Is Kindness Killing Canada?

“It is almost instinctual in Canadian politics that we can defer the controversy for another – and hope it goes away in the meantime. We think that politeness will save us an uncomfortable conversation now – so we pass it off for future generations to deal with”, wrote Alexandra Hudson in the Globe and Mail four months ago. 

Hudson has a point, Canadians have long felt quite smug about ourselves as a nation, and we feel quite unanimous that our politeness will save us. Robin Williams once referred to Canada as a really nice apartment above the meth lab. Nice. The word nice has Stepford Wife vibes, doesn’t it? The word “nice” has its roots in the Latin word nescius, which means ignorant, unaware, literally not-knowing, as well as the old French word nice, meaning frivolous and senseless. 

When you compare Canadians as a collective to our American neighbor, I think niceness describes Canada quite accurately. Truth be told, underneath the polished veneer lies a collective asshole. Yes, I’m afraid the jig is up, world, Canadians are really a pack of smug assholes. 

In fact, we have, in the not-too-distant past, made a national pastime of mocking Americans, in our self-superior smugness. Right now many Canadians would agree with me that Justin Trudeau embodies the contempt of Canada’s personality. How could this really nice country behave with such apathy in the face of intense contempt, hate, and authoritarianism? Did we really decide that shhhh be kind would get us through the toughest struggles of our growth as a nation? 

Well, yes we did. It’s written into our nation’s constitutional DNA: Section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 mentions Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada. We made politeness a national value, nowadays we invoke politeness when we feel the discourse sliding into uncomfortable territory. 

The Latest Book from Wrong Speak Publishing, “The Sane Citizens Political Handbook” is Now Available for Purchase at Amazon and Barnes & Noble!!

Polite refers to conveying an impression of smoothness and refinement, it refers to managing uncomfortable responses to situations in the process of discourse. It derives from the Latin word politus, a participle of the verb polire, to polish. Polishing something means buffing and smoothing repeatedly, it means applying force to cultivate a particular appearance. I remember being a wee girl and watching my Baba polish his shoes every weekend. He had strong black polish and a stiff brush and he applied repeated force to make his shoes shiny and polished. 

What if Canadian politeness resembles Baba polishing his shoes? What if building a nation through a profound technological revolution requires more than polishing a weary nation and a demoralized populace with Maoist rhetoric? 

What if leading a nation like Canada demands more from its leadership than engaging in draconian legislative behavior such as invoking the Emergencies Act to stop a conservative protest without fulfilling sections 3 and 17 and paragraph 2(c) of the CS/S Act per Justice Mosley’s ruling, or the Trudeau Regime’s latest legislative punishment for Canadians, Bill C-63? 

What if Canada requires Level 5 Leadership from its federal leadership? What if we follow Hudson’s advice, and choose civility over politeness? 

This would mean choosing citizenship over polish. It would look like choosing difficult conversations over managing the narrative. The concept of Level 5 Leadership comes from management science, Jim Collins who wrote a book called Good to Great, based on a study of 1400 companies, Level 5 Leadership emerged as an empirical finding. 

“The good-to-great executives were all cut from the same cloth. It didn’t matter whether the company was consumer or industrial, in crisis or steady state, offered services or products. It didn’t matter when the transition took place or how big the company. All the good-to-great companies had Level 5 leadership at the time of transition. Furthermore, the absence of Level 5 leadership showed up as a consistent pattern in the comparison companies.” — Jim Collins

Canada desperately needs Level 5 Statesmen. We need statesmen, lawmakers, and diplomats with humility, ambition, with a desire to grow their nation and not only their personal brand, ie their ego. Level 5 Leaders choose the route of difficult conversations and humble leadership rather than narrative management, rather than polishing away the difficult truths with Lettres de Cachet style legislation such as Attorney General Arif Virani proposes. 

Lettres de Cachet dates back to imperial France when the King and his Ministers took the power for themselves to invoke certain measures against a citizen such as blocking assembly or arresting a dissident or punishing anyone who has lost favor with the royal court—even if it violated any laws or existing due process. Cachet means sealed, as in an official seal of authority placed on a letter, sealing the letter from becoming public knowledge. 

The Trudeau Regime has ruled in a fairly Lettres de Cachet manner, from the very profound Gender Identity laws to the legislation involving the heavy government subsidy of the legacy media. 

Having just watched the state funeral for Brian Mulroney, a Prime Minister whom I do not remember as my particular favorite, I find myself pining away for a leader who is like Mulroney—a man deeply committed to his family, to Canadian values, and to serving Canadians. 

Maybe it’s time that Canada faced the sinister nature embodied in this word nice and polite. Maybe Canadians need to roll up their brains and begin having difficult conversations in executing our civic duty. Remember we used to be peacekeepers, surely we can restore our own peace now, Canada?

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.