The Politics of the Census: Lessons from Abroad
I late June, Minister of Industry Tony Clement announced the government’s decision to eliminate the mandatory long form of the 2011 Census and replace it with a voluntary survey to be sent to one-third of Canadian households. The decision was reportedly made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last December and has largely been framed by Conservative cabinet ministers as an important change to safeguard the privacy of Canadians. They maintain that the state has no business in the bedrooms of society, or, more specifically, that the state has no business asking Canadians how many bedrooms they have in their places of residence. The Prime Minister ’s Office has stated, “The government made this decision because we do not believe Canadians should be forced, under threat of fines, jail, or both, to disclose extensive private and personal information” (Valpy 2010). Clement, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, argued before a parliamentary committee on 27 July that though the information gathered in the long form is “valuable,” a “balance must be drawn” between collecting data and the privacy rights of Canadians.
Libertarian Populism, Neoliberal Rationality, and the Mandatory Long-form Census: Implications for Sociology
This article argues the Canadian government’s decision in 2010 to eliminate the mandatory long-form census constitutes a mobilizing appeal to libertarian populism commensurate not only with neoliberal concepts of individualism, private property, and the role of the state, but also with a redefinition of what counts as valid argumentation and a legitimate basis for making knowledge claims. This rationale has implications for sociological research and theory, for the profession of sociology, and for a sociological vision of society.
A Nation Dividing? Some Questions of Interpretation
Dorling and Rees's (2003) analysis of intercensal social polarisation is welcome in many respects and I suspect I am not alone in admiring the technical skill involved in such work, not to mention the speed with which the paper was produced! The purpose of this comment is to suggest that this paper should be the starting point for a debate about polarisation, for several reasons.