Can West Global:Headlines should match the article.

Dear Canwest Global:
I tried to let you know that your headline was in error, but your email link doesn't work. Not surprising, given this morning's gaff.

The headline you splashed across the internet this morning: Canadians don't want Queen, even if she's done great job is just plain wrong according to the text of the article underneath it:

For example, according to this, the Queen's approval rating is 73% and CDNs don't want to become a republic anytime soon. (That's remarkable considering that we've had mostly pro-republican governments between 1964 and 2006 and most business interests are pro-US/Canada integration and have been using the media to foist that agenda on CDNs for decades.)

Further, if 80% of Quebeckers want a republic after the reign;and 2/3 (you conveniently don't give the actual percentage) of CDNs indicate they would favour becoming a republic after the Queen dies (in 20 or even 30 years if she lives the lifespan of women in her family); that would indicate than in many provinces most CDNs favour remaining a monarchy when Charles or William becomes King.

And that's without us even having a discussion about what the Commonwealth and our ties with the Crown mean to us culturally and economically! Thanks to the media and pro-U.S. business lobbies, most Canadians do not realize that many of the fastest growing markets are in the Commonwealth.

They don't know that they can vote if they live in Britain. They don't know that the British government does not really consider the Queen's subjects foreigners (It's still called the foreign and Commonwealth office in the U.K.)

Consider the opportunities that still remain for Canada if she capitalizes on these ties. Most Canadians answering your survey were never given that information, I bet. Even Quebecois would likely change their mind if they were given those facts. (And Anglo-Canadians would become fans of the Francophonie if they saw the opportunities there too.)

Why don't you ever do a story on trade opportunities within the Commonwealth -- a market of 2 Billion people? Surely loosening any such ties is bad from a business point of view, especially as Canada and Commonwealth is again comng to the fore in with both British and Canadian governments. (O.K. I guess I have queries to write.)

Further, most people answering your survey may not realize that there's a bigger national unity risk to republicanism than to retaining the monarchy. (Quebec isn't going anywhere if they see a trade opportunity of 2 billion customers. And it's time to tell Quebeckers about those opportunities even if their politicians and elite don't want ordinary Quebecois to hear this stuff.)

Under the Canada Act, this country cannot become a republic unless every MLA, MNA, MPP,MP and Senator agrees. Considering that many Canadians (the majority in most parts of Ontario, the Prairies -- including Alberta--and the Maritimes) do not want to change our form of government--I would expect most --7-9 --CDN provincial legislatures would refuse to endorse a republican constitution. An elected head of state would would further concentrate power in Central Canada.

And that could well mean bye, bye Alberta and bye bye Saskatchewan and bye bye Nunavut, the NWT and the Yukon. And maybe the Maritimes, BC, and Ontario. What does that leave? Quebec -- alone without a market of 2 billion people? Nah. I don't think so.

In short, if you bothered to investigate these issus and inform CDNs, the answers on that survey would change. But then you couldn't run the same old worn out story you run every time a member of the Royal family prepares to come to Canada. It's more than annoying, it's a disservice to the country.

Her Majesty is coming to celebrate Canada Day with Canadians -- something she was not allowed to do very often under previous administrations. And so, let's welcome her and invetigate the opportunities our system of government can yet give us instead of focusing on issues that are destined tear up our beloved country and its' constitution and international ties that still give us untold opportunites far beyond this continent..

Removing Canadian Context in Media

Is it just my perception? Or are our major media outlets are doing all they can to water down Canada's political and cultural uniqueness?

I'd love to hear your perspective on this. If you can think of more instances of the obliteration of Canadian institutions or historical links in the popular media, please add your comments. And include your suggestions for halting this trend.

I plan to add to this list as I see more instances of this watering down of our heritage by the major print, radio and television outlets. Here's what I've come up with in the past hour:

The use of the word “May Long Weekend” instead of "Victoria Day Weekend" in media and advertising. A few newscasts did wish viewers “Happy Victoria Day‘ on Monday 19th May, but advertisers and most news reporters continue to use the bland and meaningless term "May Long Weekend."

Canadian media personalities who use who say ‘Loo tennant” instead of Left-ennant (Yes the word is spelled Lieutenant, and that may confuse a grade two student, but if you are old enough to report on Canadian issues, you should have figured out Canadian English.)

The use of the word ‘officer” instead of 'member' when referring to a member of a Canadian police force. Alternatively, Canadians broadcasters could use rank eg. 'constable', 'inspector', 'commissioner' when referring to individual members.

The use of the generic and vague word 'military' instead of “Canadian Armed Forces” when referring to the Canadian Armed forces.

The fact that two of Canada's three major television networks did not cover Prime Minister Harper’s meeting with the PM of Great Britain. Nor did they cover Harper's audience with the Queen on their National News broadcasts tonight. Only CTV showed video clips of the royal audience and only CTV covered the official London leg of the trip in any detail.

I also can't find much of anything about today's meeting between the Prime Ministers on any of the websites of Canada's national newspapers, although that could change by morning. That's truly puzzling, because the Governor General received ample attention when she met with the President of France a couple of weeks ago.

Is there an agenda here? Or is this just sloppy reporting? What do you think?

Facts, Fiction and Canadian Public Discourse

Last week I read a letter in my local newspaper that typified the public debate in Canada. The author had very strong opinions about the nature of Canada, but those opinions were based on an erroneous understanding of Canadian history.
It's not surprising the author of the letter believed what he did (although a look at the map of Alberta would have shown him that there were indeed Francophones here in the 19th Century).
Canadian history has been been edited by pundits, politicians, business groups, lobby organizations, and yes journalists --on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum -- for decades now. And the 20 second clips, op-eds, and documentaries the 'reinterpet' historical events for entertainment purposes continue to flood the media. Even history books are written from a 'point of view' that 'critiques' events for 21st century readers. (ie: tells us what we should think.)
But until we reject this spoon feeding and dig deeply into the facts, we cannot begin to understand the vision that founded this nation and envisioned a place for Canadians as leaders in the world. And we cannot claim our full inheritance until we know what that inheritance is.
And that is a pity that's goes well beyond Canada.