Paul Martin's hate-speech ads

[YankAbroad]

I normally don't get too upset with knee-jerk anti-Americanism. When you've been around the world as I have, it's easy to get accustomed to stupid people who are ready to pre-judge you based upon your nationality, gender, accent, sexual orientation or other characteristics.

But I really must admit, as a US national who lived for several years in Canada, I am taken aback by Paul Martin's latest advertising.

That some people in Canada don't like Americans because they are American is nothing new -- the "Council of Canadians" being one big example (imagine a "Council of Americans" whose sole policy position was to take the piss out of Canucks every few days!)

But I read about the Liberal Party ads and decided to listen for myself.

Here's are some text snippets of the ones which struck me the most:

"Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his American friends" (said with "American" being emphasized as a perjorative)

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with right-wingers in the US. *They* have money."

I have to admit the hatred was jaw-dropping. I mean, here is a party governing a country where 1 in 30 residents is a US citizen, either through birth or migration, preaching hatred against Americans just because they're Americans.

But rather than go into a lengthy description of why this is hatred, just take a look at what a single word substitution does to these Liberal Party ads. The hatred sorta jumps out when the "American" is changed to another nationality, ethnicity, etc.

"Canada may elect the most PRO-JEWISH leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on Ariel Sharon's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his GAY friends!"

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with JEWS in the US. *They* have money."

Hmmmm. . . I'm not a fan of Harper, but I don't think a conservative government will do Canada any harm. It certainly won't hurt Canada one bit to reject the sort of hate speech that is going for political advertising in the election at the moment.

[geoffrey]

I normally don't get too upset with knee-jerk anti-Americanism. When you've been around the world as I have, it's easy to get accustomed to stupid people who are ready to pre-judge you based upon your nationality, gender, accent, sexual orientation or other characteristics.

But I really must admit, as a US national who lived for several years in Canada, I am taken aback by Paul Martin's latest advertising.

That some people in Canada don't like Americans because they are American is nothing new -- the "Council of Canadians" being one big example (imagine a "Council of Americans" whose sole policy position was to take the piss out of Canucks every few days!)

But I read about the Liberal Party ads and decided to listen for myself.

Here's are some text snippets of the ones which struck me the most:

"Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his American friends" (said with "American" being emphasized as a perjorative)

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with right-wingers in the US. *They* have money."

I have to admit the hatred was jaw-dropping. I mean, here is a party governing a country where 1 in 30 residents is a US citizen, either through birth or migration, preaching hatred against Americans just because they're Americans.

But rather than go into a lengthy description of why this is hatred, just take a look at what a single word substitution does to these Liberal Party ads. The hatred sorta jumps out when the "American" is changed to another nationality, ethnicity, etc.

"Canada may elect the most PRO-JEWISH leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on Ariel Sharon's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his GAY friends!"

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with JEWS in the US. *They* have money."

Hmmmm. . . I'm not a fan of Harper, but I don't think a conservative government will do Canada any harm. It certainly won't hurt Canada one bit to reject the sort of hate speech that is going for political advertising in the election at the moment.

Well said, and I'd apologize on behalf of the Canadians that don't support this vote buying rhetoric. Of course, I'll get blamed for being too close to the Americans or something.

It would be a complete lie for the Liberals to play the "tolerant party" card while making statements like this.

How about this for a CPC ad... "Canadians may elect the most pro-gay leader in the western world. A Martin victory would put a smile on every queer's face."

Blood would be running in the streets... instead we are ok if we substitute American for gay. It's not acceptable and its disgraceful. I would be ashamed of my Canadian citizenship if Canadian's in fact elected a party with values of such obvious bigotry.

[Riverwind]

I have to admit the hatred was jaw-dropping. I mean, here is a party governing a country where 1 in 30 residents is a US citizen, either through birth or migration, preaching hatred against Americans just because they're Americans.

The ads are vile and are a sad end to a career for a politician (Paul Martin) that did do many good things while he was Finance minister. Polls suggest that Liberals are heading for a humiliating defeat next week. The ads you saw will be one of the reasons for that defeat.

The Liberals aired this ad because there is a segment of the Canadian public that is extremely anti-American. This anti-Americanism used to mainly about protecting the identity of Canada as a seperate country, however, has gotten much more public and vicious since the war in Iraq started. There is a lot of anger directed at Bush for what many consider to be a immoral war and, unfortunately, many people do not distinguish between the leader and the people.

[YankAbroad]

I don't think Canadians have anything to be ashamed of -- naked bigotry against groups of people to win votes is something I dimply recall happening in the USA as well!

The important thing is that Canadians uphold the values of tolerance which they say they hold. . . demonstrating that commitment. I just wanted to point out why, from a Yankee perspective, such comments are hurtful.

You guys do know that, outside the bluff and bluster of America's "public face to the world," we do harbor a fondness for the Dominion -- it's one reason we care about what's said and why the PM's using one's nationality as a perjorative is a sting.

[YankAbroad]

Canadians may elect the most pro-gay leader in the western world. A Martin victory would put a smile on every queer's face.

Incidentally, as one of those queers myself, I wouldn't call Martin a boon to gays. His position on marriage right up to the Supreme Court's ruling was that civil unions would suffice -- pretty much the same as Harper (which is why all the dissembling was so dishonest).

The same Canada-watchers screaming with alarm from the USA about how the pending Conservative government represents the end of gay rights in Canada were busy in 2004 endorsing a candidate -- John Kerry -- whose own views on gay equality under the law was considerably to "the right" of both Harper and Martin alike.

Agh, if only people would think for themselves. . . we humans are a strange breed.

[mcqueen625]

I don't think Canadians have anything to be ashamed of -- naked bigotry against groups of people to win votes is something I dimply recall happening in the USA as well!

The important thing is that Canadians uphold the values of tolerance which they say they hold. . . demonstrating that commitment. I just wanted to point out why, from a Yankee perspective, such comments are hurtful.

You guys do know that, outside the bluff and bluster of America's "public face to the world," we do harbor a fondness for the Dominion -- it's one reason we care about what's said and why the PM's using one's nationality as a perjorative is a sting.

This certainly does not speak for me, and most Canadian's. Martin is going to get exactly what he and the thieving, lying Liberal Party deserves come next Monday.

Anyone who would cast a vote in favour of the federal Liberal Party deserves to have the Supreme Court take away our democracy. In fact Paul Martin wants to hand it directly to them by removing the notwithstanding clause from the Charter so that that no Canadian government will be able to override their decisions even if they are injurious to the public's morals or values.

Some factions are now exploring the prospect of making polygamy legal using the argument that same-sex marriage was approved by the court's, and then parliament. Maybe we should be electing our judiciary and abolishing Parlaiment, The Senate, Governor General , and all of their provincial counterparts, at the very least it would make the judiciary accountable to the people that pays their bloated salaries.

[PocketRocket]

Paul Martin has said that Steven Harper would be very pro-American.

But Paul Martin is running scared.

So he's making wild accusations using every boogie-man he can conjure.

Bush happens to be largely unpopular in Canada.

So Martin has chosen him as yet another boogie-man.

Right here.

On television.

In Canada.

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

[Drea]

The ad speaks nothing but the truth.

Did Harper slam his own beloved country to the US? Yes he did and he should apologize profusely for doing so.

The "speech in Washington" ad is my favorite by far. Canadians need to know that Harper hates Canada and thinks we all suck, thinks we all live on welfare!

Hmmm... if we all live on welfare, who the hell is paying his salary?

[FTA Lawyer]

The ad speaks nothing but the truth.

Did Harper slam his own beloved country to the US? Yes he did and he should apologize profusely for doing so.

The "speech in Washington" ad is my favorite by far. Canadians need to know that Harper hates Canada and thinks we all suck, thinks we all live on welfare!

Hmmm... if we all live on welfare, who the hell is paying his salary?

Speaking out about things that are bad in your country (when you feel they could be better) is called free speech in a democracy...it doesn't mean you hate your country.

On the contrary, many of Harper's comments can just as easily be construed as a true patriotic Canadian merely longing for something more deserving for our citizens.

My grandfather talks about the whole country going to hell almost every day...not because he's a Canada-hater, but because he lived in a Canada that was very different (and in his mind better) than the one we have today.

Ironically, this exact concept is occurring for the Liberal Party right now...a number of Liberal candidates have gone on record saying they are disgusted with the Party for running these attack ads. One candidate refused to wear red for a while to show her disdain.

Are these candidates Liberal-haters? No, they do this because they are disappointed in their colleagues and are expressing their points of view. Remember, freedom of expression is actually one of the things protected by the beloved Charter...and people are allowed to express things that you don't buy into.

No wonder things like health-care and democratic reforms are stalled...because anyone who criticizes the status quo is branded a "Canada-hater".

If you ask me the more dangerous thing is to surround oneself with a big pile of "yes-men" for too long, because then you never have to consider that something you do might not be the best and only option.

(PM PM are you listening??)

FTA

[tml12]

I normally don't get too upset with knee-jerk anti-Americanism. When you've been around the world as I have, it's easy to get accustomed to stupid people who are ready to pre-judge you based upon your nationality, gender, accent, sexual orientation or other characteristics.

But I really must admit, as a US national who lived for several years in Canada, I am taken aback by Paul Martin's latest advertising.

That some people in Canada don't like Americans because they are American is nothing new -- the "Council of Canadians" being one big example (imagine a "Council of Americans" whose sole policy position was to take the piss out of Canucks every few days!)

But I read about the Liberal Party ads and decided to listen for myself.

Here's are some text snippets of the ones which struck me the most:

"Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his American friends" (said with "American" being emphasized as a perjorative)

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with right-wingers in the US. *They* have money."

I have to admit the hatred was jaw-dropping. I mean, here is a party governing a country where 1 in 30 residents is a US citizen, either through birth or migration, preaching hatred against Americans just because they're Americans.

But rather than go into a lengthy description of why this is hatred, just take a look at what a single word substitution does to these Liberal Party ads. The hatred sorta jumps out when the "American" is changed to another nationality, ethnicity, etc.

"Canada may elect the most PRO-JEWISH leader in the Western world. . . a Harper victory will put a smile on Ariel Sharon's face."

"This is what Stephen Harper told his GAY friends!"

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the top? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's *very* popular with JEWS in the US. *They* have money."

Hmmmm. . . I'm not a fan of Harper, but I don't think a conservative government will do Canada any harm. It certainly won't hurt Canada one bit to reject the sort of hate speech that is going for political advertising in the election at the moment.

I wasn't planning to post at this time, but I was blown away by your post. You are obviously a very intelligent individual who understands the Canadian political scene and the importance of Canada/US relations...something too many Canadians take for granted and something that I have stressed for years.

Your post is excellent. I am guessing you lived duing the Chretien years. So you are probably aware of the anti-Americanism that was so prevalent in his government. Martin was. When he came to power he promised a renewed relationship based on "respect for our differences" and "shared values."

But as we can see, the man is so unscrupulous and full of hypocrisy he is ready to sell out his Canada's vital relationship with the Americans just to save his political future. He is relying on Liberal-induced hatred to bring him victory on Jan. 23.

As a nation, we are better than that. I am hoping Harper will bring in a new wave and a new change in federalism and North American relations on Jan. 23.

[YankAbroad]

Some factions are now exploring the prospect of making polygamy legal using the argument that same-sex marriage was approved by the court's, and then parliament

Actually, I believe the citation wasn't same-sex marriage (which addresses the equality of individuals under the constitution without regard to their gender), but rather, religious freedom laws which are strongly supported by opponents of SSM -- specifically, the idea that one's religious belief that he's entitled to multiple spouses is protected by those laws.

I'm a big-L Libertarian -- I don't believe government generally has a place regulating or "licensing" marriage at all. I'd much rather see the "rights and responsibilities of marriage" by available to everyone to use as they see fit and marriage ceremony/designations returned to the private sector for people to use as they please. It doesn't injure me one bit if consenting adults choose to live in relationships which are different from my own.

Sorry for the off-topic post.

[YankAbroad]

The ad speaks nothing but the truth.

Did Harper slam his own beloved country to the US? Yes he did and he should apologize profusely for doing so.

The "speech in Washington" ad is my favorite by far. Canadians need to know that Harper hates Canada and thinks we all suck, thinks we all live on welfare!

Hmmm... if we all live on welfare, who the hell is paying his salary?

This argument is so ironically like one of George W. Bush's or Karl Rove's that I couldn't help but chuckle.

US Republicans are very good at accusing anyone who criticizes their policies, at home or abroad, of "hating America" just like Martin's folks appear to be doing to those who criticize the Liberal Party's policies.

Martin's learning from some rather unscrupulous sources -- I hope for the sake of the Canadian polity and his own personal integrity that those learnings are ineffective politically come Monday.

[Guest eureka]

Those ads are poorly constructed but they are not anti-American at all. If the statements of Harper are put into the context in which they were made, they are accurate.

However, the whole issue of anti-Americanism is quite different. There may well be reason to be anti-American is Americans support the actions of their governments over the past couple of generations. I recall an excellent article in the Guardian some twenty years ago in which the contributoe explained why he was anti-American. If I can find the book it is in, I will give some of his argument.

Canada has always been anti-American in a sense. It has had to be so to survive and develop as a nation. I don't see much that has changed in America's purpose of havong Canada as a complaisant, client atate - an evolution itself from the wish to annex and dominate.

Is the America of McCarthy not something to be anti? Is the America that could choose an FBI informer as President something to be admired?

Is the America of today that has thumbed its nose at the world comminity with ots aggression against Iraq something to be admires? Not if the people support ot, I would say.

Is an America that could stifle Liberty with the Patriot Act not something to oppose? Is the America that has the greatest level of poverty and income inequality in the industrialized world truly "an inspiration" as Harper put it?

I know Americans who are not too proud of the record.

[YankAbroad]

Those ads are poorly constructed but they are not anti-American at all.

Oh, but they are. If Martin made the same statements about Jews, they'd be undeniably antisemitic. If he made the same statements about blacks, they would be racist. If he made the same statements about gays, he'd be homophobic.

If the statements of Harper are put into the context in which they were made, they are accurate.

Actually, the Globe and Mail demonstrated how they were INaccurate -- some were just plain flat made-up out of whole cloth.

However, the whole issue of anti-Americanism is quite different. There may well be reason to be anti-American is Americans support the actions of their governments over the past couple of generations.

Just like many (most) Arab nationals support acts of terrorism. Yet I don't see the left-leaning folks suddenly manufacturing excuses for Islamophobia or anti-Arab sentiment -- they quite-rightly see both as contemptible. But when it comes to nursing their own bigotries against Americans, suddenly, such common decency flies out the window.

I recall an excellent article in the Guardian some twenty years ago in which the contributoe explained why he was anti-American. If I can find the book it is in, I will give some of his argument.

And I can look to similarly extremist press on the right and find "explanations" of why they don't like blacks, gays, etc.

Is the America of McCarthy not something to be anti?

Is the Canada which loudly announced its intention not to let Jews from Nazi Germany migrate not something to be anti?

Is the America that could choose an FBI informer as President something to be admired?

Is the Canada which was created from a British imperial edict and which has never accorded its conquered French persons a referendum on their own government something to be admired?

What about martial law in Montréal with invocation of the War Measures Act?

One can play these stupid rhetorical games until he's blue in the face. Both countries are complex, nontraditional countries with long histories of incredible accomplishments and dark chapters in their history. To pretend that only the good (or bad) are components of the country is to be deliberately obtuse.

Is the America of today that has thumbed its nose at the world comminity with ots aggression against Iraq something to be admires?

I'm sorry, but Canada's policy under your Liberal Party has been a thumbing of its nose against its commitments to continental defense AND a policy of aggression -- passive aggression.

Is an America that could stifle Liberty with the Patriot Act not something to oppose?

In that case, better not rely on the Liberal government as an analogue, since it passed its own "Patriot Act" and most of the powers which the US bill accorded to government were already available to Mounties.

Is the America that has the greatest level of poverty and income inequality in the industrialized world truly "an inspiration" as Harper put it?

What are you doing to help us? Nothing.

Besides, a large portion of the "income inequality" argument is just plain dishonest -- most other countries don't allow or support people becoming wealthy. The distribution of income is "more equal," but the average man is poorer and higher taxed. This is certainly true in Canada, where the brain drain is not north-south, but south-north.

America ain't perfect, but we have people getting on old truck tires to float across the ocean to get here. We have net inmigration from both of our NAFTA partners, and we provide a large, open market which allows many of those condescending socialist government critics of American life to sell stuff and support their creaky socialist systems for another few years.

The absolute worst thing which could happen to many of those countries (and certainly to Canada) is a decision by the United States to become more self-sufficient, stop indulging our $90 billion annual trade deficit with Canada, and develop a real America-first policy which encourages manufacturing and services to happen within our own borders. If the Martin way of the world continues to be Ottawa's policy, I can easily see future American governments -- conservative and liberal alike -- moving down that road.

The problem with Martin's hate speech is that it's forcing lots of US citizens, including ones like me with strong ties to Canada, to start asking what we're getting out of our special relationship with Canada.

We don't undermine Canada, take steps to humiliate it on the world stage, or blame it for every ill in our society. We run a MASSIVE trade deficit with Canada which keeps its economy humming. We've moved fully half of our heavy manufacturing jobs, including auto manufacturing, north of the border, costing us tremendously. We pay for the upkeep of continental defense, and we cannot even count on Ottawa to share intelligence about foreign nationals who enter Canada and may seek to commit acts of terrorism in the United States.

If that status quo continues, it will not be good for Canadians OR Americans. And it will be very easy for a future US leader to make those tough decisions if the only sounds we hear from Ottawa are condemnation -- after all, who cares what they say if they already hate us, right?

Think differently.

[Argus]

The ad speaks nothing but the truth.

Did Harper slam his own beloved country to the US? Yes he did and he should apologize profusely for doing so.

The "speech in Washington" ad is my favorite by far. Canadians need to know that Harper hates Canada and thinks we all suck, thinks we all live on welfare!

Hmmm... if we all live on welfare, who the hell is paying his salary?

I'm guessing not you.

[Argus]

Those ads are poorly constructed but they are not anti-American at all.

Don't be silly. Of course they're anti-American. It has been patently obvious for some time that the Liberals have been doing their level best to portray everything about the United States as bad. And then to associate everything they want to attack with the United States. If you complain about the lousy state of our health care the liberals and left immediately raise the bogeyman of American style health care, portraying it as cold, heartless, and cruel. If people attack multiculturalism on its merits, for how it has led to so many problems, Liberals and leftists accuse you of wanting an "American style" melting pot, and trumpet how much more enlightened our system is then theirs. When the Liberals and left defend their ridiculous gun registration measures they attack their opponents by claiming they are American wannabees, that they support Canada becoming a free-for-all of wild west shootouts like those terrible Americans.

They have done everything they possibly can to portray Harper as in the Americans pockets, as believing in American style policies, American style health care, as wanting an American style foreign policy, American style criminal laws, American style support for the military, and American style gun freedom. They've accused him of being a suckup to the Americans, of not loving Canada, of not being patriotic enough, and worst of all, of being on friendly terms with George Bush (the great Satan).

The implicit, and often explicit message is that American is a horrible place of misery, racism, poverty, hate and violence, and that anyone who does anything that might make us even a little more like that horrible, awful place is anti-Canadian - and just plane immoral. It's a cheap, shody, unethical, ignorant type of attack, and anyone who doesn't recognize the anti-Americanism of it is deluded, dishonest or both.

[tml12]

Those ads are poorly constructed but they are not anti-American at all.

Don't be silly. Of course they're anti-American. It has been patently obvious for some time that the Liberals have been doing their level best to portray everything about the United States as bad. And then to associate everything they want to attack with the United States. If you complain about the lousy state of our health care the liberals and left immediately raise the bogeyman of American style health care, portraying it as cold, heartless, and cruel. If people attack multiculturalism on its merits, for how it has led to so many problems, Liberals and leftists accuse you of wanting an "American style" melting pot, and trumpet how much more enlightened our system is then theirs. When the Liberals and left defend their ridiculous gun registration measures they attack their opponents by claiming they are American wannabees, that they support Canada becoming a free-for-all of wild west shootouts like those terrible Americans.

They have done everything they possibly can to portray Harper as in the Americans pockets, as believing in American style policies, American style health care, as wanting an American style foreign policy, American style criminal laws, American style support for the military, and American style gun freedom. They've accused him of being a suckup to the Americans, of not loving Canada, of not being patriotic enough, and worst of all, of being on friendly terms with George Bush (the great Satan).

The implicit, and often explicit message is that American is a horrible place of misery, racism, poverty, hate and violence, and that anyone who does anything that might make us even a little more like that horrible, awful place is anti-Canadian - and just plane immoral. It's a cheap, shody, unethical, ignorant type of attack, and anyone who doesn't recognize the anti-Americanism of it is deluded, dishonest or both.

Absolutely agreed Argus...well put!!!

[Guest eureka]

If you don't like rhetorical games, Yank Abroad, why play them? Your listing of Jewss, Blacks. and so on is merely a couple of the fallacies that some of our participants often cite about ill-reasoned posts. They are irrelevant.

The US has attempted to undermine Canada since 1776. It has continued this doen to the present and it has never seen Canada as anything but a non threatening source of material benefit. The US has physically attacked Canada on a few occasions and has, in these less aggressive times, attempted to gain political and economic control through phony trade agreements. In those, it has used the same type of continentalists (Mulroney et al) as were a source of danger to Canadian Sovereignty in the nineteenth century.

The statements of Harper are ones that he made. They are witnessed and documented and not denied by Harper. Harper's only defense is to make the ridiculous claim that they were taken out of context. In terms of the wish to integrate Canada into the US, Harper is Mulroney-lite.

You may have been in Canada for some years, but you have not learned much of its history. Canada soes not deny its conquered French a referendum. The French have had their referendums: something that is an unlikely political happening in any other country of the world.

And, our French are not the conquered French. The conquered French were in France. The French in Canada are descended from 60,000 French rejects who were abandoned by France and accorded the most generous treatment that any such people have ever been accorded in modern history.

The Guardian is one of the world's best and most balanced newspapers. It is not extremist press of either the Left or the Right.

Canada has not thumbed its nose at its committments to continentak defense. It has played its part but it refuses to let itself become a killing field in the interest of the US. It refuses to participate in the provocative Missile Defense programme whose only consequece will be to start an Arms Race and to make the world an even more dangerous place with Canada in the trenches providing cover for America. As for thumbing Canada's nose at passive aggression, I don't think I understand what you mean and I think you may have not phrased this in the way that you want.

Canada's version of the Patriot Act is nothing like the actual Act and our courts will not allow the extremes. You may have seen that courts in Britain have already struck down portions of Britains version. The War Measueres Act in Canada was invoked for good cause and then on a very temporary basis. The Act itself is a reserve Act and only can be used when an actual emergency arises. It does not momitor the reading habits of the population.

The powers under Canadian legislation have never been available to the Mounties. Most of the Liberties that have been permanently suspended by the Us Patriot Act are protected explicitly in the Canadian Constitution and there is no provision for their denial except in actual, not apprehended situations.

The Income Inequality argument is not dishonest in any way. It is the source of many of the domesric ills in the USA - as it is in Canada, though here there are some factors that ameliorate the problem. The average man in Canada is not poorer or higher taxed than in America. He is better off and the lower 50% in Canada pay less tax than in the US. When, as I have noted on other threads, healthcare is taken into consideration, the average Candian and above that lower half for twenty or so percentiles pays less tax than his American counterpart.

The US cannot make itself self sufficient without a dramatic lessening of its own prosperity. Some two and one half million American jobs depend on trade with Canada: trade in goods and commodities that, in sone cases, cannot be replaced with internal supplies and, in others, could only be replaced very inefficiently. It also cuts both ways. Canada could better achieve self sufficiency but also at a cost. WE would also not have to send large amounts of money in dividends and profits to th US and would greatly increase the R & D component of Canadian business.

Besides, if America did close the botders, a huge amount of the reduction in Canadian exports would be suffered by American corporations.

And spare me the "refusal to share intelligence bit." All the intelligence that matters is shared but intelligence for the purpose of abuse of Foreign Nationals should not be shared. When have you shared intelligence that might prevent Foreign Nationals from enetering Canada from the US to committ terrorist acts. When did any US intelligence that it has shared become credible? Just consider pre-Iraq!

What am I doing about it? Nothing since it is a domestic American problem you refer to.

[YankAbroad]

The US has attempted to undermine Canada since 1776.

That's just plain silly. Canada didn't exist for the first 80+ years of the USA's founding.

The French in Canada are descended from 60,000 French rejects who were abandoned by France and accorded the most generous treatment that any such people have ever been accorded in modern history.

More revisionist history. You obviously have not had any discussions with francophone Quebeckers -- do you even speak French?

Some two and one half million American jobs depend on trade with Canada

America's generous trade and investment deals with Canada resulted in far more than two million jobs going north of the border, particularly in manufacturing.

The Income Inequality argument is not dishonest in any way. It is the source of many of the domesric ills in the USA - as it is in Canada, though here there are some factors that ameliorate the problem.

Utter nonsense. The average American is financially better off than the average European or Canadian. As someone who has lived in the United States, Canada (both French and English Canada), France, China and Great Britain (where I live today), I assure you that the "more equal" societies are poorer and have a lower standard of living at a higher cost.

Canada could better achieve self sufficiency but also at a cost.

That cost would be called "80+% of the Canadian economy." As others of your countrymen had noted, that would be a wallop which would make the Great Depression look piddling.

Canada's version of the Patriot Act is nothing like the actual Act and our courts will not allow the extremes

This is, of course, utter nonsense. All of the powers in the Patriot Act in the USA are already available to the Canadian government to use against its own citizens and residents.

You're going to have to get used to the idea that much of what you're saying is just plain misinformation. Live in a country outside of Canada for a while -- spend more time in the USA, Asia, and Europe -- and then free your mind from your talking points.

[Guest eureka]

You started off well, yank, but you have degenerated into fantasy.

You should read some of the threads before you question my knowledge of Quebec and its history.

When you try to sidestep the aggression of the US against Canada in the past, you should have your history book open. Canada did exist but not in the form it took on in 1867.

At the date of the conquest, the French population of the part of present day Quebec controlled by France - a small part - was 60,000. The English speaking population in North America was 1,100,000. Actually, France contro;;ed in any real sense, very little of North America. Unlike Britain, it made no attempt to settle here. It merely built forts and stationed troops to protect its fur trade. It has as much claim to the Ohio Territories as it did to any part of Canada. And, the peoples there who have lost their identity and language were never to consider a referendum or to consdier retaining their Frenchness.

Most of your facts in that post are wildly wrong. Canada lost about 230,000 manufacturing jobs in the first three years following Free Trade. America lost more than two million but not to Canada. To say that 2 million jobs came here is - well, what could you say of such an absurdity

[scribblet]

Those ads are poorly constructed but they are not anti-American at all.

Don't be silly. Of course they're anti-American. It has been patently obvious for some time that the Liberals have been doing their level best to portray everything about the United States as bad. And then to associate everything they want to attack with the United States. If you complain about the lousy state of our health care the liberals and left immediately raise the bogeyman of American style health care, portraying it as cold, heartless, and cruel. If people attack multiculturalism on its merits, for how it has led to so many problems, Liberals and leftists accuse you of wanting an "American style" melting pot, and trumpet how much more enlightened our system is then theirs. When the Liberals and left defend their ridiculous gun registration measures they attack their opponents by claiming they are American wannabees, that they support Canada becoming a free-for-all of wild west shootouts like those terrible Americans.

They have done everything they possibly can to portray Harper as in the Americans pockets, as believing in American style policies, American style health care, as wanting an American style foreign policy, American style criminal laws, American style support for the military, and American style gun freedom. They've accused him of being a suckup to the Americans, of not loving Canada, of not being patriotic enough, and worst of all, of being on friendly terms with George Bush (the great Satan).

The implicit, and often explicit message is that American is a horrible place of misery, racism, poverty, hate and violence, and that anyone who does anything that might make us even a little more like that horrible, awful place is anti-Canadian - and just plane immoral. It's a cheap, shody, unethical, ignorant type of attack, and anyone who doesn't recognize the anti-Americanism of it is deluded, dishonest or both.

Well said! Martin is playing to anti-Americanism and stirring up more of by portraying the U.S. as the big boogy man. Many Americans don't understand this, they might wish for different health care options etc. but simply do not understand Canadians animosity towards their country and its system. If enough Americans wanteed more change they would vote for it, but I'm not sure that even the Democrats would change much. Martin and his anti U.S. rhetoric is turning some Americans against Canada. Some legacy!

[Drea]

The ad speaks nothing but the truth.

Did Harper slam his own beloved country to the US? Yes he did and he should apologize profusely for doing so.

The "speech in Washington" ad is my favorite by far. Canadians need to know that Harper hates Canada and thinks we all suck, thinks we all live on welfare!

Hmmm... if we all live on welfare, who the hell is paying his salary?

I'm guessing not you.

Honey, I probably make more dough (and therefore pay more taxes) than you LOL. So yes, it's ME who is paying this traitor's salary.

The point is that Harper thinks we are all on welfare, that Canada is a "nanny state".

LOL then he wants to give everybody a hundred bucks for screwing and producing offspring!

As far as I'm concerned Harper owes the Canadian public an apology for slamming his country, period.

Our boys (and girls) are dying in Afghanistan.... Harper would have them dying in Iraq... Harper is associated with the religious right... GWB (his hero) is an evangelical Christian. Their (evangelical's) attitude (I said attitude, not actions!) are pretty much exactly the same as the Islamic fundamentalist. And this man wants to run our country!

[YankAbroad]

You should read some of the threads before you question my knowledge of Quebec and its history.

Si vous savez du Québec, vous démuni avez démontré la connaissance. Cette attitude populaire explique le sentiment dans la belle province!

[YankAbroad]

Our boys (and girls) are dying in Afghanistan.... Harper would have them dying in Iraq... And this man wants to run our country!

The boys running your country now came up with an ad slamming Canadian soldiers and bizarrely arguing that Harper plans to impose martial law on the whole country.

As for Islamic fundamentalism, wasn't it the Liberal Party which was responsible for having sharia law recognized for family law purposes in Ontario -- until it was uncovered and there was a public outcry? What's the difference between sharia being made into law for "multicultural purposes" and Harper having his own religious beliefs?

Well, for one thing, as a gay man who was once resident in Ontario, I find the prospect of debating Harper about the role of his religion in society to be far less frightening than the idea that sharia could become part of law "to make others feel welcome."

[Guest eureka]

Read some of them. I am not interested in giving you a history lesson.