Letters to the editor, March 3: ‘I implore Mark Carney to have the courage to reverse his statements on Iran giving support to Donald Trump’

Open this photo in gallery:

Reaction time

Re “Carney picks a realpolitik side on Iran war” (March 2): I am so terribly disappointed with Mark Carney.

I voted for him because I believed he would be a person with principles, experience with important people in world affairs and firsthand knowledge of how to be honest and pragmatic.

I am now experiencing my first bad taste of Mr. Carney’s actions because of his support for Donald Trump’s action against Iran. I see no rational reason for bombing the country.

I am disgusted. I implore Mr. Carney to have the courage to reverse his statements on Iran giving support to Mr. Trump.

Jim Jeffs Parksville, B.C.

I can only guess that Mark Carney’s support for the attack on Iran is based on his desire to bring financial success to our country, understandable considering his background. I find it just plain wrong, for many reasons.

I will only cite one: Donald Trump did not go to U.S. Congress to ask for support for this war, nor did he seek the support of the United Nations. I believe the United States and Israel are beginning a major upset to Middle East stability, and even to safety and security in the world.

I had such high hopes for Mr. Carney when he became our Prime Minister.

Brian Skerrett Guelph/Eramosa, Ont.

While the Iranian people have suffered horrendously for decades, let us not delude ourselves, or them, that the “regime change” desired by Donald Trump will bring about meaningful democracy for the average Iranian.

It is clear to me that what he wants is a puppet government and further expansion of the American corporate empire.

Christopher Levenson Vancouver

I wish Mark Carney had thought to touch base with Jean Chrétien, who is known to be cautious in such matters, prior to cheering on the United States for another military attempt at regime change in the Middle East.

Glen Schaefer North Vancouver

Blame game

Re “Smith and Poilievre find someone to blame for their problems: immigrants” (Opinion, Feb. 28): Columnist Andrew Coyne points out that health care costs for immigrants account for a relatively small portion of Alberta’s budget and federal and provincial spending on health care. By ignoring their contributions, such as the taxes they pay, Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre paint a prejudicial picture that blames their own troubles on immigrants.

Health care delivery is a provincial responsibility. Perhaps Mr. Poilievre can explain how federal expenditures for immigrants make health care for Canadians more inaccessible.

Health coverage also protects others. Immunization and treatment of infections may well prevent higher incidence in the community, thereby reducing health system costs.

I hope Ms. Smith and Mr. Poilievre will reconsider their positions on this matter.

George Peters Regina

I lived in Zurich in the early 1970s when the same issue arose.

Enough signatures for a referendum were received to trigger a mandatory vote on a proposal to send some 300,000 foreign workers home. A noisy right-wing politician soon whipped sentiments to the boiling point and fear spread that the proposal would be sustained and become law.

Shortly before the ominous referendum day, the Swiss restaurant association came out against the proposal. They explained that tens of thousands of foreigners worked in the food and restaurant economy. If they were sent packing, thousands of restaurants would have to close. Who would wash the dishes, clean the floors, pound the schnitzels or hustle steins of beer to thirsty patrons?

The reversal in sentiment was spectacular and the proposal was defeated.

Greg Michalenko Waterloo, Ont.

High cost

Re “According to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, offensive posts can cost you $750,000″ (Feb. 25): As a trans woman and former educator, I find myself surprised to agree: The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal may have been too heavy-handed in its treatment of Barry Neufeld.

But there is another issue that was outside of the tribunal’s remit: The effect that Mr. Neufeld’s statements could ultimately have on gender-diverse students, many of whom I taught at the college level. Trustees shape policy, and any policies shaped by his expressed views could harm those children.

Mr. Neufeld has the right to be odious, but he has no business being in a position of power to affect their lives.

Jade Schiff Ottawa

In 1996, the Supreme Court decided that a human rights tribunal was correct in determining that a teacher’s off-duty antisemitic comments and writings established a “poisoned” educational environment sufficient to justify his dismissal.

In so doing, the court underscored the importance of equality in an education environment and that teachers, as the “medium” of the educational message, must be perceived as upholding that message.

Also in 1996, the Ontario Divisional Court found that a human rights tribunal erred by failing to find that a respondent contravened the Human Rights Code with respect to tenancy. He had made derogatory remarks about Asian immigrants and blamed the conditions of his apartments on them. The court concluded that he created a “poisoned” housing environment.

The struggle of transgendered people in society is already well documented. We should refrain from a harmful pile-on, get the law right and stop undermining important, specialized decision-making tribunals.

Geri Sanson Toronto

While there is plenty of room for debate about the degree to which we should impose civil liability on people for expression that has discriminatory effects, it is suggested this ruling is “crazy” and the tribunal “disreputable” for holding Barry Neufeld liable for $750,000 in damages for hate speech targeting LGBTQ people.

Would we also call “crazy” the rulings of our courts that have held defendants liable for multimillion-dollar awards for publishing defamatory words? Isn’t the harm caused by vilifying entire communities comparable to the harm caused to individual reputations by defamatory speech?

Mr. Neufeld also repeatedly violated the tribunal’s rules and disclosed confidential information during the proceedings, leading to several teachers being outed and subject to online harassment. Now that’s disreputable.

Bruce Ryder Professor emeritus, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University; Toronto

Back in the day

Re “First planes, now trains? Why Quebec’s Mirabel region is wary of high-speed rail” (Feb. 25): Land expropriation as the route to building important public works is a conundrum as old as civilization, and not likely to disappear any time soon.

The Roman Colosseum only started to be built after Emperor Vespasian drained Nero’s private lake and repurposed the land of his despised “Golden House.”

No one has title of any land in perpetuity, regardless of their station in life.

Paul Thiessen Vancouver

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