"Canadian Self-Haters" Article

McQuaig is the shrill one, her screeds against Bush and Americans rank right up there with best our only 'real' Canadians(uber-liberals) regularly churn out. Her use of the term 'self-haters' is an example of her blarney. People who live in free countries, much to Linda's chagrin, are actually allowed to have different opinions about how the country should be governed. It's simplistic and a display of bigotry to label people the way she does, she should change her last name to 'McCarthy'.

And of course you think it is perfectly OK for harper to want to reduce the feds to a mere shadow and give all the powers to the provinces and regions.

That's downright scary.

I count harper as one of the "self haters" in this country, he wants to divide and conquer. Martin is right behind him.

What then ?


---
"Most politicians 'can't hold a job anywhere else...I mean, you're not dealing with top-drawer individuals.'" - Jeff Lyons, Toronto lobbyist.

Perhaps Harper has read the Constitution, unlike Paul Martin. There are divisions in juridiction between the feds and provinces, the authors were more perceptive than today's average liberal. Paul Martin wants to be somewhere between a mayor and a premier judging by his campaign. The country would likely work better if each level of government worked within their jurisdictions.

She is spot on - there are a small but loud group of self-hating Canadians that want to be just like America. Most that vote conservative are in that rank and file. They think American shit don't stink and everything Canadian would be better American.

Move if you think like that - do us all a favour and just leave.

The most recent Time poll says that the vast majority of Canadians are more than pleased on the direction we are taking - that is away from the imperialistic aims of the Bush government.

This article probably got every single Canadian loather worked up into a lather.

Actually, the initial structure of power provided for in the BNA Act strongly favoured the federal government over the provinces, which is obvious if you look at a) the initial allocation of federal and provincial powers (ie jurisdictions) it outlined (see sections 91 and 92), since the federal govt was given the vast majority (such as banking, public debt and property, the postal service, taxes, military, etc) and the provinces got jurisdiction over mostly minor things, ie "Generally all Matters that are of a merely local or private Nature in the Province" b) the residual power clause, which allocates any govt powers not specifically mentioned in the constitutional documents to the federal government, not the provincial govt (ie gives the fed govt jurisdiction) c) the declaratory power, which allows the fed govt to usurp provincial powers if that action is "for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more provinces" and d) the powers of disallowance and reservation which essentially give the fed govt veto power over the provinces. There are also areas where there is shared or concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that both the provinces and the fed govt can legislate (such as agriculture)-- see section 95. And in that case, there is a supremacy clause which again, gives the federal government the deciding power when provincial and federal jurisdictions conflict.

Over our history Canada has moved away from this more centralized type of government towards a more decentralized one, arguably the most decentralized systems in the world, but over that time we have had periods of more or less decentralization. And I do think it's frankly wrong to point to our original constitutional documents as an argument for decentralization, since the people who founded the country obviously meant it to be fairly centralized with the fed govt having the most power and having jurisdiction over most things.

---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I'm more Canadian than you! You should leave!

In reply to the person who called McQuaig "shrill", I think what she's doing is rather clever--she's turning the tables on those who so quickly label so many Canadians as "anti-American" and pointing out that if Canadians can be labelled "anti-American", then why aren't we labelling some of us "anti-Canadian"? What she's doing is pointing out the danger of such labels and the colonized mindset they imply.

"Anti-American" is, after all, a slur against those not deemed to be patriotic enough to the U.S. It is used by U.S. flag wavers everywhere against those who dare question or dissent against U.S. actions. Until McQuaig, and even still, no one arguing for further Americanization of this country, ie further integration and further harmonization with the U.S., was or is in danger of being called "anti-Canadian", because the assumption inherent to the colonized mindset is that we should all be saluting the US flag, not the Canadian one. Those of the colonized mindset are extremely quick to label any dissent against US imperialism in this country "anti-American", but the obvious corrollary, or "anti-Canadianism" is not a common slur because we are in fact EXPECTED to be somehow "anti-Canadian" and kowtow to the U.S. and express our support and even our patriotism to that imperial influence. Those who argue for American supremacy, and for celebrating and allowing and encouraging that influence in Canada, are in fact often REWARDED with money, influence, and power. Being "anti-Canadian", in other words, is not a common slur because it is not seen as a bad thing in Canada--it is expected, celebrated, and implied, by the colonizing influence of the U.S., and it is only when you start being pro-Canadian and STOP believing and saying that the U.S. is the "best" "most democratic" and "superior" country in the world (which it obviously is not) that you get negatively labelled--as "anti-American".

You can just check my email inbox to see how quickly the "anti-American" slur is applied to any kind of effort that attempts to broaden the debate on what kind of country Canada should be, even when that effort is as quick to criticize Canada itself as the U.S., such as this site. I ask every emailer why they expect me to be patriotic to a flag that isn't even mine.

---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

People always say that the provinces have jurisdiction over resources, etc, but that doesn't mean the provinces AND ONLY the provinces. Just because the provinces CAN have jurisdiction over something doesn't mean that the federal government CAN'T, if it wants to.

---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

I personally love Linda McQuaig, but she also mentions the article in the N.Y. Times, that asked where the "next Trudeau" was. The implication was that Canada is pathetic to be obsessing over healthcare.

Although this is Liberal spin--I agree. Canada should be a world power. Simply being a "nice place to live" is a betrayal of those like Stephen Leacock who knew we could be much more.

A new blog has started up that tracks this anti-Canadianism. There is already lots of good examples of what McQuaig talked about there. http://cnd5column.blogspot.com/

hey, I did leave. and went to Alberta

Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-British, Anti-Israeli... All these hate groups towards other countries and people is starting to make me sick. We should start focusing our time on more productive ideas and topics like how to better the lifestyles of the poor in Canada and around the world.

---
Alliance Atlantis films proudly presents...

<P>Thanks for this excellent exposition of jurisdiction in the BNA Act, Susan. <P>It was also a pleasure to see McQuaig's reference to the "wildly popular decision not to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq." I often hear people--at political events, social occasions, sometimes they stop me on the street--saying how proud they are of Canada's decision not to go to Iraq. <P>Sometimes I drop by Vive le Canada just to see if anyone else notices how seldom this view is expressed in our media--not only (predictably) the National Post or the Globe and Mail, but even on the CBC. <P>For me, the term "self-hater" resonates most with the phrase "self-hating Jew" which comes from the debate about whether or not criticism of Israel and/or Zionism is anti-Semitic. It's brief. It has the power of a kick to the stomach. It contains a clear and often devastating judgement. But it's often neither accurate or fair. <P>For instance, Stephen Harper does not strike me as a "self-hating" man. In fact, he seems almost as pleased with himself as his evil twin, George W. Bush. Smug, self-satisfied, holier than others, but not self-hating. <P>Noam Chomsky is often called a self-hating Jew. So is Amira Hass, Uri Avnery, Peretz Kidron, and others who share a capacity for empathy with people outside the bounds of their own group. They also have some capacity for self-criticism. Probably that's what is mistaken for self-hatred. <P>I don't think Peter Mansbridge qualifies as "self-hating" either. But CBC-TV has broadcast daily updates on the American elections with specials that rival their coverage of the recent federal Canadian election. CBC-TV also shares in the glut of Iraq coverage while it says practically nothing about Afghanistan or Haiti where Canada has troops supporting an American fairy tale. <P>It would be useful to have a term that identified the political category which includes both the benign neglect of and overt hostility toward bonafide Canadian interests. But "self-hating" has a presumptuous and humourless history elsewhere. And it doesn't really fit.

Perturbed wrote: <i>Canada should be a world power</i><p> MAO !!!</p>