It's worth noting that under Canada's electoral system, Morrison would have won the most seats with 35.7% of the first preference vote compared to Albanese's 32.6%. It was only when the two-party preferred votes were counted that Labour won its majority. Whether Morrison would have been able to form a workable government, I cannot say - but at least he would have had the option (as Trudeau has done in the past two elections) to try. Although the CPC leadership format with its ranked ballot is closer to the Australian model it's still different with its riding allocation formula. I'm not going to get into whether Australia's electoral system is 'better' than Canada's (my own opinion is that each system has advantages and disadvantages) but if you're going to do a comparison between Canadian and Australian politics, it's still a pretty big factor to consider.
Great article! One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Depending on the country you deal with, you have hindu/islamist/sik/buddist issues, sunni/shia issues, israeli/palistinian issues, etc. In a global economy where people and money travels porously through borders, we have a serious problem with foreign policy when one diaspora can upset an election. We have made a great deal about Russia's involvement in US elections but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Environics polled Canadian immigrants some years back and got 78% ticking "Identify more with Canada than my country of origin", which is pretty dispositive. That's just to argue against any "white replacement" nuts in the house (or the House, god forbid) that such influxes change Canada to be like the countries of origin. (As the joke goes, they left for a reason.)
The author delicately avoided a couple of examples of niche immigrant politics harming the nation. America hasn't been much "harmed" by excluding Cuba from commerce for 53 years, save that lots of Americans could have made big profits doing business there, millions could have had tropic vacations. But it's just WEIRD to me that Vietnam actually killed 58,000 Americans - but got full trading status almost 20 years ago now, has been one of the fastest-growing nations on earth because of it, millions lifted from poverty. Cuba, of course, will not get recognition until the last furious refugee has died of old age, because Florida is (or was) a swing state, every demographic there is feared and pandered to.
Then there's the, ah, 'pro-Israel' vote affecting American foreign policy. Would they have to suck up so much to Saudi if they didn't have to protect Israel from Iran? How many wars would they have fought?
Is it possible that Australia basically burning down - twice - flipped the script on that "too aggressive a climate plan" thing, in 3 years flat?
Sure caused ripples through BC when Lytton burned down, 800 dead of heat, and then our best agricultural plain flooded, our highways trashed, all in 3 months.
An interesting dynamic in diaspora politics is how often politicians try to exploit the separation between mainstream and ethnic news outlets to take positions popular with ethnic groups that are either unpopular or even toxic to the broader public. They can say one thing on Punjabi or Chinese radio programs, and usually bank on the fact that it'll go unreported elsewhere due to the language barrier. Occasionally, they face embarrassing consequences when the news breaks through, but they can usually get away with something like telling the Tamil community that the LTTE should be de-listed as a terrorist organization without ever being challenged by a national report from CTV, CBC, or one of the major newpapers.
Also been a feature of Canadian politics with respect to the larger communities, e.g., Ukrainian, Sikh, Chinese etc. Makes it more challenge for governments to balance competing interests as they are pulled by the stronger groups, and particularly the more activist elements.
And given the concentration of groups in particular ridings (e.g., Sikhs in Brampton and the lower mainland, Chinese in Markham etc), the effects are concentrated. CPC estimates they lost a number of previously safe seats due to one of their Chinese Canadian MP having critical views of mainland China (valid) prompting alleged (likely) Chinese government interference.
As you say, inevitable and as I say, already here!
Fascinating piece. Thanks for writing it, and for making space at The Line for this kind of political analysis. It’s nice to read a political article that helps me understand what I’m seeing in the the different political campaigns. And like the article says, this change is not necessarily good or bad, it just is. That may be why I have equal parts excitement and apprehension about it!
Reasonably written piece (though I may not agree on some of the speculative items). But I have to say this is incomplete. As an immigrant myself who came to Canada from India (via the US I might add), I have no attraction to whatever nebulous package it is that Patrick Brown is trying to offer in the CPC leadership race.
OTOH, one issue that cuts across ALL immigrants regardless of ethnicity, country of origin, etc is their inability to transfer their education and experience to obtain the necessary professional accreditation here in Canada - sth that heavily impacts integration and career growth. And who is literally the only politician in all of Canada who is actively and repeatedly talking about this issue? That would be Pierre Poilievre. And almost as a direct result, my support is for PP, not PB.
So, no, the issues that matter to immigrants - even if they are from non-western countries - is not limited to or vastly made up of things that connect them to their home country. I would confidently argue that we are more concerned about our new lives here in Canada than the ones we left behind in our home country. That is one aspect you have not discussed in this piece.
I'm inclined to take issue with the title, or at least with the letter if not entirely with the spirit of it. Specifically with the idea that diaspora politics 'is coming' to Canada.
Canada was built as a colonial project. In other words, it was built upon a foundation of diaspora politics. 'Aye Ready Aye' and all that. Nevertheless, this piece helps draw out some changing dynamics.
So what is coming, I would suggest, is not 'diaspora politics' (already well-established) but a shifting political dynamic amongst Canada's ethnic communities. In part, this is a natural result of the ever-shrinking global village of people shuffling around the planet.
But it's also the result of a long history of colonial immigration policies in Canada.
Initially Canada was built upon a small French diaspora, where a distinction quickly emerged between 'canadiens' and 'français'. The former being native to Canada the latter often being the transient administrative personnel of the French state. And the former became the basis of a claim to nationhood that continues to the present.
Then there was the British Conquest of course, however, it took a century of British-American immigration to create the diaspora enterprise called Confederation of British North America in an uneasy compact with 'les canadiens' in an act of the British Parliament. (Insert Fenian diaspora politics here if you wish.) Good Ole John Eh wanted a thoroughly British colony, one which would include an Indian residential schools system to transform 'savages' into little Brits.
However, by the Laurier era, immigration under Clifford Sifton would encourage immigrants whose native lands matched the economic skills required in the bush and on the prairies. So the diaspora politics of the era shifted beyond its British Confederation roots. It also reveals how colonial Canada has always been primarily administered as an economic political project, and not as an ethnically nationalistic one. That railway was always about the money. While initially loaded with British immigrants, that railroad would eventually deliver whoever fit the economic requirement.
Post WW II, Canada's economic and political elite would expand the ethnic diversity of immigration even further. Such that it may be more accurate to say British-dominated economic colonialism was continuing its transformation into a multi-cultural economic colonialism, which is what we have more of today.
So what appears to be 'coming to' Canada is not ethnic diaspora politics, but a shift in the foregrounding and backgrounding of Canadian ethnic colonialism. Ethnic communities which settled in Canada as politically backgrounded are now seeking more explicit foregrounding of their political agendas. Is everyone going to play nice?
For example, are such ethnic political communities going to accept or reject Québec claims to nationhood. We already see the contours of this with various pieces of legislation designed to protect Québec's distinct society being criticized as an attack on diversity and equality.
On a side note, even Premier Moe recently attempted to give birth to the 'nation' of Saskatchewan by tweet (without much obvious success), an indication that nationhood implies a differential of political power within Canada.
Finally, of course, First Nations have a vested interest in the political distinction of nationhood and, of course, indigeneity. How will a purely ideological political concept like 'BIPOC' manage such a distinction? Is this a real political alliance with solid historical roots, or just an empty rhetorical gesture to gain a momentary political advantage? Is everyone going to play nice?
“Personality took centre stage.” There has always been an an element of personality over policy in politics - but I miss policy debates. Good policy is what drives good governance.
I used to wonder why everyday Jewish and Palestine groups would face off against each other on Peel Street in Montreal. I thought don't they know they live in Canada and have to get along. What Rahim is describing is the best case against mass immigration from a few diaspora. With schools in Ontario sending tigger warnings about the Canadian flag we are in a dangerous place that will undermine loyalty to this country and create polarization and backlash. Politicians should not be encouraging this.
I wouldn't want to lose the point of the auther, which is about "diaspora politics". My grandfather emigrated to canada in the 1930's and brought his politics with him. He taught his descendants to hate his enemies and meddled in Ottawa, trying to influence policy makers at the time to take an aggressive national stance against the countries he hated. He was one man and didn't succeed, but imagine a whole population. Is it good or bad? I guess it could be either. But I admit I'm not confident that vote-hungry politicians will know the difference.
Canada is a glorified hotel for too many of the cashed up refugees of the world who don't actually care about Canada. Sure we need their capital in this relatively investment starved country, but this isn't good for the growth and security of the nation.
The US, UK, France and Germany would never let foreign political interests dictate domestic policies.
It's worth noting that under Canada's electoral system, Morrison would have won the most seats with 35.7% of the first preference vote compared to Albanese's 32.6%. It was only when the two-party preferred votes were counted that Labour won its majority. Whether Morrison would have been able to form a workable government, I cannot say - but at least he would have had the option (as Trudeau has done in the past two elections) to try. Although the CPC leadership format with its ranked ballot is closer to the Australian model it's still different with its riding allocation formula. I'm not going to get into whether Australia's electoral system is 'better' than Canada's (my own opinion is that each system has advantages and disadvantages) but if you're going to do a comparison between Canadian and Australian politics, it's still a pretty big factor to consider.
Great article! One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Depending on the country you deal with, you have hindu/islamist/sik/buddist issues, sunni/shia issues, israeli/palistinian issues, etc. In a global economy where people and money travels porously through borders, we have a serious problem with foreign policy when one diaspora can upset an election. We have made a great deal about Russia's involvement in US elections but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Environics polled Canadian immigrants some years back and got 78% ticking "Identify more with Canada than my country of origin", which is pretty dispositive. That's just to argue against any "white replacement" nuts in the house (or the House, god forbid) that such influxes change Canada to be like the countries of origin. (As the joke goes, they left for a reason.)
The author delicately avoided a couple of examples of niche immigrant politics harming the nation. America hasn't been much "harmed" by excluding Cuba from commerce for 53 years, save that lots of Americans could have made big profits doing business there, millions could have had tropic vacations. But it's just WEIRD to me that Vietnam actually killed 58,000 Americans - but got full trading status almost 20 years ago now, has been one of the fastest-growing nations on earth because of it, millions lifted from poverty. Cuba, of course, will not get recognition until the last furious refugee has died of old age, because Florida is (or was) a swing state, every demographic there is feared and pandered to.
Then there's the, ah, 'pro-Israel' vote affecting American foreign policy. Would they have to suck up so much to Saudi if they didn't have to protect Israel from Iran? How many wars would they have fought?
Is it possible that Australia basically burning down - twice - flipped the script on that "too aggressive a climate plan" thing, in 3 years flat?
Sure caused ripples through BC when Lytton burned down, 800 dead of heat, and then our best agricultural plain flooded, our highways trashed, all in 3 months.
An interesting dynamic in diaspora politics is how often politicians try to exploit the separation between mainstream and ethnic news outlets to take positions popular with ethnic groups that are either unpopular or even toxic to the broader public. They can say one thing on Punjabi or Chinese radio programs, and usually bank on the fact that it'll go unreported elsewhere due to the language barrier. Occasionally, they face embarrassing consequences when the news breaks through, but they can usually get away with something like telling the Tamil community that the LTTE should be de-listed as a terrorist organization without ever being challenged by a national report from CTV, CBC, or one of the major newpapers.
Also been a feature of Canadian politics with respect to the larger communities, e.g., Ukrainian, Sikh, Chinese etc. Makes it more challenge for governments to balance competing interests as they are pulled by the stronger groups, and particularly the more activist elements.
And given the concentration of groups in particular ridings (e.g., Sikhs in Brampton and the lower mainland, Chinese in Markham etc), the effects are concentrated. CPC estimates they lost a number of previously safe seats due to one of their Chinese Canadian MP having critical views of mainland China (valid) prompting alleged (likely) Chinese government interference.
As you say, inevitable and as I say, already here!
Fascinating piece. Thanks for writing it, and for making space at The Line for this kind of political analysis. It’s nice to read a political article that helps me understand what I’m seeing in the the different political campaigns. And like the article says, this change is not necessarily good or bad, it just is. That may be why I have equal parts excitement and apprehension about it!
Reasonably written piece (though I may not agree on some of the speculative items). But I have to say this is incomplete. As an immigrant myself who came to Canada from India (via the US I might add), I have no attraction to whatever nebulous package it is that Patrick Brown is trying to offer in the CPC leadership race.
OTOH, one issue that cuts across ALL immigrants regardless of ethnicity, country of origin, etc is their inability to transfer their education and experience to obtain the necessary professional accreditation here in Canada - sth that heavily impacts integration and career growth. And who is literally the only politician in all of Canada who is actively and repeatedly talking about this issue? That would be Pierre Poilievre. And almost as a direct result, my support is for PP, not PB.
So, no, the issues that matter to immigrants - even if they are from non-western countries - is not limited to or vastly made up of things that connect them to their home country. I would confidently argue that we are more concerned about our new lives here in Canada than the ones we left behind in our home country. That is one aspect you have not discussed in this piece.
It's interesting to think that old world political issues often came to Canada.
Consider the fenian raids and the Black Donnellys.
I'm inclined to take issue with the title, or at least with the letter if not entirely with the spirit of it. Specifically with the idea that diaspora politics 'is coming' to Canada.
Canada was built as a colonial project. In other words, it was built upon a foundation of diaspora politics. 'Aye Ready Aye' and all that. Nevertheless, this piece helps draw out some changing dynamics.
So what is coming, I would suggest, is not 'diaspora politics' (already well-established) but a shifting political dynamic amongst Canada's ethnic communities. In part, this is a natural result of the ever-shrinking global village of people shuffling around the planet.
But it's also the result of a long history of colonial immigration policies in Canada.
Initially Canada was built upon a small French diaspora, where a distinction quickly emerged between 'canadiens' and 'français'. The former being native to Canada the latter often being the transient administrative personnel of the French state. And the former became the basis of a claim to nationhood that continues to the present.
Then there was the British Conquest of course, however, it took a century of British-American immigration to create the diaspora enterprise called Confederation of British North America in an uneasy compact with 'les canadiens' in an act of the British Parliament. (Insert Fenian diaspora politics here if you wish.) Good Ole John Eh wanted a thoroughly British colony, one which would include an Indian residential schools system to transform 'savages' into little Brits.
However, by the Laurier era, immigration under Clifford Sifton would encourage immigrants whose native lands matched the economic skills required in the bush and on the prairies. So the diaspora politics of the era shifted beyond its British Confederation roots. It also reveals how colonial Canada has always been primarily administered as an economic political project, and not as an ethnically nationalistic one. That railway was always about the money. While initially loaded with British immigrants, that railroad would eventually deliver whoever fit the economic requirement.
Post WW II, Canada's economic and political elite would expand the ethnic diversity of immigration even further. Such that it may be more accurate to say British-dominated economic colonialism was continuing its transformation into a multi-cultural economic colonialism, which is what we have more of today.
So what appears to be 'coming to' Canada is not ethnic diaspora politics, but a shift in the foregrounding and backgrounding of Canadian ethnic colonialism. Ethnic communities which settled in Canada as politically backgrounded are now seeking more explicit foregrounding of their political agendas. Is everyone going to play nice?
For example, are such ethnic political communities going to accept or reject Québec claims to nationhood. We already see the contours of this with various pieces of legislation designed to protect Québec's distinct society being criticized as an attack on diversity and equality.
On a side note, even Premier Moe recently attempted to give birth to the 'nation' of Saskatchewan by tweet (without much obvious success), an indication that nationhood implies a differential of political power within Canada.
Finally, of course, First Nations have a vested interest in the political distinction of nationhood and, of course, indigeneity. How will a purely ideological political concept like 'BIPOC' manage such a distinction? Is this a real political alliance with solid historical roots, or just an empty rhetorical gesture to gain a momentary political advantage? Is everyone going to play nice?
Is Canada ready for what's coming?
“Personality took centre stage.” There has always been an an element of personality over policy in politics - but I miss policy debates. Good policy is what drives good governance.
I used to wonder why everyday Jewish and Palestine groups would face off against each other on Peel Street in Montreal. I thought don't they know they live in Canada and have to get along. What Rahim is describing is the best case against mass immigration from a few diaspora. With schools in Ontario sending tigger warnings about the Canadian flag we are in a dangerous place that will undermine loyalty to this country and create polarization and backlash. Politicians should not be encouraging this.
I wouldn't want to lose the point of the auther, which is about "diaspora politics". My grandfather emigrated to canada in the 1930's and brought his politics with him. He taught his descendants to hate his enemies and meddled in Ottawa, trying to influence policy makers at the time to take an aggressive national stance against the countries he hated. He was one man and didn't succeed, but imagine a whole population. Is it good or bad? I guess it could be either. But I admit I'm not confident that vote-hungry politicians will know the difference.
Canada is a glorified hotel for too many of the cashed up refugees of the world who don't actually care about Canada. Sure we need their capital in this relatively investment starved country, but this isn't good for the growth and security of the nation.
The US, UK, France and Germany would never let foreign political interests dictate domestic policies.