Angry in the Great White North

The story of Abdul Karim Khader:

Nothing, I think, can better illustrate just what is wrong with our society. Here's this man who is wounded overseas fighting alongside people who have killed our citizens and those of our allies. His family has never renounced their support for terrorism. Indeed, to return to this country, he and his family had to be issued new passports - they having presumably handed their old ones off to be used by other terrorists. And you (and I) are paying for his care.

It's not about the money. If you consider everything the government spends money on, you and I are probably paying a fraction of a fraction of a cent towards it. It's the principle of the thing. I'd gladly pay hundreds of dollars to have him denied medical care.

That we are, without any real fuss being made, subsidizing the health of this self-confessed "al-Qaeda family" says a great deal about what is wrong with Western Civilization and why this war against a band of sub-human thugs has proven to be so difficult.

Here's a guy - a citizen - who was wounded overseas while fighting for our enemy and against us. He gave his passport away, probably to terrorists. But, when he needs medical care, he runs back to Canada - and we take him, with open arms. Hell, we probably even paid to bring him back to the country. No one even really kicked up a fuss about it.

We are a society crippled by emotionalism and sentimentality.

Read the whole thing. But then consider the final line I quoted.

Are we a society crippled by emotionalism and sentimentality?

I think this deserves some thought. Clearly we're not all emotional and sentimental. I doubt even most of us are emotional and sentimental. Most of us, being made aware of how our government and bureaucracy deals with the issue of the Khader family, would be emotional, yes, but the opposite of sentimental.

Most of us would be adamant about how we should be stronger and colder. But there is a world of difference between wanting something to change and actually changing something.

Keep that in mind.

So why does the Khader family remain, handing over their passports to be used by terrorists, and getting free health care to deal with the injuries suffered fighting against our allies?

Two reasons, I think.

First, a deep reservoir of emotionalism and sentimentality exists within government, but especially in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. It is vast organism entrusted with a great deal of power and responsibility over the lives of citizens. The citizens are infantilized. Like wayward children, our behaviours and choices are ignored by our indulgent parents.

But how is it that the willful blindness exhibited by our bureaucrats is tolerated? The answer to that question is the second reason.

From a column by Earl McRae in the Ottawa Sun:

J.T. Pickens, 29, single, acting coach. "So many people say he's scary, so I guess there must be something, eh? The Liberals are probably bad, but even if Harper's not scary, all of his yahoos running the country would be, right?"

Pickens says he doesn't like the Liberals, he doesn't like the Conservatives, but he's not going to vote to do something about it. Why? "Politics is all BS," snaps Pickens who says he couldn't care less about the issues, has never voted municipally, provincially, or federally.

Who do we have to blame for the way the Khaders are treated? Blame J.T. Pickens. There are plenty like him. Nearly half of Canadians don't vote. They don't care. They leave caring to the government and bureaucrats. Just like they are happy to leave just about everything else to the government.

So back to the original question. Are we a society crippled by emotionalism and sentimentality?

I don't think so. We are crippled by a combination of cynicism and laziness. We are no longer surprised by what our government does on our behalf, and we find it easier to believe than we can not effect any real change, so we don't bother trying.

How do we live with ourselves?

Fortunately, we have help. From whom? The government, of course. From Jean Chretien's farewell speech on November 13, 2003:

Canadians gave us a job to do. They gave us a mission. A solemn responsibility. They wanted their country back. They wanted it turned around. They wanted to be proud again.

We have restored an activist, progressive national government. That speaks and acts for the whole country. As only the national government can do. And we have done so in accordance with timeless Liberal principles and traditions.

My final message to you is simple. Trust Canadians. They are wise. They are generous. They care.

That is our national myth. In our wisdom and generosity, we give the government a job to do, a job only the Liberals can do. Because we care, we leave it to the government to care on our behalf. We want our pride back, so we look to an activist government to parcel that pride out to each of us, in accordance to some timeless principle.

But it is a myth. It is true that we've given the government a mission and a solemn responsibility, but not out of wisdom or generousity. We've given over to the government all this and more out of laziness, a laziness encouraged by the government itself, happy to have a content and complacent electorate.

Well, being contented is optional, as J.T. Pickens shows. As long as we're complacent.

So our government tells us we are virtuous, and while we glow contentedly about how much better we are than, well, anybody, the Khaders run the system. And when the harsh truth pierces that happy fog, that same laziness prevents us from doing anything.

O Canada, we don't actually stand on guard for thee. We're watching government-controlled TV stretched out on the couch. If something comes up, check with the appropriate government office. And if the government does something stupid, well, don't bother us. It's not like we can do anything about it.