Whipsawed by WikiLeaks: Canadian self-doubt and smugness - Macleans.ca
 

Whipsawed by WikiLeaks: Canadian self-doubt and smugness

Why are Canadians sneered at from both angles?


 

Can we settle on the putdown of preference when it comes to right-wingers expressing their disdain for Canada?

They often resort to either of two seemingly contradictory, but equally condescending, lines about Canadians: we are insufferable in our sense of moral superiority, or we exhibit an equally tiresome inferiority complex.

Now, I’m willing to take my lumps, but do they have to come from both directions at once? Can’t you decide if my national ego is obnoxiously over-developed or pathetically under-developed?

I come to this question after being whipsawed by WikiLeaks.

First, we read of former CSIS Director Jim Judd telling his American friends about the likelihood of Canadians indulging their “speciality” for “moral outrage” over seeing video of a weeping Omar Khadr at Guantanamo.

Next, we learn that the U.S. embassy in Ottawa judged our Canadians psyche so enfeebled by “an almost inherent inferiority complex” that the mere mention of the U.S. during the 2008 election was too much for us.

Can both be true? Come to think of it, seen a certain way, maybe so.

Maybe it is possible to both experience moral outrage over a teenager being cruelly treated during a lengthy imprisonment with no recourse to anything the resembles due process and harbour feelings of unease about the practical implications of living beside a military, economic and political power ten times as populous as your own country.

So I withdraw my initial objection. For those who care to, please feel free to continue sneering at Canada from both angles. I think we can live with it.


 

Whipsawed by WikiLeaks: Canadian self-doubt and smugness

  1. We…as a nation…. have always had a Superiority Complex.

    Our politicians, however, looking for jobs….are major suck-ups.

    Disgustingly so in fact.

    • Actually it's a poor understanding of how Human emotion and psychology works to say it's one or the other. It's essentially a national narcissism that whipsaws because they're too sides of the same coin. Either the sense of "superiority" is undercut by the feelings of worthlessness. Or the inferiority complex manifests as being overly attuned to failures or shortcomings or anything that might assuage the feeling that we're less worthy. Whatever.

      You think narcissists are only people who love themselves? You can be self obsessed and self hating too.

      Some women in abusive relationships go back because they feel what from their abuser?

      Emotions are complex things…on a personal or a national level. Would that the commentary dug into them with more clear eyed truth.

      Nah, you're right. Probably better just to reduce it to a left right dialectic and be done with it.

      • I didn't mention anything about left and right….but thank you for playing.

      • Come now Denis…. I'd rather hear your thoughts on how your work increased "the level of anti-American melodrama”. Was it (gasp) your intent to "twist current events to feed longstanding negative images of the U.S." (double gasp)? Senator McCarthy would like to know…

    • Emily, you may have neither an inferiority nor a superiority complex, but you are a smug little Canadian, aren't you just.

  2. i think your exposed nerve is showing.

    also, there are plenty of canadian right-wingers, so let's not pretend that right-wingers tend to sneer at canada.

    also also, there is quite a bit of sneering by the left at (a) americans, (b) christians, and (c) right-wingers, most of it quite ludicrously removed from reality, so let's not get on our high horse about sneers.

    • Harper has been very good at sneering at Canada over the years. And sucking up to Americans.

      And yes, people sneer at Americans/christians/right-wingers….but they are all much the same thing so that only counts for one point.

      • ………….^
        ………../…
        ………/…….
        ……./………..
        …../__…..__
        ……….|….|
        ……….|….|
        ……….|….|
        ……….|….|
        ……….|….|

        exhibit a.

        • I'd reply to that if I had any idea what it means.

          Avro Arrow?

          Softwood lumber?

          asci art?

          • I wish there was a squirrely thumb button.
            =parts frustration & amusement.

            guest says, sneer at americans/right wingers/christians
            emily sneers at americans/right wingers/christians
            guest literally points this out.

          • Not what I said…but carry on with the silliness, since you're having fun.

          • I can't believe I have to explain this.
            Emily you comment, a lot, so hopefully you care, and are not some very effective turing machine, but your reading comprehension is very narrow.

            Visualize a Venn diagram. The set of Christians, the set of Americans and the set right-wingers, may overlap a small bit, but saying they are equal is wildly inaccurate and offensive.

          • Stephen Harper never sneered at Canadians – while visint the U.S,? And he continually sneeers at those of us who refuse to kiss his big-uh-ring.

    • well guest, I'm thinking from your comment that you might be a right-wing christian american. Actually, quite a number of lefties I know like americans ( just not their governments,depending on which side of centre they fall on ) are christian
      ( mostly going to a liberal-minded United church ), and sneer at right-wingers. Hello, that's what we do when it comes to politics and our beliefs. Just like you are doing to anyone that doesn't agree with you.

  3. LOL Kay…carry on

  4. Superiority "complex"?

    The United States can get back to us when it has equal rights for gays, decent gun contro, respectable health care and hasn't started an insanely stupid war for at least two presidents.

    • Thank you for providing the perfect example Mike!

    • Based on your descriptions, I hope we can never get back to you.

  5. They often resort to either of two seemingly contradictory, but equally condescending, lines about Canadians: we are insufferable in our sense of moral superiority, or we exhibit an equally tiresome inferiority complex.

    Well, the acting-out bullies are often the most insecure people in the playground…

    • And the smart-Alecky kid who gets bullied isn't much more secure (I think that would be us in this case)

  6. Having lived most of the 16 years of my adult life abroad, I wouldn't say we Canadians have an inferiority complex or a superiority complex. Canadians have a better sense of where their country stands in the world than Americans. Ask any American and they'll say the US is the best ever, with no recognition about how on any metric other than either (1) most corporate headquarters (2) largest poor-rich gap and (3) can bomb countries into the stone age, the US lags behind (gay rights, life expectancy, child mortality, education, etc.). I think those from smaller countries have just a better sense of where they stand. Canadians know we can't bend the world to our whim, but at the same time we know that there are a lot of metrics we can take a lot of pride in.

    • They elect sheriffs, attornies, attorny generals, some judges, senators! That kind of democracy is just plain crazy

      • They elect Coroners too….who don't have to be doctors. Yes, it's crazy.

          • LOL oh that's a real benefit, that is!

          • This was the other guy's ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywJ-E3vWbCY&fe

            Minyard (guy targeted by Frankenstein ad) ended up beating the challenger, McKenna (convicted tax evader).

          • LOL oh there's a great choice!

            A tax evader, and someone who sells off organs. Cheezus!

      • Well, it is plain crazy to elect judges and sheriffs! How can you possibly expect unbiased justice, when the very people doling out the justice must by virtue of the electoral process be biased one way or another.

        • You expect unbiased justice through appointment?

          Maybe we should acknowledge that bias is inherent in the system. All that is left is how those biases are to be favoured: by the voters, or by the elected officials.

          • You can at least ensure the person is qualified for the job and has references.

          • Good point, but I think our system is about as good as you can get, in that generally it has evolved away from a partisan patronage-type selection to a carefully vetted short list of fully qualified and capable individuals from which to select. At least for judges. I imagine sheriffs rise up through the ranks like anything else. And while there may be some meeting of the minds between the appointee and the person appointing them, the appointee well knows that they will (generally speaking) outlast the appointer, so likely won't let politics interfere. It isn't so much the electing of sheriffs and judges as it is the re-electing of same that is the problem, after all. Same would go with senators if we ever did that.

          • And so, what keeps you from using the very same distrust of the voters argument when it comes to, oh, say, MPs?

          • Name the qualifications for being an MP.

          • MPs are representatives of the voters. That word means something.

          • It should mean more than it seems to these days.

          • What Emily and Thwim said.

          • You do better when you speak for yourself, Jenn. For you have now established, what, exactly, through your two spokespersons? That your elected representatives don't really need any qualifications to speak of, so let's suppose it's ok for the riff-raff to vote 'em in, and that you are more than willing to surrender decision-making authority to these unqualified people selected by us numbskulls when it comes to appointments, because one certainly wouldn't want us numbskulls to have that authority ourselves.

            Maybe you'd like an independent stab at my question, Jenn? I am interested in hearing your own thoughts on this.

          • Oh dear, I do so hate to disappoint you, MYL. But those were my own thoughts–or at least a reasonable facsimile of them. Here you go.

            MPs can be of any walk of life, and the more diverse the qualifications, the better. Unlike judges, who must be competent in the law, have had no brushes with the law, be known as thoughtful, no nonsense kind of people. If we the voters want maverick yahoo weirdos to represent us (and it often seems we do) we are free to elect the maverick yahoo weirdos who stand for office. Aside from being 21 and a Canadian citizen, there are no other requirements. And one or two maverick yahoo weirdos in parliament (or city council) can sometimes be a good thing! I wouldn't want to go before one in a courtroom, though.

            As to your point about decision-making authority on judges given to these sometimes maverick yahoo weirdos, that isn't really how we do it anymore–my original point. One or two in parliament at any time, sure. Not the entire parliament (at least so far). So a panel of them, along with former judges, professors and others who know the job–yes, they are better at it than us numbskulls.

            And the fact remains that even if we end up with a judge from a partisan side of the spectrum, they aren't kowtowing to the fickle winds of public opinion as they do their job since they aren't facing re-election. Which leads at least to some consistency.

          • Thank you. I like your own answer better.

            Now: Suppose the people who might run for judge had to be deemed qualified (competent in the law, no brushes with the law, thought of highly by the Bar Association review committee). And suppose there was a handful of candidates interested in the position, and who passed that "impartial" and "non-partisan" review. Suppose, further, that these candidates would submit their CVs and their overall philosophy of the application of the law, for consideration by the voters. Would you still have so little faith in your fellow citizens that you would call it "crazy" to elect these judges?

          • No, the electing part would be fine in that case. But then there's the re-electing part, and I'd still have a problem with that. Mind you, also easily solved in that the term could be twenty or thirty years or something and there is a rule against serving more than one term. I'd quite like that, actually.

          • Whoa! Then PLEASE let's throw in citizen recall legislation. A 20-30-year term is a long time for us to suffer our democratically-elected choice if the victor turns into (or always was a latent) maverick yahoo wierdo.

            I think I'd rather go for a term that expires with the first federal election to occur after, say, five years elapsed. With re-election (subject to ongoing satisfactory clearance as for any other candidates) permitted.

          • I'll happily include the recall bit, but not the re-election part. Even if its a glimmer on the distant horizon, it changes what you do and you end up thinking more about how this will play out to the public than whether its a good decision based on the rule of law. I said a long term because I don't particularly want them thinking about getting in good with a prestigious law firm, either, for after their term expires.

          • You would keep a good judge trapped for 20-30 years without possibility of promotion? That's harsh, and a loss to society.

          • Hmmm. In the before-we-tweaked-it rules, judges could be promoted all the way to Supreme Court so you weren't stuck without promotion opportunity. I certainly don't want judges on the lower benches gunning for a run at election to the Supreme Court, because that would be sure to sway decisions.

            How about we elect judges to the lower courts as already envisioned, then appoint those who prove themselves in the job, up the ladder? It would mean electing only the more lowly judges since you'd want to have room for appointments higher-up, and we'd still be relying on the panel to pick those who'd 'proved themselves in the job' for the appointment short-list.

          • Darn. Your trust in your fellow citizens was looking so promising, too…

            :)

    • Canuck237503, some intelligent observations. Too bad you aren't allowed to be Prime Minister. I think the current, going number is a formula of 2:1/10 – i.e. for every one year abroad, you must have been back for 1 year up to a maximum of 10 years abroad.

      But they don't let me (or anyone else) into the bunker anymore so even those numbers could be dated. The guy "who makes the rules" could change his mind at any moment.

      • I subscribe to the following principle: "one should be a resident of a country for a significant amount of time before one attempts to govern it."

        But that's just me. I'm one vote out of millions. Other opinions may vary.

        • Sure. No problem. Just let us know what the rules are and who they apply to so we all know. We wouldn't want immigrants to start thinking they have any say in their own new country so it's good to stop any heightened expectations of democracy before they get too far along. Fortunately for the many Conservative MPs who have lived abroad for longer than Canuck, as usual, conservative "principles" don't apply to conservatives (at least Conservative MPs).

          • You'll notice that my principle only applies to the top job. I think this principle is defensible and universal. The direct experience of a country that comes from actually living there is vitally important for those who seek to become that country's Head of Government.

            I also think we should have more MPs who are immigrants. We should encourage immigrants to participate in Canadian politics and public life to the fullest extent possible.

          • Ah, yes. Clause 13.7(a)(iv) of the Conservative Rules on Who is Allowed to Be Prime Minister and Who is Not. How could I forget. Forgot about that one.

            Where would we be if we didn't have Conservatives to tell us what we are allowed to want and need, let alone allowed to have? Thank you Oh Great Political Masters.

            Unfortunately, even full compliance with the rules matrix – by avoiding almost all travel abroad for any reason at all – is no guarantee of being any more connected to ordinary Canadians. In fact, it is almost a guarantee you won't be.

          • Ah yes, Canada as sheep farm. The sheep mustn't be allowed to get outside of the fence for fear they will lose the true essence of what being a lamb is all about.

          • Ted, I said: "That's just me. I'm one vote out of millions. Other opinions may vary." You must have missed that part, because it seems like you're trying to turn this into a partisan debate.

            I believe it's a universally accepted principle that "one should be a resident of a country for a significant amount of time before one attempts to govern it." Why? Because the direct experience of a country that comes from actually living there is an important qualification for leading that country.

            I couldn't care less about how much time one has traveled abroad‒‒in fact, I think that international experience is a great thing for political leaders. What I do care about is how much time one has spent in the country that one intends to govern.

            If you're an immigrant who has lived in Canada for decades, then in my opinion you have sufficient Canadian experience to occupy the highest office in the land.

            If you're a 58-year old expat who has only spent six years of adult life living in Canada, maybe it's not such a great plan to move back to Canada with the intention of governing it. Your lack of Canadian experience might hamstring your prime ministerial ambitions.

          • Here we go again. CR is trying to tell us that Ignatieff is just too "foreign" to be Prime Minister. Give it a rest, CR. You are neither principled nor a critical reasoner in flaunting, once again, your small-minded prejudices.

          • Yeesh. I'm not saying that Ignatieff is "too foreign" to be PM.

            The fact that Ignatieff spent so few years living in Canada doesn't disqualify him in any way from seeking the highest office in the land. I'm just saying that it's a stroke against him in my books.

            "wellwell" is flaunting, once again, his lack of reading comprehension.

          • You were advancing a self-styled "universally accepted principle" and you singled out Ignatieff. How much plainer could you be? Give it a rest, CR.

          • If it makes you feel better, I think that in the five years since Ignatieff became a Canadian politician, the "lack of Canadian experience" criticism has become less relevant. To Ignatieff's credit, he has done yeoman's work travelling around Canada and reacquainting himself with the country he left behind.

            Also, I respect Ignatieff's principled decision to call for a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan, over the objections of some in his caucus. He's not my choice for Prime Minister, but I think he has many positive attributes.

      • Also, one cannot be Prime Minister unless being bilingual, which of course gives Quebec the advantage.

        John Crosbie could have been a great Prime Minister, as could also Danny Williams.

        Why not use interpreters, there are lots of them around?

        • Every Canadian has the option to receive a bilingual education for free.

          • Every Canadian also has the option, later in life, to obtain the skill set necessary to appeal to ALL Canadian voters. Comfort in both official languages would be a pretty obvious part of that skill set.

    • I don't know where Canuck has been living for the past 16 years but I've been living in the UK for 7 and I've never met an American who hasn't expressed crippling guilt over America's 'sins' including most notably the recent wars. Canadians on the other hand are, almost without exception, smug about their welfare system, equality rights, and most importantly the fuzzy teddy-bear image we have in the international community. We are well-liked but not respected in part because, unlike the US and its often ignored bankrolling of the UN, the IMF and aid to Africa, Canadians haven't given much to the world.

  7. From most recent World Value Survey
    % saying "not at all proud" or "not very proud" of country
    Canada: 3.3%
    USA: 8.1%
    Britain: 8.3%
    France: 12%
    Japan: 38.9%
    Germany: 27.6%
    Italy: 10%
    China: 22.6%
    Russia: 16.1%

    % saying "very proud"
    Canada: 69.9%
    USA: 65.3%
    Britain: 54%%
    France: 29.6%
    Japan: 22.2%
    Germany: 21.8%
    Italy: 42%
    China: 21.3%
    Russia: 45.8%

    Conclusion: Canada is one of the proudest countries in the world. But why answer a question empirically when idle speculation will do…

    • Which means what?

      • That Canada probably doesn't have an inferiority complex. I'm agreeing with you.

        • LOL okay, I just wanted to be sure.

      • What it probably means is that the people of some nations are more prepared
        to accept their own propaganda than the people of some other nations are.

        • Good point. I'm a Brit and i've lived briefly in Germany, and at the risk of over-generalizing, most Brits or Germans wouldn't swollow willingly half of the guff North Americans do about the unbridled, unequaled number one supremecy of their countries. On the plus side [ big plus] Canadians [ US still too i hope] are way less cynical in general,particularly about the positive role of govt – although i wonder if the tea partiers aren't fast unraveling that?

          • Well – I would say that with Germany, there comes a stigma with such a belief of supremacy.

          • I'd also point out that neither Germany nor Britain have a neighbour that influences them as much as is the case with Canada and the USA. If either of those countries had a neighbour that was bigger than them, and also used the same language, the stakes would be very different. Since the US and Canada share a common language, and various other similarities, it creates a much more bizarre rivalry. Keep in mind, throughout the entire history of Canada, the notion of being swallowed up has been a constant theme.

          • Bingo.

            The US could have us for lunch any time it pleased, and looking at their tendency to throw their weight around, I'm surprised we're still as autonomous as we are.

            Look at the US/Mexico relationship for example. Who do you think rules that dynamic?

            We're only as safe as we are because of the similarities in culture and our open willingness to please the US.

          • All good points. You certainly can't discount history when viewing a nations neurosis or world view. The fact that both countries were founded with an eye to the future rather than the past also helps to shape character.

    • Was that taken just after the Olympics?

      • No, it was taken in 2006.

  8. I'm feeling pretty superior in the knowledge that wikileaks will reveal that, compared to the U.S., Canada is capable of only inferior scandal.

  9. At the risk of further generalizing, this is the first country i've lived in where the right tends to exhibit more symtoms of an Inferiority Complex than liberal centre/left. Probably that has something to do with abnormally long periods the conservatives have been shut out of power federally.

    • I think that is only true at the level of Canadian elites. Canadian businesses, in particular, do have an inferiority complex. Of course that view is rather closely related to their economic interests – they would prefer low taxes and less regulation, so it makes sense that they will look to the US. However, the longer Harper is in power, the more you get a version of this from the left. The sorts of people who talk about how ashamed they are that their country didn't abide by Kyoto, etc. Neither of these groups reflect most Canadians (though they probably reflect the views of us on these boards).

      • Good point…eccept i've yet to come across a prominent liberal who's done the equivalent [ outside of Canada ] of Harper's welfare trash talk, or even wrote an open letter as Klein did aoligizing for our not backing the Americans over Iraq. I think you are probably right that this is mostly an elite thing.

  10. Like I said, inferior scandal…

  11. I've lived for many years in both Canada and the U.S., and what gets me is that many Canadians seem incapable of not mentioning all the negatives about the U.S. whenever Americans are discussed. Canada's usual superiorities are quickly raised – gun control, healthcare, etc – just look at the comments above, and putting down Americans as stupid and ignorant on world affairs. Not only is this annoying to constantly hear, it's not constructive to considering how Canada can improve its own shortcomings – in its own healthcare system for example. (And as a user of both healthcare systems, yes Canada, there are shortcomings).

    • I gave you a thumbs down because Canada has no shortcomings :)

      • @wellwell

        As I said: humans spend too much time focusing on the things that divide them.

        • Lobien, I was only kidding – I indicated that by adding a smiley face :)

    • Americans are benevolently ignorant of Canada,
      Canadians are malevolantly knowledgable about USA.
      Not long time ago written in the National Post

      • and why again should Americans care about us?

  12. Hmmm, inferiority complex?

    Look… if I'm sitting with a wad of hundreds three inches thick next to a mountain of a man with a tendency toward violent reactions who outweighs me by a hundred pounds while carrying a giant club, would my obvious discomfort and jumpiness be the result of an inferiority complex… or just the natural concern for self preservation?

    I mean come on.

  13. I think the fact that people are devoting so much attention to what are really some not very consequential statements shows that yes, Canada does have an inferiority complex and is overly sensitive to criticism from the US. Otherwise we'd just ignore this.

  14. Canada has a superiority complex. It's a moral superiority complex. We thing we're better than everyone else. hosertohoosier provides the numbers. Of course, there is some truth to it, in many worlds, we are better than most countries, due to democracy, a high standard of living, and other things.

    Canada also has an inferiority complex in terms of influence in the world. It's the belief that Canada has little direct impact on world affairs as it better off inserting itself as a peace-maker or negotiator for the "players", rather than trying to be a player itself. There's also some truth to that as well, cuz Canada is not a large country in terms of population.

    The moral superiority complex has been growing more quickly. We are more nationalistic than ever. The inferiority complex is also increasing, because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you believe you are inferior, the more you will take actions to cement it (like failing to maintain a powerful military).

    • North Korea has a powerful military. There are other ways to exhibit strength.

      • but s_c_f doesn't necessarily say that it is. the problem is that we exhibit NO signs of strength on the international level.

  15. lol@ powerful military….you're kidding right? I want future generations to be educated and not be corrupted by a false sense of power……We need to spend more on oversight of both our police and our military and due to recent scandals I continue to scratch my head wondering what our military or our police have to offer in terms of training anyone!!

  16. Oh boy, more of the "My country is better than yours" drama. Some Americans such as myself admire many things about other countries such as Canada. However, I do not think any country is better than any other country in the world. We are all people, and it is egotistical for anyone to think they are the best. I love America, but I would never say "Oh I am the best." Seems a bit weird you know. I really do not get into the wacky noodle doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I like how they put aside all the nationalistic propaganda to consider all humans as god's creatures.

    • actually…and this is to you JW comment….they only see us as God's creatures if we are also practicing JW's. Aside from that, we are all evil.

  17. I've lived in Canada for 14 years, and have lived in 2 other countries before that.
    My impression about the Canadian identity and how it differs from other nations' is that it's most often defined by how it is different from the American identity as opposed to just uniquely Canadian things.

    "We say aboot! and we're nicer… and we have different healthcare and we have gun control. And we put Canadian flag pins on our backpacks when we travel so they don't confuse us with Americans!"… i.e. we are different than the Americans.

    This self definition always comes down to how we aren't Americans.
    Oh, and "at least we can kick their butts in hockey!"

  18. Oh Boy! Even abroad and in Europe, we are known to be smug and hectoring. We tend to praise ourselves for our dripping goodness to the hearing of everyone else, how is that different from Americans?

  19. Relax folks. Its just the lefties from Eastern and Central Canada they are talking about. The ones who write, produce, and broadcast "Little Mosque on the Prairie", and the ones who watch it.

  20. I think a major problem with Canadian society and culture is its obsession with the United States. The US is one country (the dominant western country at the moment, but still – one country!) out of hundreds, and Canadians need to realise this. Once we do, we can just focus on being ourselves. Our identity needs to be based on who we are – not on who we are not.

  21. T-i-r-e-s-o-m-e

    Who cares what the Yanks think about anything? More American whining about the country they allegedly don't think about. Wake me when Beijing owns California.

  22. When Québec finally separates, rump Canada will really find out what a national identity crisis is.

    Don't count on the four Atlantic provinces to stay in Confederation very long once there is an independent country interposed betweem them and Ontario. ve they may end up becoming America's 51st state: Atlantica.

    • Lose a whiny, parasitic province… only to lose other whiny parastic provinces? Yeah, big national tragedy…where do I sign up??

  23. It's not that Canadians have an ibferior ity or superioity complex but what we have is inferior leaders who think they are superior to us. Leave it them to appoint and maintain Mr. Judd as head of CSIS. While they brag about their principles they allow this ludite to contravene International Laws and Conventions, The UN Declaration on Human Rights, our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms and everyday common decency. If anyone lives an "Alice in Wonderland" existance it's the politicians who think that we don't understand the gulf that exists between their meaningless rhetoric and their indifference towards their own citizens. Other than their most rabid supporters many Canadians end up voting for the least offensive of them while many of the 41 per cent who didn't vote in the last federal election didn't see any difference among them. Our biggest problem is not a democracy but a leadership deficit.

  24. An inferiority complex and moral smugness are not at all contradictory. Indeed, an insecure person hiding behind a mask of moral self-righteousness is a famous trope in fiction (see, for example, Mary in Pride and Prejudice).

    So there's no inherent contraction in saying that we Canadians are both preachy and have an inferiority complex. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but the starting point of the article makes no sense, and that makes one disinclined to take the author seriously.

  25. Amazing, an honest writer who admits readily he is far left. I congratule you, sir , for your honesty at least. Yes, it is somewhat contradictory but true. I'm not a shrink but I believe Canadians have lived so long by the world giant they cover up their inferiority complex by acting superior. There is little doubt left wing Canadians are about as sanctimonious as one can get and their jealousy of America manifests itself in many different waYS. i often ask what country left wingCanadians would rather live beside and never get an answer. Could it be they are afraid to say, Venezuela, N Korea, Cuba or some other bastion of human 'rights'. Don't say Australia, they do not agree with our left wing mentality.

  26. Still nicely said.

  27. Canada has an inferiority complex and a superiority simplex

  28. i am glad to be canadian because canada is my home, yes i live in the province of quebec, our country has improve on lots of things but we still have some work to do on our healt care, police, military and politics, i got nothing bad to say about the usa, i got lots of familly and friends who are american, i know they are trying to make their country better too. i thing as human beings, we should all help each other to make life easy for all, i know it aint easy, but i would like to start with my own country first , if that is wrong of me, that is ok, everyone has a right to their opinion

  29. @judge Roy bean – I’d say Sweden.