Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier.

When you add in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, he's also Canada’s least popular first minister.

I'm not going to belabour this point, but Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier.

Actually, I am going to belabour the point. I'm just not going to provide a lot of smarty pants analysis. That's because while we can speculate, it's too soon to say why Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier, or what that might mean.

Unfortunately, there are caveats. Far too many.

As far as we can tell, Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier. Maybe there's a less popular premier in Atlantic Canada, because the Campaign Research Inc. poll that indicates how unpopular Kenney is doesn't include the Maritimes or Newfoundland.

But who can imagine any Atlantic premier being less popular than Kenney? So I'm just going to keep on saying Kenney is Canada's least popular premier until somebody proves otherwise.

How unpopular is Kenney? Well, Kenney has both the lowest approval rating of any first minister about which the Toronto-based pollster asked questions in its monthly omnibus poll and the highest disapproval rating of any premier on the list.

Mind you, another caveat, the Alberta sample appears to be pretty small, tiny even, a mere 181 souls out of the 2,007 who responded to the firm's online panel on May 1 and 2. And, in this province, who knows why people might disapprove of the guy?

Still, even with all those qualifiers, it's nice to be able to say that Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier, and considerably less popular than Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to boot!

The poll was published yesterday under the heading COVID-19/Coronavirus Study, so you might have missed it. The bit about Jason Kenney being Canada's most unpopular premier is buried rather deep, starting down on page 36 of the explanatory slide show. It's one of those online panel thingies, so all of the usual negative caveats about that apply too.

Just the same, according to Campaign Research, Canada's three most popular premiers are Quebec's Francois Legault with an 83-per-cent approval rating and 13 per cent disapproving, Saskatchewan's Scott Moe (80 per cent/16 per cent), and British Columbia's John Horgan (73 per cent/13 per cent). Ontario's Doug Ford was fourth (76 per cent/17 per cent).

I suppose because they're a Toronto pollster, Campaign research threw in Toronto Mayor John Tory (75 per cent/17 per cent). In fairness, though, Toronto's population is more than twice those of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and a bit larger than both combined, so fair's fair.

Plus Campaign Research added the prime minister (65 per cent/29 per cent).

Canada's second-least popular premier, according to this, was Manitoba's Brian Pallister (51 per cent/37 per cent).

And then came Kenney, in a distant last place with an approval rating of 44 per cent, and a disapproval rating of 48 per cent, the only leader on the list with a higher disapproval rating than approval rating.

Have I read too much into this? Almost certainly.

But who cares? It's just nice to be able to say … Jason Kenney is Canada's least popular premier.

David Climenhaga, author of the Alberta Diary blog, is a journalist, author, journalism teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions at The Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. This post also appears on his blog, AlbertaPolitics.ca.

Image: Chris Schwarz/Government of Alberta/Flickr

Cargill Incorporated is the largest privately held company in the United States, and that means it is essentially a family business. 

You cannot buy Cargill shares on the Toronto, New York or any other stock exchange. The descendants of William Cargill, who founded the company in 1865 as a grain storage operation, own 90 per cent of the company.

But if it is a family business, Cargill is no mom-and-pop operation. 

The company has grown over the past century and a half into a multi-tentacled corporate behemoth, involved in everything from grain to livestock to potash to steel to transport to financial services. In 2018, Cargill and its various subsidiaries reported revenues of over $110 billion. 

Cargill has operations on five continents, in more than 70 countries, including Canada, and the company's meat-packing plant in High River, Alberta is a tiny piece of that worldwide empire. 

In this country, however, the High River plant has an extremely high profile. It is one of the epicentres of COVID-19 in Canada -- in all of North America, in fact -- with over 900 reported cases out of 2,000 employees. That's almost half the workforce.  

Two people have died in connection with the Cargill outbreak -- one, a plant worker originally from Vietnam; the other, an infected plant worker's father, who had been visiting from the Philippines.

Cargill initially resisted pleas from workers and their union to close the plant, but finally relented, in late April. After only two weeks, it hastily reopened, on Monday, May 4, giving the largely immigrant workforce the Hobson's choice of either going back to a potentially fatal workplace or losing their jobs. 

Neither the workers, nor their union think the plant has become safe. 

The union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), has gone to court to force a shutdown, until Cargill can absolutely guarantee safe and healthy conditions for all employees. 

The UFCW does not think the notoriously low-paid plant workers should have to risk their lives to fatten the balance sheet of a U.S.-based transnational corporation that ranks number 15 on the Fortune 500. 

Kenney and Trump on the same wavelength

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has a different view from that of the union and the workers it represents. 

The premier, and former Harper Conservative government cabinet minister, appropriates a concept meant to describe access to necessary basic foodstuffs we all need for sustenance – food security – and applies it to the much different situation of the High River plant. The Cargill workers have to do their part, the Alberta premier argues, to ensure food security for Canadians. 

The truth is that Canada's food security does not depend on meat from Cargill or any other commercial operation. 

If our local butcher runs out of hamburger for the barbecue, we all have other nutritious options. There are, for instance, the protein-packed pulses -- chickpeas, lentils and the like -- that farmers in Saskatchewan grow in great quantity. 

In the U.S., as in Canada, COVID-19 has been particularly hard on the meat-packing industry, forcing more than 20 plant closures, and causing meat shortages on grocery shelves. Some fast food chains have even had to take hamburgers off the menu. 

Corporate executives in the meat industry told U.S. President Trump that they were reluctant to reopen their U.S.-based plants for fear of lawsuits. The U.S. is a far more litigious country than Canada. 

The president's response was to give the corporations cover, by invoking the U.S. Defense Protection Act (DPA). In effect, the president is forcing the corporations to reopen their plants. 

The purpose of the DPA is to allow a president to harness the resources of private industry to serve public needs in time of war or national emergency. Many have urged Trump to invoke the act to assure production of personal protective equipment for front-line workers during the pandemic, but he has refused. 

Now, Trump is using the extraordinary powers of the DPA to force workers back to dangerous plants, while shielding their bosses from responsibility.

As for the High River Cargill plant workers, they fall under provincial labour jurisdiction. And the Alberta premier has already indicated he will not lift a finger to protect them. But there might be a way that federal authorities could step in.

Jagmeet Singh urges Trudeau government to act

In Canada, it is the federal government that has authority over food safety, and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh believes the Trudeau team should assertively use that power to protect the Cargill workers.

Singh put the question to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland during the House of Commons' weekly face-to-face session on Wednesday, May 6.

"Food safety and worker safety cannot be divorced," Singh told the House. "Will the government ensure that the Cargill workers are in safe work conditions?"

Freeland, in a manner all-too-typical of Liberal politicians, dissimulated, offering sympathy but no action.

"The member opposite is quite right that where the federal government has particular authority in food processing is to guarantee the safety of the foods processed there for Canadians to eat," she said, and then expressed some vague sentiments of concern. "When it comes to Cargill and food processing, I agree with the member opposite that it's something we all need to be particularly concerned about, and we have been."

The NDP leader was not satisfied. 

"Will the government commit to using the authority that it has under food safety to ensure that workers are also safe, because there's no way that food can truly be safe if workers are in dangerous conditions and if workers are contracting COVID-19?" Singh asked, adding: "If workers are dying, the food can't be safe."

Freeland would not budge. The Trudeau government wants to get credit for caring, without pushing the envelope in dealing with the most prickly and confrontational provincial government in the country, Alberta's. 

"I think we all understand there is a very clear difference between the duty to inspect food which is produced and to ensure that that food is safe for Canadians, and even more sacred duty to ensure that workers are working in safe conditions," Freeland answered. "We take both of those extremely seriously and we are aware what falls specifically in our jurisdictions. Having said that, we care very much about all Canadian workers." 

Freeland's assertion that responsibility for the safety of a product that consumers eat does not include making sure a processing plant is not an active breeder of a deadly virus reflects a narrow and limited understanding of the federal role. 

There is no evidence of food borne transmission of COVID-19, or of food packaging carrying the virus, according to authorities in both the U.S. and Canada.

But experts have not always got it right about COVID-19 since the outbreak at the beginning of this year. At this stage, all we know for sure is that there remain many unanswered questions about it.

'The worst company in the world'

What is not in doubt is the kind of company we're dealing with. 

Not too long ago the U.S. environmental organization Mighty Earth undertook a study of the social and environmental impact of Cargill's operations and issued a report they called "The Worst Company in the World."

The report opens by stating "when it comes to addressing the most important problems facing our world, including the destruction of the natural environment, the pollution of our air and water, the warming of the globe, the displacement of Indigenous peoples, child labor, and global poverty, Cargill is not only consistently in last place, but is driving these problems at a scale that dwarfs their closest competitors."

The report details how Cargill has become more powerful than governments and has betrayed repeated promises to adhere to high environmental standards. 

"Nowhere is Cargill's pattern of deception and destruction more apparent than in its participation in the destruction of the lungs of the planet, the world's forests. Despite repeated and highly publicized promises to the contrary, Cargill has continued to bulldoze ancient ecosystems, sometimes within the bounds of lax laws -- and, too often, outside those bounds as well."

With the advent to power of virulently anti-environmental Trump in the U.S. and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, there is now virtually no limit, Mighty Earth says, to Cargill's capacity to ravage rainforests, savannahs and other vital habitats. 

Mighty Earth cites many examples. 

One of those is that of "the Gran Chaco, a 110-million-hectare ecosystem spanning Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay." 

This ecosystem "is one of the largest remaining continuous tracts of native vegetation in South America, second in size only to the Amazon rainforest. These forests are home to vibrant communities of Indigenous Peoples … who have depended on and coexisted with the Chaco forest for millennia."

Cargill, the report tells us, is now actively endangering both the people and other inhabitants of the Gran Chaco to produce a cash crop -- soy -- that feeds the animals which become Big Macs and Whoppers.

"Once the impenetrable stronghold of creatures like the screaming hairy armadillo, the jaguar, and the giant anteater, Cargill has infiltrated the Gran Chaco, bulldozing and burning to make way for vast fields of genetically modified soy."

Mighty Earth also documents Cargill's use of violence to subdue Indigenous peoples, its exploitative labour practices, including child labour, and its predatory practices that have driven competitors out of certain businesses. 

This is the company that Jason Kenney says must be allowed to operate, uninhibited by health concerns, to assure our food security. 

If you believe that, you might also believe that injecting bleach into your veins can cure COVID-19, or that, as many opinion leaders in the U.S. say, it is necessary to accept that thousands must die in the interests of what they call the economy. 

The owners of Cargill are not personally offering to sacrifice their lives. They are offering their employees' lives instead.

Karl Nerenberg has been a journalist and filmmaker for more than 25 years. He is rabble's politics reporter.

Image: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr

On March 23, UN Secretary-General António Guterres appealed to G20 leaders: "I am encouraging the waiving of (economic) sanctions imposed on countries to ensure access to food, essential health supplies, and COVID-19 medical support. This is the time for solidarity not exclusion ... Let us remember that we are only as strong as the weakest health system in our interconnected world." At the same time, AP News reported, ambassadors of eight countries currently affected by economic sanctions -- namely, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Nicaragua, China, Russia and North Korea -- petitioned the secretary-general for "the immediate and complete lifting of those measures to enable nations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic." 

Regrettably, so far the wealthy and powerful countries of the world haven't heeded the secretary-general's call to loosen the screws on the weaker and poorer ones. They also ignored a similar appeal by Pope Francis in his Easter address. On the contrary, President Trump actually weaponized the pandemic by instituting further sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela, countries already targeted for regime change. 

In Canada, however, two peace groups, the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and le Mouvement Québécois pour la paix, sent an open letter signed by 100 prominent Canadians to Trudeau asking him to lift all of Canada's economic sanctions now. 

Unknown to most Canadians, Trudeau's government maintains economic sanctions regimes against 20 countries of the world, including nine African countries. In fact, under the Harper government in Ottawa in June 2013, Canada co-ordinated economic sanctions for the U.S.-led coalition of countries participating in the regime change operation against Syria. Similarly, under the Trudeau government, Canada helped lead the Lima Group in organizing multilateral sanctions against Venezuela. 

Canada typically applies five types of sanctions: arms embargoes, asset freezes, import-export restrictions, financial prohibitions and technical assistance prohibitions. Not all sanctioned countries feel the full weight of all five. However, some countries do: Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya. 

The effect on the targeted country is crippling. The first result is usually a drastic decline in its currency's value, which translates into ordinary people being unable to put food on the table for their children. Then follow other crises for working people: unemployment due to closing markets for the country's exports and the inability to get spare parts; inability to receive payments from relatives abroad because the international banking system excludes the targeted country; the closing down of whole industries, such as tourism, because access to credit cards or even air access to national airports, as in the case of Syria, is turned off by the sanctioners.

Supporters will point out that sanction regimes generally exclude food and medical supplies. However, international trade requires financing through banks which are subject to penalties in the U.S., for example for trading with Iran, even though the participating bank may be domiciled in a country that has lifted its sanctions on Iran. This practice by the U.S. is called extraterritoriality.

Some have likened economic sanctions to acts of war and compared them to sieges of medieval towns in which the besiegers hope to make life so difficult for the besieged that they rise up against their feudal lords and open the gates. The comparison isn't far off since the brunt of sanctions aren't felt so much by the targeted countries' ruling elites but rather their civilian populations. A monstrous example was the decade of UN sanctions against Iraq between the First and Second Gulf Wars. Between 1992 and 2000, 500,000 Iraqi children perished from lack of food and medicines. But Madeleine Albright, former U.S. secretary of state in the Clinton administration, famously quipped that it was "worth it."  It was worth it to Albright because sanctions were part of U.S. foreign policy to soften up Iraq in preparation for the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of 2003 which continues today.

Notably, coercive economic measures are not levelled against U.S. client states, no matter the enormity of their crimes. Israel, which turned Gaza into the world’s largest open air prison and is annexing the West Bank, and Saudi Arabia, which wages a bloody war on Yemen and murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, don't worry about sanctions.

Under international law, economic sanctions are acts of war. That's why the UN charter restricts the power to level sanctions exclusively to the UN Security Council. That also explains why Canada's unilateral sanctions against 19 countries are illegal. Only in the case of North Korea are Canada's regime of a full spectrum of coercive measures explicable under international law.

While Trudeau tries to play the competent caring leader in his daily COVID-19 press conferences, he cannot ignore the damage he is doing to the efforts to fight the novel coronavirus in 20 of the world's poorest countries, and indeed to the global effort.

Ken Stone is a longtime peace, social justice, labour, anti-racist and environmental activist-resident in Hamilton, Ontario. He is treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War and executive member of the Syria Solidarity Movement.

Image: CanadianPM/Video Screenshot/Twitter

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit the Diné/Navajo people hard, inflicting the highest per capita infection rate in the country after New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in the country, larger than West Virginia, straddling Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Half of the over 300,000 enrolled members reside on the reservation. Navajo President Jonathan Nez has issued some of the strongest stay-at-home measures in the country, including a weekday evening curfew and a complete, stay-at-home curfew for the entire weekend. Nearby Gallup, New Mexico, with a large Diné population, has enacted a complete lockdown, with the National Guard prohibiting entry.

As of May 5, despite these efforts, there were 2,559 confirmed COVID-19 cases on the Navajo Nation and 79 deaths. Among the victims, 28-year-old Valentina Blackhorse, a beloved champion of Navajo culture and a community leader. She left behind her partner, Robby Jones, and their one-year-old daughter, Poet.

"She really loved her family -- her parents, her sisters, her nieces and nephews. She loved her elderly. She loved children," Jones said Tuesday on the Democracy Now! news hour. "She was a kind and hardworking lady, and she was warmhearted. She would do anything for her family."

Jones is a detention officer with the Navajo Department of Corrections, and contracted COVID-19 at work. "When she was taking care of me, I guess she contracted it," he said. "She started showing symptoms -- shortness of breath, body aches, loss of taste and smell. By the time I started feeling better … that's when she started feeling sick."

Valentina Blackhorse tested positive for COVID-19 on April 22. She died the next day. She had won numerous pageants, being named Miss Western Navajo and Miss Diné College, among others, and hoped to run for office in the Navajo Nation government one day.

Dr. Michelle Tom, a member of the Navajo Nation, is a family physician in Winslow, Arizona, just across the Navajo reservation line. She spoke about Valentina's death on Democracy Now!: "It's a reflection of what we're going through as a people, and it correlates with what this virus can do to our young and someone who was very motivated, loved our culture, spread our rich and strong culture, and our language. That's what we're trying to fight for," she said, adding, "She was going to lead our next generation. It was a hard loss for our community."

The Navajo Nation, along with the nearby Hopi, Pueblo, Zuni and Gila River Indigenous communities, have endured despite centuries of genocide, oppression and systemic racism and poverty. The novel coronavirus pandemic is afflicting them disproportionately, as it has African American and Latinx populations across the U.S. Access to water is challenging on the Navajo reservation.

"That's from a long state of histories with treaties and our relationship with the [federal] government," Dr. Michelle Tom explained. "Our infrastructure for water has never been at the capacity where we can provide water for everyone on the reservation. So, you're telling people to wash your hands for 20 seconds, and yet people are trying just to get water just to drink and to cook with."

President Donald Trump made a rare trip Tuesday, visiting an Arizona N95 mask factory, where he ignored factory rules by not wearing a mask. Guns 'N Roses blared from a factory sound system, playing the song Live and Let Die. It's not clear if it was a coincidental music choice or not.

Trump also met with elected officials, including Navajo Nation Vice President Myron Lizer. The Navajo Nation joined a lawsuit filed by numerous native tribes against Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for his abject failure in disbursing $8 billion promised to Native American tribes in the CARES Act.

"The amount of money that’s being sent to 'Indian country,' as we call it, is the largest amount in the history of the U.S. And you deserve it. And you've been through a lot," Trump said to VP Lizer. "The Navajo Nation will soon receive over $600 million. That's a lot. Should I renegotiate that? Can we renegotiate that?" (Laughter.)

There was no laughter back on the Navajo Nation. "Today, the federal government announced that they intend to release a portion of funds appropriated by Congress over one month ago to tribes to help fight COVID-19, but I'll believe it when I see it," President Jonathan Nez, who himself tested positive for the virus, replied. "We couldn't sit around and wait for those dollars, so we've had boots on the ground in nearly 20 communities giving out food, water, firewood, protective masks and other supplies … We lost many of our beloved relatives and family members to this virus, but our teachings also tell us to move forward. We will and we are."

Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now!, a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,300 stations. She is the co-author, with Denis Moynihan, of The Silenced Majority, a New York Times bestseller. This column originally appeared on Democracy Now!

Image: Shealah Craighead/The White House/Flickr

Now that Premier Jason Kenney has declared it "un-Canadian" to say oil is dead, I wonder if it's OK to admit Alberta's fossil fuel industry is on the ropes?

Probably. Kenney said as much himself in a remarkable rant yesterday directed at the parliamentary leader of the Bloc Québécois and the former leader of the Green Party of Canada.

But if you don't want to be accused of un-Canadian activities, you'd better make it clear none of these troubles are the fault of anything that's ever been done by any Alberta government, except perhaps the NDP's, and especially not by the United Conservative Party Kenney leads.

There is acceptable speech in Alberta, you see, and it doesn't include saying that oil is done like dinner, which is probably not true just yet, but is nevertheless a position that can be argued in respectable company almost anywhere else in the world, including a number of countries known for producing what Kenney rather sophomorically calls "dictator oil."

As has become his practice lately, Kenney took over Chief Medical Officer of Health Deena Hinshaw's daily COVID-19 briefing in Edmonton yesterday afternoon for the sustained blast of gaslighting he directed at Yves-François Blanchet and Elizabeth May.

Blanchet had dared to suggest at a news conference Wednesday that oil "is never coming back" (uttered en francais, bien sûr) and that Ottawa's bailout package should really be directed at "something which is more green." May, for her part, opined at the same event that "oil is dead."

Specifically, the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands told the media: "My heart bleeds for people who believe the sector is going to come back. It's not. Oil is dead and for people in the sector, it's very important there be just transition funds." This may be wrong, but outside Alberta I doubt it sounds like a stab in the back or a curb-stomping.

Nevertheless, that is what sent Kenney over the edge, in a calculated sort of way, responding to a set-up question provided by Calgary Sun political columnist Rick Bell, who can be counted on to get the first question at one of Hinshaw's frequently hijacked news conferences.

"I just think it's deeply regrettable that we would see national political leaders piling on Albertans and energy workers at a time of great trial for us," Kenney said piously, opening what appeared to be a carefully rehearsed answer. "This is the opposite of leadership. Leaders should be seeking to bring us together, not to divide us."

This is a bit of an irony, of course, coming from a premier who has been ginning up an Alberta separatist threat for months while denying the oil industry had anywhere to go but up, but let's just take it as a lesson in gaslighting 101.

In his remarks, Kenney trotted out benefits he said have been conferred on Quebec by Alberta's oil industry, noted the province's equalization complaints, blamed "predatory actions" by OPEC countries that "want to dominate the world with dictator oil," reminded Quebeckers they like to drive cars and go on airplane trips, and totted up the medical equipment recently sent by Alberta to other provinces.

Having said it in English, he said it over again in French.

Tsk-tsking and shaking his head, Kenney declared, "I would say to Mr. Blanchet and Madam May: Please stop kickin' us while we're down!"

"These attacks on our natural resource industries are unwarranted, they are divisive, they're, I believe, in a way, un-Canadian at a time like this. It's like blaming the victim!" (Italics added for emphasis. And, yes, Kenney really said that.)

Premier Kenney also took particular umbrage at Blanchet's remark that Quebec receives a string of insults from Alberta -- although anyone who has paid attention to political discourse in this province for the last half century would have trouble refuting the claim.

After the news conference, backup was provided in columns filed by Bell and his Postmedia colleague Don Braid.

Bell pronounced Blanchet and May to be "the Bobbsey Twins of B.S." and the "deluded duo," and accused them of choosing "to kick Alberta when we're down" and indulging "in a little curb-stomping."

Braid, the Dinger's bookend of acceptable oilpatch opinion, charged them with "the foulest kind of cheap shot," to wit, saying "Alberta's oil and gas industry should be left prostrate in the dust with no help from the federal government."

Well, there you have it: the debased state of political discourse in Alberta in the plague year 2020. It's not reassuring.

David Climenhaga, author of the Alberta Diary blog, is a journalist, author, journalism teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions at The Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. This post also appears on his blog, AlbertaPolitics.ca.

Image: Screenshot of Government of Alberta video/YouTube

Mother's Day is this Sunday, May 10.

What is sometimes forgotten at this time of the year is that Mother's Day has its roots in the feminist struggle against militarism and war.

Slate reports, "The women who originally celebrated Mother's Day conceived of it as an occasion to use their status as mothers to protest injustice and war ... In 1870, after witnessing the bloody Civil War, Julia Ward Howe -- a Boston pacifist, poet, and suffragist who wrote the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" -- proclaimed a special day for mothers to oppose war."

Her original proclamation for the day states, "From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says, 'Disarm, disarm! The sword is not the balance of justice.' Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession."

National Geographic adds, Howe "promoted a Mothers' Peace Day beginning in 1872. For Howe and other antiwar activists ... Mother's Day was a way to promote global unity after the horrors of the American Civil War and Europe's Franco-Prussian War."

And Jacobin magazine's Branko Marcetic notes, "At its 1874 anniversary, participants sang songs and read papers, including one calling for the abolition of standing armies and war armaments and the creation of a system for universal peace arbitration."

While Mother's Day was recognized officially in the United States in 1914, the message behind the day appears to have been largely lost by 1917.

Time reports, "When the United States joined World War I in 1917, and the war propaganda machine revved up, the burst of patriotism came with a renewed appreciation for mothers. Women were hailed both for raising the soldiers who were on the front lines and for the work they were doing on the home front, such as running fundraisers for the Red Cross. Mother's Day was a way to thank these women for their service."

Over the past 100 years, the day has become increasingly commercialized and sentimentalized. It has been estimated that Canadians spend about $492 million on flowers, cards and gifts for Mother's Day each year. Imagine if even a fraction of that was spent on challenging patriarchy, militarism, weapons and war.

This Mother's Day, let us work to reclaim the radical origins of the day, challenge war and militarism, and strive to deepen our understanding of the intersectionality between feminism, social justice, care for Mother Earth and peace.

Brent Patterson is the Executive Director of Peace Brigades International-Canada. This article originally appeared on the PBI-Canada website. Follow @PBIcanada @CBrentPatterson on Twitter.

Image: bravenewfoundation/Video Screenshot/YouTube

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a cornucopia of reflections about what is to be learned from it. One of the issues around which this has been the case is climate change.

There are a few ways in which climate change is linked to reflections on the pandemic. One of these links is seeing the pandemic and where there has been relative success in dealing with it as a good case study in the value of scientific advice over politics. The wish is that as a result science might regain a more secure foothold in the debate around climate change. This is generally coupled with a reflection on the extent to which the pandemic might have been even better prepared for and dealt with had early generic warnings about the likelihood of a pandemic been heeded, and also if warnings about the actual pandemic had been acted on earlier than they were at the beginning of 2020. The hope is that this lesson in the consequences of not heeding warnings will rub off on the climate change debate, if not on the most committed climate change deniers.

Another link between the pandemic and climate change is one less reflected on, although I did see at least one article on it, and that is the whole issue of inter-generational ethics that arises. The lock downs associated with COVID-19 tended to be justified on two grounds: One was containing the spread in such a way as to prevent health-care systems from being overwhelmed, and the other had to do with containing the spread of the virus for the sake of the those who were most likely to die from it, namely the elderly, an argument certainly borne out by the statistics even if it is the case that some younger people seem, for reasons yet to be determined, very vulnerable.

And so it was that multitudes of young people have had to put their lives and dreams on hold in order to safeguard the lives of many who are much older than them.  Young people have mostly willingly and without complaint acceded to the moral imperative and practical wisdom of sacrificing things like their personal, educational, athletic, travel, financial and/or employment hopes for the greater good, specifically for the older generation in their society. 

Other groups, like frontline health-care workers, and those newly classified as working in essential jobs, like grocery store workers, have also been asked to make a disproportionate sacrifice. But that is for another article on how their real value has been revealed -- and how that value should be recognized in the post-pandemic world (better wages for one thing). 

Unfortunately, the link between the demands on the young in the pandemic containment strategy and the debate on climate change manifests itself in observing, so far, the unwillingness of populations, and their governments, to demand a reverse moral imperative from older citizens when it comes to sacrifices they might make for the sake of younger and future generations. What are older citizens prepared to sacrifice to safeguard the quality of the lives younger citizens will lead in the coming decades, by substantially reducing our carbon footprint, and seriously dealing with other environmental challenges?

One could argue that, in the case of Canadians, the population has done its part by electing a majority of MPs committed to action on climate change, only to be let down by a government that wants to have its cake and eat it too on climate change by imposing a carbon tax and buying a pipeline. Nevertheless, as we emerge on the other side of the pandemic, hopefully sooner rather than later, it seems to me that there will be a new opportunity for moral reflection on what the generations owe each other. Of course right-wing politicians are always claiming to be worried about passing on fiscal debt to the next generation. But passing on an environmental deficit is a much more real and  serious issue. Part of the moral logic of pandemic containment has been asking one generation to sacrifice for another. It seems only fair then that the political debate about climate change should at some point soon become much more focused on what the older generation can do for the younger generation. Demanding real action from their political leaders, even if it means locking down or at the very least winding down lifestyles that have become ingrained would be a good start. And for those who can afford it, showing a willingness to pay higher taxes to build the infrastructure of a sustainable and livable future would also be in order.     

Bill Blaikie, former MP and MLA, writes on Canadian politics, political parties and Parliament.

Image: John Englart/Flickr

These days, any national leader not actively urging their citizens to drink disinfectant is managing to look (relatively) good on the world stage.

Certainly, compared to the neurotic leadership south of the border, Justin Trudeau has emerged as a steady hand on the tiller, quickly providing Canadians with a wide economic safety net and behaving like an adult in the crisis.

So it's all the more disappointing that, out of the limelight, he's doing a great deal to make the situation worse during this pandemic for some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

I'm referring to the prime minister's decision to ignore a plea last month from United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres -- and the Pope -- for nations to lift sanctions against other nations in order to help some of the weakest and poorest countries cope with the coronavirus crisis.

That sounds like a reasonable request, under the circumstances.

Indeed, even if we don't care about the world's vulnerable people, helping them deal with the crisis is in our interests too. As the UN leader noted: "Let us remember that we are only as strong as the weakest health system in our interconnected world."

Yet Canada, ignoring the plea from the UN's highest official, continues in the midst of the pandemic to impose sanctions on 20 nations, including Lebanon, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Nicaragua and Yemen.

While Canada's sanctions are typically aimed at punishing the regimes running these countries, the impact of the sanctions falls primarily on ordinary citizens, according to Atif Kubursi, professor emeritus of economics at McMaster University.

Kubursi, who also served as a UN under-secretary-general and has extensive UN experience in the Middle East and Asia, says the impact of Canada's sanctions on the people in these countries is devastating.

While the sanctions often appear to be directed exclusively at military items, they frequently end up being applied to virtually all goods -- including spare parts needed to operate machinery in hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, notes Kubursi, who signed a letter from prominent Canadians to Trudeau requesting the lifting of sanctions.

For instance, if a Syrian businessman wants to buy Canadian products, he has to open an account for the transaction. But Kubursi says the Canadian government instructs Canadian banks not to allow such accounts for the purposes of trade with Syria -- no matter how benign the Canadian product may be, or how urgently it might be needed in Syria.

For that matter, Ottawa's sanctions prevent Canadians from using our banks or financial services to transfer money to Syria -- for instance, to family members living in Syria.

The impact of sanctions, while always painful, is particularly deadly during the pandemic, when even advanced nations have struggled to obtain life-saving equipment.

While Canada's sanctions mostly date back to the Harper era or earlier, the Trudeau government has generally maintained them and even added new ones against Venezuela.

Ottawa's sanctions appear primarily aimed at appeasing the U.S., which ruthlessly enforces sanctions against regimes it wishes to destabilize or overthrow. Washington also punishes countries and companies that don't co-operate with its sanctions.

Ottawa's willingness to fall in line behind Washington is reflected in the fact it doesn't impose sanctions against U.S allies Saudi Arabia or Israel, despite Saudi Arabia's brutal murder of dissident Jamal Khashoggi and Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank. Even Israel's announcement that it plans to annex the West Bank in July has produced no sanctions or criticism from Canada.

Trudeau's decision to continue sanctioning 20 nations seems quite out of sync with the spirit of the times, when it's hard to find a TV commercial that doesn't proclaim the sentiment that "we're all in this together."

That spirit of international togetherness has been amply demonstrated by Cuba, which sent Cuban doctors to Italy to help its overwhelmed health care system and has offered similar medical help to First Nations in Canada.

When 36 Cuban doctors arrived in Milan last month, a grateful Italy thanked them and Italians at the airport cheered.

Meanwhile, Canada, in the spirit of the international togetherness, rebuffs Cuban doctors, ignores the UN and imposes sanctions on some of the world's poorest nations.

Linda McQuaig is an author and journalist. This column, which appeared in The Toronto Star, is based on research from her new book The Sport & Prey of Capitalists.

Image: CanadianPM/Video Screenshot/Twitter

With their mere presence flickering in the face of Liberal ubiquity, Andrew Scheer's Conservatives have decided to go (in the Canadian way) not-quite-full Trump.

So we got their amendment to the Liberal student aid package, a followup to the wage and CERB packages, which Justin Trudeau shamefully accepted. The result is that students, who've already lived through the 2008 recession and now COVID-19, will have to grovel by showing they're earnestly looking for jobs before receiving the benefit, something not applied to others, so far.

They're expected to track job notifications from the federal Job Bank that, I'm told, can flood your inbox with non-stop "opportunities" often in the "food" sector, like Alberta’s Cargill meat processing plant. It's had more COVID-infected workers than any workplace in North America.

Worse than the inconvenience is the implicit humiliation. (A sense of dignity is invaluable for surviving stuff like recessions, wars or plagues.) Scheer says the plan "tranquilizes" students against work and they need "incentivizing." But this is a cohort who often work excessively as they study full time, to pay extortionary tuition fees while also engaging in climate and social justice campaigns.

Many have self-isolated, not because they fear the virus -- they'd likely be fine -- but, as one said, "because I don't want to give it to some homeless guy as I pass." They don't need civics lessons from Scheer.

In fact, Scheer could use some incentivizing -- he's pretty tranquil. He became an MP at 25, got the cushy perks of House Speaker for nine years and has never known another career. He let the party subsidize his kids' private school costs. Maybe he should start checking job notices.

Yet the Liberals bought his amendment, which he'll use as a lever for shifting the same imputations onto the unemployed, gig workers etc. It's a way to turn the discussion from surviving COVID-19 to preventing lazy, greedy types like students or the unemployed, from ripping off worthy Tory voters and donors.

Why did Liberals agree? Maybe to show they can be tough too, not just "caring." They're far easier on employers, who don't even have to top up the 75 per cent wage subsidies they're getting from the feds, though they're gently "encouraged" to.

Or maybe it's a sign of that Liberal virus, Paul Martinism, i.e., letting the toffs at finance take over the show, giving them a chance to put in play their dusty undergrad Economics notes on "moral hazard." It means -- oh, look it up yourself. But roughly: giving greedy, lazy people an excuse to keep being that way.

This is how Conservatives hope to rebuild their right-wing base. It probably won't work. Why? It's an imported U.S. right-wing tactic: you turn one desperate group, like former manufacturing workers, against another even more desperate, like inner city minorities. You stoke their fear that the underclasses will rip them off in order to get, say, public health care. They'd rather die themselves than be conned into paying out for their "inferiors."

But we already have medicare and nobody feels diminished. Plus we lack the unique depth of U.S. racist hysterias along with their imperial delusions.

It's a reversion to type by right-wing conservatives who now are the party. They got caught up by the pandemic, especially their reliable provincial premiers, who seemed to turn into crazy leftist spenders. For years they promised to unleash the private sector, as if it had been a whipped cur since Reagan/Thatcher, then they wind up unleashing the public sector. They're trying to get their mojo back.

It's hard to believe even Scheer believes this rubbish: in the midst of a raging lethal virus, we should worry about youth getting away with not working. He mouthes it because he thinks it's a way to return to power.

Digression: speaking of Tory premiers, I've become fond of Doug Ford and his clichés. "I'm laser focused … I'm on this like a dog on a bone …" Even he seems aware of it but can't stop. Asked about his health, he said, "I'm healthy as," then paused aware of what was coming but couldn't think of an alternative. "A horse," he surrendered. It's quite lovable, I'm afraid.

Rick Salutin writes about current affairs and politics. This column was first published in the Toronto Star.

Image: Andrew Scheer/Facebook