'We are Canadian': 25 years later, Joe Canadian is back with a new patriotic video
The man behind an iconic Canadian beer ad is back, 25 years later, with a new patriotic rallying cry.
But this time, it's not about selling drinks.
Jeff Douglas, from Truro, N.S., became a national sensation after starring as flannel-wearing Joe Canadian in Molson Canadian's 2000 ad "The Rant," which was a huge success for the beer company and popularized the slogan, "I am Canadian!"
On Wednesday, a new video appeared on YouTube featuring Douglas, back on stage in flannel, this time defending Canada from attacks by U.S. President Donald Trump, before launching into a similar string of boasts about his home country.
"They mistake our modesty for meekness, our kindness for consent, our nation for another star on their flag," he says into the microphone after showing photos of Trump. "And our love of a hot cheesy poutine with their love of a hot, cheesy Putin."
Titled "We are Canadian," the clip sees Douglas chest-thump about Canada with increasing intensity to applause from an invisible crowd, in front of a screen beaming bits of Canadiana, from ketchup chips to beavers to hockey players.
The video had more than 43,000 views on Douglas's YouTube page by Wednesday evening, after being up for seven hours.
Douglas, who became a staple on CBC Radio in the years since the 2000 ad — he's currently the host of Mainstreet Nova Scotia — said the video was produced by an anonymous collective of Canadian creatives and advertising professionals, all of whom donated their time and resources to get 'er done.
It comes at a time of surging patriotism, when Canadians are boycotting American goods and booing the U.S. anthem at sporting events, amid a heated trade war with the U.S. and Trump's threats of annexing Canada as the "51st state."
Douglas talked to CBC last month about the 2000 ad's recent resurgence in popularity, after it started turning up on TikTok.
He said he had fond memories of the beer ad and was glad to see it resonate with people, but that he had also learned more about the darker aspects of Canadian history in the years since, and worried about the country sliding back into "blind patriotism."
While "We are Canadian" is just as fiery and unapologetic as the ad he made in his 20s, it does briefly acknowledge a more mature outlook on national pride.
"Are we perfect? No," he yells, while the screen flashes an image of a Mohawk land defender facing off with a Canadian soldier during the 1990 Oka Crisis. "But we are not the 51st anything."
WATCH | Douglas reflects on his 2000 Molson Canadian ad:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
UK and others sanction two far-right Israeli Cabinet ministers for ‘inciting extremist violence'
They could now face asset freezes and travel bans. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the five countries said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two men 'have been inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months' and 'encouraging egregious abuses of human rights.' Advertisement 'These measures are directed at individuals who directly contribute to extremist settler violence,' said Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand. 'The measures are not directed against the state of Israel itself.' Smotrich wrote on social media that he learned of the sanctions while he was inaugurating a new West Bank settlement. 'We are determined to continue building,' he said. Advertisement Ben-Gvir, also writing on social media, said 'we overcame Pharoah, we'll overcome Starmer's Wall,' referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Israel's government condemned the announcement, which came as traditional allies of Israel escalate denouncements of Israel's actions in Gaza, from the high civilian death toll to a months-long blockade that led to famine warnings. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the sanctions decision 'outrageous.' He said he had discussed it with Netanyahu and they would meet next week to discuss Israel's response. He said that the move threatened to harden Hamas' stance in ongoing negotiations to end the war in Gaza and to cut short Israel's operation in Gaza before it achieves its goals. Benny Gantz, a centrist Israeli lawmaker and political rival to Netanyahu, wrote he 'vehemently' disagreed with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but said the move was 'profound moral mistake and sends a dangerous message to terrorists around the world.' Netanyahu is the target of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court last year over alleged war crimes in Gaza, part of a global wave of outrage at Israel's conduct during its 20-month war against Hamas. Netanyahu has denied the allegations and accused the court of being biased against Israel. The Biden administration took the rare step of sanctioning radical Israeli settlers implicated in violence in the occupied West Bank — sanctions that were lifted by President Trump. Eitay Mack, an Israeli human rights lawyer who spent years campaigning for the sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — along with violent West Bank settlers — described Tuesday's move as 'historic.' 'It means the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken,' he said. 'It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing.' Advertisement Mack added: 'It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next.' Israel captured the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want all three territories for a future state. Successive Israeli governments have promoted settlement growth and construction stretching back decades. It has exploded under Netanyahu's far-right coalition, which has settlers in key Cabinet posts. There are now well over 100 settlements across the West Bank that house more than 500,000 settlers. The settlers have Israeli citizenship, while the territory's 3 million Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, with the Palestinian Authority administering population centers. Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal, and Palestinians see them as the greatest obstacle to an eventual two-state solution, which is still seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict.
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.
Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice. The latest chapter — in which violent protesters could be helping President Donald Trump create a military confrontation he's almost begging for as a distraction from his other problems — may prove the most dangerous yet. When I see activists carrying Mexican flags as they challenge ICE raids in Los Angeles this week, I think of two possibilities: These 'protesters' are deliberately working to create visuals that will help Trump, or they are well-meaning but unwise dissenters who are inadvertently accomplishing the same goal. Democrats' mistake, over more than a decade, has been to behave as though border enforcement doesn't matter. Pressured by immigrant rights activists, party leaders too often acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong. Again and again, the short-term political interests of Democratic leaders in responding to a strong faction within the party won out over having a policy that could appeal to the country as a whole. When red-state voters and elected officials complained that their states were being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, Democrats found those protests easy to ignore. They were happening somewhere else. But when red states' governors pushed migrants toward blue-state cities over the past several years, protests from mayors and governors finally began to register. But still not enough to create coherent Democratic policies, alas. It's open season on former president Joe Biden these days, and he doesn't deserve all the retrospective criticism he's getting. But on immigration, he was anything but a profile in courage. Security advisers including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas wanted tougher border policies starting in 2021. But political advisers such as chief of staff Ron Klain, who sought amity with immigration rights progressives in Congress and the party's base, resisted strong measures. Though Biden was elected as a centrist, he leaned left — and waited until the last months of his presidency to take the strong enforcement measures recommended earlier. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump played shamelessly on public anxieties about the border. Some of his arguments, like claims that hungry migrants were eating pets, were grotesque. They were simply provocations. But Biden and Kamala Harris didn't have good answers, other than indignation. They had straddled the issue through Biden's term, talking about border security but failing to enact it, and the public knew it. Democrats finally came up with a bipartisan border bill in 2024 that would have given the president more authority to expel migrants and deny asylum claims, and more money to secure the border. Republicans, led by Trump, were shameless opportunists in opposing the bill. They didn't want Biden to have a win. In the end, Democrats didn't have the votes — or, frankly, the credibility on the issue. Biden took executive action in June 2024, limiting entry into the United States. But it was too late. He could have taken that action in 2021. Since Trump took office in January, he has been building toward this week's confrontation in the streets. ICE raids have steadily increased in cities with large migrant populations, as have nationwide quotas for arrests and deportations. Trump declared a national emergency on Inauguration Day that gave him authority to send troops to the border to 'assist' in controlling immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem seized every photo opportunity to convey a militarized approach to the coming clash. Over these months, the immigration issue has been a car crash skidding toward us in slow motion. Since his first term, Trump has clearly wanted a military confrontation with the left over immigration or racial issues. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped talk Trump out of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 to contain the unrest that followed the death of George Floyd. But this time, Trump faces no opposition. He is surrounded by yes-men and -women. The saddest part is that Democrats still have no clear policy. Some blue-state mayors and governors have pledged to provide 'sanctuary' for migrants, but they don't have good arguments to rebut Trump's claim they're interfering with the enforcement of federal law. In some cases, sanctuary has meant refusing to hand over undocumented migrants convicted of violent crimes, former DHS officials tell me. That's wrong. The courts have limited Trump's most arbitrary policies and his defiance of due process, but not his authority to enforce immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this week chose sensible ground to fight, by filing a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to override gubernatorial power by federalizing National Guard troops when there isn't a 'rebellion' or 'invasion.' There is no evidence of such extreme danger — or that local law enforcement in Los Angeles can't handle the problems. But Newsom's smart pushback doesn't get Democrats out of addressing an issue they've been ducking for more than a decade: Do they have the courage to enforce the border themselves? Over the long run, taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts, and more border-control people and facilities — and a fair, legal way of deciding who stays and who goes. But right now, it means Democratic mayors and governors using state and local police to contain protests, so that troops aren't necessary — and preventing extremists among the activists from fomenting the cataclysm in the streets that some of them seem to want as much as Trump. Yes, of course, we need new bipartisan legislation to resolve the gut issue of how to protect the 'dreamers' and other longtime residents who show every day that they want only to be good citizens. But on the way to that day of sweet reason, Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn't immoral to have a border.
