The prime minister, speaking outside Rideau Hall on Wednesday after calling the October federal election, said that he would not challenge Quebec’s new law prohibiting religious dress because it would be “counter-productive.”
What could “counter-productive” mean? A waste of taxpayers’ money? A pointless court action? An unnecessary defence of human rights? Interfering with those parties who have already launched a court challenge of the law?
I think “counter-productive,” in this context, must mean counter-productive of votes for Liberals from rural Quebec voters. Time to step up for what you claim to believe in, Mr. Trudeau.
Mark Johnson, Edmonton
Editorial cartoons should target Trudeau
I am really trying to decide if I want to continue with my Journal subscription following two idiotic politically incorrect cartoons concerning both Donald Trump and Andrew Scheer.
I would like to know where the cartoonist got his facts concerning Trump’s approval rating (he’s wrong) and secondly, why would ordinary Edmontonians care. As for the Scheer stab, the so-called artist is making a biased political statement that the Journal seems to support.
This has me believing that this paper is nothing more than a pro-Trudeau Liberal rag. How about some stabs at the current fool running this country now.
Patrick Mckay, Edmonton
Article hardly anti-Christian
I’m guessing that Ronald Henschell didn’t give the article on Dr. Jen Gunter’s The Vagina Bible a thoughtful read. He takes exception to the term “vaginal antichrist” — which is, in fact, an insult lobbed at the celebrated OB-GYN by one of her detractors. It does have a certain ring to it.
Regarding Mr. Henschell’s assertion that the article has “absolutely nothing to do with Christianity,” the opposite is true. Giving women accurate, science-based information about their bodies is entirely consistent with a Christian ethic.
Then he declares “we Christians demand respect,” to which I say, speak for yourself. I read the gospels and nowhere do I see Jesus demanding respect. He only demands that we love each other. Save your outrage for the injustices described in other sections of the paper because there’s none here.
Elizabeth Grinevitch, Edmonton
New transit garage already dented
Our gleaming, brand-new, $211-million Kathleen Andrews Transit Garage is finally nearing completion. The massive structure is touted by the city and the architects as “celebrating the infrastructural, mechanical and technical, (and) updates the idea of building as a landmark to the extra-urban conditions.”
If we understand this bold vision statement correctly, we would expect an architectural tour de force of technical expertise and quality in construction. What we appear to have been given, is a pock-marked, dented, undulating metal building skin. It is incredible that a just-completed city building of this magnitude and cost could already be exhibiting such profound visual defects. Were the designers asleep at the wheel of the bus? Was quality sacrificed at the altar of expediency?
To add insult to injury, it is almost laughable that the undulations, warping and visual defects found on the building exterior are ironically mirrored and repeated in the $1-million digitally mapped and faceted metal sculptures set atop the building. One could almost say our new transit garage is trying to be a $211-million dollar sculpture, sadly located at 53º20 — 40’N.
Richard Vanderwell, Edmonton
Scheer’s promises lack specifics
I’d like to quickly point out certain tendencies in our political discourse. Mr. Andrew Sheer, for example, is now advertising a platform of making life better for “ordinary” (white, male?) Canadians. A very good idea if he intends to include us all.
Unfortunately, we are not offered even one particle of specific policy truth about how he is going to accomplish this. Vague references to power shifts towards provinces. Fine. Can we please ask what exactly are the details?
Tax cuts, (for which income brackets?), cuts in social spending and health care, (described in political terms as austerity), transfer of power to corporations (deregulation) marginalization of certain (immigrant) groups (protecting Canadian jobs).
We all know these tendencies are rising, but nothing of substance is discussed. The question for Canadian democracy is, who is speaking about these tendencies and the direction Canadian society is headed, and to what end.
If we don’t demand answers, then it’s pretty obvious what the end point is. Obviously, we just don’t care enough to look at the consequences of our own actions, more precisely our inaction. Political demobilization is always a personal choice.
Bruce A. Meikle, Edmonton
C-69 fight just another Kenney stunt
The stories published in the Journal Wednesday on Premier Kenney’s constitutional court challenge to Bill C-69 fail to talk about the likelihood of this court action succeeding.
An analysis of just that issue was published by the University of Calgary law faculty this May. It says, in part: “the Premier contradicts almost three decades of settled jurisprudence with respect to the federal and provincial division of powers over the environment generally, and federal jurisdiction to conduct environmental assessments specifically.”
This court action is a stunt, like so many things the premier has done in recent months.
Susan Ruttan, Edmonton
What is motivation for anti-oil award?
What should Canadians make of the recent award of US$2 million by the U.S.-based Climate Breakthrough Project to Canadian environmental activist Tzeporah Berman?
Ms. Berman announced she will use those foreign funds to fuel her organization’s fight against the use of fossil fuels, and in particular against the pending Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Climate Breakthrough Project says her actions are consistent with their motivation to protect our environment. Or could their interests actually be protectionism for the U.S. oil and gas industry?
Looking a little deeper, can it be argued that the efforts of Ms. Berman and her foreign financial backers could ultimately threaten the safety and defence of Canada? If so, that would be considered an act of treason, would it not?
Grant Lovig, Edmonton
Confession from an oilsands skeptic
I want to report myself. Greenpeace and the Suzuki Foundation have hypnotized me and I don’t love the tarsands anymore
Fred Judson, Edmonton
Target noisy drivers with cheeky billboards
This is not the first time I am expressing myself about the low quality of life in downtown Edmonton. The subject is noisy drivers every day and night, particularly on weekends.
These village idiots exercise their right to drive in a very uncivilized way: they make excessive noise. Why? Because!
They break all rules and terrorize us. They feel they are exempted from the rules of a civilized city. I hear and see them on Jasper Avenue, 109 Street, the High Level Bridge and Whyte Avenue. Whenever they make excessive noise, they usually exceed the limit of speed.
You can stop and charge them at any moment; all you need to do is a will. They can add millions of dollars to the city budget. Just do it.
If law enforcement officers are unable to deal legally with these bandits, try something else: ridicule them. Make fun of them. Please place billboards along their routes with slogans such as: “Noisy car equals tiny penis,” or “Loud car equals low IQ.”
Bogdan Kulik, Edmonton
NDP hypocritical on townhalls
I cringed a little when I opened my Edmonton Journal on Wednesday to see news of an NDP town hall on budgets. It was only a few short months ago that the NDP scrapped province-wide town halls on Bighorn, because they were afraid to engage with stakeholders.
But now the NDP wants us to believe they suddenly care about Albertans and their opinions? When did they start to care? Oh, that’s right on April 17.
I realize they have a job to do as official Opposition, but it would be nice if they actually did it, instead of continuing their smear campaign trying to avenge the drubbing they took on April 16.
S.C. Thomas, St. Albert
We invite you to write letters to the editor. A maximum of 150 words is preferred. Letters must carry a first and last name, or two initials and a last name, and include an address and daytime telephone number. All letters are subject to editing. We don’t publish letters addressed to others or sent to other publications. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org