Not Like Us

I. The judgment, “’They ‘are not like ‘us’,” reveals a perspective that is peculiarly poisonous. The other grammatical comparisons are innocuous. For instance, if one reflects that ‘X is not like me’, the response is ‘so what’. If ‘ X is not like you’, this too is all right. It is not a likeness that is expected . Similarly, that X is ‘not like him’ or ‘not like her’, invites the comment ‘who cares?’ The point is that being ‘not like us’ carries negative connotations that can be revealing.

A sequence of questions helps to expose the issues. The opening question is: “How are they ‘not like us’?

1. Who are we?

2. How are we ‘us’?

3. Are we inherent ‘us’? How is this known?

4. Or, are we acquired ‘us’? How did this happen? And when?

5. What is so good about ‘us’?

6. What is so bad about ‘not being us’?

7. In a contest of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, how is each described?

II. In a political context, the claim is: “’We’ are here now.”

Are ‘they’ the proverbial ‘stranger at the gates’?

If so, how is the stranger to be treated?

What is the policy concerning strangers?

What is the tradition concerning strangers?

What is the history of strangers who entered the gates?

When were we the strangers?

How were we treated? (See David Hackett Fischer, Champlain’s Dream, pp.336 ff. & 458 ff.)

III. What do we value that makes them want to be here too?

If, in good faith, they value the same kinds of things as we do before entering the gates, why would they not continue to hold these values after they arrive?

If ‘they’ share our values, how are they not ‘us’ in the ways that matter to everyone?

And what does matter to ‘us’?

The first is the Rule of Law which is understood as a body of Civil Laws founded on the recognition of uniform political values accepted by everyone. Moreover, except for fundamental civil rights, the civil laws are always subject to revisions by the citizens.

Second, are the various cultural, religious and moral values which are protected by the civil laws, always provided that such values do not infringe the rights of the citizen. The fundamental rights of each citizen have been guaranteed by the uniform Civil Law.

Finally, under this description of the political system, ‘we’ and ‘they’ become ‘us’ together.

NOTE:

It is clear that the “notwithstanding clause” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contradicts both the letter and the spirit of the uniform Civil Law. One solution to this anomaly is for the notwithstanding clause to fall into disuse and become a dead letter. Another solution is for its use to become so obnoxious to the citizens that no government would dare to introduce it in defiance of the Civil Law. A third possibility recalls the well -known refusal of fair minded citizens to obey a bad law.

Montréal

9 April 2014