nationalism

Tuesday October 22, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 22, 2019

Canada’s divisions have been thrown into sharp relief

December 13, 2018

The 2019 federal election confirmed deep rifts in the country – from reinvigorated Quebec nationalism to Prairie anger over stalled pipelines and a suffering economy. But the results also revealed divisions that rarely get the same attention, such as the widening gulf between cities and the aging populations of rural areas.

Returns Monday night showed the Bloc Québécois, once considered a spent force, competing for the plurality of Quebec’s 78 seats with the Liberals, powered by nationalist sentiment and greying voters; and Alberta and Saskatchewan stayed a deep shade of Conservative blue, with two isolated NDP and Liberal islands among the 48 seats.

December 1, 2016

Vast northern regions of Ontario, Manitoba and and the territories with large Indigenous populations were shades of red and orange, along with downtown Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, where there was a smattering of green. Mid-sized cities and the suburbs were the swing riding checkerboards that decided the election in the end.

The Liberal victory pitted big cities against rural regions, the North against southern cousins and the old against the young. Younger urban and northern ridings largely remained with the centre-left parties, while aging rural areas were resoundingly Conservative and Bloc Québécois.

December 20, 2018

Renewed leadership has helped drive Quebec nationalism and more robust Prairie demands, turning Quebec to the Bloc and keeping the countryside blue.

In Alberta, Jason Kenney has suggested that another term of Trudeau government would threaten national unity, while Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has been a reliable wingman, pushing Prairie interests with Ottawa.

“It’s certainly true that a Liberal victory of any kind will not be well perceived, especially by the two premiers who have gone to war against Justin Trudeau,” said Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, who taught for 17 years at universities in Alberta and Saskatchewan before moving to the Montreal think tank last year. “It will increase the tension with Ottawa with Justin Trudeau remaining in power, even as a minority [government]. A majority [would have been] a scream fest.”

July 12, 2019

Both Quebec’s second-year Premier François Legault and rookie Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet rose by promising to add urgency to provincial demands for more autonomy.

“The big winner of this election is François Legault,” said Jean-Marc Léger, founder of the polling firm that bears his name. “He was at the heart of the campaign, and after what happened in this campaign he’s going to carry a much greater weight when he makes demands.”

Mr. Léger also noted that separatist and nationalist parties garnered 70 per cent of popular support in the 2018 Quebec election and were still well over 50 per cent during most of the Liberal years, from 2003 to 2018.

August 30, 2012

“There is always a strong nationalist sentiment in Quebec,” he said. “It’s just not always apparent.”

During those Liberal years, the province was led by Jean Charest and Philippe Couillard, two of the “most federalist and least nationalist premiers in Quebec history. You have to go back to Adélard Godbout in the Second World War to find a Quebec premier who had so little interest in nationalism,” Prof. Béland said.

The rise of Quebec nationalism and deep Prairie grievance do not pose immediate existential threats to national unity. Separatism is unpopular, and Quebec nationalism and Western alienation have been part of Canadian identity for most of the country’s history.

“Regional differences may be growing at the moment, but in Canada it’s cyclical,” Prof. Béland said. “I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of regionalism or Quebec nationalism. Sometimes they go dormant or are less active, but they are always there.” (Globe & Mail) 

 

Tuesday October 30, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 30, 2018

Hatred has no borders, including in Canada

Saturday’s horrific mass murder of 11 worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue is somehow made even worse with the knowledge that it was the product of anti-Semitism.

September 13, 2012

The baseless hatred and xenophobia directed at Jewish people has been with us for generations. You could be forgiven for thinking that with hundreds of years of experience and practice, civilization should have learned by now to at least bottle up, if not stop, the violence that flows from such hatred.

But no. People of all religions have a right to safety and security, especially when in their places of worship. But even that seemingly inviolable right was ripped away from the people of Squirrel Hill and their religious and humanitarian colleagues around the world. There is no safety, even in a place of worship, certainly not in a country that is increasingly polarized and consuming itself, all the while being armed to the teeth.

But we must not overly compartmentalize this horror. The United States, which increasingly appears to be out of control on a downbound train, is a petrie dish with its militant gun worship and Trump-inspired culture of intolerance, hatred and revenge. Some of these characteristics are unique to America, like Trump himself. Mixed together they make a toxic fertilizer feeding the poisoned garden that is now the U.S.

But they’re not on a different road than much of the world, including Canada. They are only further along.

According to the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitic incidents in that country increased 60 per cent last year. The league found 1,986 incidents of physical assault, harassment and vandalism against Jews and Jewish institutions in 2017.

But consider Canada. Global News reported that 14 synagogues across the country received mail that said “Jewry Must Perish.” A high school was defaced with graffiti saying “Jews did 911” along with a Nazi flag.

According to Statistics Canada, Jews were the most targeted minority for hate crimes in 2016. B’nai B’rith Canada says anti-Semitic incidents increased 24 per cent that year and last year saw another increase. The reality in many other parts of the world, including Europe, differs only by a matter of degree. The U.S. is just the canary in the mine shaft.

What will we do? Doing nothing when confronted with hatred and intolerance is no option. If we choose to stand by and allow this poison to continue spreading, we are complicit.

It’s getting clearer with each incident that social media is another breeding ground. The Pittsburgh murderer spewed hatred on a web platform that claims to be a bastion for free speech. No one likes the idea of further limitations on free speech, but we need better ways to confront hatred when it hides behind freedom. This terrible crime could have been stopped had someone notified authorities to intervene earlier, given the shooter’s propensity for hate speech was well known.

Canada is not immune. Intolerance is growing, and its seeds are sown by extremists on social media and even by some politicians. Knowing that, what will we do about it? What will you do? (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

SaveSave

Tuesday August 15, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday August 15, 2017

Under pressure, Trump condemns neo-Nazis, supremacists and KKK: ‘Racism is evil’

President Donald Trump denounced the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis by name Monday and announced that the Justice Department has launched a civil rights investigation into the killing of a counterprotester at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend as he sought to tamp down mounting criticism of his initial response to the violence.

June 9, 2016

“Anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held accountable,” Trump said in brief remarks to reporters in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, where he returned after a week of vacation in Bedminster, N.J. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”

Trump added: “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as a nation.”

The statement came two days after he failed to specifically condemn the white supremacist rally after a woman was killed and as many as 19 wounded by a driver who reportedly espoused racist and pro-Nazi sentiments and had taken part in the “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville.

On Saturday, Trump condemned “the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” sparking sharp criticism from Democrats, civil rights proponents and some Republicans for failing to single out and condemn the white supremacists who sparked the violence.

On Monday, Kenneth C. Frazier, CEO of Merck, said in a tweet that he was resigning from Trump’s American Manufacturing Council, saying he was doing so “as a matter of personal conscience” and that “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal.”

Trump had been under increasing pressure to call out the groups by name after his previous remarks bemoaning violence on “many sides” prompted criticism from fellow Republicans as well as Democrats. (Source: National Post) 

 

SaveSave

Editorial Cartooning 101

Post by The Hamilton Spectator.

 

Refresher on Editorial Cartooning 101

Last week I drew a cartoon in advance of the day the world was to find out the results of the referendum on Scottish independence. Of course, no one knew how the final numbers would turn out, but the pollsters said it was to be close. The choice for me therefore was to draw something that would work with either a yes or no victory. There was an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the cartoon, as one can tell from this particular forum for outrage, yet with all the thumbs down communicated to me through social media, I’m still not clear why this cartoon is so repulsive to so many.

Independence movements come in many forms. The ones I depicted of cheery folk in traditional garb are looked mostly upon as romanticized rebels who’ve sought their aims mostly through democratic or civil disobedience means. Many of the causes the cute characters represent have compatriots who’ve used the violent tactics to make their points known, in the form of letter bombs, kidnapping, and assassinations, as well as other means not much different from the kind ISIS uses this day to achieve their so called ‘Caliphate’.

Despite my given name I’ve never been supportive of Scottish Independence for my ancestral homeland, and I’ve always believed Quebec should always belong to my native Canada. I’m repulsed by the notion of ultra nationalism and, if anything, I hoped my cartoon would have conveyed caution to those blinded by jingoism and radicalism.

I assume, I guess, that some reacted rather negatively to this cartoon because they expected a bit of giggle at the end. Yes, cartoons often end that way and my cartoons are better known for using humorous satire as opposed to shock.

Perhaps readers didn’t appreciate having their emotions jostled by a cartoon?

Did some anticipating a yes victory wake up to the reality of a no vote only to find a cartoon referencing Scottish independence with the lunacy of statehood sought by ISIS?

Did readers think the now familiar image of an ISIS terrorist about to commit murder was terrible gag using a poor word play on ‘separation’.

I don’t expect people to always agree with my cartoons, or for anyone’s cartoon for that matter. However, I do wish people would have a better understanding of what we editorial cartoonists do and what the point of an editorial cartoon is. I wish people would take more than 6.5 seconds to actually view and process the images we draw before leaping to conclusions.  Editorial cartoons are often funny, but they can also be quite pointed by provoking thought, anger or even sadness with its audiences.

Given how several demanded the cartoon be removed from the Spec.com, and the odd one, rather ironically, wanted editors to metaphorically lob my head off as a punishment for this cartoon, I wonder how conscious some readers are of rights to expression we apparently enjoy in our free world.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Friday, March 1, 2013By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday, March 1, 2013

House calls being made as part of EI audit

Opposition leader Tom Mulcair has been working tirelessly for nearly a year to position his New Democrats as the government in waiting, and himself as a future prime minister. Thursday both those objectives grew measurably more difficult to achieve.

With the defection of Quebec NDP MP Claude Patry to the moribund but apparently still kicking. With the defection of Quebec NDP MP Claude Patry to the moribund but apparently still kicking Bloc Quebecois, it now becomes clear that Mulcair is fighting on three fronts to hold the historic gains made by his party in the 2011 election. Never mind building on those gains: Mulcair will be putting out this fire for the foreseeable future, focusing on the preservation of his Quebec beachhead. Even that is no longer a foregone conclusion. There’s Justin Trudeau to consider.

The truly aggravating thing for Mulcair here must be the realization that he brought this on himself with his ill-considered bid to “improve on” the federal Clarity Act in January. That was a battle of choice, not necessity. He could have left well enough alone. Now the damage is done, and its ripple effects are spreading.

Consider how humbly it began, with Bill C-457, initiated by Bloc MP Andre Bellavance. Had that passed – it was never more than a goad, on account of the Bloc holding, at that time, four seats – it would have repealed the law that sets the terms for separation. Among other measures, the Clarity Act states Canada cannot entertain such negotiations absent a clear majority, voting on a clear question.  (Source: National Post)