A recent social media post by a high-ranking U.S. official has ignited a cross-border controversy, drawing sharp criticism from Canadians and the publisher of a beloved children's book series. The incident involves a doctored image of the iconic Canadian character Franklin the Turtle, used to promote a contentious American policy.
Cultural Icon Co-opted for U.S. Policy Debate
In early December 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Pete Hegseth released an altered image on social media platform X. The image depicted Franklin the Turtle, a character cherished by generations of Canadian children, dressed in U.S. military gear and firing a rocket launcher at small boats. The visual was part of the U.S. administration's defense of a new campaign involving lethal drone strikes against suspected drug-running vessels.
The publisher of the Franklin the Turtle book series swiftly condemned the use of the character. In a statement, they emphasized that Franklin stands for values of "kindness, empathy and inclusivity," directly opposing the violent context of the meme. The publisher's rebuke highlighted a significant cultural misstep, suggesting a lack of understanding of the symbol's importance in Canada.
In a letter to the editor published on December 7, Toronto resident Ron Charach criticized the move. He questioned the cultural literacy of officials like Hegseth, sarcastically wondering if the U.S. Defence Secretary had confused the gentle Franklin with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle. Charach's letter expressed broader concerns about the current U.S. political climate, lamenting that "Seeing the bald eagle self-destruct is enough to make a turtle blush."
Parliament Hill Modernization: A Move to Benches
Beyond the international incident, Canadian readers turned their attention to domestic affairs on Parliament Hill. A report from November 27 indicated that the restored Centre Block of the House of Commons will likely replace the traditional, assigned desks of Members of Parliament with rows of benches.
This proposed change, part of the massive renovation project, would align the Canadian Parliament's seating more closely with the system used in the British Parliament. In a published letter, Ottawa's Douglas Cornish argued that Canadian parliamentarians have been "spoiled for more than a century" with personalized desks. He contended that the shift to benches would make the Commons look less like an "elite private school" and more like a public institution, reinforcing that MPs are there to represent constituents, not enjoy club-like privileges.
Readers Voice Concerns on Spending and History
The week's letters to the editor also covered a range of other pressing issues for Canadians. One reader from Burlington, Ontario, Glynis Van Steen, reacted with an "OMG!" to columnist William Watson's November 20 revelation about federal budget allocations. Watson uncovered that $365 million was earmarked for "funding advertising for communicating to Canadians." Van Steen labeled this a "total waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars," arguing that a positive track record should be the only advertising a government needs.
Another significant thread of reader feedback focused on a National Post series examining "woke" influences in Canadian museums. In response to a November 28 column by Tristin Hopper on the Royal B.C. Museum, one reader expressed being first "appalled" and then "depressed" by how Canadian history is being presented. The reader's chief concern was that students visiting these institutions are learning a narrative where Canada is framed primarily as "a land of oppressors and the oppressed," which they see as a distortion of the nation's complex history.
These collected letters, published on December 7, 2025, showcase a snapshot of Canadian public opinion—from international diplomatic faux pas involving a childhood icon, to the practicalities of parliamentary furniture, government fiscal decisions, and ongoing national debates over how history is taught and remembered.
