Five Things Wrong With Canada

Part One.

Squeaky Wheel Syndrome

Note: Occasionally, I will remove the paywall from some posts, trying to convince “free” subscribers to switch to paid, a $4 monthly charge. I realize there is subscriber fatigue, but if you are a free subscriber, and I paywall everything, you are simply not reading any of them.

I will continue to paywall at least 95% of my posts. I don’t think people value what they don’t pay for, and I know that $4/month does not legitimately repel people because of the cost. Especially Americans, who make about 30% more than Canadians because we elect idiots and whose dollar is worth $1.30 of our loonies.

Why do so many not subscribe or hang on to free but paywalled subscriptions? I’m not sure; maybe they haven’t gotten around to unsubscribing.

I think it’s more that people just don’t like to read; I’d have some friends for years, relatives, etc, that one would think would sign up just as a token of support, but no, they won’t.

I suspect most people don’t say to themselves, “I don’t like to read,” nor do they say, “I’m not interested in current issues.”

They say, “I don’t have time. ” we make time for what we value; most of the time, the busy talk is another popular cultural lie that we self-direct.

I’m not going to convince you to value reading, but if you value democracy, you should value people like me; I am not subsidized 50% like major full-time journalists.

If you think that, for example, “journalists” at the CBC are not influenced by the fact that a Conservative government would chop much of the TV budget of what has become essentially a propaganda wing for the Liberal government and the two living souls who liked the Beachcombers, you are doing another self lie.

It takes hours to write one of these pieces. I still work full-time on a real job, and your support would be appreciated. Thank you, please read, it’s a bit long but you’ll make it.

_________________________________

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  The one who makes the most noise gets the attention.  And that is a Canadian problem. We are doormats in our homes; we allow ourselves to get stepped on on social issues - woke issues - gender issues, giving away drugs as a way to cure drug addiction, and allowing easy bail for criminals. Canada is close to the US in the polls on major social issues, but we don’t show it.  

We differ on gun control, but we don’t have a southern border that allows thousands of undocumented to come across the border, so we shouldn’t judge them on multiculturalism; but we are similar on accepting that men have penis’ while not pretending that the words, “I identify as” are some trump card that means “Silence! End of discussion!”

That’s the problem with woke; they aren’t open to debate, and their sense of veracity comes from guttural noises emanating from their pie holes.

On gender we are similar to the US and, indeed, England now. However, it seems strange to stubbornly hang on to the idea that 12-year-old tomboys should be coaxed into taking puberty blockers by their expert 6th-grade teacher who got 71% in ECE at University and majored in finger painting.  

Don’t tell the parents, becaue the 23 year old teacher knows better than that woman who carried Julia in her womb for 9 months, who, like my mother would eat the bananas whose skin was blacked with spots, because they couldn’t make the kids eat it, and didn’t want food to go to waste.

Of course blue haired teachers know more than Julias' father Hamish who got up for years at 5 AM to take Julia, sorry Julian now, to figure skating lessons,

The teacher took four years of ECE and are adults, wise teachers, especially now that they contribute $50 a month to the grocery bill at their parent’s home where they have taken over the basement. They did their first load of their own laundry a week ago, such independence!

Our press is less than robust; you can’t have journalists biting the hand that feeds them, and today, the federal government and press now get almost 50% from the feds and Google. And there is a conflict of interest. 

My unions, who both publicly hate Israel, tell me they can cleave their minds from their souls and do their jobs in protecting a professor who is on trial for his support of Israel.

But such a statement just compounds bias with self-delusion, and it’s no different for our press.  The CBC cannot report fairly on a party that wants to end its existence, and most of the media falls in the same case, perhaps slightly to a lesser degree.  

It’s our noble little joke that we apologise for accidentally being kicked on the street.  Most Canadians take pride in Canada’s reputation for being polite and accommodating. It’s part of our national identity—a calm, reasonable, and civil country. We hold doors open, say “sorry” more often than any other nation, and avoid confrontation like it earns us social credit points; sorry, that’s China, but nine of our MPs are sponsored by China, so it gets confusing separating the two countries.

But such a pattern today in Canada is first cousin to the Germans in the 1930s who sat quietly at the dining table, and while worrying that though the new Hitler fellow wasn’t the best for the country, they hoped someone else would object. 

In recent years, this culture of politeness has started to feel less like a virtue and more like a problem. 

By allowing the loudest, squeakiest wheels to drive the political agenda, we’re slowly undermining the common-sense values that once defined us, letting fringe voices dominate conversations while avoiding necessary debate.

This is damaging our culture.  And culture underpins us as a nation, not leadership; we are no hotel, despite Trudeau’s foolish yammerings. We are Canadian, and that means something. 

In today’s political and social climate, it often feels like the loudest voices dominate every debate while the majority stays quiet to avoid confrontation. This isn’t unique to Canada, but in a country where politeness and deference are deeply ingrained, it’s a bigger problem. Canadians tend to avoid direct conflict, which means that the people who shout the loudest often end up steering the conversation. This has been particularly visible in recent debates over Indigenous rights, environmental policy, and free speech.

A recent example comes from Bill C-16, passed in 2017, which added gender identity and expression as protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act. While the intention was to protect transgender individuals from discrimination—a noble and important goal—there was a significant amount of controversy surrounding the bill. Critics, including high-profile voices like Jordan Peterson, warned that it could criminalise free speech if people refused to use gender-neutral pronouns. Peterson’s critics were quick to label him as transphobic. Pathologizing something you dislike is another cheap tool designed to end debate; both my parents died from cancer, and I know the difference between a disease and an opinion. Sorry.

While many Canadians, uncomfortable with the intensity of the debate, quietly stood on the sidelines.  Clever people posted ad hominins on twitter that Jordan Peterson was the dumb person’s smart person.  But they never made a point of their own. 

What’s telling here is how the debate was framed. Rather than engaging in a meaningful conversation about rights, language, and free speech, many were too polite to dig in or push back on either side. Those who had concerns about potential overreach were afraid of being called bigots. At the same time, supporters of the bill focused on their moral superiority rather than addressing legitimate concerns about free speech.

This isn’t to say Bill C-16 was bad legislation. On the contrary, it provided important protections. However, the fact that the loudest voices on both sides controlled the narrative while everyone else stayed quiet indicates a larger problem. The debate was stifled, and instead of finding a balanced middle ground, we got a polarised conversation, with neither side listening to the other.

Canada’s desire for consensus is often a strength, but it becomes a weakness when it means avoiding hard conversations. When we try too hard to please everyone or avoid ruffling feathers, the result is that fringe groups—those squeaky wheels—get disproportionate influence. And while we may feel like we’re being kind and accommodating, we’re allowing a vocal minority to set the national agenda.

Most people don’t know that the same people tried to get me fired at both universities where I teach. The same objection was floated at two universities, their squeaky wheel howling over the indignity of me calling out Hamas.  

But at one, the union stood strong and told them where to go, and it died right there.  On the other, the local president giggled during the suspension and later floated the idea that maybe, in fact, calling Hamas was a hate crime.

There was no morals so there could be no moral outrage; an Islamist zealot had ranted and raved in the boardroom and left the AVP shaking and trembling in the face of unknown threats, and I was alone, saying, this is absurd.

Didn’t we have free speech?

Two students out of hundreds showed more balls than all the faculty and protested, but the horse was long out of the barn.  The same Manager of Human Rights, a dangerous department witha decided Orwellian flavour saw fit to make sure the squeaky and loud Islamic accuser was able to skip the banishment, defamation and threats that I have endured.  Two far more serious Human Rights Complaints were fobbed off.

When the Hurman Rights Manager was faced with my accuser’s two human rights complaints - where in any place outside an Alice in Wonderland judicial system the accusation toward me woould have been handeld in a ten minute conversation - whe was eitheer told what to do, or she capitulated to the squeaky wheel on her own, the mob was rising. .  Unfortunately, the mob included the University VP. 

(sorry, I can’t get AI to spell)

Staff were so afraid of the VP that when I pointed out that allowing a Claimant who had said they wanted me fired might not be the best person to serve as my judge, they looked at me like ET when he was first discovered. How unreasonable.  I told my neighbour the other night, and he started laughing instantly. He’s a GH grad. But he’s got a conscience, and he has some moral clarity.

Both unions saw no issue with someone being judge and prosecutor.  Just this morning, they confirmed it again. Either the unions are stupid or malicious. Option A or B. Or C - cowards.

Of course, the two supporting institutions, Provosts and the like, did their best. Officer Barbrady from South Park said, “Nothing to see here; move along, folks.” 

And I have borne the price of their Canadian politeness, though now it looks more like cowardice and absence of principle. 

My grandfather fought and was wounded in the Great War, and now we should change our national anthem to include words from Yeats's Poem, The Second Coming, where “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” 

The latter shout intifada now over our highways. They are the ones that toss rocks through the windows of Pride of Israel Synagogue while the former sit in boardrooms of universities and colleges.  But when I attended the Pride of Israel’s event against hate, it was mostly Jews. The Gentiles didn’t want to get involved. 

Again.  

Take, for example, the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion debate. While environmentalists and some Indigenous groups opposed the project, arguing it would harm the environment and violate Indigenous rights, the oil and gas sector and many working-class Canadians supported it, citing job creation and economic growth. Instead of having an open, nuanced discussion that acknowledged the importance of balancing economic needs with environmental protection, the conversation was dominated by extremes on both sides. The loudest environmentalists argued for an immediate halt to the project, while the loudest proponents framed opposition as anti-Canadian. The moderate majority—those who might believe in environmental stewardship while recognizing the need for resource development—was effectively drowned out.

As journalist Andrew Coyne noted in a column for the National Post, the biggest failure here wasn’t the policy itself but the fact that meaningful debate was sidelined by those who shout the loudest. 

As Coyne is prone to do, he said it perfectly.  We are passive-aggressive as a country, but there is no therapy, and the aggressive are winning.  The polite middle stayed quiet to avoid the backlash from engaging with polarising topics in today’s hyper-sensitive climate.

We are a nation of bold men and women who fought in two wars and broke the virgin soil, as my grandfather did. We are the nation of Terry Fox, a man who suffered; we gave him money and cheered him from afar but have not imitated his heart. 

One of the biggest dangers of allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to dominate is that it distorts reality. This isn’t just about politics—it’s happening in culture, too. Think about how cancellation culture has evolved in Canada.

Holding people accountable for harmful actions has merit, but when accountability becomes public shaming or career destruction over a single misstep, it becomes destructive.

A case in point is the 2021 controversy surrounding Jessie Fleming, a University of Ottawa professor who was suspended for using a racial slur in a class discussion on hate speech. Fleming used the term in an academic context to spark a conversation about racism and the power of language. But when students complained, the university immediately suspended her, sparking a national debate about academic freedom and free speech.

Instead of allowing for a nuanced discussion about the importance of context in academic settings, the university bowed to the loudest critics. Fleming’s case illustrates how fear of backlash can lead to overcorrection, especially when institutions are more interested in optics than in addressing real issues thoughtfully.

In my case, I called a designated terrorist group Nazis. They were all I spoke of. As a fool living in a different age, I thought nothing of it, though I deleted it without re-reading it after some pampered TikTokers started their keyboard rebellion.  

But my accuser and the Vice Provost, who had, up to this time, shown herself to be a cruel abuser but not an ideologue, joined him, and most of my supporters hid in the shadows. 

Gen Z seems to believe that destroying a man’s livelihood without a word of discussion is just. Both unions, CUPE 3913 and OPSEU 562 - all but a handful of students -  saw no issue with faculty and staff accusing me of criminal acts that, if they had a scintilla of brain matter, knew were patently false.  

A Vashti Bagot, the demoness who I had taught and never had said an unkind word toward, systematically pulled students out of the atrium and told them that I was guilty of assault, a pariah and said that her boss or boss's boss was already goose step strutting around campus telling those who would listen that I would be terminated.

And she quotes Bible verses in her IG profile.  Shameless. 

And the faculty, some of them, to their shame and equally to their stupidity, repeated lies about me to their classes that would not stand for an instant in a real court.  But the university's human rights departments aren’t judicial or even close; a prominent law professor, Bruce Pardy, a wise soul, warned me of this months ago. 

In my case, how many would even write the boss saying, “This is wrong, to allow a man to be accused of assault when there is no evidence, when it is a lie, to abuse a man for free speech, it is wrong” - none to my knowledge, a few mutterings of support behind closed doors. 

So Canadian, and that’s not good. 

By letting these loud, fringe voices dictate policy and cultural standards, we’re stifling debate and undermining free expression. The result is a culture where people are afraid to say what they think, ask hard questions, or engage in productive disagreement. An old friend said, “Watch what you say on social media” -

I disagree I said - we shouldn’t live as slaves to our free speech overlords; we are more than them, but if we do nothing to stop them, we lack courage and are silent. 

When we let the loudest voices take over, it creates a culture of fear and conformity. Instead of being a nation of thoughtful, engaged citizens, we become a country where people avoid speaking up because they’re afraid of being labelled as racist, sexist, or ignorant. 

Even with some notable exceptions, fellow church members thought that offering support for me was not warranted; it meant too much participation in civilian affairs.

Canadians often seem proud to live not to be something positive but to avoid being called negative.  Self-hatred and fear are nothing on which to build a culture.  And that is no way for a Canadian to live. 

This is already happening in Canadian universities, where professors report feeling they must self-censor in the classroom to avoid controversy. Please remember that the Nazi party was embraced early and loudly in German universities, and when Jewish profs were fired, there was mostly silence. 

The National Post recently reported that many Canadian academics feel like their careers are at risk if they engage with politically sensitive topics, even objectively or critically. This stifling of free debate and discussion is dangerous. 

Universities should be places where difficult conversations can happen—where ideas are tested, and people learn to defend their positions. But when politeness turns into self-censorship, we lose something vital. 

In my case, “Free Speech” policies abound, but no one official has ever mentioned the phrase. It is as if they believe that Human Rights, when mentioned, is a signal that free speech must meekly leave the room, or they have never read the free speech affirmation on their website. 

Canada’s culture of politeness has its merits, but when it means avoiding necessary debate or allowing the loudest voices to dominate, it’s doing us more harm than good. We need to find a way to embrace productive disagreement without resorting to extremes. We need to engage in hard conversations, even when it makes us uncomfortable.

As a nation, we must stop letting squeaky wheels dominate the narrative and find the courage to speak up, especially when we feel like a vocal minority is driving the conversation. Being polite doesn’t mean being silent—and it’s time we remembered that.

We, too, have become a feminised culture; this is not the clichés of preferring pastels or driving Suburus or Bugs with plastic flowers coming out of the dash. It is treating masculinity as a mark of shame.  

 “Feminised culture” is often used in a critical context to describe a society that places a higher value on traits typically associated with femininity, such as cooperation, empathy, compromise, and emotional expression, over traditionally masculine traits like competition, assertiveness, and individualism. While these traits should ideally be balanced in a healthy society, an overemphasis on feminised values can lead to a weakening of culture, especially in areas like leadership, national identity, and public discourse.

In the case of Canada, some believe the country has moved towards a more feminised culture compared to America, which is seen as still valuing more traditional masculine traits, particularly in its political and social culture. 

Canada is known for its politeness and emphasis on consensus-building, often at the cost of avoiding direct conflict. While this may help maintain a civil society, it can prevent people from addressing difficult issues head-on. This tendency to avoid conflict is often associated with a more feminised approach to problem-solving, where harmony is prioritised over assertiveness. 

While some might read this and see this as an attack on feminism, it is no such thing, feminism seeks equality between the sexes, but lately, feminism as a movement has lost its way, allowing women with penises to mount sports podiums, allowing traditional feminism, once a powerful movement focused on empowering women, fighting for equality, the vote and shattering the patriarchy, to be hijacked by the trans movement and other identity-driven causes. 

The original mission of feminism was to ensure that biological women had the same rights, opportunities, and respect as men. But today, it’s being dismantled by activists who push an agenda that often erases the very people feminism was designed to protect.

How did we get to a point where we’re told to accept biological men—who suddenly identify as women—competing against female athletes, taking spots in women’s shelters, and even getting their day as “women”? Where is the outrage when women’s rights are trampled in the name of inclusivity?

Traditional feminism is being diluted and twisted beyond recognition, bending over backwards to accommodate every identity movement, no matter how it undermines the very essence of what being a woman means.

In contrast, Americans tend to embrace debate and confrontation more openly. The U.S. has a stronger culture of free speech, where people are more willing to engage in vigorous debates and express controversial opinions. This difference can be seen in everything from politics to media and public discourse. Americans often celebrate individualism and are more comfortable advocating their beliefs aggressively.

Canada’s conflict-avoidant approach can lead to unaddressed problems festering beneath the surface. Issues like immigration, Indigenous rights, or even public health often don’t get the deep debate they need because it’s seen as impolite or too aggressive to challenge prevailing narratives. This can result in passivity and stagnation, where difficult conversations are sidestepped in favour of superficial harmony.

A more feminised culture tends to emphasise inclusivity and fairness, which are positive values, but when taken too far, they can sometimes undermine meritocracies.  

In Canada, there’s a strong emphasis on diversity and inclusivity in everything from hiring practices to university admissions. While these goals are important, some argue they have lowered standards in certain areas, where achieving representational equality becomes more important than rewarding. And then it makes the legitimate minority hires to be ostracized as undeserving when it often is utterly false.

While also grappling with diversity issues, the U.S. still values meritocracy highly, especially in fields like business, academia, and sports. The American ethos of “the best rise to the top” still holds significant sway despite efforts to promote greater diversity and equity.

.The Canadian focus on inclusivity has, at times, led to mediocrity in important sectors. For example, in academia, there is concern that identity politics is overshadowing the pursuit of intellectual excellence. In the workforce, some employers feel pressure to meet diversity quotas, which can sometimes result in hiring decisions based more on identity than competence. This can hurt innovation and productivity, as merit-based competition is often seen as less important than fair representation.

One of the most criticised aspects of Canada’s feminised culture is its lack of assertiveness on the world stage and its underfunded military.

It is not only Justin Trudeau sitting at meetings of world leaders, usually alone, like a kid at a party with no friends. 

Often pictures capture him as if he is  trying to clutch his thighs so that a dollar bill does not fall though, it is a thoroughly feminised visage. 

Canada has a long-standing reputation for being a peacekeeping nation. While this is admirable, it has also led to a lack of investment in national defence and a reluctance to assert itself internationally.

The U.S., on the other hand, maintains a strong military presence and is unapologetic about its role as a global superpower. Americans value strength and leadership, and the U.S. frequently takes a dominant position in international affairs, often stepping in where other countries, including Canada, choose to stay neutral or passive. Most of our submarines, if put in water, would sink to the bottom and stay there and we just got rid of World War II handguns as standard issue. 

Canada’s reluctance to invest in its military and assert itself globally has led to it being perceived as a secondary player on the world stage. While the U.S. is often criticised for being too aggressive, its assertiveness ensures it maintains a powerful voice in global affairs. Canada, by contrast, can sometimes come across as passive or overly reliant on other nations (particularly the U.S.) for defence and leadership. This diminishes Canada’s influence and limits its ability to shape global outcomes.

In a feminised culture, there’s often a greater emphasis on sensitivity and emotional expression, which can lead to self-censorship in the name of not offending others. Canada has increasingly seen free speech come under pressure, with culture taking root in universities, media, and public discourse. The idea of offence or harm has become a powerful tool to shut down debate, especially on controversial issues.

The U.S., despite facing similar challenges, has a stronger tradition of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. Americans are more likely to push back against censorship, even when it comes at the cost of offending others. The U.S. is still seen as a place where difficult conversations can take place, even if they are uncomfortable.

The rise of political correctness and the fear of offending others has created rampant self-censorship. Intellectuals, academics, and public figures in Canada often avoid discussing controversial topics, fearing backlash or professional consequences. This stifles free thought and makes it difficult for society to address its complex challenges. Without a robust intellectual culture that values free debate, Canada risks becoming a place where groupthink prevails and dissenting voices are silenced.

A feminised culture tends to demonise traditional masculinity, labelling traits like aggression, risk-taking, and independence as harmful or toxic. This can be seen in how Canadian society has embraced ideas like “toxic masculinity,” often painting masculine traits as inherently problematic. Look at this Gillette commercial. 

The U.S. still has regions and subcultures where traditional masculinity is celebrated, particularly in areas like sports, military service, and entrepreneurship. American culture tends to view assertiveness, self-reliance, and competitiveness as positive traits, essential to the country’s identity.

By downplaying the value of traditional masculinity, Canada risks losing traits essential for leadership, innovation, and personal responsibility. A society that overemphasises  emotional safety

and cooperation may struggle to innovate and compete globally, where risk-taking and assertiveness are often necessary. This imbalance can lead to a culture of complacency, where people are afraid to stand out or take bold actions for fear of being seen as too aggressive or disruptive.

While Canada’s feminised culture has led to a more inclusive and polite society, it has also introduced significant challenges. The overemphasis on cooperation, inclusivity, and conflict avoidance has led to a culture that shies away from difficult conversations, devalues meritocracy, and lacks national and global assertiveness. In contrast, Americans tend to value individualism, competition, and free speech more openly, which allows for more robust debates and stronger leadership.

Suppose Canada is to regain its strength and influence. In that case, it must balance the positive aspects of a feminised culture—such as empathy and cooperation—and the traditional values of assertiveness, competition, and free speech that drive progress. Without this balance, Canada risks becoming a nation prioritising politeness and harmony at the cost of innovation, leadership, and global relevance.