US may become 11th Canada province but its going to require a lot of apologizing
I understand that it's a letter written tongue-in-cheek and some may find it humorous. But to keep it on the front page for days and days is rubbing salt into a wound.
So I propose that you publish my letter with this Headline: "US may become 11th province but its going to require a lot of apologizing."
(Editors note: Done.)
Ernest Poortinga
Ann Arbor
It is with great dismay that I see that the new Michigan House of Representatives has targeted for repeal the Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, passed into law by the State of Michigan in 2023.
Background: Here's how Michigan's red flag gun law works
Statistics are already showing that the law has potentially saved lives, making sure that families have a legal way to petition for the removal of firearms from family members who, after a determination by a judge, were found to be a danger to themselves or others.
We can't ever completely prevent gun violence, but we can take measures to make it more rare. We can have fewer children shot at splash pads. We can have fewer children shot at in their schools.
This action is clearly political. I would think that the one thing all Michiganders could agree on is that we'd like fewer people to get shot.
Jonathan Gold
Novi
Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters and we may publish it online and in print.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: US can be 11th Canada province but it'll require a lot of apologizing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
20 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Canada, Other G7 Nations Condemn Hong Kong Warrants for Overseas Activists
Canada and other G7 countries have issued a joint statement condemning the Hong Kong police for issuing arrest warrants and bounties on democracy activists overseas. Hong Kong law enforcement issued warrants and bounties for 19 individuals living in other countries, including Canada, on July 25. It accused the individuals of planning to undermine Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. Members of the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, which include Canada, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the European Union, as well as associate members of the G7 RRM, including Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden issued a joint statement on Aug. 8 saying the move targets those 'exercising their freedom of expression.' The G7 RRM was formed in 2018 to 'identify and respond' to foreign threats to democracy, such as 'hostile state activity' that targets democratic institutions or processes, according to Global Affairs Canada. The Hong Kong police's moves target pro-democracy activists, including those in G7 RRM countries. 'This form of transnational repression undermines national security, state sovereignty, human rights, and the safety of communities,' the joint statement said. It added that the G7 RRM members were committed to strengthening efforts to safeguard sovereignty, keep communities safe, and defend individuals from 'the overreach of governments trying to silence, intimidate, harass, harm or coerce them within our borders.' 'We encourage individuals to report suspicious activities and any incidents of intimidation, harassment, coercion, or threats to their law enforcement authorities in accordance with domestic laws and regulations,' the joint statement said. The countries' said the G7 RRM and 'likeminded global partners' stood together in 'countering these ongoing malign activities.' G7 nations also issued a joint statement in June at the conclusion of their summit in Canada condemning transnational repressions. 'We, the Leaders of the G7, are deeply concerned by growing reports of transnational repression (TNR). TNR is an aggressive form of foreign interference whereby states or their proxies attempt to intimidate, harass, harm or coerce individuals or communities outside their borders,' the statement said. Ministers Condemn Hong Kong Police's Announcement The Aug. 8 joint statement comes about two weeks after Foreign Minister Anita Anand and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree spoke out against the Hong Kong police's decision, calling it an attempt for Hong Kong 'to conduct transnational repression abroad.' Hong Kong law enforcement issued the bounties and warrants for 19 pro-democracy activists, including some who live in Canada. It said the warrants were issued for 'suspected contravention' of its national security law for promoting self-determination in the city. Canadian Victor Ho is one of the activists on the warrant list, and already faces a warrant from a December 2024 announcement by Hong Kong with a HK$1 million reward for his arrest. Three other Canadian residents are on the list, including Vancouver-based activist Keung Ka-wai. Anand and Anandasangaree said that Canada stands in solidarity with other 'international partners' who have citizens or residents that were also targeted by the Hong Kong law enforcement decision. 'Canada reiterates its previous calls to repeal this law, which violates Hong Kong's international human rights obligations, and withdraw all related warrants and bounties,' the ministers said in a joint statement.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Demetrios Nicolaides: Setting the record straight on Alberta's school library standards
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) wrote an op-ed that has completely mischaracterized the new school library book policy recently announced. They have labelled these policies that are intended to ensure young students are not exposed to explicit sexual content as a 'book ban.' This is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of the standards. This was never about banning books; the government has no will, want or ability to ban books. This policy is about ensuring young students are not exposed to graphic sexual content in a school library book. Full stop. Before I dive deeper into the false narratives being pushed by the CCLA, I want to set the record straight that books containing information and images regarding puberty, breast development, menstruation and other important biological information will not be restricted for any students, contrary to incorrect reporting from numerous news outlets. The CCLA has stated that critically acclaimed books like George Orwell's 1984 and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale will be banned from all school libraries— a completely false and shockingly deceptive claim from an organization that claims to be committed to integrity. When I was asked during a press conference about this policy having unintended consequences on books such as the aforementioned, I made it clear that this is not the spirit, intent or wording of the policy. If a book contains images or passages that have explicit sexual content such as acts like masturbation, penetration, ejaculation, or the use of artificial sex organs, it will not be permitted in school libraires. I, along with parents, educators and Albertans, agree that these images should not be available to students, and we will not bend to falsified statements concocted by the CCLA, an organization that seems hellbent on defending these graphic images being available for young students. The CCLA has also claimed that the definitions in the standards are subjective, particularly in how 'explicit sexual content' is defined. This is simply not the case. The policy lays out clear definitions of both 'explicit' and 'non-explicit' sexual content. Materials with non-explicit sexual content may be accessible to students in Grade 10 and above, if age-appropriate. Materials selected and used by a teacher to support curricular outcomes are not affected by the standards. For example, students will learn about consent (outside a of a sexual context) in Grade 4, which provides the foundation to understand consent in a sexual nature when students are of an age to discuss that topic. We trust the teachers and educators in our school system to teach a well-rounded, age-appropriate sex-ed curriculum. The government's role is to set the standards; it is up to school boards to apply them. I also want to address the narratives regarding how these changes are apparently targeting the LGBTQ community. As LGBTQ advocate Blaine Badiuk put it, 'books with LGBTQ themes absolutely have a place in school libraries, as long as they do not contain explicit sexual content. To suggest that LGBTQ representation must include sexual content is a disservice to the community and it reinforces the harmful stereotypes that LGBTQ identities are inherently sexual.' I fully agree with Blaine. Students should be curious, inquisitive and, exploratory about themselves and the world around them without being exposed to sexual content. The CCLA has concealed the true intent of the policy by generating fictional realities. Their blatant spin on the standards has created confusion around a balanced policy that protects students from explicit sexual content. The CCLA believes that their actions are based in virtue and the common good, when in fact their actions have culminated into a massive disservice to the public. I'd like to ask the CCLA: Do they, in fact, support allowing explicit sexual content in school libraries? Would they be willing to post the graphic images we found in school libraries on their website, and explain to their readers why they think they should be available to students? And a final question to Albertans: If the media has to censor the images we found in school libraries in order to show them on the five o'clock news, why would they ever be appropriate for young students in a school library book? Demetrios Nicolaides is Alberta minister of Education and Childcare.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: If Trump's trade target is a customs union, Canada will have a big decision to make
The Canadian government failed to reach a trade deal with the United States before the Aug. 1 deadline. As a result, U.S. President Donald Trump increased the blanket tariff on imports of Canadian goods from 25 per cent to 35 per cent, while tariffs on steel, aluminum and some automotive imports have remained unchanged. Crucially, the so-called 'CUSMA exemption' on goods that are compliant with the existing Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement has also remained in place. Many have pointed out that the lack of a deal makes Canada an outlier among U.S. trading partners. The EU, the U.K., South Korea, Japan and many others managed to clinch a deal before the deadline. Even Mexico, which did not reach a deal, was given a formal 90-day extension. But looking at the U.S. agreements with other countries, one can genuinely question whether Canada could have successfully lowered its effective tariff rate, even with a deal. So far all the trade deals reached by the U.S. include some tariffs. More importantly, no country has escaped the 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum, except for the U.K., which faces 25 per cent tariffs. With little chance that Canada could have avoided tariffs on steel and aluminum, reducing the effective tariff rate would have been a tall order. Moreover, the extreme focus on the state of current negotiations and the need for an immediate deal to avoid tariffs overlooks a much bigger threat to Canada: The CUSMA renegotiation scheduled for Summer 2026. Considering that, any deal reached now might only be a band-aid that will be ripped off next year — and it may hurt. The importance of CUSMA for Canada cannot be overstated. Canada's effective tariff rate on exports to the U.S. is one of the lowest in the world, primarily due to the CUSMA exemption. What if CUSMA changes drastically following the renegotiation next year? President Trump is likely to use this opportunity to tackle the trade irritants that have been bothering him, notably Canada's supply management. However, I think Canadian negotiators need to consider that the U.S. approach to the negotiations could be much broader. The Trump administration has referred in the past to the idea of creating a 'Fortress North America' as a means of counteracting the threat from China. As such, a major trade irritant for the U.S. has been third countries' use of Canada and Mexico to circumvent tariffs, with China, for example, making significant investments in manufacturing in Mexico, evidenced by the foreign direct investment data. With that in mind, one of the aims of the U.S. administration with the CUSMA renegotiation could be to move from a Free-Trade Agreement to something that more closely resembles a customs union. Such an arrangement would mean that Canada and Mexico would have to commit to match the tariffs the U.S. imposes on every other country, potentially leading to a difficult choice for Canada. In addition, further integration between Canada and the U.S. is likely still an objective for President Trump, even though he has stopped referring to Canada as the 51st State. Nevertheless, it's important to remember that the European Customs Union, established in 1968, was a cornerstone in the creation of what is now the European Union. A customs union would mean further integration with the U.S., guaranteeing access to its market, but it would come at the expense of lost independence. As such, Canada's current free-trade agreements with other countries, such as CETA, the TPP and others, would no longer be valid. Moreover, Canada would lose its ability to negotiate free trade deals with other countries, and would likely face retaliatory tariffs from international partners, similar to the ones China has imposed on canola after Canada matched U.S. tariffs on the imports of Chinese electric vehicles. If the government chooses this option, Canada would be doubling down on its reliance on the U.S. and forgoing the opportunity to diversify trade away from the Americans. On the other hand, if Canada rejects a customs union, we would remain in control of our trade destiny, with the ability to pursue free trade deals with other countries. However, that freedom would likely come at the cost of facing the same kind of blanket U.S. tariffs that other countries are facing, leading to a sharp rise in our effective tariff rate. With exports to the U.S. representing about 20 per cent of Canadian GDP, the economic impact would be significant. Basically, the choice boils down to either 'short-term gains for long-term pain' or 'short-term pain for long-term gains.' In the current context of tensions with the U.S., it is unclear where the general opinions, whether from politicians, business leaders or voters more generally, would be on the subject: further integration or increased diversification. Does Canada still deserve to be considered a 'trading nation'? William Watson: A lament for the postwar trading system There are likely to be strongly opposed views across provinces and industries. Charles St-Arnaud is the chief economist at Alberta Central. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
