The Canadian election is two weeks behind us in the rear view mirror of history, perhaps offering enough distance for a sense of perspective. There’s agreement on what happened, pending a few recounts, but questions of why it happened and the future implications are more complex. Start with what we know: this election was the most dramatic in memory, and no one is saying any more that Canadian politics are boring. Once it was only Québec which would swing dramatically from socially conservative to the liberal, or from the most religious to the least. This year Québec lead the way, but there were other changes everywhere.

The logical place to start is by looking at the results. Because there are five national political parties in Canada, it’s possible to win a seat with far less than 50% of the vote. The party with the most seats gets the first shot at forming the government, and the head of that party gets to be Prime Minister. Here are both the number of seats won and the popular vote in this year’s election, and in the 2008 election. There are some fascinating changes, for every party. Here’s the data; analysis after the cut.

I’m not a Canadian, but I’ve lived in Canada and was an enthusiastic supporter of the New Democratic Party, the perennial third (sometimes fourth) party in that country until a few days ago. I don’t wish to steal Peter Marmorek‘s thunder as an actual Canadian and I look forward to his post-election analysis, but I would like to share some reflections of my own.

When I was a student at McGill in the early ’70s, I campaigned for an NDP candidate in Montreal. Naturally, he finished a distant third (if not fourth). Now I’ve learned that dramatic NDP gains in Quebec (where it nearly wiped out the separatist Bloc Québécois, down from 47 seats to four) have catapulted it into a respectable and unprecedented second place finish nationally–up from 37 to 103 seats, with the Liberals crashing from 77 to 34.

The ruling Conservative Party won a majority of the seats but only 39% of the vote. The key to the election strategically seems to be that a close split between Liberal and NDP voters in Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, allowed the Conservatives to win a decisive number of seats there.

I was drawn to the NDP out of a sense of international solidarity as a young American socialist who was a member of the Socialist Party-USA and later its successor organizations, the Social Democrats-USA and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

We elect a new government next Monday in Canada after a one month election that began with a lot of whimpering, but seems to be ending with a remarkable bang. To the surprise of media, pundits, and most of the country, the NDP, the socialist party that has been forever mired in third place federally (behind the Liberals and Conservatives) has suddenly surged into second, closing fast on the governing Conservatives (3% behind at the last poll). The second place Liberals, who have been advocating that NDPers vote strategically for them on an ABC (Anybody But Conservative) rationale are catatonic with horror as the same rationale rolls round onto them.

Fortunately, Ian Welsh is around to explain what this all means, who the players are, and who owns the teams on which they play. I’ve deeply admired Ian’s analyses (of politics both Canadian and International) over the years in the Agonist, in Pogge, in Firedoglake, and now on his own website. Here’s a taste of his explanation, which aligns with mine so precisely as to make any further comment of mine redundant. His whole piece is well worth reading!

The scourge of the NDP has been the perception that they can’t win Federally. As a result, in most Federal elections vote switching has often cost them at least 5% of their vote, and I’d argue up to 10%….As a result, parties that range from Center to Left (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc) have regularly pulled in about 60% of the vote, and yet the Conservatives have had minority governments for much of the last decade. This is also due to the fact that, like the US system, ours is first past the post, winner take all.

One of the most read pieces on this blog in the last week is Eli Zaretsky’s “Proto-Fascist Elements in America Today.” It’s a powerful piece, and I disagree with it only in two regards: I don’t think the problem is particularly American, and I don’t think it’s about fascism. Zaretsky’s concerns certainly apply as much to Canada and the UK as they do to the US. And the core of what is wrong with what is happening in these countries isn’t a potential slide into proto-fascism, it’s that what is making that possible is the destruction of the legal protections that were once taken for granted.

Paul Craig Roberts, in CounterPunch, cuts to the heart of the issue:

The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.
The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English speaking peoples the most free in the world. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

It is this willful and demonstrable loss of the protection of law that is the core of what is wrong with what is happening in the West today.

Winter solstice is time of greatest darkness, which of course is why so many cultures have festivals of lights at this time. But in our culture the lights have gotten over the top, with thousands of lights blazing as you walk down the road, and when you get to the mall at the end of the road (all our roads may not lead to Rome, but most lead to a mall) the lights have become so bright there are no longer any shadows. That’s a profound loss. In the shadows lie our deep fears, and this time of the year traditionally allowed us to look at those fears, to name those shadows, and to learn how they connect to us. If we don’t connect to our shadows, we never grow up, and (like my namesake) we can only live in never never land.

This year, when I look in the darkness, I see the shadow of my country, and it is a dark and oil-stained shadow. I used to be proud of Canada. When I travelled around the world, and people asked me where I was from, I would answer Canada, and they would say, “Oh, Canada good” and then make jokes about snow and cold and I would laugh, and then we’d go out and have a drink and become friends. But as George Monbiot so accurately says, “So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. The tar barons of Alberta…are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.” I read that and wish I could find a reason to disagree.

“The forms in my work are derivative of nightmares I had when I was a child. My fodder is junk mail, litter, waste, and nightmares. My job is to transform these things into art.” — Aurora Robson

When something terrible happens, it might someday somehow be transformed into something less terrible — this is the personal belief to which I most stubbornly cling.

This isn’t idealism. It’s alchemy, the transformation of something of no value or little value into something useful, something beautiful.

Honeybees are alchemists. Sewage plant workers are alchemists. Anyone who has ever picked up litter, watered a seed, raised a child, started a business, or strung words together into a meaningful sentence is an alchemist.

It is in that core of my basic optimistic nature, in that tiny place where I believe alchemy is true, that I am beholden to the creations of artist Aurora Robson.

Robson’s dynamic, flowing installations and sculptures are constructed from discarded plastic bottles reclaimed from the wastebasket of America’s streets.

(To see more of Aurora Robson’s work, visit the Tikkun Daily Art Gallery.)

Perhaps recent leaders of Israel might made better choices had they spent more time reading Sherlock Holmes. Of particular use to them might have been The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet in which Holmes says, “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Then they might have realized that the result of making a two-state solution impossible was to make a one-state solution inevitable. Having worked to weaken Palestine, to undermine all Palestinian leaders, to create – in Sharon’s memorable phrase for the settlements – facts on the ground they are now like a go player who having focused exclusively on a specific battle over territory suddenly looks at the bigger picture and realizes he’s lost the game.

We are now at that point of realization. Almost 10% of Israeli Jews now live in the Territories or in East Jerusalem. It would be impossible for any Israeli government to make a peace offer to Palestinians that would give up those homes and settlements: in Israeli politics, their coalition would instantly disappear. (And it’s unlikely they could do it militarily: the BBC reports that , “An increasing number of Israeli soldiers are publicly objecting, on religious and political grounds, to their role in the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.”) Similarly, it would not be possible for any Palestinian leader to accept the kind of offer any Israeli leader might realistically make: his support would also disappear. The handful of bantustans offered as a Palestinian country at Oslo might have been the closest to a joint solution ever reached. And if a two-state solution is impossible,as seems increasingly clear, then the only alternative, however improbable, is a one-state solution.

Please check out this diary by Connecticut Man1 at ePluribus Media, a great site for original collaborative citizen journalism.

Connecticut Man1′s friend, Matt Black of Shoq Value, took his video camera up to Canada and interviewed real Canadians about their health care system. Though Matt tried to find people with horror stories to report, everyone seemed beyond satisfied. Nobody talked about long lines or rationed care. Everyone interviewed chose their own doctor.

But the best part was their collective response to a question about co-pays.

Connecticut Man1 also presents a terrific graphic juxtaposing the American “mainstream” opposing the public option (22%) against “the left of the left” (72%) who clamor for one.

Connecticut Man1′s diary is a perfect complement to Craig Weisner’s Tikkun article below. Please read both over coffee and wonder how it has become possible for the average American to be completely inundated by misinformation.

One would almost think we have resurrected Pravda.

You can follow me on Twitter at @laurenreichelt.

Two of my columns last week generated a lot of commentary.

My article on the United Church of Canada’s (UCC) general council meeting, during which several resolutions with respect to divestment in Israel were defeated, generated 18 comments, which must be close to a record at TD — certainly, it is the most talked about article I have written.

My theology article, which will be a regular Friday feature from now on, generated six comments — and the single longest reply I have ever written, a reply that is an article by itself.

I am interested that my UCC piece did not generate religious commentary. I did not write the article as a religious perspective but even so…

Tommy Douglas was a United Church minister, a Canadian icon, and the prime mover behind Canada’s universal health care system. He famously said “The trouble with socialists is that they let their bleeding hearts go to their bloody heads“. The United Church, alas, is awash in blood.

The United Church of Canada (UCC) is Canada’s largest Protestant denomination. It has been a major force in the transmisson of the Social Gospel in Canada.

Multiculturalism and universal medicare are perhaps the two most significant differences between the Canadian and American experiencs. The UCC had a committed core of religious activists that fought for both, and both are icons of Canadian identity.

Reb Arie as Hasidic Rebbe

Being a traditional Jew, my day begins at sunset, so today began yetserday evening when I spoke at the human rights vigil organised by Capital Pride. I was dressed like the Hasidic rebbe I am, sharing a podium with the Austrian ambassador and my local MPP, Yasir Naqvi.

Where else in the world will a Catholic, a Hasidic rabbi, and a Muslim speak to a community of GLBT activists? I suppose it might be possible in Washinton, DC — but first I’d have to take up residence there, because I’m reasonably certain I’m the only Hasidic rebbe in North America who can be considered a straight ally.

Being a traditional Jew the daytime begins about 6am, sometime earlier. When I am not overcome by fatigue — this is becoming less and less routine, Barukh Hashem (thank G!d) — I almost always now make it to the morning minyan (prayer service). A Conservative synagogue is about a one minute walk away; a modern Orthodox congregation is about 15 minutes north of me, while a fervently Orthodox school, the Kollel of Ottawa, is about 15 minutes west.

I wasn’t fatigued when I awoke this morning. I didn’t make it to the minyan.

I was on a radio show in Ottawa yesterday opposing the decision by the administration of Carleton University to fire Hassan Diab. There were several challenges involved for me, both with deciding to appear on the Gerry Cammy Show and with the opposition to Diab’s dismissal.

Gerry, who is a friend of mine in spite of the fact that he is a conservative, invited me to appear on the show two weeks ago. I initially refused. Rania Tfaily, Hassan Diab’s wife, later asked me to do so. I appeared with two other guests. Eric Vernon is a senior staff member for Canadian Jewish Congress in Ottawa. Ian Lee is Director of MBA programs at Carleton University.

Wm. Lyon MacKenzie King, 10th prime minister of Canada. He was PM three times over 21 years.

In 1936 the government of Canada appointed Frederick Charles Blair as the director of the Immigration Branch. Blair was appointed assistant deputy of immigration in 1924, under the Liberal government of MacKenzie-King.

The Liberals had been in and out of power twice in the intervening years but were elected again in 1935. Blair was promoted in 1936 to become director of the Immigration Branch.

Blair responded to the question of how many Jews would be admitted to Canada with the remark “None is too many”.

The ghost of Blair remains a powerful force in the government of Canada, even as the face of Canada has coloured significantly in the past 65 years. I can think of no other reason for the shameful targeting of six Arab-Canadian citizens by three successive government administrations since 2001.

Criminal conduct in Canada is normally prosecuted by a Crown counsel representing the formal person of the Canadian state, this being The Queen.

This time the situation is reversed — it is The Queen on trial, and the prosecutor is a remarkably foolish young man named Omar Khadr, who is the last prisoner of a western nation at Gitmo. Omar Khadr was 15 years old when he allegedly threw a grenade and killed a US soldier fighting in Afghanistan.

Precisely why Omar Khadr is the last western prisoner at Gitmo is a tale that will come to define Canada in the 21st century. Barely 10 years into the century and Canada has used the ship of state to ram the lifeboats of six Canadian citizens. All of them are Arabs.

I cannot claim that the ship of state was steered politically. The Canadian citizens in question were victmised under both Conservative and Liberal administrations.

Justice scales superimposed on this image of a Torah parchment symbolises the reliance of the Institute and the Court on social justice principles found in the Torah

The Canadian Beth Din Institute at the Metivta of Ottawa is the parent organisation of the Jewish Court for Social Justice. This all sounds very grand, and it is: the Metivta and all it purports to be is located on a sprawling campus of 400 square feet that stretches between my living room and kitchen.

I’ve had probably ten emails from several correspondents questioning many aspects of the Court. Two questions are being asked repeatedly.

1. What are you doing (and who do you think you are)?

2. Why are you doing it (there is an established order for such things!)?

I’ll address “why” here and speak of “what” below.

I began planning the Jewish Court for Social Justice almost seven years ago. There has been ample time for a credible organisation to evolve before this, an organisation that speaks to Canadian social justice issues from a Jewish faith perspective, and nothing has happened in all that time.

I have, for the last five years or so, been working to create a kosher trustmark — a symbol that identifies compliance with known standards that are strictly halakhic (in accord with Jewish tradition) and green (including many rubrics, among them animal welfare, fair labour, and fair trade).

The Jewish Renewal movement created this sensitivity in the 1970s but nobody, even Arthur Waskow and Reb Zalman, really knew what the concept they called “eco-kosher” would become. That there was a strong ethical component to even traditional kashrut was known.

What would happen to food because of food science was not known.

The Jewish Court for Social Justice, at our first meeting, decided that Israel/Palestine would not be a primary focus of the Court’s attention in this session. The natural outcome of that decision? A discussion of Israel/Palestine dominated our second meeting.

The Jewish Court for Social Justice, by unanimous decision, rejects the opinion of B’nai Brith Canada with respect to the matter of Dr Hassan Diab’s employment at Carleton University. We remind B’nai Brith that Canada is a common law democracy and that an accused is presumed innocent, most especially in these circumstances, inasmuch as Dr Diab has not been accused of a crime in Canada.

It’s not who you think.

I am very honoured to announce that my student Anne Marante will earn her core competency in Deliberative Ethics next week and be admitted as an officer of the Jewish Courts for Social Justice.

I introduced the concept of the Jewish Courts for Social Justice (Bedatz Umi in abbreviated Hebrew) in one of my early posts on Tikkun Daily.

Social justice is oft-called tikkun olam in Hebrew. I can’t think of anyone more influential in making tikkun olam a central Jewish concern than Michael Lerner.

Michael has worked very hard for almost 25 years to see tikkun olam evolve and enfold both Jews and the general community. He did not do this alone, of course, and had many associates and mentors along the way — in itself this is part of the definition of social justice, as we will see below.