Two frequently-used terms in the regressive-Left’s lexicon: “cultural imperialism” and “white paternalism.” The first is a term cultural theorists like to use to refer to the forceful dissemination and forced embrace of one group’s social conventions, expectations, and expressions upon another group, with the underlying presumption that the ideology and the culture being advanced are superior. White paternalism denotes a predominantly-Caucasian power diminishing another group’s rights and freedoms with the understanding that those whites in power know better and are better equipped to determine what’s best for a group or a community (e.g. British India in the 19th Century). Furthermore, both terms usually entail a sense of responsibility to these other groups (i.e. “White-man’s burden”), again presuming their inability to do what’s right for themselves.

TL;DR What follows is an accusation claiming that the Trudeau government is guilty of both cultural imperialism and white paternalism, but also of hubris, as they are willing to spend hundreds-of-millions to transform foreign cultures and foreign laws via lobbying and advocacy to mirror a still-controversial result. By pressuring foreign governments to legislate a conclusion with transplanted premises, the Trudeau government will also be paying to undermine their judicial processes and autonomy—both of which were essential to and for Canada when it came to arriving at its current stance.  If the Trudeau government continues to play Prometheus, it should reconsider telling foreign gods how to institutionalize flame.

First-off, what apart from the numbers is the difference between the $750-million spent in 2016 on foreign maternal and child health and this promised $650-million expense? Whereas last year, the fund’s mandate was for Canada to provide “support to strengthen national and local health-care systems in line with the legal frameworks and health priorities of recipient countries themselves,” the fund is now taking a step outside of recipient-countries’ legal frameworks and financing the removal of “judicial and legal barriers to the fulfillment of sexual and reproductive health and rights.” Advocacy. No longer just helping, Canada’s now committed to political interference.

It bothered so many bleeding-hearts when CNN and the IC insinuated Russian meddling in the last American election. At the heart of the alleged motivations for preventing a treasonous war-criminal to take office was Russia’s desire to have sanctions lifted and to place a pawn in the White House. In other words, half the population both in Canada and in the US beat Twitter’s MIDI drums of war because Russia ostensibly sought to change American policy. Never mind sedition or treason. If true, it was an act of aggression! Forgive the hyperbolic point of comparison, but it begs the question: at what point ought one nation stop to respect another nation’s sovereignty? If Saudi Arabia spent millions on a propaganda campaign in Canada promoting genital mutilation or if Pakistan spent a billion lobbying for blasphemy laws, there would surely be an antipathetic response from Canadian citizens. We don’t need foreign help deciding what is best for us. Some might even deem it invasive. So what about Canada spending over half-a-billion dollars in hopes of changing foreign citizens’ (to whom the Canadian government has no explicit responsibility) minds on extremely complicated issues such as abortion? Clearly in violation of the Prime Directive.

This initiative straddles the line between aid and revolution; between assistance and assimilation. This tax-funded corporation of advocacy groups will seek to change and dictate policy abroad as per their false-benefactor’s satisfaction—to lubricate the gears of change with Canadian cash and fetal blood.

When it comes to spending tax-payer cash on foreign propaganda, will Canada buy influence in Poland and  Malta where abortions are illegal? (Something to do with their normative religiosity and absurd reverence for the so-called sanctity of life). Are Canadian-paid pundits going to tell the Maltese and the Poles just how backwards they are? If not, then why? And if only sent to places where help is wanted or needed immediately, then why not then simply provide immediate help rather than subversively chart the country’s destiny?

Lastly, in determining foreign nations’ stances, mustn’t we reflect on our own? It seems prudent to consider the terms and rules our lobbyists are promoting. A poll conducted on the 25th-anniversary of Canada’s abortion law being struck-down showed that 45% of Canadians believed that a woman can only have an abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when the law-of-the-land actually shows no term-limits, up to and including breached pseudo-citizens. What term-limits on abortion will our government’s well-paid advocates advocate for when only 35% of Canadians believe there should be no restrictions on a woman’s access to abortion? It should surprise no one when it comes out that our majority government, committed to pleasing only a handful of friends and interest groups, should choose to only reflect a minority amorality in their foreign dealings.

The Trudeau government presumes moral authority, and on the matter of how it exercises that authority under the guise of foreign aid, is moving into murky waters. But how fortunate for Asians and Africans that once again a select few blessed with light complexion will define the parameters by which they are born, reproduce, and die! How fortunate that Canada should send its own secular brand of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the globe—not with good news in hand; just cash for the corrupt, laws for the morally bankrupt, and death for the unborn.