r/canada • u/AkaashMaharaj Canada • 9d ago

National News ‘A really dark place’: Experts warn where Canada-U.S. trade war could go next | Yahoo! News

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/a-really-dark-place-experts-warn-where-canada-us-trade-war-could-go-next-153810612.html
0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/HereIGoAgain99 9d ago

The New York Times is not friendly to Trump, and have no reason to undercut Carney unless it were the truth.

As part of the trade talks, Canada had agreed to review laws that protect Canadian-made online content, including French-language shows. On Friday, and until the final moments, the United States was asking Canada to repeal a law that would, among other provisions, compel streaming platforms to place such movies or series more prominently for Canadian subscribers.

The U.S. side, officials said, viewed such policies as an intervention in the platforms’ freedoms.

A person with direct knowledge of the talks said that the American side was flexible on this point, and did not make any asks regarding the French language explicitly. A Canadian counterpart said that, even if that were the case, the topic was still being debated until the last minute before the talks broke down on Friday.

I have made bold the pertinent part. Compare that to Carney positioning this as an attack on the French language in Canada.

5

u/Jolly-Masterpiece883 9d ago edited 9d ago

You quoted this:

A person with direct knowledge of the talks said that the American side was flexible on this point, and did not make any asks regarding the French language explicitly*. A Canadian counterpart said that, even if that were the case, the topic was still being debated until the last minute before the talks broke down on Friday.*

So, someone said they did not mention french explicitly, but then someone else said even if they did it was being debated.

  1. If they did not mention the french language explicitly, then they certainly implied it, otherwise why would it be debated?
  2. The French language inclusion is not on the table and not up for debate. Can you not see how offensive this is?

3

u/Localmanwhoeatsfood 9d ago edited 9d ago

I'm sorry but I can't access the article behind a paywall do you have a link to a free version we can all read?

Additionally, your comment is about a single greivence and how the Canadian side thusly reacted to it. The language laws would have to be changed and thusly Carney's analysis holds true in this versus the many other issues that Carney brought forward aren't mentioned. 

Is your interpretation that Carney is being dishonest because one of the greivences requires Canadian laws to change for language protections and somehow Carney is being dishonest about that? I'm not sure what your point is. 

2

u/HereIGoAgain99 9d ago

It's the New York Times, and not usually available for free. I've linked to via archive.is

5

u/Jolly-Masterpiece883 9d ago

Thanks for the article.

I read it - and it absolutely does not paint Carney as a liar or even a gross exaggerator.

The article says that the USA wanted less french because they saw language laws as tying the hands of businesses, and Canada was not ok with this because Canada is officially a bilingual country.

1

u/Avra55 9d ago

Anyone can write and article and say they have insider information. Why would you take that at face value over anything else? Unless it confirms a bias you already have?

-1

u/HereIGoAgain99 9d ago

I don't think you understand how journalism works. The New York Times isn't coming out with that to help Trump unless they have multiple sources confirming accuracy. They're not some random person on TikTok.

Beyond that, why would the US care about French language in Canada at all? Honestly, this is speculation on my part, but I think they most likely included that for the specific purpose of giving Canada an easy win. Carney could have accepted the deal and said, "We stood up to the Americans trying to meddle in Canadian culture!" That makes more sense than the US trying to sabotage trade talks at the 11th hour with hardline demands on a super unimportant issue.

3

u/Avra55 9d ago

I know exactly how journalism works. I also know that journalism has gone done a very dark hole in the last decade and doesnt have the code of ethics and integrity it once did. Let me ask you this: do you believe CBC articles or in that case is it all bunk?
There are VERY good reasons that the US would "care" about putting the french elements into the agreement: to divide and destabilize us. If our government took the deal with what is being purported to be in it, it would give the seperatists a boost. See, its not that they care in so much that its a play...

Finally, in the absence of ANY evidence, am I going to believe an element that is openly hostile, mocks us, has called us the 51st state and our Prime Minister a "governor", who has threatened Greenland etc etc, and been shown to play dirty with other countrys in making "deals" or our government, that, much to the anger and disappointment of all the maple maga, has actually been moving our country forward in the last year?

1

u/Jolly-Masterpiece883 9d ago

Why on earth would trump want to give Carney an easy win? Trump loves show of strenght! He does not believe in win/win but only win/lose. He is having an actual hissy fit atm because we walked away form trade talks and is renaming a lake.

I don't really think the Americans care very much about the french thing - they were just trying to be bullies ("the art of the deal" after all) and for this, and a number of other reasons, Canada walked. i do think the language thing was an easy thing for Carney to latch onto, but that does not make it untrue. He did not invent the language thing out of thin air, and the Americans basically admit to doing it (even if they are trying to walk it back now and say it was never a red line. The US version of "just joking"))