More About Diffeences

In my previous post, I discussed a few of the differences with the U.S. that make Canada the country it is. I contrasted our more welcoming natures with the increasing suspicion of 'the other' in the U.S., currently reflected in that its efforts to drive foreign students from Harvard and other universities.

Canadians have often been pilloried for allegedly having a weak sense of national identity, frquently defining ourselves only as "not American". It almost implies that if our foes friends to the south ceased to exist, we would be condemned to a cultural void, having lost any basis for identity.

But what does 'not being American' really mean? I'll return to that question in a moment, but please first watch the following video about one man's experience with American healthcare.

Interesting, isn't it, that the only real criticism here is not the massive cost for a six-day hospital stay but only understanding the charges. Perhaps that is what comes from growing up in a culture where the idea of 'socialized medicine' is anathema, and that paying through the nose for medical treatment is 'the American way'.

So yes, we are not American in that we have public healthcare. Despite complaints about long wait-times for elective procedures, it is obviously far superior to the private model. But looking beneath the surface, consider what it really means. Our public system, funded by all taxpayers, represents a value system whereby we look after each other, rather than consign a person's fate to either the good fortune of having a private insurance plan, paying out of pocket, or quietly expiring from a lack of timely medical intervention.

We purposely sacrifice a little more take-home pay, paying the taxes that make the common good a priority. Obviously, there are many other examples of our "not being American," but healthcare is one of the touchstones of those differences.

Prizing the collective good or extolling rugged individualism? For me, and for most Canadians, the choice is clear.

Reflections On Differences

While there is much favourable talk about King Charles' Throne Speech yesterday, from my point of view the most important aspect was his emphasis on Canada as a distinct nation, one with a history and ties to something much larger than ourselves. We have a culture and a character and ideals that need to be savoured and promoted. If there ever was a time to stress this, it is now.

Were I still teaching, and the lesson was about the use of comparison and contrast, I would use Canada and the United States as models. For the purpose of today's post, one basis of contrast will suffice.

Canada, although we have had many stumbles, has traditionally been open to 'the other.' People come here from all over the world, attracted to our traditions of peace, order and good government. Consequently, our multiculturalism is one of the shining jewels of our identity. And while we are perhaps less open than we used to be, we still exceed what many other nations have fallen prey to: xenophobia and exclusion.

Those two ugly qualities are on full display in the United State as it quickly descends into an authoritarianism that would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. Attacks on judges, rule by fiat (a.k.a., executive order), interference in states' rights and academic freedom are rampant under Trump. One sees that the traditional safeguard against such excesses, the separation of powers, is being rapidly dismantled, aided immensely by a craven, submissive legislative branch.

Consider the latest salvo, as the U.S. continues to close itself off from the rest of the world.

US President Donald Trump's administration has ordered US embassies around the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas as it prepares to expand social media vetting of such applicants. 

An official memo said social media vetting would be stepped up for student and foreign exchange visas, which would have "significant implications" for embassies and consulates.

 Foreign students who want to study in the US are usually required to schedule interviews at a US embassy in their home country before approval.

State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday: "We take very seriously the process of vetting who it is that comes into the country, and we're going to continue to do that."

This move is likely retaliation for Harvard's refusal to surrender its academic freedom to the Trump regime, a retaliation that includes the freezing of grants.

Harvard University has been the focal point of the president's ire; he has frozen $2.65bn (£1.96bn) in federal grants to the institution and has sought to put other federal funding worth $100m under review.

The university's president has said the cuts will "hurt" the country, not just Harvard, because academics were conducting research deemed "high-priority" by the government. 

The implications of these actions are great, and telegraph a message that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming, inquisitive nation but rather one that is collapsing in on itself. 

Let that be a lesson to every Canadian lest we succumb to the temptation of complacence. We have something here that needs to be constantly nourished, and I am cautiously optimistic, after Carney's initial symbolic act of asking the King to read the Throne speech, that we are on the right track.

 

On Moral Injury

A moral injury is a severe stress reaction following the experience of an event or a recurrence of situations that contradict an individual’s moral beliefs. Moral injury is characterized by enduring feelings of guilt, shame, disgust, anger, contempt, and hopelessness. In severe cases, this may lead to suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Moral injury appears to impact one’s capacity for trust and elevate despair.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about the genocide going on in Gaza. Almost daily, we are presented with images of starvation, mutilation and death. Especially difficult to watch are the images of innocent children being made to pay a price no one should have to pay for the madness of others. It is often too much even for a stalwart soul like me.

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett writes feelingly on this topic, wondering about its effect on the human soul.

I have seen images on my phone screen these past months that will haunt me as long as I live. Dead, injured, starving children and babies. Children crying in pain and in fear for their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. A small boy shaking in terror from the trauma of an airstrike. Scenes of unspeakable horror and violence that have left me feeling sick.

As we watch, horrified, we feel a pervasive helplessness and hopelessness; any action we might take, whether it be letter-writing, protests, donations to relief groups, seems to have at best a miniscule effect on the carnage, and little balm for the soul.

This overarching sense of impotence when confronted with unimaginable horror is creating a mass sense of moral injury – a form of profound psychological distress that can happen to people when they are forced to act, or indeed not act, in ways that are in direct opposition to their values or moral code.  

But that feeling of powerlessness and, as an extension, complicity: what does it do to those around the world who feel what is happening is wrong? What is the impact of witnessing so much profound suffering – even through a screen – and feeling unable to act or to force others to act?

We in the West live cosseted lives; no matter how bad one's personal situation may be, it is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza experience daily. Our own sense of guilt and shame here is especially acute if we have children or grandchildren. As a grandparent, I know all to well the ardent hope I harbour for a good and fulfilling life for my grandchildren, but the knowledge that I would do anything to protect them hardly assuages what the writer calls moral injury.

There is something about being in the daily company of a little person – their innocence, their vulnerability, their silliness, their loving nature – that makes the pain of any other child feel like a profound affront. But I know you don’t have to be a parent to feel horror at what is being inflicted on Gaza’s children in the most visceral way. I believe – or at least I used to – that it is ingrained in us, as humans, to feel a collective responsibility towards children, and that this collective responsibility can extend beyond borders.

 Feeling powerless in the face of such egregious injustice can result in a loss of trust or faith, not just in governments and institutions but also in the moral order of the world, and its ability to protect children. I wonder what the impact of this will be: will it, as certain politicians no doubt hope, result in a numbness that presents as indifference? Traumatic events can result in a lack of affect – millions more people should be marching and raising their voice – but they can also be channelled into righteous anger.

I certainly feel a profound loss of faith. Something I felt to be true about humanity – that people are fundamentally good, that we owe it to children to protect them – has shifted because of this conflict. I walk around with a feeling of heaviness that I cannot seem to shake. Thousands of miles from Gaza, I am changed by the past 18 months. I have learned that, for some people, compassion for children has political limits. What does one do with that terrible knowledge once it sits inside you like a leaden stone? I don’t seem be able to find an answer. 

We have all borne witness to the darkness our species is capable of.  And none of us emerges unscathed after tasting of that bitter fruit.

Politicizing Tragedy

I have observed over the years that whenever there is something like a school shooting in the U.S., there are two reactions. The progressive side calls for gun reform; the gun-loving right's political stooges proclaim, "Now is not the time to politicize tragedy."

Yet that is exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu, a profoundly evil man, in my view, did after the terrible murder of the young Israeli embassy officials in Washington.

I was frankly disgusted by the Prime Minister's words, his exploitation of a tragedy for his own selfish purposes. His words also carry an assumption that jewish lives matter far more than the over 50,000 Gazans who have thus far been sacrifice in the retaliation for the October 7th attacks. The collective punishment of Palestinians, a war crime in itself, is normalized as an appropriate response to that attack, which took 1400 Israeli lives

An I am not alone in this disgust. Martin Regg Cohn, a man who spent many years as a Middle East correspondent, has this to say about Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s primary purpose is to save his political skin at home.

This is a domestic political stratagem masquerading as military strategy.

Hamas has already been largely eviscerated. To eradicate the militant movement entirely, as the prime minister keeps promising, would force more innocent people to pay an incalculable price that no one should bear.

In his pursuit of political salvation, his evasion of any responsibility for the attack, he has alienated much of the world,

Last Sunday, Canada joined France and the U.K. in releasing a formal statement that condemned Israel for its renewed deployment of firepower and weaponization of food shipments in Gaza.

“The Israeli government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable,” the three governments declared, adding pointedly that some of Netanyahu’s cabinet ministers had crossed a line by suggesting ethnic cleansing:

“We condemn the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.”

The European Union and the United Nations have also called out Israel for withholding food and medical aid in a cynical bid to demoralize an entire population so that people will turn on Hamas.

Netanyahu, however, is nothing if not brazen in his defiance of the rest of the world. Indeed, his response to the above condemnation was unequivocal, accusing 

Canada, the United Kingdom and France of giving Hamas “a huge prize” by threatening to take action against Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

This defiance is made possible by the absence of countervailing influences within i his cabinet.

His early war cabinet — which brought in opposition National Unity party chair Benny Gantz and then-defence minister Yoav Gallant has been disbanded (Gantz departed and Gallant was fired as defence minister for dissenting from the most outlandish plans).

Now, the prime minister depends for his political survival on bellicose cabinet ministers from far-right parties that do not countenance co-existence with Palestinians in peacetime or wartime.

Regg Cohn ends with a lacerating assessment of Israel's leader:

His calculations are based on personal political survival rather than Israel’s national interest, its international standing, and Palestinian co-existence.

That, by all sane metrics, makes Netanyahu manifestly unfit to hold public office. 

UPDATE: Here is Netanyahu at his demagogic 'best' as he rebukes Canada, the UK and France over its condemnation of Israel's starvation of Gazans:

 

Finally, A Modicum Of Integrity

The images of the carnage in Gaza are hard to look at. Innocent men, women and children maimed and dead are scenes only the deeply depraved could welcome. And the destruction continues apace, with The Guardian reporting this morning that 14,000 babies could die in the next 24 hours of starvation.

In the midst of this darkness has come a small ray of light. Canada, the UK and France are saying enough is enough. The three countries

threatened action against Israel if it does not stop a renewed military offensive in Gaza and lift aid restrictions, piling further pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli military announced the start of a new operation on Friday, and Mr. Netanyahu said earlier on Monday that Israel would take control of the whole of Gaza. International experts have already warned of looming famine.

“The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law,” said a joint statement released by Prime Minister Mark Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“We oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the West Bank,” the statement said, adding later: “We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions.”

They have every reason to act. 

Earlier that day, Israel’s military declared an entire city a combat zone, airstrikes killed more than 60 people, and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said Israel’s army would “wipe out” what remains of Palestinian Gaza.

Has there ever been a more bald statement of genocidal intent? 

Bowing a little to international pressure, Netanyahu is allowing a trickle of aid:

.... the UN said nine trucks of aid had been cleared to enter. This is less than 2% of daily shipments before the war, when Palestinians in Gaza were well fed and the strip had its own agricultural sector, and will make no meaningful difference to the crisis now gripping most of its 2.3 million population.

Even that miniscule amount was too much for some. 

Netanyahu’s decision to allow even a trickle of food in to Gaza had been attacked by far-right critics including members of his own cabinet. On Monday he shared a video on social media explaining his hand had been forced by close allies.

Back here at home, 

Fen Hampson, chancellor‘s professor and professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Monday’s trilateral statement still represents a “shot across the bow” of Israel from three nations driven by profound humanitarian concern for those in Gaza. It also underscores Mr. Carney’s desire to rebuild transatlantic ties in a meaningful way at a time when Canada is facing challenges from its closest ally, the U.S.

Whether any of this will make a difference, given that Israel seems only concerned about U.S. support, remains to be seen. The trilateral statement, however, is a welcome voice of sanity and morality puncturing what has been, up to now, the West's deafening silence amidst the genocidal war Israel has been waging since October 7, 2023.

 

 

A Brave Young Man

I sometimes wonder, had social media existed in its present form when I was teaching, would I have posted as I do today? Would I have been willing to risk my career in order to address issues of importance and controversy? While it's true I used to be a prolific letter-to-the-editor devotee and had many articles published, receiving the imprimatur of a newspaper, with its specific guidelines and restrictions, is far different from publishing one's thoughts in a blog or any other social media forum.

Would you jeopardize your career and your future to stay true to your principles? One young man, Logan Rozos, has made that brave, principled and dangerous choice. Please watch the following video of his valedictory address at his NYU graduation ceremony. Listen carefully to his words. I will discuss the immediate consequences afterward.

We live in a time when any criticism of Israel is conflated with raging anti-semitism. We live in an age when groupthink demands that the carnage, the eradication of innocent Palestinian lives, be interpreted simply as acts of self-defence. However, to deviate from the official narrative, to address the monstrously malignant actions of Israel today, can only be seen by fair-minded people as a singular act of courage.

But there are consequences for rectitude. The backlash from the university was almost immediate.

New York University said it is withholding the diploma of a student who used his commencement speech to condemn Israel’s war in Gaza and what he referred to as the United States’ “complicity in this genocide.”

 Pro-Israeli groups demanded that NYU take action after footage of the speech was shared online. The university issued an apology the same day and announced it would withhold the student’s diploma while it pursues disciplinary action against him.

NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a Wednesday statement that the student “lied about the speech he was going to deliver” and misused his role “to express his personal and one-sided political views.”

“NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and that this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him,” Beckman said. 

Perhaps that craven response is to be expected. After all, universities are under assault from the Trump regime, and many seem willing to abandon their traditional positions as bastions of free thought and expression.

When it comes to facts that portray the truth about Israel's genocide in Gaza, it would seem that American First Amendment rights protecting free speech are quickly jettisoned.

The New York and New Jersey branch of the Anti Defamation League wrote on X that it was “appalled” by the speech, adding: “We are thankful to the NYU administration for their strong condemnation and their pursuit of disciplinary action.”

Another group, #EndJewHatred, suggested the speech would violate the university’s student-conduct guidelines, which were updated last year in response to a lawsuit over three Jewish students’ allegations of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

Criticism now must be very qualified and limited.

In April, the former head of medical aid group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) alleged that there was a “climate of fear” among major universities after NYU canceled a lecture she was due to give. Officials at the NYU’s medical center told her references to the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid in her planned presentation could be seen as “anti-government” and “antisemitic,” she said.

I don't want to end this post leaving you with the impression that Rozos has no support.

In a statement Thursday, Afaf Nasher, the executive director of the New York branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations praised the student “for using this opportunity to demand an end to the bloodshed in Gaza” and demanded NYU end its disciplinary process against him.

In closing, there is a line from King Lear that I have been thinking a lot about in recent weeks.  Albany rebukes his wicked wife Goneril for her terrible mistreatment of her father, the king:

Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile. 

That's all I have to say.

The Fallout Continues

I admit to taking a certain pleasure in reporting bad news about the U.S. That it is being sanctioned by Canadians for its abysmal treatment of such a reliable trading partner seems only right and just.

Although it is not just Canada boycotting travel to the U.S., we are a sizable source of their tourism woes.

International visitor spending in the U.S. is expected to drop by $12.5 billion (U.S.), falling to $169 billion by the end of 2025, down from $181 billion last year, according to new data from the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). This marks a 7-per-cent decline from 2024 and a 22 per cent drop compared to the last peak of American tourism in 2019.

The U.S., home to the world’s largest travel and tourism sector, is the only country among 184 economies analyzed by WTTC and Oxford Economics that is projected to see a decline in international visitor spending this year.

The U.S., in my view, has been a dangerous place to visit for many years, its love of guns and violence and a deeply rooted suspicion of "the other" overshadowing its many attractions. The realization of that danger has become more pronounced since Don Trump began his second term as president.

 ... hundreds of thousands of Canadians are deciding not to vacation or take day trips to the U.S. Incidents like the detention of European tourists at U.S. borders and a new policy requiring foreign nationals staying over 30 days to register have further discouraged international travel to America.

”(The decline) is not related to the economy in general,” said Frédéric Dimanche, director of Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at Toronto Metropolitan University. “It’s really more a question of attitudes towards the U.S. and Trump, whether (travellers) are against the policies, against the politics, whether they’re concerned about the security issues when crossing the border.” 

It would seem that this decline will take a long time, if ever, to reverse.

The WTTC  [World Travel and Tourism Council] forecasts it will take until at least 2030 for the U.S. tourism industry, worth nearly $2.6 trillion, to recover to pre-COVID levels.

Dimanche said consumer perceptions of the Trump administration won’t change over time, and it will take years for the tourism industry to rebuild tourist confidence.

Being a relatively safe country, one hopes that Canada will position itself to be an attractive travel alternative. There is much to be said for a holidaying in a locale where every second thought isn't for the personal safety of oneself and one's family.