US at “war” with Canada (Part II): Preparing to live beside a hostile neighbour

Canadians must recognize that the US, under Trump, is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat.

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

Part I discussed why Canada was right to walk away from trade negotiations with the United States. Part II confronts a more sobering reality. Canada must now treat the United States, under Donald Trump, as a hostile power, a coercive state seeking to subordinate a neighbour rather than negotiate with an ally.

The erosion of trust between Canada and the United States is not a diplomatic misfortune—it is the predictable outcome of Trump’s approach to governance. His administration has repeatedly violated CUSMA, imposed unilateral tariffs, threatened annexation, supported the separatist movement in Alberta, and used propaganda to portray Canada as dependent on American “benevolence.” These actions collectively demonstrate that Trump does not view Canada as a sovereign partner but as a subordinate entity whose economic and political choices should be dictated from Washington.

The first clear signal of how Trump viewed Canada emerged immediately after his election in November 2024, when he casually suggested that Canada should become the “51st state.” Although this remark was initially dismissed in the American media as a joke—and brushed off by Trump allies on Capitol Hill—it quickly took on a more ominous tone in Canada as it became a recurring talking point in Trump’s public appearances. By early 2025, the comment was no longer an isolated quip but a repeated assertion, echoed by figures within Trump’s inner circle, prompting Canadians to interpret it not as humour but as an expression of intent. The shift in perception was driven by the recognition that these statements aligned with Trump’s broader pattern of coercive behaviour during his first administration. His habit of referring to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “governor” following his re-election—a label he later applied to Prime Minister Mark Carney—reinforced the sense that Trump viewed Canada not as a sovereign nation but as a subordinate jurisdiction. This impression was further strengthened when Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge unless Canada offered concessions in ongoing trade discussions. These were not idle remarks or empty bluster. Ttaken together, they formed a coherent pattern of rhetoric and pressure that Canadians increasingly understood as a signal of intent.

Political observers and security experts have warned that Trump’s ambitions toward Canada may not be limited to economic pressure. American political analyst Eric Ham has described Trump’s actions in Venezuela—economic strangulation followed by military intervention—as a “clear warning shot” for Canada. The precedent is chilling because the United States used sanctions, propaganda, and military force to install a government more aligned with its interests. The logic behind such actions is straightforward. When a smaller state resists American pressure, Trump has shown a willingness to escalate beyond economic tools. The question is no longer whether Trump would consider using military pressure against Canada, but whether Canada is prepared for that possibility.

Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute and former senior legal and policy adviser to Canadian foreign affairs ministers, warned in the wake of the Venezuela operation, “We can’t take off the table anymore the idea that it is at least plausible that there would be some use of force or threat of use of force, and we need to be prepared for that.” His warning reflects a growing recognition among Canadian security experts that Trump’s unpredictability and disregard for international norms make previously unthinkable scenarios plausible. Trump’s foreign policy record reinforces this concern. His administration has taken military action in Venezuela, launched an unprovoked war against Iran, illegally blockaded Cuba, and asserted territorial ambitions over Greenland and the Panama Canal. These actions demonstrate a willingness to use force to achieve political objectives and a belief that American power should be exercised unilaterally, without regard for international law or long‑standing alliances, and this should have Canada’s political establishment very worried.

Canada’s vulnerability is not simply a matter of military imbalance. It is the combination of economic dependence, geographic proximity, and resource wealth. Canada possesses vast reserves of oil, critical minerals, and fresh water—resources the US increasingly covets. In a world of increasing demand, these assets make Canada a strategic target. Trump’s supporters have openly discussed Canada’s resource wealth as justification for annexation, arguing that American access to Canadian oil, minerals, and water is essential for America’s national security, despite the fact that a strong majority of American have no interest in Canada becoming the 51st state. However, this rhetoric, amplified on social media and in nationalist circles, reflects a growing sentiment within parts of the American political landscape that Canada’s resources should be controlled by America.

In this context, Canada must adopt a posture of strategic resistance. Economic countermeasures are one component of this strategy. Canada has already imposed retaliatory tariffs, and Canadians have launched widespread consumer boycotts of American products.  In addition, Canadian travel to the US has plummeted since Trump took office, declining by 25% to 30%.  These actions have had measurable effects on the US economy in the areas of tourism, agriculture, alcohol, and manufactured goods. Canadian tourism alone accounts for over $20 billion annually, and has declined by $12.5 billion in 2025 with a larger decline expected for 2026. These measures reflect a national resolve to resist economic coercion and demonstrate that Canada is willing to endure economic pain to protect its sovereignty.

Diplomatic realignment is another essential component. For Canada to survive and economic war with the US it must deepen ties with Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America to reduce dependence on American markets. This diversification is not a rejection of economic ties to the United States but a recognition that Canada cannot rely on a partner that repeatedly violates agreements and uses economic tools as weapons. Strengthening trade relationships with other regions will help insulate Canada from future American coercion and ensure that Canadian industries have alternative markets.

Military preparedness is perhaps the most sensitive and difficult aspect of Canada’s response. Canada must prepare for scenarios once considered unthinkable. Hardening the land border, expanding intelligence operations against the US, increasing defence spending, and considering nuclear deterrence options, as some experts have suggested, may be options Canada will have to consider. These measures are not signs of aggression but signs of realism. Canada’s current defence posture is built on the assumption that the United States is a reliable ally. That assumption is no longer valid and Canada must therefore develop independent capabilities to deter coercion and protect its sovereignty.

Public mobilization is also a strategic asset. Canadian public opinion has shifted dramatically. Canadians overwhelmingly reject annexation, support boycotts, and view the United States as the top security threat. This unity strengthens Canada’s ability to resist American pressure and signals to Washington that Canadians will not accept subordination. The surge in national pride and the widespread rejection of Trump’s rhetoric reflect a population that understands the stakes and is prepared to defend its sovereignty.

Finally, Canadians must recognize the new reality—the United States, under Trump, is not a partner. It is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat. Trump’s policies are not designed to strengthen alliances but to destroy them. His approach to international relations is transactional, coercive, and driven by short‑term political gain rather than long‑term strategic stability. Canada must therefore abandon the illusion that diplomacy alone can resolve the crisis. The collapse of trade negotiations was the first step. The next steps will determine whether Canada emerges from this crisis as a sovereign nation or as a vassal state.

Canada wasn’t looking for this war, but it is one that it is willing to fight to protect its sovereignty and the Canadian economy. The path forward will be difficult, but the stakes could not be higher. Canada must act decisively, strategically, and with unwavering resolve, because the future of the nation depends on it.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

US at “war” with Canada (Part I): Why ending trade talks was the rational choice

The US tried to include provisions in the proposed deal that would give the US a say on which countries Canada could make trade agreements with—a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

When Canada suspended trade negotiations with the United States on August 22, 2026, it marked a decisive moment in a rapidly deteriorating bilateral relationship. The collapse of talks was not the product of diplomatic miscalculation or insufficient flexibility on Canada’s part. Rather, it reflected a sober recognition of a political reality—under Donald Trump, the United States cannot be trusted to honour any trade agreement it signs. Canada’s withdrawal was not only justified, it was necessary.

The immediate trigger for the breakdown was a set of last‑minute demands from the US delegation that would have sharply curtailed Canada’s economic sovereignty. As Prime Minister Mark Carney explained in a media conference after trade negotiations collapsed, Washington attempted to insert provisions that would “reduce tariff relief for Canadian-made vehicles, restrict Canada’s ability to strike trade deals with other countries, and weaken protections for language, culture and sovereignty.” These demands, Carney said, were “unacceptable.”¹

But the deeper reason—one that isn’t mentioned openly—that Canada walked away lies in the pattern of behaviour exhibited by the Trump administration since returning to office in 2025. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that the United States’ signature on a trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. The Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA)—the very deal Trump negotiated, signed, and celebrated as “the best trade deal ever”—has been systematically violated by his own government since he returned to office.

Beginning in March 2025, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and dozens of other goods, despite CUSMA’s explicit prohibitions on such unilateral measures. He escalated these tariffs throughout 2025 and 2026, threatening 35% duties on Canadian imports, as well as a threat of 100% tariffs if Canada pursued independent trade ties with China. These actions shredded the agreement he once touted as a triumph of American deal‑making.

The pattern is unmistakable. Trump negotiates agreements for political theatre, then disregards them when they no longer serve his immediate interests. This behaviour mirrors his decades‑long record in private business, where he was notorious for breaking contracts, stiffing contractors, and using litigation as a weapon to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations. The same tactics now define his approach to international diplomacy.

Canada entered trade negotiations fully aware of Trump’s history. Any new agreement would have been vulnerable to the same fate as CUSMA—signed with fanfare, then violated at will. In this context, walking away was not an act of defiance but an act of prudence. As Carney and other Canadian leaders said repeatedly, “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

The stakes for Canada in any deal are enormous, and Carney decided to pull the plug after some last minute American demands that Canada found unacceptable. The US attempted to include provisions that would have restricted Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries—a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty—as well as demanding a restriction on provisions to protect the French language and Canadian culture. Accepting such terms would have subordinated Canada’s economic future to the whims of an unpredictable US president who has repeatedly mused about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” These comments, dismissed by some in Washington as jokes, are taken seriously in Canada because they align with Trump’s broader pattern of coercive behaviour.

Trump’s tariff policies are not merely economic measures, they are instruments of pressure designed to weaken Canada’s economy and force political concessions. As one article noted, Trump has pursued “a calculated campaign of economic coercion, rhetorical intimidation, and internal destabilization against Canada.” The comparison to Adolf Hitler’s “cold Anschluss” strategy toward Austria—incremental pressure, propaganda, support for separatists, and economic strangulation—is not made lightly.

Experts across Canada’s academic and policy communities have warned that Trump’s actions represent a structural threat to Canadian sovereignty. International security scholar Aisha Ahmad stated bluntly: “There is no political party, or leader, willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over economic coercion, and so if the US wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade.” Her warning reflects a growing consensus that Trump’s ambitions extend beyond trade.

Public opinion data reinforces this shift. Multiple polls conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 show that Canadians now view the United States—not China or Russia—as the greatest threat to national security, a dramatic reversal of decades of public sentiment and a reflection of how deeply trust in the bilateral relationship has eroded. A Nanos Research survey found that 55% of Canadians identified the United States as the single greatest security threat, making it more than three times more likely to be named than China and far ahead of Russia, which stood at 14%. Another poll conducted by Léger revealed that 49% of Canadians believe the United States poses the greatest threat to world peace, outpacing Russia by nearly 20 points and marking one of the most striking shifts in Canadian geopolitical perception since the end of the Cold War. Even more alarming, an Angus Reid Institute survey in early 2026 reported that 57.9% of Canadians consider a direct American military invasion plausible in the near term, a finding that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago and underscores the extent to which Trump’s rhetoric and policies have shifted public perception of the US.

The economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs have been severe on both sides of the border, producing cascading disruptions across industries, supply chains, and household budgets. The Tax Foundation estimates that US households will pay an additional $1,253 annually due to tariff‑driven price increases, a burden that falls disproportionately on lower‑income families who spend a greater share of their income on imported goods. Analysts also note that tariffs function as a regressive tax, raising prices on essential goods while offering no compensatory benefit to consumers, and warn that prolonged tariff escalation could reduce real household income nationwide. The automotive industry—one of the most integrated sectors in North America—has been hit particularly hard, with Trump’s tariffs on Canadian and Mexican auto parts increasing production costs by approximately $3,000 per vehicle, a figure that ripples through assembly plants in Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Mexico.

Canada has not stood idle. Canadians have launched a widespread boycott of US goods, with 71% pledging to buy fewer American products. Liquor stores in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia have removed US wines and spirits from shelves. Tourism from Canada to the US—worth over $20 billion annually—has plummeted, costing the US an estimated $12.5 billion in 2025 alone. These actions reflect a national resolve to resist US economic coercion.

Canada’s energy leverage is also significant. The US Midwest relies on Canada for more than 60% of its crude oil imports, a dependency that has grown over the past decade as American refineries optimized their operations around Canadian heavy crude. Any disruption—whether through tariffs, export restrictions, or politically motivated supply constraints—would have immediate consequences for American refineries and consumers, driving up gasoline prices, straining industrial production, and destabilizing regional economies that depend on affordable energy. Analysts have noted that even modest interruptions in Canadian supply can produce price spikes of 40 to 50 cents per gallon, with ripple effects across transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing sectors. This vulnerability is compounded by the fact that several Midwestern states, including Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, lack alternative sources of heavy crude that can be substituted without costly refinery adjustments. Energy economists warn that if Canada were to impose retaliatory export taxes or redirect supply to other markets—such as Europe or Asia—US refiners could face shortages lasting months or years, given the time required to reconfigure processing units.

The strategic importance of Canadian electricity exports is equally notable. Provinces such as Quebec and Manitoba supply significant amounts of power to northeastern and Great Lakes US states, meaning any disruption could affect grid stability and consumer prices. In this context, Canada’s energy resources function not only as economic assets but as geopolitical leverage—an often overlooked dimension of the current trade conflict that underscores the risks inherent in weaponizing tariffs against a neighbour.

The broader geopolitical context is equally alarming. Trump’s tariff policies echo the catastrophic Smoot‑Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which helped trigger the Great Depression, fuelled nationalist extremism, and destabilized global markets at a moment when international cooperation was most needed. Economists and historians have repeatedly warned that large‑scale tariff escalation tends to produce retaliatory spirals, collapsing trade flows and amplifying political tensions between states. The International Monetary Fund, OECD, and World Bank have all issued formal warnings that Trump’s tariff regime risks plunging the global economy into recession or even depression, noting that today’s interconnected supply chains make the world far more vulnerable to protectionist shocks than in the 1930s. Global growth forecasts have been downgraded multiple times since early 2025, with analysts citing Trump’s trade policies as a primary driver of financial volatility, declining investment, and rising inflation across advanced and emerging economies. The stock market crash following Trump’s announcement of a universal 10% tariff in April 2025—erasing trillions of dollars in value—illustrated how quickly markets react to protectionist threats.

International observers have also expressed concern that economic nationalism often coincides with geopolitical aggression, pointing to historical patterns in which trade wars preceded military conflict. French economist Frédéric Bastiat’s maxim, “When goods do not cross frontiers, armies will,” resonates strongly today, as Trump’s rhetoric toward allies—including Canada—has grown increasingly hostile.

Trump’s foreign policy has further destabilized the international order, reflecting a pattern of unilateralism and coercive action that has alarmed allies and international institutions. His administration authorized military strikes in Venezuela in 2025, aimed at forcing regime change after years of escalating sanctions and political pressure—an operation widely condemned by regional governments and international legal experts for violating sovereignty norms. His decision to launch a war against Iran in conjunction with Israel, including strikes on Iranian naval assets and energy infrastructure, severely disrupted the movement of oil and natural gas out of the Persian Gulf, prompting the International Energy Agency and multiple global markets analysts to warn of heightened volatility in global energy prices and supply chains.

The American president also tightened and expanded the US embargo on Cuba, including the unprecedented step of ordering US naval vessels to block fuel tankers from reaching Cuban ports—an action criticized by the United Nations and humanitarian organizations for exacerbating shortages of food, medicine, and electricity for millions of civilians. In addition, he revived earlier ambitions expressed during his first term to take control of Greenland—comments that Denmark’s government described as “absurd” and destabilizing. His administration also signaled interest in exerting greater U.S. control over the Panama Canal, with senior officialsarguing that American strategic dominance in the Western Hemisphere required “direct oversight” of critical infrastructure—remarks that alarmed Panamanian leaders and raised concerns among international observers about a return to pre‑1977 U.S. interventionism.

Taken together, these actions demonstrate a willingness to use force, coercion, and territorial pressure to achieve political objectives—behaviour that many analysts argue has not been seen from a major Western power since the early 20th century. In this context, Canada’s decision to walk away from trade negotiations was not only justified—it was essential. The US under Trump has shown itself to be an untrustworthy partner, repeatedly violating trade agreements, and using economic tools as instruments of political intimidation. Trump’s behaviour toward Canada has been erratic, coercive, and increasingly hostile, marked by threats of 100% tariffs, public musings about annexation, and efforts to restrict Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. His administration’s willingness to disregard international norms, destabilize global markets, and pressure smaller states into compliance underscores the risks Canada faces in any negotiation with a Trump led US administration.

The question now is not whether Canada should have walked away—it is how Canada should respond to an escalating threat from a neighbour whose leadership has embraced unpredictability, coercion, and a worldview fundamentally at odds with the stability and mutual respect that once defined the bilateral relationship.

Part II will continue this analysis by examining the strategic, economic, and security implications of treating the United States as an adversary—and what Canada must do to protect its sovereignty in the years ahead.

Part II will continue this analysis by examining the strategic, economic, and security implications of treating the United States as an adversary—and what Canada must do to protect its sovereignty in the years ahead.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The West’s performative condemnation of Israel’s crimes is another sign of the death of the international order

Western hypocrisy exposed the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases behind the so called “international rules based order” which has allowed Israel to commit horrific crimes with impunity.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

The joint statement issued on August 20, 2026, by the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom condemning Israel’s decision to publish construction tenders for a new settlement project is yet another example of Western performativity masquerading as moral outrage. It is a carefully calibrated piece of public relations designed to signal “concern” while ensuring that nothing changes on the ground. After decades of Israeli settlement expansion, apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing, and — since October 2023 — the genocide in Gaza, this statement is not only hollow; it is an indictment of Western complicity.

The statement declares that Israel’s decision is “unacceptable,” that settlements are “illegal,” and that the project threatens the “territorial contiguity” of the West Bank — something which is already the case. It notes “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians” and warns domestic businesses in each country which might submit proposals to be part of the project of “legal and reputational consequences.” And yet, despite the gravity of these words, the governments issuing them have done nothing — absolutely nothing — to penalize Israel politically, economically, or militarily for its decades-long criminality. They have watched Israel build hundreds of thousands of Jewish‑only housing units, now home to more than 750,000 settlers, many of whom have terrorized Palestinians with impunity by stealing land, destroying homes, burning orchards, killing livestock, and murdering unarmed civilians.

This is not new. Western governments have perfected the art of expressing “grave concern” while enabling Israel’s crimes through military aid, diplomatic protection, and economic partnerships. Their statements are not expressions of moral courage, they are examples of geopolitical cowardice.

The collapse of Western credibility

Since October 2023, Israel has carried out what dozens of international legal bodies, human rights organizations, genocide scholars, and even former Israeli officials have explicitly called genocide. This is not rhetorical exaggeration. It is a legal and scholarly determination made by: the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; the UN Special Committee; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, among others.

When genocide is unfolding in real time, and when the perpetrators are openly declaring their intent to destroy a people, statements like the August 20 joint communiqué are inadequate and laughable.

Settler violence enabled by the Israeli state

The joint statement acknowledges “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians.” This is an understatement. Settler violence is not episodic, it is systemic, organized, and often coordinated with the Israeli military. Human Rights Watch has documented settlers burning homes, destroying olive groves, killing livestock, and attacking Palestinian villages with firearms. Amnesty International has reported multiple incidents where settlers murdered Palestinians, including the killing of 19‑year‑old Qusai Matan in 2023 and the torching of homes in Turmus Ayya. B’Tselem has recorded settlers shooting unarmed Palestinians, burning orchards, and carrying out pogroms in towns like Huwara.

These crimes are not committed by “extremists.” They are committed by settlers who enjoy full legal, military, and political protection from the Israeli state. And Western governments know this. They have known it for decades. Yet they have done nothing to stop it.

Western complicity has enabled decades of Israeli crimes

The response to the Israeli announcement is part of a long pattern of Western governments issuing sternly worded condemnations while continuing to arm, fund, and diplomatically shield Israel. Western apathy is not passive—it is active complicity.

Consider the facts: Canada continues to export weapons and components to Israel, even as Israel commits genocide; the United States provides billions in military aid annually, including weapons used in Gaza; the UK, Germany, Italy, and France maintain defense contracts and intelligence cooperation with Israel; the EU refuses to suspend its Association Agreement with Israel, despite clear violations of human rights clauses; and no Western government has imposed sanctions on Israel for settlement construction, apartheid policies, or genocide.

These governments and their western allies have watched Israel violate: UN Security Council resolutions; the Fourth Geneva Convention; the Hague Conventions; the Genocide Convention; and the UN Charter, repeatedly for decades. And their response has been to issue statements like the one on August 20 — statements that are designed to create the illusion of action while ensuring that nothing changes.

The galling hypocrisy of the West

The most galling aspect of this performative outrage is the stark contrast with the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within days of that attack, Western governments unleashed sweeping sanctions, froze assets, expelled diplomats, mobilized international institutions, and poured massive military aid into Ukraine. They acted decisively and forcefully — and they were right to do so.

But when Israel commits genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and apartheid, those same governments retreat into the familiar language of “grave concern” while continuing business as usual. No sanctions. No arms embargoes. No diplomatic isolation. No meaningful consequences of any kind.

This hypocrisy exposes the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases at the core of the so‑called “international rules‑based order.” The West’s selective application of international law has shattered its credibility and effectively destroyed the post‑World War II international system. And it is not Russia or China that killed it. It is Western governments — led by the United States — through their unwavering complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Public relations, not policy

The August 20 statement is a textbook example of Western PR. It contains all the familiar elements: condemnation of settlement expansion; affirmation of international law; expressions of concern about violence; calls for Israel to “retract” its plans; warnings to domestic businesses; and the tired refrain of their commitment to a “two‑state solution.” But it lacks the only thing that matters, which is a commitment to taking action against Israel.

There is no threat of sanctions, suspension of arms sales, diplomatic consequences or economic penalties. There is also no mention of international legal action, support for ICC or ICJ prosecutions, or mention of any consequences.

Israel knows this and has known it for decades. That is why it continues its violations of every international law, convention or treaty to which it is a party.  It knows that the West will do nothing.

The only solution is coercive international action

If Western governments are unwilling to take meaningful action against a state that has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the international laws that bind all nations — if they refuse to stop the commission of war crimes and genocide through economic sanctions, arms embargoes, diplomatic isolation, and yes, if necessary, military intervention — then their statements expressing outrage are worthless. Words without consequences are not diplomacy, they are complicity.

Unless the world confronts Israel with real coercive force, the coming decades will descend into international anarchy. Other states with territorial ambitions or internal ethnic hierarchies will look to Israel as a model for how to behave toward their neighbours or toward minorities under their control. They will violate international law, commit atrocities, ignore UN resolutions, and rely on international paralysis to shield them from accountability. The international order cannot survive if genocide is tolerated. And right now, it is being tolerated openly, brazenly, and with full knowledge of those nations that have the power to stop it.

The joint statement is not a sign of moral leadership. It is a sign of moral collapse — the collapse of Western credibility, the collapse of the post‑war legal order, and the collapse of any claim these governments have to defending human rights or international law. It is the diplomatic equivalent of watching a house burn and issuing a press release about the importance of fire safety.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Stockwell Day’s recent comment about Muslims and Canadian values is wrong and dangerous

Day’s comments fit neatly into a pattern where Muslims are framed as inherently suspect, inherently foreign, and inherently incompatible with Canadian values.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

When former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day recently questioned the compatibility of Muslim values and Canadian values, he did more than repeat a worn-out, groundless talking point. He poured gasoline on a fire already burning across the country — a fire stoked by years of political opportunism, media sensationalism, and a growing willingness among public figures to treat Muslims as a problem that Canada had to deal with rather than as full citizens. Day’s claim is not only demonstrably false, it is reckless, inflammatory, and deeply harmful to millions of Canadians who have every right to call this country home.

Day has a record of rejecting facts about racism in Canada, famously insisting on national television in 2020 that systemic racism does not exist in Canada — a statement so out of touch with reality that it cost him his seat on the board of Telus, his position as a strategic advisor with the law firm McMillan LLC, and his role as a regular panellist on CBC’s Power & Politics. His latest comments follow the same pattern — sweeping declarations that erase the lived experiences of a racialized community, denying historical reality, and emboldening those who already view Muslims with suspicion or hostility.

This comment comes at a time when Canada is experiencing a surge in Islamophobia unlike anything seen since the aftermath of 9/11. During the 12 months after October 2023 incidents of anti-Muslim hate rose by 1,800% according to the National Council of Canadian Muslims and another 72% the following year.  During the same period political rhetoric has hardened, and media narratives increasingly frame Muslims as outsiders or threats because of their advocacy for Palestinians and their demonstrations against the genocide Israel is committing in Gaza. In this climate, Day’s words do not exist in isolation. They legitimize prejudice, signal permission for bigotry, and tell Muslim Canadians — especially youth — that their place in this country is conditional, fragile, and perpetually under review.

If Day truly believes Muslim values clash with Canadian ones, he should be asked to specify which values he means. Charity? Justice? Equality? Respect for religious diversity? These are not fringe concepts for Muslims, but rather foundational principles of the Islamic faith.

Zakat, the obligation to give to those in need, is one of the five pillars of the faith. The Qur’an also teaches that all humans share a common origin and that no race or tribe is superior to another other than through piety (49:13). In addition, Islam recognizes Jews and Christians as “People of the Book,” granting them respect and religious legitimacy. These teachings align seamlessly with Canada’s stated commitments to multiculturalism, equality, and human dignity.

If these values are “un‑Canadian,” then Muslims aren’t the issue it’s people like Stockwell Day.

Canada’s social contract and who is breaking it

Canada’s strength has always come from its ability to integrate people from every corner of the world into a shared civic project. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not fringe concepts, they are central to the country’s identity. Yet Day and others on the political right have spent years attacking these principles as “woke,” a term now used as shorthand for those who oppose racism and hate, embrace inclusion and diversity, and defend human rights.

When politicians rail against “wokeness,” they are not critiquing policy — they are signaling hostility towards the diversity of people who make up Canada. Quebec’s secularism law (Bill 21), which targets Muslim women who wear hijab, is a prime example of how governments cave in to public prejudice and weaponize hate and bigotry rather than uphold the fundamental Charter rights of Canadians. As documented in analyses of the law’s impact, Bill 21 has already derailed careers, pushed Muslim women out of public‑facing jobs, and normalized state‑sanctioned discrimination.

Similarly, federal and provincial leaders have used police powers and legal threats to suppress peaceful protests against the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel — protests largely led by Muslim Canadians exercising their Charter rights. These actions contradict the very democratic values and freedoms politicians like Day claim to defend.

If anyone is violating Canada’s social contract, it is not Muslim Canadians, it is those politicians who selectively apply rights and freedoms depending on who is exercising them.

The human cost of Day’s rhetoric

Day’s comments inflict a heavy psychological burden on Muslim youth. Imagine growing up in Canada — celebrating Canada Day, cheering for national teams in hockey or the recent World Cup, dreaming of representing your country in sports or wanting to run for public office, only to hear a former national political leader declare that your faith makes you incompatible with the nation you love.

Whether he accepts it or not, Day’s words have real world impacts. Muslim Canadians have lived through decades of being “othered” by politicians like him, especially after 9/11, when children were assaulted on school grounds and called “terrorist,” mosques were vandalized, Muslim community  leaders received death threats, and Muslim businesses were targeted. The demonization of Muslims in media and politics helped create the conditions that led to the Quebec City mosque massacre in 2017, the murder of a Muslim volunteer outside a Toronto mosque in September 2020, and the killing of three generations of the Afzaal family in London in June 2021.

These tragedies did not emerge from a vacuum. They grew from toxic and racist narratives — the same narratives Day is reinforcing with his comment.

Recent analyses show that Islamophobia has become deeply embedded in Canada’s political and media ecosystem. Right‑wing outlets profit from sensationalist and prejudiced coverage that casts Muslims as threats. Right wing politicians exploit fear to mobilize voters. Governments pass laws that disproportionately target Muslim communities. And public figures like Day feel comfortable making dangerous and sweeping claims with little regard to the lives affected.

This normalization of anti‑Muslim hate is documented extensively in reporting on Canada’s response to global conflicts, particularly Israel’s war on Gaza, where Muslim voices, which are the largest segment of the anti-genocide movement, have been marginalized, vilified, or dismissed as disloyal. When Muslim Canadians speak out against human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, they are accused of being terrorist supporters. When they demand accountability from political leaders, they are told they are undermining Canadian values.

Day’s comments fit neatly into this pattern, where Muslims are framed as inherently suspect, inherently foreign, inherently incompatible.

Even under minimal scrutiny Day’s assertion collapses under the weight of the historical record. From the time that Islam expanded from the Middle East across North Africa to the Atlantic and west to South Asia, Muslim civilizations were among the most pluralistic in the world. In Andalusia, Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together peacefully for centuries, producing advances in science, philosophy, and culture that helped spark the European Renaissance. The Ottoman Empire welcomed Jewish refugees fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. Persian and Mughal empires had vibrant Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu communities, which produced some of history’s greatest works of art, architecture, and literature.

Meanwhile, Christian Europe repeatedly expelled Jews, launched violent pogroms against Jewish communities, and waged wars of religious domination against non-Christians for centuries.

If anything, the historical record shows that Islamic societies were more tolerant, more diverse, and more inclusive than many Western ones, even into the 20th century when Muslim states from Morocco Iraq had vibrant Jewish and Christian communities until Zionist elements instilled fear into those communities and convinced them that they could only be safe in Israel.  So the idea that Muslim values are incompatible with Canadian values is not only wrong, it is historically illiterate.

Muslims helped build Canada since before Confederation

Muslims are not newcomers to Canada. They have been here since before Confederation, contributing to the country’s development in every sector. Today, nearly 2.3 million Muslims call Canada home — about 5% of the population — and their achievements reflect the best of Canadian society.

Justice Mahmud Jamal made history in 2021 when he became the first racialized person and the first Muslim justice to sit on the Supreme Court.  Toronto human rights lawyer Faisal Kutty, an acclaimed legal scholar and writer has consistently been named among the 500 Most Influential Muslims in the world for his extensive social justice advocacy.  Nazem Kadri, a celebrated NHL forward became the first Muslim hockey player to win the Stanley Cup with the Colorado Avalanche in 2022, famously bringing the trophy to his local hometown mosque in London, Ontario. Mohammed Ahmed, Canada’s most decorated long-distance runner and a multi-time Olympian, secured Canada’s first ever Olympic silver medal in the 5000m at the Tokyo Games and a World Championship bronze. Naheed Nenshi served three terms as the Mayor of Calgary (2010–2021), becoming the first Muslim mayor of a major North American city and winning the 2014 World Mayor Prize. He is currently the leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party. Ibrahim “Obby” Khan played nine seasons in the Canadian Football League, later transitioning into business and becoming the first Muslim elected to the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, and subsequently being selected as the leader of the Manitoba PC Party. Zarqa Nawaz created the ground breaking CBC television comedy series Little Mosque on the Prairie, recognized globally as the first mainstream sitcom about a Muslim community living in the West. Bilal Baig made history as the first trans-feminine South Asian Muslim creator and star of a Canadian prime-time television series with the critically acclaimed CBC show Sort Of. And Ali Abouchadi pioneered trade and commerce in northern Alberta during the 1920s by operating a floating general store that served isolated communities along the Athabasca and Arctic waterways.

These are examples of a long tradition of Muslim excellence — people whose values allowed them to thrive and succeed in Canada despite not being part of the white majority.  If these individuals, and millions like them, are “incompatible” with Canadian values, then the term has lost all meaning.

Day’s logic collapses further when applied consistently. If the actions of extremists define an entire community, then white Canadians — whose members committed the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Toronto mosque murder, and the London truck attack — would also be “incompatible” with Canadian values. But you don’t hear that association being made by people like Day, because that would be absurd. No serious person judges an entire faith or ethnicity by the actions of a very small minority. Except, apparently, people like Stockwell Day.

Muslim Canadians should never be made to feel they must choose between their faith and their country. They are neither guests nor outsiders, and they are not conditional citizens. They are part of the Canadian story — historically, culturally, politically, and socially.

Day’s remarks aren’t merely wrong — they are reckless. They give oxygen to bigots, fracture social trust, and signal to millions of Muslim Canadians that their belonging in this country is somehow negotiable. Canada deserves leaders who strengthen our social fabric, not men who tear at its seams for attention.

Stockwell Day’s era of relevance ended long ago. He has nothing meaningful to contribute to conversations about Canadian identity, diversity, or democratic values. The most constructive thing he can do now is step back, stay silent, and stop injecting ignorance into a national discourse already poisoned by rampant Islamophobia.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Carney’s moral failure is sacrificing human rights on the altar of trade and finance

Mark Carney sees the world through balance sheets and trade deals not moral obligations, and treats human rights as negotiable, secondary, or inconvenient. 

By Fareed Khan  
A version of this article can be found on Substack.  

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been described by many political observers as a “technocrat.” Canada has had technocratic prime ministers before—leaders who manage rather than inspire, who prefer balance sheets to moral clarity. But in living memory, there has been no PM that has been as weak on human rights as Mark Carney. His tenure has revealed a troubling truth—when confronted with the suffering of persecuted peoples, Carney consistently chooses financial gain over the defence of human dignity.

This is not a partisan critique, it is a moral one. And the pattern has become impossible to ignore.

Carney presents himself as a modern, rational, data‑driven leader. But beneath the polished language of markets and macroeconomics lies an apparent worldview in which human rights are treated as irritants—obstacles to be managed rather than principles to be defended. He speaks fluently about GDP growth, supply chains, and investment flows, yet stumbles when confronted with the basic question of whether human beings deserve protection from mass atrocity.

This moral hollowness is not theoretical. It is visible when he has been asked to respond to every major human‑rights crisis of his premiership.

The Gaza Genocide is Carney’s most damning failure

Carney’s refusal even to utter the word genocide in relation to Israel’s 34‑month genocidal campaign in Gaza is not political caution—it is a moral abdication. The term is not a fringe accusation, nor is it controversial among experts. It has been applied by dozens of respected global human‑rights authorities, including the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; the International Federation of Human Rights; and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars—Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal and Shmuel Lederman—have likewise affirmed that Israel’s actions meet the definition of genocide. When such a broad and authoritative chorus recognizes the reality of genocide, a prime minister’s refusal to acknowledge it is not prudence; it is a profound failure of moral responsibility.

This silence is not neutrality. It is a deliberate political choice to avoid moral responsibility. Carney knows that naming genocide carries obligations—legal, diplomatic, and ethical. He knows that acknowledging genocide would require sanctions, embargoes, and a fundamental shift in Canada’s relationship with Israel. And he knows that such actions would disrupt trade, investment, geopolitical alliances, and domestic political considerations for the Liberal Party he leads.

So rather than doing what is right he chooses silence.

Worse still, he has refused to impose sanctions on Israel—sanctions Canada deployed swiftly and forcefully against Russia when it committed the same crimes in Ukraine. The contrast is glaring. When Russia violated international law, Canada responded with boycotts, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and moral outrage. When Israel committed the same crimes, the Canadian government offered platitudes, evasions, and the language of “concern.”

This hypocrisy reveals the core of Carney’s worldview, Human rights matter only when they align with economic or geopolitical interests. When they do not, they are quietly set aside.

Carney’s now‑infamous statement condemning Israeli Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir for the “abominable” treatment of kidnapped Sumud flotilla activists, which was shared on social media, was revealing not for what it said, but for what it ignored. By singling out one extremist minister, Carney sidestepped the far more consequential truth. The atrocities in Gaza are not the work of one man, but of an entire political and military apparatus, led by people who consider Palestinians subhuman, that has inflicted decades of oppression, occupation, brutality and death on the Palestinian people. This infrastructure has inflicted More than 34 months of genocide in Gaza; a 20-year siege on Gaza that has deliberately restricted food, medicine, and humanitarian aid; six decades of a brutal occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza; nearly eight decades of ethnic cleansing across the territories controlled by Israel; and a conservatively estimated 80,000—possibly as many as 680,000—Palestinians murdered in Gaza. By condemning only Ben‑Gvir, Carney avoided confronting the full scale of state violence, and in doing so revealed the limits of his moral courage, the character flaws of his leadership, and the extent of his cowardice.

More trade with China—another genocidal state

Carney’s weakness on human rights is not confined to Israel. His pursuit of expanded trade with China—despite Beijing’s ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs—shows the same pattern of moral blindness.

The Chinese government has built a vast network of concentration camps, indoctrination boarding schools that separate Uyghur children from their families, forced-labour factories, and an all‑seeing surveillance state designed to crush an entire people. The United States, the United Kingdom, and several European governments have formally recognized these atrocities as genocide, while Canada has not. And Carney’s response has been one of astonishing moral indifference.

He treats China’s genocide as a regrettable footnote rather than the absolute barrier to trade it should be. He speaks in the antiseptic language of “market access,” “strategic partnerships,” and “economic diversification,” while millions of Uyghurs are subjected to forced labour, mass detention, sterilization campaigns, cultural erasure, and the destruction of their religious identity. There is no moral universe in which a genocide can be bracketed off as an inconvenient detail in a trade negotiation. Yet that is precisely what Carney is doing—reducing one of the gravest crimes known to humanity to a background concern that must not interfere with Canada’s economic ambitions.

Under Carney, Ottawa has sought deeper economic ties with Beijing. Human rights have not been a meaningful point of negotiation. Forced labour has not been a red line. The genocide of Uyghurs has not been a barrier.

The message is unmistakable: profit is more important than people.

Appeasing a Hindu supremacist regime

The Carney government’s efforts to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with India is another example of his willingness to overlook atrocities for economic gain. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has embraced a racist, fascist, Hindu supremacist ideology that has made persecution of Muslims, Dalits and other Indian minority communities a matter of state policy. Citizenship laws target Muslims. Lynchings of Muslims by Hindu extremists occur with impunity. Journalists, academics, and activists face arrest for criticizing the government. The Modi regime has dismantled democratic norms and weaponized Hindu fundamentalism and nationalism as a tool of exclusion.

Yet Carney has pursued trade negotiations with India without including human rights a factor in negotiations. There has been no insistence on protections for Indo‑Muslims, Dalits, Christians or other minorities. No pressure on Modi’s government to end discriminatory policies. No moral leadership.

As South Africa’s Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” But it seems Carney hasn’t learned this lesson.

More trade with authoritarian states

Carney’s eagerness to forge trade deals with authoritarian regimes in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia further underscores his disregard for human rights. These states—Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain—are among the least free societies in the world when it comes to civil liberties. Laws ban criticism of the ruling families, state policies, or Islam. Their governments use spyware and monitoring tools to target dissidents and activists. Political parties are illegal, and national legislatures have no real power. Millions of low-income workers face harsh conditions under the kafala sponsorship system. Activists and critics face arbitrary detention, lengthy prison terms, and unfair trials. Women’s rights are suppressed, being LGBTQ2 is criminalized, and independent journalism is silenced.

Yet Carney has treated these governments as normal trading partners, never making human rights a major point of negotiation. He speaks of Gulf autocracies as if they were simply emerging markets rather than repressive states where human rights are an afterthought. Canada, a nation that once prided itself on being a moral voice in global affairs, has now silenced itself under Carney.

Carney fails to defend Canadians’ Charter rights

Carney’s weakness on human rights is not limited to foreign policy. It is visible at home in his refusal to confront provincial governments that abuse the Canadian Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to violate the fundamental rights of Canadians. The clause was never intended as a routine political tool. It was meant to be an extraordinary measure used sparingly. But provinces have increasingly deployed it to override Charter rights for political convenience to: suppress labour rights; restrict freedom of expression; target vulnerable communities (Muslims in Quebec, the LGBTQ2 community in Alberta and Saskatchewan); and to pre‑empt judicial review of legislation.

This trend represents the slow normalization of constitutional vandalism. And Carney has done nothing to stop it (nor did his predecessors).

Refusal to use the power of “Disallowance”

The Constitution gives the federal government a powerful tool: disallowance. Under sections 55–57 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Ottawa can invalidate provincial laws that violate national principles or constitutional norms. This power has fallen into disuse, not because it is unconstitutional, but because federal governments have lacked the political courage to use it when needed.

Carney’s refusal to even consider disallowance to address Quebec’s Bill 21 “secularism” law or Alberta’s violation of LGBTQ2 rights is not restraint it is dereliction. When provinces openly use the notwithstanding clause to strip Canadians of Charter protections, the federal government has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene. But the federal government refuses

Political leaders who will not protect the rights of their own citizens cannot be trusted to defend the rights of persecuted peoples abroad.

Comparing Trudeau and Carney

While this analysis focuses on Carney and his government, similar criticisms can be levelled at his predecessor Justin Trudeau. On Gaza, on Israel’s decades-long occupation, on the misuse of the notwithstanding clause by provinces, Trudeau also failed to show the moral courage required of a national leader. He avoided naming Israeli atrocities for what they were. He refused to impose sanctions. He allowed provinces to weaponize the notwithstanding clause without federal intervention. On China, India, and the Gulf autocracies, Trudeau walked the same path Carney is now sprinting down—prioritizing trade, investment, and geopolitical convenience over human rights.

But there is one crucial difference. One of Trudeau’s first and most admirable decisions as prime minister was accepting thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing war and persecution just after he was elected prime minister. That act did not make Trudeau an angel on the other issues discussed here, but it demonstrated that he possessed at least some moral compass when it came to defending humanity. Carney has shown no such instinct. Where Trudeau jogged slowly down the path of moral compromise, Carney is racing down that road headlong, unencumbered by even the faintest hesitation about concerns for human rights.

Carney’s defenders often point to his credentials: a former governor of the Bank of Canada, former governor of the Bank of England, celebrated economist, respected financial thinker. But these accomplishments reveal the core problem. Carney approaches politics like a banker, not as a political leader representing all Canadians. He sees the world through balance sheets, not moral obligations, and treats human rights as negotiable, secondary, or inconvenient. He is a man who believes the market can solve everything except the things that matter most.

When humanity becomes a variable in an economic equation, it is always the first thing sacrificed.

Canada deserves a prime minister who understands that human rights are not optional. They are not bargaining chips to be traded away in back-room negotiations, nor are they secondary considerations to be weighed against export markets, investment flows, or geopolitical convenience.

Human rights are the moral foundation of any society that claims to value dignity, equality, and justice. In all the cases mentioned in this analysis Carney has responded not with the instinct to protect the vulnerable but with the instinct to protect economic interests

History teaches a simple lesson. A leader who refuses to protect humanity cannot be trusted on anything else. The measure of a prime minister is not the size of the economy he manages, but the size of the moral obligations he is willing to shoulder. By that measure, Carney has failed—and Canada must reckon with the consequences of a leader who has forgotten that the first duty of public office—to defend human life, not the bottom line.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.