Re: March 3 letter on Chrystia Freeland
To the Editors,
The writer from Dunnville made good points. I assume he wasn’t disparaging drama teachers – among the most underappreciated, hard-working educators in our system. I took his point to be that political leaders should possess meaningful academic credentials, along with broad knowledge and experience, to work for the wellbeing of all. Unfortunately, more skill and knowledge is required for a provincial driver’s licence than to hold political office, let alone lead a municipality, a province, or our country.
Look no further than Queen’s Park. The leader of the governing party, untainted by education beyond high school, possessed zero prior political experience. Anyone who thinks you can run a province, or a country, like a business is delusional. A subject for another day.
Give Justin Trudeau his due: he unintentionally broke new ground in differential treatment by critics of male and female politicians. Before he became prime minister, only women were criticized for their makeup.
Chrystia Freeland’s extensive knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian is not scary. She also speaks English, French, and Italian – also not scary. Her world view was shaped over decades, from first-hand observation and experience. Vladimir Putin banned her from Russia in 2014. The feeling is mutual.
Just to clarify, neither Freeland nor Trudeau is responsible for the Emergencies Act. It was enacted in 1988, replacing the War Measures Act. Justin was doing whatever well-heeled teenage boys did back then. Chrystia put herself in harm’s way; frustrating and outmaneuvering the Russian KGB in the Ukraine, while working for Ukrainian independence and democracy. She was banned from the country in 1989. She was just 21-years-old.
I completely supported imposition of the Emergencies Act. If you think it extreme, consider the extremist organizers, neither truckers nor patriots, that were quickly neutralized, after 25 days of occupation and harassing behaviour. Also a subject for another day.
How much do I admire Chrystia Freeland? She is arguably the most intelligent and competent politician in all of Canada, and beyond. I would support her as the next prime minister of Canada.
Bob Gaunt,
Hagersville
Fact check: What did Ms. Freeland actually say?
To the Editors,
A March 3 Letter to the Editors stated that Wikipedia had characterized Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister as a person who “is a proponent of personal asset seizures and travel bans as part of economic sanction theories.” The letter implied this made her a useful ally in “destroying democracy in Canada.” That argument is baseless.
To begin with, Ms. Freeland is a public figure who can and does speak for herself. We really don’t need Wikipedia here. Still, let that be. Far more problematic is the use of a fake quotation to support a charge against her. Wikipedia in fact said that she “was” (not “is”) a proponent of such sanctions, and the reference was to 2014. The specific purpose for which she was said to have supported them was to penalize corrupt members of the former Ukrainian leadership. Few people would consider that an anti-democratic goal.
As it happens, the key sentence in Wikipedia was updated on March 5. The text now gives the same basic information in slightly different words, but the past-time reference (“supported”) is unchanged: “She supported seizing personal assets and banning travel as part of economic sanction programs against [Viktor] Yanukovych and members of his government.” There is still no hint of intending to suppress democracy.
Also, when quoted accurately, Ms. Freeland’s view seems to have been comparable to the majority of world democratic leaders today: i.e. in favour of quite similar sanctions against President Putin and his gang. Not bad company to keep!
I have no agenda regarding Prime Minister Trudeau or his Deputy. No doubt, different people will have different opinions. So be it. But when we criticize, let’s stick to accurately reporting the facts.
John Sivell,
Dunnville
