Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre outside the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday.Seth Wenig/The Associated Press
Long history
Re “The conflict in Iran is a war without interests” (March 20): Opponents of the war with Iran write as though the alternative was peace. I believe it was the steady normalization of a violent regime.
For years, Tehran advanced a menacing weapons program, armed proxy forces across the region, and brutalized its own people. Yet much Western commentary seemed to treat these as inconveniences to be managed.
Winston Churchill’s warning about choosing dishonour and getting war anyway is relevant here. Not because history repeats exactly, but because the logic is familiar: Refusing to confront a mounting threat only postpones the reckoning, usually on worse terms.
Leaders pursuing political security can leave citizens less secure. But that also applies to those who mistake delay for prudence and euphemism for wisdom.
War is tragic. But commentary that begins history only when the bombs fall is not serious.
The regime in Tehran did not merely get caught up in events. It created them.
Paul White Toronto
At stake
Re “The Supreme Court will rule on Bill 21. Canada’s future may well hang in the balance” (Opinion, March 21): “Whichever way the Supreme Court leans on Bill 21, Canada will not be the same in its aftermath.” It should have said: “Canada may not exist at all.”
There is the possibility that a majority of Supreme Court justices might overthrow Bill 21 while the three from Quebec uphold it, as previous Quebec judges have done twice. That would mean an English Canadian interpretation of the Charter being imposed on the Québécois.
In practice, the Constitution has long since ceased to protect provincial control of education, health, welfare and culture. If the Supreme Court decides that English Canada can dictate what Quebec civil servants can wear on duty, then those Québécois who wish to be “masters in their own house” will likely have no choice but to separate.
Did someone forget that a referendum has been promised by the Parti Québécois, which look poised to win the next Quebec election?
Ed Whitcomb Author, Rivals for Power: Ottawa and the Provinces – The Contentious History of the Canadian Federation; Ottawa
This is one of the most detailed and well-researched accounts I have read of the tortuous path this legislation has taken over the years.
There is no harm in allowing employees to wear religious symbols at work, and no compelling reason to enact a law that prohibits it.
On the other hand, employers have traditionally had the authority to enforce dress codes at work.
I believe Bill 21, unnecessary as it may be, does not impose an unreasonable limit on freedom of religion.
Tony Manera Ottawa
At the creation of the Constitution, many felt, as many today still do, that government should have precedence over the courts and the law, most particularly aspects of the Constitution that are not well-received. That is the essence of the Bill 21 issue, and lies at the root of the notwithstanding clause.
And it behooves all Canadians to note there is one right that the notwithstanding clause cannot take away, and this right is special: our right to vote.
So the solution, which Stephen Harper would have wanted, is political, not legal or judicial. We can vote a government out and rescind offending legislation. Counterproductive compared to working toward consensus, but at least there is a path that does not give over legitimately held – democratically held – power to the courts.
Nelson Smith Prince Edward County, Ont.
Safe and sound
Re “Six main takeaways from Pierre Poilievre’s appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast” (March 21): Something striking about listening to Pierre Poilievre’s interview with Joe Rogan is realizing how conventional he actually is. For all of his rough edges, which he is now attempting to smooth out, he’s still a traditional small-government, free-market Tory.
Mr. Poilievre quotes Adam Smith, celebrates the Magna Carta, endorses restrictions on government power and lauds our Westminster system. He’s a civic nationalist, he believes in our Charter and Constitution and he shuns bigotry.
At a time when Donald Trump spews hate almost daily and Europe is increasingly littered with ethnic nationalists and far-right bigots, it’s good to know that in Canada, our politicians are still grounded in the rule of law and our institutions.
Ethan Gentle Toronto
Deeper dive
Re “To address racism in health care, we need to collect data on race” (March 17): As an African Canadian woman, I support the collection of race-related data to deepen our understanding of the scope of disparities. These data would further inform interventions, facilitate corrective actions and promote health equity.
We can no longer deny or ignore that there are well-established, research-informed risk factors in racial differences and treatment. It’s time for us to address them intentionally and systematically.
Provinces that already collect these data need our support. I am fully aware that fear of the impact of dealing with race-related data can sometimes thwart the best of intentions.
Avis Glaze Delta, B.C.
In all observational studies, confounding factors should be considered. In this case, socioeconomic factors.
It is possible that an important method to decrease health care disparities is to reduce economic disparity. Expert advice on how and what data to collect is crucial.
Fortunately, Canada has the necessary experts in abundance.
Barry Goldlist Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Waitlist
Re “A spending review without a clear view” (Editorial, March 20): In 2022, I wrote to Library and Archives Canada requesting my father’s Second World War military records.
I was told it would take up to 4.5 years to get this information. I guess it will now take a lot longer.
Still waiting.
Brian Tascona Ottawa
Year over year
Re “Instead of tapping my grown children for tech help, I now turn to a kindly chatbot” (First Person, March 20): This cri de coeur will resonate with anyone, like me, born before 1965. That was the year in which Gordon Moore recorded what became his eponymous law, observing that the number of transistors that can fit on a microchip doubles approximately every two years.
As a result, advances in technology also seem to expand exponentially. This law, more observation and prediction than science, may no longer hold true, but I propose a corollary that almost certainly does: The number of my peers who are unable to master these burgeoning advances similarly doubles about every two years.
Your contributor is hardly alone: His technophobia is becoming pandemic.
Larry Grossman Toronto
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