LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on July 29, 2026. Letter writer Tony D'Andrea says the economic cost of resisting Trump is recoverable. The cost of surrendering and teaching democracies that truth is negotiable when power demands it, is not.

‘No longer merely a dispute over tariffs or trade’

Re: U.S. hits Canada, 59 other countries with new tariffs just days after 50% levy on Canadian goods announced — Tracy Moran, July 23

Tracy Moran’s report on President Donald Trump’s tariff tantrums against Canada, forced-labour imports one day, wildfire smoke the next, reads like governance by make-believe: evidence optional, belief mandatory. Believe his reality or pay for doubting it. The world is becoming a prisoner to his lies.

Consequently, Trump’s strategy has created a global prisoner’s dilemma. He bets that no democracy can afford to break with America first, that each will quietly accommodate his fictions rather than risk standing alone. Individually, appeasement looks rational. Collectively, it is ruinous. Every government that swallows one falsehood to preserve the relationship makes the next falsehood easier to swallow. That is why this is no longer merely a dispute over tariffs or trade. It is an existential test of whether democracies can defend a shared reality without destroying themselves in the process.

When Trump tells prime-time America he has proof the 2020 election was stolen, the lie becomes a loyalty test: accept his reality or risk political exile. His apprentices — Musk, Vance, Rubio, Hegseth and Fox News — have learned the lesson. Lie fluently or become irrelevant.

The danger is not simply that Trump lies. It is that lying becomes cheaper than resisting him. A chain of command built on fiction eventually collapses because no one knows which orders, promises or treaties can be trusted. His lies are reducing the world order to chaos.

Charles Mackay, in “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds” (1841), wrote that crowds lose their senses together and recover them one by one. One hopes he is right. Defections are how prisoner’s dilemmas are broken: not necessarily by everyone at once, but by enough people refusing to play along.

So how do we deal with a nominal world leader who treats lying as statecraft? One practical way is to boycott the fiction, not America. Not tariff for tariff, which merely escalates the game, but deliberate diversification. Mark Carney should show new-found independence. Negotiate where necessary, resist where essential, and do not import Trump’s unreality into a new CUSMA. Reinstate the digital sales tax. Urge Canadians to avoid travel to America. Keep American booze off Canadian shelves. Remain Canadian through your purchases. And if that means being anti-MAGA, so be it. Talk back; don’t go silent. Keep diplomatic channels open. Engage Trump’s MAGA. But quarantine the falsehoods.

The economic cost of resisting Trump is recoverable. The cost of surrendering our shared reality, of teaching democracies that truth is negotiable when power demands it, is not.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto


MAID’s dark irony

Re: Doctors consider ‘death by organ donation’ for MAID patients — Sharon Kirkey, July 23

There exists a singular, agonizing irony in the current state of the Nova Scotia government’s administrative priorities — one that would be comical were it not so profoundly tragic.

We find ourselves navigating a bureaucratic landscape where the entry into this world is strictly rationed, while the exit is provided with the seamless efficiency of a drive-through window.

Consider the expectant mother in Baddeck, or Richmond, or Glace Bay. Should she wish to bring new life into this dominion, she is met with a stern ledger of logistical impossibilities. The local wards are often shuttered; the specialized teams are centralized; the resources are consolidated. For the miracle of birth, our system demands a pilgrimage — a stressful, calculated dash down the Trans-Canada Highway to a select few regional hubs. Life, it seems, must strictly adhere to the government’s centralized schedule.

Yet, turn your gaze to the final chapter of human existence, and the administrative sea parts with astonishing majesty. For Medical Assistance in Dying — or MAID, as the planners so clinically acronymize it — the geographic barriers miraculously dissolve. There are no select locations here. No rationing of care. The apparatus of the state becomes entirely mobile, willing and eager to accommodate you in virtually any hospital, any clinic, or any living room from Cape Breton to the South Shore.

One cannot help but marvel at the grim, linguistic dark comedy of it all. For decades, the old folks used to say that when a man finally achieved total comfort and freedom from worry, he “had it made.” How twisted a transformation that the modern state has provided a literal interpretation of the phrase: to finally have peace, you simply have it MAID.

We have built a system that makes it remarkably difficult to arrive, but infinitely convenient to leave. Surely, a society that prides itself on compassion must eventually look in the mirror and ask why the cradle is so heavily restricted, while the hearse is granted an unlimited, all-access pass.

Mark Macneill, Mabou, N.S.


Behind Canada’s baby bust

Re: Anti-family propaganda has devastated a generation of women — Kate Marland, July 2

I cannot disagree more with Kate Marland’s opinion piece about why Canadian women are choosing to remain childless.

Women aren’t opting out of motherhood because of television shows that prioritize material success over having families. Women are choosing to remain childless because of the ridiculous costs for basic items like an apartment, and even milk and eggs. They’re choosing not to have kids because they have no choice but to work, and they know that in the majority of marriages/partnerships, it’s the woman who does all the work to take care of the kids.

The way our world has changed, it is almost impossible to live off of one income so that a father or mother can stay home with their child(ren). That’s a dream now, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Carrie Bradshaw or Hannah Horvath or any other character we watched in our late teens and early 20s.

The other issue that should have been addressed is that men need to step up and be more involved with their families and housework.

Vicky Welch, Montreal


An insult to Gordie Howe

R e: U.S. deal could have been ‘explained better’: PM — Jordan Gowling, July 25

Gordie Howe was more known for his hockey skills than his verbal skills but his style was honest. His name and reputation, however, have been besmirched by the political actors involved in his namesake bridge in Windsor.

Mark Carney’s Davos speech, his concern about spending by former governor generals through a secretive account, and his yet to be seen but apparent understanding that we need to develop our natural resources, are all promising indicators that he knows what the PM’s job is about. And, thankfully, he has yet to descend to the “I’m sorry for everything” mantra normalized by his predecessor.

None of the above, however, will balance the dismal display of leadership he has shown over “The Bridge.” His “I could have explained it better” was his apology for misleading us.

It wasn’t going to be hard for Carney to outshine Justin Trudeau’s flickering candle of “look-at-me” management. All he had to do was show up everyday. Now, though, no amount of Davos deception will get him a Mr. Hockey title, regardless of whether his elbows are up or down.

Larry Baswick, Stratford, Ont.


Crime and disorder in Canada

Re: The sex criminal in Canada illegally who got a work permit — Jamie Sarkonak, July 21

We Canadians tend to view ourselves as morally superior beings, especially in regard to our American neighbours.

Day after day the National Post, and sometimes even The Globe and Mail, publish articles like Jamie Sarkonak’s column that demonstrate our inability to govern ourselves effectively, as exemplified in this case by the lack of enforcement of removal orders and the endless ability of individuals to access our courts, all at the expense of taxpayers.

This inability is exacerbated by the lax sentencing imposed on criminals by soft-hearted, or more likely, soft-headed judges who fail to realize that going easy on individual offenders will likely mean hardship for the community at large.

While the U.S. certainly has its flaws, I’m not certain that theirs outweigh ours to an extent that would justify our smugness. President Donald Trump has a point that securing borders and enforcing laws are the basic things countries should be able to do. If we can’t do that, perhaps he is correct in calling the border just a line on a map.

John Harris, Toronto


FIFA World Cup a déjà vu of 1990s NHL hockey

Re: Hockey still rules in Canada despite heightened visibility of FIFA World Cup: survey — Stewart Lewis, July 19

Watching the final game of the World Cup, my inner — well, I should admit, not so inner — curmudgeon overtook my dutiful enjoyment of a sport I rarely watch. As one of the hosts, we Canadians felt the obligation to suddenly feign interest in a game unfamiliar to many — although I concede the familiarity is growing. But as I watched Spain and Argentina play for nearly two hours without scoring a goal, the thought suddenly popped into my head: I was actually watching 1990s NHL hockey.

Clutch and grab. Diving with faked injuries. No scoring. Blatant interference, almost always uncalled. Slow play, endless back and forth passing. The left-wing lock.

In the 1950s, Anatoli Tarasov, a Russian football coach, was asked to create a Russian hockey team, primarily for propaganda purposes. Famously, Tarasov didn’t watch any hockey. Instead, he read the rule book, over and over, until he felt he understood the game. Then he used his football background to devise a system of hockey that became well known to Canadians in the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union.

It was all about possession. Five-player units who worked as one. Carry the puck up the ice, but if the opening was not there at the blue line, circle all five back into the defensive zone and try again. And again, and again, until the opponent made a mistake. Booooring.

Admittedly, it required a very high level of technical ability, skating and passing. But it was slow, robotic and mind-numbing. And that’s what international soccer is — Anatoli Tarasov hockey. Combined with Gary Bettman’s expansion-era holding, punching, elbowing and diving.

To his credit, Bettman allowed hockey to evolve. He had the referees crack down on clutch-and-grab, allowed speed and skill to take precedence. Possession remains an important metric, but stick handling, quick puck movement, and advancing play into the offensive area are the rule. International football could take a lesson

Tom Curran, Consecon, Ont.


National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (250 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email letters@nationalpost.com. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.


U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on July 29, 2026. Letter writer Tony D'Andrea says the economic cost of resisting Trump is recoverable. The cost of surrendering and teaching democracies that truth is negotiable when power demands it, is not.

‘No longer merely a dispute over tariffs or trade’

Re: U.S. hits Canada, 59 other countries with new tariffs just days after 50% levy on Canadian goods announced — Tracy Moran, July 23

Tracy Moran’s report on President Donald Trump’s tariff tantrums against Canada, forced-labour imports one day, wildfire smoke the next, reads like governance by make-believe: evidence optional, belief mandatory. Believe his reality or pay for doubting it. The world is becoming a prisoner to his lies.

Consequently, Trump’s strategy has created a global prisoner’s dilemma. He bets that no democracy can afford to break with America first, that each will quietly accommodate his fictions rather than risk standing alone. Individually, appeasement looks rational. Collectively, it is ruinous. Every government that swallows one falsehood to preserve the relationship makes the next falsehood easier to swallow. That is why this is no longer merely a dispute over tariffs or trade. It is an existential test of whether democracies can defend a shared reality without destroying themselves in the process.

When Trump tells prime-time America he has proof the 2020 election was stolen, the lie becomes a loyalty test: accept his reality or risk political exile. His apprentices — Musk, Vance, Rubio, Hegseth and Fox News — have learned the lesson. Lie fluently or become irrelevant.

The danger is not simply that Trump lies. It is that lying becomes cheaper than resisting him. A chain of command built on fiction eventually collapses because no one knows which orders, promises or treaties can be trusted. His lies are reducing the world order to chaos.

Charles Mackay, in “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds” (1841), wrote that crowds lose their senses together and recover them one by one. One hopes he is right. Defections are how prisoner’s dilemmas are broken: not necessarily by everyone at once, but by enough people refusing to play along.

So how do we deal with a nominal world leader who treats lying as statecraft? One practical way is to boycott the fiction, not America. Not tariff for tariff, which merely escalates the game, but deliberate diversification. Mark Carney should show new-found independence. Negotiate where necessary, resist where essential, and do not import Trump’s unreality into a new CUSMA. Reinstate the digital sales tax. Urge Canadians to avoid travel to America. Keep American booze off Canadian shelves. Remain Canadian through your purchases. And if that means being anti-MAGA, so be it. Talk back; don’t go silent. Keep diplomatic channels open. Engage Trump’s MAGA. But quarantine the falsehoods.

The economic cost of resisting Trump is recoverable. The cost of surrendering our shared reality, of teaching democracies that truth is negotiable when power demands it, is not.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto


MAID’s dark irony

Re: Doctors consider ‘death by organ donation’ for MAID patients — Sharon Kirkey, July 23

There exists a singular, agonizing irony in the current state of the Nova Scotia government’s administrative priorities — one that would be comical were it not so profoundly tragic.

We find ourselves navigating a bureaucratic landscape where the entry into this world is strictly rationed, while the exit is provided with the seamless efficiency of a drive-through window.

Consider the expectant mother in Baddeck, or Richmond, or Glace Bay. Should she wish to bring new life into this dominion, she is met with a stern ledger of logistical impossibilities. The local wards are often shuttered; the specialized teams are centralized; the resources are consolidated. For the miracle of birth, our system demands a pilgrimage — a stressful, calculated dash down the Trans-Canada Highway to a select few regional hubs. Life, it seems, must strictly adhere to the government’s centralized schedule.

Yet, turn your gaze to the final chapter of human existence, and the administrative sea parts with astonishing majesty. For Medical Assistance in Dying — or MAID, as the planners so clinically acronymize it — the geographic barriers miraculously dissolve. There are no select locations here. No rationing of care. The apparatus of the state becomes entirely mobile, willing and eager to accommodate you in virtually any hospital, any clinic, or any living room from Cape Breton to the South Shore.

One cannot help but marvel at the grim, linguistic dark comedy of it all. For decades, the old folks used to say that when a man finally achieved total comfort and freedom from worry, he “had it made.” How twisted a transformation that the modern state has provided a literal interpretation of the phrase: to finally have peace, you simply have it MAID.

We have built a system that makes it remarkably difficult to arrive, but infinitely convenient to leave. Surely, a society that prides itself on compassion must eventually look in the mirror and ask why the cradle is so heavily restricted, while the hearse is granted an unlimited, all-access pass.

Mark Macneill, Mabou, N.S.


Behind Canada’s baby bust

Re: Anti-family propaganda has devastated a generation of women — Kate Marland, July 2

I cannot disagree more with Kate Marland’s opinion piece about why Canadian women are choosing to remain childless.

Women aren’t opting out of motherhood because of television shows that prioritize material success over having families. Women are choosing to remain childless because of the ridiculous costs for basic items like an apartment, and even milk and eggs. They’re choosing not to have kids because they have no choice but to work, and they know that in the majority of marriages/partnerships, it’s the woman who does all the work to take care of the kids.

The way our world has changed, it is almost impossible to live off of one income so that a father or mother can stay home with their child(ren). That’s a dream now, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Carrie Bradshaw or Hannah Horvath or any other character we watched in our late teens and early 20s.

The other issue that should have been addressed is that men need to step up and be more involved with their families and housework.

Vicky Welch, Montreal


An insult to Gordie Howe

R e: U.S. deal could have been ‘explained better’: PM — Jordan Gowling, July 25

Gordie Howe was more known for his hockey skills than his verbal skills but his style was honest. His name and reputation, however, have been besmirched by the political actors involved in his namesake bridge in Windsor.

Mark Carney’s Davos speech, his concern about spending by former governor generals through a secretive account, and his yet to be seen but apparent understanding that we need to develop our natural resources, are all promising indicators that he knows what the PM’s job is about. And, thankfully, he has yet to descend to the “I’m sorry for everything” mantra normalized by his predecessor.

None of the above, however, will balance the dismal display of leadership he has shown over “The Bridge.” His “I could have explained it better” was his apology for misleading us.

It wasn’t going to be hard for Carney to outshine Justin Trudeau’s flickering candle of “look-at-me” management. All he had to do was show up everyday. Now, though, no amount of Davos deception will get him a Mr. Hockey title, regardless of whether his elbows are up or down.

Larry Baswick, Stratford, Ont.


Crime and disorder in Canada

Re: The sex criminal in Canada illegally who got a work permit — Jamie Sarkonak, July 21

We Canadians tend to view ourselves as morally superior beings, especially in regard to our American neighbours.

Day after day the National Post, and sometimes even The Globe and Mail, publish articles like Jamie Sarkonak’s column that demonstrate our inability to govern ourselves effectively, as exemplified in this case by the lack of enforcement of removal orders and the endless ability of individuals to access our courts, all at the expense of taxpayers.

This inability is exacerbated by the lax sentencing imposed on criminals by soft-hearted, or more likely, soft-headed judges who fail to realize that going easy on individual offenders will likely mean hardship for the community at large.

While the U.S. certainly has its flaws, I’m not certain that theirs outweigh ours to an extent that would justify our smugness. President Donald Trump has a point that securing borders and enforcing laws are the basic things countries should be able to do. If we can’t do that, perhaps he is correct in calling the border just a line on a map.

John Harris, Toronto


FIFA World Cup a déjà vu of 1990s NHL hockey

Re: Hockey still rules in Canada despite heightened visibility of FIFA World Cup: survey — Stewart Lewis, July 19

Watching the final game of the World Cup, my inner — well, I should admit, not so inner — curmudgeon overtook my dutiful enjoyment of a sport I rarely watch. As one of the hosts, we Canadians felt the obligation to suddenly feign interest in a game unfamiliar to many — although I concede the familiarity is growing. But as I watched Spain and Argentina play for nearly two hours without scoring a goal, the thought suddenly popped into my head: I was actually watching 1990s NHL hockey.

Clutch and grab. Diving with faked injuries. No scoring. Blatant interference, almost always uncalled. Slow play, endless back and forth passing. The left-wing lock.

In the 1950s, Anatoli Tarasov, a Russian football coach, was asked to create a Russian hockey team, primarily for propaganda purposes. Famously, Tarasov didn’t watch any hockey. Instead, he read the rule book, over and over, until he felt he understood the game. Then he used his football background to devise a system of hockey that became well known to Canadians in the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union.

It was all about possession. Five-player units who worked as one. Carry the puck up the ice, but if the opening was not there at the blue line, circle all five back into the defensive zone and try again. And again, and again, until the opponent made a mistake. Booooring.

Admittedly, it required a very high level of technical ability, skating and passing. But it was slow, robotic and mind-numbing. And that’s what international soccer is — Anatoli Tarasov hockey. Combined with Gary Bettman’s expansion-era holding, punching, elbowing and diving.

To his credit, Bettman allowed hockey to evolve. He had the referees crack down on clutch-and-grab, allowed speed and skill to take precedence. Possession remains an important metric, but stick handling, quick puck movement, and advancing play into the offensive area are the rule. International football could take a lesson

Tom Curran, Consecon, Ont.


National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (250 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email letters@nationalpost.com. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.


(FILES) International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during a press conference at the San Carlos Palace in Bogota, on April 25, 2024. (Photo by LUIS ACOSTA/AFP via Getty Images) This content is reserved for subscribers.


(FILES) International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during a press conference at the San Carlos Palace in Bogota, on April 25, 2024. (Photo by LUIS ACOSTA/AFP via Getty Images) This content is reserved for subscribers.


A protesters wears a sticker reading

The false accusation that Israel is guilty of genocide for its actions in Gaza has been repeated so often that it has become normalized in the media, academia, politics and civil society. Yet it is a mendacious blood libel that inverts the truth by absolving those who seek to wipe out Israel, for the cynical purpose of delegitimizing the world’s only Jewish state, a refuge for Holocaust survivors, and threatening diaspora Jews. Furthermore, it does a disservice to actual genocides that have been committed around the world.

The authoritative legal definition of genocide is set out in Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , which defines genocide as specified acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Genocide requires the specific intention to destroy the protected group, rather than an intent to defeat an enemy, seize territory, displace a population or even conduct military operations with reckless disregard for civilian life.

That distinction is crucial, or the allied bombing of German cities during the Second World War and the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would mean the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia were guilty of genocide.

Israel’s war is not against Gazans but Hamas, itself a genocidal terrorist organization whose overarching mission is to eliminate the State of Israel, which it tried to do on Oct. 7, 2023, murdering, burning, raping and torturing 1,200 men, women, children, infants and disabled people and taking 251 hostages, the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

No other country in the world would fail to respond to such an attack, do everything to recover its hostages and destroy the enemy who vowed to attack it again and again. Ironically, no other country would be subject to the opprobrium Israel has endured for doing so, including from countries that claim to recognize its right to defend itself.

Uniquely, Israel warned enemy civilians about bombings (thereby telegraphing its plans to the enemy) and provided food, humanitarian aid, humanitarian corridors and delayed ground operations to allow the population to move.

Protecting civilians in this type of urban warfare environment is especially difficult given Hamas’s calculated use of civilians as human shields, including urging them not to respond to Israeli warnings, and the extensive tunnel system that non-combatants were barred from using.

This does not suggest that civilians did not suffer — they did, some terribly. Nor does it imply that people cannot have different opinions about Israel’s conduct during the war, although criticism should be comparable to how other countries are held to account. However, Israel’s defensive war did not, by any objective measure, constitute genocide in action, intent or result.

Of course, fairness, context and the facts do not constrain Israel’s fiercest critics and sworn enemies, nor several Canadian politicians, including NDP Leader Avi Lewis, Green Leader Elizabeth May, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and Liberal MP Adam van Koeverden (which evoked crickets from the prime minister).

Very few political leaders publicly condemn these calumnies, perhaps because they appeal to the so-called red-green alliance between leftists and Islamists, yet rarely alienate the rest of the electorate. Indifference grants antisemites a free ride.

Hateful words that smear minorities can lead to violence. Repetition of the blood libel incites unprecedented incidents of antisemitism on the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere. Canada saw the highest number of antisemitic incidents in the world last year — in absolute numbers, not just per capita — according to Statista . That is a startling distinction that every Canadian should view with alarm and shame.

Anti-Zionism, used as a cover for religious hatred, undermines the personal safety and social peace that made Canada a wonderful country in which to live, work and bring up a family. Yet Jews have long been canaries in the coal mine, whose mistreatment foreshadows broader social and democratic decay and intolerance.

For several years now, the canaries have been getting sick, dying or flying away from our once peaceable kingdom. Failure to take concrete action in the face of rising hatred in word and deed is an abdication of political leadership, which will inevitably lead to tragedy.

National Post

Joe Oliver was the minister of natural resources and finance in the Harper government.


The fire that destroyed this kosher restaurant in Montreal is under investigation by the police arson unit.

Early Saturday, Nöam, a kosher Jewish restaurant in Montreal’s Côte-des-Neiges neighbourhood was completely destroyed by fire; it is being investigated as a possible arson and the motive has not yet been determined. This same neighbourhood is still reeling from an attack that shut down the entire area just over 40 days ago.

I visited the site of the former restaurant, now burnt to cinders. The mood was sombre.

Nöam is only a four-minute walk from the Hilton where, in late June, Seth Hatfield — a 25-year-old Albertan with grand delusions that capitalism and elites (including Zionists) were the cause of his dating woes — unleashed terror on the same community, resulting in the deaths of Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, a Muslim Montreal police officer, and a Jewish bystander, Michel Mizrahi.

In the short walk between the two locations, I noticed that a large sign memorializing both men lost to the Côte-des-Neiges community had been erected by the Jewish Community Council. As is customary in the Jewish community, it reads: “May their memories be a blessing.”

Upon arrival at Nöam, I noticed a chemical smell, likely an accelerant of some kind. The building Nöam was in also housed another business, which I was told was untouched by the fire.

 The fire that destroyed this popular kosher restaurant, Nöam, in Montreal, is under investigation by the police arson unit.

The Liberal MP for Mount Royal, Anthony Housefather, was on scene when I arrived. I asked him to say a few words about what he thought was happening.

In a recorded interview, he told me that the owners had just put a lot of money into renovations for the restaurant, and called it a “horrific tragedy” for the owners and their customers as well as the entire community.

Housefather told me, “It was clearly an arson attack,” based on the footage he’d seen, and that now the police need to investigate the motive. Housefather said that he also contacted the minister of public safety, Gary Anandasangaree, who he said was in touch with his local counterparts in the area.

Housefather told me that “Montreal police checked out all the cameras in the area,” and that the owners would be adding their footage later Saturday, after Shabbat. Housefather told me, “hopefully, there’ll be very clear footage of the guy who did this, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

I spoke to the owner of the building, who shared a video with the Post, which appeared to be a recording of surveillance video showing an individual running.

The mayor of the Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough, Stéphanie Valenzuela, posted a message to her Instagram account saying she was concerned about recent incidents in the area, and that members of the community should continue to look out for one another.

It doesn’t mention this is in her message, but, in addition to this apparent arson, early on Friday gunshots were fired in the neighbourhood at around 2:50 a.m. A house on Méridian Ave. near Ponsard Ave. was struck by gunfire. Reportedly, someone was seen at the residence before fleeing the scene.

Let’s hope that, if the Nöam fire was, indeed, an arson, that the courts do not entertain the kind of unbelievable excuse that admitted Montreal arsonist Mohamed Ilyess Akodad gave the court here, that he was unaware that the institution he was setting fire to was a synagogue.

The Jewish community in Montreal will find out whether the judge believed Akodad’s fantastical story, and just how seriously the justice system here takes attacks on the Jewish community when court reconvenes for his sentencing on Sept. 10.

National Post


The Montreal police arson squad are investigating a fire that destroyed a popular kosher restaurant in the city.

Beryl P. Wajsman: Special to the National Post

Montreal — There is a debilitating temptation within the Jewish community today to assume that every crime involving a Jewish institution must automatically be an act of antisemitism.

The temptation is understandable. After almost two years of escalating hatred, firebombings, shootings, vandalism, intimidation and open calls for violence against Jews, no one can be faulted for being alert. Vigilance is not only justified — it is necessary.

But vigilance is not the same as reflex.

The arson attack that heavily damaged the Nöam kosher restaurant on Décarie Boulevard in Montreal early Saturday is a serious crime. It deserves a thorough investigation, and those responsible deserve the full weight of the law. Certainly after the attacks in on Kiva’s kosher bakeries in Toronto.

What it does not deserve is an immediate verdict before investigators have completed their work.

I went to the scene. I spoke with people in the neighbourhood. I spoke with contacts familiar with the investigation. The picture that emerged was far more nuanced than the one rapidly circulating on social media.

The Montreal Police Service has assigned both its arson investigators and its hate crimes unit to the case. That is entirely appropriate. Every possible motive should be examined, including antisemitism.

But, as of now, no motive has been established.

According to reliable information surveillance cameras reportedly captured a lone individual walking away from the small commercial building at approximately 3:15 a.m. There were reportedly no antisemitic slogans, no graffiti, and no message claiming ideological responsibility.

The investigation is exactly where it should be: open-minded.

Yair Szlak, the president and CEO of Federation CJA, said that, “Federation CJA and the Security network (CSN) are closely monitoring the situation concerning the arson that took place at a Kosher restaurant in Montreal. We’re working closely with law-enforcement to understand the motive behind it. Regardless of motive, this is a terrible crime and must be punished in accordance with the law.”

This is precisely the right approach. They are working closely with police to determine the motive while emphasizing that, whatever ultimately emerges, grave criminal offences demand prosecution. That is responsible leadership.

I have written before that fear can become self-perpetuating. Every new incident is immediately folded into a predetermined narrative. Facts become secondary. Context disappears. The assumption becomes the conclusion.

Ironically, that weakens rather than strengthens the fight against antisemitism. Let us not forget that in 2022 — the last year before October 7 — Canada recorded some 2,700 antisemitic incidents, according to the League for Human Rights.

When every crime is immediately labelled antisemitic, even when no evidence of that has yet emerged, we blur the distinction between genuine hate crimes and other criminal acts. We invite unnecessary skepticism. We make it easier for those who truly wish to minimize antisemitism to dismiss legitimate concerns as exaggeration.

The truth is our strongest ally. If this investigation concludes that Nöam was targeted because it is a Jewish business, then we should say so loudly and unequivocally. We should demand enhanced penalties where the law permits and insist that governments confront the reality of antisemitism honestly and enforce Criminal Code and Charter protections.

But if investigators conclude it was another criminal motive, we should accept that conclusion with equal honesty.

The Jewish community’s strength has never been panic. It has always been resilience.

I have always argued that governments should stop simply issuing statements and start enforcing the Criminal Code. That principle applies here as well. We should let investigators investigate, prosecutors prosecute, and judges judge.

Our confidence should rest not in fear, but in facts.

Antisemitism is real. It is dangerous. It requires constant vigilance and uncompromising enforcement of the law. But credibility is also a strategic asset.

Every time we insist on evidence, we make it harder for genuine acts of antisemitism to be denied or explained away.

The answer to hatred is not hysteria. It is confidence.

Confidence in ourselves. Confidence in the rule of law. And confidence that truth, not fear, must always have the final word.

Beryl P. Wajsman is president of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal


U.S. President Donald Trump, left, welcomes Prime Minister Mark Carney outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2025. This content is reserved for subscribers.


U.S. President Donald Trump, left, welcomes Prime Minister Mark Carney outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2025. This content is reserved for subscribers.


An undated photograph of the Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps, otherwise known as the African Rifles, an all-Black militia of immigrants from San Francisco's First African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church who settled on Vancouver Island in the 1860s at the invitation of Gov. James Douglas.

It’s an almost entirely forgotten history. It’s hidden away by all the prevailing postmodernist doctrines that oblige Canadians to be ashamed of themselves, and it’s not particularly convenient to certain of the more strident tendencies within the “anti-woke” schools of thought, either. But now that the Emancipation Day weekend falls on the British Columbia Day weekend, it’s worth taking the time to acknowledge a sprawling, dramatic chapter of Canadian history that only rarely gets a proper look-in.

In that story, Canada came within a hair’s breadth of a war with the United States and the loss of what the Fathers of Confederation would go on to imagine as a peaceable dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Trump administration’s “51st state” provocations invoke memories of those times, and there’s a great deal of bloodshed, intrigue and betrayal in the story, which played out across the entire western half of the North American continent.

There’s certainly no dearth of irony involved. British Columbia, which ended up uniquely belligerent to Indigenous rights among Canadian provinces, owes its very birth and survival to a visionary British colonial defence of Indigenous rights against American marauders and mob rule. The doctrine that treaty-making should precede European settlement and that Indigenous people were to be afforded all the rights of British subjects goes all the way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There’s nothing “woke” about it. It remains a legal doctrine that was one of the chief grievances of the American Revolution of 1776.

All these years later, here we are: All the frantic panic about last year’s Supreme Court of B.C. decision declaring Aboriginal title in the Cowichan land claims lawsuit in Richmond, and all the incoherence arising from the B.C. government’s own-goal quagmire in its preoccupation with the serial redundancies of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), are legacies of that same old belligerence.

While it wasn’t until 2021 that the House of Commons and the B.C. legislature finally got around to officially commemorating Emancipation Day — the first statutory spike in the coffin of slavery throughout the British Empire, in 1834 — the celebration was already a civic holiday in Victoria, B.C.’s capital, in the 1850s. So much for the sins of colonialism.

It’s become sensibly unfashionable to comprehend history as a chronicle of the deeds of powerful men, great or wicked, but there are two men worth paying attention to in the story of British Columbia and Emancipation Day. Their radically conflicting legacies come together in a way that tells the story well.

The first man is the great Sir James Douglas, born in Dutch Guyana, the son of a Scottish planter and a “free coloured woman” from Barbados. A lifelong fur trader, Douglas had just risen to the rank of chief factor at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s headquarters at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River when the vast Columbia territory was partitioned at the 49th parallel by the Oregon Treaty of 1846. Douglas would go on to become the governor of both the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

 An undated photograph of Sir James Douglas, the first governor of both of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. Douglas was a devoted follower of British abolitionist William Wilberforce.

The other man is the U.S. Army’s Gen. William Harney , known to the Lakota Sioux as Woman Killer. Notorious for his policy of slaughtering the inhabitants of entire Indigenous villages, Harney was court-martialled four times, but he always landed back on his feet owing to his close association with the senator, slavery enthusiast and secretary of war Jefferson Davis, who would go on to serve as the president of the Confederate States in the U.S. Civil War.

In the exodus north of the 49th parallel to establish a new headquarters in Victoria on Vancouver Island, Douglas brought with him what HBC governor George Simpson described as “the prettiest congregation of nations, the nicest confusion of tongues, that has ever taken place since the days of the tower of Babel.”

While Douglas was a bear of a man with a quick temper he was a devoted follower of the British abolitionist William Wilberforce. When he was appointed Vancouver Island’s governor in 1851, the Crown Colony was already a thriving loyalist society of Orkney Islanders, Iroquois and Métis traders, Québécois voltigeurs, Hawaiian Kanakas and various “King George Indians” who had retreated ahead of the American advance across the Rockies into what is now Montana and Idaho.

It wasn’t long before Victoria’s Chinatown was the second largest on the continent after San Francisco’s, and Douglas invited a community of Black pioneers in California to make a new home under the Union Jack. During the height of the gold rush, in 1860 — in the days immediately before the American Civil War — miners arriving in Victoria harbour from San Francisco were greeted at dockside by the Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps, an all-Black militia known as the African Rifles.

Everyone north of the 49th soon became aware of the American cavalry’s wars of extermination to the south: the Cayuse War, the Klamath War, the Salmon River War, the Yakima War, and the Nisqually War. In his genocidal zeal to clear the West of its independent tribes, Harney once told the New York Times: “I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honourable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.”

On Vancouver Island, the local tribes — the Songhees, the Esquimalt, the Tsartlip, Tseycum, Malahat and the rest — welcomed a military alliance with Douglas and the Crown. They didn’t have to be strong-armed into the treaties Douglas offered them, which were co-existence arrangements derived from the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi with the Maoris in New Zealand.

It was the gold rush to the Fraser Canyon that threatened to spark an all-out war pitting Douglas and his polyglot community of loyalists, along with B.C.’s Indigenous people, against the thousands of heavily armed American miners who had flooded into the Stó:lō and Nlaka’pamux territories in 1858.

Douglas had retained his HBC duties on the mainland while serving as Vancouver Island’s governor, which left him in charge of the entire British half of the old Columbia territory. That August, in the rush to assert British sovereignty on the mainland against what would have been certain and bloody American annexation, the Colonial Office in London established the mainland Colony of British Columbia and appointed Douglas its governor.

That same year, the U.S. Army assigned Gen. Harney to the border districts of the American half of the former Columbia territory, in what is now Washington State. Where there was once peace between the tribes and settlers under the Crown’s authority, Harney pursued a policy of destroying Indigenous livestock, harassing civilians, hanging Indigenous people to terrorize their chiefs and taking measures to ensure against any “overtures of friendship” with the local tribes.

It was a petty affair, the following year, that kicked things off. An American squatter shot a pig owned by the HBC farm on San Juan Island, just seven sea miles from Fort Victoria. Gen. Harney had long opposed the Columbia territory border compromise and sided with the Democratic Party’s “54-40 or fight” pretensions, originally championed by U.S. president James Polk: 54 degrees 40 minutes latitude was the southern point of Russia’s possessions in Alaska. Harney had long dreamt of annexing everything the Oregon Treaty had left in British hands.

It was only the American war of annexation waged against Mexico that sidelined the American ambition to annex Britain’s half of the Columbia territory. Concluded with the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe, the pattern repeated itself from Wyoming to Southern California: the Yavapai slaughter, the Sand Creek Massacre, the Mendocino War, the Yuki genocide, the Snake River War, the Colorado War, and so on.

After the HBC pursued its claim against the squatters on San Juan Island in 1859, Gen. Harney dispatched 64 troops from the 29th U.S. Infantry to occupy the island, a force that soon grew to 460 soldiers. Gov. Douglas, meanwhile, sent three minor warships to reinforce the “English camp” on the island. It wasn’t until the White House recalled Harney and ordered the troops to hold fire that matters settled down.

Meanwhile, in the Fraser Canyon, a shooting war had broken out between the American miners and the local tribes. Douglas intervened by reminding the Americans that they were no longer under the protection of the Stars and Stripes. He appointed several local Indigenous leaders as government agents and magistrates and lectured the tribes sternly against taking the law into their own hands. In his report to the Colonial Office in London he explained that he had spoken “with great plainness” to the white miners, reminding them that they were in British Columbia only on sufferance, and north of the 49th parallel “the laws would protect the rights of the Indians no less than those of the white man.”

The policy Douglas and the Colonial Office embraced was to discourage American settlement of what was to become British Columbia, and to restrain European settlement until treaties had been concluded. His clear intention was to grant large tracts of land exclusively to Indigenous people until such time as the tribes got a proper footing in the new society they had been building, in common with Douglas and his loyalists.

But Douglas and his old regime was on the way out. His land commissioner, R.C. Moody, undermined him at every opportunity — it was Moody’s double-dealings in the Cowichan case that forced that judge last year to declare unceded Aboriginal title to a patch of Fraser River foreshore in Richmond.

After Douglas came Gov. Frederick Seymour and a policy that Indigenous people had no more right to the land “than the he-panther or the she-bear.” British Columbia absorbed the Colony of Vancouver Island in 1866, and it would not be a stretch to say that by insisting that there was no “Indian land question” to settle west of the Rockies, B.C. lied its way into Confederation in 1871.

The dispute on San Juan Island was resolved in an arbitration overseen by German Emperor Wilhelm Bismarck in 1872, by redrawing the boundary in such a way as to place San Juan Island and several other formerly British islands inside the United States border. The Royal Marines abandoned the island that year. U.S. troops were withdrawn in 1874.

The “prettiest congregation of nations” that was the wellspring of British Columbia was soon overwhelmed by settlement from every corner of the Earth, but the memory of James Douglas and his loyalists is not a thing to cause any of us any shame.

National Post