Canada, the King, and the Question We Keep Dodging


I have no issue with King Charles. I have no objection to his throne speech in Canada. What I do question, however, is what this moment says about how we see ourselves — and how we continue to define Canada not by what it is, but by what it is not.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked some years ago what the Canadian identity is, his response was: “We are not Americans.” That answer stuck with me — not because it was offensive, but because it was empty. Why are we so comfortable defining our national identity in contrast to others, instead of taking the time to articulate who we are?

Now, in 2025, as King Charles prepares to deliver the throne speech in Canada — a role traditionally reserved for the Governor General — I feel a similar discomfort. Not because of tradition, but because of the subtext. Once again, we seem to be reaching for external validation, relying on monarchy to remind the world (and perhaps ourselves) that we are not the 51st state.

But I can’t help but wonder: In seeking to prove that we’re not American, are we inadvertently showing that we’re still not entirely Canadian — at least not in a way we’re willing to define?

Canada is not lacking in substance. We have a rich Indigenous foundation, an immigrant-fueled future, and a proud tradition of peacekeeping, public service, and social responsibility. We have cultural depth, economic strength, and a political system that — while imperfect — has been a model of stability and civility in a chaotic world.

So why are we still so hesitant to plant our flag firmly in who we are?

Canada’s identity doesn’t need to rest in contrast, nor does it need to be wrapped in symbols of empire. It should live in our values, in our people, and in our future. Let’s stop defining ourselves by what we’re not — not American, not British — and start telling the world, and ourselves, exactly what we are.

It’s time we owned our identity. Not borrowed it. Not dodged it. Not outsourced it to monarchy or memory.

Canada is ready for that conversation. The only question is: are we ready to have it?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CALLING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT

Image
In Canada today, we are witnessing a growing narrative that blames the increasing population for various social problems—rising housing costs, overburdened healthcare, and crumbling infrastructure. What’s more troubling is the subtle suggestion that these issues are the fault of immigrants, without outright saying so. This narrative has roots in long-standing tactics that rile people up against newcomers while avoiding direct confrontation with the values of diversity and inclusion that Canada upholds. While this perspective may resonate with some, it distorts the reality of what many Canadians are asking for when they call for immigration reform. It is a dangerous oversimplification to conflate critiques of the immigration system with anti-immigrant sentiment. The fact is, immigration has been—and continues to be—an essential driver of Canada's economic and social development. Our country’s prosperity has been significantly shaped by the talents, labor, and innovation that immigra...
Read more

Safe Consumption Sites and The War on Drugs: A Misguided Battle or Necessary Evil?

Image
  The War on Drugs, initiated in the United States and later adopted by countries like Canada, has been a costly and contentious endeavor. With billions of dollars spent, lives lost, and communities devastated, many are questioning the true efficacy and moral grounding of this war. The juxtaposition between the drug dealers’ methods during the crack epidemic and the modern approach of harm reduction strategies, such as safe consumption sites, raises significant questions about the rationale behind this prolonged conflict. During the crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, drug dealers were portrayed as ruthless criminals, solely motivated by profit. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex dynamic. These dealers were indeed motivated by profit, but this motivation led to practices that, albeit unintentionally, mirrored modern harm reduction strategies. For instance, dealers had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive. Overdoses were bad for business—dead custo...
Read more

Is the State Nurturing Irresponsibility to Justify Social Spending?

Image
 In our society, actions have consequences, and it's a fundamental principle that has long been a pillar of social order. When people take responsibility for their actions, they contribute to a more functional community. However, there is an unsettling trend in which the state seems to be actively minimizing the consequences of individuals' decisions, raising questions about the role of social spending and the motives behind it. We understand that it is part of a humane society to ensure that those who make mistakes, especially those who are vulnerable, have a safety net to fall back on. We also recognize that a society cannot thrive if it fails to provide opportunities for individuals to rehabilitate and re-enter the workforce or community life. However, the balance between compassionate support and encouraging accountability is delicate. When the balance tips too far towards removing consequences, the outcome can foster irresponsibility. One cannot help but notice the growing...
Read more