Our opinions and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.

Canadian Values

Well it seems that those terrible Americans are writing hate speech again. OK, I'm joking about the hate speech, because out there somewhere I'm sure there is some twit who considers the article just that.

Anyways, Clifford Krauss has some harsh words for us Canadians:
The recent spectacle of scandal and tawdry politics has some Canadians now wondering if all the self-congratulatory virtue is not mixed with some old-fashioned hypocrisy, or what Robert Fulford, a leading literary journalist and columnist characterizes as "a fable" expounded by generations of Liberal leaders.

"During recent decades our politicians have told us a sweet bedtime story about Canada being an exceptionally compassionate country, a world leader in multiculturalism and wonderfully generous to the poor countries," Mr. Fulford said. "All of this expresses something called 'Canadian values.' All lies."

Most Canadians would probably consider that assessment harsh.


While Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto accord, making a commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012, emissions have risen to 24 percent above 1990 levels. The powerful domestic oil industry has lobbied effectively to guarantee that the development of oil sands - a noxious source of carbon dioxide - will go on expanding.

In fact, Canada, where logging, mining and oil interests are extremely powerful, has a less than sterling environmental record. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada produces more nuclear waste per capita than any other member country and ranks as the fourth per capita emitter of carbon dioxide, following the United States, Australia and Luxembourg. Environmental activists say that only Finland and Sweden log more forest land per capita among industrialized countries.

When European governments sought to ban the import of Canadian asbestos for its toxicity in recent years, Ottawa complained to the World Trade Organization that such an action would violate free trade.

"Canada for years has fought against international controls on asbestos because of the importance of that industry to Quebec," noted Michael Bliss, a leading historian at the University of Toronto. Mr. Bliss, for his part, dismisses as "posturing" the idea that "Canada is some kind of moral superpower."

Canadian officials constantly lecture Europe and the United States on the need to level the playing field in agriculture for third world producers. But at the same time Canada runs monopolistic dairy product marketing boards that raise tariffs of 200 percent and more to protect its own producers of milk, eggs and butter.
Darn those Americans are mean. See, we'ld never say such things here in Canada. It's in bad taste damnit!

Now of course, when it comes to Americans, the Canadian media throws this stuff around every day. Canadians, it seems, don't want to think about ourselves. We just busy ourselves with the faults of others.

Canadians love to criticize others but we get into a huff everytime someone does that to us. We pretend that we are some sort of model for other countries, all the while, never caring to ask ourselves how or why this would be the case.

As Krausse says, the Liberals have managed to create a bizarre myth about themselves and the country they so effectively mismanage.

[Via Nealenews]


Anonymous said...


sad but true...Canada has not held the moral high ground for a long time, the low for me was Ruwanda. How can a government complain about slaughter and their powerlessness to stop it, yet they were the ones who gutted the once proud CDN military. Canada can't blame the US and others when they are unable to deploy more than a few hundred troops for longer than 6 months. PATHETIC

Dana said...

I totally agree. The most recent example of this was Paul Martin's attempt at vote buying by providing funds to help those suffering in Sudan.

Of course during his press conference Paul Martin didn't care to mention that there wasn't a hope in hell that the Sudanese government, who is responsible for the genocide, would accept any of the conditions attached to it.

It is just another chapter in the great Canadian myth. Canadians care, we just don't produce results...

MB said...

While I agree completely with the thrust of this post (we do not put our money where our mouth is), I have yet to see anyone criticizing them for criticizing our myth.

Perhaps we all realize our hypocrisy more than you think.

Tommy Steele said...

I like how the previous comments dispense with any notions of intricate responses almost immediately. I'm afraid I can't be as black and white. I agree that we have built somewhat of a myth of purity around ourselves, but to say we don't want to "think about ourselves" is a little absurd. A Canadian is the first to deride his country, thank you very much; we're very nearly professional whiners. The reason people get in a "huff" is the fact that it is always an American eagerly pointing our inconsistencies. I, for one, believe in a fundamental difference between Canadians and Americans, a difference that we can be proud of. Where we give in to certain innocuous fallacies, we at least have a certain amount of checks and balances. The American cultural is something else all together, capable of justifying hegemony and leaving their uneducated, poor and hungry masses starry-eyed and thirsting all the more for red, white and blue slop. So, to have hypocrisy thrown at us by those that personify it...well, it puts me in a huff, and rightly so. It feels like the greatest of injustices. Also, that laundry list of dirty deeds is quite vivid, but pales when compared to the histories other states (not mentioning any names, of course). And to blame it on a certain type of government is the greatest of logical leaps, so much so Krausse must do some incredible mental "stretching".

Dana said...

Yep, back to those evil Americans and their "uneducated, poor and hungry masses". I hate to say it but it seems that you've been listening to way to much Howard Dean.

The only reason someone goes hungry in the U.S. is because mommy is a crack addict, not because "the man" is messing with them.

And I love how you will compare "laundry list of dirty deeds" without "naming names". It seems that you're quite guilty of what the article is discussing. Don't you think?

As to Krausse's article, where exactly is she doing the "incredible mental stretching"?

Tommy Steele said...

1. "And I love how you will compare "laundry list of dirty deeds" without "naming names". It seems that you're quite guilty of what the article is discussing. Don't you think?"

I think you missed the point of that part of my comment.

2. Blaming the victim is a very unhealthy point of view. Further, it's a capitalist society, which demands a large base of poor people, not a large crack supply.

3. Krausse contending that its really all the liberals fault is a bit simplistic, don't you think. I'm sure no one disagrees that the liberals have created a more positive perception of themselves than they deserve, but to say they alone have cast a blanket of deception and manipulation over the entire country that resulted in all our hypocritical actions as a nation...I mean, c'mon, that's laughable.

Anonymous said...

While it is true that Liberals are hypocrites and liars when they claim that Canada is some kind of moral paragon, some of the comments which follow this are ... well, judge for yourself.

The powerful domestic oil industry has lobbied effectively to guarantee that the development of oil sands - a noxious source of carbon dioxide

CO2 is not a poison. It is only fake Kyoto junk science which has turned CO2 into a boogieman.

Canada produces more nuclear waste per capita than any other member country

Do we mine more uranium than any other country? Sounds like a fake statistic that conflates piles of very low-radiation uranium mine tailings with high-radiation spent reactor fuel. And if CO2 is "noxious", then there is no choice but to use uranium even more than we do now. Unless Cliffie wants us to live in dugouts in the ground and use whale-oil for lighting and cooking.

only Finland and Sweden log more forest land per capita among industrialized countries.

We have a huge country that is mostly forest, and a tiny population. Of course we log a lot of forest land per capita.

Do Sierra Club and Greenpeace newsletters emit some kind of nuclear radiation that causes retardation or something?

Dana said...


1) If I misunderstood then I'm more than willing to listen to your clarification.

2) Well if capitalism needs its "large base of poor people" then what do the call the poor in other economic systems? The majority perhaps? You may not care for capitalism and that is your choice but there are fewer poor people under capitalistic societies then others. In short, where would you rather be poor, in China or in the United States? Damn facts...

And the sad fact is more people try to immigrate to capitalistic countries than try to emmigrate out.

3) I'm kind of confused by your point here. I agree with your point that the Liberals are not toally at fault for the 'blanket of deception and manipulation over the entire country' because in many ways they need a willing population to do this. I guess I'm kind of lost because it seemed that you disagreed with the main point of the article based on your earlier comments and now it seems you are agreeing with it.

That of course is fine because it is certainly a matter of degree and matter of what proportion of blame goes to who. I guess I just assumed you were obsolving the Liberals of any responsibility.

Sorry about the confusion.

Dana said...


While I agree with every one of your points the original point of the article still stands. Canadians think we are 'doing a lot to save the planet' by being part of Kyoto when in fact we are doing nothing. It doesn't matter if Kyoto is useless (which I think it is) or if we just signed it to feel good about ourselves and we have no intention of actually doing anything to meet it's targets.

The results and the hypocracy remains the same.

Tommy Steele said...


1. I think you saw that statement as a critical statment against those other "unnamed" states, which would make me guilty of what the article is discussing. However, my remark was one one of conceit, it shows that I agree that we are hypocritical, but that we are not alone nor are we the worst. To contend otherwise would be ridiculous.

2. You went off on a tangent here. You can spout all the "damn facts" you want when in reality I said neither yah or nay to capitalism, I merely was showing that in our society there will always be poor people. So, blaming the poor people as a whole for their circumstances is very lazy and unsympathetic. I only wanted to warn you of this, because once you blame the victim, some dangerous and hurtful behaviours become very easy to justify.

3. I am unsure of what was so confusing in my article. Right off the bat I came in saying "I'm afraid I can't be as black and white" indicating my opinion would be one of complexity. I think you saw everything I wrote as an opponent (hence the capitalism thing).