Tag: Independence

Categories
Opinions

I moved from Vancouver to the East Coast for university

Montreal winter skyline. Photo by Saskia Wodarczak // The Concordian

Should I have thought it through a bit more?

I think that the top question I am asked when I tell someone I’m from Vancouver is: “So like, why are you here [Toronto or Montréal]…?” It has gotten to the point that I, myself, am not even sure. I frequently wonder if I was too hasty with my decision to move for school… Was my choice based on a whim, simply because I wanted to be independent?

I grew up a good seven minutes from the University of British Columbia (UBC), and I always thought that was where I would end up, not only for the convenience and how the name would look on future job applications. Two of my cousins went to UBC, as did my dad (who is now their archivist). Naturally, it was assumed that I would further my studies at UBC.

Upon contemplation, though, I realised that I had lived in Vancouver for 18 years and had done everything I needed to do in Vancouver for that period of my life. I had frequented the Aquarium, gone sledding at Grouse, and called the Island my second home. If I moved provinces, I would be independent… That intrigued me, especially since I’m an only child and have no family out East. 

So, I packed up my life, migrated east, and lived independently. I was entirely self-reliant and I loved it. It would be so hard for me to go back to Vancouver, simply because I have gotten used to my independence and know I would not be able to backtrack. 

I have only found two cons that came with moving away for school. First, my grandparents—I am either the youngest or the only grandchild on each side. I went from seeing my Nani and Opa two times a week, to seeing them both twice a year. I do not like that at all because I miss them the most. This one also became very apparent to me this past December: the harsh reality that my parents are ageing (I know they’re reading this right now and are probably feeling slightly insulted). Especially since I’m not there to see the progression of that, it is so much more apparent to me whenever I’m back. 

Second comes the change in energy from city to city. Going from the mountains and ocean on my doorstep, to looking out the window and only seeing a flat metropolis really took a toll on my mental health. The atmosphere and vibe of a new city can sometimes make (or break) an experience. I might’ve moved twice now for university, but since Montréal is much more similar to Vancouver, I’ve felt more at home. 

I love the independence and adventure of being a few provinces away, but sometimes, I’m mad at myself because I think that my decision to pursue this independence is selfish. It is hard to be completely happy somewhere else when, though by no means forced, there is a sense of familial obligation a ways away. What possessed me to move away from my family and a familiar city, not to mention a prestigious university? It can be quite a guilt trip sometimes. 

From time to time, I find myself feeling whimsical and dreaming about B.C., mentally driving down that precarious loop that turns Broadway into Lougheed, or speeding down south west Marine Drive. When anything to do with B.C. is mentioned in class, I perk up a bit. I know that I’ll never truly be home again, so it is bittersweet when I visit Vancouver, especially since I’m not totally sure where I’ll end up… Only time will tell.

Categories
News

“We need more action”: Canadian-Armenians demand bold measures on Nagorno-Karabakh

In an unprecedented show of force, Armenians from all across Canada poured into the capital on Friday

Gathered in front of Parliament, nearly 5,000 demonstrators were joined in solidarity by current and former MPs. Their objective? Compel the government to condemn Turkey and Azerbaijan as the aggressors in the Karabakh conflict, permanently halt the export of weapons to those countries, and recognize the Republic of Artsakh as an independent state.

Hrag Koubelian, president of the Concordia Armenian Students’ Union and a participant in Friday’s demonstrations, believes this is a fitting opportunity for Canada to show what it’s made of.

“Given Canada’s great record in defending human rights, we hope that it officially condemns Azeri and Turkish aggression against Artsakh and Armenia. We hope to see recognition of the Armenian people’s will to peacefully live on their lands.”

Sevag Belian, executive director of the ANCC, speaks to protestors at Parliament Hill. (Credits: Shoghig Tehinian)

However, with clashes intensifying and casualties mounting by the day, some, like Tamar Panossian, are worried that the government may be dragging its feet.

Panossian says, “Time is already being wasted because we have so many soldiers already dying, already so many people who have been displaced, and they’re taking a lot of time to take action.

Such concerns have been growing among the Canadian-Armenian community ever since open war broke out on Sept. 27 between Armenian and Azeri forces over Nagorno-Karabakh, also known as Artsakh.

While sporadic fighting has occurred along the line of contact (LOC) in the past, the latest round has been the deadliest to date. Recent estimates place the number of casualties in the thousands.

The Armenian community is particularly worried that active Turkish interventionism has made Azerbaijan more belligerent. In response, Sevag Belian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, says the government needs to take some strong measures.

“Canada cannot afford doing business with a genocidal state such as Turkey that has absolutely no intention to adhere to international law. Let it be clear: this is a red line for our community,” says Belian.

Some current and former MPs are trying to bring this issue to the attention of the government. Alexandre Boulerice, New Democratic Party MP for Rosemont – La Petite-Patrie, and a long-time supporter of Armenian causes, says this is a matter of human rights and national self-determination.

Canadian-Armenian man looks over a demonstration sign calling for Turkey’s expulsion from NATO. (Credits: Shoghig Tehinian)

“You can count on us and the NDP to continue putting pressure on the Liberal government to do more.” He agrees the suspension of weapons exports to Turkey must be made permanent.

The Conservatives, for their part, are stressing the importance of an open and transparent investigation into weapons exports, as well as the right to self-determination.

Harold Albrecht, former Conservative MP for Kitchener—Conestoga, who also attended the demonstration, believes Canada ultimately must stand up for Armenians. He said, “I’m hoping I can influence my colleagues [in the Conservative Party] to put pressure on the government.”

Some of that pressure is even coming from within the Liberal party itself. In a statement that was read out on Friday, Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal MP for Laval—Les Îles, expressed his full support for the demonstrators.

“We will never stop until we reach the recognition of the free and independent Republic of Artsakh. I have been with you, I am with you, and always will be with you,” he said.

Earlier this month, Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne told his Turkish counterpart that “external parties should stay out [of the conflict].” Additionally, Global Affairs Canada temporarily suspended some weapons export permits to Turkey, pending an investigation into their use in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Mher Karakashian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, says Armenians are definitely encouraged by these steps. However, he awaits what the government will do next. “We will have to see what happens in the coming days. Our hope is that Canada takes up a leadership role, together with its allies, mobilizing the international community to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

 

Photographs by Shoghig Tehinian

Categories
Opinions

A parliament for Scotland to call its own

A British take on the case for Scottish independence

As the date of the referendum on Scottish independence looms, the polls suggest that support for the No vote has narrowed to 48 per cent, while the Yes vote trails with 42 per cent; a marked improvement from the 32 per cent the Yes camp were polling this time last year. At the least now, the Yes campaign appears to have attracted sufficient support to be able to force the issue of another referendum within a generation. Perhaps in November of this year we will be drawing comparisons between the 49 per cent of Scots in 2014 and the 49 per cent of Quebecers in 1995.

The opposing camps, Better Together and Yes Scotland, have both sought to define the debate in their own terms. The Yes campaign romanticizes and waxes lyrical about  patriotic nationalism and self-determination; the No campaign scare-mongers and refuses to fathom a competitive post-independence Scotland. It is a polarized debate in which the old stalwarts of union square are up against nationalistic upstarts. This opposition is typical of an independence debate, yet the Scottish case also has its own particularities that Catalans or Quebecers may not relate to.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, as its name suggests, a synergy. A less-than-united kingdom would find it difficult to have its voice heard on the international stage. But perhaps the era of Britain’s having its voice heard, which spanned much of the last five centuries, must end. The big difference between the Yes and No camps, I believe, is that Westminster politicians like Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown would rather see themselves as part of a bigger whole than as part of a nation of a mere six million people. A modest self-rule, for them, would mean that Scots would never have their voices heard on the global stage.

The Yes campaign’s would-be remedy to this dilemma is membership in the European Union. This, however, leads to another debate: surely Spain would exercise its veto of Scotland’s membership for fear of creating a precedent that Catalan or Basque nationalists could use to their advantage. An independent Scotland in the European Union would also be able to pursue popular policies which are blocked in the Westminster Parliament, such as not renewing Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent Trident, nationalizing the North Sea oil reserve, stimulating the public sector, plugging the gaps in the welfare state, along with ceasing privatization of the National Health Service.

Many Scots have their greatest grievance with both under-representation and misrepresentation in politics. Of the 59 parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, only one returned as a member of the Conservative Party, which leads the two-party governing Westminster coalition that is pursuing policies in Scotland that, frankly, few Scots voted for. Your man on the street, however, may not know whether Scotland returns 59 or 259 Members of Parliament to Westminster   ̶  he simply does not want to be governed by a Parliament 500 miles away from his own.

Therefore, I urge anyone reading this article who has the right to vote in the referendum next month to rid themselves of the fear of the unknown and realize self-determination by voting YES. Surely Scotland ought to be ruled from Edinburgh: you would not want to be asking yourself “what if?” in twenty years, as many Quebecers now do, would you?

Categories
Opinions

Independence throes but independent woes

Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaks about the benefits of independence earlier this year. Photo from the Scottish Government (Flickr).

The key difference between Quebec and Scotland’s bids for statehood

Quebecers are intimately acquainted with referendums. The word was on everybody’s lips during the last provincial election, and now, it’s back – but not for us.

For better or for worse, it seems like independence has a date with someone else this time around. On Sept. 18, Scots will head to the polls to possibly undo over 300 years of shared history with England, and the threat of a Not-So-United Kingdom looms over the Western world.

As one of the few Western independence movements, Quebec separatists have obviously taken great interest in the situation across the pond. While she was in office, Pauline Marois even visited Scotland to discuss the similarities between their two movements. However, she was noticeably shafted by her Scottish contemporaries.

Some were surprised, but we shouldn’t have been. Because Marois was making the same mistake that thousands of Quebecers and analysts are making: they’re assuming that the cases of Scotland and Quebec are the same, when they could be anything but.

Let’s look beyond the mutual disdain they each have for the English. Why does Quebec want independence? It comes down to culture, and the fact that Quebec’s is distinct from the rest of Canada. The obvious example here is language, which has shaped the Quebec identity since its genesis. Because of this, Quebec has grown and shaped itself independently from the rest of Canada. We can see this in the legislation that attempts to protect the French language, such as Bill 101, and the culture that comes with it, such as the attempted Charter of Quebec Values.

Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaks about the benefits of independence earlier this year. Photo from the Scottish Government (Flickr).

The point here is that Quebec’s quest for independence is a very emotional one. It is entrenched in ideas of culture and identity. Critics often point to the pragmatic parts of Quebec independence – such as currency, economy and Quebec-Canada relations – as its weakest arguments for being an independent state.

Scotland, however, is the opposite. Yes, there are portions of the independence movement that touch on cultural differences, but it is argued in the scope of politics. Why? Because the crux of the Scottish independence argument is representation.  Or rather, the lack of it.

Scotland works similarly to Quebec: they elect MPs who go to the national parliament, but there is also a parliament in Edinburgh, which controls regional matters such as health, education, and social work. The pro-independence Government of Scotland believes that those powers and decisions “have been good for Scotland”. The problem lies higher, in the Westminster Parliament.

The Westminster Parliament has 650 MPs. However, only 59 of those MPs are from Scotland. According to the Scottish government, this means that “policies are imposed on Scotland even when they have been opposed by our elected Westminster MPs”. Thus, affairs like welfare, taxes and foreign policy have often been in conflict with what Scotland’s MPs actually voted for.

What this has created is a feeling of disdain for Westminster. Even if Scotland elects MPs of all the same camp, it is likely that Westminster will go the other way simply due to how outnumbered they are. The Scottish government sums it up as a choice “between two futures: taking control in Scotland of our own affairs, or remaining under the control of Westminster”.

Compare this to Quebec, who is second only to Ontario in the amount of seats it holds in the House of Commons. In the 2011 federal election, the NDP won 59 of Quebec’s 75 seats. Quebec basically single-handedly created the official opposition. In contrast to the Scotland situation, one cannot argue that Quebec is under-represented in federal politics.

The Scottish referendum – regardless of its outcome – should be used as an opportunity for Quebec to examine its own ideals. But similar goals don’t make similar circumstances. Scotland is not Quebec, and Quebec is not Scotland. And the faster we understand that, the better our future will be.

Exit mobile version