Letters, July 8

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/07/2025 (280 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The coalition of the willing

It’s said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history. The leaders of the free world except for Trump are currently living their Neville Chamberlain moment in real time. U.S. President Donald Trump is living his own Benedict Arnold moment.

On May 10th, the coalition of the willing gave Putin 36 hours to agree to a ceasefire or else. Or else what? Waiting for Trump to do the right thing is an abdication of their responsibility. It’s not going to happen and they know it.

Trump is the elephant in the room. There is ample evidence that Trump is sleeping with the enemy and Russian President Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings. Trump repeatedly tolerates Putin humiliating him. He stoped providing arms to Ukraine at a critical time and he extends Putin’s two week deadline every two weeks. Not to mention that they are both serial liars.

All the other world leaders know it but no one will say it out loud so that they could move on without Trump. That’s appeasement, Chamberlain-style. Obama tried to appease Putin and Biden tried to appease him, both without success. He currently controls Trump and by extension, the United States government. More appeasement is just not the answer.

So what is it that the coalition of the willing is willing to do? Are they willing to do the right thing and save Ukraine and possibly Europe itself or are they willing to sacrifice Ukraine and do a deal with the devil? Now is their moment.

Ernie Gilroy

Winnipeg

United, strong and free

Re: Unrest in the West (July 4)

Reading over the article by Conrad Sweatman, I am dismayed to find so many people, mainly Conservatives, who would consider separation from Canada.

Canada’s history contains many instances of injustices, government overreach and poor responses to the needs of its people.

This is true for most countries, in particular the U.S.

Canada must move forward to meet the needs of today and continue to learn from the past.

We find Westerners, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, complaining that they have not been given a fair deal and are exploited for their wealth (mainly from oil).

Canada is founded on a principle of equal representation according to population, so since the east has a larger population, they have the biggest majority of seats. It is not based on who has the most money or resources, so some provinces, who have less resources need assistance to provide the necessities for a decent quality of life, receive equalization payments to help balance the wealth. This is a social system that helps to provide for less affluent provinces.

Each province has a duly elected government responsible for meeting the needs of its people, such as health care and social services, while the federal government looks after the needs of the country as a whole and administers taxes to support federal needs and redistribution of some taxes to less affluent provinces.

I feel this is generally a good system as without this many provinces would struggle to meet the needs of their people.

I personally see myself first as a Canadian and secondly as a Manitoban. As a Canadian, I can move elsewhere in Canada and find a home if I so desire, because Canada is my home country.

I do not understand those who think they would be better off separating from the rest of Canada simply because they want to keep more of their wealth. Do rural Manitobans think they would be better off joining in with Alberta and Saskatchewan and setting up another little country in the middle of Canada?

Instead of focusing on past injustices or even what is perceived as current injustices, why don’t we learn from our mistakes, keep talking to resolve issues, and turn our indignation into solutions for very real and dangerous problems Canada is facing such as climate change and threats from other countries.

Canada is a wonderful country that does have issues, but we must stand united to remain strong and free.

Alice French

Winnipeg

What it means to have a home

Re: Reflecting on compassion, community (Think Tank, July 4)

Kudos to Carina Blumgrund for her compassionate and insightful essay on the reality of homeless encampments. Her thoughtful reflection holds relevance far beyond this single issue — it invites us to respond to challenges in our communities not simply as “problems” to be solved, but as human experiences to be understood.

Allow me to offer a little thought experiment: Why do we respond so differently to a homeless encampment than to a campground in a public park? As Ms. Blumgrund suggests, in both cases, people — regardless of background — are meeting some similar human needs. Finding some consensus as what those needs may be is important as public policy in these matters is developed and implemented.

Recently, I’ve noticed a shift in language: from “homeless” to “unhoused.” At first, this may seem like mere semantics. But words matter.

“Unhoused” refers to the absence of a permanent physical structure, while “homeless” often implies the absence of stability, warmth, and safety — a place where people are free to be themselves. Ironically, many who reside in well-appointed homes feel little sense of belonging, while others who are unhoused experience a deep and meaningful sense of “home” within their makeshift communities.

Edwin Buettner

Winnipeg

Loss of trust in minister

I am disappointed Nahanni Fontaine is allowed to remain in her role as minister responsible for services for people with disabilities.

I’m not sure how distracting a person moving their hands and arms can be to a person who has spoken in public and political situations on many occasions.

Her vulgar and immature comments are unacceptable for any person in a leadership position. Especially a well-paid position.

We elect people to make wise decisions. To show maturity. Not to use profanity or annoying grammar often used like by today’s youth.

Her comments are not only are condescending to the sign language interpreter in attendance, but to the entire hearing impaired community.

By speaking the way she did when she thought no one could hear is sadly indicative of her true colours.

In 2021 she was removed from the House for the rest of the day for her comments saying the Progressive Conservatives “just don’t give a crap” about missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

It almost seems Ms. Fontaine may not “give a crap” about people with disabilities.

Karen Zurba

Winnipeg

Don’t punish honest apology

The recent coverage of Nahanni Fontaine’s regrettable communication offers fuel for thought in a time when various public figures’ absence of filters pervades our society. Personal and biased attitudes are now voiced with a frequency and thoughtlessness that would not have occurred even a decade ago.

However, Fontaine’s apology for her error has been both timely and unqualified — unlike others in public roles, she has offered no excuses for impulsive remarks. For that reason I offer a belief that she deserves a chance to demonstrate her commitment to greater care in communication, especially since she has a track record for valuable contributions in other aspects of public service.

We have all witnessed public apologies that are thinly veiled attempts to excuse the inexcusable. We have also witnessed a complete absence of apology for ethical breaches by politicians at home and abroad. These types of situations justify removing someone from public responsibility and influence.

Our premier’s continued support for Fontaine’s worth as a public servant demonstrates an important quality of a leader: don’t make someone regret an honest apology by punishing them. For that reason, I also offer my belief that this situation models an honest commitment to glance in the rearview mirror when public figures know their words and actions deserve it.

Linda Chernenkoff

Winnipeg