Letters, March 4

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/03/2025 (238 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Discouraging display

Ever wondered what it must have been like in the meeting between Czech President Emil Hacha and Adolf Hitler that resulted in the unopposed German invasion of the Sudetenland?

Just watch a replay of the Trump-Vance-Zelenskyy meeting in the White House.

Surely political leaders around the world — including our own — must now realize the futility of cravenly crawling to Washington with offers to “satisfy” President Donald Trump in the belief that they can vaccinate themselves against this deadly contagion.

Norman Brandson

Winnipeg

It was a sad day on Friday after having watched Donald Trump and J.D. Vance ambush Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in front of the whole world. They said the Ukrainians never thanked the Americans for the arms and support they received, where just before this meeting, Zelenskyy had met with Congress and Senate delegates and thanked them for the help Americans had sent.

Zelenskyy was ready to sign a minerals deal with Donald Trump after being blackmailed to do so after Trump said Ukraine owed the US$300 billion for help with the war. The former U.S. government had no strings attached to the help provided.

In reality, the amount of U.S. support was about $150 billion. Trump and Vance sounded as they wanted Zelenskyy to give up the fight. Zelenskyy wanted assurances that Russian President Vladimir Putin would honor his end of the peace treaty if Trump were to make this deal. Trump took this as an insult.

So where does this leave Ukraine and Europe?

Zelenskyy left without signing over mineral rights and I say good for him.

It looks like the U.S. is not interested in NATO nor to help bring security to Europe. It looks like Europe will be in the fight themselves. It’s time to think about re-arranging NATO to go on without the U.S. in it. This also makes it very awkward for Canada. The U.S. is bringing us closer to world war. God help us all!

Gerald Trudeau

Winnipeg

As a Canadian of Ukrainian origin, I am proud to say that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had the courage to protect the integrity of Ukraine as an independent country when negotiations between himself and U.S. President Donald Trump over peace settlements for Ukraine and Russia did not please Trump.

Zelenskyy was unceremoniously ousted from the White House as it would appear that Trump, who did not get his way, had a temper tantrum of vitriolic dimension. This would be funny if it were not so serious as it suggests that it is not possible to have meaningful and intelligent discourse with the current U.S. president.

It is unthinkable that we would consider allowing Trump to participate in the upcoming G7 conference in Alberta, and I see no reason why he should be welcome in our country where he has yet another opportunity to spread lies, chaos and destruction.

If Trump can kick out Zelenskyy, we can kick out Trump. Will we have a leader with the integrity and courage of Zelenskyy to act when necessary?

Mary-Jane Robinson

Winnipeg

Before the start of the weekend, the world got to see, with some horror, the stark contrast between a steady, intelligent defender of democracy sitting across from the archetypal populist demagogue.

U.S. President Donald Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by throwing insults, threatening (and initiating) retaliation because Ukraine’s leader is standing up for his people, and generally acting… well, not like a toddler, as toddlers feel remorse and eventually mature.

This tantrum will have far-reaching consequences so it needs to be asked: Who seemed more stately, better suited for the hard work of governance?

As party members consider their votes in races for the next leaders of the Manitoba PCs and the federal Liberals, and Canadians all over prepare for an early federal election, ask yourself whether the person you’re throwing your support behind looks more like Zelenskyy than Trump.

Kelsey Enns

Winnipeg

Important effort

Women’s Health Clinic has a guardian angel named Leah Gazan, the Winnipeg Center MP. Leah has encouraged, harangued, fought for, and won a $10-million gift for the Women’s Health Clinic in this critical time. She has been a supporter of the clinic probably since she was a little girl and her mother taught her that women deserve respect and appreciation for their role in the community.

Leah did this by working across party lines and received congratulations and appreciation from the federal minister of health who commended her for her persistence and strength of conviction. They know that she works cooperatively with all of those who support Winnipeg Centre.

Women’s Health Clinic was developed by a wave of feminists almost 50 years ago who saw the healthcare system dominated by men as often negligent and dismissive of their needs. We still need an independent community-based health centre controlled by women to provide the services we need.

Women’s Health Clinic acts as a critical part of the Manitoba healthcare system, providing the majority of abortions in this province, and other essential services to women who can not access them elsewhere.

Ten million puts the clinic halfway to their goal to refurbish, repair, and redevelop the clinic and I hope the NDP provincial government will join the federal government to provide the additional funding that is needed.

Linda Taylor

Former chair and member of the founding board

Women’s Health Clinic

Winnipeg

Lessons to learn

Re: The terror of being colonized (Think Tank, Feb. 28, 2025)

While Dennis Hiebert’s opinion piece is a welcome call for self-determination for Indigenous peoples in Canada and across the globe, some of his thinking is problematic and rests on the edge of a slippery and dangerous slope.

Most troubling is his muddling the definition of terrorism. The phrase “resistance to colonialism is not terrorism” has gained traction recently and has been used to reframe and validate violence by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This mode of thinking is dangerous because it invites factual and moral equivalency between every historical tragedy and every response to oppression.

While it is critical for marginalized people to have a voice in righting current and historical wrongs, the author’s logic could and has been used to argue that flying airplanes into the World Trade Centre, blowing up a mosque in Kuwait, and gunning down attendees at a music festival in central Israel are all justifiable acts in the name of resisting colonialism. Or that these acts are morally equivalent to Gandhi’s resistance against British imperialism or the American Indian Movement’s civil resistance, both highly effective and both nonviolent.

Also of questionable moral reasoning is the author’s argument that “gradual cultural genocide is only slightly less violent” than deliberate, planned attempts to physically annihilate an ethnic group. I suspect the victims of the Nazi Holocaust, Rwandan AFDL, Cambodian Khmer Rouge and the Sudanese RSF, among others, might have something to say about that, if only they still had a voice.

There are lessons to learn from history and there is a collective obligation to prevent the repetition of human tragedy but the pathway forward involves recognizing the specific circumstances that contributed to each occurrence and addressing those unique factors. Irresponsible and perilous sentiments about historical and moral equivalency are unhelpful and should not go unchallenged.

Daniel Rothman

Winnipeg