Freedom Convoy or Highway to Anarchy?

Sad to see the downward spiral of what's going on in Ottawa, various provincial capitals and border crossings across Canada. There may be some well intentioned demonstrators, and the main slogans of 'Freedom' and Canadian flag waving may look benign, but the net effect is anything but. Its one thing to go to the legislature for an afternoon protest and another thing entirely to camp out for weeks on end as an occupation. Many alt conservatives who talked about Antifa conspiracies when leftist groups had protest camps in the past are now doing the same thing themselves. 

Yes, peaceful protest is a citizen's right in a democracy. But as with any right there are limits. We may be free to drive a car, but not at 200km/hr. No value however altruistic is absolute or can be exercised in isolation. Freedom is great, but my freedom ends when it starts to limit the freedom of others. What about the freedom of Ottawa residents to go to work, conduct their daily lives, visit a doctor, or even get a good nights sleep? When the freedom of the protestors goes beyond just getting a message across and descends to the point of holding an entire city hostage, that's when so called freedom transforms into something more like oppression.

There will always be a tension between freedom and security. Freedom as an absolute with no rules is just anarchy or chaos. Think of roads with no traffic rules. Who makes the rules? Our elected representatives. Don't like your reps? Elect someone else. That's democracy. Forcing the change of rules by occupation or taking a city or country hostage, that's coercion, not democracy. The will of a comparative small minority, a couple of thousand protestors, against the will of millions of Canadians. This type of mob rule - where does it end? If this mob rules today, which mob will rule tomorrow? Not a very efficient or accountable form of government and certainly not democratic - more like the dark ages.

Another freedom tension is one persons freedom to not be vaccinated vs another's freedom to access emergency health care. With hospitals currently full with a large proportion of non-vaccinated patients, who is protecting the rights of cancer patients to get the life saving health care and surgery they need, many of which have been cancelled lately? Sure, people should be able to choose whether or not they are vaccinated. But society should also have the right to protect others form the increased risks they pose if not vaccinated.

There are a number of sad ironies here. First of all, as case and positivity rates are starting to drop dramatically, many restrictions are being scaled back already, both in Canada and around the world, without any connection to these protests. Most of the restrictions are provincial based and have nothing to do with the feds in Ottawa. If this is indeed about truckers and not some wider agenda, any driver that is not vaccinated won't be allowed into the US, so what difference would a change in Canada's policy make anyways? Its also rather ironic that at the moment, the biggest constraint on the freedom of the 90+% of truckers who are vaccinated is not government health restrictions, but rather the 'freedom convoys' which have shut down many of the main commercial border crossings, forcing them to spend long hours detouring and waiting in endless lines at alternate crossings.

We've heard a lot about herd immunity. Who knows, with the pervasiveness of Omicron combined with high vaccination rates, we may be closer to herd immunity than ever. By spring, despite these protests, many restrictions are likely to be scaled down if not eliminated. I worry a lot more about herd mentality. People think they are thinking for themselves but in reality have been drawn in to follow the herd around them, even if it means running with the herd off a cliff.

On top of all this, many of our most important border crossings are now blocked. The economic impact is more severe than anything that has happened before during the pandemic. With businesses losing more than half a billion a day, layoffs, widespread shortages and inflation are sure to follow. Even those who are well stocked up will suffer as interest rates are likely to rise that much faster. Foreign interference here is also a major problem. 2/3 of the funding for these protests comes from outside of Canada, and more than half from the US. One problem with all this is once you let the genie out of the bottle its hard to get him to go back - its hard to diffuse this level of protest once it gains momentum.

Yes, Trudeau seems rather weak, for not addressing the protest, not asking for a list of proposed changes in writing, and not doing anything to reestablish order. Everyone wants restrictions to end as soon as possible. But even conservative governments in ON and AB are seeking to do so responsibly by linking restriction roll backs to lower hospital loads. The bottom line is that the protestors have made their point - after 2 weeks of this its past time to go home.

The Trump Bargain One Year On: Trading Principle for Power

One year on gives us some pause to reflect on Trump's first year in office. My interest isn't to delve into politics but rather reflect more on how the nature and character of national leadership has changed, and what Trump's rise to power says about us. I came across this article - while more than a year old now - I was surprised at how relevant it still is today. It clearly describes the stark choice made by many Christians.

Time: Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals

Essentially the argument goes something like this. Many supported Trump as a lesser of 2 evils, as a means to an end. The end was hope that more conservative, Christian policies might be implemented, even if it means tolerating some distasteful antics by the leader. After all, politics is a dirty game. All this sounds much like a recent article about why Russians support Putin. Sure he is a bit of a thug, but he's Our thug.

There are 2 problems with this. First, at some point, the moral disconnect between the leader and the so called Christian friendly policies can get stretched so far that cost exceeds any potential benefit. The question is how much immorality can be tolerated in the name of morality? The second problem is that when you take away all the politics and religion, what you are left with is just a form of glorified tribalism. Maybe Christian tribalism, but all it really is wanting a thug that will be more effective at defending the narrow self-interests of one specific group against those of everyone else. The problem with both these points is any authentic Christian values get lost in the process, and my real concern is where will that leave the Church and its role in society once Trump leaves office?

As for Trump, how he acts sets an example for so many. The question should be what basic principles should leaders respect, and human decency they should model, not to cast about looking for examples of leaders that were worse. This has nothing to do with Rep vs Dem. I can appreciate that people have their reasons for voting across the spectrum depending on the issues of the day, and for many this time around may have been a protest vote. I have a much harder time understanding this religious 'support Trump no matter what' philosophy that some Christians seem to have. As to the truth, time will tell what was truth and what was lies, but I'm fairly certain Trump will not be serving a second term, if he's lucky enough to complete this one.

I do think that many ardent Trump supporters, particularly in the Christian community, have trouble objectively seeing the stark choices they are making when they continue their blanket support. I think it is ultimately a choice about power vs principle, exclusion vs inclusion. The power play is to look the other way when basic principles are violated so long as the right supreme court justice is approved to protect our interests. The exclusion or us vs them approach signifies a shift towards narrowing the definition of who is 'us', and then building up barriers to protect us from 'them'.

One problem is you never know when you will become one of 'them'. The bigger problem is that in the process, the first and second commandments are lost: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind ... Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31). "What good does it do to gain the whole world and lose your soul?" (Mark 8:36). Ultimately love is traded for fear, and its attempted antidote, the search for self - security, means the interests of others are increasingly ignored. What the world needs is leadership by example, not legislated morality. Neighbors that care for each other, not build walls and deport those that look different. Blanket support for Trump might gain a few seats on the supreme court, but it will cost the American church any legitimacy in the court of public opinion.

Trump and Syrian Strike: Domestic Distraction or New Foreign Direction?

100+ days in office and its definitely been a mixed bag from Trump. Still, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised with his action against Syria. A month on and the world did not descend into WW III. In fact, that region has probably edged closer to peace since. Irony abounds - this was perhaps Obama's greatest foreign policy failure. Obama's dithering encouraged a despotic, ruthless ruler locally and strengthened emperor Putin globally.


This one action now, while not a solution in itself, seems to have stopped chemical attacks in their tracks. The reality is often peace doesn't happen unless war costs both sides. Added irony is that this is precisely the type of policy Hillary would have pursued and what Trump warned against doing in the past. Not to say that i'm a fan of Trump's wealth care reforms, protectionism, anti-immigration etc. His most recent comments about "being a president is a harder than I thought it would be" aren't exactly confidence building. But I'm happy to accept this silver lining at least, even if it may have been partially intended to deflect attention from domestic woes.


Perhaps there's more consistency here than many Trump supporters appreciate. Its the failure to stand up to Assad's murderous rule that has caused the waves of refugees that Trump is seeking to stem. After 6 years of this madness it was refreshing to see Assad finally pay a price. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/analysis-syria-us-attack-1.4059823

Voters Voice their Protest to Sink the Status Quo, but at What Cost?

I get that the Trump win is due in a large part to the average American being fed up with the status quo, or 'the establishment', whatever that is. A vote for Trump was as much a protest vote against this status quo as it was a vote for Trump. In many cases disgruntled democrats expressed similar sentiments by just staying home. So American has spoken. The protest has registered. But when we count the cost, will it all be worth it?

This is not just an academic discussion. The cost is likely to be in real lives, and the payment starts today. Just like clockwork, now that the election is over and Trump solidly in place, Russian bombs have started to fall again on Aleppo. I realize that most don't care much about Syria anymore. Its a civil war that has gone on for years so there is plenty of news fatigue on that front. But the reality is this is a good example of why a Trump presidency has made the world more dangerous, not safer.

What's the connection? Trump's approach is America 1st, protectionist, with minimal involvement in international organizations and treaties. As such, things like humanitarian crises and human rights are no longer a priority. This comes as great news to authoritarian rulers such as Putin, who now see this as giving them a free hand to use whatever military force they see fit. So the sad truth is that we don't even have to wait for Trump to assume office. Given that there is now nothing standing in the way, I suspect we will see something like 10 or 20 thousand civilians die between now and Christmas in Aleppo alone. Not our concern? Well, perhaps not at the moment, but wait and see another wave of refugees heading to our shores and suddenly concern comes closer to home.

This is just one issue where the Trump approach is likely to have a counter intuitive effect. I'll sum it up here and provide some references to back this up.

Policy: Non-interference, appeasement towards Putin / Russia.
Result: increased Russian adventurism and aggression around the world, generating waves of refugees, economic instability and massive loss of life.

Policy: Banning Muslims
Result: Major recruitment tool for ISIS. By painting all Muslims with the same brush, whether moderate or extremist, this will make it much easier for ISIS to recruit more to their cause. In fact, they were thrilled to learn of a Trump win.

Policy: Protectionism - tariffs to block foreign competition
Result: Trade wars, loss of exports, loss of jobs, inflation as imported goods are now more expensive.

Policy: Threats to not pay foreign debts
Result: Drop in value of US$, further domestic inflation.

Policy: Spend more on infrastructure, reduce taxes.
Result: Drop in value of US bonds, increase in interest rates, inflation.

Policy: Climate change is a 'hoax'. Pull out of climate change agreements such as the Paris Agreement
Result: Unraveling of Paris Agreement, reduced action, increased emissions and ultimately more extreme weather, habitat loss, coastal destruction etc. Also, added barriers to any future environmental or other multilateral agreements.

Policy: Non-committal approach to NATO and other key alliances -make allies pay.
Result: Potential enemies question US resolve amid weakening and shifting alliances, and are tempted to push the envelope and see how far they can go.

Welcome to the new world disorder under Trump. I'll be the first to admit that Obama made foreign policy mistakes. However, just as Brexit signaled the decline of British influence in the world - soon to shrink to little more than England, so to does this new isolationism signal the retreat of America from the world stage. Dismantling the existing order, while an interesting experiment, will leave a large void. I only worry about who or what will end up taking its place.

 "Trump and the World: What Could Actually Go Wrong"


 "Syria conflict: Assad hopes for 'anti-terror ally' in Trump"


 "Militant Islamist groups believe Trump's rhetoric will help recruitment"

What does the US Election Say About Us?

As we sit back and wait for it to all be over, I can't help but put down a few thoughts about what has for almost everyone been an ugly, mean-spirited and divisive election that has cast a pall far beyond the borders of the US. One of the things that has bothered me the most about this election is the position of the so called moral majority or Christian evangelical community. Their position as always is to support the republican party simply because they claim to defend conservative moral values. What I find baffling is that when the republicans picked Trump as their candidate - a man who himself demonstrates no moral values whatsoever - most evangelicals seemed to turn a blind eye and continue to support him.

The conclusion I have come to is that many US evangelicals are so concerned about defending their specific agenda, they are willing to compromise everything else that being a Christian should be about. When Jesus walked this earth, he cared about the sick, widowed, poor, marginalized groups and those seen as the worst sinners of the day.  That Jesus would be appalled at the image that the term Christian or evangelical evokes for many in America today. The golden rule - love God and love your neighbor - seems completely lost on them. What seems to have happened is that defending a couple of token values has become an idol to the point where all other core values like tolerance, caring, peacefulness, respect have been thrown out.

I realize that there is something core that seems to resonate between Trump and his supporters. Trump is seen as a powerful figure able to face down the status quo and steam roll over all his opponents. The idea is, who cares if he is a thug, so long as he's on your side. The problem is that this is a devils bargain. By supporting a thug to get their way, there's no guarantee that any supporter might not become a target of that same thug when the thug's mood changes. Its like school yard politics - some side with the bully because it seems safer, but in the end the bully is a bully, cares only for himself, and you're in trouble if you're near so long as he remains unchallenged. When you sell out your soul and values to get one thing you want - you may get the thing you're obsessed with but lose everything else that really matters.

Ultimately this approach seems to me about as unchristian as can be. I call it selfishness. If I am able to sell out everything to get one thing I want without thinking about the consequences for others, then I'm being selfish. Trump worships himself. His supporters are willing to overlook this because at their core they don't care about their neighbor. They care about defending their property, their families, their selected core values, and if everyone else is excluded - thrown out over the wall - so be it. So at its core its not just the politicians that are mean spirited in this campaign, its the very core philosophy and values that are driving the Trump campaign that are built on meanness. Its by design.

Admittedly, we all have a selfish streak from time to time and want to defend what's ours. What I have trouble stomaching is this whole idea that somehow to support a thug like Trump is the Christian thing to do. A valueless, selfish, hateful, abusive and disrespectful person like Trump is so far from anything Christian, that supporting him from a Christian perspective is simply incoherent. If you want to support Trump because you want a wall, or you feel he defends your interests somehow, so be it. But don't call it a Christian position, or even worse, demand others support him because it's the Christian thing to do.

I think this whole situation evidences that the Church in North America is in crisis. Christians have lost a sense of relevance because many of us have lost our connection to the core values our faith was built on, that of service and caring, not judging and imposing. There will need to be some serious soul searching to clean up the rubble of this election and avoid it walling up the Church further from wider social society.

As to the whole 'crooked Hillary' campaign, I don't buy that. In general, I'm no constant proponent of any one party or candidate. My biggest problem is with people who vote as a knee jerk reaction, and that applies to either side. Of course Clinton is not without her faults. She's made plenty of mistakes and should be held to account the same as anyone else. Still, these pale in significance when compared with the core of what Trump is all about. Clinton's mistakes are the kind we might make every day out of neglect or lack of attention when overloaded with too many responsibilities. Trump's worst acts are not mistakes at all, but simply flow out of who he is, his complete obsession with self worship, and disdain for anyone or anything that opposes him - including institutions of law and democracy. Who else would use $20,000 from his own charitable foundation to buy a 6 foot painting of himself and place it at one of his Trump hotels? This has happened more than once. You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, most elections are a choice between the lesser of 2 evils, and these choices are rarely easy. Its just that this time around the math seems a lot simpler than it usually is. On a more humorous note, I like the idea of last week's presidential election in Bulgaria where you can just vote for 'nobody' if you want. This might have saved a lot of people a lot of consternation in this election. I'm just not sure what happens if  'nobody' wins.

Lessons learned in Libya

re my posting on:  Lessons learned in Libya, CBC, Oct 21, 2011

While the end of the Libyan conflict is an older story now, I thought on Remembrance Day it would be fitting to reflect on the tough question on when we should or shouldn't get involved in armed conflicts for just causes, and what some of the tensions and trade-offs are. Also, as more and more people in Syria die every day,  just for the crime of wanting to be free, it reminds me to value all the more the freedom we have, and appreciate the sacrifices made in the past by those that fought to preserve it.

While it has been and will continue to be messy, letting people determine the direction of their country is always preferable to despotic, repressive rule. There will always be a trade off between concerns for freedom and regional security, but when we listen to the voices of isolationism from the likes of China and Russia and just look the other way when thousands die, then we are making a devils bargain that will one day come back to haunt us.

Yes it is tough to decide if and when to intervene, and there will never be a formula for it. But as is suggested in the CBC article, if we limit our interventions only to those times when the people from across ethnic, religious and tribal lines together consistently ask for help, or when there is an immanent genocide such as Rwanda, then I think there is a much better likelihood of making a positive difference. The fundamental principle is that we have to listen carefully before we act, but then be prepared to act decisively, albeit with continued local and regional cooperation / coordination.

Just think how this would have all ended had NATO not intervened. Tens of thousands more would have died in Benghazi and across the country, many more thousands of refugees would have fled to Europe and Canada, and the Arab spring would have a suffered a potentially fatal blow. Of course, the political realities limit the countries where intervention is even a possibility. Syria is a tough question given the size of the country and its army. But just because we can't or shouldn't intervene in every case doesn't mean we should never do so.

And while this is the Libyan people's victory, we should remember and thank our people in uniform that did their part to support Libyan's sacrifices.

A great day for Libya ... apparently a sad day for Canadians.

 This is from my posting on: Libya Gadhafi Capture, CBC, Oct 20,2011

A great day for Libya

... apparently a sad day for Canadians.

What's wrong with CBC readers? I scanned 150+ comments, and > 90% of them are negative. Even someone who simply said "good day for Libya" got scored only 259 for and 271 against. I don't get it. We live in a democracy, but you want to deny the Libyan people a chance at democracy (not a guarantee), just because you vilify NATO and Harper and everything they do? Get your head out of that emotional/ strait jacket.

While I know how much fun we have criticizing how Americans can be out of touch, the more I read comments on cbc the more I worry about how many Canadians seem out of touch with the world - both with what's going on and what other peoples and cultures actually think.

I do agree that it is a good idea to get your news from multiple sources. I find Al Jazeera does as good a job as BBC, sometimes better. Its always good to check a regional news source on any major story. But I would avoid sites or bloggers that have just one agenda to push - either left or right, status quo or conspiracist.

Finally, why do we have to be such pessimists? There's enough bad news in the world, why can't we just congratulate the Libyan people and leave it at that? This is their victory more than anyone else's, so it shouldn't be about politics and points. And if you think that Gadhafi wasn't much worse than Harper or some other such nonsense, you need to get out of the west and go visit Zimbabwe or Syria or somewhere else where the thugs that run the government can throw you away without a moments pretense about justice. I've been in former Yugoslavia during the wars there, so I know something about criminal regimes. I don't think you will find refugees from those kind of places mourning Gadhafi's demise.