Sadly, some so called 'libertarians' in Alberta, have apparently suggested that Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, be killed by the United States secret service. One of these individuals also, apparently, sent a threatening email to a Canadian woman who called him on his own words. (I am leaving the names of the individuals who made these comments out because the police are investigating these matters and these allegations must be proven in court. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty.)
What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.
Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.
Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.
To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)
If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.
We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.
We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.
Showing posts with label Commonwealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commonwealth. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Are we missing the point?
This morning I was googling online coverage of the launch of Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. I noticed that very few people commenting on blogs announcing my book want to own their eugenics past. They blame 'others' for it.( If you live in a Western Democracy and much of the rest of the world, there's a good chance one of your great-granddaddies believed in eugenics. And whether you consider yourself left-wing or right-wing, your political legacy includes pro-eugenics advocates.)
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
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..
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..
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Lest We Forget
The eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month....
With failing hands, they threw the torch. Not just the torch of battle, but the torch of our history, our traditions, our laws, our cultural inheritance. Those who wish to erase our history, our parliamentary tradition, & our ties to the wider Commonwealth they helped to build -- drop the torch & dishonour the people who built Canada.
In Flanders Fields
By Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, May 1915
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
With failing hands, they threw the torch. Not just the torch of battle, but the torch of our history, our traditions, our laws, our cultural inheritance. Those who wish to erase our history, our parliamentary tradition, & our ties to the wider Commonwealth they helped to build -- drop the torch & dishonour the people who built Canada.
In Flanders Fields
By Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, May 1915
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Regretting my own cowardice
I took this post down a few days ago, simply because I was afraid of suffering professionally for stating the obvious about Canadian politics and Canada's relationship to the United States. I also thought some people might not see be able to understand that some aspects of this letter to Mr. Harper are tongue in cheek. I regret that. The day we give in to bullies is the day we give up. So I'm reposting:
I am appalled at federal government's willingness to go along with hearsay and to allow any Canadian to be tried in the American media. Further, I am appalled the government's demonstrated willingness, in several instances, to turn Canadians over to torture in other countries, simply to pursue a 'friendship' that is more wishful thinking that reality. Countries have interests that sometimes align with other national communites. They do not have friends.
Monday, 24 August, 2009
Right Honourable Stephen Harper, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Dear Right Honourable Mr. Prime Minister:
Did a little on line research that I think might help prepare you for your next trip to Washington. I wanted to know if America really is our 'best friend,' like you've told us.
If Americans like us, it just doesn't make sense that I keep hearing stories about Fox News having to apologise for threatening invasion and insulting our Armed Forces. And I wondered why the MLB forgot to find someone to sing our national anthem at a Major League Baseball game a few weeks ago. And why did Dr. Phil sneer when David Foster talked about Canada and Celine Dion. (No, I will not make a Celine joke.)
So, I decided, to take a look at American websites, like CNN and TMZ, which of course, is actually TMZed in Canada and pretty much everywhere else proper English is spoken.
Some of the 'news' sites seemed to think we aren't allowed to make an appointment with a doctor and that Canada kills its elderly and disabled people. (That must be why most of my relatives die when they reach their late 80's or early nineties? I want this practice stopped immediately. No one should be dying in Canada.)
But my favourite site was TMZed. It had the most stuff about what Americans think about Canada on it.
TMZed was following the Jenkins' manhunt. (It's the case where an unfortunate American realtor/pin-up girl was murdered when she decided to go visit her ex-current boyfirend in Las Vegas; and her Canadian boyfriend/husband realtor/reality star reported her missing then became a suspect in her killing after he escaped from the US Coast Guard and walked across a road to Canada.) I know it's enough to make your head spin. Apparently, life is real complicated in the States. No wonder they think we're boring.
Here`s what I learned on TMZed, following the Jenkin's search. Americans don't know that Canadians are their 'best friends.' More interesting stuff, I never knew about Americans:
Americans who comment on TMZed, by and large, do not believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. They believe that it is ok to harass parents of people charged with crimes at their place of work (Eg. One individual posted Mr. Jenkins' father's website and told people to email him hate mail.) Guess the 18th century 'rebellion' really was just a bunch of colonists not paying their taxes and wanting to move on to Indian Territories without treaties. Sad.
They appear to believe that a person`s right to live is determined by their looks and lifestyle and that sex trade workers deserve to die. (A lot them thought the young woman in this case deserved her fate because she was a quote: 'skank'.
They believe that is it ok to rape and torture prisoners in jails (against international law.) In fact, some commenters were hoping to have Mr. Jenkins' raped and tortured by the other inmates, even though he had not been found guilty of anything. (I'm sure the American Ambassador and Obama don't think it's ok to rape and torture prisoners, do they? And you don't either, do you? I certainly hope not. Otherwise, I will not vote for any Conservative candidate as long as you are leader.)
Comments like 'Canadians are stupid, are pretty common' on TMZed. Somebody commenting on the site even said that no one should ever date a Canadian man because they are, apparently, all sociopaths. (I'm married to a Canadian man and he seems ok. I'm sure there are no sociopaths sitting in the House of Commons, either. Right?)
They also think that most of us are pining away to get a green cards. I'm not. Are you?
Many Americans believe that when a suspect has died, that no other possiblities should be pursued, even though the suspect was known to have a serious gambling addiction and to be involved with loan sharks. And the parents of the suspect do not believe he committed the crime. (I guess the concept of proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' doesn't matter anymore to most Americans.)
They also appear to think that it's ok to council people to commit suicide.(This morning there were comments on TMZed by individuals who hoped that threats of prison rape and torture were read by Mr. Jenkins. They also hoped those comments provoked him to kill himself. This is most perplexing for a nation that claims to believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' and promises to give fair trials to everyone, including Canadians.
Neither TMZed or its bloggers seem to be aware of recent court rulings that make anonymous slander of individuals on the internet something that can be prosecuted. (You may want to mention these observations to Obama, when you next see him. Ask him about the 'friend' thing too. He needs to come clean on this.)
A couple more requests: Please pull our troops out of Afganistan immediately. We should not be helping people that think torturing inmates is ok, treat our citizens with disrespect, and can't figure out if our national police force is called 'mounty', 'mountain', or 'mountain.'
Oh yes, I know you think that this is not a U.S. war because our NATO and Commonwealth partners are participating. You think the war is protecting our own security. I used to think that, too. But I started doubting it when Afghanistan passed a law that allows men to starve their wives for having too many 'headaches' at bedtime. And, I really don't think we should be siding with people that think it's ok to rape prisoners and drive suspects to suicide before they get a fair trial.
Another thing, when you head to Washington to meet Obama this fall (assuming you are not in the middle of a general election campaign) can you please refrain from calling America our, 'best friend.' It's kind of embarassing because you, Mr. Brown and Mr. Rudd all insist your countries are America's 'best' friend. (Maybe you should take your rightful leadership role as the Prime Minister of the largest Commonwealth Realm. Just pull the Aussie and Brit PM's aside at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and demand that the three of you sort the thing out, once and for all. You cannot ALL be the Obama's best friend.)
You might also ask Brown why he hogged the Queen in the photos at last G-20 meeting. Oh, right, you probably don't want to bring up the photo shoots in London. Darned BBC, can't even respect a PM's need for a mini-break.
How about you get your speech writer to come up with something polite & positive, but more honest? Perhaps we could call the Americans our 'closest geographical neighbour whom we trade stuff with.' Or maybe this: 'The owners of that lovely White House we admire so much that we have not lit it on fire in nearly 200 years.' Awkward, I know. Work on it.
When you go to Washington, be nice, but don't act like you really need a "friend." (And try to get out of that oil clause in NAFTA. Or at least demand that they refine the stuff here. If they balk, remind them about the Softwood Lumber thing.) Stand up and make us proud. Tuck your shirt in, but don't buy a new suit. The Americans won't be watching and we already know what you look like.
Thank you for you reading my letter.
Cheers,
Jane Harris Zsovan
An actual Canadian who will vote in the Next General Election
p.s.
I really think we owe 'real Americans' on TMZed and the other websites I visited a thank you for their honesty. It's good to know how they really feel about Canada, their largest trading partner.
I am appalled at federal government's willingness to go along with hearsay and to allow any Canadian to be tried in the American media. Further, I am appalled the government's demonstrated willingness, in several instances, to turn Canadians over to torture in other countries, simply to pursue a 'friendship' that is more wishful thinking that reality. Countries have interests that sometimes align with other national communites. They do not have friends.
Monday, 24 August, 2009
Right Honourable Stephen Harper, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Dear Right Honourable Mr. Prime Minister:
Did a little on line research that I think might help prepare you for your next trip to Washington. I wanted to know if America really is our 'best friend,' like you've told us.
If Americans like us, it just doesn't make sense that I keep hearing stories about Fox News having to apologise for threatening invasion and insulting our Armed Forces. And I wondered why the MLB forgot to find someone to sing our national anthem at a Major League Baseball game a few weeks ago. And why did Dr. Phil sneer when David Foster talked about Canada and Celine Dion. (No, I will not make a Celine joke.)
So, I decided, to take a look at American websites, like CNN and TMZ, which of course, is actually TMZed in Canada and pretty much everywhere else proper English is spoken.
Some of the 'news' sites seemed to think we aren't allowed to make an appointment with a doctor and that Canada kills its elderly and disabled people. (That must be why most of my relatives die when they reach their late 80's or early nineties? I want this practice stopped immediately. No one should be dying in Canada.)
But my favourite site was TMZed. It had the most stuff about what Americans think about Canada on it.
TMZed was following the Jenkins' manhunt. (It's the case where an unfortunate American realtor/pin-up girl was murdered when she decided to go visit her ex-current boyfirend in Las Vegas; and her Canadian boyfriend/husband realtor/reality star reported her missing then became a suspect in her killing after he escaped from the US Coast Guard and walked across a road to Canada.) I know it's enough to make your head spin. Apparently, life is real complicated in the States. No wonder they think we're boring.
Here`s what I learned on TMZed, following the Jenkin's search. Americans don't know that Canadians are their 'best friends.' More interesting stuff, I never knew about Americans:
Americans who comment on TMZed, by and large, do not believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. They believe that it is ok to harass parents of people charged with crimes at their place of work (Eg. One individual posted Mr. Jenkins' father's website and told people to email him hate mail.) Guess the 18th century 'rebellion' really was just a bunch of colonists not paying their taxes and wanting to move on to Indian Territories without treaties. Sad.
They appear to believe that a person`s right to live is determined by their looks and lifestyle and that sex trade workers deserve to die. (A lot them thought the young woman in this case deserved her fate because she was a quote: 'skank'.
They believe that is it ok to rape and torture prisoners in jails (against international law.) In fact, some commenters were hoping to have Mr. Jenkins' raped and tortured by the other inmates, even though he had not been found guilty of anything. (I'm sure the American Ambassador and Obama don't think it's ok to rape and torture prisoners, do they? And you don't either, do you? I certainly hope not. Otherwise, I will not vote for any Conservative candidate as long as you are leader.)
Comments like 'Canadians are stupid, are pretty common' on TMZed. Somebody commenting on the site even said that no one should ever date a Canadian man because they are, apparently, all sociopaths. (I'm married to a Canadian man and he seems ok. I'm sure there are no sociopaths sitting in the House of Commons, either. Right?)
They also think that most of us are pining away to get a green cards. I'm not. Are you?
Many Americans believe that when a suspect has died, that no other possiblities should be pursued, even though the suspect was known to have a serious gambling addiction and to be involved with loan sharks. And the parents of the suspect do not believe he committed the crime. (I guess the concept of proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' doesn't matter anymore to most Americans.)
They also appear to think that it's ok to council people to commit suicide.(This morning there were comments on TMZed by individuals who hoped that threats of prison rape and torture were read by Mr. Jenkins. They also hoped those comments provoked him to kill himself. This is most perplexing for a nation that claims to believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' and promises to give fair trials to everyone, including Canadians.
Neither TMZed or its bloggers seem to be aware of recent court rulings that make anonymous slander of individuals on the internet something that can be prosecuted. (You may want to mention these observations to Obama, when you next see him. Ask him about the 'friend' thing too. He needs to come clean on this.)
A couple more requests: Please pull our troops out of Afganistan immediately. We should not be helping people that think torturing inmates is ok, treat our citizens with disrespect, and can't figure out if our national police force is called 'mounty', 'mountain', or 'mountain.'
Oh yes, I know you think that this is not a U.S. war because our NATO and Commonwealth partners are participating. You think the war is protecting our own security. I used to think that, too. But I started doubting it when Afghanistan passed a law that allows men to starve their wives for having too many 'headaches' at bedtime. And, I really don't think we should be siding with people that think it's ok to rape prisoners and drive suspects to suicide before they get a fair trial.
Another thing, when you head to Washington to meet Obama this fall (assuming you are not in the middle of a general election campaign) can you please refrain from calling America our, 'best friend.' It's kind of embarassing because you, Mr. Brown and Mr. Rudd all insist your countries are America's 'best' friend. (Maybe you should take your rightful leadership role as the Prime Minister of the largest Commonwealth Realm. Just pull the Aussie and Brit PM's aside at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and demand that the three of you sort the thing out, once and for all. You cannot ALL be the Obama's best friend.)
You might also ask Brown why he hogged the Queen in the photos at last G-20 meeting. Oh, right, you probably don't want to bring up the photo shoots in London. Darned BBC, can't even respect a PM's need for a mini-break.
How about you get your speech writer to come up with something polite & positive, but more honest? Perhaps we could call the Americans our 'closest geographical neighbour whom we trade stuff with.' Or maybe this: 'The owners of that lovely White House we admire so much that we have not lit it on fire in nearly 200 years.' Awkward, I know. Work on it.
When you go to Washington, be nice, but don't act like you really need a "friend." (And try to get out of that oil clause in NAFTA. Or at least demand that they refine the stuff here. If they balk, remind them about the Softwood Lumber thing.) Stand up and make us proud. Tuck your shirt in, but don't buy a new suit. The Americans won't be watching and we already know what you look like.
Thank you for you reading my letter.
Cheers,
Jane Harris Zsovan
An actual Canadian who will vote in the Next General Election
p.s.
I really think we owe 'real Americans' on TMZed and the other websites I visited a thank you for their honesty. It's good to know how they really feel about Canada, their largest trading partner.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Does Our View of History Matter Anyway?
I don't believe we should remain stuck in the past. Nor should we idolize our forebears. Our ancestors do have lessons for us. But these lessons are based on their humanity: their failings, dreams, struggles and faith. They are lessons we can relate to in our own lives as we seek to move into a better future.
But over the past forty years, most analysis of history and public policy discussions have taken a materialist approach. History books talk about Acts, events, and results, not dreams, grand visions and the emotions of historical figures. Their religion is either scoffed at or ignored.
Fiscal reality, not emotional attachments, governs public policy. Political leaders love to tell us that 19th Century based political and cultural arrangements that 'hamstring' politicians and economic interests don't make sense. The idea that such arrangements were made with full intention of curtailing power of elected officials and economic interests is usually forgotten in discussions about the future of Canada.
We have adopted a materialist approach that says feelings, dreams and emotions do not matter. Politicians and political theorists have relegated symbols such as the Crown, flags, and anthems to political fluff that to be changed 'at will' without any concern for the effect this has on citizens' attachment to their country or on the structures safeguarding citizens' rights. International relationships are simply utilitarian.
This view says Treaties and constitutional arrangements regarding language, religious rights and the role of provinces or the role of the Crown or its representatives don't matter to us, because we weren't born when those arrangements were made. We can change them even when they leave out an original party to the agreement -- as Quebec was left out 1982. (Change is seen as good. Waiting for agreement and timing that works for everybody is deemed not necessary.)
But the vision that built Canada was based on dreams, faith and big ideas. It was also based on on consensus of peoples and regions. 19th century 'political elites (especially in London), colonial administrators, and capitalists' rarely thought of the rights of individuals. The idea that colonists could keep political and cultural arrangements they loved -- and sometimes died to protect -- and turn themselves into nations was unthinkable to the guys who hung around gentlemen's clubs in London and New York. Why not sell out the rights of colonists in order to facilitate trade across the Atlantic?
But the colonists dared to dream impossible dreams. They believed that it did not matter what the 'money men' said. They could turn Rupert's Land and British North America into a sovereign nation without war and without severing ties to the rest of the Empire. (These visions of interdependence and peaceful transformation remain key parts of the Canadian identity.) They believed God could intervene in impossible situations.
By the mid 1880's their faith and hard work not only had made their dreams reality, it was beginning to change their Empire into sovereign nations (dominions) within the Empire. While the bureaucrats in London thought this was merely a change in status for 'their' colonies, colonists from Canada to Australia were dreaming that their nations would be equal in status to Britain and that they, and their fellow colonists from many nations, would have as much protection from the Queen's government as the Lords, Ladies, and Financiers of the realm.
This is what the Commonwealth of Nations is actually intended to be, but it goes a step further by recognizing that groups such as the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the First Nations of Canada ought to have protection equal to their 'colonist' neighbour. And that the poor should be protected as much as the rich.
This is why we continue to see Our Queen and her representatives visit hospitals and espouse the rights of the poor and minorities. It is also the reason The Crown recognizes the accomplishments of artists, writers, theologians, innovations, community leaders and even individual acts of heroism. It is why the Queen quotes Bible verses and speaks of role of many faiths in the lives of people throughout the Commonwealth -- and only a few radical materialists protest that she is the embodiement of the union of 'faith and public life.' Why? Because, in Canada, it is the Crown's role to acknowledge that there is more to life than 'materialism.'
The Fathers of Confederation recognized that politicians and businessmen should not have total control of the nation. They recognized that one class or one part of the Empire should not run over the rights of others. It was a world changing dream, based more on poetry than rationalism. (And no they didn't get it perfect, but that is a post for another day.)
My next post will talk about some of the dreamers who created our country and consider what role 'Dreams and Grand Visions' still play in this nations of 'dreamers, innovators and poets.
But over the past forty years, most analysis of history and public policy discussions have taken a materialist approach. History books talk about Acts, events, and results, not dreams, grand visions and the emotions of historical figures. Their religion is either scoffed at or ignored.
Fiscal reality, not emotional attachments, governs public policy. Political leaders love to tell us that 19th Century based political and cultural arrangements that 'hamstring' politicians and economic interests don't make sense. The idea that such arrangements were made with full intention of curtailing power of elected officials and economic interests is usually forgotten in discussions about the future of Canada.
We have adopted a materialist approach that says feelings, dreams and emotions do not matter. Politicians and political theorists have relegated symbols such as the Crown, flags, and anthems to political fluff that to be changed 'at will' without any concern for the effect this has on citizens' attachment to their country or on the structures safeguarding citizens' rights. International relationships are simply utilitarian.
This view says Treaties and constitutional arrangements regarding language, religious rights and the role of provinces or the role of the Crown or its representatives don't matter to us, because we weren't born when those arrangements were made. We can change them even when they leave out an original party to the agreement -- as Quebec was left out 1982. (Change is seen as good. Waiting for agreement and timing that works for everybody is deemed not necessary.)
But the vision that built Canada was based on dreams, faith and big ideas. It was also based on on consensus of peoples and regions. 19th century 'political elites (especially in London), colonial administrators, and capitalists' rarely thought of the rights of individuals. The idea that colonists could keep political and cultural arrangements they loved -- and sometimes died to protect -- and turn themselves into nations was unthinkable to the guys who hung around gentlemen's clubs in London and New York. Why not sell out the rights of colonists in order to facilitate trade across the Atlantic?
But the colonists dared to dream impossible dreams. They believed that it did not matter what the 'money men' said. They could turn Rupert's Land and British North America into a sovereign nation without war and without severing ties to the rest of the Empire. (These visions of interdependence and peaceful transformation remain key parts of the Canadian identity.) They believed God could intervene in impossible situations.
By the mid 1880's their faith and hard work not only had made their dreams reality, it was beginning to change their Empire into sovereign nations (dominions) within the Empire. While the bureaucrats in London thought this was merely a change in status for 'their' colonies, colonists from Canada to Australia were dreaming that their nations would be equal in status to Britain and that they, and their fellow colonists from many nations, would have as much protection from the Queen's government as the Lords, Ladies, and Financiers of the realm.
This is what the Commonwealth of Nations is actually intended to be, but it goes a step further by recognizing that groups such as the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the First Nations of Canada ought to have protection equal to their 'colonist' neighbour. And that the poor should be protected as much as the rich.
This is why we continue to see Our Queen and her representatives visit hospitals and espouse the rights of the poor and minorities. It is also the reason The Crown recognizes the accomplishments of artists, writers, theologians, innovations, community leaders and even individual acts of heroism. It is why the Queen quotes Bible verses and speaks of role of many faiths in the lives of people throughout the Commonwealth -- and only a few radical materialists protest that she is the embodiement of the union of 'faith and public life.' Why? Because, in Canada, it is the Crown's role to acknowledge that there is more to life than 'materialism.'
The Fathers of Confederation recognized that politicians and businessmen should not have total control of the nation. They recognized that one class or one part of the Empire should not run over the rights of others. It was a world changing dream, based more on poetry than rationalism. (And no they didn't get it perfect, but that is a post for another day.)
My next post will talk about some of the dreamers who created our country and consider what role 'Dreams and Grand Visions' still play in this nations of 'dreamers, innovators and poets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)