Imagine the horror had a Conservative gushed about Canada's Euro heritage, sidelining those with roots elsewhere or just right here
Plus! A new kufiya for one of the GG’s favourite journos and more trouble with Tweets
There was considerable giddiness across the land last week when Prime Minister Mark Carney referred to Canada - one of NATO’s all star deadbeats - as “the most European of non-European nations.”
This wisdom appeared to be accepted as profound in the nation’s Laurentian salons and Toronto newsrooms where the default view of Canada as an Atlantic nation is assumed to be universally held. But of course it is not. At the nation’s western end - the one closer to that other whatsitsname ocean shared with Asia - Carney’s statement was more puzzling. There are more people in British Columbia, after all, who speak neither English nor French in the home than there are Canadians outside of Quebec who parlent Francais dans leur maisons. Some commentators such as Chris Selley did eventually weigh in to question the PM’s new interpretation of the culture although his focus was on the more traditional definition of Canadians as not - ew - American. I saw no comments from Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.
It was impossible to resist wondering how such a percipient honouring of Canada’s Euro-heritaged (let’s face it, white) population would have been received were Carney a Conservative or had Pierre Poilievre said it. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination because we know what happened to Stephen Harper. Voices of those labelling such talk as a white nationalist battle cry pining for 1970s Canada would have been, uh, elevated. The Canadian anti-hate network or some reasonable facsimile would have posted something about “dog whistles” and commentators such as Erica Ifill of the Hill Times would have lost their ever-lovin’ minds.
People representing the one in three Canadians who are persons of colour, most of whom have heritage in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean or Central/South America, would have been interviewed for reactions (as they should have been last week). High profile Indigenous activists such as Tanya Talaga and Pam Palmateer would have been sought out for their response to this cheerful praising of Canada’s colonialism, something which is acknowledged, often at length, with prayerful contrition at most public events these days. Columns would have been written, brows mopped and forelocks tugged as many - so many - tried to make sense of it all.
Am I wrong? After all, a decade ago there was a huge uproar when, in an election debate, Harper said his party’s approach to an issue was embraced by “both new and existing and old stock (de souche) Canadians. This prompted columnists for the Montreal Gazette, Globe and Mail and others to weigh in with their concerns about non-inclusive language, divisiveness, categorizing people etc., etc. and Justin Trudeau became prime minister. Ah, how soon they forget. That was then, apparently, and this is now. Or, more accurately, that was Harper and this is Carney.
Just for fun, here is a list of questions that a paid subscriber suggested many in the media (not all, of course) would have been asking had it been a Conservative prime minister making news in Europe last week:
1) Please explain why Canada is the most European country outside of Europe?
2) Is this the end of decolonization and what does this mean about past commitments to Indigenization? Where does this leave land acknowledgements?
3) Immigration to Canada from Europe is at an all time low, do you plan to prioritize immigration from Europe?
4) On what date were your European citizenships revoked?
5) Will you be bringing King Charles to Canada more often?
6) Is Canada becoming more militaristic under your government?
Tomorrow is July 1. Happy Euro-Canada Day! Or, if you are de souche, Dominion Day!
It was only 14 months ago when online personality Rachel Gilmore was invited by Governor General Mary Simon to Rideau Hall to participate in a symposium on the need for journalists and others to be protected from “abusive, misogynistic and racist engagement on social media and online platforms, including a greater number of violent threats.”
Gilmore, who self-identifies as a journalist, probably didn’t do the craft’s already tarnished reputation any good when she recently modeled her new kufiya to show her solidarity with the genocidal terrorists governing Gaza. Later in the week, after Gilmore referred to Carney’s support for a two-state solution in the Middle East as “unhinged,” journalist and author Dan Gardner had this to say on Substack:
“Whenever I am tempted to think that dogmatism, stridency and self-righteousness are monopolies of right-wing Canadian grifters posing as journalists, I remind myself that Rachel Gilmore exists and is making a good living.”
Last week, my column was about journalists being naughty on social media. No sooner was it posted than Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail Tweeted something wondering why people are more concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons than Israel. Whether of his own volition or not, Mason deleted the Tweet, muttering something about it being poorly worded. But not before Sean Speer, Editor-at-Large at The Hub, took the opportunity to link Mason’s bad behaviour to subsidies.
“As I’ve said 100 times,” Speer wrote. “I don’t care that journalists like Mason have dumb views. What I resent is that the government’s media subsidies force taxpayers to subsidize their employment. The freedom of expression grants someone the right to say whatever they want. It doesn’t collectively commit us to subsidize their ability to do so. If enough Canadians want to pay for this drivel, fill your boots. But if not, taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to foot the bill.”
Note to readers: At some point going forward, as an added bonus, The Rewrite is going to allow comments from subscribers only. This should also help protect people who comment from online trolls. Or should I just delete comments from trolls? Let me know what you think. Also, please watch for my biweekly column coming up in The Hub tomorrow and don’t forget to watch or listen to the Full Press podcast starring yours truly, Harrison Lowman and Tara Henley. It will be posted Thursday on Spotify, YouTube and The Hub website.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Subsidization of any news organization by the Federal Government should not be tolerated. I support independent bi-partisan journalists any way I can. However, I'm 91 years old, on a fixed income and cannot support them all with paid subscriptions. I do financially support what I can. Is my opinion in comment sections of those I can't financially support then silenced?
No matter how fixated Carnage is on Europe, I’m old enough to remember that the Dairy cartel wrecked the EU deal Harper had put in place and Freeland came home crying when she could not get a deal. The dairy cartel gave us a 1/2 asses deal then, and Carnage, for all his pretty words will fare no better. Carnage truly believes he’s the smartest guy in the room … hint, he is not.
Further more, he could triple our trade with the EU … and it would still be less than 20%, the US makes up more than 75% of our trade. Trump is temporary, our geography is permanent, the US is where our goods flow, it’s not an option.