by Jay Ramasubramanyam
On Nov. 8, 2016, the world saw the success of an unlikely, power-hungry narcissist as he replaced the first African-American President of the United States of America. While the world still reels from the shock of such a turn of events, his reign of terror has continued well past his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017. The first few weeks of his presidency foreshadows a dystopian future. With one executive order after another, his measures inspire Orwellian nightmares of epic proportions.
I am certainly not an alarmist nor do I intend to convey this with my piece. Trump’s presidency, however, has definitely had its impact on Canada. On Jan. 29, barely ten days after Donald Trump became America’s Predator-in-Chief, Alexandre Bissonnette, a far-right extremist, unleashed violence on a group of peaceful worshippers in a Quebec City mosque. Bissonnette killed six and injured many more. Canada’s benevolence and kindness shone in solidarity with the victims. The outpouring of support and slogans such as “Je suis Québecois” became commonplace in the aftermath of the massacre.
However, the same cannot be said about a few other elements of the political elite, who have assumed the role of guiding Canada into a future similar to that of our southern neighbour. Dr. Kellie Leitch, who Fox News characterized as overqualified to be a politician, threatens to shake Canada’s multicultural foundations. Leitch is a candidate for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. She promises to implement a “Canadian Values Test” for new immigrants.
While Leitch has managed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting population by exclaiming that Trump’s presidency brings a new and exciting prospect to Canada’s future, she has alienated those who have a lot to offer to Canada’s diversity by pitching her misguided and nonsensical Canadian Values Test. Leitch’s proposal views Canada’s diverse citizenry as a disqualification for what she thinks is Canadian-ness. This is unsettling and shocking.
Trump has not only managed to vilify and ostracize nearly every demographic possible in the 18 months leading up to his presidency, he has also made good on his promises since assuming office. The prospect of having Trump-sympathizers like Kellie Leitch in our backyard as potential representatives of the people has given us a picture of a new political reality — a reality that can be subject to manipulation and can be defined by an individual’s personal peeves. In this reality, our civil liberties are threatened, as well as other defining aspects of our identity and autonomy as individuals. The silver-lining in all this, however, is that new life has been breathed into activism and grassroots-level community action.
Many may disagree that the present political shift toward the far-right cannot be equated with the fascism that emerged in the early 20th century. What we have seen in the last few months has not only brought disturbing right-wing views bubbling back to the surface but also actions that reflect such views. To equate Trump, Leitch and their European counterparts, such as Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, to conservatives is naïve. In the guise of free speech and in the mask of conservatism, these leaders have allowed hate crimes and hate speech to thrive. If we, as educated masses, are to gullibly allow for the bar on conservatism to be recalibrated to allow such views to be swept under the rug, it is only a matter of time before othering becomes run-of-the-mill. This prediction does not come solely from what has happened in the last three weeks or so alone. Trump’s right-wing rhetoric may have taken many of us by surprise but he managed to garner the support of a predominantly white middle class populace who considered the identification of a common external enemy agreeable to their realm of existence. Having identified this common external enemy, all Trump had to do was appease the lowest common denominator, which he successfully managed to do by scapegoating anyone who was not a white male. Trump’s post-election rhetoric and behaviour continue to adopt a rather elaborate scheme of alternative facts and doublespeak, culminating in the creation of a post-truth worldview.
I could go on about Trump’s actions; however, if we were to think that Canada is not feeling the effects of this new presidency, we would be fooling ourselves. Leitch’s Canadian Values Test is a step towards legitimizing and normalizing racial oppression and racial profiling. Such a prospect is anything but Canadian. A conversation I had with my landlord — a white upper-middle class man — demonstrated that Trump’s rhetoric has given a renewed opportunity for radical right-wing thoughts to thrive amongst people, providing justification through the guise of progressive-conservatism. This man had the audacity to propose that every immigrant’s name should be recorded in a registry and that all immigrants should be obligated to report to law enforcement authorities periodically to ensure that Canadian society is freed from criminality.
When Leitch harps on the Canadian Values Test, she is clueless as to what it would entail. One can be sure that she does not expect to apply such a test to a white immigrant from Denmark or some other European nation — remember, this is the woman who believed that “barbaric cultural practices” should be reported. Any party with such a legacy only needs a push from those who are susceptible to xenophobia. If we continue to believe this is not a recipe for tyranny, we may have to rethink what we consider to be legitimate political authority.
This is only the tip of the iceberg! We have an enormous responsibility to resume a fight to stop such forces from ruling the roost. George Orwell may have given a manual for 21st century political reality when he wrote in his diary that, “We are all drowning in filth. When I talk to anyone or read the writings of anyone who has any axe to grind, I feel that intellectual honesty and balanced judgement have simply disappeared from the face of the earth. […] Everyone is dishonest, and everyone is utterly heartless towards people who are outside the immediate range of his own interests. What is most striking of all is the way sympathy can be turned on and off like a tap according to political expediency.” If we want to reject Orwell’s pessimism, it is up to us to lead the good fight!
This article first appeared in Vol. 9, No. 5 (February/March 2017).
