Ugly Canadianism

I came across this old GayPatriot post and I was so disgusted that I had to say something.  That post quotes an article from Avocate.com from 2006 (the original source is no longer availabe).    

As a Canadian, I want to apologize. For many years, I looked down on you. I sniffed at your capital punishment, right-leaning government, and massive military. I would comfort myself with the sense that I was better than you. After all, I’m a Canadian.

But all that changed on January 23 when Canada elected a conservative government with ties to far-right organizations. Boy, was I wrong!

Our sense of superiority grew in 2000 when you elected George W. Bush. With that came talk of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and last, but certainly not least, the invasion of Iraq. In those six years, I have never felt happier or more proud to be Canadian. And I rubbed it in every chance I got: Whenever I would bump into one of you Americans at a cocktail party, it was attitude, attitude, attitude.

I’m sorry for that—I really am. There can be no more smug attitudes. No more sneering self-righteousness. No jokes about your fascist state. Welcome to the new Canada: Our prime minister, Stephen Harper, says he is opposed to same-sex marriage and is willing to appease his base by reopening the issue—meaning a potential rolling back of gay rights in our country. And he has promised to withdraw Canada’s support for the Kyoto Protocol. Worst of all, when Bush set out to invade Iraq, Harper was the only party leader in parliament to rise and say we should be alongside the United States in that unjust and immoral war.

I have several things to say about this appalling piece.  Firstly, not all us Canadians are like this.  In fact, most that I have met aren't.  However, there is a prevailing attitude that I have noticed among Canadians that Canadians are superior to Americans.  It's not usually hostile in nature, but it's disturbing nonetheless.  Secondly, this guy is clearly a piece of work.  It is quite common for a liberal to hold conservatism or centre-right politics as inferior, just because liberals are "enlightened" (or something).  There is no logical basis for this sense of superiority.  And this guy perfectly demonstrates their mindset.  He simply dismisses "capital punisment," a "right-wing government," and a "massive military" as things to look down upon.  His attitude is unsurprising given "enlightened" liberals' tendency to view those things as barbaric.  He doesn't bother do give any reason why those things are inferior.  They just are.  And this seems to be a typical tactic used by leftists.  After all, they are the smart, enlightened intellectuals, while conservatives are dumb, old-fashioned bible- and gun-clingers.  That is the universal and absolute truth.  No amount of facts or evidence can contradict that truth.

Of course, not all leftists are adhere to that view.  There are many reasonable ones, as I have acknowledged many times before.

But this guy shows how some liberals think.  Anything conservative is to be looked down upon, from the comfort of knowing you are better simply because you can feel "warm and fuzzy" about your liberal views; and that you are compassionate and espouse love and tolerance.  How ironic that your view of conservatives is based on misrepresentation, and that your lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is exactly what you purport to be opposing.  I don't know how many on the left would agree with this guy, so I can only speak to him.  But I am sick of giving liberals the benefit of the doubt.  Based on my experience alone, while there are reasonable liberals that will make an effort to tolerate conservatives, most of them won't.  In this case, it is up to the liberals to show their reasonableness.

As for his accusations of the Conservative Government's "ties to far right organizations," I have never heard anything about this.  But, I am not going to look into it because, according to this guy, the USA's Republican Party would probably be considered a "far right organization," even pre-tea party.  From what I can tell, it's just basically meaningless rhetoric attempting to dismiss conservatives by labelling them as extremists, an often used tactic.  It's the same thing with his use of "fascist," which any grade 10 social studies student should be able to tell him he is using incorrectly.  His lack of understanding of the meaning of a simple political term should discredit his whole article, but it doesn't because his obvious irrationality already does that.  

Is the Death Penalty Outdated?

That the death penalty is outdated is an absurd notion, in my opinion.  What exactly makes something outdated?  I would say that something becomes outdated when a superior alternative is available.  It bothers me when people use the term “outdated” in a sociological context because it is basically a way of saying “traditional” with a negative connotation (even though “traditional” is seemingly gaining a negative connotation of is own), while there are more accurate adjectives available.  What I am trying to say is that “outdated,” in a sociological context, is really nothing more than a buzzword designed to add a negative connotation to a traditional custom or behaviour.  Which, it seems, is basically a way of saying anything short of progressivism (or constant social change) is inherently a bad thing. 

Semantics aside, the debate over the death penalty is becoming heated in the United States with the recent execution of Troy Davis.  I am pro-death penalty.  In fact, I would prefer to see it expanded to crimes such as sexual abuse of children and drug trafficking.  To me, it seems a perfectly ethical, reasonable, and practical option.  But only if it were limited to cases with strong evidence.  My believing in its ethicality is based upon the fact that the victims should be favoured in a criminal justice system.  Murder victims die.  They were not allowed the opportunity to be incarcerated and possibly paroled.  They’re dead.  So, why should their killers be allowed the opportunity not to be dead?  In many cases, the victim was relatively innocent, whereas the killer was not.  So, basically, a system devoid of the death penalty values the life of the killer over the life of the relatively innocent victim.  To me, that does not seem ethical; it, in fact, seems downright unethical.  Hence my belief that the death penalty is ethical.  With prisons ludicrously overcrowded, the death penalty is also practical (I agree with Homer).  It wouldn’t necessarily free up a lot of space, but that is beside the point.

I believe that anyone who believes that the death penalty, or violence, is outdated or barbaric (or, in other words, they believe that humanity has reached a point where everyone can get along without resorting to violence, or something) is living in a delusional fantasy-land.