Brilliant! (And I live in California.) Regardless whatever else you're angry about, Canadians *have* to take the pus sac in our White House at his word and *band together* to protect yourselves from the destruction he has inflicted on our side of the border.
A lot of us despise this jerk. And a lot of us depend on Canada to stay strong--to give us hope.
There's an old saying, "Reasonable people can disagree, and still be reasonable." What you are pointing out it is that (for a variety of reasons) the polarization of views in Canada has meant that many on both sides view those on the the other side as unreasonable. If you disagree with me, you must be some kind of idiot. The way the human works, that then becomes the label for the opponent - the idiot. Once so labelled, while there may be disagreements on some issues (and agreements on others), the "other" cannot be viewed in any way as other than unreasonable, no matter the issue.
Your effort is laudable, and certainly needs repeating, but I am skeptical that it (or others like it) will have any appreciable effect in changing attitudes/beliefs. Yes, people can change, but the evidence pretty strongly suggests there has to be a genuine desire to change, for whatever reason, before change is possible. It may be that on August 19, Trump will provide the incentive we need to start to effect the needed change(s).
Your opinion is valid but I respectfully disagree. People were not always aligned into political tribes. Perhaps some may be swayed by a reason article. Direct attacks on your country do tend to get people to stand up and respond, whether it is a protest, or a product boycott or an online petition. Maybe this article will turn out to be a tiny push in the right direction. At least I want to believe that it will help.
No, of course you are right. Even today not all people are aligned by political tribe. So yes, I was somewhat overbroad in my assertion, although I do think it applies to most of those who are so aligned. And yes, I too hope Fred's piece has some positive effect in this regard, and that perhaps a cumulation of such pieces from a variety of sources has and ever greater impact. It certanly can't hurt. I do think it more likely than not that August 19 will pass without an agreement, and that Trump will escalate, which may turn out to be that triggering moment for Canada.
I’ve read from other sources that Trump will move on to bully Europe and pause the Canada tariffs because we are putting up too much of a fight. I hope it’s true but he is doing a lot of crazy things so we will see.
As usual, you speak common sense, Fred, Canadian-style, and thus for me.
It is also a fact that mis- and dis-information, a.k.a. propaganda, designed to be deliberately divisive as in a "divide and conquer" strategy, has infiltrated our media and captured the attention of a swath of our society, which my bias as a retired professional educator labels as a specific generation that I shall let you guess about.
This generation was raised to believe that it deserved the good life without working for it, holding an "everybody must get a prize on playday" mentality, which has produced a quality of selfish individualism not seen since the Roaring Twenties, if then. (And we know how that period ended!)
Meaning, these folks are susceptible to becoming the targets of sowers of division because of their attitudes of "poor me-ism" and "what-about-me-ism".
They understand the concept of compromise and teamwork when it serves their interests. They do not appreciate the importance of setting aside their wants for the good of ALL, nor the need to have everyone all pulling together, rowing in one direction, to get everybody where they want the racing shell they are riding in to go.
The jersey says "CANADA" and TEAMWORK is the key. ❤️🇨🇦
I have voted for all three parties in my lifetime. I vote the person and the issues. Political parties are a shorthand for lining up behind certain issues; nothing more. Blind allegiance to any one of them creates a herd of malleable SHEEPLE.
I will support this PM because he’s supremely qualified to fight this battle and force a bunch of parochial premiers to work in the country’s interests. We are in the midst of an ongoing and sustained NATO Article 4 Denial of Sovereignty attack. It IS economic warfare. If we can’t see it by now, it’s because we refuse to see it.
Carney got his Order of Canada from Stephen Harper. He stewarded The Bank of Canada and the country through the 2008 collapse and the Bank of England through the Brexit fiasco. Queen Elizabeth called him a safe pair of hands.
We’re moving at lightning speed to realign with the best debt management and foreign investment in decades while holding the line against a nasty aggressor. Perfectly? No. But awfully damned well by any metric.
Unfortunately, the “Loyal” Opposition has shown itself to be anything but. The top four Conservatives behave openly as Quislings. Poilievre, Scheer, Jivani and Rempel do not miss an opportunity to argue for cooperation, almost pretending that the threats don’t exist. Poilievre borrows the USA talking points to rage bait, Scheer is American and has never chosen Canadian citizenship, Jivani runs to JD Vance and tells Canada how much the USA loves Canada, Rempel who divides her time (unevenly?) between her riding and Oklahoma, spouts “facts” in open contradiction to what is actually happening.
So the man and the issue; Canada, for me, is Carney.
Good article, Fred. There are myriad outlooks and challenges facing us Canadians. I notice the tariff wars heighten tomorrow and it coincides with the 84th anniversary of the Dieppe raid. The “enemies” then and today are different but their message was similar. The US obviously encourages the separatists in their misguided efforts in Alberta. And the Germans gave French Canadian soldier prisoners (the Fusiliers de Montreal) rations ignoring the English speaking Canadians and gave them nothing. The French Canadians shared their rations and told the Germans essentially “we are one nation and that is why we fought so well today”.
Reference from “Dieppe: The Shame and the Glory” by Terence Robertson.
Fred, this article (somewhat) caught me off-guard -- mainly with a notion that "raging debate" is happening within the country (I'll circle back to this in a moment).
Looking at all kinds of polls and comments that I see almost everywhere -- though I'll contend that maybe I'm not seeing "all voices" -- there doesn't seem to be much of any debate: Most Canadians - regardless of their usual political orientations - seem to be behind General Carney in this "economic war" for Canadian sovereignty. There really hasn't been any good or viable alternative perspective, other than "give Trump what he wants, regardless of how it permanently hurts me or my kids."
So where is all this "raging debate" -- Alberta???
(Yes, PP and minions are all flooding Trump-like talking points everywhere you look - but the more he does this, the more people reach for popcorn, and his polling/ratings drop another few percentage points. Already, his ranking is lower than "somebody else {to lead the country}" when conservatives were polled (<18%. And the same people surveyed said Carney = 33%).
Monday, the Globe & Mail featured an article about how American and Russian influences were interfering in the Alberta situation -- the usual fake "Albertan" online posting, etc., etc. So, is this raging debate happening with USA/Russian Bots on one side, and real people on the other?
But funny timing here, between the Globe article and Fred's posting: My wife and I had a conversation yesterday (before reading either piece of info). Summed up, it went like this:
"We pride ourselves in allowing freedom of speech in Canada, even if we disagree with the opinions presented. That's how countries grow, by accessing the ideas and critically determining the merits behind the arguments. However, looking to the cases of Alberta and Quebec (and any future similar situations), at what point does free speech stop being such, and instead is seen as foreign governments/businesses/(???) pushing THEIR agenda rather than what Canadian citizens wish? And at what point do THOSE ACTIONS become either a foreign assault or domestic TREASON/SEDITION -- both being actions that require criminal/political response, beyond the protected free speech?"
Neither of us really could determine where to set the red lines. But I really DO think those questions need to be thrown into the mix of these "debates" -- the "authoritarian playbook" strategy is to have the would-be dictators always claim "we have free speech rights here!". The only defence is to draw a line where that becomes seditious or against the public will. And this has to be in a context where no government can easily manipulate it to fit their own policies or viewpoints (Trump is already hinting at such things, so that what any voice against him could ultimately be punished as treasonous).
(too early in the morning for me right now to make better sense of this, other than to broadly say "how much of these discussions are happening really, between Canadians, vs bots and USA/whoever factions that are funding separatists or political parties?")
Grant, I think you've actually put your finger on something I didn't separate clearly enough in the article.
When I talk about the “raging debate,” I'm talking largely about **what I'm seeing in the information environment**, particularly social media...
not suggesting Canadians are evenly divided on defending Canadian sovereignty.
And your question may be the more important one...
**How much of what looks like Canadians fighting Canadians is actually Canadians arguing with narratives being manufactured, amplified or encouraged from outside Canada?**
That's one hell of a question.
Where I'd be careful is with words like *treason* and *sedition*.
Those have specific and very serious legal meanings, and I don't want GeezerWise deciding from the cheap seats where that legal line sits.
But I absolutely think Canadians should be asking where the **democratic** line sits.
An Albertan advocating separation? That's a Canadian political argument, whether I agree with it or not.
A Canadian criticizing Carney? Democracy.
A Conservative campaigning against the Liberals? Democracy.
But when foreign governments, foreign money, coordinated influence operations or people acting on behalf of foreign interests begin deliberately manipulating those Canadian arguments for **their purposes**?
Now we're talking about something very different.
And here's the part of your comment that really stopped me...
Maybe some of the division I'm reacting to isn't evidence that Canadians are terribly divided.
**Maybe it's evidence that somebody wants Canadians to believe we are.**
That deserves some digging.
Thanks, Grant.
This is exactly why I keep saying the comments are half the damn story.
I've had debates (well, conversations, mostly) with other people in other substacks, and raised the same concerns about "treason" and "sedition" -- When Premier Eby used the "T" word awhile ago, I don't think the actions at that time fit the Section 46 criteria. And I did caution people on that. It didn't mean that the actions were not of profound importance -- they most certainly are! But if conversations pick up on that wrong choice of words, then the arguments shift
And if much of this noise is being instigated by foreign actors -- well, how do we know if Fred & Grant are really human?
Neural Networks (the type of tech behind the modern Chatbot AI) creator, Geoffrey Hinton (A Canadian, Nobel prize winner) said, about three years ago, that "AI is (then) about as aware of things to a very basic extent. Within 3-5 years, it will have the emotional intelligence of your family pet or a very young child." Note that was 3 years ago! So now with AI Agents joining into the war-of-words on behalf of foreign influencers, you could end up with some very passionate/emotional rhetoric, and a lot of it happening at child level (without the political masters controlling a lot of it).
Heaven help us once it reaches teenager maturity! ;-) (uhhh, maybe that's not so funny . . . .)
Grant, we're definitely on the same page about the language.
That's exactly why I backed away from *treason* and *sedition*.
Use a word carrying that much legal baggage incorrectly and suddenly everybody spends the next three days arguing about the word instead of examining the behaviour.
Your AI point opens another door, though.
I'm not sure an AI needs to become emotionally intelligent for us to have a serious problem.
**It only needs to become bloody good at making US emotional.**
Imagine an influence operation that doesn't need 500 human trolls anymore.
Give AI agents political identities, grievances, talking points and instructions to provoke engagement, and suddenly Canadians could be arguing all day with “people” who don't exist.
Which brings me right back to the question your earlier comment raised...
**How much of Canada's apparent online division is actually Canadian?**
And yes, for the record, I am human.
Although Chatty has probably been wondering about me for years. 😂
We also need to continue to be super mindful of Bots and a lot of foreign interference via 'social' media. The intent of this is to tear CDNs apart, create conspiracy stories of all kinds. Unfortunately, not all folks are aware of this and continue to fall into the polarized social media.
That advice is valid, but I note that while these issues may be what the internet is talking about. Individual Canadians? Not so much.
Polling still shows the cost of living to be the number one issue, with Trump and the US as the third to fifth issue of concern, depending on the poll. They’re all more than a month old (that I can find) but the mix is probably not that different. East/West, Alberta’s issues, left/right - none of this shows up on a long list of concerns. It’s just what we argue about online… and sometimes at the pub.
One of the problems is that almost all our national pollsters are more or less right wing inclined. Some probably believe they are neutral but if they re fixated on economic values that s what they ll scan for. People are complicated, most polls are simplistic.
So much depends on methodology: framing the questions, sampling technique and interpreting results, for a few. There are a few company names new to me so I can t speak for them all but I do trust Ekos and look for their efforts. Oriented to progressive values, sure but not enough to ignore or skew; they look for issues and answers. Most pollsters have been quiet over the summer but I look forward to fall scans.
Brilliant! (And I live in California.) Regardless whatever else you're angry about, Canadians *have* to take the pus sac in our White House at his word and *band together* to protect yourselves from the destruction he has inflicted on our side of the border.
A lot of us despise this jerk. And a lot of us depend on Canada to stay strong--to give us hope.
Don't let him stop you.
Truth
There's an old saying, "Reasonable people can disagree, and still be reasonable." What you are pointing out it is that (for a variety of reasons) the polarization of views in Canada has meant that many on both sides view those on the the other side as unreasonable. If you disagree with me, you must be some kind of idiot. The way the human works, that then becomes the label for the opponent - the idiot. Once so labelled, while there may be disagreements on some issues (and agreements on others), the "other" cannot be viewed in any way as other than unreasonable, no matter the issue.
Your effort is laudable, and certainly needs repeating, but I am skeptical that it (or others like it) will have any appreciable effect in changing attitudes/beliefs. Yes, people can change, but the evidence pretty strongly suggests there has to be a genuine desire to change, for whatever reason, before change is possible. It may be that on August 19, Trump will provide the incentive we need to start to effect the needed change(s).
Your opinion is valid but I respectfully disagree. People were not always aligned into political tribes. Perhaps some may be swayed by a reason article. Direct attacks on your country do tend to get people to stand up and respond, whether it is a protest, or a product boycott or an online petition. Maybe this article will turn out to be a tiny push in the right direction. At least I want to believe that it will help.
No, of course you are right. Even today not all people are aligned by political tribe. So yes, I was somewhat overbroad in my assertion, although I do think it applies to most of those who are so aligned. And yes, I too hope Fred's piece has some positive effect in this regard, and that perhaps a cumulation of such pieces from a variety of sources has and ever greater impact. It certanly can't hurt. I do think it more likely than not that August 19 will pass without an agreement, and that Trump will escalate, which may turn out to be that triggering moment for Canada.
I’ve read from other sources that Trump will move on to bully Europe and pause the Canada tariffs because we are putting up too much of a fight. I hope it’s true but he is doing a lot of crazy things so we will see.
As usual, you speak common sense, Fred, Canadian-style, and thus for me.
It is also a fact that mis- and dis-information, a.k.a. propaganda, designed to be deliberately divisive as in a "divide and conquer" strategy, has infiltrated our media and captured the attention of a swath of our society, which my bias as a retired professional educator labels as a specific generation that I shall let you guess about.
This generation was raised to believe that it deserved the good life without working for it, holding an "everybody must get a prize on playday" mentality, which has produced a quality of selfish individualism not seen since the Roaring Twenties, if then. (And we know how that period ended!)
Meaning, these folks are susceptible to becoming the targets of sowers of division because of their attitudes of "poor me-ism" and "what-about-me-ism".
They understand the concept of compromise and teamwork when it serves their interests. They do not appreciate the importance of setting aside their wants for the good of ALL, nor the need to have everyone all pulling together, rowing in one direction, to get everybody where they want the racing shell they are riding in to go.
The jersey says "CANADA" and TEAMWORK is the key. ❤️🇨🇦
"mind". Human mind. And I proofed it 3 times before posting. Another vagary of hte human mind.
I have voted for all three parties in my lifetime. I vote the person and the issues. Political parties are a shorthand for lining up behind certain issues; nothing more. Blind allegiance to any one of them creates a herd of malleable SHEEPLE.
I will support this PM because he’s supremely qualified to fight this battle and force a bunch of parochial premiers to work in the country’s interests. We are in the midst of an ongoing and sustained NATO Article 4 Denial of Sovereignty attack. It IS economic warfare. If we can’t see it by now, it’s because we refuse to see it.
Carney got his Order of Canada from Stephen Harper. He stewarded The Bank of Canada and the country through the 2008 collapse and the Bank of England through the Brexit fiasco. Queen Elizabeth called him a safe pair of hands.
We’re moving at lightning speed to realign with the best debt management and foreign investment in decades while holding the line against a nasty aggressor. Perfectly? No. But awfully damned well by any metric.
Unfortunately, the “Loyal” Opposition has shown itself to be anything but. The top four Conservatives behave openly as Quislings. Poilievre, Scheer, Jivani and Rempel do not miss an opportunity to argue for cooperation, almost pretending that the threats don’t exist. Poilievre borrows the USA talking points to rage bait, Scheer is American and has never chosen Canadian citizenship, Jivani runs to JD Vance and tells Canada how much the USA loves Canada, Rempel who divides her time (unevenly?) between her riding and Oklahoma, spouts “facts” in open contradiction to what is actually happening.
So the man and the issue; Canada, for me, is Carney.
Good article, Fred. There are myriad outlooks and challenges facing us Canadians. I notice the tariff wars heighten tomorrow and it coincides with the 84th anniversary of the Dieppe raid. The “enemies” then and today are different but their message was similar. The US obviously encourages the separatists in their misguided efforts in Alberta. And the Germans gave French Canadian soldier prisoners (the Fusiliers de Montreal) rations ignoring the English speaking Canadians and gave them nothing. The French Canadians shared their rations and told the Germans essentially “we are one nation and that is why we fought so well today”.
Reference from “Dieppe: The Shame and the Glory” by Terence Robertson.
Never knew that, thank you
Fred, this article (somewhat) caught me off-guard -- mainly with a notion that "raging debate" is happening within the country (I'll circle back to this in a moment).
Looking at all kinds of polls and comments that I see almost everywhere -- though I'll contend that maybe I'm not seeing "all voices" -- there doesn't seem to be much of any debate: Most Canadians - regardless of their usual political orientations - seem to be behind General Carney in this "economic war" for Canadian sovereignty. There really hasn't been any good or viable alternative perspective, other than "give Trump what he wants, regardless of how it permanently hurts me or my kids."
So where is all this "raging debate" -- Alberta???
(Yes, PP and minions are all flooding Trump-like talking points everywhere you look - but the more he does this, the more people reach for popcorn, and his polling/ratings drop another few percentage points. Already, his ranking is lower than "somebody else {to lead the country}" when conservatives were polled (<18%. And the same people surveyed said Carney = 33%).
Monday, the Globe & Mail featured an article about how American and Russian influences were interfering in the Alberta situation -- the usual fake "Albertan" online posting, etc., etc. So, is this raging debate happening with USA/Russian Bots on one side, and real people on the other?
But funny timing here, between the Globe article and Fred's posting: My wife and I had a conversation yesterday (before reading either piece of info). Summed up, it went like this:
"We pride ourselves in allowing freedom of speech in Canada, even if we disagree with the opinions presented. That's how countries grow, by accessing the ideas and critically determining the merits behind the arguments. However, looking to the cases of Alberta and Quebec (and any future similar situations), at what point does free speech stop being such, and instead is seen as foreign governments/businesses/(???) pushing THEIR agenda rather than what Canadian citizens wish? And at what point do THOSE ACTIONS become either a foreign assault or domestic TREASON/SEDITION -- both being actions that require criminal/political response, beyond the protected free speech?"
Neither of us really could determine where to set the red lines. But I really DO think those questions need to be thrown into the mix of these "debates" -- the "authoritarian playbook" strategy is to have the would-be dictators always claim "we have free speech rights here!". The only defence is to draw a line where that becomes seditious or against the public will. And this has to be in a context where no government can easily manipulate it to fit their own policies or viewpoints (Trump is already hinting at such things, so that what any voice against him could ultimately be punished as treasonous).
(too early in the morning for me right now to make better sense of this, other than to broadly say "how much of these discussions are happening really, between Canadians, vs bots and USA/whoever factions that are funding separatists or political parties?")
Grant, I think you've actually put your finger on something I didn't separate clearly enough in the article.
When I talk about the “raging debate,” I'm talking largely about **what I'm seeing in the information environment**, particularly social media...
not suggesting Canadians are evenly divided on defending Canadian sovereignty.
And your question may be the more important one...
**How much of what looks like Canadians fighting Canadians is actually Canadians arguing with narratives being manufactured, amplified or encouraged from outside Canada?**
That's one hell of a question.
Where I'd be careful is with words like *treason* and *sedition*.
Those have specific and very serious legal meanings, and I don't want GeezerWise deciding from the cheap seats where that legal line sits.
But I absolutely think Canadians should be asking where the **democratic** line sits.
An Albertan advocating separation? That's a Canadian political argument, whether I agree with it or not.
A Canadian criticizing Carney? Democracy.
A Conservative campaigning against the Liberals? Democracy.
But when foreign governments, foreign money, coordinated influence operations or people acting on behalf of foreign interests begin deliberately manipulating those Canadian arguments for **their purposes**?
Now we're talking about something very different.
And here's the part of your comment that really stopped me...
Maybe some of the division I'm reacting to isn't evidence that Canadians are terribly divided.
**Maybe it's evidence that somebody wants Canadians to believe we are.**
That deserves some digging.
Thanks, Grant.
This is exactly why I keep saying the comments are half the damn story.
Fred, I agree with your follow-up entirely.
I've had debates (well, conversations, mostly) with other people in other substacks, and raised the same concerns about "treason" and "sedition" -- When Premier Eby used the "T" word awhile ago, I don't think the actions at that time fit the Section 46 criteria. And I did caution people on that. It didn't mean that the actions were not of profound importance -- they most certainly are! But if conversations pick up on that wrong choice of words, then the arguments shift
And if much of this noise is being instigated by foreign actors -- well, how do we know if Fred & Grant are really human?
Neural Networks (the type of tech behind the modern Chatbot AI) creator, Geoffrey Hinton (A Canadian, Nobel prize winner) said, about three years ago, that "AI is (then) about as aware of things to a very basic extent. Within 3-5 years, it will have the emotional intelligence of your family pet or a very young child." Note that was 3 years ago! So now with AI Agents joining into the war-of-words on behalf of foreign influencers, you could end up with some very passionate/emotional rhetoric, and a lot of it happening at child level (without the political masters controlling a lot of it).
Heaven help us once it reaches teenager maturity! ;-) (uhhh, maybe that's not so funny . . . .)
Grant, we're definitely on the same page about the language.
That's exactly why I backed away from *treason* and *sedition*.
Use a word carrying that much legal baggage incorrectly and suddenly everybody spends the next three days arguing about the word instead of examining the behaviour.
Your AI point opens another door, though.
I'm not sure an AI needs to become emotionally intelligent for us to have a serious problem.
**It only needs to become bloody good at making US emotional.**
Imagine an influence operation that doesn't need 500 human trolls anymore.
Give AI agents political identities, grievances, talking points and instructions to provoke engagement, and suddenly Canadians could be arguing all day with “people” who don't exist.
Which brings me right back to the question your earlier comment raised...
**How much of Canada's apparent online division is actually Canadian?**
And yes, for the record, I am human.
Although Chatty has probably been wondering about me for years. 😂
Good points, Mr. Rowson.
We also need to continue to be super mindful of Bots and a lot of foreign interference via 'social' media. The intent of this is to tear CDNs apart, create conspiracy stories of all kinds. Unfortunately, not all folks are aware of this and continue to fall into the polarized social media.
You said it, Fred
That advice is valid, but I note that while these issues may be what the internet is talking about. Individual Canadians? Not so much.
Polling still shows the cost of living to be the number one issue, with Trump and the US as the third to fifth issue of concern, depending on the poll. They’re all more than a month old (that I can find) but the mix is probably not that different. East/West, Alberta’s issues, left/right - none of this shows up on a long list of concerns. It’s just what we argue about online… and sometimes at the pub.
One of the problems is that almost all our national pollsters are more or less right wing inclined. Some probably believe they are neutral but if they re fixated on economic values that s what they ll scan for. People are complicated, most polls are simplistic.
So much depends on methodology: framing the questions, sampling technique and interpreting results, for a few. There are a few company names new to me so I can t speak for them all but I do trust Ekos and look for their efforts. Oriented to progressive values, sure but not enough to ignore or skew; they look for issues and answers. Most pollsters have been quiet over the summer but I look forward to fall scans.
Too long and will make no difference.
Since when did Canadians start tearing each other apart. What planet are you from?