Ideal outcome?
Re “One state is the only solution” (Opinion, Feb. 3): Contributor Noah Richler is hopeful that Canada’s example of federalism, accommodation and compromise can result in a one-state solution.
A country with not enough history and too much geography as an exemplar for a region with too much history and not enough geography? A kumbaya resolution to generations of grievance, resentment, prejudice and hate? Just how long is long term?
The idealism is seductive. But widespread suffering on both sides, and the inevitable escalation, should call for something more practical and immediate.
Perhaps mutual exhaustion is the best hope for something less satisfying, but at least workable.
Brian Green Thunder Bay
Watching the months of horrendous killing, first in Israel and then in Gaza, I applaud this one-state solution. Ceasefire is the first imperative, but then what?
Many have discussed this, including long-term advocate Ian Lustick. Others, such as the A Land for All confederate partnership of Israelis and Palestinians, argue for very specific steps.
I myself have seen wonderful working examples of on-the-ground business, educational and other partnerships in Israel and Palestine. Forging such relationships is not impossible.
Of course, a long-term process of truth and reconciliation would be needed. I’ve also witnessed the germs of such having tangible long-term effects.
David Lyon Kingston
Cut it out
Re “Pushing to ‘Axe the Tax’ is unfair to our kids” (Report on Business, Feb. 3): “Axe the tax” is a popular slogan, I get it. The problem is that as a serious policy response, it conveys to me a message of irresponsibility: that one can live in society without contributing to its well-being or future.
The inequality driven by private wealth and public poverty may condemn Canada to underfunded services and unsolved problems for future generations to inherit. This should be unnecessary in a wealthy country such as Canada.
Yes, we should manage our scarce resources better. Yes, alternative policy responses are welcome. But “axe the tax” shouldn’t be one of them.
Peter Boyer Centre Wellington, Ont.
It is a wonder how not being out of pocket for the carbon tax is considered cleaning up the climate mess and loving our families. I wonder how many other global messes we can clean up with no-cost solutions.
I suppose another would be if the entire planet only had one child per family. At some point we would get back to 1990 population levels, and then we would reach our emissions target.
Maybe that is the next step if we really “love our kids and grandchildren.”
Jason New Foothills County, Alta.
This hit home on so many levels.
As a mom of two young children, financially stretched thin between rent, child care and other living costs in one of Canada’s most expensive cities, I don’t want anything to add to the burden.
Anxiety hits hard when I hear the word “tax.” But then I remember that I pay taxes for a reason: I want to contribute to building a nation that not only makes it possible for my (and all) children to reach their full potential, but actually safeguards the air they breathe and the water they drink. If that costs me less than a penny for every dollar I spend, well, sign me up.
One thing I can say from experience: If we want kids to clean up their own messes, we’ve got to lead by example. When will our governments finally be brave enough to do so?
As Greta Thunberg would say: The eyes of all future generations are upon you.
Verena Rossa Vancouver
Success story
Re “Our clinical trials system is failing Canadians with cancer” (Opinion, Oct. 3): In the mid-1970s, my 21-year-old brother was terminally ill with cancer. He was transferred to the newly opened palliative care unit at Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal.
Fortunately for him, the director of the unit, Dr. Balfour Mount, enrolled him in an early phase clinical trial for cisplatin, which has since become an effective and commonly used chemotherapy. The clinical trial saved my brother’s life, and its success undoubtedly saved countless others.
Our underfunded, understaffed and overly bureaucratic health care system often denies patients with little hope access to potentially life-saving treatments which could, if successful, improve outcomes for others. Equally concerning is that our research institutions lose the benefit of participating in, and contributing to, cutting-edge science.
It’s really a lose-lose-lose paradigm.
John Harris Toronto
Baby back
Re “As populations collapse, the far right’s baby fever puts hard-won freedoms at risk” (Opinion, Feb. 3): After university, my partner started her career with 10 years in corporate marketing.
She then stayed at home for 12 years to care for our two children, before going back to school and qualifying as a legal assistant. She’s now 12 years into a successful career in the Alberta courts system.
Many of us in rich countries such as Canada have the good fortune to live long and healthy lives. It just might be possible to combine career fulfilment and personal aspirations with having and raising children.
Matthew Dawe Calgary
How about we not fret over falling birth rates, and then housing availability (not to mention a tinderbox of other problems associated with overpopulation) would take care of itself (”Canada is failing the grade on housing. Fixing that starts with international students, but it shouldn’t end there” – Opinion, Feb. 3)?
Expecting economies to grow every year never seemed sustainable.
Michael Locke Toronto
The “new school of thought” among populist conservatives is that birth rates can be successfully increased by criminalizing abortion and eliminating access to birth control.
My question is whether they also aim to criminalize vasectomies. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but am just checking since this form of birth control, which only implicates men, isn’t mentioned.
The “patriarchal past” is never dead, to paraphrase William Faulkner: It just regenerates, in a different form, to suit the current zeitgeist.
Lise Hendlisz Toronto
Many years ago, I lived in Singapore.
I remember the government being concerned about falling birth rates. There were concerted efforts to find solutions or at least alleviate the decline, including the provision of housing for expanding families and opportunities for young men and women to meet.
When women were asked why they did not wish to have children or more children, the answer was: “Don’t work on us, work on the men.” I am now a grandmother and still think that is a valid answer.
Poh-Gek Forkert Toronto
..................................................................................................................................
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com