Morbid vanity and moral corrosion

I feel pretty! Oh so pretty!

We concur in considering the government of England as totally without morality, insolent beyond bearing, inflated with vanity and ambition, (…) lost in corruption, of deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head (…).

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Leiper, 12 june 1815.

Replace ‘England’ with ‘Canada’ and that pretty much covers it.

 

In this essay, I intend to continue my exploration of the Canadian psyche. After my examination of Canadian imperialism and selective historical amnesia as evidenced in The Murdoch Mysteries, I will now embark on a metaphorical PT boat and sail up the Ottawa River into the heart of Canadian darkness. In fact, the title of this piece comes from two snippets that I only half remember. “Morbid vanity” is how an American revolutionary (I can’t remember who or the exact quote) described England. He said something to effect that England suffers from morbid vanity because she sees herself as the most glorious nation on earth in spite of all the questionable things she does to keep the American colonies. British imperialism caused a kind of cognitive dissonance in the British people where they were the ‘good guys’ and therefore they could do bad things. It seemed to me that this also describes Canada, particularly as Canadian imperialism is directly related to the British variety. The second part comes from a documentary I once saw about the Vietnam War. An American veteran was saying that there was something “morally corrosive” about how American strategy focused on enemy body-count rather than on territory taken. This has nothing much to do with Canada, but the expression stuck in my mind because it describes perfectly Canadian strategy in its war against Quebec. Specifically, Canada’s recourse to threats, dirty tricks, false promises and overall perfidy is more likely to breed resentment rather than loyalty. This sets the stage for the next confrontation with Quebec, but Canadian vanity prevents them from seeing it. Instead, they are constantly declaring separatism to be dead and express surprise and dismay when it comes back to life.

All this goes back to Canada’s inception, not in 1867 but its real creation in 1763 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The French king signed over New France to the British after they invaded, conquered and occupied it. The War of the Conquest devastated New France. It killed one in seven inhabitants, a per capita loss comparable to that of the Soviet Union during the Second World War¹. Quebec City was thoroughly bombed by the British fleet and the countryside on the south shore was burnt to the ground by British troops who had nothing better to do. And yet, some Canadians still like to downplay the Conquest, or even pretend it never really happened. To them, Louis XV abandoned New France in favor of Guadeloupe and they use the Treaty of Paris as a deed to the land and the people living on it. But that treaty is also the heart of the problem. The French king handed us over to the English king as though we were cattle. To Canadians, this marks us as eternal losers and they have a paper to prove it. And yet, it is clear that if Queen Elizabeth II gave away Canada to the Americans in exchange for one of the Hawaiian Islands (a nice one, not one with a leper colony), Canadians would be outraged. True, this sort of thing was done back in the eighteenth century and not so much now, but I suspect there is more to it than that. Canadians need to see us as losers. They need to feel superior to us. It’s part of their identity and their way of dealing with feelings of inferiority with respect to Americans.

It’s also because of this that even apparent acts of kindness on their part can be cynically self-serving. When Lord Durham arrived in Canada after the Rebellions of 1837-38, he issued an ordinance releasing the political prisoners held in jail at the time². This was both very generous and also avoided embarrassing trials where the bogus charges against the defendants and the crimes committed by British forces would have been exposed. A certain Louis-Marie Viger, on the other hand, wanted to stay in jail until he got his day in court. Viger wanted to prove in court that he was arrested simply because he was one of the managers of the Banque du Peuple, a financial institution that struck fear in the heart of the Anglo establishment. Of course, he never got his day in court, and of course, he eventually left the unheated jail on account of his health.

This brings us to our next topic: how Canadians use noble principles as weapons. Canadians are filled with them. They have noble principles oozing out of their ears. They have a noble principle for every day of the week and every occasion. But having too many principles is the same as having no principles, which, in truth, they don’t. Their morbid vanity prevents them from seeing this. Instead, they are stupid enough to buy their own press. This, in turn, creates a kind of moral anesthesia where they feel a perverse sense of pride every time Quebec is put in its place, no matter how many dirty tricks, or outright crimes, were committed in the process.

Historical examples of this abound. Staying within relatively recent history, consider the 1995 Referendum,^3,4 where the federal government and the NO side spent an amount of money far in excess of the limit allowed by Quebec law, all thanks to the highly secretive group Option Canada. The federal government also accelerated the naturalization process for immigrants in Quebec a few months prior to the Referendum. This was contrary to federal law, but no matter. All that mattered was to flood Quebec with brand new Canadian citizens who will very likely vote NO. When all this got out, the Anglo media expressed disapproval, but not much more. Nothing like the shrill hysteria and moral outrage that is expressed whenever the topic of Quebec’s language laws comes up. It’s as though the Anglo media were more disappointed that the perpetrators got caught, not that they did it.

All this is nothing compared to Canada’s reaction to its slim (and fraudulent) victory in that referendum. Scared witless, the Canadian government asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of secession. I should point out that I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, depending on how it’s done. If Quebec and Canada were both allowed to ask questions to a neutral court (say an international tribunal of some sort), then the exercise might be valid. Instead, the Canadian government asked the Supreme Court of Canada, filled with judges named by the Prime Minister. Canada asked leading questions that referred to the Canadian constitution only, not to constitutional texts or customs. Quebec was invited to participate, but could not ask questions of its own. When the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that was not nearly as favorable to the Canadian government as it had hoped (despite putting all the odds in its favor), it cooked up the infamous anti-democracy bill C-20⁵. Strangely called the “Clarity act”, bill C-20 is anything but. Demanding a “clear” question, but not defining this clarity, and demanding a “clear” majority that is greater than 50+1, but not spelling out how much greater, the Act leaves it to the federal government to decide after the vote if either of these conditions were fulfilled.

And yet, a surprising number of Canadians see this patently unfair, arbitrary and anti-democratic Bill as an ironclad guarantee of Canadian unity in perpetuity. A surprising number of them see it as a great victory against the separatist, in spite of the fact that all the odds were in their favor. Their unjustified pride in this ‘achievement’ blinds them to the fact that it makes them morally repugnant to Quebecers, and leaves Quebec patriots (a.k.a 'the separatists') feeling more justified than ever in their convictions. Indeed, just recently Justin Trudeau, the Liberal party's latest Canadian unity action figure and son of the late Canadian autocrat and lost twin of C. Montgomery Burns (see figure above) Pierre Trudeau, declared that Quebec could only separate if the YES side got two thirds of the vote. While “clear,” this majority is highly problematic since Newfoundland joined the Canadian Empire in 1949 after the pro-Canada side obtained only 52% of the vote in a referendum. The 50+1 rule is fine to join Canada, but not to leave it. Canada, it seems, is a roach motel.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, examples of Canadian hypocrisy, oppression and immorality are plentiful, and I cannot go into all of them here. It will suffice to remind the reader, as Frank Capra would say, “why we fight.” Ours is basically an existential struggle, a struggle for survival. Ever since the English arrived the French language has been a source of friction. This is because the Anglos know, instinctively if not consciously, that the French language and culture is our 'centre of gravity.' If we lose that, we lose everything and the Canadian Empire will be secure. Canadians know this, and it explains their hatred towards us (as their comments about us in the blogosphere demonstrate). It explains their hypocrisy and their ongoing campaign of cultural genocide. It explains Canada's highly autocratic form of government, where the Prime Minister of Canada has broad powers, even greater influence (he appoints virtually everybody), and with precious little checks or balances. It also explains why Quebec patriots don't quit. We can't. We know that it would lead to the eventual annihilation of our language, culture and national identity and to the triumph of a sordid little empire of lies and shopping malls.

1 – René Boulanger, La bataille de la mémoire, Éditions du Québécois, 2007.
2 – Jacques Lacoursière, Histoire populaire du Québec, Tome 2, Septentrion, 1996.
3 – Robin Philpot, Le référendum volé, Les Intouchables, 2005.
4 – Normand Lester and Robin Philpot, Les secrets d’Option Canada, Les Intouchables, 2006.
5 – Michel Seymour, Le pari de la démesure, L’hexagone, 2001.