Prime Minister Mark Carney rises during question period on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in September.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Not welcome
Re “Media mogul Jimmy Lai found guilty in Hong Kong court” (Dec. 15): I am a former law teacher at the University of Hong Kong’s faculty of law.
One of my younger faculty colleagues is now in jail for his pro-democracy activities, and will be there for a long time. During my tenure there, he and others built up a formidable amount of public law scholarship on the ramifications of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. That is all irrelevant now.
I am a minor player among the many anti-China voices of former Hong Kongers now living in Canada. But over the last few years, this newspaper has published several of my letters critical of China.
For that reason alone, I dared not travel to Hong Kong recently to attend the memorial service for a dear friend and prominent colleague in Hong Kong legal education. There was a real chance I would have been detained.
That is what Hong Kong has become.
J. David Murphy Barrie, Ont.
Left and right
Re “Potential disaster looms over Pierre Poilievre’s leadership” (Dec. 13): The “unite the right” merging of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives has lasted 22 years and been in power once under Stephen Harper.
Party members who identify more with the progressive, but junior, partner in this union must feel increasingly uncomfortable under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre. But rather than learn from his spectacular election defeat, he’s doubled down on his abrasive style and Reform Party roots. Meanwhile, the Carney government looks more and more like a Progressive Conservative one.
There are no obvious challengers to Mr. Poilievre, so his continued leadership is highly likely. For Conservative MPs of a progressive leaning, the Liberal side of the house may look irresistible. With a majority, they would have years to go before facing voters again.
Expect to see a few more floor-crossing MPs in the new year.
Chris Smith Oakville, Ont.
Many recent letters take swings at Pierre Poilievre. If he is such a terrible leader, why did Mark Carney move to the right and adopt many of his policies?
The jury is still out as to whether Mr. Carney can actually implement what he has adopted.
Chris Tworek Calgary
Re “Can ambition triumph over stagnation in Carney’s Ottawa?” (Dec. 15): I have been a Progressive Conservative all my life, but at the moment I am a great admirer of Mark Carney and his government.
His policies are a great start, but we need every politician on board. If we could get a rail line moving to Hudson Bay, small modular reactors built and LNG Canada’s Phase 2 expansion under way, we would begin to become more independent from the United States.
Pierre Poilievre would be well advised to pivot from criticism to some co-operative encouragement. I imagine our politicians working together toward a common goal of “Canada Strong.” What a force we could become.
I see a democracy where parties work together, with every member offering ideas and constructive criticism. This would be a pivot, for sure, but with some readjustment in thinking, we could do it.
This is my dream. Can we do it? Why not give it a try?
Bonnie Carter Barrie, Ont.
Home is…
Re “Eby accuses courts of jeopardizing B.C. economy, resource projects” (Dec. 11): Am I going to lose my house? This is a fear I’ve never had before, until now.
The Cowichan land claim highlights the real-world effects of David Eby’s leadership and political agenda. He believes there is an “original colonial mistake” that needs to be fixed, and the dismantling of British Columbia seems a part of it.
Roshan Danesh and Douglas White III, both close advisors to Mr. Eby, state that “a rejection of existing structures and systems of politics, law, economics and society” are required. They believe we must “render obsolete” our own “cherished attitudes and habits” in order to install “new imperatives.”
This frightens me. Sacrificing private property rights is not leadership.
Mr. Eby should be held accountable for what I see as his political dishonesty. No one voted for this.
Matthew Brown Chilliwack, B.C.
Q&A
Re “No way out?” (Letters, Dec. 12): A letter-writer asks: “Why do drug dealers risk killing off their customers?” I think the answer is that they know there will always be more customers.
As far as I can see, there seems to be no way to stop harmful drugs coming into this country or from being manufactured in labs here, however makeshift or sophisticated. If there was no demand, there would be no or little supply.
The need for opiates, as we are told over and over, is to dull pain, physical and mental; to feel better about life, about themselves. My question is: What have we done to produce a society in which so many people are in such pain?
Heather MacAndrew Victoria
In God’s name
Re “The Trump Doctrine, and what it means for Canada” (Report on Business, Dec. 12): In the ominous document that is the U.S. National Security Strategy, you note the phrase “God-given natural rights” appearing multiple times, while “human rights” are not mentioned.
When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable,” which Benjamin Franklin amended to “self-evident,” thus removing the notion that the democracy then being invented was somehow dependent upon religion. This seminal correction has been chipped away at ever since.
In 1954, for instance, “one nation” in the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to “one nation under God.” In the present age, when the cravings of organized religion to interfere with personal freedoms have never felt stronger, nor their effects more intrusive and harmful, it is dispiriting to see the Declaration’s carefully chosen standpoint on human rights, an idea not founded on any religion, still struggling for acceptance after nearly 250 years.
Harry Duckworth Winnipeg
Front and centre
Re “The Sydney attack reminds us it is not yet safe for all people to wear their coats of many colours” (Dec. 16): After reading rabbi Dan Moskovitz express the need to put light out to the world, I moved my decorative menorah from my living room to the street-facing window in the kitchen for all to see.
While this may seem insignificant, we are reminded that being public and explicit is part of what keeps hatred exposed. Perhaps lighting a candle in the window is part of the solution to violence, ignorance and hatred in our world of darkness.
John Pentland Reverend, Hillhurst United Church; Calgary
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com