It’s not always the unexpected that gets governments in trouble — often enough it’s their own bad judgement, poor timing or general clumsiness that gets in the way. But the unanticipated does happen a lot.

Parties and politicians put time and effort into concocting a set of policies aimed at winning votes by proposing remedies to problems identified as occupying top rungs of current voter concern. If they’re lucky they get elected, presumably intending to put those policies into effect at the earliest opportunity. Then the world shifts and pulls the rug from under them.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau was a big fan of the attention-getting promise. Especially if it was a pledge timed well into the future when he was unlikely to still be around to be held responsible. Carbon reductions too ambitious to be realistic. Budget targets too unlikely to be believed. Statist planning projects that tended increasingly to the surreal.

Mark Carney is left with the detritus and the problem of what to do about it. As prime minister he’s already acted on a few of the problematic leftovers, ditching the carbon tax even though he’d previously supported it as a good idea; scrapping an increased

tax

on capital gains although the Treasury could certainly use the money; “caving,” as the Trump administration so tastefully put it, on a digital services

tax

that was a bad idea to

begin

with but pushed through by the Trudeau government anyway.

There’s an argument to be made, and not a bad one, that each retreat was the right move for the moment. And if there are mistakes that need abandoning, the early days of a new government is proverbially the best time to do it.

But righting wrongs has confronted Carney with a new predicament, in that there are so many Trudeau-era wrongs that need righting. Washington was still in the midst of its victory dance over its digital tax triumph when Canada’s auto industry came along to plead for similar treatment from Ottawa, insisting automakers couldn’t possibly meet previously-set electric vehicle targets and urging the new Liberal government to backtrack post haste.

Carney

hosted

 the session with Canada’s chief executives for Ford, Stellantis and General Motors. Brian Kingston, chief executive of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, was blunt in identifying the targets set for electric vehicle (EV) production as the main topic.

“The EV mandate itself is not sustainable. The targets that have been established cannot be met,” he said on arriving for the meeting. Afterwards he told Politico’s

online

news site, “At a time when the industry is under immense pressure, the damaging and redundant ZEV mandate must be urgently removed.”

There’s no doubt automakers have a serious threat on their hands. The Trump administration is putting a vigorous squeeze on the industry in its crusade to force manufacturing back to the U.S. Canadian plants face tariffs on steel and aluminum, and another on autos themselves. Even if negotiations succeed in reducing those levies, the unpredictability of the current U.S. administration eliminates any chance of certainty, inhibiting long-term planning and investment strategies. Add in the failure of the EV revolution to attain the heights enthusiasts forecast for it and the future looks like one long, bumpy ride into doubt.

The Trudeau EV targets were

introduced

in 2022 by then-environment minister Steven Guilbeault, now minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. They set minimums for zero emission vehicle sales at 20 per  by 2026, 60 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2035.

The goals were always fanciful and have looked increasingly so as the EV business ran into trouble on numerous fronts. China’s determination to flood the world with low-cost EVs roiled higher-cost rivals in Europe and North America. A global race to secure essential minerals set off commercial clashes in some of the world’s most troubled countries. In addition to his on-again off-again tariff regime, Trump is set on

weakening

the U.S. EV industry, ordering an end to supports introduced by the Biden administration and cancelling a federal tax credit for EV sales in the “Big, Beautiful Bill”

approved

Wednesday by Congress. A last-minute change to the legislation even

advanced

the end of the credit by three months to September this year.

Add to all that the personal

implosion

of Tesla founder Elon Musk, removing the perceived chichi-ness of owning a Tesla and sending sales into a tailspin, a tarnish potentially affecting the popularity of electric vehicles in general.

So there is a more-than-reasonable case to be made for Carney to water down the EV mandate while he’s still in the business of ordering retreats. But there’s an obvious political risk involved, and one he can’t be keen to encourage. One retreat feeds another, and Canada’s history of corporate subsidies and regulatory breaks means there’s a long list of supplicants likely to view concessions to the auto giants as a signal to get out their begging bowls and head to Ottawa for similar treatment.

The auto sector

claims

an annual contribution of $16 billion to the economy, making the need for sympathetic treatment from Ottawa obvious. Yet a tradeoff of EV ambitions to fossil fuel realities is a contravention to Carney’s clearly stated environmental beliefs.

This may be a moment in which we discover how much of the prime minister is the pragmatic business-minded banker intent on shaking Canada free of its low-productivity torpor, and how much is a politician still in his apprenticeship and wary of being pushed in directions he doesn’t want to go.

National Post

• Colby Cosh: Mark Carney’s unstable environment
• Kelly McParland: New York swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

It has become something of a cliché to assert as an evident fact accepted resignedly, that the West is in decline. But it isn’t. The West is essentially the Americas, Central and Western Europe, Israel, Australasia, and Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, arguably the Philippines and beleaguered elements in South Africa. Obviously, some of these places are in better condition than others. A degenerating society is one that has lost the will to defend itself from both external and internal enemies and where belief in the value of the society or civilization and loyalty and pride in the country have eroded to the point where there is legitimate doubt that they can be sustained under any pressure. No part of the Western world has achieved such a condition.

Canadians are vaguely aware that in the last decade we’ve been uncompetitive with peer countries in economic growth and the rise of our standard of living, and although most Canadians have been dissatisfied with many aspects of public policy, almost nobody believes this has ceased to be a worthwhile country and a relatively agreeable place to live with excellent prospects if we have improved standards of political leadership. The burning question is whether the new prime minister, Mark Carney, will follow the authoritarian and socialistic, environmentally-obsessed course indicated by his book, Values, a turgid recitation of an unpromising political agenda, or succumbs to the traditional tenacious enticements of incumbency of a federal Liberal leader. It must be said that, so far, he has shown gravitas in his distinguished office, and although there is a weakness for Pearsonian waffling, that is a merciful relief compared to the green fanaticism and mindless globalism that afflicted him when he was governor of the Bank of England. The appointment of the very capable Michael Sabia as clerk of the privy council is reassuring.

In the United States, on whose strategic direction and political and economic health the condition of the entire West chiefly depends, President Trump, no matter how appalled many may be by his lack of gentility, is moving decisively to stimulate economic growth, reduce the trade deficit, reduce inflation, increase job creation, and has effectively closed the borders to illegal immigration, and is asserting the authority of the federal government throughout the country and requiring the apprehension and deportation of convicted criminals who entered the United States illegally. These are elemental steps in national self-preservation and if they had not been taken, a rising concern about what the late British critic and humorist Malcolm Muggeridge called “the great liberal death wish” in the United States would have been justified. The joint Israeli-American destruction of the Iranian nuclear program and of Iran’s capacity to finance international terror on the scale that it has through most of the history of the Islamic Republic has been a decisive and absolutely essential step in raising the prospects for peace and prosperity in the whole world.

Western Europe is naturally more complicated. For all of history from the rise of the Roman Republic to the 20th century it was the leading and most influential political and economic region in the world. It is naturally heavily burdened by its responsibility for the evils of totalitarian communism, Nazism, and fascism and the terrible hecatombs of the world wars. For notorious historic reasons, it lumbers its economy with extravagant Danegeld for the working classes and the small farmers. Much of Europe went perilously far in abdicating democratic political authority to the undemocratic commissioners of the European Union. They are all committed to the “ever closer union” which is the founding objective of the EU, but which has not been specifically ratified by many of the adherent populations, and as the European commissioners are not elected and are not answerable to the talking shop European Parliament in Strasbourg, this is not democracy. That was the great problem in the United Kingdom, which Mark Carney failed to recognize as he tried in his in supposedly nonpolitical position of central banker to terrorize the British into voting against Brexit. Britain had voted to join a common market not a federal union. The institutions of government that had developed over 800 years of British history would be subsumed into the well-intentioned but unfledged institutions of Brussels, and its relations with the United States and its senior Commonwealth kindred countries, relationships that have made an incomparable contribution to Western civilization, would be handed over to the Davos-minded foreign placemen of Brussels.

The European Union will have to be rethought and probably will proceed on a two-tiered basis where those countries which wish federation should certainly have it and those that wish to retain national sovereignty but in affiliation with European central government are accommodated. The whole enterprise will have to adopt a tax and benefit system more stimulative to economic growth and more respectful of the market economy. Europeans cannot ignore the implications of the fact that 20 years ago their collective GDP was almost identical to that of the United States and today the American economy is almost twice as large as that of the EU. This is despite the mediocre American leadership between the Reagan and current Trump eras, because European political leadership has been even poorer. For the only time in British history, U.K. Conservatives provided five consecutive failed prime ministers in eight years. The quality of French leadership in the Fifth Republic has declined from the great General de Gaulle in tottering downward increments to the completely incompetent François Hollande, and Emmanuel Macron has been only a very partial improvement. Four-term German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who could Have been a female Bismarck, was ultimately a failure, as was her successor. Both the new chancellor and the new opposition show signs of hope. The Italian Premier, Giorgia Meloni, is a very considerable statesman and the most capable Italian leader since Alcide de Gasperi. The Spanish premier is a socialist imbecile, and the present British government is off to a terrible start.

But there are unmistakable signs that the old continent is recovering: the German Christian Democrats like the equivalent Italian parties, are much bolder and more ideologically robust than in the recent past. The French Rassemblement National has respectabilized itself and appears ready for victory. In the United Kingdom, either the Conservative Party will regain a reasonable quality of leadership and political judgment or it will be shunted into the wilderness like the old Liberals by the Reform Party. The most encouraging litmus test of the recovery of Europe is that Vladimir Putin had assumed that it would be wallowing in moralistic platitudes while he reabsorbed Ukraine. Not only has Ukraine repulsed him with great courage, but he succeeded in reawakening Europe from its long torpor and arming it with the resolve of self-respect and determination of olden time, and is doubling its defence budget. The westernized countries of the Far Pacific are responding commendably to the Chinese challenge, encouraged by the pivot of Trump’s America towards them. This is not a civilization in decline.

National Post

Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani is on a mission to bring race socialism to New York City. That is not speculation, it’s in his public campaign platform.

“Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.”

Were it a throwaway line designed to appeal to unhappy, dyed-hair baristas and the local faculty lounges, Mamdani might have quietly removed it, but it turns out that it is essential to his vision. When called out on it on live television, he

doubled down

on the policy while bewilderingly denying it was race-based.

“That is just a description of what we see right now. It’s not driven by race. It’s more of an assessment of what neighbourhoods are being under-taxed versus over-taxed,” Mamdani stated on NBC News.

Despite the blatant attempt at gaslighting, this could be the start of a tremendous shift in global left-wing politics, considering the influence of the United States. The buildup to race socialism has been decades in the making, and Mamdani could be the politician to make it mainstream.

These ideas have been gaining traction in the West, including in Canada.

The far-left publication Canadian Dimension

published

a column in February that called for a wealth tax and explicitly linked it to race: “It’s no secret that extreme wealth in western democracies is overwhelmingly held by white people, and Canada is no exception.”

There is even a

“critical tax theory”

movement arising in North America that argues that white taxpayers should pay higher rates in the name of equity.

For those who want a policy of racial socialism and revolution in the West, Mamdani is their role model for the foreseeable future. If New Yorkers want to consign themselves to stagnation, racial animosity and more bad governance, that is their decision. The burden is on everyone else to reject race socialism wherever it arises.

There is no doubt that Mamdani is a charismatic figure, with a readily deployable smile and a soft millennial bearing that makes him appear rather harmless. It is an excellent shield for a man whose ideology strays sharply from that of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or even Barack Obama.

For all his faults, it is clear that Obama has

at least a basic,

albeit very critical, respect for the American Founding Fathers and the country’s constitutional principles. Mamdani’s

thinking

has been

deeply shaped

by his family, who are heavyweights in the world of far-left academia.

His father in particular, Mahmood Mamdani, is one of the western world’s more well-known scholars in the field of “postcolonial studies,” with a special interest in Africa.

The Africa Report, an award-winning quarterly focusing on the continent’s current affairs,

reported

in June that the Mamdanis were awash with “diasporic intellectualism, where ideas about justice, decolonization and identity were household conversations.”

How exactly did decolonization play out in Africa following the collapse of European rule? There was great enthusiasm for wealth redistribution and the scapegoating of ethnic minorities, led by charismatic figures like Uganda’s Idi Amin and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.

Following the British departure in 1962, Idi Amin demonized and

purged

the country’s mostly South Asian merchant class in the 1970s, Mamdani’s father among them. Their businesses were expropriated, and their assets confiscated.

In the 1980s in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, Robert Mugabe

seized the lands

of the remaining white farmers in an attempt to loot and redistribute the wealth associated with it.

Concurrent to that, Mugabe began a

violent repression

of the country’s sizable Ndebele minority, whom he accused of subversion and sabotage. It resulted in the deaths of up to 30,000 Zimbabwean citizens.

The Ndebele remember it as a time when their people were singled out and slaughtered. Mahmood Mamdani

described this period

as one of “massive social change,” in which “very little turmoil” took place. For those who champion decolonization, the violent cleansing of certain ethnic groups is immaterial if it furthers the cause.

According to Africa Report,

his son Zohran would be

“the first to carry the intellectual legacy of postcolonial Africa into the political heart of the West.”

Right now, the West’s cultural zeitgeist is perfectly aligned for the arrival of this sort of decolonial race socialism in New York City.

It is impossible to ignore the newly emerged, constructed narrative of the “colonizers” and the “colonized.” Resentment and the assignment of ancestral guilt are at the core of it, and it has spread throughout the English-speaking world.

Statues of explorers, monarchs and historical business and political leaders are common targets for radicals who despise the countries they helped to found. They have been toppled, smashed or vandalized in Victoria, Hamilton, and Melbourne, usually without legal repercussions.

This fabricated Indigenous-colonizer conflict is not only permissible, but given space in respectable society across Australia, Canada and even Britain. The hustlers are given

prime- time

television slots or

academic tenure

to vent, and usually receive polite nods from the presenters in return.

In America, Zohran Mamdani’s rise to political stardom is where this wave of racial politics meets the socialist revival spearheaded by

Bernie Sanders

and

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

, who have wholeheartedly endorsed him.

The politics of the English-speaking world have always been connected, and the United States is its most powerful engine for driving new narratives. Mamdani’s team are

artful practitioners

of social media, and his presence is felt well beyond the U.S.

Already, Canadian NDP politicians like

Marit Stiles

and MP

Leah Gazan

are falling over each other trying to heap praise upon him.

Gazan, a leading voice

for radical decolonial

, anti-Western politics in Ottawa, posted on X: “Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York is an inspiring example for how progressives can stand up to establishment liberals or authoritarians like Trump.”

Is it truly sticking it to Trump that has got Gazan and her ilk so fired up, or is it something else?

The majority of people in the U.S., Canada and its peer countries must have the courage to say no to race socialism, with strength and without fear.

National Post

• J.D. Tuccille: NYC mayor hopeful’s stated goal is ‘seizing the means of production’
• Kelly McParland: New York swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

Money talks, and when the sum being discussed is $175 million it starts speaking the language of common sense.

The University of Pennsylvania has — finally — been forced to see reason over Lia Thomas, the controversial transgender athlete who was allowed to compete against female swimmers.

In an embarrassing climbdown, the university has settled a civil rights case with the Department of Education by: apologizing to female athletes “disadvantaged” by Thomas taking part in swimming competitions; restoring individual records and titles to female athletes who lost to Thomas; sending a personalized apology to each of those female swimmers; agreeing it will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs and adopting a “biology-based” definition of male and female.

It was total capitulation.

“The University will not — on the basis of sex — exclude female students from participation in, deny female students the benefits of, or subject female students to discrimination under, any athletics programs,” reads a

statement

posted to the university’s website on Tuesday.

Crucially, it went on to say, “In addition, in providing to female student-athletes intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms in connection with Penn Athletics, such facilities shall be strictly separated on the basis of sex and comparably provided to each sex.”

Great, female locker rooms for women. Why was that ever a battle?

The issue of transgender athletes competing against women was always so much more than that, although that in itself mattered. It opened the door not just to unfairness in sport, but access to female spaces like locker rooms, prisons and rape shelters.

This wasn’t just about discrimination, but about how half the population was suddenly vulnerable to the depredations of anyone who wished to declare themselves a woman.

That’s not to accuse transgender people of being sex pests. It is, unfortunately, a recognition that too many predatory men will use whatever means necessary, even posing as a woman, to put themselves in a position where they can abuse women.

If the debate about transgender people had been less strident from the beginning, if supporters had adopted less of an all or nothing principle — all trans women are women — we might have come to a compromise or a reasonable accommodation.

But for trans activists, a simple misgendering was grounds to label you some kind of vocal terrorist.

Moved by “compassion” some people lost their collective minds.

In Scotland, they sent a double

rapist

to a women’s prison. That’s not compassion, that’s being willfully blind to the danger of putting such a dangerous criminal in the presence of women prisoners. It is the triumph of culture war activism over the virtue of common sense.

The University of Pennsylvania was able to parade its transgender credentials by allowing Thomas to compete against women. But it was always unfair.

Thomas went from a

ranking

of 554th in the 200 men’s freestyle in the 2018-19 season to being one of the top-ranked female swimmers in that event.

In 2022, Thomas won the women’s 500 freestyle at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championships, finished fifth in the women’s 200 freestyle and eighth in the women’s 100 freestyle.

While the transgender athlete had supporters, there were also detractors who complained about Thomas competing as well as using the female

locker rooms

.

Why is it always the women who have to suffer? The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is now

investigating

because a school in Denver converted a female restroom into an all-gender restroom. Boys, however, still get exclusive use of a male restroom.

Under the Biden administration, academia could get away with such conduct. But the Trump administration was always going to be different.

U.S. President Donald Trump has pledged to crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion policies and use Title IX (which prevents sex discrimination in education) to support women.

It was Title IX that landed Penn university in trouble. The Education Department threatened to withhold $175 million in federal funds from the university unless it complied with the law.

In a

statement

in March, Penn President Larry Jameson pledged, “We expect to continue to engage with OCR, vigorously defending our position.”

But he folded almost as fast as Prime Minister Mark Carney on the Digital Services Tax.

This week, the university said it would comply with two executive orders from Trump. The first,

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

, decries “efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex” because it deprives women “of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”

The second,

Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports

, states, “It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.”

In a statement, Jameson said the institution was only following the rules at that time, but would now, “apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect.”

It was a craven statement that sought to deflect responsibility to those damnable rules at the time. It’s a pity Jameson didn’t have the courage just to admit that what happened was wrong.

Still, Jameson will now get the $175 million that Trump was threatening to withhold. And if he had to throw Lia Thomas under the bus to get it, so be it.

National Post

• J.D. Tuccille: NYC mayor hopeful’s stated goal is ‘seizing the means of production’
• Diddy’s sex-trafficking acquittal marks death of #metoo

JERUSALEM — Life in Israel has returned to normal following the

ceasefire with Iran

. Yet, amid this abrupt peace, many Israelis are now demanding that their government go a step further and end the war in Gaza, too, so that the hostages held by Hamas can be brought home safely.

Two days after the ceasefire took hold, I wandered the streets of Jerusalem

on behalf of The News Forum

and found them bustling, as though Iran’s missile barrages had only been a fever dream. Pop-up markets had already returned, with vendors hawking clothes, books and esoteric miscellanea in white tents beneath the withering sun.

“Everybody’s having fun. It’s amazing right now. You know, it’s getting back to normal,” said Obada, a 21-year-old service worker, as he smiled behind a pair of sunglasses: “You can come over here, give us a visit. You’re all welcome.”

Down the street, four young religious students were chatting over plates of food. “Two days ago, this place was empty. Everything was closed. It was basically a ghost town,” said Isaac Blau, one of the boys, gesticulating wildly. Although he was “extremely happy” with the ceasefire, he remained nervous about the possibility that Iran had retained some its enriched uranium.

“There was no point of the war if they didn’t destroy the nuclear sites,” he said, adding that, if Tehran was not properly defanged, then Israel’s soldiers “still have more work to do.”

Aran, a restaurant owner, was eager to see his business fully reopen. “I think it’s enough. We did the damage that we needed to do. We showed them that we won’t accept any nuclear program over there,” he said.

In contrast, Yair, a merchant who sells touristic trinkets, wanted the war to continue, arguing that it was shortsighted to prioritize economic revitalization if that allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He emphasized that Iranians are “very good people” whom he loves, but condemned their fundamentalist government as “crazy.”

“It’s a ceasefire, not the end of the war,” said Elisheva Klein, a middle-aged Israeli-American woman, as she finished eating a hamburger. She was “shocked” and “not happy” about the ceasefire, and said that her grandchildren were finding it difficult to return to school after living in fear of Iran’s attacks. “I believe that we have to finish this, and we’re going to because we’re united and we’re strong, and we’re going to get rid of every evil that comes against us and the whole free world,” she said.

A group of teenagers hanging out on a restaurant patio were eager to share their opinions.

“The attacks were 100 per cent right, because we want to be safe from Iran, and we also want the Iranian people to be free from their very oppressing government,” said 16-year-old Yotam. He had initially assumed that the ceasefire was “fake news,” given a

recent deluge of online disinformation

, and, although he was happy to see hostilities end, he nonetheless felt “very angry and sad that the war in Gaza is still going.”

14-year-old Tania also supported the strikes on Iran, but worried that they had made people “kind of forget about the war in Gaza.” She was concerned about the

hostages still being held by Hamas

, and was distressed about the well-being of Palestinian civilians who “are getting hurt and killed every day.” Her friend, Masha, concurred: “It’s not gonna be normal until the hostages will come back from Gaza.”

They directed me to a table crowded with older students, where I met 18-year-old Itamar, who will soon be commencing his mandatory military service. “We did what we have to did, and we did it fast. We did it quickly. We didn’t hurt that much people, and we stick to the mission,” he said proudly. Yet, he believed that the Islamic Republic would inevitably attack again — perhaps in 20 or 30 years.

“If Iran stops all the war all over the world, the civilians in Iran can live a wonderful life, and they can do whatever they want. They have a lot of money. They have a big space. They have good people — very smart people. If they want, they can live a wonderful life,” he said.

Two days later, tens of thousands of Israelis gathered in

Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square

to rally in support of Hamas’ captives. These weekly demonstrations had begun shortly after October 7th, but were paused during the conflict with Iran, when public gatherings were banned. The crowds this evening were noticeably larger than they

had been a month earlier

— an ocean of discontent that stretched as far as one could see.

“We were patient for two weeks, and now that the threat is gone, we know that this is the time to fight back as hard as we can and demand that all the hostages be back and to end the war,” said Lee Hoffmann Agiv, a social activist.

According to her, many volunteers who normally advocate for the hostages temporarily pivoted towards helping families impacted by the Iran war instead — for example: by gathering essentials for those who’d lost their homes. However, Agiv and her colleagues tried to keep the hostages on the national agenda during this period, often by using social media. “We did our best in making the families feel like they’re not forgotten, and to be with them and to send the message that we think about them all the time,” she said.

Or Keshet, another demonstrator, found it “depressing” that no Gazan ceasefire had been signed, and believed that “political, cynical motivations” were causing the Israeli government to unnecessarily prolong the war. “You know, the Iran war took 12 days, and after 12 days, the war was finished. The war in Gaza is lasting already, you know, 631 days. It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Shai and Gil Dickmann — a brother and sister duo whose cousin remains in captivity — were similarly disapproving of the government’s prosecution of the war. They believed that if Israel could sign a ceasefire with Iran, wherein the Ayatollah remained in power, then

the same could be done in Gaza

, too. Perhaps fully eradicating Hamas was not strictly necessary.

“For 12 days, the square was empty, and people were focused on the war with Iran, and right now to see it full of people, that means that we hadn’t forgotten about the hostages, and they should know that we will not give up until they’re all home,” said Gil.

In the rally’s epicentre was a stage where the family members of the remaining hostages, bearing photos of their loved ones, gave speeches condemning the ongoing war in Gaza. Their words were broadcast on large screens dispersed throughout the area. Attendees watched intently, sometimes with tears in their eyes.

A father of one of the remaining hostages took to the stage, lambasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “The history books will not forget if you do not bring back all the hostages, even if you think victory of Iran will supersede your responsibility to October 7th and the death of 1,000s of Israelis and hundreds of hostages. We want all of them now! Bring them home, now!”

The Trump administration has since

pushed for a ceasefire

as well, which would see most of the hostages returned and control over Gaza transferred to a consortium of Arab states. While Israel has accepted these terms, Hamas reportedly remains undecided, lest it lose its grip on power.

National Post

• Diddy’s sex-trafficking acquittal marks death of #metoo
• Colby Cosh: Mark Carney’s unstable environment

On Monday, as the Prime Minister pulled the plug on the controversial Digital Services Tax one day before the deadline for the first payment, he proudly declared that this was a matter of

providing desirable regulatory certainty

for the dozen or so U.S.-based mega-businesses (Amazon, Uber, Meta, Google, et al.) targeted by the tax. Which raises a question: are pitiless algorithmic corporate giants capable of laughter, and, if so, can they laugh

bitterly? 

The law implementing this tax was passed one year ago, and the entities subject to it were asked to provide special returns supported by vast quantities of accounting documentation. The deadline for the first payment was June 30 of this year. And on June 29

everyone was told, eh, don’t bother

. The new tax had become an inconvenient obstruction in trade negotiations with the United States, and the PM decided to instantaneously halt collection of the tax revenue — an action which the text of the law does provide for. He added that “It doesn’t make sense to collect tax from people and then remit [those payments] back.”

This is, as it now turns out,

exactly what will now have to happen

. The Canada Revenue Agency admitted on Wednesday that some companies foolishly submitted returns and payments before D-Day minus one—and the agency confirmed that it will stop demanding and collecting payments now. (Or “forthwith.” Why do I feel like I should say “forthwith”?)

But those who have already paid, it turns out, will have to wait for full parliamentary repeal of the DST legislation before they can get their money back. That relief, in turn, cannot be provided until Parliament comes back from summer vacation in mid-September.

This will come as something of a surprise to assiduous readers of this column, who will recall that when the (minority) Liberal government proposed to increase capital-gains taxes late last year, RevCan was quite content to start collecting the increased sums

in the absence of any legislation at all

. In this case they have collected money according to the terms of a proper, legitimate statute — which was intentionally written so as to be capable of immediate guillotining of this kind, but not to provide for repayments of sums kindly contributed before the deadline. There will, of course, never be any refund of the money spent on researching and filling out DST returns, or on the prospective DST returns that will never be filed.

Perhaps this is the sort of sharp practice that is necessary in a world of whimsical changes in trade policy largely caused by an implosion of the U.S. Constitution. Elbows up! And of course it’s hard to feel ordinary sympathy for the Amazons and Googles of the world, or even the accountants and lawyers who work for them, in the way that one would feel for a taxpaying Canadian physician or electrician. But it still seems a touch gratuitous for our head of government to play these sorts of games while explicitly celebrating Canada’s reputation as a place to do business, a place with a super-stable regulatory environment.

National Post

• Colby Cosh: Mark Carney’s surrender to Trump was inevitable
• Diddy’s sex-trafficking acquittal marks death of #metoo

Canada is at a crossroads. In the face of growing hatred and escalating threats toward the Jewish community, we must confront a difficult truth: antisemitic violence is no longer a fringe concern — it is now a coordinated and dangerous threat to public safety and national values.

Over the past year, antisemitic incidents have surged. In cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centres have been targeted with threats, vandalism, arson, and even gunfire. These are not isolated events — they reflect a disturbing pattern of extremism taking root in the public square, online spaces, and protests where hate speech and glorification of terrorism go unchecked.

The case for a national response is stark. After the Hamas-led October 7th massacre in Israel, Canada experienced a sharp rise in antisemitism. Toronto

recorded

443 hate incidents in 2024 alone — 40 per cent targeting Jews. Across Canada, there was a

670 per cent

increase in antisemitic incidents since the attack. In Vancouver, Jewish institutions were threatened and set on fire. Most shockingly, a Jewish girls’ school in Toronto was shot at three times. These are not abstract statistics — they reflect a wave of hate crossing into real-world violence.

In response, I’ve begun writing a White Paper for a new national conversation — working with friends and leaders in government and law enforcement to explore concrete actions that protect the Jewish community and reinforce the values of our democracy. The response to having the conversation has been overwhelmingly positive across the country.

One of the greatest concerns is deterrence. Hate groups and extremists feel emboldened, often because they believe they can act with impunity. This must change. Deterrence theory offers a clear path forward: offenders must know they will be caught swiftly. In other words, the response must be immediate and the severity must be strong and unambiguous, with meaningful penalties that reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

In order for this to succeed, first, we must reform how hate crimes are prosecuted. In Canada, charges require the consent of the Attorney General — a political hurdle that delays justice. That requirement should be removed, allowing police to lay charges based on evidence and the courts to determine outcomes.

Second, existing hate crime laws must be applied consistently as the law of the land. Canada already prohibits hate speech, incitement to genocide, and the promotion of violence, but enforcement appears to be timid and selective. These laws must be used fully and without hesitation.

Third, we need a dedicated national enforcement unit focused on antisemitic and ideological hate. Canada has long had units to combat organized crime — this is no less urgent. Hate groups are becoming more coordinated and violent against Jewish citizens. Law enforcement must be equally coordinated in its response.

Fourth, I’m proposing a new national security strategy — S.N.A.P.: Share, Notify, Act, Protect. It calls for improved intelligence sharing across agencies, real-time alerts for Jewish communities, swift legal action, and visible protection of high-risk institutions. This model moves us from a reactive stance to a proactive one.

Fifth, we must modernize protest laws. Inspired by recent U.K. reforms, Canada should adopt clear rules: require and enforce advance notice of protest marches; place limits on time, location, and methods; prevent seriously disruptive protests; and restrict demonstrations near Jewish events. Issue immediate and heavy fines. These measures preserve freedom of expression while safeguarding public order and safety.

Sixth, legal definitions must be updated to reflect modern threats. Online radicalization, glorification of terror, and hate propaganda must be addressed with new legislation, including reinstating

Section 13

of the Canadian Human Rights Act curtailing hate online and digitally.

Canada also rightly recognizes that free speech has limits — especially when it infringes on the safety and rights of others. Pro-Hamas groups may have the right to protest peacefully, but they are not free to block Jewish Canadians from attending events or entering synagogues. They are not free to harass, intimidate, or chant genocidal slogans. This is not free speech — it is hate speech. And under Canadian law, it is not protected.

These ideas are drawn from my extensive consultation with political leaders and law enforcement leaders. They are not the final word — but the beginning of a critical national conversation. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was primarily the Jewish community that helped

shape

Canada’s hate crime laws in response to a rising Neo-Nazi threat. Today, the threat is more lethal, more ideological, and more public — and reforms must rise to meet this moment.

The Jewish community, like all Canadians, deserves to live in peace. That requires courage, clarity, and coordinated action. The time to act is now.

Avi Abraham Benlolo is the CEO and Chairman of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a Canadian think-tank.

National Post

• Joel Kotkin: The West’s immigration reckoning is here
• Opinion: Samidoun exposes failures in Canada’s anti-terror efforts