyal to Western worldviews prefer to point to individuals, this sovereignty exclusivity can easily be understood as the greatest inspiration for what has recently been given the word genocide.
Section 27 of Canada Act 1982 on “multiculturalism” sits within narrow “Age of Enlightenment” ideology, where culture is left as superficial aspects such as art, music, clothing and food while the larger aspects of what makes a peoples a peoples (worldviews, governance, etc) must be replaced with French/British Empire ideologies. (See: “Liberal Multiculturalism” or “boutique multiculturalism”)
Even Section 25 and Section 35 of Canada Act 1982 (25 part of Charter, 35 part of Constitution) required considerable international intervention, as P.E. Trudeau’s government wanted this to finally enact a “final solution” to what they considered to be the “Indian Problem” after the failure of the 1969 White (Supremacist) Paper. The Constitutional Express convinced the British Parliament to not allow the Dominion of Canada’s extremism.
Anyone concerned should be thanking the British government, not Dominion of Canada Loyalists or government representatives, for the fact that the Dominion’s Constitutional amendments since 1867 didn’t wipe out the recognition of anything other than the co-colonial French Empire and British Empire loyalists.
(For one example, see: Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK House of Commons - the Kershaw Committee - which issued a report in 1981 that was a massive thorn in Trudeau’s side. )
There are good documentaries of the era that include some of P.E. Trudeau’s White nationalist commentary, such as during the Section 37 constitutional conference.
Dancing Around the Table: Part One
Note: Loyalists to New France (such as P.E. Trudeau himself) are conquered people, as France ceded all false claims to land and life on the mainland of this continent. Indigenous Nationalities are not conquered people, even if the Dominion doesn’t hold up its own end of treaties.
Many of the nationalities Trudeau claimed were “conquered” are in fact British Allies and treaty partners that enabled what became known as “Canada” to not simply remain part of France or become part of the USA.
Some of these nationalities, or Leagues of Nations such as the Haudenosaunee, even declared war against Germany for both World Wars (Something “Canada” did not, as it didn’t have separate foreign policy and the ability to “declare war” until 1931).