A Letter From A Reader In British Columbia: By Greg Rule.

I receive a great many "letters" concerning my editorials. Most of which are supportive. Some are critical. And many with interesting information of which I was not aware.

I receive a great many “letters” concerning my editorials. Most of which are supportive. Some are critical. And many with interesting information of which I was not aware.

Mostly, I read them all, unless they were written by lame-brains. Or if they are mini books. And some of them I publish on Galganov Dot Com. Here is one of those letters.

Because my Broadcast E-MAIL Directory is so big, it has become difficult for me to send out notices when a new editorial has been posted. Therefore; please visit the site from time to time to see what is new, and what has been recently archived.


I often stop in at your Web Site to read over the editorials and usually find your points and perspective to be interesting.

As I’m a British Columbian, most of your issues are rather distant and abstract that play no real bearing on my little world out here, but I thought that I might offer a few thoughts overall:

1) Canadian identity:

I think the inherent problem with creating a definition of “The Canadian Identity”, is that most seem to want to try and create the image that would fit across Confederation. The simple reality is that no such definition could possibly fit.

Using your example of the US, they seem unafraid of accepting that a Texan is a Texan and proud of it, that a Californian and a New Yorker are vastly different, and Alaska and Hawaii might just be somewhat different in climate.

On the other hand, the Liberals in Ottawa seem to have a mortal terror of people finding out that French is not a national language, it’s a custom practiced in parts of Central Canada, or that people from British Columbia are generally a British influenced Pacific Rim nation (Sort of an Australia with three land borders), or that Albertans are different than Central Canadians, or that a ‘bay frah da roch (best I can do in type for “A boy from the rock”) is also different.

The Americans celebrate the differences, the Central Canadian Liberals seem to want to cling to a notion of “Two Solitudes”, when the reality of the Canadian identity isn’t two founding nations, it’s now ten nations, each with their own identity.

2) The comments of the Lebanese ambassador:

I find it hard to believe that we actually have relations with some countries, Lebanon being one of them. Canada is a trading confederation, but we want and need for nothing. I think that we should be taking a global leadership role in ONLY having relations with countries and organizations that have sorted out issues and ideas like “killing civilians in ice cream shops is wrong”, and “associating with terrorists, thugs and criminals is wrong”.

Make it simple and clear: If you are a terrorist regime, a regime that supports terrorism, or that simply fails to reach the standard of normal behavior, we have no contact with them. No embassy, no trade, no aid.

3) Israel. I’m ethnic Estonian, and as such have never had a problem understanding the Israeli position: Backed to the wall and where the definition of “good neighbour state” is “not actively trying to kill you – today”.

4) Editorial on 24, January 2003 on Canada assisting the US military:

I couldn’t agree with you more: We’ve simply allowed it to slip too far and for too long. Our fathers and grandfathers were the first to fight in Europe in WW1 and WW2. We didn’t “ask” permission from any nation or international body if we may fight injustice: We kicked in the front door and smacked the Bastards in the lips.

Even if Chrétien wanted to send something to help, there is nothing left. We freely admit that our forces cannot even self-deploy effectively within the borders of Confederation, let alone outside of it.

My only point of contention in the editorial would be that Canadians do not owe the same debt as the French or Germans. This Confederation was founded to avoid being swallowed by the US policy of Manifest Destiny. So, from 1776 to 1940 (signing of the Joint Board of Defense Agreement), we protected ourselves, mainly from the US.

With the US having matured as a nation and no longer looking to add states by force, we literally have no threats to our borders.

Overall, an excellent set of editorials and good luck in the future!

Greg Wool . . . British Columbia

Recommended Non-Restrictive
Free Speech Social Media:
Share This Editorial

One Comment

Comments are closed.