How did it come to pass that Canada became fertile ground for home grown terrorism?

That nation has become a bastion of leftism and what is mistakenly referred to as liberal ideology. Canada is not a part of the allied coalition in Iraq and in fact, the previous long term Liberal government had been quite steadfast in that country's opposition to the war. Canadian public opinion, not concerned with diplomatic niceties, is notably anti American, war or no war.
So how come terror came to Canada? How is it that a country that is so anti American, found herself at risk from homegrown terror, not just once, but at least 12 times in the past few years?

The pundits will opine endlessly, but in fact, it has become clear that terror and the threat of terror has as much to do with blackmail as it does with politics. Denmark and the Scandinavian countries, some of the most accommodating and 'progressive' countries on earth, learned that lesson the hard way. France showers immigrants with cradle to grave benefits- and was not spared violence. The UK has been unusually liberal with free speech privileges, despite a plethora of 'hate speech' laws on the books. Terrorists and terrorist supporters, like common criminals, will take every opportunity and every advantage they can, to bully, threaten and intimidate governments and populations whenever they can.

Like common criminals and terrorists elsewhere, no one should really be surprised that terrorists soil their own back yards.

Still, the question has to be asked. How did terror become an acceptable form of political expression among second and even third generations of Canadians?

We believe the answer is simple: Canada has come to lack a defined sense of purpose and a defined direction. That once great nation has abandoned it's principles in favor of multicultural political correctness.

Great nations are defined by their sense of purpose. America is about freedom. This great experiment in democracy has served as a blueprint for nations in search of the same. The influence America has had on democracy is evident in all the free nations of the world. Americans may be critical at times of their governments, but they all cherish their freedom. While it is true that there are those who believe that freedom- and the vote- should only be available to those who agree with them, thankfully, they are only a fringe minority. There are still others who believe we should abandon democratic allies and instead, support terrorist and avowed racist regimes. They are an even smaller, fringe minority.

Great nations are also defined by what they stand for. Great nations will not allow political correctness or ideologies that have been watered down, to mar the principles on which they stand.

No great nation has ever sustained itself by highlighting the ideologies or nations they hate. Only small, pitiful and failure-states do that. 

That is a truth Canadians must face.

Lester Pearson, one of the great Canadian Prime Ministers- and in fact, one of the great world leaders of his time, was an opponent of the Vietnam war. Despite repeated prodding by LBJ, he refused to commit Canada to that conflict. That said, he also forged stronger ties with the US, both politically and economically and in fact, worked closely with the US and other western democracies at the UN and with world bodies elsewhere.

Nowadays, America bashing is a part of the political landscape. Recent surveys of Canadian high schoolers show many of them to believe Americans are 'evil.'

Under Pearson, the world saw and learned an important lesson. Canada could differ in opinion with the US and still maintain a close relationship with America. Canada kept her integrity and independence, despite differences. American kids weren't booed when they came to play pee wee hockey and the American national anthem was not disrespected.

Unless and until Canada redefines and reasserts it's national purpose, Canadians will remain aimless and purposeless and as such, Canada will remain fertile soil for terrorism. That purpose does not always have to mirror America's purpose, of course. That said, free nations have more in common and more shared values with other free nations, as opposed to tyrannies.

It is said that only free nations, or artists that burn inside for freedom, produce great and lasting art. Notwithstanding all the brouhaha over France, for example, in fact, that country produced great art because she was free and offered artists the freedom to explore and create. The 'great art' produced under tyranny is already being forgotten and the once underground art, produced byu artists seeking the freedom to express their visions and their interpretation of 'unapproved' art, is now being celebrated.

Canada, a country with a long history of great art, on canvas and in the literary world, is on a dangerous precipice. Nowadays, art in Canada too, is subject to political correctness. Art shows that depict one side of the Middle East tragedy are hailed. Art shows that depict the other side are banned or removed, for being 'offensive'- as if the notion of offensive art is new. Opinions are deemed dangerous, if their origin is unwanted. Other opinions, even offensive ones, are deemed acceptable if their origins are politically correct. That is why

Lack of direction and purpose impact more than just politics. Culture, society and art are all at risk- literally- and once great nations are at risk of losing their relevancy.

Anti Americanism- and for that matter, anti anything, will not in the end support a nation, culture or a cause. There cannot be 'approved' ideologies any more than there can be 'approved' art.

That is why real reformers throughout history have been the heroes. They grasp the gravity of reform and the importance of freedom. It is striking to note that Muslim reformers in Arab countries, for example, are far more critical of the Arab tyrannies in the region than the 'reformers' in the west, that serve as apologists for the regimes that oppress. Real reformers have even less of a need for the 'useful idiots' than anyone else. The tragedy of aimless, directionless and hate filled Arab regimes are proof of that. Entire populations are deprived of hopes and dreams that afford every individual the possibility of greatness. That is replaced with a state controlled, contrived 'religious' calling.

Ali Eteraz is a good example of what real reform looks like- and why his voice is a necessary one. He does not dictate what is reform- just the opposite, really. His writings and ideas are a platfrom from which to think both inside and outside the box. His thoughts aren't cold and stiff- rather, they are warm and supple. He understands he is providing the basis, the springboard for more ideas. That in fact, is what keeps him going. He presents his ideas with the enthusiasm of an excited student. He, like his readers, open themselves up to new ideas, every day. The possibilities are endless.

Canada needs to reclaim that sense of purpose, direction and possibilities, soon, before it's too late.

10 Responses to “O Canada, Art And Purpose”


  1. Your inner Jihad…

    It is hard to give people the benefit of the doubt when you have leaders like Ali Hindy kicking around:
    On a live TVO Studio 2 debate on Monday, Toronto imam Ali Hindy clearly insinuated that the entire RCMP operation was being conducted to justify the…

  2. KH Says:

    The post brings together several familiar ideological themes, but it’s not entirely clear how they’re meant to explain the Toronto plot. Opportunely, it turns out its causes somehow are connected to long-standing right-wing grievances against Canada, which SC&A airs. (Some, more ‘concerned with diplomatic niceties,’ might pick a less fraught moment to dress down the people who’ve just dodged getting blown up, but there’s also the view that if they can’t take a bit of necessary truth-telling, that’s just one more thing wrong with them.)

    To begin with, there’s anti-Americanism. Certainly a grievance, but it’s unclear how it contributed to the plot. SC&A connects it with a loss of national purpose; but the apparent idea – that Canadian enmity toward the US has left it more anomic, decadent, ripe for slaughter – isn’t very compelling as it stands. National enmities exist everywhere; why should this one rob one party of its sense of vital purpose? Or is the idea just that sin shall not be rewarded?

    The organizing idea is national purpose: ‘Canada has come to lack a defined sense of purpose & a defined direction,’ which leaves it vulnerable to terrorism. But nations are not intentional entities. They don’t think, plan, act – individuals do. This isn’t entirely a verbal point. Liberalism presupposes & seeks to protect the diversity of individual projects, & the success of liberal societies arises not primarily from some organic, collective sense of national purpose, but from each member’s freedom to pursue his own associations & concept of a meaningful life. We do, of course, share political values & cooperate in shared political projects, but we don’t subordinate our various comprehensive moral, aesthetic or religious views to any single overweening national purpose. Not news, no doubt, to SC&A, but the idea that some defect in Canadians’ national purpose leaves them ‘aimless & purposeless’ suggests that they don’t find their fundamental aims & purposes elsewhere. Like Monsieur Jourdain speaking prose, SC&A is speaking the language of integral nationalism without knowing it.

    It’s partly true & partly a reflex of the Romantic myth of the artist that they require autonomy to work. There’s the official art of 20th century totalitarianism, of course, but much great art actually was made under the rigid control by patrons, eg, the closely supervised visual propaganda of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. The politicization of art, esp. as it touches on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, sadly isn’t new, but it isn’t evidence that Canadian artists lack the inner freedom to make great art. Nor would some revivalist national movement make things any better. Nor get us any closer to figuring out how to keep from getting blown to Kingdom Come.

  3. SC&A Says:

    The anti Americanism has become an integral part of the Canadian political landscape.

    Canada for all intents and purposes, is ‘not anti American enough.’ While it is common to see the anti Iraq war stance, the anti war Afghanistan position is rarely voiced, even from within the Arab world. Critics of Mr Bush (rightly) focus on OBL still being ‘at large.’

    I disagree strongly that “But nations are not intentional entities.” I believe they are- and defined by their beliefs, philosophies and ideologies that make up a national character. Canada may pay lip service to a national identity of multiculturalism, but in fact, greater attention is paid to the Anti Americanism.

    Your reference to art of course, is fodder for never ending debate.

    In Canada, great attention is paid to aboriginal art, for example, less as a unique art form, but rather, as a national art form, a kind of grandfathered ‘multicultural art.’

    That too, is the politocization of art. That said, in the end, great art will survive any political influence- it always does.

  4. KH Says:

    Canadian national identity has always been an object of some puzzlement for outsiders. It’s maybe inevitable that they should define themselves in large part in relation to the US, but I’d say non-Americanism is much more salient than anti-Americanism. Permanent factors can’t completely explain the latter, since it fluctuates with events. When it recedes, as I suspect it will, Canadians will still be equally Canadian.

    It’s not wise to conjure more enemies than necessary, & in a world full of enmities, Canadians seem a relatively mild case. In any case, I’m not at all sure that either more or less Canadian anti-Americanism would have caused the Toronto plotters to lay down their fertilizer.

    Members of nations, like members of classes & races, have (a range of) beliefs, philosophies, & ideologies, & these characterize the nations to which they belong, but beliefs, philosophies & ideologies don’t provide identity conditions for nations. Beliefs, philosophies & ideologies are abstract objects – whatever their history, they exist outside space & time (e.g. the concept of zero) –, nations don’t. Nations comprise (certain kinds of) groups of people: no people, no nation. Nations persist through time, although their members’ beliefs, philosophies & ideologies change. National character itself, like class character & racial character, is an abstraction that doesn’t describe the range of beliefs, philosophies & ideologies that (partly) make it up. In a national convocation of the entire population of a two-person nation, there isn’t a third thinking, planning, acting entity in the room, certainly not one the actual people should subjugate themselves to, as in integral nationalism.

  5. expat Says:

    KH,

    “we do, of course, share political values and cooperate in political projects”

    You make this sound so cold and totally rational, but I believe there must also be an emotional commitment involved. There must be a we care element. The terrorists care. They are saying that they hate what you have built. They hate your independent farmers and multi-ethnic cities and all the guarantees that a citizen “can pursue his own associations and concept of a meaningful life.” You seem to be saying that it’s OK if the terrorists want to destroy that because it’s an abstraction that could change anyway over time. Maybe I misunderstand you. I hope so.

  6. SC&A Says:

    ..”but I’d say non-Americanism is much more salient than anti-Americanism.”

    Clearly, that is not in evidence. From Carolyn Parrish to even more overt and directly anti American sentiments, anti Americanism is a fact of life in Canada.

    When peewee hocley teams are booed and have refuse thrown at them, or when the national anthem is booed and the US flag cursed, that is not ‘non Americanism.’ That is clear anti Americanism.

  7. KH Says:

    I’ll construe your question to be not so much whether I’ve suggested terrorists are OK as whether the view I defend has the emotional resources necessary for self-preservation. It’s not entirely a matter of my tone; liberalism always has been viewed by skeptics as cold, overly rationalistic, cut off from the primordial realities of life. Successive critics have viewed the Anglo-American liberal democracies as aimless, weak-willed, given over to watery self-abnegating tolerance, lacking in the virile virtues. This is a poor caricature of both liberal theory & liberal society, but it’s true that we can never, without becoming something different, mobilize the kind of total emotional commitment that their enemies have. Nevertheless, shambolically, pragmatically, we have prevailed.

    Of course self-defense requires emotional commitment, just not the kind you recommend. It doesn’t require that we correlate our aims, purposes & art to nationalist criteria, nor does require that we view such ‘accomodations’ as free speech ‘privileges,’ social provision & ‘multiculturalism’ (by now a uselessly polysemic term) as a ‘mar,’ inimical to national vitality.

    Attending to aboriginal art as national art doesn’t subordinate aesthetic to political criteria any more than the (dubious) idea of national art inherently does; the only innovation is that its creators are deemed part of the nation, which of course they are, like Anglo-Canadian folk artists, the focus of similar attention.

    There are the anti-American incidents you describe, & others. But the fact that they happened isn’t evidence that, as you say, they’re ‘clearly’ more salient than more benign non-Americanism. We wouldn’t know about them if they weren’t newsworthy. Parrish wouldn’t be notorious if her behavior were commonplace. She was subjected to harsh criticism, expelled from her Caucus & no longer sits in Parliament. No doubt others share her views, but they remain controversial & are widely stigmatized.

    It’s an empirical question, but I doubt we’ll resolve it. Note at least the possibility, however, that we may become overvigilant, exaggerate offense, forget our own nationalist enmities, & come to view all mankind as our settled enemy. Such a view has its psychological & ideological satisfactions, but it’s a poor basis for policy. When we’ve come to view Canadians, of all people, as aimless, effete & defined by hatred for us, we’ve traveled a long way down that road. And again, are no closer to explaining the Toronto plotters or concerting a response.


  8. [...] A few days ago, we commented on the effects aimlessness can have on nation. We want to further that discussion, on a more intimate level. [...]

  9. haroon Says:

    What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Good job defending democratic values: Go write a whole post about how Canada has failed before a court has even reached its verdict. Not to mention that, with posts like this throughout the media, the chance for a fair trial is increasingly, if not ludicrously, slim.

    You ask for freedom and a strong defense of freedom, but your bias is so thoroughly potent and overwhelming that you take any alleged plot to be an actual plot, and malign Muslims even before they have their fair hearing. Who has lost its sense of democratic values, Canada, or a blog?


  10. [...] Our post, Oh Canada, Art And Purpose,was about the terror arrests in Toronto and the possible motivations of those charged with attempted acts of terror (including hostage taking and and the beheading of Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Haroon, author of Avari, left an interesting comment: What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Good job defending democratic values: Go write a whole post about how Canada has failed before a court has even reached its verdict. Not to mention that, with posts like this throughout the media, the chance for a fair trial is increasingly, if not ludicrously, slim. You ask for freedom and a strong defense of freedom, but your bias is so thoroughly potent and overwhelming that you take any alleged plot to be an actual plot, and malign Muslims even before they have their fair hearing. Who has lost its sense of democratic values, Canada, or a blog? [...]


Leave a Reply