Nationalism is in foul odour these days, tainted by its association with Donald Trump’s clumsy protectionist economic and immigration policies, the Brexit mess, and various truculent populist movements in Europe. But did you hear Chief Justice Richard Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada the other day, talking about Canada as a “moral values” superpower? The ink on the SCC judgement against religious freedom in the Trinity Western University case was hardly dry, and he was boasting about his nationalistic pride in Canada’s secular, progressive superiority. In TWU, Wagner and a majority of his colleagues imposed their own beliefs about what they see as the “public interest”, writes John Carpay, which is at least as arrogant – and ominous – as anything being undertaken by nationalists outside of Canada.

The annual budget of all the private sector groups in Canada that advocate for the traditional values and fundamental freedoms of Western civilization is about $40 million. That’s a pittance compared to the billions spent by governments and their allies in the media, academe, and activist communities to advance modernist progressive causes. No political party will challenge these vested interests until there is a much bigger constituency for freedom in Canada. And that won’t happen, writes John Carpay, unless Canadians give much more to pro-liberty advocacy groups.

Will Canadian courts uphold the creation of a semi-sovereign Nisga’a “nation” in northwestern British Columbia? Does Canada’s Constitution allow for quasi-independent Aboriginal principalities within Canada, each with the power to pass laws which prevail over Canadian federal and provincial law? To what extent should aboriginals have the same rights and responsibilities as other Canadians? What, specifically, should “aboriginal self-government” mean in practice? What terms and conditions should new treaties incorporate?