"On April 30, 1975, the fall of the city of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War and the start of a refugee crisis ... Canada recognized the plight of the Vietnamese and immediately accepted thousands of refugees." ^[1] (Canada.ca, 2019).^[375]

"... to commemorate the flight of Vietnamese refugees to Canada after the fall of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975" (Rodriguez & Hussen, 2019).^[374]

" ... recognizes the perilous journey countless Vietnamese refugees made to escape Communist oppression after the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. At that time, hundreds of thousands of boat people refugees fled to the sea ..." (Canada Senate Debates, 2018-05-01).^[287]

"… a day to commemorate Vietnamese refugees' journey to Canada after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and the end of the Vietnam War" (Hussen & Joly, 2018).^[290]

" ... commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees from their war-torn country after the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975 ... it is an honour to recognize the refugees, known as the “boat people” ... " (Canada HoC Debates, 2018-04-30).^[286]

" ... a national organization that is a "unified voice" for all Vietnamese Canadians." [referring to a political organization that openly supports and 'enforces' Canada's negationist history within the community]. (Canada.ca, 2018).^[326]

"... a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War." from Bill s-219 (Statutes of Canada, 2015).^[155]

... and so it goes in official Government of Canada circles today.

If taken at face value, every one of these statements refers to a non-existent group of people. Canada admitted no refugees in response to the fall of Saigon and there is no such thing as an organization that can speak for an entire ethnic community.

If put into the context of Canada's pro-Saigon policy, to which they refer explicitly or implicitly, they all refer to an imaginary Vietnamese community^[2] who are played by the small political faction that Harper employed to deceive Canadians into supporting his pro-Saigon policy.

In that context all of these statements exploit and marginalize the former boat people. In Canada's pro-Saigon policy, that is by design.

The quotation in the heading is attributed to Napoleon.

There is no genuine cohort of former refugees that were admitted to Canada as "victims of the fall of Saigon" in 1975 or at any other time. These statements are addressed to a political faction who self-identify as such for their own political reasons.

There are, however, 162,000 former boat people in Canada whose journey to Canada is very well known by Canadians. Their admission to Canada had nothing to do with the Vietnam war or the fall of Saigon. Most of them, and their descendants, do not wish to identify with the pro-Saigon political faction and so are excluded from the recognition being expressed in these statements.

There are two ways to interpret that oversight. One is that it was stupidity. The other is that they contain a political message -- Canada is declaring those excluded boat people to be persona non grata.

In Harper's pro-Saigon policy, it is explicitly the latter.

When Harper re-framed the Vietnam war and made Canada an ally of the Saigon military regime, it put the former boat people on the wrong side. In Harper's framing of the war there are only two sides and anything other than pro-Saigon is the wrong side. The boat people have been written out of Canadian history because they do not conform to Harper's vision of Canadian identity..

Harper put all of this into a parliamentary bill and parliament passed the bill unanimously. This is the law of Canada. That's why many of the quotations above were made by the successor Liberal government, not Harper's government.

With Canada now formally declared to be an ally of the Saigon regime and the war unresolved, it would technically be treasonous to exclude oneself from these statements. Hardly anyone is complaining about being excluded.

The quotations are only a small sampling of how Canadian governments at all levels divide Canada's Vietnamese with partisan takes on the Vietnam war.

Numerous examples are presented in the form of a chronology: Are Canadian politicians doing what they appear to be doing?

Dog whistle: a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group. The political message is hidden in an otherwise innocuous message.

The quotations above are statements that appear to pay respect and recognition to Canadians of Vietnamese origin, provided that they were involved on the Saigon side in the Vietnam war. The dog whistle is what it says to those who do not identify with the Saigon regime. It is not subtle to them because they had been hearing such messages for decades before the Government of Canada adopted them.

The quotations above are only one of the ways in which Canada's government speaks to the Vietnamese community in partisan terms of the Vietnam war. Here is a list of the dog whistles regularly used today:

1. References to Saigon, the fall of Saigon, the end of the Vietnam war, or the year 1975 posed as references to the Vietnamese community which are supposedly respectful of their experiences in the Vietnam war. These are all partisan references so they blow the dog whistle that says "you were not on the right side".

2. Journey to Freedom Day - Canada officially recognizes the Saigon regime as a legitimate nation, a military ally, and the homeland of the Vietnamese people. For those not in the know, it looks like an homage to the refugees. For the boat people it says "get on the right side".

3. The yellow flag (the national flag of the Saigon regime) - Canada formally recognizes the Saigon regime as a legitimate nation. To keep Canadians in the dark, the flag is billed as a cultural symbol, but the Vietnamese know what it is.

4. The yellow scarf - looks like the yellow flag but it has an additional message - this is a secret battle-preparedness statement that means "I am ready to fight on your side" (in this case, the Saigon regime's side). It's also a more portable version of the yellow flag. Also billed as a cultural and ethnic symbol, but the Vietnamese know what it is.

5. Numerous monuments to Saigon, such as naming neighborhoods "little Saigon", or creating boat people memorials decorated with yellow flags. Same message.

All of these say to Vietnamese Canadians: we, the government, recognize the Saigon regime as a legitimate nation and the homeland of the Vietnamese people and you are neither a legitimate Canadian nor a legitimate Vietnamese if you do not acknowledge that.

You can see all of these dog whistles in use by government in our chronology: Are Canadian politicians doing what they appear to be doing?

Did Canada make mistakes in Vietnam in 1945-1996 that needed to be corrected?

There is no question that in Harper's world, Canada made big mistakes. The way Canada handled Vietnam and the Vietnamese refugees went against everything that he thought Canada should stand for. Some Canadians would agree with him, and Canadians still have the right to agree or disagree.

The question is, should Harper have gone about correcting that past in the way he did? On this question there are probably fewer Canadians that would agree with him. But it was very much in character for Harper to go ahead and do this, particularly on an issue that so closely illustrated what he thought was wrong with Canada. And he still had allies to go along with him on this.

In Harper's view, not only did Canada's identity need to be corrected, but so did the identity of Canada's Vietnamese community. They did not fit as Canadians with their original identity. Harper rewrote their origin story to suit his conception of what they could become to make suitable Canadians.

That left him with the question of what to do with the 162,000 boat people that had been admitted to Canada, most of whom did not meet his criteria to identify as Canadians.

Harper did not hesitate on this. He informed those Vietnamese Canadians very early on that they were going to have to change. They are still being reminded regularly.

The bigger question is why are Liberals still going along with this? Why are they still funding non-government groups to support Harper's vision of permanently embedding the new versions of history into Canada's historical record. Why are they still repeating, constantly and reliably, Harper's dog whistles that are telling Canada's Vietnamese community to fall into line?

Harper's alternate reality is being maintained, aggressively.

Is this because Canadians do not understand what Harper was doing? Harper often took pains to disguise what he was doing, and he certainly did in this case.

Or is it because Canadians agree with him?

We need to find out.

Let's say you agree that Harper was wrong to try to re-cast Canada's Vietnamese community. You would probably also have to agree that he was wrong to re-frame the Vietnam war, too, because that necessarily has an impact on the community. Canada maintained a non-partisan stance throughout all the events in SE Asia and in most eyes there is no legitimate reason to re-write that history.

If you don't agree that Harper was wrong, then there is nothing to fix. Canada's Vietnamese community will remain marginalized because they were not on the right side of something that concluded as long as 10-20 years before they came to Canada

When we speak of fixing things, we are talking about the behaviour of the Government of Canada and the politicians who represent the government.

As individuals, people are free to take any position they want on the Vietnamese war and the Vietnamese community in Canada, short of acts of outright hatred.

The government of Canada, on the other hand, has a responsibility to act rationally and fairly toward its citizens, as well as avoiding acts of outright hatred.

Since Canada was a non-partisan observer to the Vietnam war, Canada has no moral obligations to any party to the war. Canada's moral obligation lies in recognizing and accepting the diversity of political viewpoints and the diversity of Canada's Vietnamese community. That still includes the "victims of the fall of Saigon", but it would no longer exclude others.

When Canada officially makes any partisan reference to the Vietnam war it is violating its moral obligation to remain non-partisan so as not to marginalize the people that Canada previously worked with on a non-partisan basis. Among others, this includes the thousands of Canadians who assisted the boat people.

If some individuals want to mark the war in a partisan manner, that is their right to do so. But it is not the proper business of the Government of Canada to join them officially.

Canada can act on may levels to fix the problem that Harper set up.

At the bare minimum, Canada can stop referring to Canada's Vietnamese in partisan terms of the Vietnam war.

At the next level, Canada can go around and erase all such references that have become embedded on government web sites and government property, and stop funding people who are trying to embed more of them.

Ultimately, Canada could renounce all the mistakes made in recent years and Canada could repeal bill S-219, which embeds Harper's vision of Canada and Vietnam into law.

For further discussion of change, see Excuses politicians make: and how not to overcome them.