Letters, July 13: ‘Liberals tougher on Canadian protesters than autocratic regimes’

Article content

Hypocritical Liberals

Article content

Brian Lilley’s article in Friday’s Sun (‘If Carney can avoid lecturing the Saudis — why not Trump?’) should get every reader thinking about the latest Carney virtue-signalling display over in Saudi Arabia. It was so politically mature and correct to declare that Canada will no longer judge and opine on how foreign governments treat their people, even if they are harsh in the ways they exercise control over the citizenry. Carney is moving forward with the mentality that Canada can overlook such nastiness committed by autocratic regimes, if it benefits Canada within the scope of improved commerce between our two countries. So, it makes me wonder how Carney’s Liberal government can justify continuing to go after the Freedom Convoy organizers, in a vindictive autocratic attack that has gone on over four years. Justin Trudeau said peaceful protest was a right in a free society, just before he ordered a strong clamp-down on that very protest, and invoking the Emergency Measures Act. The Supreme Court of Canada has judged that Trudeau’s action was illegal, but our federal leaders aren’t willing to accept the ruling. Nothing like spending more money just to get what they want. I have to ask what Canada gets from this continued federal attack on peaceful protesters. How does Canada benefit? Truly hypocritical.

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

Article content

Article content

KEN PELLAND

(Billions of dollars in potential trade buys a fair amount of understanding)

Carney question

Say what you want about Mark Carney, but one thing he is not is Justin Trudeau. In Saudi Arabia this week, he was asked why he did not question the kingdom’s human rights record. He pragmatically stated that “lecturing countries from afar is an ineffective strategy.” That was definitely not Trudeau’s M.O., now was it?

AL WILLEY, Edmonton

(His eyes are on the cash prizes)

Time to sit ’em

How stupid do the Blue Jays announcers really think their fans are? The idiotic line that we were fed recently is, if you produce, you will be in the starting lineup. They are obviously only referring to offence, which is unfortunate. But let’s take them at their word as the Jays have been abysmal offensively lately. From where I sit, semi-conscious in my La-Z-Boy, George Springer and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. should both be parking cars in the overflow lot.

WILLIAM EDWORTHY

(Tough to sit a guy sometimes when you’re paying him half-a-billion bucks to play ball)

Voters share the blame

While I agree with letter-writer W. Kotchon of Winnipeg (‘Left field,’ Letters to the editor, July 8), let’s not forget about the voters who elect these politicians. Some voters lack the skill of critical thinking and thoughtful analysis that allows these politicians to bamboozle them with promises of free stuff, and some politicians play on people’s fear and envy. The last election is an example of it. The Conservative obviously had the better platform, as demonstrated by Mark Carney, who routinely lifted planks from the Tory platform, but the Tories lost to fear politics.
It’s one of the reasons I oppose mandatory voting. I’d rather have a 45% voter turn-out with citizens who are involved and who have scrutinized the platforms than someone who is voting because the government has forced them to vote.

Article content

JEFFREY ANDERSON

(It seemed there was a segment of the population looking for an excuse to go running back to the Liberals)

Mayor needs to learn lesson

(Re: ‘Bell – Mayor Farkas warns Danielle Smith – don’t try to push around Calgary,’ calgarysun.com) The present mayor of Calgary needs to learn one basic fact of life, sooner than later. Don’t bite the hand that feeds your city with provincial government grants. Premier Smith holds the strings of the provincial purse and not the mayor of Calgary.

DONALD K. MUNROE, Three Hills

(The mayor is certainly not afraid to drop the gloves)

Approach pluralism carefully

Re: VUONG: Canada should retire multiculturalism for pluralism (June 30). Multiculturalism has shaped Canada’s national identity for decades, emphasizing the preservation of diverse cultural traditions within a shared civic framework. Pluralism, however, is a model that focuses less on cultural preservation and more on active engagement across differences. Multiculturalism helps immigrant communities maintain languages, traditions, and identities. It is also true that multiculturalism can unintentionally encourage siloed identities, and in many cases it has. Pluralism seems to offer a more suitable path forward, as it emphasizes interaction over preservation. However, any shift should be undertaken carefully. Pluralism may be perceived as pressuring minority groups to integrate more quickly or dilute cultural practices beyond what they are comfortable with. Another concern is that moving away from multiculturalism could weaken protections for cultural expression.

Article content

ANAS KHAN, Beaumont

(Food for thought)

24 Sussex? Just get it done

Now the ‘white noise’ has begun about the government going ahead with the renovations at 24 Sussex. In reality, this country does need an official residence for the prime minister, and this project has been put on hold for too long. Now everyone is worried about the cost and the waste, and the price tag, etc. So let’s put it in context. There are 41 million people in Canada, and with the estimates of the renovation being approximately $50 million, this project will cost every Canadian $1.22. Yes, a dollar and 22 cents. And if the cost went up to, oh, let’s say $82 million, it would cost us $2 each. So let’s get on with this project and get it done.

JOHN HOUSTON, Ottawa

(Not everyone agrees…)

24 Sussex hypocrisy

I find it ironic that so many people criticize the federal government for its ‘lavish spending,’ but then subsequently complain about a Gofundme program to refurbish 24 Sussex Drive. Why not let people who can afford to fund such a project do so, versus raising taxes across the board to refurbish it? Lower-income Canadians are struggling as it is. They don’t need their taxes to increase for something that will provide them little benefit.

MARK PATTERSON

(So long as it gets done)

Article content