Trump’s deranged imperialist ambitions are a threat to world peace

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations . . . hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective well being of either the American people or the global community.  

 

By Fareed Khan

 

The relationship the United States has with the world has always been complex, but no recent American leader has muddled this relationship more than Donald Trump.  Amidst his myriad of controversial statements and actions since being re-elected, Trump's repeated musings about annexing Canada, taking ownership of Greenland, and the US retaking control of the Panama Canal reveal a fundamental disconnect with reality and a disturbing inclination toward autocracy.  As the world watches, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump's behaviour is not just a product of bombastic rhetoric.  Furthermore, it aligns with the insights of clinicians and first-hand accounts from those who worked closely with him that paint a portrait of a deranged sociopath posing a serious threat to peace and stability in the western hemisphere and around the world.

 

At the heart of Trump's approach to geopolitics lies an alarming disregard for the sovereignty of nations and a seeming reckless ambition for territorial expansion regardless of the consequences. His statements about annexing Canada sound bizarre, almost comical, and yet they reveal a mindset that views neighbouring countries not as independent sovereign entities, allies or friends, but as territories ripe for acquisition and exploitation.  

Trump’s remarks, peppered throughout his first presidency and since he was re-elected, evoke images of an imperialistic era reminiscent of tyrants rather than democratically elected leaders.  Claims that the US should own Greenland or that it would retake control of the Panama Canal serve to further illustrate this disturbing trend.  Such sentiments, particularly from the president of a global superpower, have a ripple effect, undermining international relationships and the principles of international law and diplomacy.  Such statements by the world’s most powerful nation also give ideas to adversarial nations like China and Russia that might makes right, and that more powerful nations can use force to take over less powerful nations.

In the 2017 book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals described the “clear and present danger” that Trump's mental health posed to the “nation and individual well being”.  These contributors articulated concerns that his apparent narcissism and sociopathic traits could lead to dangerously unpredictable behaviour.  Their analysis suggested that when someone in power exhibits a blend of grandiosity, lack of empathy, and disregard for the consequences of their actions the potential for catastrophic decisions rises exponentially.  Trump’s cavalier discussions about territorial acquisition exemplify this mindset — where diplomacy is replaced by fantasies of control and conquest.

Moreover, the assessments of former senior officials from the first Trump administration provide a chilling look into his character.  In interviews with The New York Times and The Atlantic in October, John Kelly, Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, warned that the man met the definition of a fascist, and that during his first presidency, he suggested that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “did some good things.”  Such assertions — from insiders who once aligned with him — indicate a disturbing mindset.  Rather than being a mere aberration of presidential behavior, these claims reflect a coherent psychological profile stretching beyond just personal traits to encompass ideological beliefs that could have long-term ramifications for global peace.  His admiration for Hitler and other authoritarian leaders — projected through flippant comments and praise — highlights an affinity for power structures reminiscent of fascism.

The testimony received during both impeachment hearings and those related to the January 6 insurrection further solidifies this understanding of Trump's psyche.  Witnesses described a man willing to stoke violence and division for personal gain, a behavior that could have devastating consequences not just domestically but also on the international stage.  Such an approach to governing results in the trampling of democratic principles in favor of self-serving narratives which in turn leads to a breakdown of trust — both within the US and with nations that are friends and allies.

 

 

 https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/donald-trump-world-peace-threat-kim-putin-xi-maduro

Former White House officials consistently pointed to Trump's unpredictable nature as a catalyst for destabilization in international relations.  His tendency to make unilateral decisions or uninformed and unhinged proclamations, usually without evidence or expert consultation fostered chaos, not just for domestic policy but also in America's global standing.  Consequently, statements suggesting that US should have authority over territories outside its jurisdiction not only unsettles nations it also compromise the very foundation of the international legal order which has prevented another world war for 80 years.

Consider the implications of a world where the leader of the US (or any powerful nation) has the right to dictate the fate of other nations based on personal whims.  In an era where global cooperation is more crucial than ever in confronting issues like climate change or pandemics, Trump's insistence on making irrational claims on the territory of other nations showcases a profound disconnect with the realities of international relations and governance, suggesting an imminent threat to peaceful relations with neighbours and allies.

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations extend beyond mere bluster.  They hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective wellbeing of either the American people or the global community.  As the world continues to try to grapple with issues like human rights, trade, and security, leaders unable to acknowledge the fundamentals of cooperation and respect — such as Trump — pose a direct threat to world peace.

As we watch Trump begin to undo American laws and institutions that protect the underprivileged, the marginalized and the persecuted, and as he issues ultimatums and threats to the world, it is time for world leaders, particularly those from the democratic West, to see the danger he poses to peace and stability.  His repeated statements about territorial expansion are not just idle threats, they are indicative of a psychological profile that endorses aggression in place of genuine diplomacy.  

When insults become ambitions and fantasies threaten state sovereignty global peace hangs in a delicate balance.  In such circumstances it is imperative that the lessons learned from 20th Century history and the Trump political era guide world leaders to take the actions necessary to defend peace and stability and keep the world free from the inane political vision of a deranged sociopath. 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

There was once a proposal to merge Canada and the US. It was a horrible idea then and it's a worse idea now.

An Angus Reid Poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming part of the US.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

That was the argument put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her 2013 book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

But there were many problems with the idea of a Canada-US merger more than a decade ago, and there are even more problems today with the US about to be led by a violent sociopath like Donald Trump who has threatened to annex Canada by imposing tariffs on Canadian exports to the US.

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States.  Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis, even if it would be worse for workers and the bottom 90% of Canadians who would ultimately pay the price for the so-called economic freedom that corporate CEOs and billionaire oligarchs would be given.

As an American-Canadian Francis wrote passionately at the time about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century tried to make the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely.  The key justification she put forth for the merger was that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.  "The best option for the US and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argued at the time.

 

A similar argument is being made by Canadian businessman and media personality Kevin O'Leary, who said he likes the idea of a Canada-US union.

 

However, the situation is different today.  Rather than a merger as Francis proposed Trump's idea is for a hostile takeover of Canada via economic warfare, which is what the proposed 25% tariff on Canadian exports would be.  In Ontario alone the tariffs could result in the loss of up to 500,000 jobs and a decline in Canada's GDP of up to 2.5% ($77.46 billion).

However, if you examine the online responses to the suggestion that Canada becoming part of the US they have been overwhelmingly negative.  An Angus Reid poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming America's "51st state".  In addition, American's oppose Canada joining the US by a margin of two to one.

 

To get a better understanding of being next door to the US and how it defines Canada, people should read the 2003 book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer.  The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and examined the Canada-US relationship in the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the US for the sake of economic security.  But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why Canada and the US should never consider giving up its independence, and remain separate nations.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allow divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to US pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal values?  Are Canadians willing to allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the US?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

All these questions are more relevant now in the context of Trump's economic threats than they were in 2003 or any other time during the intervening years.

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered.  Under both Liberal and Conservative governments the answers to those questions have respectively been “no", “no" and “yes”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the current debate about defending Canadian sovereignty against an imperialist American president, it is only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second look, so that Canadians can see the counter arguments to the idea of a Canada-US merger, and especially so in light of threats by the incoming US president who believes that all nations should be subservient to American interests.

 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

*********************

T  H  E      B  O  R  D  E  R  :  

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches 

from the 49^th Parallel

 

A Critical Analysis

 By Fareed Khan

March 2005

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century.  In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections.  The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book.  He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11.  In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed.  For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

 

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries.  This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship  after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox.  By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries.  Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

 

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians?  In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances.  This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it.  In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada.  It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different.  As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny.  It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning.  For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity.  Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S.   Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate.  In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C.  According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty.  He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever.  By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of  neo-fascism in the U.S. that  can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration.  These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues.  It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book.  This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations).  It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto.  He uses the same style in several later chapters.  This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state.  By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States.  It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions?  Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process.  The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

© Fareed W. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

______________________________________________________________

 

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and international corporations.  Some of those events in addition to Donald Trump being re-elected to a second term as president include the following:

• negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
• Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
• revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
• possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
• the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
• The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and 
• numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the more than 95% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income earners -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate since the 1990s as the rich have gotten richer and the gaps in wealth and income have reached historic levels.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Why the Hamas-Israel ceasefire is perilously fragile and could be sabotaged

As the ceasefire unfolds, we must question whether it will hold or devolve into another opportunity for Israel to continue its persecution, oppression and genocide of Palestinians.  

 

By Fareed Khan

 

As the world cautiously welcomes a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the specter of violence in Gaza hasn't completely disappeared. The announcement of a truce, ostensibly meant to end the brutal, genocidal violence that Israel has been committing against Palestinians for 15 months, has not quelled the fears of many who know all too well the precariousness of such agreements.  Observers are right to worry that Israel will exploit this moment, using the days leading up to the ceasefire as an opportunity to inflict even more harm on an already traumatized Palestinian population.

 

History teaches us that ceasefires, whether it's in the Middle East or elsewhere, have frequently been preceded by cycles of bloodshed by one side or another as they try to gain advantage before things become set in stone. In the case of Palestinians and Israel, the grim reality is that time and again, agreements have faltered due to a deeply entrenched mistrust rooted in actions that speak louder than words.  The current ceasefire is strikingly similar to the proposal floated back in May 2024, which Israel callously rejected and blamed Hamas for its failure, while it continued its campaign of genocide. This pattern raises a chilling question, can Israel ever be trusted to uphold its commitments to peace?

The alarming reports that surfaced almost immediately following the ceasefire announcement illustrated this distrust in stark detail.  Within hours, Israeli jets bombed a crowd of Palestinians who were celebrating what should have been a hopeful turning point.  Such actions are not incidental, they are symptomatic of a state led by political figures whose ideologies are steeped in militarism and genocidal ideology, and an unyielding commitment to territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinian lives.

Figures like Israeli cabinet ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir — anti-Palestinian racists and intractable proponents of right-wing extremism — have already expressed intentions to undermine the ceasefire.  This defiance is not only reckless but indicative of a broader mentality within Israel's leadership.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's suggestion that Hamas was breaching the agreement even before the ink was dry speaks volumes about the dubiousness of any Israeli commitment to peace.

The international community bears witness to these flagrant violations of norms, including the Geneva Conventions and various resolutions from the United Nations Security Council going back decades, which stipulate the requirement for humane treatment of occupied populations during times of conflict.  For decades Israel's actions have included crimes against humanity and war crimes, underpinned by an ideological justification that is both alarming and abhorrent.  Israel continues to embody a level of state-sponsored violence and terrorism that, over the past 15 months, has resulted in more than 58,000 Palestinian deaths (the vast majority women and children), the displacement of more than two million Gaza residents, the damage or destruction of more than 77% of Gaza's buildings, and unimaginable suffering and misery for countless innocent Palestinians.

A host of scholars and human rights activists — including many who identify as Jewish — have condemned the Israeli government for its genocidal policies. They have been joined by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and more than a dozen nations that are prosecuting Israel for committing genocide at the International Court of Justice.  Their voices resound among the millions of people worldwide who stand in solidarity with Palestinians, recognizing that such systemic violence can never be justified or overlooked.  Among those who have become critics of Israel include many Holocaust survivors and their descendants who have been particularly vocal, drawing parallels between their own history and the current plight of Palestinians.

Yet, where is the accountability?  More than a dozen countries — including moral leaders like South Africa, and Canada's NATO allies Belgium, Spain and Türkiye — are urging international judicial action against Israeli and its leaders for their genocidal crimes.  Sadly, nations that once prided themselves on human rights advocacy, like Canada, have instead chosen to align themselves with the very perpetrators of this tragedy, effectively turning a blind eye to the suffering of the most persecuted minority in the world.

As the ceasefire unfolds, we must question whether it will hold or devolve into another opportunity for Israel to violate and agreement it signed and continue its persecution, oppression and genocide of Palestinians.  The global stage is set not only for potential humanitarian relief but also for a deeper reckoning with the ongoing complicity of Western nations in supporting a regime that has perpetuated horrific violence against Palestinians, and denies the human rights of those living under its occupation.

The question looms, will the world (particularly the West) turn its back on Palestinians again the way it has for the past 15 months?  Or will world leaders finally find their moral compass, rise to the occasion and begin to pursue criminal accountability for the architects of this grave humanitarian tragedy?  

The Gaza ceasefire, while a glimmer of hope, is a precarious one. For it is built atop a foundation of mistrust, broken promises, historical injustices, and a persistent pattern of persecution against the Palestinian people going back decades.  If this deal crumbles — as it may given Netanyahu's refusal to hold a cabinet meeting to ratify the deal only a day after it was announced — those responsible must be held accountable for their actions.   

History will remember not only the tens of thousands of dead and the suffering of millions in Gaza but also the silence of those Western leaders who had the power to stop the carnage but didn't.  The time for genuine international action was ignored again and again since October 2023, but now there is a chance at peace and pursuing accountability lest we find ourselves continuing to be haunted by the spectre of complicity, while the cries of the innocent victims continue to echo across the region and the world.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Poilievre receives backlash to "racism is a recent phenomenon in Canada" comment in Jordan Peterson interview

This manipulation of historical facts is reminiscent of tactics employed by far-right politicians in other Western nations, the goal of which is to erase legitimate grievances and normalize hate, racism and bigotry. 

 

By Fareed Khan

 

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre sat down for an interview with far-right, extremist personality Jordan Peterson — a figure notorious for his racist, transphobic and misogynist views on social and cultural issues.  During the conversation, Poilievre supported a statement made by Peterson, one that sent shockwaves through the political landscape.  Peterson claimed that that racism in Canada is a recent phenomenon, and Poilievre added to the outrageous claim that racism was the fault of “socialists”, “progressives”, and “wokeism”. These claims are not merely misguided, they reveal a deeper, more unsettling reality about Poilievre's political ethos — the normalization of racism and revisionist history that serves his partisan interests as he lusts for power.

 

© 2022 Michael deader.  © 2022 The Hill Times.

Historically, Canada is not a pristine bastion of racial harmony, as Poilievre would like to suggest.  The country has grappled with a legacy of systemic oppression, racism and white supremacy, as evidenced by the genocide of Indigenous peoples, the Chinese “head tax”, a history of institutional antisemitism prior to World War II, the internment of Japanese Canadians during the war, systemic anti-Black racism, and more recently Islamophobia in the form of government policies targeting Muslims, as well as the decades of institutional and systemic racism against Palestinians.  Each of these instances demonstrates that racism and bigotry are deeply woven into the fabric of this nation, contradicting Poilievre's assertion that it is a modern invention of the left and the “woke”.  Such a blatant dismissal of history is not just alarming it is dangerous, and it fuels the delusions of racist and white supremacist elements in society.

By framing racism as a recent phenomenon, Poilievre effectively denies the lived experiences of countless Canadians who have faced racial injustice and continue to do so today.  Furthermore, it undermines critical conversations about the systemic and structural inequalities that racialized communities experience.  His rhetoric serves to advance a narrative that minimizes the past and misleads the public about the ongoing struggles for racial justice that Black people, Indigenous people, and persons of colour are dealing with today.

This manipulation of historical facts is reminiscent of tactics employed by far-right politicians in other Western nations, the goal of which is to erase legitimate grievances and normalize hate, racism and bigotry.  By declaring that racism is a recent import Poilievre emboldens extremist elements in society, creating a bullseye on the backs of BIPOC communities which are already vulnerable to discrimination.  It is an extremely cynical ploy demonstrating that Poilievre cares little for maintaining social harmony in Canada’s pluralistic society.

Rachel Gilmore, a journalist who analyzed the interview, points out that Poilievre’s comments resonate deeply with a broader trend of right-wing populism that thrives on division and fear.  The Conservative leader’s rhetoric is not simply an isolated moment but rather part of a systematic approach to galvanizing support from a voter base that finds solace in grievances against “woke” ideologies.  Such an agenda has the potential to foster an environment where social justice advocates are labeled as enemies of the state for challenging hate and bigotry in this country.

The implications of Poilievre's ideological leanings extend beyond mere dialogue.  They signal his support for a political culture increasingly hostile to conversations surrounding combatting hate and racism, and supporting diversity and equity.  Under his leadership, the Conservative Party appears poised to leverage a narrative that condemns advocates of social justice while promoting the idea that concerns about racism are exaggerated or unfounded.  This creates an atmosphere where discrimination can fester untreated, further marginalizing communities that have faced systemic barriers for decades, barriers which continue to exist today and will be augmented under a Poilievre government.

The rise of this type of political rhetoric in Canada is indicative of a troubling trend in democracies across the globe — a calculated attempt to rewrite history to fit a politically expedient narrative.  Just as we have seen in the United States, where figures like Donald Trump have dismissed and downplayed America’s long history of racism, Poilievre's words signal an unsettling alignment with those ideologies.  We must not forget that Poilievre himself has benefitted from white privilege and has built a career as a professional politician in a country founded on racism, white supremacy, genocide and colonialism.  In the process of being a politician and becoming leader of the Conservatives he has put himself in a position where he is out of touch with the day to day realities faced by his fellow Canadians, many of whom live in the shadow of Canada’s racist history, and will never live the privileged life that he does.

Failing to confront or denying the ugly truths of our past allows attacks on racial justice movements to flourish.  This dangerous rhetoric nurtures an environment where hate can thrive unchecked, posing a grave threat to social cohesion. As we’ve seen in other countries, the results can be catastrophic — fostering division, hostility, and an erosion of the rights of marginalized communities.

As citizens, it is crucial that we hold our political leaders accountable for their words and actions. Rather than remaining passive observers, we must actively engage in conversations about racism, social justice, and historical accountability.  Organizations like Canadians United Against Hate and others have rightly called upon the public to reject Poilievre’s dangerous ideas and demand transparency and accountability from a leader who seeks the highest office in the land.

The moral imperative to confront and dismantle these harmful narratives has never been clearer.  Like other nations, Canada is not immune to the rising tide of far-right politics, and if Poilievre is to become our next prime minister, his denial of the country's history of racism risks not only the integrity of Canadian democracy but also the safety and well-being of minority and marginalized communities.

In combatting this dangerous rhetoric, we must recommit ourselves to building a society founded on diversity, acceptance, equality, and racial justice. The vast majority of Canadians embrace pluralistic values that promote equity and respect for all.  Allowing divisive political rhetoric to dominate our discourse is unacceptable. We must proactively counter these ideologies by lifting up the voices of those marginalized by racism and advocating for systemic change.

It is imperative that we stand together against the normalization of dangerous narratives like Poilievre's.  We must acknowledge and engage with our history, recognizing the injustices that have shaped our society, and continue to affect it today.  In doing so, we can foster a Canada that is not only aware of its past but is also committed to creating a more just and equitable future for all its citizens.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every Canadian to challenge the dismissals of racism and to fight against those who push ideologies that seek to undermine our values.  The stakes are too high to remain silent in the face of such dangerous rhetoric.  We must act, ensuring that hate remains on the fringes, while we collectively strive for a more inclusive and just society.  This is not merely a political responsibility; it is a moral obligation we owe to ourselves and to future generations.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.