Reaction in Canada to President Trump’s threat of tariffs reminds us that the dividing line between patriotism and zealotry is often blurred. That hazy area between the two can be identified by the heavy presence of jingoism.
WHITHER ‘TEAM CANADA’?
The desire to control the thoughts, words and actions of others is a deeply embedded tendency in human nature. As one of my favourite authors, James A. Michener posited, it is quite likely that the first animals to be domesticated by humans were other humans. On the other hand, much of the trajectory of human civilization is defined by active efforts to overcome such human tendencies.
Along the arc of that trajectory, we have seen religions, other ideologies, forms of governance and principles come into being, be incorporated in the fabric of societies – and sometimes, be discarded. In recent times, two of these principles that we had taken for granted as being integral parts of our western societies (despite their relatively recent origins) have come under noticeable stress. These are: the freedom to express one’s views and to associate with people whom one likes to associate with. A good chunk of this stress is caused – or at least amplified – by social media via the phenomenon of ‘canceling’, that term itself being a product of social media.
The pervasiveness of social media makes every participant a potential target of being ‘canceled’, but in keeping with another human tendency, greater attention is attracted by those with greater visibility. Therefore, it was not surprising – even though it was disappointing – to see that a celebrated superstar of yesteryears, Wayne Gretzky (nicknamed ‘The Great One’) invited many Canadians’ wrath over his closeness with the re-elected US President Donald Trump. Particularly in the wake of President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, the matter has come more sharply in focus, such that even Mr. Gretzky’s appearance at the recent hockey match between Canada and the US became controversial. The taxpayer-funded CBC headlined its report on the matter with the words “Why Gretzky’s legacy became more complicated for some Edmontonians”, while the Globe & Mail offered a more categorical verdict “How Canada’s nearly 50-year romance with Wayne Gretzky came to an end”.
The CBC report informs us that “(a) petition in Edmonton seeks name change” of Wayne Gretzky Drive; as of Sunday evening, the petition had garnered 7,300 signatures. Curiously (as I posted on X), there is a street called Trump Avenue in Ottawa (i.e., at the very heart of our federal government that is locked in a tussle with President Trump), and as one may expect, there was a push in 2021 to change its name. The push failed, according to this story by CBC, because out of the 62 households on the street, 21 voted in favour of the name change while 21 voted against it, with 20 abstaining – whereas moving ahead with the process required 32 votes in favour. But lost battles can be fought anew, especially in societies where not much happens under the heading of ‘new’. Therefore, it was in the nature of things that we heard in a recent CTV News report that there was renewed interest in changing the name of the street.
US V/S THEM
The above two examples bring us to the perennial issue of ‘us v/s them’. I am of the opinion that this tendency is rooted in our prehistoric past, when knowing the difference between friend and foe was literally a matter of life and death. But at the present stage of human civilization (especially in our parts of the world), that basic survival instinct needs to be kept in check at times, particularly in respect of one’s compatriots.
Over two decades ago, then-president of the US George W. Bush provided a modern example of the ‘us v/s them’ dichotomy when he said, “You are either with us or against us”. Choosing not to participate in the ‘Global War On Terror’ – for whatever national priority – automatically made a country an enemy of the US. While Canadians are fond of believing that we are vastly better than the Americans, I have seen the same polemic at work in Canada, time and again. A very recent example is the Covid pandemic, when anyone asking any questions about the vaccine – or any other non-pharmaceutical measure with the stated aim of combatting the pandemic – invited labels like ‘anti-vaxxer’, ‘Covidiot’ or ‘grandma-killer’.
But a society that shuns dialogue and even penalizes differences of opinion in favour of mandatory conformity is bound to stagnate and decline. Human history is full of examples of this, including in the current times. It has always boggled my mind that a supposedly advanced society such as that of Canada is in this category – although we haven’t (yet) seen a serious decline, likely because of our past achievements. But this is akin to a car with its engine shut off – it is indeed moving forward, but the energy that gave it this momentum is no longer being supplied to the engine. At some point, depending on factors such as its initial momentum, wind resistance and the gradient of the road it is plying, it will definitely come to a stop.
ELECTRIFYING DISCOURSE
Another interesting example in the current fracas is that of Elon Musk, whose most recent hat is that of a member of President Trump’s cabinet. When he was known mainly for owning the company that makes Tesla electric vehicles, he was a darling of the Canadian Left, while the Canadian Right called him a grifter. When he bought Twitter (which he later renamed ‘X’), he became a darling of the Canadian Right (and hated by the Canadian Left), because Twitter had become infamous (or celebrated, depending on your politics) for censoring or ‘canceling’ certain views. This was a period when a collection of disparate issues had energized (I am using the word in a neutral sense here) the Canadian Left: the eruption in the US over the death of George Floyd, the reports of unmarked graves of indigenous children at sites of former residential schools in Canada, Covid, gender identity / critical race theory / DEI and so on.
But since his appointment by President Trump, I am seeing Canadians from both the Left and the Right camps being antagonistic to Elon Musk. The Conservative government of Ontario, having inked a deal with Musk’s internet service Starlink just 3 months ago, thought it worthy of being ripped up in early February – only to be ‘un-ripped up’ hours later. Meanwhile, Globe & Mail columnist Andrew Coyne posted on X, saying “Never buy a Tesla ever”. The irony of advocating for the boycott of a product of a company owned by Musk on the social media platform owned by Musk was lost on him – but that is not at all surprising from members of our Punditocracy. Cognitive dissonance is their forte.
In an extreme – and, if I may say so, ignorant – move, NDP MP Charlie Angus sponsored a petition to strip Elon Musk of his Canadian citizenship. As of the time of writing this article, this petition has secured 245,651 signatures. This stupidity has gained international attention – the Guardian of UK picked up on the story. I say ‘stupidity’ because Musk is a Canadian citizen by inheritance, and as such, his citizenship cannot be revoked. Both the ‘lawmaker’ and the nearly 250,000 people who signed the petition are unaware of this legal situation. Canadian MSM is, of course, talking about this (see the report by CBC and CTV). Living up to their image as ideological hacks, neither media outlet has mentioned the legal impossibility of canceling Musk’s Canadian citizenship – although CTV made a botched attempt to do so by limiting their explanation to naturalized citizens of Canada, which Musk is definitely not.
Not to be outdone, someone from the other side also started a petition (on change.org) to revoke the Canadian citizenship of the Liberal leadership contestant and front-runner (and therefore the most likely next prime minister of Canada) Mark Carney. He is a Canadian citizen by birth, and therefore his citizenship can also not be revoked. But the national mood at the moment is one of intense emotion, so pesky facts like the legal situation don’t matter.
The whole situation is also laughable (in a sad way) because before Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued the parliament, it had before it a proposed law, Bill C-71, seeking to grant automatic Canadian citizenship to foreign-born children of foreign-born citizens of Canada. This proposal is not without controversy, but when PM Trudeau prorogued the parliament, the Bill ‘died on the floor’. It must be pointed out that if the legal challenge against this prorogation is successful (a verdict is expected any time between now and March 24, when the prorogation is supposed to end), then this Bill C-71 will be revived. Whether it gets voted on or not depends on how long the Liberal government lasts, but it is likely that the Liberal government will lose the confidence of the House as soon as it reconvenes on March 24. But my point here is that while on one hand, we have legislation in the works to grant automatic citizenship to foreign-born children of foreign-born Canadians, we also have a lawmaker sponsoring a push to strip Canadian citizenship from someone whose Canadian citizenship cannot be legally stripped. This cognitive dissonance is only possible via the dichotomy of ‘us v/s them’, with the targeted individual, Elon Musk, having been decreed to belong to the ‘them’ crowd.
TRUE UNITY
Dissent allows us to take a critical look at the ideas and options that we are considering in response to a challenge. If these ideas and options are not challenged, we run the risk of choosing a suboptimal (or even counterproductive) course of action. Unfortunately, the political priority of prevailing over one’s domestic adversaries impels those in government to take a stance based on emotion, because that creates opportunities to decry these adversaries in a way that appeals to people’s sensibilities rather than their sense. This approach percolates down, helped in large part by a pliant (and therefore compliant) media and other so-called ‘thought-leaders’. The great 20th century Urdu poet Josh Malihabadi captured this phenomenon with his trademark economy of words:
jab hukumat khaam ho, to pukhtakari jurm hai
When the government hasn’t come of age, maturity is a crime
Diversity of ideas should be par for the course – and discourse. Unfortunately, for the past 9 years, we have a federal government that has used the tactic of strong-arming its opponents (which is not limited to the opposition parties) by using appeals to emotion or ideology. The current preponderance of immaturity in the matter of how to deal with the challenges posed by President Trump’s demands is therefore unsurprising. It is worth noting here that the issues that President Trump is using in his tirades against Canada were caused by the same strong-arming by the Trudeau government, notably in the reckless disregard for moderation in relation to immigration and the illicit drugs trade. Now, it is the same strong-arming tactic that is being used by both the government and its surrogates as we attempt to explore ways to deal with President Trump’s demands. In other words, the tool that we are using to deal with the challenge is the same tool that gave birth to the challenge. I have a nagging suspicion that it may not be the right tool for the purpose. As a nation, the choice is upon us as to which satisfaction we value more: restoring the partnership and cordial relations with our strongest ally and biggest trade partner, or cancelling Wayne Gretzky.
***
Independent voices are more important than ever in today’s Canada. I am happy to add my voice to the public discussions on current issues & policy, and grateful for all the encouraging response from my listeners & readers. I do not believe in a Paywall model, so will not make access to my content subject to a payment.
To help me bring more content to you, please consider donating a small amount via this PayPal link on my website: https://darshanmaharaja.ca/donate/
Image Credit: Randy Stern / HHOF 3, via Wikimedia Commons; the image is at this link. Used without modification under Creative Commons License.
