The Shotgun Blog
« Are Canada's "Human Rights" Commissions just slo-mo Kristallnachts? | Main | Now, I can't prove this, but... »
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Anybody up there wishing WE had won in 1812?
After following the ongoing Canadian war against free speech (it's not just Ezra, see here), I was struck with a thought: while Canada and the United States have been friends for nearly two centuries, we did fight a vicious (and largely fruitless) war from 1812 to 1814 (known as the War of 1812 down here).
At the risk of earning a full cyber-assault from all Canadian fronts, I must confess that, for the first time in my life, I actually regretted that we didn't win that war (one of its objectives was the conquest of Canada).
So I'm wondering - in light of recent events, does anybody up there wonder if they would be better off as (roughly) seventh-generation Americans?
Just asking.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 12, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs, Media, Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fdcdcba8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anybody up there wishing WE had won in 1812?:
Comments
But the US didn't lose the War of 1812 - no one did.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-12 10:20:30 PM
Why? How's it any different? Randy Weaver, John Rocker, Don Imus, Duane "Dog" Chapman, and Kelly Tilghman to name but a few, are essentially treated no differently in the US than in Canada.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-12 10:40:47 PM
I'm sure that there are those who would have preferred the Yanks winning 1812 (instead of losing... LOL) but they probably number about the same as Jaworski's accurate estimate of 2% of Canadians outraged at Ezra and Steyn forced to go before the PC Gestapo.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-12 10:42:15 PM
John Chittick,
If truly only 2% of Canadians care about the HRC human rights abuses, then for sure we would have been better off had the Americans won!
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-01-13 12:12:56 AM
A commenter in a previous thread had it pretty much right: this whole business makes me want to burn a Canadian flag.
In fact, I just might do that.
Or, as I said in overly dramatic fashion on my blog:
"Whether Ezra Levant wins or loses, I'm going to burn a Canadian flag, and I'm going to think of you while I do it. You. The harbingers of the banality of evil. The acolytes and enablers of fascism, Canadian style."
Put like that, it sounds like I'm going to do it RIGHT NOW. I feel more like drinking, though, to be honest.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-01-13 12:27:08 AM
Be thankful.
If you had won the war of 1812, you wouldn't have us as an example.
Posted by: pete e | 2008-01-13 1:16:16 AM
"Why? How's it any different?"
Gee I don't know DJ, perhaps the one small difference, is that although each of these people were taken to task, usually by the race baiters of the day, the goverment of the day stayed out of it.
There is little question Canada would be far better off under a US style of government.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-13 1:40:04 AM
No thanks. Both our nations are probably better for having each other as neighbours, it would be hard to measure of course, but our two similar cultures with different systems of government and law have given each of us an opportunity to grow from one another. Nothing too radical - which is the way we all like it. But there have been some pretty good things, for example The Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. Stuff like that.
Canada and United States have the two best governments in the world by every measure - more freedom, less corruption, etc. And that's probably due in some way to us having two countries in the first place.
That being said, let's hope the petty fascists at these 'human rights commissions' are forced to go look for honest work, and soon.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-01-13 2:01:27 AM
I have no idea WTF you guys are talking about. America did infact win the War of 1812 against Britain. Andrew Jackson defeated the British forces in a total victory for the Americans. It is just that nobody new that the two sides had already signe d a peace treaty the previous month. Nontheless, the United States still did defeat Britain.
Posted by: Dishwasher | 2008-01-13 2:03:07 AM
Yeah, I'm with Dishwasher... I know American public schools are famous for revisionist history, but usually it's done to make us feel more ashamed of our country. I was always taught that we fought the British to a stalemate, but achieved some victory in that there was a reprieve for our sea-going commerce. I didn't know we were trying to conquer Canada.
I dont think America is far behind in our march towards similar strangulation of free speech, anyway.
Posted by: JoeWM | 2008-01-13 3:10:53 AM
Actually the newly created United States of America reluctantly and foolishly decided to declare war on Great Britain,but had valid reasons especially when Royal Navy ships based for the most part in Halifax Nova Scotia arbitrarily seized "American" or any
other vessels which crossed their paths in the North
and South Atlantic and also their Crews."Canada" did not exist and the familier lands of the period were a British Colony. British military from Halifax seized and burned Washington to the ground.The War of 1812 is documented in great detail in the Nova Scotia Archives and the Naval
Museum Admirality House Gottingen Street, Halifax
and as well in the famed Cambridge Library Artillery Place Halifax NS.Most American POW's were incarerated in a Naval Prison located on the
Northwest Arm Halifax NS now a memorial to the War. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-01-13 5:48:35 AM
Mr. McGuire:
It is fortunate for the US and for the world that the US did not capture Canada. Your post assumes that Canadians would have enjoyed the benefits of being American; this is a fair point. However, it misses the most important point because it assumes nothing else would change.
Assume for a moment that the two countries were joined into one today. Let us assume, for simplicity, that the current US Constitution and Bill of Rights held as it does today for this merged nation. You need to understand that under America's voting system, 9 of 10 provinces, er, states would probably go completely Democrat in the Senate and Presidential elections. Some Republican Representatives would indeed be elected in some rural districts outside Alberta, but even that House would have a net gain of Democrats from these 10 new states.
An argument could be made that Reagan would still have been President, but Dukasis and Gore would certainly have beaten the Bushes and we would not be wondering who it will be who will beat Hillary; we would be preparing to accept the inevitable.
The problem with the HRCs are that they are actually operating in an unconstitutional manner within Canada.
Consider the US side First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now consider the Canadian side from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association."
There is only a need for Canada to honour and abide by its existing Constitution.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-13 6:08:38 AM
Our existing Constitution is being challenged right now by HRC's acting on complaints by misfits in our modern democracy. Steyn and Ezra are examples of their abuse.
The HRC's are Commissions of the absurd and obscure and are allowed to override our so-called Rights and Freedoms as put down in Trudeau's blankety-blank Charter. Some Rights, when you can be forced to defend them at great expense, whenever someone lodges a complaint to the Commissars.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-13 6:44:06 AM
I think there'd be a very dangerous unintended consequence of America conquering Canada in 1812: there would have been no Canada to support England in 1940 and 1941. I don't know if that would have tipped the scales and pushed England into starvation and submission but I'm glad we didn't have to find out.
Posted by: Ian in NS | 2008-01-13 8:14:47 AM
Constitutionaly protected property rights would be nice.....
Posted by: Gorram | 2008-01-13 8:50:07 AM
Actually General Andrew Jackson "Old Hickory" defeated a small portion of the British Troops who had come to destroy the Port of New Orleans,the much larger remaining British Forces returned to Halifax Nova Scotia and destroyed many US Shipyards and Ports in the eastern seaboard States particularly in New England.In fact the slovenly and insular United States lost the War of 1812 which took them decades to recover from. The ill conceived War was the basis of the movement for Southern separation from the "union" over the issue of Slavery some years later
both Great Britain and it's Colony Nova Scotia supported the Confederate States of America.Many
examples of the Enfield Cannon which the British sold to the Confederacy still can be seen in many Museums in Nova Scotia. The War of 1812 was unecessary and difference between the US and GB could have been negotiated to an acceptable settlement. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-01-13 9:26:53 AM
You couldn't overthrow the government of Canada with a coup d’état the way it was done in the U.S. on November 22, 1963.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-13 9:53:14 AM
Well, with Dion and his sidekick, Puffin Iggy in Afghanistan on a very official looking, Prime Ministerial Wannabe sideshow, we better be careful what we vote for.
The sight of that Dweeb Dion stammering away, wearing military camouflage jacket, somehow is about the most scary, yet galling sight we've ever been subjected to.
What a waste of money all those useless, for show treks are, especially taken by Leftoids who don't believe in standing for or fighting to protect anything.
Was Puffin Boy there to translate the Dweeb's excuse for English into real English or just to hold his hand or change his depends?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-13 10:30:46 AM
You guys inspired me to go to the War of 1812 battlefield park at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama today. It was neat. Jackson's US troops destroyed the final redoubt of the Creek Indians here on March 27, 1814. The US victory opened up Creek lands in modern Alabama and Mississippi to the US gov't. Jackson used this battle, in conjunction with New Orleans, to become President in 1828.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-13 10:31:06 AM
"An argument could be made that Reagan would still have been President, but Dukasis and Gore would certainly have beaten the Bushes and we would not be wondering who it will be who will beat Hillary; we would be preparing to accept the inevitable."
Brent, if Canada had always been part of the USA we probably wouldn't have ever had a Trudeau who really did the damage here. We may not have the failed health care regime that keep so many Canadians stupidly on the socialist side of the street. Your assessment of an alternate time line for Canada and the USA is too narrow and controlled by how YOU SEE THINGS.
No one can know what a big change in history can do to the future. There are many science fiction stories written on that very premise and I like them. Yes, time lines, alternate universes, Time Travel ... all very entertaining.
In reality America is still a lot freer than Canada and I do envy that. I would trade my place in the Canadian Medicare line up to the same freedoms and lower taxes etc.
They are on a downward spiral as well though. The paranoia of most of the world hating and envying you and the f**king Muslims trying to blow you up for ever, is enough to make even a great free country psychotic eventually. Watch out if America gets someone in power who isn't going to take it anymore. I think that could be Rudy. Vote for Rudy. He will give us the best light show.
Posted by: John West | 2008-01-13 11:58:56 AM
Is Dion in Afghanistan as a Canadian or French Citizen?-just asking. Dion is a Reserve Officer in the Army of the Republic of France, and has dual
French and Canadian citizenship.What is Ignatieff
he American or Canadian? Just asking. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2008-01-13 1:49:22 PM
Jack
Dion is a little twit and Ignatieff is a pompous ass.
That is all we need to know about them.
Since you asked.
Posted by: John West | 2008-01-13 1:52:05 PM
Brent said, "You need to understand that under America's voting system, 9 of 10 provinces, er, states would probably go completely Democrat in the Senate and Presidential elections."
Not necessarily.
To make that assumption, you must also assume that the demographics of those 9 "states" would be exactly what they are today, and that generations of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist propaganda (disguised as preaching about how superior we are to those damn Yanks) would also have occurred to sway people to the Democratic side of the line.
And that's quite a stretch. The second of those conditions simply would not have been met, since the anti-American animus would not have existed. And the demographics would not have ended up as they are, since populations shifts over the past 200 years would have been as much north-south as east-west (if not more).
If the countries were to merge today, then yes there would instantly be at least sixteen more Dem Senators and a whole lot more Dem Representatives. But not if it had happened back then.
Posted by: Doug | 2008-01-13 1:57:48 PM
Brent said, "You need to understand that under America's voting system, 9 of 10 provinces, er, states would probably go completely Democrat in the Senate and Presidential elections."
Not necessarily.
To make that assumption, you must also assume that the demographics of those 9 "states" would be exactly what they are today, and that generations of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist propaganda (disguised as preaching about how superior we are to those damn Yanks) would also have occurred to sway people to the Democratic side of the line.
And that's quite a stretch. The second of those conditions simply would not have been met, since the anti-American animus would not have existed. And the demographics would not have ended up as they are, since populations shifts over the past 200 years would have been as much north-south as east-west (if not more).
If the countries were to merge today, then yes there would instantly be at least sixteen more Dem Senators and a whole lot more Dem Representatives. But not if it had happened back then.
Posted by: Doug | 2008-01-13 1:58:10 PM
Brent said, "You need to understand that under America's voting system, 9 of 10 provinces, er, states would probably go completely Democrat in the Senate and Presidential elections."
Not necessarily.
To make that assumption, you must also assume that the demographics of those 9 "states" would be exactly what they are today, and that generations of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist propaganda (disguised as preaching about how superior we are to those damn Yanks) would also have occurred to sway people to the Democratic side of the line.
And that's quite a stretch. The second of those conditions simply would not have been met, since the anti-American animus would not have existed. And the demographics would not have ended up as they are, since populations shifts over the past 200 years would have been as much north-south as east-west (if not more).
If the countries were to merge today, then yes there would instantly be at least sixteen more Dem Senators and a whole lot more Dem Representatives. But not if it had happened back then.
Posted by: Doug | 2008-01-13 1:58:26 PM
Ian in NS made the most profound comment on this subject. It would be a different world.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-13 3:23:45 PM
...when i was young, i bashed the yanks anywhere i could in Europe.
Now, that I am older, i regret doing that. If it were not for the Yanks, I'd be speaking Russian or some other dictatorship language.
French?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-01-13 6:29:26 PM
How do you go about bashing yanks in Europe?
And what would the purpose be?
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-13 6:48:38 PM
Brent said, "You need to understand that under America's voting system, 9 of 10 provinces, er, states would probably go completely Democrat in the Senate and Presidential elections."
"To make that assumption, you must also assume that the demographics of those 9 "states" would be exactly what they are today, and that generations of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist propaganda (disguised as preaching about how superior we are to those damn Yanks) would also have occurred to sway people to the Democratic side of the line."
I would argue that the relative voting patterns of Canada today quite closely mirror those of the US regardless of the influence of propaganda. BC would be a Dem state as it's on the West Coast. AB would go Republican as it's next to Montana. SK, MB, and N. Ontario are a cross between Minnesota(fiscally socialist) and the Dakotas(more socially conservative). S. and E. Ontario is strongly liberal in the cities (NY, PA, MI) but like those states is also more conservative in rural areas.
Quebec is the exception as it is strongly socialist and arguably takes its strongest political influences from Europe rather than border states like NH, NY, or VT. The Maritimes are more socialist as they border Maine and the rest of the US East Coast.
Posted by: Ace | 2008-01-13 6:55:01 PM
It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the US annexed the Canadian colonies after the War of 1812. One idea is that the new states created out of them would have created a bigger North in relation to the South. The South felt the best way to maintain to preserve the Union was to balance free and slave states. By adding 4 new, free labor states, the South would have felt outnumbered and compelled to seek redress.
Redress could have meant:
1) adding 4 new slave states - only 3 of which would occur between 1820 and 1861, Arkansas and Texas, therefore unlikely.
2) rebalancing the 3/5ths clause on representation to give the South more seats in Congress (unlikely)
3) seceding from the Union and civil war (likely).
So maybe it was better that Canada existed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-13 7:03:15 PM
So I'm wondering - in light of recent events, does anybody up there wonder if they would be better off as (roughly) seventh-generation Americans?
God no... not even for a second. When I look South at the steady dissolution of basic rights and freedoms it terrifies me. While we lack some of the same fundamental legal rights, I feel that in Canada we are far freer and more importantly in less danger from our own government taking a distaste to us.
I wish for a speedy recovery in the USA (for it is a great nation, founded on brilliant principles. It simply seems to be stricken by mass panic and hysteria chasing the ghosts of terrorists already passed,) and the ability to fend off the creeping paranoia that could rob Canadians of our rights, but looking at cases like Mr. Maher Arar (was he even in the news in the USA?) I fear the American government even in my own home country for their paranoid, secretive, malicious, and sinister hostile actions against both foreign citizens and their own. I will not even set foot in the country until it has returned to its ideals of freedom - the only place I would be more loath to go right now is the United Kingdom. As a tourist, I would visit Australia, even North Korea, but by entering the USA I would basically forefeit all human rights if I somehow drew suspicion of an empowered few, and that is wrong to its very core.
Posted by: Akamaru | 2008-01-13 8:10:54 PM
John West:
"Watch out if America gets someone in power who isn't going to take it anymore. I think that could be Rudy. Vote for Rudy. He will give us the best light show."
Even if they do get someone who isn't going to take any more, that person will have to do whatever it is they're going to do over a defeatist, pacifist Democratic House and probably Senate.
I think it will take something really catastrophic for America to unite (if not 9/11, what?) and really stand up to her full height, which she will have to do to prevent this event. And the greater the number of those tasked with preventing this catastrophe who are ideologically committed to acting as though the threat doesn't exist, the greater the likelihood that the event will occur.
And even then, will it be bad enough to cause them to react? What will it take?
All in all I'm glad I'm up here, with all love and respect to my American friends.
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-01-13 8:12:53 PM
As an American I must tell you: I see Canada as basically a nation of wimps. Many here share my view. Steyn is right: it's America Alone. Too bad the wimps will probably take over here too, by sheer force of numbers. Such is the herd.
Posted by: Jack | 2008-01-14 12:18:23 AM
Jack,
That's what we thought about the U.S. from 1939-1941 as we and the British Commonwealth fought and bled for freedom alone against the Nazi war machine while Americans sat back and played baseball. The thought also occurred to us from 1914-1917.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-14 12:24:32 AM
John and Doug:
Thanks for making your points politely. I was away yesterday so did not have the time to respond. I think Ace mirrors what my own response would have been. However, I will also add the following thoughts.
While it is true that Trudeau would not have been the leader of (the non-existant) Canada, leftist thought would still prevail. Strongly leftist thought prevails in the US today in spite of the fact that the conservative viewpoint has more play on the airwaves and on the Web. A modern New England Republican is often to the left of a federal Conservative MP from Alberta.
The anti-American propaganda that Doug refers to would have existed because it already does exist in America today. It does not go by the same name in America; it goes by BDS and other names, but it does exist. If America is able to produce the many Jesse Jacksons, Ted Kennedys, Barack Obamas, and the like as prominent political figures without the CBC, why would you think that it could not produce even more of them when it added 7-9 leftist new states.
A fundamental question with regard to propaganda might be: 1) are more Canadians leftist because of the CRTC and the CBC or 2) do the CRTC and CBC exist because more Canadians are leftist? I presume from Doug's post that he sees the answer as being 1) but my observations lead me to conclude that both 1) and 2) are true.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-14 7:20:30 AM
I would also like to add that I do agree that America has considerably more political and "free speech" freedoms than does Canada. Yet, it often has fewer freedoms in what could be called the arena of the "police state".
For instance, the following story unfortunately could occur in either country. However, my observation is that it does happen much more frequently (including on a per-capita basis) in the US than in Canada.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59566
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-14 7:28:10 AM
Speller, excellent reply to Jack - my thoughts indeed.
As to the question raised I would answer no, not at all. Yes, we have strayed far from our great traditions of the rule of law, English Common Law, etc.., but then you Americans have done the same concerning you constitution and Bill of Rights. In both cases this was accomplished by the enemy within. It is a bit like admiring a neighbour's house and possessions without wanting to live in the house or be the neighbour.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-14 11:46:42 AM
It seems to me, Brent, that Canada's statement of individual rights is somewhat more strongly-worded than the U.S. Constitution's. As Ezra Levant's story shows, though, the same kind of lazy thinking in government that contaminates an otherwise-free society here can be found in Canada. That sort of thinking happens on the left (as in this case) and on the right (as with the PATRIOT Act) and the real solution is people knowing what their rights are and demanding that the government honor them. That's why Ezra Levant is a hero.
Posted by: Transplanted Lawyer | 2008-01-14 11:47:28 AM
Hell no !
The Patriot Act, the Federal bank, the IRS, the indentity card, the Neo-con medias who block anyone who don't agree with them, the secret prisons, sending kids to war without having a declaration, pre-emptive wars based on false or framed events or reasons, a health system based on what's best for the pharma compagnies and not what's best for their people, an imperialist based philosophie...
That's your idea of a free country ? No thanks.
Canada is far from being perfect but you're in a greater mess than we do. If you still have doubts, look at your dollar going down while our is going up.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-14 1:47:19 PM
Mr. Attorney:
An excellent summary of the point hat I have been making on the threads here and a couple at SDA.
"That's why Ezra Levant is a hero."
If there were one quote of Ezra's that has the potential to be quoted more than others, it is this one:
"free political speech isn't just protected in a liberal democracy -- it protects a liberal democracy."
That is the kind of quote that makes it onto plaques and the like. Well done, Ezra.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-14 3:52:57 PM
The point being missed is that speech extends from association. The freedom to exclude, denied by the CHRCs, led inevitably, to loss of speech. For instance, in Israeli, denial of the Jewish holocaust is illegal. However, denial of the Ukrainian Holodomor or the Armenian genocide, is quite legal.
There are no Ukrainians or Armenians in Israel so no one really cares if those atrocities are denied.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-14 4:45:23 PM
They're not denied at all - just less famous.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-14 6:32:47 PM
They're denied constantly.
"An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD."
The point being is that there is no incarceration for denying the Holodomor, yet there is for denying the Jewish holocaust.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-14 7:06:48 PM
Not hearing about it is not the same as ignoring it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-14 8:37:25 PM
Again. The point being is that there is no incarceration for denying the Holodomor, yet there is for denying the Jewish holocaust.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-14 9:00:41 PM
And this is significant how?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-14 9:08:40 PM
obc: yeah you're right. Sorry to waste my time. Sheesh, to say the Holocaust, one of the best known and recorded events of the 20th Century did not happen stands as an act of lunacy.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-14 9:16:11 PM
"And this is significant how?"
It shows quite clearly that speech extends from association. The freedom to exclude, denied by the CHRCs, led inevitably, to loss of speech.
For instance, in Israeli, a majority Jewish population, denial of the Jewish holocaust is illegal. However, denial of the Ukrainian Holodomor or the Armenian genocide, is quite legal.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-14 10:05:42 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.