Canada, Forty Years of Prosperity

- Interviewer- During your historic forty year tenure as Governor General of Canada there is only one personal scandal that comes to mind, the leaked nudes. I know it has been years since they were released but I was just curious how you feel they’ve impacted your legacy?

I didn’t realize they were thought of as scandalous. I had been in this position for about fifteen or so years, and there were several foreign actors, working in collaboration with a small group of domestic dissidents who were looking to destabilize the country for their own self-interests. What our intelligence concluded was that their intention was to erode the public’s trust in my leadership by attempting a character assassination.

- Interviewer- Do you think they had any significant impact on the public’s perception of you?

The pictures were at least thirty-five years old when they were leaked. Ultimately, what the public came to realize was how LGBTQIA+ people were relegated to designated spaces to escape the barriers faced in society at that time. Nudes were imbedded into queer culture, like a carte-de-visite. I found a husband so I guess it all worked out. [laughing]

- Interviewer- You don’t seem very apologetic, are you in any way…

A handful of photographs in no way called into question my ability to govern. It would have taken more than a few good youthful images to erode the public’s confidence in me.

The situation created a healthy national conversation, and resulted in greater sympathy, understanding, and de-stigmatization of the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people. For that I would never apologize.

- Interviewer- It is public knowledge that you are the first openly gay Governor General in Canadian history. How was that received initially?

I would be lying to myself if I thought that the fact that I was not partnered when I assumed the role was not influential in receiving the country’s initial acceptance.

- Interviewer- Why do you say?

However twisted this may sound, I believe that it made who I am more palatable to the public. It was though I was perceived as ‘gay in theory’.

My husband died in a car accident in my late-twenties, even before my career had taken off. It took me years to re-stabilize myself, to re-learn how to do life on my own. I never partnered again after that.

- Interviewer- Was there any reason in particular for that?

Before I knew it I found myself faithfully devoted to the governorship. It also became apparent early on that the public preferred to view me as asexual. Eventually, I became content with what life had given me, if even just for a short time.

- Interviewer- For those who might not know. What led to you becoming Governor General?

I had previously had some success as a content creator for over a decade before I was approached by the Reds about becoming the Governor General.

I was a regular on American talk shows, back when the then United States still disseminated culture globally. Fortunately, my authenticity resonated with viewers and overwhelmingly I earned the public’s trust.

Looking back on it, being appointed Governor General with my background appears to be a ludicrous decision on the part of the Reds, but I was selected for my recognizability and trustworthiness. The Reds were hoping to bolster their standing for the election that they ended up losing a year later.

- Interviewer- But it is exactly that ‘popularity’ you are referring to that also gave you a great deal of political influence, no?

Eventually it became apparent that my widespread social popularity translated to a type of social influence that at times did spill into the political realm.

- Interviewer- Previous to your appointment, the Governor General of Canada was a symbolic figurehead representing the British crown, who wielded no real authority and carried out purely ceremonial duties. But that changed with you. How do you respond to critics that say you have abused your position and compromised the apolitical nature of the role during your unprecedented forty-year tenure as the Governor General for both leading political parties?

There is something invaluable about having a consistent, apolitical head of state, like Queen Elizabeth II was for us into the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, after her reign the void she left was unable to be filled by the revolving door monarchy that proceeded her.

Having a reliable, apolitical entity, that is neither elected or promoting of their own self-interests, and who provides truth, reassurance, and stability, has been instrumental to the success of this country. It is easy to criticize in retrospect, but what cannot be argued is the fact that we have witnessed the fall of many nations during the second half of this century and we, in this country, have been fortunate enough to stave off that fate. We have seen the collapse of other previously constitutional monarchies that severed relations with the crown and descended into disastrous totalitarianism, namely Australia. A country that no one would have predicted, not ten years earlier, would find themselves in the grip of a ruthless dictatorship.

We’ve all watched in horror the devastating footage of Australian refugees fleeing to independent Tasmania and South New Zealand. Even the North New Zealand occupation by the Asian Hegemon would not have been imaginable at the beginning of this century. Now there is nothing tenable left in the region. Tasmania and ‘Free’ New Zealand are simply tributary states and enjoy little more freedom than their neighbors.

Interviewer- How do you see yourself as different than other more overt dictators around the world today?

I will entertain this question despite its blatant bias because its answer is simple. My longevity in this role is not the result of a desire for control, but rather my ability to lead. My focus was never to maintain power, it was on maintaining the sovereignty of our beloved country and ensuring prosperity for the Canadian people.

The only reason I agreed to remain Governor General when the Whites’ government offered when they won the election against the Reds was because I accepted this responsibility with a promise that I’d be staunchly apolitical. I feared deeply that my rejection would have given the appearance of compromising on that promise, so I accepted. I had no way of knowing that with the instability in America, four of the fractured Soviet states would band together to invade the North and turmoil would unfold globally.

- Interviewer- During the failed Soviet Annexation of several key Artic islands what experience did you draw on being so new to the position?

The reclamation of our North was my toughest challenge as Governor General. Thankfully, that reached a favorable conclusion over thirty years ago now. At that time, we were experiencing what we now know were precursors to the Great Unrest but diplomacy prevailed over mass military intervention. We still had strong international allies that could be called upon, not like today where we’ve seen a breakdown in international cooperation as nations are dismantled into mono-commonality states or overrun by exploitative tyrants. This fracturing has only created unnecessary hardship for people abroad. As we here in Canada can attest, there is power in unity; there is prosperity in unity. The infighting, the breakdown in diplomatic communication, the villainizing of political opponents, the demonizing and dehumanizing of groups based on their political ideology only makes it easier to justify assailing them. It is only once all is lost that it becomes evident to those involved that all have lost.

- Interviewer- Even before the attempted Soviet Annexation of the North lands you had shown yourself as someone who interfered with domestic affairs, beyond the traditional bounds of the position. The first glaring instance being your interference with provincial legislation in Quebec.

As a sexual minority, I sympathized a great deal with the plight of the religious minorities in Quebec and I involved myself because it was a blatant encroachment on the freedoms of all Quebec residents.

- Interviewer- Is this not an instance where you made a political stance?

Certainly not. I took a moral stance, not a political stance. We can directly trace the removal of these laws to greater social inclusion for people of all walks of life in Quebec. Ultimately, the culling of this legislation led to a shared sense of provincial and national identity. And it could not have come at a more crucial time.

- Interviewer- Why do you say?

Without this reaffirmed unity it is questionable that the country would have successfully remained intact to this day. The succession of Quebec would have created a severe, almost impossible challenge for the defense and governance of the Atlantic provinces. It is all but certain that they would have been engulfed by the larger more influential powers that dominated the east during the fifties.

- Interviewer- You have been rather opaque on the role you played in the 2043 ousting of Prime Minister David Burtu. Known to history as the ‘Psycho’ Prime Minister. It is believed to be significant.

I made a decision purely with the interests of the Canadian people in mind. The country had just been through the attempted Northern Annexation, a chilling attack on Canadian sovereignty, and it was apparent that globally things were drastically changing. The last thing we needed was a leader that was intent on sowing division at a time when unity meant national survival so I advocated to the Whites’ leadership for a vote of no confidence.

I’ve heard some of the many rumours surrounding this event and the idea that I threatened to withdraw my support for their government is entirely salacious, and simply not true. This was a matter of life or death for the country. I did what was required, and the truth of the matter is that we would not be here today, having this conversation, if I had not.

- Interviewer- More recently, in 2065, you alone made the decision, without consultation with Parliament, to make Alaska a Canadian protectorate. Can you explain why?

When the decision was made to make Alaska a protectorate it was done at the request of the crumbling United American forces and only when their ability to retain it was visibly compromised. Not before.

- Interviewer- But at the time you did receive criticism domestically for interfering with a foreign state.

It’s important to remember that there was a substantial amount of fear that making Alaska an official protectorate would bring retaliation from the South. There was a consensus amongst the populous that the conflict and infighting in America was America’s problem and we’d best stay out of it. But what the public failed to realize was that we would have completely lost our ability to defend our western border. Not twelve years earlier we had been invaded in the North. It would have left us completely vulnerable to a western invasion.

We have taken in millions of refugees from former America over the last twenty years, many of whom have chosen to live in the Alaskan protectorate where they exist largely autonomously. There is not a single free American today that isn’t grateful for this decision, or a Canadian that doesn’t understand why it had to be done.

- Interviewer- You have been an outspoken critic of Greenland becoming a territory. Why have you chosen to voice your opposition on this matter?

I have previously made clear, both publicly and privately, that Greenland should retain a sovereignty all its own. It was placed into our trusted care, twenty-five years ago, with the onset of the Great Unrest on the European continent, but we should not lose hope that their ongoing conflicts will not one day reach a resolution. Greenland has already been integrated, through the Northern Travel Zone, by being granted provisional usage of our currency, access to universal health care, and generous infrastructure investments. When order is restored in Europe, if made an official territory, the detangling process will not be so easily reversed. That is my only concern, but, as I have said in the past, the decision is Greenland’s to make, and Greenland’s alone.

What is most important to acknowledge is that Canada will continue to defend Greenland regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

- Interviewer- You have enjoyed extremely high approval ratings throughout your time as Governor General. The people don’t want you to go, so why leave now?

I have devoted the entirety of the last forty years of my life to this country, to its betterment, and protection. I never intended to stay as long as I have. Now, being eighty-six I have a responsibility to the people of Canada, and the protectorates of Alaska and Greenland, to ensure our continued prosperity in this uncertain world with a peaceful transition of power. Equally, I have an obligation to make the public aware of the extent of the power that this position now wields, that it did not forty years ago.

- Interviewer- I have to ask, do you know who your predecessor will be?

This position is the compromise we have made to democracy, in order to prosper during a time of unfathomable global instability. We have been tremendously fortunate. Our resolute unity has been our greatest deterrent from external threats, and what we have managed to achieve here offers unimaginable hope to those beyond our borders. However, we must not fool ourselves and take this accomplishment for granted. Our unity is not assured, and the scrupulousness of those in authority is far from guaranteed.