Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Conveniently Ignoring History

While I am sure there are some interests within Canada who will applaud Justin Trudeau's latest effort at placating Donald Trump, I am not one of them. As history well demonstrates, policies of appeasement never work.

Trudeau's latest attempt at taming the insensate Toddler-in-Chief is to be found in his craven signing on to the United States' renewal of its demonstrably and profoundly-failed war on drugs, a war from which a Stanford University study drew the following conclusions:
By making drugs illegal, this country has:

1) Put half a million people in prison : $10 Billion a year

2) Spent billions annually for expanded law enforcement

3) Fomented violence and death (in gang turf wars, overdoses from uncontrolled drug potency & shared needles/AIDS)

4) Eroded civil rights (property can be confiscated from you BEFORE you are found guilty; search and wiretap authority has expanded.)

5) Enriched criminal organizations.
It is apparent that such facts don't seem to matter to our government if we examine what Trudeau has leapt to endorse:
The statement reiterates the primacy of international “narcotics control” efforts, with an emphasis on criminalization and the role of law enforcement. It does not contain the word “human rights”; advocates for harm reduction and against mass incarceration have been trying to inject a rights-focused approach into international drug policy.
That our naif-like prime minister chooses to embrace such a retrograde approach has resulted in some very appropriate jeering:
Canada was rebuked on Monday by a group of world leaders and experts on drug policy for endorsing a Trump-led declaration renewing the “war on drugs” and for passing up a critical moment to provide global leadership on drug regulation.

Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark said she believed that both Canada and Mexico − which also signed the declaration even though president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has repeatedly said that the “war on drugs” has failed and he will pursue new policy − likely have signed on reluctantly, held hostage by the North American free-trade agreement talks in Washington, over which a critical deadline looms.
Fortunately, some countries held on to a modicum in integrity.
... 63 did not [sign]; the dissenters include major U.S. allies such as Germany, Norway and Spain.
The expedient nature of Canada's endorsement was not lost on Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister of Britain, who sees the decision as a
diplomatic, not a policy-based decision:
“I guess there was a judgment to be made, which from my days in government I can understand, why they did it – if you’re fighting lots of battles at once, you probably decide which battles to choose,” he said.
I am sure many others would argue that antagonizing Trump yields no benefit. But then, perhaps they choose to ignore history.

Does the name Neville Chamberlin ring a bell?


  1. Neville Chamberlain gets a bad rap. The generation that fought the Great War wanted nothing to do with a repeat. They wanted to avoid it at all costs. So, he had to take the chance for peace. Unfortunately, Germany ended up with a wild man in the chancellery.


    1. Yet at least Churchill saw through to the truth, UU, however unpalatable it might have been. Trudeau, unfortunately, has more in common with Chamberlain than he does with Churchill.

  2. Until he became PM Churchill's track record was a disaster. Given the current circumstances I'll give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt on dealing with the disaster to the south of us.


    1. I guess the reason I am so ill-disposed to Trudeau, UU, is that he promised so much while campaigning, and has delivered so little.

  3. I think this is more likely a toss a free bone moment. Canada is the world olympic class leader in politicians that say one thing and do the opposite. Once a committee is set to discuss the idea it will goto standing committee which will recommend that local committees be struck to put forward ideas to a national commission to go for Fort good hope to the gulf islands to the most remote Newfoundland outport so every Canadian has a say before going back to the standing committee to create legislation. Timeline? at least ten years. Most likely the whole process will be abandoned before that and the likely chance of it ever taking place-zero.

    1. I do believe you have the federal strategy nailed down, Bill.