Canada's sovereignty problem

"We are ending the proliferation of [assault-style] weapons and the militarization of our society." -- Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety, May 1, 2020

Blair is correct. The Government's move to ban 1,500 "assault-style" semi-automatic rifles will further demilitarize Canadian society.

And that's a problem.

It takes Canada's already perilous sovereignty and weakens it further.

Why would Canada (or any country) want to be sovereign?

In short, sovereignty is needed to protect a country's values. The social-contract (i.e. constitution) outlines a country's foundational values and means of achieving them. Canada, it is often argued, was formed to promote peace, order, good-government. It does this by creating a federal democracy that divides powers between various levels of government over matters needed to ensure peace, order, and good government. It explains succession and other subjects needed to ensure the sovereignty of the social-contract persists.

Sovereignty means being the final decision-making over the tract of land you claim as your own. You protect the values of the social-contact by ensuring that the body representing the social-contract has the final say in your territory. If the body representing the social-contract (i.e. the state) isn't sovereign, then another body is free to enter your territory and impose their values on you. It's not pretty, but it's a political fact.

To be sovereign, a country must meet one of three conditions:

1) Nuclear weapons

If you can completely annihilate another civilization that threatens you, you are a final decision maker over your own territory.

2) Strong army

Nuclear weapons destroy everything. Therefore, invaders are disincentivized from using them. Invaders normally want to exploit a country's natural, social, and economic wealth. Using a weapon that destroys all wealth doesn't make for a profitable invasion. As such, it's better to invade and take over. Therefore, you can be sovereign with a military strong enough to repel an invasion.

 3) Armed citizenry

A citizenry that is armed and trained in the use of small-arms -- such as assault-rifles -- can succcessfully terminate an invasion. The Vietnamese defeated the Americans. The Afghans defeated the Soviets and the Western allies. Canada's civilian militia, with British professional help, pushed out the American military in the War of 1812. Swizerland's armed militia deterred a Nazi invasion.

Canada meets none of these conditions.

Canada has no nuclear weapons. Its military is weak. Prior to May 1, it had a limited, highly restricted distribution of "assault-style" rifles -- not even real assault-rifles -- and now it doesn't even have that.

So, if Canada isn't sovereign, why isn't it being invaded? U-S-A! U-S-A!

Paradoxically, the first principle of Canadian nationalism is not being American, yet that principle is protected by the United States. Canadians like to celebrate the institutions and policies that distinguish them from the United States, yet, without the United States military, Canada couldn't protect those values. Like universal healthcare? Gun-control? The Queen? Canada has these only because it is assumed by other world powers that America's military will protect Canada. Put differently, Donald Trump means infinitely more to Canadian safety and security than Justin Trudeau. And that's true whether you like it or not.

Sovereignty also explains why Americans aren't lining up at the border to enjoy our more egalitarian, more humane country: it's not safer. The US military and American gun-laws -- despite all the additional death from war and gun-violence -- keep Americans safer than anything the Government of Canada provides to Canadians. Public-health care can't stop Russian troops. Gun-control doesn't scare the Chinese military. But both live in fear of the US military and probably also US citizens.

Problematically for Canada, the US is already making public statements that it won't protect Canada anymore. Other powers probably aren't taking this seriously, but as it becomes clear that the US is reducing military support for the West in general, Canada will be considered a soft target. Because it is.

There are two objections to my argument that need to be considered:

1) Few countries meet the criteria for sovereignty

This is true. Many countries meet the criteria for sovereignty through alliances like NORAD or NATO. In Canada's case, it meets this criterion by being an American ally. In effect, it free-rides off the American military. But, the US is less willing to protect Canada. Given that Canadian nationalism is routinely expressed in smug hostility toward the United States, it's natural for the American to stop protecting Canada. Why protect a bunch of ingrates?

2) Commonwealth/NATO country

This leads to a second objection: won't Britain or NATO save us? No. The EU, like Canada, depends on the US military to protect all of its member states. France and the UK are sovereign, but the status of the other European states is less clear. Further, the UK is not going to protect Canada from the US. Britain cannot defeat the US in a non-nuclear war and Canada is far more integrated with the US than Britain.

All of this is to say that the Liberals and their gun-control clients are parochial naifs too full of idealistic sentiment to recognize that their efforts for marginal gains in safety undermine our fundamental security. They'll still be crying maudlin tears over the victims of mass-shootings while the Chinese tanks roll-off the RO/RO ships in the Port of Vancouver.

It's true that we're all sitting ducks. But the next great act of violence won't be a mass-shooting. It will be war. And Canada will lose.