Take Trump’s threats seriously
Re: Tumultuous times with Trump — Derek H. Burney, Feb. 19; and Trump waved a 1908 treaty as ammo in his disputes with Canada — Adrian Humphreys, Feb. 17
U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated utterings that Canada should become the 51st state should be taken seriously. We are first in the world in potash, second in uranium, third in oil, fifth in natural gas, hold 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water, have the longest coastline, an overwhelming abundance of arable land and forest acreage, and with our under-resourced military, are effectively unable to defend ourselves. But for the U.S. being next door, we would long ago been under control by Russia or China.
The priorities and styles of governments will change whether democratic or autocratic. After nine years of a government focused on vote-gathering rather than nation-strengthening, we now find ourselves adjacent to a government focused on nation building and not vote gathering. We are here because we thought that the world is a checkerboard when it is really a chessboard, and our leaders never understood that.
John P.A. Budreski, Whistler
If we look at Canada as a business entity, U.S. President Donald Trump’s interest in adding our country to America’s economic portfolio makes perfect sense. Trump is a businessmen, some would even say a vulture, but in the corporate world vultures are always on the lookout for undervalued or distressed entities.
If Canada was listed in the want ads, it would be listed as a “fixer-upper.” For the past decade, we’ve had someone with a snowboarder’s mentality running the country and the result is that our national productivity has cratered. Most of the planet — Canadian shareholders included — can’t believe how self destructive the current management team has been, and if the value of our dollar is a reflection of our corporate share price, it’s not surprising Trump is kicking the tires.
If Donald Trump can see Canada as this great untapped opportunity, why has our current leadership been so treacherous in administering our strengths? Time has long passed that we make Canada prosperous again.
Paul Baumberg, Dead Man’s Flats, Alta.
Over time, words in the English language often change their meaning. For instance, before 1938, to appease meant to satisfy a person’s hunger. After the Munich Conference at which Britain and France agreed to allow Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia in order to avoid war, it acquired dark connotations and has been a tainted word ever since. It came to mean giving in to a bully, giving a bully what he wanted in order to avoid war and in particular betraying a friend to save yourself in a dishonest fashion.
I think something similar is happening to the word trump. Among the definitions of trump in the Oxford dictionary is “to gain advantage by a surprise move.” As a result of the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump, the verb “trump” has acquired very negative connotations and now means to attack your friends without cause or warning in an unfair, dishonest effort to gain a short-term advantage. I think in the future the word trump will be used as a noun meaning a dishonest bully. In the future it may very well become a term of extreme derision to say to someone: “You are a real trump.”
Garth M. Evans, Vancouver
Saddened by Hamas’s barbarism and its U of T supporters
Re: Pro-Palestinian activists are cheering dead babies — Terry Newman, Feb. 19
I write this letter to express my deep sadness regarding the return of the dead Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023, in their genocidal pogrom. Following this attack, too many of my colleagues and too many students at the University of Toronto did not condemn this egregious attack but, obscenely, lauded it. In fact, they celebrated it as an act of resistance against an occupier, which is not only a wholly Orwellian representation of historical and contemporaneous fact in the Middle East but an egregious inversion of morality.
The acts committed were not justifiable “resistance” but acts of horrific barbarism against civilized society. And now we must watch the return back to Israel of the bodies of a baby and his toddler brother. (The body of their innocent mother was also supposed to be returned, but it turns out Hamas lied and the body was not hers.) That this was done as part of an actual ceremony performed by Hamas and with the Red Cross in cahoots demonstrates the unfathomable moral depravity of both groups.
Professors and students at the University of Toronto must know but will not admit that it is Hamas, not Israel, that is imprisoning Gazans, using them as human shields. It is Hamas that is responsible for the war that ensued and the deaths that followed.
I still shudder when I think of how some of our students shouted proudly that “We are Hamas.” How anyone, let alone supposedly educated people at a university, can support this level of barbarity is incomprehensible. Sadly, I anticipate that they will continue to spew their hatred, and perhaps we will see a crescendo in their vituperation once Israel responds to what has happened. But what country wouldn’t respond? Only Israel is expected by some students at the University of Toronto and some of their professors, to allow these attacks to go unpunished.
Dr. Howard C. Tenenbaum, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Justin Trudeau’s money train
Re: Trudeau shows his brazen disregard for taxpayers hasn’t quit yet — John Ivison, Feb. 19
Justin Trudeau has created more debt than all previous Canadian prime ministers combined. And now Trudeau, who was about to be fired (before he resigned), just gave all Canadians the finger by committing to spend $3.9 billion — that we don’t have — on a “design and development plan” for a high-speed rail line between Montreal and Toronto. That doesn’t include a nickel for the construction costs. All of which will be added to our federal debt of over $1.2 trillion. Our grandchildren have been condemned to economic slavery to pay for this.
Chris Robertson, Stony Plain, Alta.
Defining ‘progress’
Re: MAID’s decade of expansion shows how Canada’s slippery slope was actually a cliff — Yuan Yi Zhu, Feb. 18
The opinion piece on MAID by Yuan Yi Zhu was both insightful and terrifying.
Zhu noted that our Chief Justice, Richard Wagner, has publicly expressed agreement with the sentiment that the Carter decision made our Supreme Court “the most progressive in the world.”
It brought to mind the concept of “progress” and a quote attributed to C.S. Lewis: “We all want progress, but … if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
It may take decades, but surely at some point, we will look back on our treatment of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society and wonder, “What the hell were we thinking?”
Randy Andrejciw, Hamilton, Ont.
U.S. should pull out of WTO
Re: The U.S. wanted it this way, and now Trump is reneging on the deal — Terry Glavin, Feb. 19
Terry Glavin suggests that the United States should be invited to withdraw from NATO. At the present time it would be more logical for it to withdraw from the World Trade Organization.
If Donald Trump believes he has the right to impose tariffs against any country with which America has a trade deficit, he would be acting against the basic logic and rules of the WTO. It is well recognized within the first week of Economics 101 that not all countries in a trading system can have a trade surplus with all other members. Furthermore, using tariffs primarily as a means of raising revenue goes against the logic of the WTO. Developed countries with effective tax systems should rely on internal revenue.
The U.S. has the trade expertise to negotiate the dozens of regional and bilateral agreements that would be necessary if it leaves the WTO. Perhaps it would be wiser for it to take that route rather than continue to flaunt the logic of the WTO.
Bruce Couchman, Ottawa
Don’t fall for glamour
Re: Is there a Carney coronation in the offing? — Letter to the editor, Jan. 19
According to pundits and pollsters, the Liberals are set to crown Mark Carney as their new leader, so it seems appropriate to look back at their past coronation.
When Justin Trudeau was campaigning against the Conservatives’ Stephen Harper, in those heady days before green energy, identity politics and massive debt, Trudeau’s glamour was undeniable. To make an analogy, Trudeau was the kitchen with granite countertops, stainless steel appliances and a wine cellar under the kitchen island. Harper was the kitchen with a pot of homemade soup on the stove and a sink full of dishes.
Today, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is characterized by leftist pundits and strategists as a trite man with nothing but slogans. It’s convenient for them to ignore the myriad of social media posts that have captured a generation, cutting across demographics with solid explanations of the consequences of bad policies, and plans for good ones.
Ah, but the glamour of being loved by Europeans, by the Davos devotees. Carney can give Canada that feeling again, without the wagging finger. Yet Carney supports the goals of the disastrous Trudeau policies that have left Canada hanging by a thread. Are we still so uninitiated as to fall for this again?
Johanne Brownrigg, Orléans, Ont.
The forgotten women of Afghanistan
Re: 10/3 podcast: The forgotten women of Afghanistan — Ehsanullah Amiri, Feb. 13; and Ottawa urged to slash aid to Taliban-led Afghanistan in Global Affairs internal briefing — Tom Blackwell, Oct. 22
It was hard to read Ehsanullah Amiri’s article describing how most rights have been taken away from women in Afghanistan, when an article from October mentioned that Canada has provided $367 million in aid to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power three years ago.
Why are we funding a government and country that has taken away almost all rights from women? What twisted logic can support development aid or humanitarian aid when the end result is that the situation only gets worse? We wouldn’t give development aid or humanitarian aid to Russia, because of the hardships people are enduring because of the war in Ukraine. Why do we give aid to the Taliban?
Some thought should also be given to the feelings of the families of the 158 Canadian Armed Forces personnel who lost their lives in Afghanistan. I would be in favour of giving $367 million to those families rather than rewarding the Taliban with $2 million for each Canadian soldier killed. Canada broke faith with those who died when we rewarded their killers.
Christopher Brett, Gloucester, Ont.
While no country in the world has officially recognized the Taliban government because of its abysmal treatment of women, Afghanistan does trade with other countries. These include Pakistan, India, China, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, as well to a much smaller extent, some other countries. While the above may not be paragons of virtue, they do treat their female citizens with infinitely greater respect. In fact, women hold legislative and other important positions in these countries. They are not confined to their houses, deprived of an education, forbidden to be outdoors without a close male family escort, and in the latter case covered literally from head to toe, as they are in Afghanistan.
In light of the above, it would be very interesting to see a concerted effort by all countries who have any dealings with the Taliban, to have only female representatives in said dealings, especially trade.
Eli Honig, Toronto
National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (200 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email [email protected]. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.