When one is so intent to building a blogging career (however far as one would consider blogging a "career") on nitpicking, it's only inevitable that this practice is going to get one burned.
Especially when one isn't terribly bright.
Such is the case for Audrey of Enormous Thriving Plants, whose efforts at nit-picking recently resulted in what is going to be a very humilating experience for her.
It isn't her first tragic experience trying to argue over Canadian political science.
In an earlier attempt at nitpicking, Audrey objected to the notion that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, Audrey decided to argue the matter from the perspective of a 19th century-era political theory that allowed Canadians to elect Members of Parliament, then the Governor General to select the Prime Minister according to their unencumbered judgement.
Audrey's argument overlooked more than a century of Constitutional convention which has clearly impressed upon the office of the Governor General that whichever party wins a plurality in an election is expected to be designated as the government.
(A clear exception was the King-Byng affair, wherein William Lyon MacKenzie King, having failed to win such a plurality, approached the Governor General before a government was appointed with a temporarily-workable coalition with the Progressive Party. It helped that Mackenzie King declined to resign as Prime Minister following the election.)
Audrey failed to recognize the statement as one that was simultaneously positive -- reflecting the effect that an individual's vote has on the selection of the government through their effect on the formation of Parliamentary caucus -- and also normative -- reflecting the understanding Canadians have about this process when they cast their vote.
Audrey failed to recognize that, however indirectly, Canadians do get to elect their Prime Minister -- unless one is living in the 19th century.
Recent attempts at nitpicking, however, have revealed that Audrey very much is living in the 19th century -- although living in it as if she knows nothing about what actually happened at that time.
Audrey's ill-conceived attempt at nitpicking was based on a number of assertions:
-That Canada is not formally a confederacy.
-That Canada is a decentralized constitutional monarchy.
One of these statements is actually true in the sense that Audrey asserts.
Oddly enough, it's the one concerning an argument that was never in place. (A search of the post in question for the word "confederacy" yields interesting results.)
Audrey would, of course, be correct to suggest that Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. She is actually correct to state that Canada is highly decentralized.
However, Audrey's argument fails on a crucial point: in 1867 the provinces that joined to form the Dominion of Canada -- Eastern Canada (Quebec), Western Canada (Ontario), New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island -- were colonies of an entity that no longer exists. Moreover, the federal state that was established was also a colony.
But this is no longer the case.
The British Empire has long been dismantled. Canada attained full sovereignty over a period of 115 years. Among the key milestones were the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the Citizenship Act (1946), and the re-patriation of the Constitution in 1982.
If Canadian Confederation -- the agreement under which the country was established -- were dissolved, sovereignty could not be retained by a federal government that would cease to exist. Furthermore, there is no British Empire to recover sovereignty that was conclusively ceded in 1982.
The only political entities to which full sovereignty could revert under such conditions is to each province. (The Territories are a much more arguable point.)
As a result, a Canadian state that is not a Confederacy by nature of its creation has effectively become a Confederacy by nature of its function, and as a consequence of historical circumstance.
Unless, of course, Audrey would like to argue that the federal government has the power to unilaterally re-draw the boundaries of each province and force them to unify with a foreign country.
Which would make the idea of Audrey as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister an intriguing prospect:
"Guess what, provinces? You're our bitches. That's right."
Sunday, January 31, 2010
5 comments:
Post your comments, and join the discussion!
Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.
All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's a difference between "understanding how the votes of individual's influence the process of selecting a Prime Minister" and agreement with Patrick Ross' "Canadians get to vote for" claim (false dilemma #1). Those wishing to confirm for themselves who it was that correctly acknowledged the relationship between Canadian federal voting and the selection of PM and who it was that manufactured a relationship out of thin air/wishful thinking are certainly welcome to do so here. It certainly provides some interesting context on this thread.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between disagreeing with Patrick's claims regarding Canadian confederacy and asserting that everything that the miniseries depicts is both accurate and /or possible (false dilemma #2). My objection to Pat's as of yet unsupported claims was never premised on a denial of Section 43 of the constitution, yet Ross seems unable to keep himself from beating that strawman and from suggesting that I ought to feel stupid for something I never once argued.
There's a difference between disagreeing with Patrick's claims regarding Canadian confederacy and not understanding what occurred in 1867 (false dilemma #3). No one is denying the events surrounding Canadian "Confederation", nor premising their criticism on a contradiction of those events. My objection to Pat's as-of-yet unsupported claims was never premised on the denial of those events, but rather referenced the almost universal acknowledgment of the distinction between what currently exists in Canada and the construct of a (again, noting the amphiboly at play) confederation.
I think Patrick knows that the notion of Canada being a confederacy is overwhelmingly rejected and contradicted by the body of authoritative sources out there on the matter (hence his lack of external links), yet he so desperately wants his pipedream of provincial sovereignty to be reality. His way around the criticism being raised to his argument is to assert (again, without any external support) that a Canadian state "by nature of its creation has effectively become a Confederacy by nature of its function, and as a consequence of historical circumstance". If disagreement with that makes me a "moron" or someone that should feel "stupid", then I'm comfortable sharing that characterizations with the overwhelming population of Pol. St departments across the country. Maybe someday we'll organize a "Vote for PM" soiree.
There's a difference between disagreeing with the kind of provincial sovereignty that Patrick has invented out of whole cloth and suggesting """Guess what, provinces? You're our bitches." (false dilemma #4), although I guess when you've already got an a priori conviction to an ideology that sees everything in 1's and 0's, the employment of that kind of simplistic comprehension is probably inevitable.
Like triangles on boot soles, the deficit, CO2 toxicity levels, evolution, Canadians vote for PM" and other notorious examples of Ross making ridiculous claims and being unable to support them when asked, the only question that remains now is how far he'll now try move the goalposts, how much chest-thumping "you're all so dumb" / "I spanked ya" juvenile bluster he'll employ and how many strawman corpses we'll see in the aftermath.
...So much sound and fury.
Audrey, Audrey, Audrey.
ReplyDeleteStill living in the 19th century, and without even knowing what happened in the 19th century. So sad.
We'll start with the most lingering matters, then continue to destroy you with the current dispute.
Do you deny that the selection of Canadian government has traditionally been based on whoever wins a pluaralty in Parliament? Do you still refuse to acknowledge that Canadians know this when they cast their ballot?
The relationship between an individual Canadian's vote and how a government is selected is by no means simple. It's complex, and allows for Canadians to make some impressively-rationed choices. But the relationship is real.
Perhaps it doesn't exist on paper, in a 19th-century theory that dictates that the government serves at the pleasure of the crown, and that the crown selects the government that pleases it.
Forunately for Canada, Audrey, most Canadians have chosen not to join you living in the 19th century. And it shows.
For example, Audrey, most Canadians familiar with what took place in Canada in 1867 understand that the federal government was established via negotiations between the Province of Canada, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick.
Most Canadians understand that any union established by agreement can also be dissolved -- but only by agreement.
(As a matter of fact, that's precisely the argument Denis Stairs makes in Canada and Quebec After Quebecois Separation: Realist Reflections.)
Most Canadians also understand that the British Empire no longer exists. Most Canadians therefore understand that if Confederation were dissolved, the provinces would become sovereign.
Apparently, Audrey, you don't understand this. The only thing that I could imagine is that you must think the British Empire still exists.
Moreover, Audrey, this notion hasn't been invented "out of whole cloth". Rather, it's a conclusion reached based on the historic circumstances of Canada's establishment, and the socio-political state of the modern world (which I suggest you begin familiarizing yourself with in order to avoid future humiliations like this one).
The argument isn't being made that Canada is officially a confederacy -- one can quickly confirm that officially it is not. The argument is being made that Canada is unofficially a confederacy by function of various political arrangements and notions -- all of which you're evidently woefully under-acquainted with.
You can futilely point back to the 19th century if you like, Audrey. But at some point you need to wake up and start living in the 21st.
I look forward to greeting you when you finally do.
Thanks for coming out.
"Perhaps it doesn't exist on paper, in a 19th-century theory that dictates that the government serves at the pleasure of the crown, and that the crown selects the government that pleases it."
ReplyDeleteThat isn't even remotely close to Responsible Governance, but I appreciate further illustration of the very political ignorance I spoke to in my original post on the matter.
"Forunately for Canada, Audrey, most Canadians have chosen not to join you living in the 19th century."
False Dilemma #5. Comprehending the ignorant inaccuracy of you claims doesn't require "living in the 19th century". On the contrary, it involves an understanding of how Canadian Responsible governance has existed and evolved over time, what has been retained and what has changed. There's nothing 19th century about being critical of what-Patrick-Ross-has-pulled-out-of-his-ass despite the pathetic efforts to frame things that way.
"Is a matter of fact, that's precisely the argument Denis Stairs makes in Canada and Quebec After Quebecois Separation: Realist Reflections"
Quebec retains a somewhat unique position with respect to the rest of the provinces, so you might want to consult with Stairs before co-opting his argument in support of your own bizarre perversion of it.
"Most Canadians also understand that the British Empire no longer exists."
Strawman. No one posited, nor premised their criticism of your argument on that.
"Most Canadians therefore understand that if Confederation were dissolved, the provinces would become sovereign.",/i>
In such an event, they very well might. I think prescriptively that would depend on the specific circumstances. That said, what would likely occur in that nebulous circumstance is very different than your original claim, particularly with respect to means. You're certainly welcome to move the goalposts there, and we'd probably find a fair amount of agreement at that new location, but let's not pretend for one moment that's what I originally criticized, and what you've claimed makes one a "moron" for having done so.
"The only thing that I could imagine is that you must think the British Empire still exists."
I think that speaks much more to the limits of your imagination than it does to the merit of my criticism.
"it's a conclusion reached based on the historic circumstances of Canada's establishment, and the socio-political state of the modern world".
I think it's more accurate to say that it's a conclusion you've reached, and one that you've made several significant leaps in logic to arrive at, that's premised on a dubious premise that stands in contradiction to wealth of reference material that exists on the subject, and that which you yet to show any significant subscription within established political theory.
"The argument is being made that Canada is unofficially a confederacy by function of various political arrangements and notions -- all of which you're evidently woefully under-acquainted with."
While it's certainly nice to see that you've abandoned your disingenuous "Nobody here suggested that Canada is a confederacy" protest, this new "official"/"unofficial" distinction is something that you've done little more than simply assert. I've been asking for support. I understand that you find it politically desirable to create an "unofficial" confederacy, but your desire once again != reality.
"You can futilely point back to the 19th century if you like"...
I haven't and I'll continue not to. You, on the other hand, seem to be left with little more than swinging at that straw-stuffed shirt, which speaks volumes for the merits of your position.
"That isn't even remotely close to Responsible Governance, but I appreciate further illustration of the very political ignorance I spoke to in my original post on the matter."
ReplyDeleteAudrey, if you want to argue Canadian political theory isolated within the context of the 19th century, you won't be permitted the luxury of picking and choosing which 19th-century traditions you'll accept and which you won't.
If you want to join us in the modern age, I'm more than prepared to indulge you in that conversation.
"Comprehending the ignorant inaccuracy of you claims doesn't require 'living in the 19th century'. On the contrary, it involves an understanding of how Canadian Responsible governance has existed and evolved over time, what has been retained and what has changed."
Then why is it, Audrey, that you refuse to discuss how these systems function in the modern context?
Your lack of understanding of how sovereignty would function in the wake of the dissolution of Confederation speaks volumes to this refusal.
"Quebec retains a somewhat unique position with respect to the rest of the provinces, so you might want to consult with Stairs before co-opting his argument in support of your own bizarre perversion of it."
Heh.
You clearly don't understand Stairs' arguments at all. I'm not surprised. We both know that you've never read them, yet will comment on them. (It's your Modus Operandi, after all.)
In the work cited, Stairs provides a realist perspective on Quebec separation that notes that the Constitution of Canada doesn't actually provide powers that allow for the unilateral secession of any one province.
Thus, in order for Quebec to secede from Confederation, Confederation would have to be first dissolved, then re-negotiated in Quebec's absence.
In other words, each province (matters regarding the territories are much more nebulous) would recover full sovereignty, and have to re-negotiate the terms by which that sovereignty would be shared with the federal government.
"I think it's more accurate to say that it's a conclusion you've reached, and one that you've made several significant leaps in logic to arrive at, that's premised on a dubious premise that stands in contradiction to wealth of reference material that exists on the subject, and that which you yet to show any significant subscription within established political theory."
Interestingly, your only refutal of it to date has been "nuh-uh!".
But perhaps you'd like to enlighten everyone, Audrey: if full sovereignty would not return to the provinces upon dissolution of Confederation, where would it lie? With a federal government that would cease to exist upon dissolution?
Or do you simply not understand the concept of sovereignty? It seems at this point like you don't.
"I understand that you find it politically desirable to create an "unofficial" confederacy, but your desire once again != reality."
Who ever said this state of affairs is "desirable", Audrey? I simply stated that it more accurately reflects political reality in Canada -- something you're so clearly out-of-touch with -- than the 19th-century-era political theory you so desperately cling to.
When you're ready to join us in the 21st century, please do let me know.
(By the way, Audrey, it would seem that your precious Wikipedia has turned against you.)
ReplyDelete