Cansov II

Canadian Sovereignty and the Charter of Earth, II

By John Taylor; 2007 September 06, 17 Asma, 164 BE

I promised to write about Canadian sovereignty, so here is my best shot.

There has been a spurt of immigration from the United States since the beginning of the regime of Bush the Younger. I read an article lately about how American expatriates in Vancouver are meeting to share their experiences. They had some interesting observations about Canada. One thing they noticed was that here we expect guests to take off their shoes when they enter our homes. I think this is more a northern attribute, since they have the same expectation of guests in Alaska (at least they did when I was there, back in the 1970's). In any case, I find it highly annoying myself as a guest to be obliged to lose the shoes. Floors are cold, which is why you wear shoes in the first place. There is no earthly reason to keep this custom in southern parts of Canada.

Another thing the American expates notice is that in an organization when it comes to making a decision, Canadians tend to take the time it takes to come to a consensus among all levels, whereas in the U.S. the norm is more of a top down approach, a mandate comes from the boss and goes down to the worker. Things get done quicker in the States, though probably more mistakes are being made.

When I read about the lack of a shoe removal custom for guests I was all ready to go down and become an American, but now I am not so sure. The ponderous but democratic Canadian decision-making process may tax the patience, especially when your feet are freezing, but on the face of it this does seem a little closer to Baha'i consultation. Maybe I will stay in Canada after all.

In any case, the most original thinker about Canadian sovereignty was an immigrant from the US, Jane Jacobs. She observed that the Canadian constitution ignores the sovereignty of localities, and especially of cities. This engrains waste and perverts spending. Under the present taxation system money goes to the federal government, which then "gives" it to the provinces, along with a few strings attached; they then "give" more money to the local level, with yet more strings and conditions. Aside from the gross inefficiency, this leads to a climate of disputation and struggle among all levels of government. Instead, we should adopt a system of direct funding to the local level first. This would assure that spending decisions are made by those on the spot, those who know how to get the best bang for the buck.

Jane Jacobs saw this as a flaw written into Canadian sovereignty, but the problem exists in every inhabited area of the planet. We need to devise some kind of formula to automatically depopulate areas where humans have no business living, places where habitation destroys the environment or where residents are in danger of tsunamis, flooding or other natural disasters. Other places, where growth is deemed desirable, would then be populated by built in incentives. The same formula would systematically reduce our carbon footprint, to make every place more livable. Devising such a formula to limit and share sovereignty will be the first job of a world government.

Think of it like this. You and I are going to die, sooner or later. Why should cities, groups and corporations be immortal? They can outlive their usefulness just like anything else. But present capitalist ideology makes sure that nothing can touch the absolute sovereignty of the corporation; same way, nationalist ideology similarly holds national government sacrosanct. And, most notorious of all, religions hold their power over their adherents very close to their chest. In Norway Muslims and Christians recently came to a mutual agreement to allow mutual conversion among each other, a first in the world. This is a slow start on what should be a universal right to convert -- which was called for at last November's Interfaith Summit in Prague.

As it is, beliefs, ideas and groupings of all sorts are untouchable, inalienable, absolutist, in spite of this attitude being implicated as the base cause of war, conflict and even global warming. We need to design senescence and mortality into the charter of every organization. The spiritual basis of this principle was laid out by Jesus Christ: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This tentative quality has penetrated science so much that it is the mark of the scientific method: ideas are not absolute, they are conditional upon usefulness. But other areas of human life, just as essential for our survival, remain untouched.

It is clear that these mental absolutisms could easily be wiped away if we all had a more cosmopolitan education. We hold our own nation absolute above all others because we know only that nation; we hold our religion supreme over other Faiths because we know nothing of other Faiths. We neglect our rights in the workplace because we do not know that there are more equitable and efficient alternatives. That is why I hold such high hopes for the Earth Charter. Unlike the other two pillars of the UN, this charter is a bottom-up document, built up over decades by common consensus. It is directed at the environment, the one factor that has been left out of all sovereignties until now. In the introduction to "The Earth Charter In Action," Peter Blaze Corcoran points out that over half of the world's population is under the age of twenty-five, and that their future should be the first consideration of all governance.

"It is becoming well-established that we can meet the basic needs of all and surely we could find satisfying and sustainable employment for the rising generations in doing so. The Millennium Development Goals' process is showing us the way to alleviate the suffering of the billion of our brothers and sisters who live in extreme poverty. But, are we willing to do so? By what thinking and what policy might we move toward a sustainable world?
"As early as 1987, the Brundtland Commission wisely saw the need for `... a new charter to guide state behavior in the transition to sustainable development' (p. 332). This charter, of course, became the Earth Charter and it became a guide to much more than the behavior of states. ... for some it became a guide for an ethical life. For others, it became a values framework for business or public policy. For still others, it became a covenant for caring for Earth -- and for others.
"The Earth Charter is an inclusive, ethical vision that can guide action of all kinds toward a sustainable world in which we recognize our mutual destiny and responsibility. It can show the way toward a world that is one, even as the Earth is one.... The Earth Charter is an "ark of hope"; it is a vessel for our hopes for a better world. It helps us to know what a just, peaceful, and sustainable world might look like.
"I am convinced that we need such a hopeful vision of a sustainable world. The Earth Charter principles result from a successful process of building consensus on values that are widely shared. ... Earth Charter principles articulate common ethical values that are compatible with many indigenous beliefs, worldviews, religions, and secular philosophies. They help us interpret our beliefs in light of the perilous trends of our current unsustainable development path. They express these values as a global, civic ethic of specific rights and responsibilities ... By being part of a participatory, inspiring process, it gives us hope that the vision is viable. By specifically articulating a vision of sustainable development, it provides a path forward to achieve it. The Earth Charter is a guide to such a path and an inspiration to action." (Corcoran, Making the World One, Introduction)