The idea that this government can announce a new program with a cost of "up to" $10 million [what precisely - I mean damned precisely - does "up to" mean in this case?] when we know that this government is truly big on announcements and truly small on results is simply another way to see how our government has squandered the national wealth of this country.
I am a Gentile but I have no hesitation in staking my position as a supporter of Israel and my fellow Canadians who are Jewish. Quite honestly, I simply do not understand - with one exception - why our worsers [definitely not our betters!] are unwilling to forcefully enforce the law and protect Jews. That one exception? Political cowardice and the fear of losing votes.
Whenever anyone in the Trudeau government says that antisemitism is “intolerable” or “unacceptable “ it’s just empty virtue signalling before they flop back to tolerating and accepting it. And typically, they sprinkle a little cash to protest groups or NGOs to shut them up, but seldom bother to vet who they fund as “antiracists” (Raef Marouf, for instance.)
Other than a minority of residual neo-Nazis that could barely fill a bus or two in all of Canada, the source of most recent anti-Semitism has been from the Islamic diaspora and aligned institutions and politicians. Whether from loyalty towards the nihilism of moral equivalence of all cultures inherent in official multiculturalism or those resigned to "demographics as destiny", the government seems to have adopted the position that open discussion of the realities of Islam and its irreconcilable differences with western liberal societies is to be feared and suppressed while their devout followers are to be selectively ignored in terms of law enforcement. This in not just a Canadian issue but mirrored in Europe and the UK where the issue is the same or worse.
I previously commented herein and I was not planning to comment further.
However ....
I was about to delete your column in my housekeeping zeal and I tumbled to something that I had simply missed earlier, your first sentence: "Governments sometimes mean well."
That got me thinking further (a very hard thing to do, I assure you, getting me thinking more than one thought on an essay.
So, "Governments sometimes mean well." I accept that many actions that governments take - or purport to take (i.e. the difference between announcing a program and actually implementing a successful program) - are well intended. Many. But I do not accept that "many" should in any way be considered "all" or "most."
My point is that I believe that a number of programs / actions / promises / announcements / whatever are INTENDED to be performative and / or simply oriented toward attempting to build popularity of the incumbent government and are not REALLY intended to result in good governance for the benefit of the populace or a segment thereof (other than the benefit of the incumbent political grouping, of course).
And, lest anyone think that I am criticizing unduly our current government, my comment can be applied to pretty much all governments of all stripes but, inevitably, some are more guilty than others.
Put differently, we don't always (seldom?) receive the government that we expect and need.
A truly wonderful analysis, Sir!
The idea that this government can announce a new program with a cost of "up to" $10 million [what precisely - I mean damned precisely - does "up to" mean in this case?] when we know that this government is truly big on announcements and truly small on results is simply another way to see how our government has squandered the national wealth of this country.
I am a Gentile but I have no hesitation in staking my position as a supporter of Israel and my fellow Canadians who are Jewish. Quite honestly, I simply do not understand - with one exception - why our worsers [definitely not our betters!] are unwilling to forcefully enforce the law and protect Jews. That one exception? Political cowardice and the fear of losing votes.
Damned despicable!
Again, a wonderful analysis, Sir!
Whenever anyone in the Trudeau government says that antisemitism is “intolerable” or “unacceptable “ it’s just empty virtue signalling before they flop back to tolerating and accepting it. And typically, they sprinkle a little cash to protest groups or NGOs to shut them up, but seldom bother to vet who they fund as “antiracists” (Raef Marouf, for instance.)
Other than a minority of residual neo-Nazis that could barely fill a bus or two in all of Canada, the source of most recent anti-Semitism has been from the Islamic diaspora and aligned institutions and politicians. Whether from loyalty towards the nihilism of moral equivalence of all cultures inherent in official multiculturalism or those resigned to "demographics as destiny", the government seems to have adopted the position that open discussion of the realities of Islam and its irreconcilable differences with western liberal societies is to be feared and suppressed while their devout followers are to be selectively ignored in terms of law enforcement. This in not just a Canadian issue but mirrored in Europe and the UK where the issue is the same or worse.
I previously commented herein and I was not planning to comment further.
However ....
I was about to delete your column in my housekeeping zeal and I tumbled to something that I had simply missed earlier, your first sentence: "Governments sometimes mean well."
That got me thinking further (a very hard thing to do, I assure you, getting me thinking more than one thought on an essay.
So, "Governments sometimes mean well." I accept that many actions that governments take - or purport to take (i.e. the difference between announcing a program and actually implementing a successful program) - are well intended. Many. But I do not accept that "many" should in any way be considered "all" or "most."
My point is that I believe that a number of programs / actions / promises / announcements / whatever are INTENDED to be performative and / or simply oriented toward attempting to build popularity of the incumbent government and are not REALLY intended to result in good governance for the benefit of the populace or a segment thereof (other than the benefit of the incumbent political grouping, of course).
And, lest anyone think that I am criticizing unduly our current government, my comment can be applied to pretty much all governments of all stripes but, inevitably, some are more guilty than others.
Put differently, we don't always (seldom?) receive the government that we expect and need.