![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morgan_dhuI think I start to understand how many Americans must feel watching their news media.
This week, the CBC newsmagazine program the fifth estate is airing a report on the state of the American media from a Canadain news perspective. The report is called Sticks and Stones, and is described thusly by the network: The United States is in the midst of a very un-civil war. It's a war of words that's pitting conservative against liberal, that's already divided the country into red and blue. The new gladiators are commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and their forum is the television studios of networks like Fox. It's loud, it's raucous, but does it have anything to do with the truth?
Some of the material covered was familiar to me from my faithful viewing of the only U.S. "news programming" my ex-pat American partner will allow on the T.V. in his presence, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
What brought it all home to me was an interview with American right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. The reporter, CBC journalist Bob McKeown (who has also worked for U.S. networks CBS and NBC), initiated a discussion about her on-air comments concerning Canada spoken on an American T.V. newsmagazine program Hannity and Colmes: they need us...they are lucky we don't roll over one night and crush them....they are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.
Part of Coulter's response was a lecture on how Canada had been such a stalwart ally of the U.S. until now, and that our disloyalty (in declining to join the U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq, not that she described it in those words) is fair justification for anti-Canadian sentiment. To bolster her argument, she listed all of the wars Canada had supposedly "supported" the U.S. in, beginning with WWII (how could we have supported U.S. involvement when we were there several years before the U.S., supporting Britain?), Korea (we were there as part of a U.N. action, not as support for the U.S.) and Vietnam.
McKeown politely informed Coulter that Canada had not sent military forces to Vietnam. She told him that it had. He replied that no, we really had not been involved in Vietnam. She insisted that he was wrong, and said that she would send him the proof after the interview was completed. He basically shrugged and moved on. Of course, McKeown noted following that segment of the report that neither Coulter nor her staff ever got back to the CBC with their supposed proof - and that Canada had not sent troops to Vietnam.
But it hit hard. If this woman could take part in an interview for a Canadian audience and shamelessly insist that she was right and the Canadian reporter (who is actually of an age to remember the war, having been a pro football player in the early 70s) correcting her about his own country is wrong... then she could lie to anyone about anything.
But I guess that's really not so remarkable after all. It's just a shock to see it, rather than hear or read about it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 08:35 am (UTC)Anne Coulter repeated her claim that Canadian troops served in Vietnam - some 10,000 of them. This, I believe, represents Canadians who served in Vietnam with the US military. On the one hand, I agree that she was confused; on the other, why did Canada allow this to occur? Most countries, including mine, take the dimmest view of this sort of behaviour.
Note that 50,000 Australians served in Vietnam. And also we were in Korea to support the US - before the UN became involved. And now we're in Iraq. Anti-Canada sentiment around the world at the moment is not based on refusal to join the US or not but on the perception that Canada has no principles. This arose from shrill protests about being cut out of
the lootingrebuilding contracts for not participating in the fighting.That the US is divided into red and blue is not true either but the discussion of what was said was too sketchy to tell.
The really interesting part was Fox's assertion - which I'd be most interested in hearing your opinion on - is that there is no difference whatsoever between Americans and Canadians. My impression of the country was that there are distinctive cultural differences between them.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 09:15 pm (UTC)As to why Canada allowed them to serve in the U.S. - first of all, on a pragmatic level, how would one go about stopping them? It's a very large border, with vast numbers people crossing it every day. Second, I think Canada tends to be fairly relaxed about what its citizens get up to in other areas of the world as long as they're not actually doing something against Canadian law or major interest. We'll complain about them a lot - it's a news story here when some Canadian entertainer takes U.S. citizenship, for example - but it's not really our "style" to actively prevent it.
I think Prime Minister Martin is trying to re-establish the idea that Canada has principles with some of his recent U.N. and world tour public statements, but in many ways, it's probably time for Canada to accept that we're a small and not particularly relevant country, and just start doing the things we believe are right (foreign aid, supporting the U.N., doing what we can to encourage human rights issues) without trying to get all preachy and leader-ish about it. Actually, I think that's what we were doing back in the 60s under Pearson, and that's when we started getting the positive image we had for a while.
In the CBC interview with Coulter, the focus was actually on anti-Canada sentiment in the U.S. - we tend to be much more concerned on a day-to-day basis with what the U.S. is thinking about us than we are about what our image is in other countries, particularly since wide-spread negative sentiment in the U.S. could have serious consequences for our economy.
The report itself didn't look at red and blue states - which has been the common and quite mistaken interpretation - so much as conservative and liberal media and their influence on red and blue voters.
As for whether Canadians and Americans are different... now that question lies at least in part within my profesional area of expertise, as a market researcher/pollster. And every bit of evidence at my disposal indicates that there are significant cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. The differences do tend to be subtle - my ex-pat American partner, who has lived in Canada now for six years, keeps telling me that the differences become more obvious to him the longer he's here.
It's also hard to put them into simple, everyday words. I could give you (if it weren't propietary reseach, that is) a whole list of "value and belief statements" on which Canadians and Americans over time give responses that are different, to a high degree of statistical significance. These mostly cover such matters as respect for traditional family and gender roles (Americans strongly in favour, Canadians not nearly so much), preference for hierarchical patterns of organisation (Americans prefer them, Canadians not as much), interest in global issues and in other cultures (Americans not so much, Canadians significantly moreso), and other social trends.
I'd be interested in more of your perceptions of the cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. We've touched on these issues in previous discussions, and it's very interesting to me to get a perspective from someone who shares some very general cultural roots (the English colonial thing, and some degree of multi-cultural immigration) with both countries, but is not from either.
C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-30 03:13 am (UTC)Her numbers are too close for it to be any coincidence. Given the way that other countries (like China in the Korean War) have used the "volunteers" story, you can see how this cuts the ground away from the Canadian argument. To the rest of the world, it looks like Canadians trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds... again.
Before launching into a series of observations about Canada, I should state that I haven't spent a lot of time in Canada - just four visits of a few weeks each. I usually visit Western Canada and have only been to Eastern Canada once. Whereas I have spent many months working in the US.
- Canada is more bureaucratic than the US. Administration in Canada seems more likely to be done locally.
- Canadian laws about alcohol are state based and as arcane as America's.Drinking age is lower 18 or 19... prices are much higher.
- Actually, everything costs more in Canada.
- Canadian interest rates are low.
- Canada is not as wealthy as the US. GDP per capita is 20% less - only slightly more than Australia.
- Canadians had a poor understanding of how their own system of government works. Every time I'm there I read a newspaper article which gets it either hopelessly confused or just plain wrong.
- Canadians are more interested in global issues than Americans but by world standards that doesn't amount to much.
- Canadians know more about Australia than Australians know about Canada but till have misconconceptions. Australians were upset by Canadian comments along the lines of "Australia can win Olympic gold medals but has no health system". We do have a national health system goddammit!
- Canada is an Atlantic country. Time and again I heard Canadian officials and media make comments that simply forgot that Western Canada existed.
- Canadians are friendly and optimistic like Americans but they don't have our cynical streak. They are less reverent than Americans but not as much as we are (or as vulgar). Canadians are surprised if you answer "How's it going?" with "shithouse".
- I saw no evidence that censorship was less strict in Canada than America.
- I never saw any evidence of Canadian politeness.
- Canadians are less religious. I don't know if it's like here where politicians will avoid saying that they believe in God.
- Canadians are nationalistic but don't vent it in the same way as we do. Canadians seemed less interested in sports.
- The Canadian Army is smaller than ours. And not as effective as ours or the US. Canadians have less interest in defence issues.
- For all the talk about contributing to UN peacekeeping, Canada had just 239 peacekeepers on the job in 2004; Australia had more than 2,000.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-30 09:38 pm (UTC)Canadians had a poor understanding of how their own system of government works. Every time I'm there I read a newspaper article which gets it either hopelessly confused or just plain wrong.
You mentioned this in our last exchange on this subject, I believe. I wonder if you could give me a few examples, as I'm not sure what is meant by this, beyond the general element of confusion caused recently by a number of changes in political parties at both federal and provincial levels, plus a growing interest in electoral reform.
I saw no evidence that censorship was less strict in Canada than America.
I think there is some difference in censorship with respect to adult sexuality and profanity - my partner is forever pointing out things he sees on broadcast or basic cable in Canadian TV that he says would only be shown on premium payTV channels in the US. I know that, for instance, there was very little reaction in Canada to the exposure of janet Jackson's nipple shield during some major sporting event last year, compared to fines and outrage in the press and all sorts of hoopla in the US.
There are definitely problems with censorship of sexually explicit materials being imported into Canada - and that is, unfortunately, because the last time the Import laws on porn were being revised, the Andrea Dworkin school of feminist perspectives on pornography convinced the framers of the laws and regulations that virtually all depictions of sexual activity - even those in which no women were present, as with porn for gay men, were degrading toward women. Sigh. Oddly enough, because the decisions are pretty much up to the individual Customs officer, these definitions are inconsistently applied, and seem to be used most often in denying entry to porn for gay men and lesbians, which you would think would be least likely to fit in the category of "degrading to women."
We do in fact have more censorship with respect to hate speech - and I have mixed feelings about that. I think that perhaps we may go to far, but on the other hand, I do agree that deliberately urging violence against a specific and clearly identifiable group of people should not be permitted in a civil society.
Canadians are less religious. I don't know if it's like here where politicians will avoid saying that they believe in God.
Actually, our current crop of conservatives have several politicians who do just that, and it's being received with some discomfort by most Canadians to the centre and left, as well as some primarily fiscal conservatives on the right. On the other hand, a small minority of social conservatives are very excited about being religious in public.
It's interesting to watch religion and politics intersecting right now, as the government prepares to introduce legislation legalising same-sex marriages across Canada (right now, only eight out of 13 jurisdictions permit them). It will be a free vote, although the Prime Minister has instructed cabinet to vote for the bill. The half-heartedly socialist NDP are imposing party discipline in favour of the bill, but one of his MPs is refusing to go along with it. The separatist and left-wing Bloc MPS, all from the largely Catholic province of Quebec, are almost all voting in favour (Quebec being the most progressive province on social issues, despite its nominal Catholicism), the centrist Liberals are split and waging great internal battles, and most Conservatives are voting against - although one of their leading lights, Belinda Stronach, is said to be considering voting in favour.
If I weren't so personally invested in this issue, it would be a wonderful chance to observe a very interesting and not often seen dynamic in Canadian politics. As it is, it's difficult for me to be objective.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-31 09:43 am (UTC)I wish I'd saved the articles. One made mess of the relationship between the ministry and the parliament, concerning how the ministry is appointed. It muddled the conventions related to the appointment of ministers.
Another related to what happens after an election is called. It misunderstood the conventions surrounding this, believing that a government can no longer govern once an election is called.
A third related to the power of the Governor General. It completely underestimated the awesome power of the job.
(NB: When Canadians refer to the Prime Minister as the "Premier" are they confused? In Australia only the state government leaders are called premiers.)
I'm not sure what you mean by electoral reform. You might consider altering the upper house to one that is elected. You could use a proportional representation system like ours. (Cunningly enough constructed, it would not require a constitutional amendment.)
The whole issue of religion and politics dates back to the Old Country and antipathy between protestants and catholics. The Church of England isn't "established" here but that never stopped them... to be Catholic was to be Irish until large numbers of Italian migrants arrived after World War II. The result was a thorough secularisation of public life... simply so Catholics could attend.
It's wonderful to hear about same-sex marriages in Canada. Actual legislation against it sailed through here in Australia, making us nominally more conservative than Americans on this issue.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-31 06:50 pm (UTC)This may have been an example of describing how the job functions in practice - which is significantly more circumscribed than the law provides. In practice, the G-G does what the Prime Minister instructs her to do. The last time a G-G didn't was in the 1920s (the King-Byng affair), and it was such a huge controversy that we still drag it out and talk about it every time the question of the G-G's power is raised.
It would take some very unusual circumstances for the G-G to actually take action beyond her current ceremonial/ambassadorial role.
(NB: When Canadians refer to the Prime Minister as the "Premier" are they confused? In Australia only the state government leaders are called premiers.)
How odd. I've never run into the Prime Minister being called Premier instead - although, in Quebec French usage, one is called the premier ministre of Canada and the other the premier ministre of the province. And we have things called First Ministers Conferences which include both the Premiers and the Prime Minister. You must have run into a pocket of very non-standard usage, because I've (quite literally) lived in every region of Canada except our far north, and have never heard or read that.
I'm not sure what you mean by electoral reform. You might consider altering the upper house to one that is elected. You could use a proportional representation system like ours. (Cunningly enough constructed, it would not require a constitutional amendment.)
Those are exactly the two areas that we keep looking at, though senate reform is on the back-burner just now and the current hot issue is proportional representation. Close to half of the provinces are considering the introduction of proportional representation systems. If that goes through and works well, it will probably be adopted at the federal level as well.
The whole issue of religion and politics dates back to the Old Country and antipathy between protestants and catholics.Here, its a far more complicated picture. In the beginning, we had two primarily Protestant English-speaking blocs - Upper Canada and the Maritimes - and the primarily Catholic French-speaking Quebec, which saw itself - and to some degree still sees itself - as a conquered and colonised people. So immediately you have religion, language and regionalism bordering on nationalism all tangled up together. In the 1960s in Quebec, there was a revolt against a strong collusion between church and state at the provincial level, resulting in a rapid development of secularism, progressive politics and separatism. So now we have a Quebec that's both nominally Catholic and strongly secular. The rest of Canada is to some extent less secular (the West in particular), and much more varied in terms of religion.
It's wonderful to hear about same-sex marriages in Canada. Actual legislation against it sailed through here in Australia, making us nominally more conservative than Americans on this issue.
Well, there is still the possibility that the bill will not pass - we are in a minority government situation at the moment. Most analysts think that with the support of the NDP and the Bloc quebecois, the governing Liberals will have enough votes (a significant proportion of Liberals are voting against the bill). Even if the bill fails, court cases in the remaining five jurisdictions will eventually do the job, although it will take a long time in Alberta, our most conservative province by far.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 01:27 pm (UTC)I'd be interested in hearing more about that. There was a confrontation here in 1930 between the PM and the King over appointing an Australian as GG. In the end the King relented. But he split the job in two, creating the new post of High Commissioner. For many years Labor governments nominated Australians and Liberal governments nominated Brits. Then in 1969, the Liberals nominated Sir Paul Hasluck and since then all GGs have been Australians.
The biggest stir since then occurred in 1975 when the alcoholic GG Sir John Kerr sacked the government of the day. This is the reason why I am pretty defensive about the powers of the GG.
The current government is on its second GG. The first, Rt Rev Peter Hollingworth was an anglican archbishop who got tangled up in controversy about child abuse by the church. He wasn't involved himself himself of course but was hounded from office.
The PM then nominated General Michael Jeffreys, a career soldier who served two tours in Vietnam and won the Military Cross there. He likes to dress in his old Special Air Service uniform and give inspiring speeches to the troops. Hollingworth wasn't - and Jeffreys isn't - backward about giving their views on matters that concern them.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 10:25 pm (UTC)The King-Byng Affair was a political crisis in 1926 involving Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Governor General Viscount Byng.
In an election in 1925, King's Liberal government won fewer seats than the Conservatives, but it was able to continue in power with the support of other parties. On June 25, 1926, King's government was about to be condemned for corrupt practices by a vote in Parliament. He asked the governor general to dissolve Parliament before that vote could be taken so that another election could take place. Viscount Byng refused, believing that the Conservatives should have a chance to govern. King angrily resigned and Conservative leader Arthur Meighen took over as prime minister. A few days later, Meighen's government was accidentally defeated in a vote, and Governor General Byng dissolved Parliament.
In the ensuing election, in which Byng's actions were an important issue, King returned to power with a majority of seats in Parliament.
Even at that time, the trend was for the G-G's role to be seen as primarily ceremonial, or at best consultative. Byng's actions were seen as going against the instructions of the elected head of government, and were roundly criticised. Since then, the G-G's role has become more and more ceremonial/surface diplomatic - very much like that of the royal family in Britain. Meet and greet, look pretty and open Parliament. G-G's may have personal causes that they support and encourage, but they don't comment personally on political matters, except in the most general of terms, and they do what the PM tells them to do in those areas where they technically have authority.
This leads many people to believe that the position is pointless. Myself, I think we need a separate head of state to do all the ceremonial stuff, because it dilutes the public presence of the PM, making him or her just another politician, albeit the most powerful one in the country - and gives the PM more time to do his/her job of governemng, without having to open supermarkets.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 11:14 pm (UTC)The Prime Ministership is also associated with tradition. The job appears nowhere in the Constitution. In this country, the PM is appointed by a vote of caucus (ie his fellow party MPs). He may (like PM john Gorton) be a senator rather than an MHR. He may also be voted out at 8pm tonight (it's been done too). I believe that this is not the case in Canada?
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 11:52 pm (UTC)The PM does not have to be a member of the House - though if he or she doesn't become one very quickly, it's considered a very bad thing. Technically, the PM could be a Senator - but again, he or she would be expected to resign the Senate and get his/her ass into the House as quickly as someone could be persuaded to resign to provide for a by-election. Actually, the PM could be any adult Canadian citizen, in theory - though in practice, he/she would also have to be leader of the governing party.
For instance, in the summer of 1984, John Turner, a former cabinet minister just returning to politics, was elected leader of the then-reigning Liberals. In the fall election, he won a seat, but his governemnt was defeated. Thus, he spent his entire brief period as PM without a seat in either House or Senate.
Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-02 12:04 pm (UTC)This is usually the case here, although minority governments are rare at the Federal level. The ruling Liberals are part of a coalition, even though they actually have enough seats to govern in their own right. Should something sudden happen to the Prime Miniature, then John Anderson, a leader of a minor party, would, as deputy PM, become PM. This has happened twice before.
If no party has an absolute majority, then the GG will commission the leader of the largest party and there will be a minority government. The convention that a PM should control both houses shriveled and died during the 1980s.
According to the Constitution (S64), a minister has three months to get elected (or appointed) to the House or Senate.
Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge.
Actually, a majority government can lose a vote of confidence too... this happened in 1941. However, we have no concept of a leadership convention. So they still have time to vote the PM out of office tonight. This last happened in 1996. I would think that the need for a leadership convention would make a PM far more secure and less at the mercy of his parliamentary colleagues.
The PM can also submit his resignation to the GG. Or, as demonstrated in 1975, the GG could sack the PM.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-31 04:04 am (UTC)I am Morgan's partner, and I just wanted to reply that while prices in general do tend to be higher than in the US, prices of medical treatments are, I have found, lower in Canada than in the US. This applies both for treatments covered by Canada's national health insurance (if, like me, you are not covered and have to pay it yourself), and for treatments that are not covered by insurance. I think this is because the efficiencies of nationalized health insurance drop the overall cost of health care in Canada across the board.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-01-31 08:59 am (UTC)My mother gave me an example of towels. There was a query from the US as to why sterilied towel sales were so much less to hospitals in Australia than in the US. The short answer was that the towels are washed and reused in Australia. The chemical was destroys thm but you get a few uses out of each towel. In the US, they are thrown away after one use. The US system requires costs to be high; in our every-cent-you-can-save-you-can-keep system, all ingenuity goes into keeping costs low.
The insurance I carried in the US covered an air ambulance home.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 02:53 am (UTC)That, unfortunately, is a chronic complaint of Western Canada. Actually, I suspect that the Maritimes (which actually are Atlantic Canada) may have the same complaint. Much of the time both the federal government and the media tend to think of Canada as consisting of Ontario and Quebec (and even Quebec gets forgotten to some extent in the English media, because it's primarily French-speaking).
I never saw any evidence of Canadian politeness.
It largely consists of saying Please and Thank you to strangers, where Americans wouldn't bother.
- For all the talk about contributing to UN peacekeeping, Canada had just 239 peacekeepers on the job in 2004; Australia had more than 2,000.
Now, that's a shocker. I don't mean that I'm shocked that Australia had more; I never thought to compare the two countries. But I'm shocked that Canada had only 239 peacekeepers; I would have guessed it was in the thousands at least, if not the tens of thousands. Sheesh.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 10:07 pm (UTC)To be fair, we did also have about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan under NATO command throughout 2004. It's not UN peacekeeping, but it is peacekeeping of a sort.
Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-01 11:02 pm (UTC)Re: C eh N eh D eh
Date: 2005-02-02 12:03 am (UTC)According to our government, we have just over 1,500 troops on overseas missions, UN, NATO and otherwise, right now.
Not exactly a shining commitment to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-01 02:42 am (UTC)I suppose I'm also an ex-pat, though I've never used that word for myself. I came to Canada from the U.S. in 1972 and have been here ever since.
Your partner is quite right; I've also seen those subtle differences. When I first came here, all I saw was that different look of the money and a few pronunciation differences. Then I gradually became aware of more. The most significant one, for me at least, is that in the States I felt constantly under attack. When I've gone to visit relatives there occasionally, that feeling came back, so I don't think it was a matter of my immaturity in 1972. (Mind you, I was immature.) It seems that everyone fears that someone -- anyone -- else might attack them, and thus they look at, well, me as a potential enemy. (And at other people too, of course.) When I came here I gradually, gradually began to drop my shields.
Interestingly, I was talking to a man from Europe a few months ago, and he said he felt the same difference between there and here -- with Canada being the place where he felt the constant pressure of fear that I feel in the U.S.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 09:45 pm (UTC)He told me that he finds it difficult to articulate the differences, but that they are nonetheless very evident. Some of the points he made:
-Canadians are less reverent toward their political leaders, public figures, icons, and their country, and are more able to make fun of all these things.
-Canadians are just as nationalistic, but don't take it as something deserving of high seriousness - they make fun of their flag, and so on.
-Canadians really are more polite; they also have a more highly developed sense of justice and egalitarianism, and pay more than lip service to ideas of equality
-Canadians are less prudish than Americans, but also less vulgar
-Canadians are less fearful - they don't have an obsession with guns and gated communities as necessary for personal protection, but it's not just a matter of being less afraid of crime, they're less afraid in general - fear is mmuch more of a general driving factor in American culture.
-"Canadians are heathens compared to Americans" - they are not any less spiritual, but are much less religious, and much less given to public displays of religiosity.
-Americans seem to have to make a production about what they do, they approach life as though they have to prove themselves all the time; Canadians don't.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 07:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 08:45 pm (UTC)They are journalists after all. They are always focused on the bottom line.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 09:54 pm (UTC)I think the report was produced primarily in the context of Canadians' national fascination - rather, obsession - with what the US is doing. We watch them constantly, debate their politics, their high-profile court cases, the activities of their entertainment figures, their economy, their fashions, ad infinitum, to an extent that's probably not possible for someone not in North America to comprehend.
And there has been a lot of Canadian reaction to what's being said about Canada in the US media - and I think that was part of the hook for the report as well.
I'm not denying that there may have been an element of trashing the newest competition - but honestly, noow that I've seen it in action, FOX is soooo easy to trash. (Since the report, I've entertained myself with some of their so-called "fair and balanced news," and determined to my own satisfaction that it's none of the three.)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-31 09:03 am (UTC)