• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ottawa pumps up military role in citizenship ceremonies

kilekaldar

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Ottawa pumps up military role in citizenship ceremonies
JOE FRIESEN — DEMOGRAPHICS REPORTER
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 30, 2011 9:51PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 30, 2011 10:27PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-pumps-up-military-role-in-citizenship-ceremonies/article2083103/



The Conservative government is strengthening the symbolic power of the military in public life by having a member of the Canadian Forces play a prominent role in citizenship ceremonies.

In an operational bulletin issued earlier this year, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said highlighting the service of members of the armed forces is a way to underline to every new Canadian the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship.

The bulletin, which describes military service as one of the highest expressions of citizenship, states that members of the military should be seated on the main platform with the citizenship judge, that they can stand in the receiving line congratulating new citizens and that they may give a two- to three-minute speech. Where possible, the bulletin says the preference is for veterans of the war in Afghanistan.

The increased prominence of the military at these ceremonies is in keeping with other gestures made by Stephen Harper’s government. The new citizenship handbook, Discover Canada, for example, which was introduced by Minister Jason Kenney in 2009, placed much more emphasis on Canadian military history than the preceding guide.

Michael Fellman, a professor emeritus of history at Simon Fraser University, said it’s part of a gradual militarization of Canadian culture under the Conservatives.

“The Tories are in a long-range campaign to change Canadian values and make them more conservative,” Prof. Fellman said. “This is a way to show that the military is at the core of the meaning of citizenship.

“It’s an attempt to imbue new citizens with awareness of the military, and the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”

Mr. Kenney’s office did not respond to an interview request.

RCMP officers in red serge have for a long time held prominent roles at citizenship ceremonies, so the inclusion of the military is not without parallel.

Major Pete Saunders, a member of the air force who served overseas in support of the war in Afghanistan, has participated in four citizenship ceremonies over the last year. He said he sat on stage with the citizenship judge, a representative of the citizenship and immigration ministry, the local MPP, an RCMP officer and a representative of the local native band.

“What we want to impress upon [the new citizens], much in the same way as the RCMP officer, is that we’re here to serve them. We’re not here to beat them down. We’re not here to cause them fear,” Major Saunders said. “That’s central to our message, so they understand that when we go on operations it’s at the behest of a democratically elected government and they have a hand in who that government is.”

Citizenship ceremonies often involve new Canadians from countries with a history of military dictatorship. Sending a message that in Canada the uniform is a symbol that can be trusted is important, Major Saunders said.

In its operational bulletin, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued instructions that the military member should be officially recognized during the ceremony and thanked for his or her service and dedication to Canada.

The citizenship judge or presiding official is asked in their opening remarks to say something along the lines of this sample text from the bulletin: “As a Canadian citizen, you live in a democratic country where individual rights and freedoms are respected. Thousands of brave Canadians have fought and died for these rights and freedoms. The commitment to Canada of our men and women in uniform should never be forgotten or go unrecognized. We thank them.”
 
kilekaldar said:
[Prof. Fellman said].... the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”
  ::)
 
It's his mention of "very chauvinistic values" that gives me pause, whichever shade of meaning he gives to "chauvinistic".

Jack Granatstein would have made for an interesting counterpoint.
 
N. McKay said:
It's his mention of "very chauvinistic values" that gives me pause, whichever shade of meaning he gives to "chauvinistic".

Jack Granatstein would have made for an interesting counterpoint.

Bravo for speaking the truth, Professor Emeritus Fellman! Canada is indeed well known globally as a chauvinistic society.  We don't let women do anything that might risk their fragile bodies or spirits...especially not anything as manly as operating in combat zones...





...oh, wait....  ::)

[sarcasm ends]

Professor "not-quite-so-emeritus" Fellman needs to give his head a very hard shake for bleating out such an incredibly misguided statement and ridiculing the contribution that women have made to the Canadian Forces and Canada's efforts world-wide.  Shame on him! :mad:
 
In fairness, G2G, the professor may have been using the word properly: to mean, roughly, jingoism.

Even if he was, it's still a damned silly thing to say.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
In fairness, G2G, the professor may have been using the word properly: to mean, roughly, jingoism.

Even if he was, it's still a damned silly thing to say.

“It’s an attempt to imbue new citizens with awareness of the military, and the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”

If he wants to play the part of the haughty, very well-educated, dare I say erudite, professor by using it in the old fashioned sense of "Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism.*" then perhaps he should find a more professional phrase than "all that stuff." 'Stuff' doesn't represent particularly well the contribution made by a country's men and women who have died in the service of their country and it's national values and interests.

Still not impressed with Professor Fellman's rather inarticulate messaging.  Disappointing.

Regards
G2G

* - Def'n 1. Chauvinistic

 
I just want to say thank you to all the veterans here who risked their lives for "that stuff".

:yellow:
 
Granatstein's take on Fellman:
.... "All that stuff." Values like sacrifice, freedom, resisting aggression.

To Fellman, those values equal chauvinism, and chauvinism is just another name for Toryism.

If this was only the spouting of one retired academic, no one would care. But the Globe and Mail article produced a quite extraordinary volume of comments from the newspaper's online readership.

Many were predictable vitriolic attacks on Stephen Harper. But despite increasing public support for the Canadian Forces, marked by renaming of highways, red Fridays, and increased defence budgets, there were clearly many who think like Fellman and who remain deeply suspicious of the military and how they see the government positioning it at home and employing it abroad.

One commentator among literally hundreds with similar views tartly observed that "Harper is trying REALLY hard to Americanize this culture. The military are now a professional volunteer arm of Canadian foreign policy . It's not about Canada's welfare, it's about the US and NATO."

Another writer observed that "Placing soldiers on the ceremonial stage is a crass display of military puffery," while a third mused balefully about "unbridled harperialist rightard propaganda . possibly to paper over the military's highly botched operations in Libya." It was all, wrote one, "The militarization of everyday life. Hmmm. A favourite tactic of fascist governments the world over."

Stephen Harper's secret agenda revealed at last.

Somehow, one might believe that the Canadian Forces was omnipresent in this nation's daily life. Those huge bases in every city pouring uniformed men and women onto the streets to cow the citizenry. In fact, Ottawa and Edmonton are the only large cities that have any military presence to speak of, the military years ago making the huge error of hiding its troops away in far off camps in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Gagetown and Petawawa. On university campuses, the Canadian Officers Training Corps closed down more than 40 years ago, and cadet corps long ago disappeared from high schools while those run by militia units have been disarmed for fear Canada's youth might be seen as child soldiers. And the tiny Canadian Forces - all 65,000 underequipped regulars - do not really pose much of a threat to Professor Fellman's values.

But Canada's military heritage does include "sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff," those things at which Fellman sneers. Some 45,000 Canadians died in the war against Hitler and Nazism so that all of us, including university professors, can be free to say what we choose when we choose to say it, no matter how silly. Without their sacrifice for, yes, freedom, Fellman would have grown up speaking German.

But it has ever been so. In peacetime, soldiers are routinely scorned.

Rudyard Kipling's Tommy captured this more than a century ago: "O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away'; But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play."

We all hope that after Afghanistan and Libya, the band won't begin to play for a long time. But if it does, Professor Fellman can expect that Canada's Tommies will be there to protect his freedom.
Source:  Ottawa Citizen, 5 Jul 11
 
Seems like a good idea to meet your new boss on their first day on the job.
 
While Fellman's rationale for opposing "all that stuff" is nonsensical and makes me wonder how he ever got to be a professor of anything, he is, I think, correct in suggesting that some (not the) Tories are, indeed, trying to change our national 'values,' and making us all more conscious and respectful of our military (past, present and future) is part of that project.

Many Conservatives are followers of Brian Lee Crowley and, especially, of part of the argument he made in his book, Fearful Symmetry ~ to wit the thesis that part of Canada (French speaking Canada) has led us from being a nation of makers and has turned us, instead, into a "nation of takers." Those Conservatives see the "decades of darkness" as having begun in 1965 when Lester Pearson invited his French Canadian "three wise men" (Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau) into the Liberal party and into his government.

I have no doubt that the Conservative brain trust does want to change our (Canadians') attitudes and values; that's part of their project to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party," one which is turned out of office, temporarily, every 10 to 20 years or so, for a brief period of rebuilding. We, the CF and the broader military community and those who already value a strong, professional military, will enjoy some (not unlimited) support and respect from that party. But we are being used as tools, only a few Conservative politicians - although, arguably, more than in the NDP or Liberal Party - have a real sense of deep respect and understanding of the CF. Prime Minister Harper is not one of that few, I suspect; but he might be a good workman who uses his tools with some care and skill. If so we will be well enough served by his political leadership.

 
Rifleman62 said:
Why do you suspect?


I see nothing in Harper's words or deeds that says that he values the CF as other than a policy tool. In contrast, there are a few Tories, including some MPs, who value the CF as a Canadian institution that contributed, contributes and will contribute much to our national character and to those things we hold most dear. Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps Harper sees the Cf as more than just a useful implement - but I said that I suspect, not that I know.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
. . .  But we are being used as tools, only a few Conservative politicians - although, arguably, more than in the NDP or Liberal Party - have a real sense of deep respect and understanding of the CF. Prime Minister Harper is not one of that few, I suspect; but he might be a good workman who uses his tools with some care and skill. If so we will be well enough served by his political leadership.

As is often the case, I am in agreement with your analysis.

In the 1990s when I left the Regular Force, there had been a significant delay in receiving benefits of my retirement (i.e. I wasn't getting any of the money owed me).  After I had exhausted all the normal channels without success, I then contacted the office of my MP in the hope that a query from an MP would jumpstart whomever was responsible for correcting the situation. Having been (though far, far down the totem pole at NDHQ) on the receiving end of MP requests and minqueries, I was aware of the attention paid to such questioning.  I was a little surprised, actually flabbergasted, when the staffer I spoke with about my previously sent letter, informed me that the MP did not deal with such problems from soldiers because "he doesn't see the need and they don't vote in his riding".  The MP in question (at the time a Reform member) was Stephen Harper.  Granted, this staffer may not have been accurately quoting his boss, but one would expect that an MP's staff are a reflection of his views.  The staffer did, however, suggest that I direct my request to the MP in the neighbouring riding, (who was the leader of the party, Preston Manning) whose staff did intervene on my behalf and (magically) all the difficulties with my pension were resolved within a day.  I had always supposed that the suggestion to seek help from Mr. Manning was due to Mr. Harper resigning as an MP a couple of weeks later.

While I have never had any meaningful conversation with Mr. Harper, save ordering pancakes from him at a Stampede pancake breakfast (mandatory events for politicians in Calgary - where, incidentally, his pancake making skills were poor) suffice to say, that incident has coloured my opinion about Mr. Harper when it is protrayed that he is a "friend of the military".
 
    The Conservatives talk a good game but, while I'm sure there are many that honestly respect and appreciate the military, take a look at their inaction in cleaning up VAC and bringing back disability pensions. Where the rubber meets the road, it's all about the dinars not duty. However, it is my opinion that the other parties in this country have nothing but contempt for the military.
 
S.M.A. said:
I don't think this has been posted before (at least I couldn't find it in a search here)- an initiative to reconnect Canadians to the military:

The Seven Year Project

Note the sections about resurrecting the COTC.

COTC article

COTC and comparison of with ROTC (US) and OTC (UK and Australia) programs

Please, for the lopve of god, no.

The CF is already over-officered; creating a new program to create still more officers without any defined requirement promises future disaster and current costs that are avoidable and unnecessary.
 
S.M.A. said:
I don't think this has been posted before (at least I couldn't find it in a search here)- an initiative to reconnect Canadians to the military:

The Seven Year Project

Note the sections about resurrecting the COTC.

COTC article

COTC and comparison of with ROTC (US) and OTC (UK and Australia) programs

"students would enrol as cadets who might be headed for the officer corps of the reserves, but with no risk of being called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere else and no obligation to make a service commitment beyond graduation. "

Sounds like a waste of money to me.
 
john10 said:
Sounds like a waste of money to me.
Why?
I would think that providing a younger generation with a knowledge of the military, some planning and leadership skills, factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors, and a personal linkage to "our" people would be a good thing, whether they choose to continue serving or not.
 
Journeyman said:
factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors

One of the COTC articles, perhaps unintentionally, demonstrates that such counter-arguments are needed. Judging by a number of media articles posted here recently, there are more than a few university professors with a seriously ignorant view of what values the CF defends.

Dr. Giroux, professor in the department of English and cultural studies at McMaster University, says that even such a small program would serve to speed the elimination of free, public space. “Universities are one of the few places left where people can actually debate and learn how to hold power accountable. Most of the public spheres have now been commercialized, and if they’re not commercialized, they’re militarized.”
 
Back
Top