Canada's New Governor General
EyeBrock @ Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:37 pm
No worries mate, you're not often wrong. No harm done!
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:37 pm
I don't know how many of you have passports, but if you look in the inside page it tells you that if you can't get to a Canadian embassy to head to a British one for emergency services.
As to who we perceive as being a "foreigner" in Canada, my grandfather had a funny little story about one of his neighbours, John Thomas (formerly of East Anglia) who came to Canada from Britain right after WW II. The term DP (Displaced Person) was used to describe alot of the Europeans who came to Canada and the US following the conflict. However, Mr. Thomas took exception to the term, being British, and declared that in his case and any other Briton's case the term DP merely meant Delayed Pioneer.
hwacker @ Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:20 pm
$1:
Martin's ill-considered choice for Governor-General
I find myself in the unenviable position of criticizing the choice of Michaelle Jean as the next Governor-General of Canada.
Almost everyone up to and including Barney the Dinosaur has come forward to sing a chorus of praise about this affirmation of what Paul Martin tells us is the spirit of Canada. How he would know anything about that, I'm not sure. But if I'm following the order of service at the temple of political correctness, what I'm supposed to think is: woman of colour, talented journalist, immigrant, energetic face of the new Quebec, what's not to like?
Well, he said, looking for a place to duck down to avoid the hostile crossfire, what's not to like is that we are now contemplating a second patronage appointment of a prominent CBC journalist of the extreme left-wing persuasion, to the position which in theory is supposed to protect our constitution.
We all saw how much protection the constitution received in April when Mr Martin defied parliament and continued to govern after losing what was widely seen as a confidence vote. And by way of extension, we can see now how much Mr Martin cares about the constitution by passing over dozens of better qualified candidates who might in fact have some loyalty to the constitution, in order to renew his pledge of fraternity with the left-wing media in Canada and the always important ethnic vote.
It goes without saying (irony intended) that the media have not so far picked up on the fact that many conservatives feel like these kinds of antics on the part of our prime minister are calculated insults to those Canadians who expect more and who value our constitutional traditions. Just as it's more or less a calculated insult to suggest that Stephen Harper is thinking of bringing in a theocracy, or that evangelicals are either Americans or not real Canadians. The list grows daily of these calculated insults to the conservative people who are asked to pay the bill for this circus. The biggest insult of all is the implication that Liberals are unusually tolerant and generous people, welcoming to immigrants from every corner of the world. The reality is that said immigrants are welcome to come here and huddle together in ethnic ghettoes, most of them only barely assimilated from some third-world setting, so long as they vote Liberal and pay at least some of their taxes. If they wish to spend other parts of their time advancing the cause of Osama bin Laden, for example, that's cool, so long as they avoid Toronto.
Beyond those considerations, having a CBC journalist appointed to this position, making it a patronage and not a constitutional appointment, creates a growing precedent for what any rational person (are there many in Canada? the heat seems to be creating a growing insanity) would expect might evolve into a sweetheart deal between the mass media and the Liberals, on an ever more sinister scale, until there would be absolutely no distinction possible between the government and the CBC, if not the rest of the Canadian media.
Perhaps some of you in the media like it that way -- the chance to report on the news and create an agenda for it at the same time, the consdescending statements often made about how you will tell the rest of us what is happening in our world (duh), and the always glittering prize at the end (end? try middle) of the race if one says exactly the right things on behalf of this government, this one-party state, then one might get a plum patronage position.
We've heard already how Ms Jean intends to listen to the voices of all Canadians and make them heard. We can assume from the precedent of the carefully managed CBC "discussion" programs that this will serve as further propaganda for the Liberal Party and for subtle opportunities to implant anti-American, anti-British, anti-western and anti-conservative, anti-religious sentiments in the mainstream of Canadian public opinion. As Trudeau liked to say, "just watch me."
From her career and her pronouncements, one has to assume that Michaelle Jean will be about as strong a guardian of our long and valued historical traditions as might be, say, Carolyn Parrish. We can expect from her about as much recognition of the dangers we face in this hostile world as we get from Jack Layton or the cast of This Hour has 22 Commies. She just has the advantage of being delightfully multicultural and presentable. Otherwise, why not get Rick Mercer into Rideau Hall? What's Maude Barlow doing with her spare time? How about exhuming the corpse of Joe Buck? That should complete the solidarity of the Liberals, NDP and what's left of the communist party.
Count me and most of western Canada out. I should be more subtle and Canadian, but the time for that is long gone. I'm tired of being a tax slave to keep this circus in town, and I'm thinking, like many west of Ontario, that if we can't get this country back into the western alliance and the real world in the next election (are we really having more elections, Mr Martin? they are so unpredictable), then it's probably time to place our energy behind a more attainable goal, western separation.
But keep on kidding yourselves if you want down in Ontario, we don't wish to intrude on your fantasies.
-- Peter O'Donnell
I find myself in the unenviable position of criticizing the choice of Michaelle Jean as the next Governor-General of Canada.
Almost everyone up to and including Barney the Dinosaur has come forward to sing a chorus of praise about this affirmation of what Paul Martin tells us is the spirit of Canada. How he would know anything about that, I'm not sure. But if I'm following the order of service at the temple of political correctness, what I'm supposed to think is: woman of colour, talented journalist, immigrant, energetic face of the new Quebec, what's not to like?
Well, he said, looking for a place to duck down to avoid the hostile crossfire, what's not to like is that we are now contemplating a second patronage appointment of a prominent CBC journalist of the extreme left-wing persuasion, to the position which in theory is supposed to protect our constitution.
We all saw how much protection the constitution received in April when Mr Martin defied parliament and continued to govern after losing what was widely seen as a confidence vote. And by way of extension, we can see now how much Mr Martin cares about the constitution by passing over dozens of better qualified candidates who might in fact have some loyalty to the constitution, in order to renew his pledge of fraternity with the left-wing media in Canada and the always important ethnic vote.
It goes without saying (irony intended) that the media have not so far picked up on the fact that many conservatives feel like these kinds of antics on the part of our prime minister are calculated insults to those Canadians who expect more and who value our constitutional traditions. Just as it's more or less a calculated insult to suggest that Stephen Harper is thinking of bringing in a theocracy, or that evangelicals are either Americans or not real Canadians. The list grows daily of these calculated insults to the conservative people who are asked to pay the bill for this circus. The biggest insult of all is the implication that Liberals are unusually tolerant and generous people, welcoming to immigrants from every corner of the world. The reality is that said immigrants are welcome to come here and huddle together in ethnic ghettoes, most of them only barely assimilated from some third-world setting, so long as they vote Liberal and pay at least some of their taxes. If they wish to spend other parts of their time advancing the cause of Osama bin Laden, for example, that's cool, so long as they avoid Toronto.
Beyond those considerations, having a CBC journalist appointed to this position, making it a patronage and not a constitutional appointment, creates a growing precedent for what any rational person (are there many in Canada? the heat seems to be creating a growing insanity) would expect might evolve into a sweetheart deal between the mass media and the Liberals, on an ever more sinister scale, until there would be absolutely no distinction possible between the government and the CBC, if not the rest of the Canadian media.
Perhaps some of you in the media like it that way -- the chance to report on the news and create an agenda for it at the same time, the consdescending statements often made about how you will tell the rest of us what is happening in our world (duh), and the always glittering prize at the end (end? try middle) of the race if one says exactly the right things on behalf of this government, this one-party state, then one might get a plum patronage position.
We've heard already how Ms Jean intends to listen to the voices of all Canadians and make them heard. We can assume from the precedent of the carefully managed CBC "discussion" programs that this will serve as further propaganda for the Liberal Party and for subtle opportunities to implant anti-American, anti-British, anti-western and anti-conservative, anti-religious sentiments in the mainstream of Canadian public opinion. As Trudeau liked to say, "just watch me."
From her career and her pronouncements, one has to assume that Michaelle Jean will be about as strong a guardian of our long and valued historical traditions as might be, say, Carolyn Parrish. We can expect from her about as much recognition of the dangers we face in this hostile world as we get from Jack Layton or the cast of This Hour has 22 Commies. She just has the advantage of being delightfully multicultural and presentable. Otherwise, why not get Rick Mercer into Rideau Hall? What's Maude Barlow doing with her spare time? How about exhuming the corpse of Joe Buck? That should complete the solidarity of the Liberals, NDP and what's left of the communist party.
Count me and most of western Canada out. I should be more subtle and Canadian, but the time for that is long gone. I'm tired of being a tax slave to keep this circus in town, and I'm thinking, like many west of Ontario, that if we can't get this country back into the western alliance and the real world in the next election (are we really having more elections, Mr Martin? they are so unpredictable), then it's probably time to place our energy behind a more attainable goal, western separation.
But keep on kidding yourselves if you want down in Ontario, we don't wish to intrude on your fantasies.
-- Peter O'Donnell
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:54 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Lets see, credentials for being Governor General
1 Minority CHECK
2 Left-wing CBC journalist CHECK
3 Bleeding heart socialist CHECK
4 Born outside of Canada CHECK
5 Being on the Government dole CHECK
Well, she’s got all that.
Just think 6 years from now Wendy Mesley couldn’t be GG unless the Liberals redefine some of the points.
1 Minority CHECK
2 Left-wing CBC journalist CHECK
3 Bleeding heart socialist CHECK
4 Born outside of Canada CHECK
5 Being on the Government dole CHECK
Well, she’s got all that.
Just think 6 years from now Wendy Mesley couldn’t be GG unless the Liberals redefine some of the points.
Perfect. What more is there to say?
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:05 pm
Avro Avro:
$1:
Then why is every postion of political power held by white old men? So we appoint an accomplished black female as a figure head with no power at all.....what's the big deal?
Harper is 45, hardly, an "old man." The country's health minister, Ujal Dosanjh is East Indian. Anne Mclellan, Deputy PM, Security Minister and one of the most powerful people in Cabinet is a....woman.
The Conservatives offered the country a female PM in 1993. She was defeated in a fair election. Did you vote for her Avro? Belinda Stronach, a leader in the Canadian Business community and Cabinet minister is a woman.
Canadian police forces, military, government departments and crown corps have aggressive equity programs that ensure visible minority candidates get fast tracked and are assured a place at the front of the line. The civil service in Ottawa, by virtue of almost 40 years of Liberal-Quebec rule, is innundated with French Canadians and nepotism is rife.
Grow up Avro. Stop pushing that broom around for a second and look around you.
Canrane @ Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:04 am
You know, I'm hearing a lot about how the people who built this country are being marginalized. From where I stand, I don't see that at all. I'd like a couple of good examples of how the liberals have been throwing out our british heritage as EyeBrock claims.
We still learn about the Plains of Abraham, don't we? The names of Montcalm and Wolfe are common knowledge, aren't they? Every kid knows that the British turned away the Americans in 1812, right? We learn how our parlimentary system was modelled after the British system. We still participate in the commonwealth games...
How is that denying our British heritage?
Where is the inequality of British background compared to other backgrounds? There are *reasons* why refugees are giving easier access to Canada...they are FLEEING a dangerous situation. Even with the terror attacks, Britain can hardly compare to the horrors of the Congo in that regard.
EyeBrock @ Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:04 am
Canrane Canrane:
You know, I'm hearing a lot about how the people who built this country are being marginalized. From where I stand, I don't see that at all. I'd like a couple of good examples of how the liberals have been throwing out our british heritage as EyeBrock claims.
We still learn about the Plains of Abraham, don't we? The names of Montcalm and Wolfe are common knowledge, aren't they? Every kid knows that the British turned away the Americans in 1812, right? We learn how our parlimentary system was modelled after the British system. We still participate in the commonwealth games...
How is that denying our British heritage?
Where is the inequality of British background compared to other backgrounds? There are *reasons* why refugees are giving easier access to Canada...they are FLEEING a dangerous situation. Even with the terror attacks, Britain can hardly compare to the horrors of the Congo in that regard.
We still learn about the Plains of Abraham, don't we? The names of Montcalm and Wolfe are common knowledge, aren't they? Every kid knows that the British turned away the Americans in 1812, right? We learn how our parlimentary system was modelled after the British system. We still participate in the commonwealth games...
How is that denying our British heritage?
Where is the inequality of British background compared to other backgrounds? There are *reasons* why refugees are giving easier access to Canada...they are FLEEING a dangerous situation. Even with the terror attacks, Britain can hardly compare to the horrors of the Congo in that regard.
Canrane, here are some exerts from an article that sum up the removal of some of our historical links to the UK. It goes on a bit but you can see it’s underlying message.
It is rare to see the Union Flag anywhere except Newfoundland, where it is flown more by default (it is still seen as the flag of Newfoundland for many), than a show of loyalty to the old ties. The Canadian military has been pruned of its “Royal” titles and Canada Post is no longer the “Royal” Mail. The names of high schools in my home city of Burlington were changed in 2004 from General Brock High School, to “Gary Allen H.S” and Lord Elgin High School became “Robert Bateman H.S”.
The links that seemed so important up until the 1960’s, are now dismissed and forgotten.
The Maple Leaf flag and symbol were readily adopted by most Canadians without any significant further degrading of the Imperial links. But the 1964 Flag Act also had a last minute nod to the Imperialists. On three days a year the Union Flag was to “…be flown along with the National Flag at federal buildings, airports, military bases, and other appropriate establishments within Canada.”.
This part of the Act is posted on the Government of Canada’s web site but a glance around on one of the prescribed days (Victoria Day, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster on December 11th and Commonwealth Day) at any available flag poles and you are more likely to see a UN flag or a municipal flag flying.
The Union Flag is no longer seen as a symbol that Canadians look to as part of their heritage, despite a Federal Act of Parliament that was supposed to enshrine its very existence as a Canadian symbol.
The Canadian Post Office had, up until the FLQ crisis, emulated the Royal Mail’s Royal cipher of “E II R”, or “Elizabeth Regina” on the red mail boxes across Canada. The FLQ saw this Imperialist symbol as a target for their terrorist campaign and began to blow them up. The Post Office bowed to the FLQ pressure and removed “E R” from the mail boxes. A link to Canada’s Sovereign was quietly deleted in the face of Québécois pressure. In 1981 the Post Office became “Canada Post”, and was given the status of a ‘Crown Corporation.’ A Crown corporation without a Royal cipher.
Other Federal agencies such as Canada Customs have also quietly stripped the ‘Crown’ from their corporate logos. As Canada Customs was restructured in 2003, the cap badge was mysteriously changed by removing the Queen’s Crown that had always been a part of the Customs identity since pre-Confederation days. A Crown corporation now without a Crown.
Bob Rae’s Ontario NDP government of the early 1990’s followed Quebec’s 1976 lead at abolishing the Imperial title for distinguished lawyers of ‘Queens Counsel’. Rae also altered the ‘oath of allegiance’ that Police Officers took on being sworn as Constables to remove the pledge of loyalty to the Queen, even though she still remained as Queen of Canada. It wasn’t a campaign issue for the New Democrats but Rae decided to adopt an anti-Monarchist line as Premier anyway.
The Canadian military in the 1960’s still bore the ‘Royal’ monikers and resembled the British Services right down to the uniforms and rifles. Paul Hellyer saw to it that this last bastion of British influence in Canada was neutered into something that was more acceptable to those who held little regard for military tradition, with the ‘unification’ of the Canadian Forces in 1968.
In the forced unification, Hellyer destroyed in one foul swoop, military tradition going back well before Butler’s Rangers in 1775 New York. He disconnected the core values that fighting men for centuries have rallied around. The individual ship, battalion and squadron are what most units fight for.
Hellyer removed the Military’s very identity, dismissing Imperial links and customs, even forcing them to wear the same uniform. Cap badges and Colours were lost, never to be retrieved. The distinctiveness and diversity of culture that would be afforded to Quebec society was denied to the Canadian Forces.
When the discipline of the Canadian Airborne Regiment had collapsed for various reasons, Chrétien disbanded them. The effect on the Canadian military was catastrophic. A Regiment that had battle honours going back to D-Day was just erased. Another piece of Canadian culture and a link to our Imperial past that was simply obliterated. The Canadian military has never recovered.
There was no room for ‘multiculturism’ in the Military, they were to be assimilated.
The Liberal’s have publicly given us a glimpse of their lack of knowledge of our history. The Vimy Ridge debacle in 2002 exposed the then Defence Minister, John McCallum’s understanding of Imperial Canada on a visit to Dieppe in 2002, by incorrectly naming Vimy Ridge as “Vichy Ridge. Apart from the fact that McCallum’s French hosts must have balked at the mention of the regime that collaborated with the Nazis the mistake is unforgivable.
To misname such a seminal event in Canada’s history is telling indeed, especially as the Minister’s Department of National Defence handlers must have proofed McCallum’s speech and missed the obvious.
Paul Martin compounded the insult in 2004. He spoke to the troops of the Canadian Forces base at Gagetown, as he prepared to commemorate the D-Day invasion, "Sixty years ago, Canadians were working alongside their British and American allies planning for the invasion of Norway and the liberation of Europe,"
He continued to carry on with further references to “Norway” much to the surprise of his bemused audience.
To mistake the country that was invaded in one of the most momentous events in twentieth century Canada, if not the western world is again inexcusable, especially considering his audience.
The erasing of Imperial Canada has created a kind of cultural vacuum outside of Quebec. The Crown has all but gone but what has replaced it? W.L Morton lamented in 1965 “ …our Britishness, then, was not Englishness, but a local brew of our own which we called Canadian.”
This is an observation that truly resonates amongst those of Anglo-Celtic stock. ‘British’ Canada was indeed a distinct version of Imperialism, bereft of the class struggles of the British Isles, as distinct in its own way as the Australian or Kiwi versions of Imperialism became and are today.
The definition of Nationhood and purpose that was once very evident to all Canadians in the Imperial era just hasn’t been replaced in English Canada with anything that can be seen as unifying or inspirational.
Neil Bissoondath comments, “While English Canada soon found itself adrift, with no sense of its centre, Quebec redefined its own centre, strengthened it, sought to make it unassailable.” Bissoondath saw first hand the weakening of English Canada and observed the changes in the cultural status quo, telling us “…it’s defining Britishness dismantled, Quebec saw its defining French-ness strengthened.” It was obvious to Bissoondath that the as ‘Britishness’ of Canada was being written out, the player in the wings waiting to take over the lead was now speaking French.
As English Canada took new immigrants and invited them to maintain their individual culture at the expense of the British links and symbols, Quebec could exclusively enforce its culture of New France.
A quick litmus test of the importance of New France’s history versus ‘British’ Canada’s history is easily carried out on the Government of Canada’s own website. A simple search of “United Empire Loyalists” will return seventy-two documents. A search for “Acadians” will result in three hundred and thirty documents on the Governments website. The Acadians have it.
There's a few examples to go on with.
Quintus @ Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:13 pm
Hi everyone,
The controversy of Michaelle's and her husband's connection with Quebec seperatists seems to have been resovled ok.
Her only other obstacle, according to the news reports is that she also holds dual French citizenship and according to French laws a citizen cannot hold a foreign ploitical posting. She may have to give her French citizenship up just like Conrad Black had to give up his Canadian citizenship in order to be in the British House Of Lords and knighted.
Regards,
Michael
Canrane @ Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:26 pm
Hmmm...you bring up some interesting examples, EyeBrock. I wasn't aware of the number of mistakes Paul Martin and others had made. Embarassing, eh? People made fun of Stockwell Day for not knowing which way the Niagara river flows. But this is in fact more serious and far more incompetent IMO.
But what I fail to see is how your examples are damning. The response that came to my mind was "So what?"
When there more examples of British influence than there examples of references being removed, I'm hard-pressed to believe that british heritage is under attack. No one is denying the past here. Just moving forward. What's the point of clinging to the past? A country has to evolve. Canada in particular has had trouble creating a national identity separate from Britain. So if it helps to remove a couple of references to the Queen, why not?
Just because the union jack isn't everywhere doesn't mean we don't know that it once was. I think that's the fundamental difference between how you view these examples and how I do.
I view heritage as history. It's there, and it can never be changed. Validating it with symbols everywhere is pointless because it's already set in stone. Adding or removing hte word "Royal" doesn't change anything.
Take Berlin, for example. It was renamed to Kitchener, but as a resident of Kitchener-Waterloo, I can assure you that this community has not forgotten its german roots. Just like Canada will not forget that it was founded by British and French even if every reference to the Queen is removed and no one spoke French.
EyeBrock @ Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 am
Canrane said:
$1:
Hmmm...you bring up some interesting examples, EyeBrock. I wasn't aware of the number of mistakes Paul Martin and others had made. Embarassing, eh? People made fun of Stockwell Day for not knowing which way the Niagara river flows. But this is in fact more serious and far more incompetent IMO.
But what I fail to see is how your examples are damning. The response that came to my mind was "So what?"
But what I fail to see is how your examples are damning. The response that came to my mind was "So what?"
Canrane , you basically answered your own question. Our British Imperial and colonial links are no longer of much importance to the current generation of Canadians.
If you went to any Legion and chatted with the vets they generally think that the country and ideals they fought for have been sold out to appease French Canada and “new” Canadians.
It’s death by a thousand cuts. Every time they remove a vestige of our past and history it becomes less relevant.
Kid’s learn about the internment of Japanese Canadians, not about the Canadian POW’s being beaten and starved to death in Burma.
You might know that there was a Union Flag in Canada but will your kids? As you say “So what?” to Canadian history and our heritage. You can ignore the UEL’s and the Brit’s who came over here from the 18th century until the early 1980’s. Ignore the struggles of the Dominion of Canada in favour of a politically correct but historically inaccurate version of our culture.
But what will we stand for then? Doesn't look like we stand for anything anymore.
We have a GG who isn't even sure which country she owes allegiance to and who associated with convicted terrorists who despise the Crown and any British connections in Canada. People who tried and still try to break up the country. That's what has happened to us now.
God save the Queen of Canada because nobody else gives a shite.
Quintus @ Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:36 am
Hi everyone,
What I like about the GG job is that they do not pay income tax.
Lol, whenever I get that sandy brown envelope with the black maple leaf from CCR, I feel like a poor old Jewish person circa 1933 in Germany who gets s similar envelope with the eagle and swastika; whatever is in it is not good news!
In reality I'd like to have Prince Charles' job and get payed 3 million a year for doing what mummy tells me to do.
Regards,
Michael
Quintus @ Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:57 am
It says in her biography, that she is fluent in 5 languages. English, French, Spanish, Italian and Haitian Creole. Is Haitian Creole a real language??? I was under the impression it was pidgin or the French version of ebonics, and at best a dialect. Correct me if I am wrong, maybe it is a real language.
_________________
Hi,
Speaking various languages is an interesting topic. When you say one is fluent in several languages, I have to ask, what is the definition of fluency?
I took me 11 years of English study to be able to get through university English based exams. Though I got to grade 10 level in Spanish and am considered fluent, I still have lots of problems understanding jokes and plays on words and advanced literature and poetry. So although I can get around, talk politics to science in that language, I would not fare too well if I had to go to Latin America and testify in court fighting lawyers or closing a high level business deal in that language. French I studied 5 years but never used it and today I can read magazines, talk at a 5 year old lever but not have an intelligent conversation. I studied Latin and I do need a dictionary at my side to use a few times a praragraph.
All in all it takes many years to "master" a language. How are you, a beer please, you are pretty, I love you I can say in at least 10 languages. Now ask me to give a 30 minute oration on the middle east crisis in those languages, well... that's a different story!
Finally when someone tells me they are fluent in German, Japanese, Chinese and Arabic, I have know way of acessing their claims since I don't speak the languages.
Regards,
Michael