Contacting MPs about Bill C-38

(I just finished writing the following letter that I then sent to all Conservative Party MPs.)

Dear Member of Parliament,

You are now considering Bill C-38 about which I feel I must express my strongest objections. It constitutes a radical attack on Parliament's constitutionally-mandated job to examine and vote on new pieces of legislation in a manner that allows consequences to be properly examined and weighed. To be clear: my opposition to this bill does not reflect a partisan objection to the Conservative Party; I have voted for the Conservative Party in the past as I have on other occasions for the Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I am, however, appalled that a so-called "Conservative" party can be attempting to push through Parliament this omnibus bill that is antithetical to Parliament's vital role within the Westminster Parliamentary tradition. 

Writing about the French Revolution, Edmund Burke (in many ways the father of modern conservatism) spoke directly to such radical legal reformations and the danger that they represent to our inherited freedoms:

"These opposed and conflicting interests, which you [Conservative Party MPs!] considered as so great a blemish in your old and in our present constitution, interpose a salutary check to all precipitate resolutions [like Bill C-38!]; They render deliberation a matter not of choice, but of necessity; they make all change a subject of compromise; which naturally begets moderation; they produce temperaments, preventing the sore evil of harsh, crude, unqualified reformations [such as Bill C-38! my italics]; and rendering all the headlong exertions of arbitrary power, in the few or in the many, for ever impractical. Through the diversity of members and interests, general liberty had as many securities as there were separate views in the several orders; whilst by pressing down the whole by the weight of a real monarchy, the separate parts would have been prevented from warping and starting from their allotted places." (Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. J.C.D. Clark [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001],  p. 187)

That even opinion writers in the right-leaning National Post (such as Kelly McPartland, John Ivision and Andrew Coyne) can see this bill as the horrendous attack on Parliamentary Privilege that it is reveals how far the present government is here departing from actual conservative principles. 

To those MPs who are opposing this atrocious bill I wish you all the best in your fight.

To those Conservative MPs who have meekly acceded to the Prime Minister's dictates to vote for this bill or else — you should be ashamed of yourselves for your craven subordination. That Stephen Harper in 2005 stated that a Liberal omnibus bill was "a contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House” only proves his mendacious hypocrisy. 

Where are the Conservative MPs who will put country ahead of personal ambition, right before might? I wait to be surprised.

A concerned Canadian citizen,

Melvin Backstrom

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

If you also don't like Bill C-38 perhaps think about writing a letter and sending it to all Conservative MPs. Below are all of their email addresses formatted so you should just have to copy and past into your email address box.

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca, Eve.Adams@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Adler@parl.gc.ca,
leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca,
Chris.Alexander@parl.gc.ca, mike.allen@parl.gc.ca, dean.allison@parl.gc.ca, Stella.Ambler@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, rob.anders@parl.gc.ca, david.anderson@parl.gc.ca, scott.armstrong@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, Jay.Aspin@parl.gc.ca, John.baird@parl.gc.ca, Joyce.Bateman@parl.gc.ca, leon.benoit@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, james.bezan@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, kelly.block@parl.gc.ca, ray.boughen@parl.gc.ca, peter.braid@parl.gc.ca, garry.breitkreuz@parl.gc.ca, gord.brown@parl.gc.ca, lois.brown@parl.gc.ca, patrick.brown@parl.gc.ca, rod.bruinooge@parl.gc.ca, Brad.Butt@parl.gc.ca, paul.calandra@parl.gc.ca, blaine.calkins@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, John.Carmichael@parl.gc.ca, colin.carrie@parl.gc.ca, Corneliu.Chisu@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, rob.clarke@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Daniel@parl.gc.ca, pat.davidson@parl.gc.ca, dean.delmastro@parl.gc.ca, dean.delmastro@parl.gc.ca, barry.devolin@parl.gc.ca, earl.dreeshen@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, rick.dykstra@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, royal.galipeau@parl.gc.ca, cheryl.gallant@parl.gc.ca,
shelly.glover@parl.gc.ca, Robert.Goguen@parl.gc.ca, peter.goldring@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, jacques.gourde@parl.gc.ca,
nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, Bryan.Hayes@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, Jim.Hillyer@parl.gc.ca, randy.hoback@parl.gc.ca, candice.hoeppner@parl.gc.ca, ed.holder@parl.gc.ca, Roxanne.James@parl.gc.ca, brian.jean@parl.gc.ca,
randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, greg.kerr@parl.gc.ca, ed.komarnicki@parl.gc.ca, daryl.kramp@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, Ryan.Leef@parl.gc.ca, Kellie.Leitch@parl.gc.ca, pierre.lemieux@parl.gc.ca, Chungsen.Leung@parl.gc.ca, Wladyslaw.Lizon@parl.gc.ca, ben.lobb@parl.gc.ca, tom.lukiwski@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, dave.mackenzie@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca,
phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, Costas.Menegakis@parl.gc.ca,
ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, larry.miller@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca,
rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, deepak.obhrai@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, bev.oda@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, tilly.oneillgordon@parl.gc.ca, Ted.Opitz@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, lavar.payne@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca, joe.preston@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, brent.rathgeber@parl.gc.ca, scott.reid@parl.gc.ca, Michelle.Rempel@parl.gc.ca, blake.richards@parl.gc.ca, lee.richardson@parl.gc.ca, greg.rickford@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gary.schellenberger@parl.gc.ca, Kyle.Seeback@parl.gc.ca,
gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca, joy.smith@parl.gc.ca, robert.sopuck@parl.gc.ca,
kevin.sorenson@parl.gc.ca, bruce.stanton@parl.gc.ca, brian.storseth@parl.gc.ca,
Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, david.sweet@parl.gc.ca, david.tilson@parl.gc.ca, Lawrence.Toet@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, brad.trost@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Trottier@parl.gc.ca, Susan.Truppe@parl.gc.ca,
merv.tweed@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, Frank.valeriote@parl.gc.ca, dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, maurice.vellacott@parl.gc.ca, mike.wallace@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, chris.warkentin@parl.gc.ca, jeff.watson@parl.gc.ca,
john.weston@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, rodney.weston@parl.gc.ca,
David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca,
stephen.woodworth@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca, terence.young@parl.gc.ca,
Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca,

Contra Sterne and Davis: Another take on the Manifs Casseroles

Professors Jonathan Sterne and Natalie Zemon Davis’ piece in Thursday’s Globe & Mail (“Quebec’s manifs casseroles are a call for order”) manages the rare feat of being both informative and disingenuous. As a McGill PhD student (and, in fact, former student of Professor Sterne), working on (among other things) understanding various elements of popular culture as continuations of older practices, finding a discussion of the now-for-the-most-part forgotten practice of charivari in the Commentary pages of the G&M made for an initially welcome morning surprise. Unfortunately, the essay’s details fail to live up to my high expectations of two such distinguished scholars.

The authors strive to portray the manifs casseroles as joyful expressions of communities united in opposition to the ostensibly oppressive provincial government while (somehow) bringing order to the streets. But this is not at all the case. I (along with many other Quebec citizens) do not support the casserolistes or the seemingly never-ending protests against tuition hikes and find the nightly rounds of pot-banging to be a sonic assault on my rights to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and silence – and I’m certainly not the only one who feels this way as the content of letters pages to Quebec newspapers since it began make abundantly clear. Instead of recognizing the diversity of opinions that exist within Quebec, and therefore the illegitimacy of attempts to force one’s opinion on others outside of any democratic accountability, the authors imperiously proclaim the casserolistes as rightfully “enforc[ing] community standards.” But whose standards are these (they’re certainly not mine) and what legitimacy, beyond that of mob-rule, do they have to enforce them?

And here lies the real disingenuousness in the authors’ characterization of the history of charivari as “an alternative to violent exclusion” that “often [resulted in] a payment of money that allowed everyone to go down to the local inn for a festive drink or meal.” Sometimes this peaceful result did occur (as Professor Davis has amply documented [1975]) but then such enforcement of community standards were often of a very frightening if not violent kind. Anthony Fletcher (1995) writes, “Charivari could be intended as a warning and no doubt many offenders were subsequently left alone and were terrorized into greater conformity with communal values. But the intention could also be to drum out an offending couple, as happened at Burton-on-Trent in 1618 when William and Margaret Cripple, suspected of living together unmarried, subsequently left the town” (272) [my italics]. Bertram Wyatt-Brown (1995) notes, “The charivari included a range of crowd activity, from wedding-day jest to public whipping and tar-and-feathering” (192) [my italics]; furthermore (2007), charivaris in combination with lynch law “ensured the permanence of popular white rule” in the American antebellum South (436). And John Cashmere (1991) points to the diverse historical array of charivari activities countering Sterne and Davis’ assumption “that a typical charivari begins in a mood of laughter and derision and ends in expansive revelry, and that the manifestation of violence means that the charivari has somehow ‘gone wrong’ or not been played out according to plan…the outcome could all vary, and often violence was an integral part of the processual nature of the performance” (301-02) [my italics].

I by no means wish to suggest that the casserolistes have engaged in overt violence; thankfully they have not (although the student protesters certainly have!). But as a scholar of sound studies such as Professor Sterne certainly knows, sound can function very well as a weapon on its own—as some US Marines demonstrated when they blasted hard rock music into the Panamanian Vatican Embassy in 1989 to drive out Manuel Noriega or as the broadcasting of classical music in public areas in order to “encourage” teenagers not to loiter plainly reveals. The casserolistes are not the benign social bringers-of-order that Sterne and Davis make them out to be; rather, they are a mass of people convinced of their own righteousness, with obviously little concern for what their neighbors who disagree with them might think as their nightly riot of noise acutely shows. Sterne and Davis are correct: the manifs casseroles are descended from the charivari—but this is a relation to be troubled by not celebrated.

Works Cited

Cashmer, John. 1991. The social uses of violence in ritual: Charivari or religious

persecution? In European History Quarterly 21: 291-319.

Davis, Natalie Zemon. 1975. Society and culture in early modern France: Eight essays.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fletcher, Anthony. 1995. Gender, sex, and subordination in England, 1500-1800. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. 1995. Honor and violence in the Old South. New York: Oxford

University Press.

———. 2007. Southern honor: Ethics and behavior in the Old South. New York: Oxford

University Press.