True patriot love, in all thy sons command

Here is a case a bit long in the can now - this is a story broken some time ago, but it's been carrying on for a while thanks to a court case related to some threats uttered by a parent towards the principal at the heart of this storm. Catch up here and here.

Canada's national identity, and specifically the way in which we are inclusive of the traditions, practices and habits of our incredibly multicultural population, is of great interest to me. A quick perusal of the comments left by readers of these stories reveals a very bipolar set of attitudes in this country; be a Canadian or get out, or else be whatever you are and Canada will accomodate. Those arguments form the hard extremes but it's the softer, stickier middle in which we find reality, made up of all the players trying like hell to make sense of who we are in a rapidly changing world.

Canada, unlike the United States, is a country which I understand to have a rich tradition of immigration that we acknowledge. While our neighbours to the south leave out the 'u' from 'neighbour' and leave out identity other than 'American', we are more inclusive of heritage that isn't realy ours. Mine is Scottish for example - it's the answer people want when they ask you where you're from, you see. I'm not from there, but my mother is and Canada isn't really a place you can be from just yet - right?

It's cheeky, indeed. But everyone in my generation - by which I mean first generation - is complicit in this lack of identity, and it's going to change one way or another. Canada is a young country, and part of growing up is figuring out who you are - a process not lacking for drama and strife.

And so we are party to these conflicts, Mr. Millet's a prime example. What's a guy to do in a country such as this, but try to accomodate everyone? It's an approach that's found enemies in the more traditional, who value practices like the singing of the anthem as symbols. As some of our symbols have already fallen by the wayside - the Lord's Prayer was a change lamented, too - then those who find them to be crucial to our identity will fight to keep them. And it's their right to. It was also Millet's right to make a decision he felt was in the best interest of his community. It was the right of parents to level complaints at the decision, and so on, in a fashion that overall represents a healthy, mature dialogue.

No one had a right to stand up in parliament, either in ignorance or definance of fact, state that Millet had banned outright the anthem from his school. No one had a right to email and telephone Millet to issue death threats. And Bradley Howland did not have the right to walk into Millet's office and threaten to beat him senseless in the school parking lot. But all these things have happened now, and this is the price we pay for being confused as a ntion about who we are. I should say it's the price Millet has paid - his days of being a principal are, at least for the moment, done.

For the record, though I personally take issue with anyone who wants to live in this country and yet doesn't want to make themseles a part of the Canadian community, I don't feel Millet acted in a way that was not patriotic. The opposite is true, I think, because one thing that has made up the reality of this nation has been it's multiplicty of voices, and Millet was doing his best to address them all. Still, mother was right - you can't please everyone.

In some cases, the people who arrive to live here in Canada have come from wildly difficult circumstances. The rest of the world not being like Canada, I'm sure it's an attractive option to come to a place where you can be Canadian in title and remain anything else in practice. But this is a way of living in Canada that should be carefully thought on. That way of thinking will never foster the maturity of a nation - and we have difficult times ahead as we struggle with the question of where to draw the line in our 'tossed salad' population. I would never advocate the States' melting pot scenario, but their approach is not lacking for spirit, even if it is lacking perspective.

My personal opinion is that some traditions should be held up as the symbols they are - the national anthem perhaps being one of the most important. It's a song and verse that exists to be sung in unity, has lines about unity, about inclusion. In this context, it is being sung or at least heard by children, who, whether their parents are from Canada or not, are attending school in Canada, the nation furnishing their education - a right guaranteed in this nation to all children.

So no matter where you're from, even if you're not a Christian and you're not totally sure about that 'God keep our land' line, sing the damn anthem, because glorious and free is what this nation is, and you don't need to have a crucifix on your wall to wish it kept that way.

Some people living in this country have to be told 'no' once in a while. It's not a vindictive 'no', and it's not a divisive or restricting 'no'. But, no, you cannot send your kinds to public school and insist they don't sing our national anthem because your religion prohibits it. No, you cannot tell me it isn't a Christmas tree, etc. This is one of the most tolerant, accepting nations in the world, but Canada, never being able to say no, will become nothing if we can never insist that we are something. We are a nation. And if you live here, be a Canadian. We welcome you. And you in turn might welcome others by having diversity in heritage as your common ground.

I hope everyone does contemplate this from time to time. It's tough to live next to the cultural dominance of the United States, to be a Commonwealth member of the Queen's maternal United Kingdom, and to have such a multitude of voices within our own borders - and still know what we want to see when we look in the mirror.

District 9

Earlier this week I had the chance to check out G.I. Joe over at the AMC. I think Rebecca and I agreed in the end that it was fun (and funny). I got exactly what I wanted from that picture, which was mindless, geeky entertainment. Watching District 9 within days of of that other film, though ... has given me sci-fi whiplash.

District 9 is a complex, intelligent, visceral, disrtubing film. It is emotionally self-aware, historically self-aware, and does what all great sci-fi does - it tells a story connected essentially to our humannity and hinges that story on something that doesn't really exist. It's great what-if material, so in my mind it sits very nicely next to Sunshine and Eternal Sunshine as cinema that looks deeply at human beings by way of a far-fetched premise. Children of Men comes to mind also, but that film didn't move me to discomfort as much as this one did, and that's saying something.

Over at AICN, Harry Knowles has hyperbolized a bit by glazing over mention of two of the other films above to claim that District 9 is the first great sci-fi of this new millenium. I think that's hyperbole, at any rate. Any of the three above are great in my eyes, and they're all remarkably different. District 9 is without a doubt the ugliest exploration of the human heart, however.

It isn't that there are no virtues in the frame. But the characters (the human ones, anyway) of this picture are mostly vile. And mostly self-interested. Ignorant. Power-hungry. Just plain stupid. And stupidity, even, in this film is depicted as shockingly dangerous and evil. The plot here unfolded to leave me embarrassed to be a human. The aliens, who live throughout a slum outside Johanesburg in their own filth to be ruled by gang law and who eat cat food for lack of a better option, come out looking far better. It's a comparison that just doesn't sit right.

I don't want to break down plot because I found myself in the rare position of watching this film without trailers and press coverage having ruined the overall story. It's how you should watch it to.

Mention should be made of first-time feature director Neill Blomkamp and his deft control of every aspect of this film. It turns on a dime so many times that I had no idea where we would head next. The effects were flawlessly integrated, and the action was tightly accomplished without ever being confusing. Impressive for doc-style shooting.

Also, first-time actor Sharlto Copley provides the most unlikely and well-performed protagonist that I can currently think of. Never have I so HATED a character before and yet been completely willing to follow him along as the film moves forward.

Some people will probably dislike District 9, but that's alright. It really isn't for everyone. It's great, but it's sci-fi, and it's brilliant but it's unpleasant (to put it lightly) much more than seldom. If you can stomach it, though, prepare your brain and glue your eyes to the screen. It's no G.I. Joe.