Letter to the Globe - The Historical Roots of Prejudice

This is the third of three. It was sent November 16, so at this point I have to assume they decided not to run it.

Re “Who we are and must be, as Canadians” (Editorial, Nov. 14): It’s not enough that provinces work to combat antisemitism by expanding “education about the Holocaust.” We should also all be educated about the whole history of antisemitism, from the medieval period onwards: Christians blaming Jews collectively for the death of Jesus (a Jew); Christians closing off almost all professions except moneylending to Jews, and then condemning Jews for being nothing but moneylenders; England (like Spain, Portugal, and other European countries) expelling all Jews—the list goes on and on. We should look too at the roots of anti-Muslim feeling, going back to the Crusades. The more we understand the deep historical roots of prejudice, the better equipped we are to combat it.

Letter to the Globe - Immigration

This is the second of three. This one was published, albeit in slightly edited form; here's the full version.

Re “Ottawa caps immigration target” (Nov. 2): Your article opens with a reference to “shrinking public support for immigration”—phrasing that suggests Canadians are turning against immigration per se. But that’s simply not the case; the Nanos poll referenced in the article reported that, as of this September, 53% of surveyed Canadians want Canada to accept fewer immigrants annually than the permanent resident target for 2023, which is 465,000. Our current levels of immigration—both permanent and temporary—are, as a percentage of population, the highest in the developed world. I’m not aware of any Canadians who are “turning against immigration” per se; what Canadians are turning against is a policy of continuous increase in immigration levels in a country experiencing dire housing shortages and tremendous strains on its health care system.

Letter to the Globe - Supply Management

Today I'll post three letters that I've sent in the past while to the Globe and Mail. This one was sent October 21.

Re “A bill that will curdle future trade talks” (Oct. 20): Your editorial fairly criticizes proposed legislation that would take supply management off the table in future trade negotiations. But both the Globe and those advancing the legislation ignore the situation of those at the heart of the matter—the cows and chickens who currently endure terrible suffering (under supply management, as under the American system). Canadian animal-cruelty laws either exempt farm animals entirely or prohibit only cruelty that exceeds “generally accepted practice,” when the reality is that very considerable cruelty has long been considered acceptable. If Canada replaced supply management with a set of much higher standards for the treatment of farm animals, the prices of eggs, milk, and chicken would remain high, but at least consumers would know that cruelty had been reduced. And perhaps new export markets would open up for the higher-standard Canadian animal products.