#All Canadian Property Services

[reasonsforhope]

"In a historic “first-of-its-kind” agreement the government of British Colombia has acknowledged the aboriginal ownership of 200 islands off the west coast of Canada.

The owners are the Haida nation, and rather than the Canadian government giving something to a First Nation, the agreement admits that the “Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai” or the “islands at the end of world,” always belonged to them, a subtle yet powerful difference in the wording of First Nations negotiating.

BC Premier David Eby called the treaty “long overdue” and once signed, will clear the way for half a million hectares (1.3 million acres) of land to be managed by the Haida.

Postal service, shipping lanes, school and community services, private property rights, and local government jurisdiction, will all be unaffected by the agreement, which will essentially outline that the Haida decide what to do with the 200 or so islands and islets.

“We could be facing each other in a courtroom, we could have been fighting each other for years and years, but we chose a different path,” said Minister of Indigenous Relations of BC, Murray Rankin at the signing ceremony, who added that it took creativity and courage to “create a better world for our children.”

Indeed, making the agreement outside the courts of the formal treaty process reflects a vastly different way of negotiating than has been the norm for Canada.

“This agreement won’t only raise all boats here on Haida Gwaii – increase opportunity and prosperity for the Haida people and for the whole community and for the whole province – but it will also be an example and another way for nations – not just in British Columbia, but right across Canada – to have their title recognized,” said Eby.

In other words, by deciding this outside court, Eby and the province of BC hope to set a new standard for how such land title agreements are struck."

-via Good News Network, April 18, 2024

[stephobrien]

Is your pro-Palestine activism hurting innocent people? Here's how to avoid that.

Note: If you prefer plain text, you can read the plain text version here.

Over the last few days, I’ve had conversations with several Jewish people who told me how hurt and scared they are right now.

To my great regret, some of that pain came from a poorly-thought-out post of mine, which – while not ill-intentioned – WAS hurtful.

And a lot of it came from cruelty they’d experienced at the hands of people who claim to be advocating for Palestine, but are using the very real plight of innocent Palestinians to harm equally innocent Jewish people.

Y’all, we need to do better. (Yes, “we” definitely includes me; this is in no small part a “learn from my fail” post, and also a “making amends” post. Some of these are mistakes I’ve made in the past.)

So if you’re an advocate for Palestine who wants to make sure that your defense of one group of vulnerable people doesn’t harm another, here are some important things to do or keep in mind:

Ask yourself if you’re applying a standard to one group that you aren’t applying to another.

Would you want all white Americans or Canadians to be expelled from America or Canada?

Do you want all Jewish people to be expelled from Israel, as opposed to finding a way to live alongside Palestinian Arabs in peace?

If the answer to those two questions is different, ask yourself WHY.

Do you want to be held responsible for the actions of your nation’s army or government? No? Then don’t hold innocent Jewish people, or Israelis in general (whether Jewish or otherwise), responsible for the actions of the Israeli army and government.

On that subject, be wary of condemning all Israeli people for the actions of the IDF. Large-scale tactical decisions are made by the top brass. Service is compulsory, and very few can reasonably get out of service.

Blaming all Israelis for the military’s actions is like blaming all Vietnam vets for the horrors in Vietnam. They’re not calling the shots. They aren’t Nazis running concentration camps. They are carrying out military operations that SHOULD be criticized.

And do not compare them or ANY JEWISH PERSON to Nazis in general. It is Jewish cultural trauma and not outsiders’ to use against them.

Don’t infuse legitimate criticism with antisemitism.

By all means, spread the word about the crimes committed by the Israeli army and government, and the complicity of their allies. Criticize the people responsible for committing and enabling atrocities.

But if you imply that they’re committing those crimes because they’re Jewish, or because Jewish people have special privileges, then you’re straying into antisemitic territory.

Criticize the crime, not the group. If you believe that collective punishment is wrong, don’t do it yourself.

And do your best to use words that apply directly to the situation, rather than the historical terms for situations with similar features. For example, use “segregation,” “oppression,” or “subjugation,” not “Holocaust” or “Jim Crow.” These other historical events are not the cultural property of Jews OR Palestinians, but also have their own nuances and struggles and historical contexts.

Also, blaming other world events on Jewish people or making Jewish people associated with them (for instance, some people falsely blame Jewish people for the African slave trade) is a key feature of how antisemitism functions.

Please, by all means, be specific and detailed in your critiques. But keep them focused on the current political actors – not other peoples’ or nations’ political or cultural histories and traumas.

Be prepared to accept criticism.

You probably already know that society is infused with a wide array of bigotries, and that people growing up in that environment tend to absorb those beliefs without even realizing it. Antisemitism is no exception.

What that means is, there’s a very real chance that you will screw up, and get called out on it, as I so recently did.

If that happens, please be willing to learn and adapt. If you can educate yourself about the suffering and needs of Palestinians, you can do the same for Jewish people.

Understand that the people you hurt aren’t obligated to baby you. Give them room to be angry.

After I made a post that inadvertently hurt people, some were nice about it, and others weren’t. Some outright insulted my morals and intelligence.

And I had to accept that I’d earned that from them.

I’d hurt them, and they weren’t obligated to be more careful with my feelings than I had been with theirs.

They weren’t obligated to forgive me, trust me, or stop being mad at me right away.

I’ll admit, there were moments when I got defensive. I shouldn’t have. And I encourage you to try not to, if you screw up and hurt people.

I know that’s hard, but it’s important. Getting defensive only tells people you care more about doubling down on your mistake than you do about healing the hurt it caused.

Instead, acknowledge that they have a right to be angry, apologize for the way you hurt them, and try to make amends, while understanding that they don’t owe you trust or forgiveness.

Be aware that some antisemites are using legitimate complaints to “Trojan horse” antisemitism into leftist spaces.

This is a really easy stumbling block to trip over, because most people probably don’t look at every post a creator makes before sharing the one they’re looking at right now.

I recently shared a video that called out some of the Likud and IDF’s atrocities and hypocrisy, and that also noted that many Jewish people are wonderful members of their communities.

I was later informed that, while that video in particular seemed reasonable, the creator behind it is frequently antisemitic.

I deleted the post, and blocked the creator. I encourage you to do the same if it’s brought to your attention that you’ve been ‘Trojan horse’d.

EDIT: Important note about antisemitism in leftist spaces:

While it's true that some blatant antisemites are using seemingly reasonable posts to get their foot in the door of leftist spaces, it's also true that a lot of antisemitism already exists inside those spaces.

This antisemitism is often dressed up in progressive-sounding language, but nonetheless singles Jewish people and places out in ways that aren't applied equally to other groups, or that label Jewish people in ways that portray them as acceptable targets.

If you want to see some specific examples, so you can have a better idea of what to keep an eye out for, I suggest reading this excellent reblog of this post.

Fact-check your doubts about antisemitism.

Depending on which parts of the internet you look at, you’ve probably seen people accused of antisemitism because they complained about the Likud and/or IDF’s actions. So you might be primed to be wary, or feel unsure of how to tell what counts as real antisemitism.

But that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t a very real, widespread, and harmful problem. And it doesn’t mean many or even most Jewish people are lying to you or being overly sensitive.

So if someone says something is antisemitic, and you aren’t sure, I encourage you to:

A. Look up the action or thing in question, including its history. Is there an antisemitic history or connotation you aren’t aware of? For best results, include “antisemitic” in your search query, in quotes.

B. Understand that some things, while not inherently antisemitic, have been used by antisemites often enough that Jewish people are understandably wary of them. Schrodinger’s antisemitism, if you will.

C. Ask Jewish people WHO HAVE OFFERED TO HELP EDUCATE YOU. Emphasis on WHO HAVE OFFERED. Random Jewish people aren’t obligated to give you their time and emotional energy, or to educate you – especially on subjects that are scary or painful for them.

@edenfenixblogs has kindly offered her inbox to those who are genuinely trying to learn and do better, and I’ve found her to be very kind, patient, reasonable, and fair-minded.

Understand that this is URGENTLY NEEDED.

In one of my conversations with a Jewish person who’d called me out, they said this was the most productive conversation they’d had with a person with a Palestinian flag in their profile.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I didn’t do anything special. All I did was listen, apologize for my mistakes, and learn.

Yes, it feels good to be acknowledged. But I feel like I’ve been praised for peeing IN the toilet, instead of beside it.

Apologizing, learning, and making amends after you hurt people shouldn’t be “the most reasonable thing I’ve heard from a person with a Palestinian flag pfp.”

It should be BASIC DECENCY.

And the fact that it’s apparently so uncommon should tell you how much unnecessary stress and fear Jewish people have been living with because of people who consider themselves defenders of human rights.

By all means, be angry at the Likud, the IDF, and the politicians, reporters, and specific media outlets who choose to enable and cover up for them.

But direct that anger toward the people who deserve it and are in a position to do something about it, not random people who simply happen to be Jewish, or who don’t want millions of people to be turned into refugees when less violent methods of achieving freedom and rights for Palestinians are available.

Stop peeing beside the toilet, people.

[wanderingmind867]

My Interpretation of the Justice League Pt. 2:

Part 2: Justice League Detroit: Now that J'onn is the new leader of the team, he moves to Detroit and sets up a private detective service there (possibly with his brother ma'alefa'ak as junior detective or something). From Detroit, J'onn goes looking for new members for his team. He finds them without too much hassle, and the Justice League Detroit is born!

The Justice League Detroit consists of six members: Martian Manhunter, Commander Steel, Gypsy (whose name probably really needs some reworking), Vibe, Vixen and J'onn's brother Ma'alefa'ak. The team is quite dysfunctional at first, since most of the team's members are young and impulsive. But with Martian Manhunter's careful guidance, the team slowly begins to come into their own.

The team is sadly still dealing with reputation issues from that civil war thing, and no amount of good press seems to be able to fix the problems inherent in the team around this time. Even though they get some big name allies or members (like Hawkman or Captain Marvel/Shazam or Green Lantern John Stewart), the team can't beat their bad reputation.

And sadly, everything comes crashing down around 2-3 years into this teams history. When J'onn's brother Ma'alefa'ak feels like he's been discriminated against by the people of earth, his already unstable mind (we can cover that in a seperate note), snaps and leads him to go on a rampage all throughout the globe. In order to stop him, the Justice League Detroit has to team up with all the members of the original Justice League (except Batman) and hunt him down.

And while this brave team of around 20 manages to subdue Ma'alefa'ak and make him see reason, the team still comes out of this looking bad. Ma'alefa'ak was technically a member of the Justice League, so some people are quick to blame the league for this conflict even occuring in the first place. Besides, Ma'alefa'ak and the league caused so much property damage across the world that they're pretty much broke by the time this adventure is over.

Part 3: Justice League…Canada? Originally conceived when the Justice League Detroit gets a mission in Canada. The mission goes well, and the Justice League gets some contacts in Canada. A year or two after this, the Justice League has the whole Ma'alefa'ak incident and their public reputation sinks even lower. Knowing that the United States has turned on them, the Justice League use their connections in Canada to keep the team running. Only one requirement: the team will have some oversight by the canadian government. Nothing too severe. But there will be some oversight and guidelines.

This new team is dysfunctional but shockingly more cohesive than any team before or after. Despite it all, this Canadian team slowly begins to recover the team's reputation after years of trauma. Who knew a team with members like Red Tornado, Blue Beetle, Booster Gold and others would be the team that leads the league back to greatness? Or well, as close to greatness as you can get after 4-5 years of awful publicity.

[fatehbaz]

Hannah and Chris: [...] For Ruth Wilson Gilmore, for example, “Life in rehearsal” is one way to describe abolition. To her, this means “building life-affirming institutions” whilst refusing to reproduce rules or remain with regret. Instead of signifying absence, it is both a present and about presence. Ariella Aïsha Azoulay makes the case for “rehearsals with others”, to question sovereignty and its operative mechanisms. For her, this entails imagining camaraderie and alliances and reversing the temporality of opposing sovereign violence “to imagine its demise not as a promise to come but as that which others have already experienced and made possible”. Moten and Harney use the term “rehearsal” to explain their idea of “study” as an always unfinished and improvisatory collaboration: “And since we’re rehearsing, you might as well pick up an instrument too.” [...]

Robyn: Every day I wake up and rehearse the person I would like to be. [...] To use the words of the late, great, C.L.R. James, “every cook can govern.” Organizing, whether formal or informal, whether geared toward a short term goal or a massive, transformative shift: this is what happens when people consciously decide to come together and “shape change,” to think with Octavia Butler. And to move through the world with the intention of making it a better place for living creatures to inhabit. [...] And most importantly, it’s an invitation to join in. And it is a reminder that liberation is not a destination but an ongoing process, a praxis. Every day, groups of parents, librarians, nurses, temp workers, ordinary people, tired of the horrors of the present, come together to decide what kind of world they want to inhabit. [...]

---

Robyn: [...] [T]here were 21 hunger strikes in Canadian jails, prisons and detention centers between March 2020 and March 2021 [...]. "[W]ithin this architecture of oppression, we are a vibrant community [...] who eat together, [...] play together, and protect each other from a system that has exploited us.” [...]

[Robyn:] I’m thinking here of Claude McKay’s words from “If We Must Die”: “Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!” Now of course fighting back looks like many things [public demonstrations, etc.] [...]. But it’s also much more: for so many people, whether abandoned by the state in a [public health crisis] [...] or abandoned by society in a carceral site, fighting back, by virtue of necessity as well as of ethics, is building, always building. This is the freedom work, and the love work, and the care work, of rehearsal. [...]

Robyn: [...] [I]t’s crucial, I think, that we remember that regimes of private property - and, crucially, the carceral state that entrenches them - are continually being contested, have never been written in stone, and are far from inevitable or permanent fixtures of planetary and earthly life. […] Elected officials chose, and choose every day, to spend millions of public dollars on criminalizing homelessness rather than address its root causes: the unaffordability of a city caused by the unchecked powers of developers and the mass abandonment of Black, Indigenous, disabled peoples, and people living with mental health issues. [...] But new visions for living are forwarded every day [...]. Mutual aid [...] support projects [...] in Toronto and Hamilton, [...] [in] Edmonton [and] [...] in Halifax are supporting [homeless people] [...] against city evictions, ensuring food, water, and medical services where their city has failed to do so. [...] Here I’d like to bring in the words of [G.I.] [...], describing [...] the longer-term [homeless] support organizing that came out of it: That is one of the most revolutionary things: to build community with people who our government and our society tells us not to: Black, Brown and houseless people standing side by side, to re-imagine what the world could look like.

---

All text above by: Robyn Maynard, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Hannah Voegele, and Christopher Griffin. “Every Day We Must Get Up and Relearn the World: An Interview with Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.” Interfere: Journal for Critical Thought and Radical Politics. 19 November 2021. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[ask-a-native]

Do Native Americans pay taxes?

Let me add a qualifier that this is not my field of expertise, either by experience or education, but I'll answer in a general sense. Keep in mind I'm speaking on Canada, not the US. But to my knowledge the US has the same complexity to the matter.

Short Answer: Yes

Detailed Answer: It's complicated

From a brief article on the matter:

Most income, sales and property tax exemptions only apply to status Indians (637,660) who live or work on a reserve. Less than half of all registered status Indians live on reserve so the number who are actually eligible for tax exemptions amounts to about 314,000 people. [1] To put it in perspective, somewhat less than half of all registered status Indians live on reserve so less than 1% of the total population of Canada are exempt from paying certain taxes.

All other Indigenous people – Inuit, Métis and non-status Indians - pay taxes on the same footing as non-Indigenous people.

Back to my own words.

"Taxes" is pretty broad so let's get specific:

Sales Tax

Some natives are entitled to some sales tax exemptions that vary case to case. In Canada, you need to be enrolled with a specific First Nation to be eligible for certain exemptions.

Because I'm a Métis citizen that means I don't have "Status" and am not enrolled with a (colonial constructed) First Nation, so I don't have much first-hand knowledge on the subject. But I know enough from others that it's a pain in the ass "privilege" to attempt to invoke in the cases you're actually entitled to it.

Keep in mind this (complicated) exemption is not actually a "privilege." First Nations are considered to fall under the domain of the federal government, not provincial. And many of the government services a non-First Nations Canadian (or American) citizen would expect from municipal and provincial governments are instead provided by the band or let's say, by the "reserve," that don't receive provincial or municipal funding. Those services are funded by revenue generated by the band's own enterprises, or from a fund generated by resources "owned" by First Nations, sometimes according to treaties, but generously managed by the federal government.

In my experience, the only significant, reliable sales tax exemption is if you're a member of a First Nation buying goods from a business located on reserve. Unfortunately, the business is still expected to pay the total of those owed taxes and wait upon a refund that often comes after a delay. Which is a headache for businesses owned and operated by band members who mostly service band members.

Income Tax

Yes. The only exemption is if you're a "Status Indian" (legal term) working on reserve. Any income earned off-reserve is taxed.

Property Tax

Functions the same as the others. There are exemptions for Status Indians living on reserve. I reiterate, if you own property on reserve. But otherwise you pay what everyone else pays.

Well that was an interesting start.

[mermaidsirennikita]

I just finished Between the Devil and Desire and would love any recommendations for similar class/upbringing difference historical romances.

Def have some of those! I focused on "upper class lady/lower class man" to run consistently with Between the Devil and Desire.

Duchess by Day, Mistress by Night by Stacy Reid--Similar dynamic. Widowed icy duchess hires this lower class powerful fixer man to help find her son's governess when she goes missing. Eventually, he'd rather something other than money as payment. It's super big on the class difference, and very hot.

For My Lady's Heart by Laura Kinsale--Medieval classic, heroine is a widow and a literal princess known for her icy nature, hero is a knight who pledged himself to her service thirteen years earlier but is only truly meeting her now, when he escorts her on a dangerous journey. Funny, angsty, very romantic.

How to Tame a Wild Rogue by Julie Anne Long--Heroine is a spinster refined lady who runs into a roguish privateer in the middle of a huge storm; they end up sharing a suite at an inn while pretending to be a married couple. A bottle episode kind of romcom with a bittersweet edge (heroine feels very undesirable and like she's wasted her life).

Pippa and the Prince of Secrets by Grace Callaway--My favorite Callaway (thus far). A widowed countess reconnects with the man who gave her her first kiss when they were teens; he leads this underworld spy network type thing, and he's super scarred, so he wears a mask. It's REALLY hot (especially if you like some exhibitionism/voyeurism) and angsty and tender. The scene where he finally lets her see his face is so emotional.

Her Protector's Pleasure by Grace Callaway--Widowed lady (baroness, I think?) is looking for her daughter, who was taken from her years ago. She was pregnant by another man when she married her husband, and he became abusively resentful. She hires a lower class lawman to help her find the kid, and obviously he's INSTANTLY drawn to her.

Glory and the Master of Shadows by Grace Callaway--Heroine is the daughter of a duke, and the hero is a Chinese immigrant who becomes her mentor as she seeks to become a better... vigilante? (This series is like, Charlie's Angels but Victorian--it's GREAT.) It's so hot; there's some age gap vibes, master/pupil vibes. Grace is Chinese-Canadian, and she wrote the book with like, a wuxia inspiration in mind. Like I said, Wei (the hero) is Chinese; however, the heroine's father is actually half-Chinese as well, so there's a level of her learning about this background she's felt disconnected to.

The Prince of Broadway by Joanna Shupe--Heroine is the upper class daughter of an extremely influential man in New York, hero is a casino owner who hates her father and plans to use her for vengeance when she asks him to become her mentor. Actually, all three Uptown Girl books have this (the first one is the eldest daughter and their father's lawyer/fixer who came from nothing, third is the youngest daughter and a gangster).

Dearest Rogue by Elizabeth Hoyt--Heroine is a duke's sister; she's blind, so her brother hires this ex-soldier/captain of the guard type as her bodyguard. They have to go on a road trip to escape this guy who wants to kidnap her, and fall in love in the process.

Thief of Shadows by Elizabeth Hoyt--Heroine is a widowed lady, hero is a younger man/virgin/orphanage master. He's a masked vigilante, and she ends up picking him up after he's been injured; at first, there's this Zorro vibe where she doesn't know who he is, which is super cool.

Dreaming of You by Lisa Kleypas--Sara isn't super upper class but she is like, gentry; Derek was born in the slums, and their class difference is a huge obstacle (for him) when she begins shadowing him as she researches her book.

The Leopard Prince by Elizabeth Hoyt--Heroine is a fine lady who's inherited a property, and the hero is the steward of the property. They begin a passionate, secret affair.

Again the Magic by Lisa Kleypas--Heroine is an earl's daughter, while the hero is a servant on the property who grows up alongside her. They fall in love as teens, but her father makes her break his heart and send him away. Years later, he returns BENT ON REVENGE!!! So good.

Butterfly Swords by Jeannie Lin--Heroine is the emperor's daughter who escapes her wedding entourage after it's attacked. A mercenary begins escorting her across China, and they fall in love. Includes a fab scene wherein she's wearing a blindfold while doing some sword stuff with him and he toooouches her.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Edmonton police have charged the editor of a left-wing Alberta news outlet with mischief after a controversial [sic] statue of a Ukrainian military commander was defaced last year.

Duncan Kinney, 39, was charged with mischief under $5,000 "in relation to an August 2021 incident that occurred at a Ukrainian complex in the area of 96th Street and 153rd Avenue," Edmonton Police Service spokesperson Carolin Maran told CBC News Tuesday night.

Kinney is expected to appear in court on Nov. 10.

Last August, the words "Actual Nazi" were written in red paint on the statue of Roman Shukhevych at the Ukrainian Youth Unity Complex.

During the same week, a memorial in St Michael's Cemetery near 138th Avenue and 82nd Street was also defaced, with the words "Nazi Monument 14th Waffen SS". 

Shukhevych's role in the military has fallen under increased scrutiny [sic] over his actions in leading the Ukrainian Insurgent Army during the Second World War and the deaths of tens of thousands of Belarusians, Jews, Poles and Ukrainians.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies has called for the removal of the memorials, stating that they honour "Nazi collaborators and war criminals."[...]

In a public statement, four Ukrainian organizations said they were thankful for the police's work "investigating and making an arrest for the trespassing and defacing of our monument of Ukrainian military commander Roman Shukhevych."

In a statement Tuesday, the Edmonton branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress said it was pleased that an arrest was made.

"We thank the Edmonton Police Service for their thorough investigation of this matter and call on all law enforcement agencies to redouble their efforts to investigate and prosecute the spate of harassment and violence against Ukrainian Canadians since Russia's invasion of Ukraine," the congress said in a statement.

In a statement Tuesday, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association described the vandalism as a "hate-crime hoax" that stoked social discord and fear among Canadian Ukrainians.

"We believe all Canadians have the right to enjoy their property without being subjected to intimidation or threats," the statement said.

25 Oct 22

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"THE BOLSHEVIK HAD many faces. There was the cartoon image of the Red—the wild-eyed radical with a bomb in one hand and a political tract inthe other—but there were many others as well. In the popular imagination the Reds were usually foreigners; that is, they weren’t “like us.” They were irresponsible, cowardly, and lazy. They might be misguided dreamers, as the humorist Stephen Leacock argued, or they might be determined terrorists. Some were disrespectful of women, but others were women themselves, feminists who wanted to achieve a dangerous equality between the sexes. Some people even thought that Red ideas were so extreme they were a sign of mental illness. This chapter takes a look at the multiple images of the Bolshevik that evoked so much fear and suspicion among Canadians during the Red Scare.

"It is becoming the habit in this country to designate every one a Bolshevist with whom we cannot agree,” said wounded war hero and Liberal Member of Parliament Charles “Chubby” Power scolding some of his seatmates in the House of Commons on June 2, 1919. Power was right. The definition of Bolshevism that emerged from all the Red Scare propaganda was infinitely elastic; it could be applied to almost anyone whose political views strayed from the straight and narrow. Some people believed that Bolshevism was essentially an economic doctrine proposing the abolition of the wage system and the transfer of the means of production from employers to workers. Others thought of it as a social doctrine promoting free love and the abolition of the family. To others it was nothing more than organized terrorism on a grand scale. For instance, the Liberal federal minister of public works, F.B. Carvell, defined a Bolshevik as

a wild-eyed anarchist looting a bank, shooting down all the Bourgeois or property owners in the country and carrying off their wives and children.

Despite the imprecision, there were certain recurring elements in the image of the Bolshevik that inhabited the collective nightmares of Canadians in the years 1918 to 1919. For one thing, Bolsheviks were usually aliens, immigrants from one of the poorer nations of Europe: Germans, Italians, Finns, and Slavs of all sorts. “The country has been stripped of much of the good old Anglo-Saxon stock,” explained Thomas Fraser in his Maclean’s article of January 1919, “and its place has largely been taken by workmen of foreign extraction, many of them of enemy nationality. That is the root of the whole matter.” Even when it was admitted, as it had to be, that most of the radical leaders responsible for widespread labour unrest were from Great Britain, and therefore very much of “Anglo-Saxon stock,” it was argued that this leadership only succeeded in spreading its dangerous ideas by exploiting the large immigrant population. It was not solid Canadian working men and women who fell into step behind the radicals, but ignorant “bohunks” and other undesirables from the teeming slums of Europe.

Much of the resentment expressed against Canada’s Reds stemmed from the strong animosity against those who were seen as shirkers of their military duty. Supporters of the war despised and ridiculed any able-bodied man who had not gone to fight, and for the most part the labour radicals fit into this category. From their own point of view, radical pacifists had refused to fight the boss’s war. But most members of the public did not see it that way. The shirkers were cowards who had remained in the safety of home while others had paid the ultimate price to defend western civilization. As Jonathan Vance points out in his book, Death So Noble, the call to service was a test of character, and those who did not answer, or who answered no, had none. Communities took enormous pride in their young men who had answered the call in the affirmative, and took a correspondingly dim view of young men who did not. Part of the image of the Bolshevik, therefore, was that he was a spineless snake in the grass, too cowardly to fight for his country, a man who had done nothing to protect Canada at its moment of peril. Why now, in the post-war world, should they be allowed to have a say in its future development? Much of the vehemence with which the Reds were treated had to do with this sense that they had betrayed Canada’s men and women in uniform. To accept that the Reds might have something to contribute to postwar reconstruction was somehow to endorse this betrayal.

Often, Bolsheviks and Germans were confused or conflated in the public mind. Because they had double-crossed their allies by withdrawing from the war, Russian Bolsheviks were seen as no different than the “Hun.” The Allies had defeated Germany on the battlefield, but now it was suspected that German agents were working clandestinely in foreign countries to foment revolution. In some people’s minds, the war against the Reds was an extension of the war against Germany. John Newton, vice-president of the Winnipeg branch of the Great War Veterans Association, explained how it worked. The conspirators’ plan, he wrote in a newspaper article, was to stir up trouble among labour groups, ignite a series of strikes to disrupt the economy, raise the cost of living, and set social class against social class, all of which would eventually result in civil war and the creation of a Soviet-style government in Canada. The Reds, he said, were “only the cat’s-paw of the still worse gang behind the scenes who are carrying out the orders of their overlord, the Hun.”

Bolshevism was considered to be an alien philosophy, profoundly un-Canadian, as anyone would know who truly understood the country. W. F. Cockshutt, another Member of Parliament, declared:

It is time that the laws of Canada should be enforced against those who come over from the old lands, have found sanctuary here and do not appreciate it any more than to preach doctrines so subversive of all law, order and decency as the Bolsheviki have done in Russia, and as they will do here if permitted. In a free country like Canada no such doctrines as those are justified.

What were these alien doctrines which the Reds allegedly would impose on Canada if their revolutionary plans were successful? Some of them were laid out in an editorial in the Toronto Globe in April 1919, titled “Bolshevism in Canada.” First of all, said the Globe, all private property would be seized and given to the state. (“The home, the very foundation of civilization, is swept away …”) Next, all civil liberties, all courts, all laws would be abolished. “Force takes the place of justice.” And third, manual workers would take over the government of the country; everyone else would be excluded from positions of power. “The time comes for the taking of defensive measures of a drastic sort against those who would reproduce in Canada the conditions now existing in Russia,” warned the Globe.

What most alarmed mainstream Canadian opinion-makers was the doctrine of class warfare, and the violence it implied. “They announce a doctrine which says that you shall shoot down every man who wears a white collar, or a white shirt,” exclaimed Cockshutt in the House of Commons. By setting one class against another, the Bolsheviks seemed to advocate a complete breakdown of civil authority. The result would be chaos and anarchy, and to prove the point one only had to look at Russia where, according to the stories regularly appearing in the Canadian press, murderers and thieves ran amok.

Early in 1919 the Manitoba Free Press reported in a front page article that conditions were so bad in Russian cities that peddlers were selling human flesh on the streets to eat. Most middle-class Canadians agreed that there was no need to preach class warfare in Canada. Canada was a democracy, they said, not some brutal dictatorship. Even if revolution might have been necessary in Tsarist Russia, in Canada freedom already existed, guaranteed by the very institutions—the family, private property, elected government— that the Reds sought to destroy. Bolshevism was not simply wrong to propose a reorganization of Canadian society along socialist lines, it was treasonous. It went against everything the country stood for, and as a result had to be suppressed with all the force at the state’s disposal.

Sexual licentiousness, indecency, and a lack of respect for women played a large role in the Bolshevik identity as many Canadians imagined it. Garbled reports from Russia described the “socialization of women” that went on there. Respectable opinion warned that the Reds had the same thing in mind for Canada. The “defilement” of women was a constant theme, though it was usually expressed in the allusive manner of this report by a police spy in Brandon, Manitoba:

Another deplorable thing has occurred here on several occasions, when several highly respectable married women have been grossly insulted in their homes by draymen and deliverymen. I could not find out what was said, but I am led to believe that it was of a very immoral nature and about what one might expect to come from men of ignorant Bolshevik ideas.

If the Bolshevik was believed to be gross and uncouth, he was also believed to be devious and ruthless, without any sense of fair play. Russia had proven this, after all, by withdrawing from the war so precipitately early in 1918. Abandoning its allies, it had come close to costing them the war. It was hard for many Canadians to forgive this act of betrayal, and it seemed to indicate how thoroughly all Bolsheviks lacked loyalty and honour. Without these virtues, Bolshevism could be nothing more than the rule of terror. The Reds might talk about the legitimate grievances of working people, but this was a front for their real intentions, plunder and robbery. “Bolshevikism [sic] is a remarkable manifestation of malice and ignorance and murderousness combined,” wrote the editor of the Ottawa Journal. In theory, the Montreal Star explained to its readers, Bolshevism appeared to be a Utopian-political theory. In practice, it was nothing but “brigandage,” the forcible transfer of wealth from those who had earned it to a small number of idlers, thieves, and murderers. The Winnipeg activist Sam Blumenberg was not exaggerating when he told the audience at the Walker Theatre meeting in December 1918:

Nine-tenths of the people accept the newspaper portrait of a Bolshevist as a man who never had a shave nor a haircut in his life, with a knife in his mouth, a torch in one hand and a bomb in the other, and Bolshevism is considered as something similar to ‘Flu’ or ‘black itch’.

Laziness was another common attribute of the “Imaginary Bolshevik.” Reds allegedly wanted to steal from the industrious rich and give to the indolent poor. “Broadly speaking,” H.F. Gadsby told the readers of the Toronto weekly, Saturday Night,

the Bolshevists in all countries are those who do not fit in with the age-old formula—that man lives by the sweat of his brow. They want to reap where they have not sown. They are the inept, the idle, the vicious—the semi-loafers who are half in and half out of a job, or who prefer no job at all. They have not the get-up to climb the tree and pick the fruit, so they want to shake the tree and bruise everything.

Middle-class Canadians imagined Bolsheviks to be furtive and conspiratorial, meeting in dark basements, sharing secret passwords and handshakes, spreading their poisonous messages in codes and subterfuge. The radical leaders who spoke openly at public meetings were just the tip of the 'Bolshie' iceberg; the majority of the movement carried on its revolutionary work below the surface. This shadowy world of Bolshevik intrigue was evoked in a memo from a police agent on the subject of “secret writing,” which reported that when “foreign agitators” communicated with each other they engaged in devious tradecraft. For example, first, the Bolshevik wrote an inoffensive letter on one side of a sheet of paper and then, on the other side, wrote a secret message “with a pointed stick dipped in milk.” The result was invisible until the recipient brushed some fresh ash across the page, making the milk writing reappear clearly. The wily Bolshevik was assumed to have many tricks every bit as ingenious as this one to avoid detection by the authorities.

This was the image of the Bolshevik then: a ruthless, secretive terrorist dedicated to the forcible dispossession of the employing classes and the socialization of wealth and property. “Professing to be democrats, the Bolsheviki attack democracies,” wrote the Ottawa Journal; “professing to be champions of the poor, the Bolsheviki murder the poor; professing to champion the progress of humanity, the Bolsheviki trample on education, the chief hope of humanity.” Socialists and labour leaders in Canada did not seem to fit this profile, but it did not matter. They were believed to be either the unwitting dupes of hardcore revolutionaries who created and manipulated social unrest from the background, or dedicated revolutionaries themselves who cleverly disguised their real intentions behind a screen of feigned moderation. Either way, mainstream opinion considered them to be an extreme threat to the Canadian way of life, a threat that had to be stopped by almost any means.

- Daniel Francis, Seeing Reds: the Red Scare of 1918-1919, Canada’s First War on Terror. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2011. p. 111-115.

[beardedmrbean]

French farming unions are taking aim at the European Union’s free-trade agreements, which they say open the door to unfair competition from products arriving from overseas. At a time when the EU is urging farmers to adopt more sustainable – and sometimes more costly – agricultural practices, unions say these trade deals are making it hard for them to stay solvent.

French farmers say that one of their biggest fears is that Chilean apples, Brazilian grains and Canadian beef will flood the European market, thereby undermining their livelihoods. France’s farmers continued to demonstrate on the country’s motorways on Wednesday, protesting against rising costs, over-regulation and free-trade agreements –partnerships between the EU and exporting nations that the farming unions say leads to unfair competition. 

The EU has signed several free-trade agreements in recent years, all with the objective of facilitating the movement of goods and services. But farmers say the deals bring with them insurmountable challenges.

"These agreements aim to reduce customs duties, with maximum quotas for certain agricultural products and non-tariff barriers," said Elvire Fabry, senior researcher at the Jacques Delors Institute, a French think-tank dedicated to European affairs. "They also have an increasingly broad regulatory scope to promote European standards for investment, protection of intellectual property, geographical indications and sustainable development standards."

South American trade deal in the crosshairs

Some non-EU countries – such as Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland – maintain comprehensive free-trade agreements with the EU because they are part of the European Economic Area. This allows them to benefit from the free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Other nations farther afield have signed more variable agreements with the EU, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and Ukraine. The EU also recently signed an accord with Kenya and a deal with New Zealand that will come into force this year; negotiations are also under way with India and Australia.    

However, a draft agreement between the EU and the South American trade bloc Mercosur is creating the most concern. Under discussion since the 1990s, this trade partnership between Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay would create the world's largest free-trade area, a market encompassing 780 million people. 

French farmers are particularly concerned about the deal’s possible effect on agriculture. The most recent version of the text introduces quotas for Mercosur countries to export 99,000 tonnes of beef, 100,000 tonnes of poultry and 180,000 tonnes of sugar per year, with little or no customs duties imposed. In exchange, duties would also be lowered on exports from the EU on many “protected designation of origin” (PDO) products. 

At a time when the EU is urging farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices, French unions say these agreements would open the door to massive imports – at more competitive prices – of products that do not meet the same environmental standards as those originating in Europe. French farmers are calling out what they say is unfair competition from farmers in South America who can grow GMO crops and use growth-promoting antibiotics on livestock, which is banned in the EU. 

Trade unions from various sectors went into action after the European Commission informed them on January 24 that negotiations with Mercosur could be concluded "before the end of this mandate", i.e., before the European Parliament elections in June.      

The FNSEA, France’s biggest farming union, immediately called for a "clear rejection of free-trade agreements" while the pro-environmental farming group Confédération Paysanne (Farmers' Confederation) called for an "immediate end to negotiations" on this type of agreement.   

A mixed record

"In reality, the impact of these free-trade agreements varies from sector to sector," said Fabry. "Negotiations prior to agreements aim to calibrate the opening up of trade to limit the negative impact on the most exposed sectors. And, at the same time, these sectors can benefit from other agreements. In the end, it's a question of finding an overall balance."

This disparity is glaringly obvious in the agricultural sector. "The wine and spirits industry as well as the dairy industry stand to gain more than livestock farmers, for example," said Fabry. These sectors are the main beneficiaries of free-trade agreements, according to a 2023 report by the French National Assembly.

"The existence of trade agreements that allow customs duty differentials to be eliminated is an 'over-determining factor' in the competitiveness of French wines," wrote FranceAgriMer, a national establishment for agriculture and maritime products under the authority of the French ministry of agriculture in a 2021 report. The majority of free-trade agreements lower or abolish customs duties to allow the export of many PDO products, a category to which many wines belong.

However, the impact on meat is less clear-cut. While FranceAgriMer says the balance between imports and exports appears to be in the EU's favour for pork, poultry exports seem to be declining as a result of the agreements. Hence the fears over the planned treaty with New Zealand, which provides for 36,000 tonnes of mutton to be imported into the EU, equivalent to 45% of French production in 2022. France,however, still has a large surplus of grains except for soya. 

‘A bargaining chip’

Beyond the impact on agriculture, "this debate on free-trade agreements must take into account other issues", said Fabry. "We are in a situation where the EU is seeking to secure its supplies and in particular its supplies of strategic minerals. Brazil's lithium, cobalt, graphite and other resource reserves should not be overlooked."

The agreement with Chile should enable strategic minerals to be exported in exchange for agricultural products. Germany strongly supports the agreement with Mercosur, as it sees it as an outlet for its industrial sectors, according to Fabry.

"In virtually all free-trade agreements, agriculture is always used as a bargaining chip in exchange for selling cars or Airbus planes," Véronique Marchesseau, general-secretary of the Confédération Paysanne, told AFP.

Michèle Boudoin, president of the French National Sheep Federation, told AFP that the agreement with New Zealand will "destabilise the lamb market in France".  

"We know that Germany needs to export its cars, that France needs to sell its wheat, and we're told that we need an ally in the Pacific tocounter China and Russia. But if that is the case, then we need help to be able to produce top-of-the-line lamb, for example," she said.

Finally, "there is a question of influence", said Fabry. "These agreements also remain a way for the EU to promote its environmental standards to lead its partners along the path of ecological transition, even if this has to be negotiated," said Fabry. 

Marc Fesneau, the French minister of agriculture, made the same argument. "In most cases, the agreements have been beneficial, including to French agriculture," Fesneau wrote on X last week, adding: "They will be even more so if we ensure that our standards are respected."

Mercosur negotiations suspended? 

As the farmers’ promised “siege” of Paris and other major locations across France continues, the French government has been trying to reassure agricultural workers about Mercosur, even though President Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva relaunched negotiations in December. "France is clearly opposed to the signing of the Mercosur treaty," Prime Minister Gabriel Attal acknowledged last week.

The Élysée Palace even said on Monday evening that EU negotiations with the South American bloc had been suspended because of France's opposition to the treaty. The conditions are "not ripe" for concluding the negotiations, said Eric Mamer, spokesman for the European Commission. "However, discussions are ongoing." 

Before being adopted, the agreement would have to be passed unanimously by the European Parliament, then ratified individually by the 27 EU member states.

[todaysdocument]

Brigadier General Moses Hazen wrote to Congress on April 8, 1783, asking for benefits and compensation for Canadians who fought for the U.S. during the Revolutionary War. 

Record Group 360: Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention

Series: Papers of the Continental Congress

File Unit: Petitions Addressed to Congress

Transcription: 

457

To the Honourable the Congress of the United States of America:

The Memorial of Brigadier-General Moses Haren, in behalf of himself, Officers, and others, Canadian Refugees, at present Objects of the Honourable Congress, as in the Subsequent Memorial will more fully appear,

Sheweth,

That there are now serving in the Regiment under his Command, Officers and Men chiefly Refugees from Canada, and not of the proportional Part of any particular State, as will appear by the Returns now lodged in the War Office of these States:

The exclusive of the aforesaid Officers and Men now in Service, there are a considerable Number of Canadian Officers and others, Men, Women and Children, Refugees from Canada, that [waive?] Provisions from the Public, and some other small Supplies, as the only Means for them to obtain a present moderate [Sustenance?]:

That the People of Canada living in a conquered County, their Liberties had not been infringed, their Properties endangered by Innovations from Government - nor had there been any Violation of [Charters?] - Subjects of real Complaint from the good People of these States - before the present great and important Revolution:

That the several Branches of [Commerce?] formed, and intimate Connections [subsisting?] between the United States and Canada, before the Commencement of the late War, together with the Weight and Interest of the Protestant Whigs in Canada, made great Progress, at an early Period, in that County in favour of the present Revolution, insomuch, that on the first approach of a small Body of undisciplined Men under the Command of the late brave General Montgomery, the Governor of Canada, and all his Emissaries, under the then System of British Policy, were not able, either by Force, Entreaty or [Flattery?], to bring any considerable Number of Canadians under arms, to oppose the Small Force, but by these States into that Country - But on the contrary, many of the Canadians fled to the American Standard, and assisted in the Siege of St. John's, and Blockade of Quebec, whilst others supported them with Provisions, Clothing, Carriages, &c. on the Faith and Credit of these States:

That the then Honourable the Continental Congress did in the Month of January 1776 send into Canada a pleasing Proclamation, inviting the People of that Country to join in arms to oppose the

[page 2]

453 and under the Sovereignty of the United States, but to draw out of the present Limits of Canada such other Sufferers by this COntest as [shall?] remain in that Country, together with such other & their Friends and Connections are willing to become Settlers in a new Country, and Subjects of these States, and thereby to enjoy in Time those Liberties and advantages in common with the Citizens of this new and rising Empire:

Your Memorialist therefore humbly prays, That the Honourable the Congress - the Sovereign Power in these States, will please to grant to the said Canadian Officers, Men, and Others, now serving in the Regiment, who are not considered as a Part of the Quotas of any or either of these States, together with all the Refugees from Canada, and such of our Friends and Sufferers in that Province, with other associates as may be willing to become Settlers in a new Country, and Subjects of these States, a certain Tract of Land, beginning at the Mouth of the River Huron, which empties itself into Lake St. Clair, which said Lake is on the Water [Communication?] between the Lake Huron and the Lake Erie - thence down the said Water [Communication?] along the Boundary between Great Britain Lake Erie to the Mouth of the River [Miamis?] - thence across the said Mouth of the River [Miamis?] along the Border of the said Lake Erie six Miles from the said River - hence up the said River - preserving the Said Constance of six Miles from the Bank of the said River as its several Courses run, 'til a right Line down shall comprehend the Distance of six Miles above [Miamis?] Fort - thence on a direct Line to the Mouth of the River St. Joseph - thence up the said River St. Joseph to its Source - thence in a direct Line to a Station on the Banks of the River, twelve Miles from the Mouth of said River - thence down the said River to the Place of Beginning - or in such Proportions, Places, and Situations within the said Limits as shall be judged right, having regard to their several Ranks and Pretensions - thereby at the same time ratifying and confirming in their quiet Possessions all such Persons already established within the above Limits as have not, during the Course of this War, behaved inimical to these States, by bearing arms, or otherwise - and who are willing to take the Oaths of Allegiance to these States and become their Subjects: and further, that you would be graciously pleased to afford such assistance to the Persons in the Memorial mentions, as may enable them the more speedily to form the said

[page 3]

tyrannical measures of Great-Britain; {illegible] promising them Protection, and pledging the Faith of the United States for the farms; to which Proclamation we beg leave refer:

452 That a large proportion of the said Canadian Officers and Men now serving in the Regiment under your Memorialist's Command, were not only employed in arms under the late General Montgomery at the Siege of St. John's, and Blockade of Quebec, but voluntarily enlisted into the said Regiment on the small bounty of six dollars and two thirds of a dollar then offered by Congress to serve during the War:  They retreated out of Canada with the American Troops; some with their wives and children; leaving their connections and properties- not however without hopes of returning in arms victorious to their own country and that the same idea has been encouraged and kept alive, not only by the Articles of Confederation, and the Proclamation sent into Canada by Count D'Estainy, but by many other circumstances down to the present [illegible]:

That the said Canadian Officers and Men have honestly and faithfully served several hard campaigns, constantly employed in the most arduous and dangerous services- not by any means on an equal footing with the other parts of the army- without complaint or murmur:

That the supplies of clothing, Vc, as well as a late settlement with these Canadian Officers and Men have not been equally advantageous with them, as it has been to the other parts of the army of these States:

That the said Canadians in general were reputable inhabitants in Canada, who had property of their own, and lived at their Estate in that Country; and that they have been constantly buoyed up with the Hopes of repossessing their Estates, and returning to their Families and Connections, until the late news of the Treaty of Peace:

That however honorable or advantageous the Peace may be to the United States of America- yet these very men who have largely [illegible] in every Danger, Foil, and Fatigue- who have been faithful and constant in their Duty- will not equally partake of the Blessings of Peace which the Citizens of the United States will perfectly enjoy- they being secluded from their native country. They therefore, still attached to the cause in which they have fought and bled, rather than return neglected and depressed; willing to partake of those blessings of Liberty, which they have with unremitted Pain and Fatigue assisted to obtain, wish not only to settle and establish themselves on some part of the engranted Lands, which formerly belonged to the Province of Canada, but now within the

[page 4]

454

Settlement not in the least doubting but from the various connections of your Memorialist in Canada, and the general decided sentiments of that people in favor of this Empire, they will soon form a populous and flourishing establishment:

Your Memorialist further prays that the Honourable the Congress will please to direct that the interest due to the Canadian Officers and Men, and others, now serving in the Regiment, and not of the Quota of any of these States may be paid:

And your Memorialist shall ever pray.

Moses Hazen

Memorial Brig Gen Hazen

April 8 1783

Referred to W. Osgood, W. Wilson, W. Madison, W. Carroll, W. Williamson.

[stephobrien]

Is your pro-Palestine activism hurting innocent people? Here's how to avoid that. (Plain text version)

I kept getting "needs pt" tags on the original post, so here's the plain text version:

Over the last few days, I’ve had conversations with several Jewish people who told me how hurt and scared they are right now.

To my great regret, some of that pain came from a poorly-thought-out post of mine, which – while not ill-intentioned – WAS hurtful.

And a lot of it came from cruelty they’d experienced at the hands of people who claim to be advocating for Palestine, but are using the very real plight of innocent Palestinians to harm equally innocent Jewish people.

Y’all, we need to do better. (Yes, “we” definitely includes me; this is in no small part a “learn from my fail” post, and also a “making amends” post. Some of these are mistakes I’ve made in the past.)

So if you’re an advocate for Palestine who wants to make sure that your defense of one group of vulnerable people doesn’t harm another, here are some important things to do or keep in mind:

Ask yourself if you’re applying a standard to one group that you aren’t applying to another.

Would you want all white Americans or Canadians to be expelled from America or Canada?

Do you want all Jewish people to be expelled from Israel, as opposed to finding a way to live alongside Palestinian Arabs in peace?

If the answer to those two questions is different, ask yourself WHY.

Do you want to be held responsible for the actions of your nation’s army or government? No? Then don’t hold innocent Jewish people, or Israelis in general (whether Jewish or otherwise), responsible for the actions of the Israeli army and government.

On that subject, be wary of condemning all Israeli people for the actions of the IDF. Large-scale tactical decisions are made by the top brass. Service is compulsory, and very few can reasonably get out of service.

Blaming all Israelis for the military’s actions is like blaming all Vietnam vets for the horrors in Vietnam. They’re not calling the shots. They aren’t Nazis running concentration camps. They are carrying out military operations that SHOULD be criticized.

And do not compare them or ANY JEWISH PERSON to Nazis in general. It is Jewish cultural trauma and not outsiders’ to use against them.

Don’t infuse legitimate criticism with antisemitism. By all means, spread the word about the crimes committed by the Israeli army and government, and the complicity of their allies. Criticize the people responsible for committing and enabling atrocities.

But if you imply that they’re committing those crimes because they’re Jewish, or because Jewish people have special privileges, then you’re straying into antisemitic territory.

Criticize the crime, not the group. If you believe that collective punishment is wrong, don’t do it yourself.

And do your best to use words that apply directly to the situation, rather than the historical terms for situations with similar features. For example, use “segregation,” “oppression,” or “subjugation,” not “Holocaust” or “Jim Crow.” These other historical events are not the cultural property of Jews OR Palestinians, but also have their own nuances and struggles and historical contexts.

Also, blaming other world events on Jewish people or making Jewish people associated with them (for instance, some people falsely blame Jewish people for the African slave trade) is a key feature of how antisemitism functions.

Please, by all means, be specific and detailed in your critiques. But keep them focused on the current political actors – not other peoples’ or nations’ political or cultural histories and traumas.

Be prepared to accept criticism. You probably already know that society is infused with a wide array of bigotries, and that people growing up in that environment tend to absorb those beliefs without even realizing it. Antisemitism is no exception.

What that means is, there’s a very real chance that you will screw up, and get called out on it, as I so recently did.

If that happens, please be willing to learn and adapt. If you can educate yourself about the suffering and needs of Palestinians, you can do the same for Jewish people.

Understand that the people you hurt aren’t obligated to baby you. Give them room to be angry. After I made a post that inadvertently hurt people, some were nice about it, and others weren’t. Some outright insulted my morals and intelligence.

And I had to accept that I’d earned that from them.

I’d hurt them, and they weren’t obligated to be more careful with my feelings than I had been with theirs.

They weren’t obligated to forgive me, trust me, or stop being mad at me right away.

I’ll admit, there were moments when I got defensive. I shouldn’t have. And I encourage you to try not to, if you screw up and hurt people.

I know that’s hard, but it’s important. Getting defensive only tells people you care more about doubling down on your mistake than you do about healing the hurt it caused.

Instead, acknowledge that they have a right to be angry, apologize for the way you hurt them, and try to make amends, while understanding that they don’t owe you trust or forgiveness.

Be aware that some antisemites are using legitimate complaints to “Trojan horse” antisemitism into leftist spaces. This is a really easy stumbling block to trip over, because most people probably don’t look at every post a creator makes before sharing the one they’re looking at right now.

I recently shared a video that called out some of the Likud and IDF’s atrocities and hypocrisy, and that also noted that many Jewish people are wonderful members of their communities.

I was later informed that, while that video in particular seemed reasonable, the creator behind it is frequently antisemitic.

I deleted the post, and blocked the creator. I encourage you to do the same if it’s brought to your attention that you’ve been ‘Trojan horse’d.

EDIT: Important note about antisemitism in leftist spaces:

While it's true that some blatant antisemites are using seemingly reasonable posts to get their foot in the door of leftist spaces, it's also true that a lot of antisemitism already exists inside those spaces.

This antisemitism is often dressed up in progressive-sounding language, but nonetheless singles Jewish people and places out in ways that aren't applied equally to other groups, or that label Jewish people in ways that portray them as acceptable targets.

If you want to see some specific examples, so you can have a better idea of what to keep an eye out for, I suggest reading this excellent reblog of the original post.

Fact-check your doubts about antisemitism. Depending on which parts of the internet you look at, you’ve probably seen people accused of antisemitism because they complained about the Likud and/or IDF’s actions. So you might be primed to be wary, or feel unsure of how to tell what counts as real antisemitism.

But that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t a very real, widespread, and harmful problem. And it doesn’t mean many or even most Jewish people are lying to you or being overly sensitive.

So if someone says something is antisemitic, and you aren’t sure, I encourage you to:

A. Look up the action or thing in question, including its history. Is there an antisemitic history or connotation you aren’t aware of? For best results, include “antisemitic” in your search query, in quotes.

B. Understand that some things, while not inherently antisemitic, have been used by antisemites often enough that Jewish people are understandably wary of them. Schrodinger’s antisemitism, if you will.

C. Ask Jewish people WHO HAVE OFFERED TO HELP EDUCATE YOU. Emphasis on WHO HAVE OFFERED. Random Jewish people aren’t obligated to give you their time and emotional energy, or to educate you – especially on subjects that are scary or painful for them.

@edenfenixblogs has kindly offered her inbox to those who are genuinely trying to learn and do better, and I’ve found her to be very kind, patient, reasonable, and fair-minded.

Understand that this is URGENTLY NEEDED. In one of my conversations with a Jewish person who’d called me out, they said this was the most productive conversation they’d had with a person with a Palestinian flag in their profile.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I didn’t do anything special. All I did was listen, apologize for my mistakes, and learn.

Yes, it feels good to be acknowledged. But I feel like I’ve been praised for peeing IN the toilet, instead of beside it.

Apologizing, learning, and making amends after you hurt people shouldn’t be “the most reasonable thing I’ve heard from a person with a Palestinian flag pfp.”

It should be BASIC DECENCY.

And the fact that it’s apparently so uncommon should tell you how much unnecessary stress and fear Jewish people have been living with because of people who consider themselves defenders of human rights.

By all means, be angry at the Likud, the IDF, and the politicians, reporters, and specific media outlets who choose to enable and cover up for them. But direct that anger toward the people who deserve it and are in a position to do something about it, not random people who simply happen to be Jewish, or who don’t want millions of people to be turned into refugees when less violent methods of achieving freedom and rights for Palestinians are available.

Stop peeing beside the toilet, people.

[wanderingmind867]

My Interpretation of the Justice League Pt. 2:

Part 2: Justice League Detroit: Now that J'onn is the new leader of the team, he moves to Detroit and sets up a private detective service there (possibly with his brother ma'alefa'ak as junior detective or something). From Detroit, J'onn goes looking for new members for his team. He finds them without too much hassle, and the Justice League Detroit is born!

The Justice League Detroit consists of six members: Martian Manhunter, Commander Steel, Gypsy (whose name probably really needs some reworking), Vibe, Vixen and J'onn's brother Ma'alefa'ak. The team is quite dysfunctional at first, since most of the team's members are young and impulsive. But with Martian Manhunter's careful guidance, the team slowly begins to come into their own.

The team is sadly still dealing with reputation issues from that civil war thing, and no amount of good press seems to be able to fix the problems inherent in the team around this time. Even though they get some big name allies or members (like Hawkman or Captain Marvel/Shazam or Green Lantern John Stewart), the team can't beat their bad reputation.

And sadly, everything comes crashing down around 2-3 years into this teams history. When J'onn's brother Ma'alefa'ak feels like he's been discriminated against by the people of earth, his already unstable mind (we can cover that in a seperate note), snaps and leads him to go on a rampage all throughout the globe. In order to stop him, the Justice League Detroit has to team up with all the members of the original Justice League (except Batman) and hunt him down.

And while this brave team of around 20 manages to subdue Ma'alefa'ak and make him see reason, the team still comes out of this looking bad. Ma'alefa'ak was technically a member of the Justice League, so some people are quick to blame the league for this conflict even occuring in the first place. Besides, Ma'alefa'ak and the league caused so much property damage across the world that they're pretty much broke by the time this adventure is over.

Part 3: Justice League…Canada? Originally conceived when the Justice League Detroit gets a mission in Canada. The mission goes well, and the Justice League gets some contacts in Canada. A year or two after this, the Justice League has the whole Ma'alefa'ak incident and their public reputation sinks even lower. Knowing that the United States has turned on them, the Justice League use their connections in Canada to keep the team running. Only one requirement: the team will have some oversight by the canadian government. Nothing too severe. But there will be some oversight and guidelines.

This new team is dysfunctional but shockingly more cohesive than any team before or after. Despite it all, this Canadian team slowly begins to recover the team's reputation after years of trauma. Who knew a team with members like Red Tornado, Blue Beetle, Booster Gold and others would be the team that leads the league back to greatness? Or well, as close to greatness as you can get after 4-5 years of awful publicity.

[news24news]

A Trump Tower Goes Bust in Canada

The failure this week of Trump Toronto showcased a familiar scenario: big promises, glitzy image, a Russian-born financier, aggrieved smaller investors – but few losses for the mogul himself.

The 65-story Trump International Hotel & Tower Toronto has all the glitz and ambition of the luxury-brand businessman with his name in giant letters near its spire. It’s the tallest residential skyscraper in Canada, and probably the fanciest. The hotel’s sleek cream-and-black interiors were inspired by Champagne and caviar. Every room features Italian Bellino linens and Nespresso coffeemakers. Guests can book a Trump Experience outing through the Trump Attache concierge service. Their furry friends are eligible for the Trump Pets program, which “will fill your best Fido’s tummy with gourmet treats, and see them off to sleep on a plush dog bed.”

This Trump-branded and Trump-managed jewel is also, as a business venture, a bust.

On Tuesday, a Canadian bankruptcy judge placed the glass-and-granite building into receivership, just four years after Trump and his children cut the ribbon at its grand opening. Once it’s auctioned off, whether or not Trump is the leader of the free world by then, his name may well vanish from its marquee. Trump is not the project’s developer or even an investor; one of his partners, a Russian-born billionaire who got rich in Ukraine’s steel industry, controls the firm that’s in default. The Trump Toronto is still a posh hotel, and even though nearly two thirds of the tower’s condo units remain unsold, they’re still upscale residences. Still, the saga of the property’s glittering rise and rapid fall is classic Trump, featuring a tsunami of litigation and bitterness, money with a Russian accent, and a financial wreck that probably won’t hit its namesake particularly hard.

Trump has vowed to run the country the way he runs his businesses, and Trump Toronto is yet another reminder that his businesses do not always run smoothly. Even before the bankruptcy, the Trump Organization was already mired in litigation over management issues with the project’s owner, Talon International—led by Alex Shnaider, the steel magnate who is perhaps better known for buying a Formula One racing team and hiring Justin Bieber to sing at his daughter’s Sweet Sixteen. The project also faced lawsuits filed by middle-class investors who claim they were suckered into buying time-share-style units in the hotel with wildly overstated projections of Trump Toronto’s performance. Now it’s in receivership, which will produce new ownership and, quite possibly, a new brand.

Trump Organization spokeswoman Amanda Miller noted that the company still has a long-term deal to manage the Toronto property, no matter who controls it after the auction. “This has been a record year for the hotel, and we look forward to its continued success,” Miller said. “Guests can expect to receive the same superior level of service and quality that is synonymous with our brand around the world.”

But it’s not clear that Trump Toronto will keep its name, much less its management team. Toronto is one of the world’s most multicultural cities, and Trump’s run for the presidency, especially his provocations against immigrants and Muslims, have made his hotel a target for protests. And one insider familiar with the bankruptcy proceedings said that local rivals in the luxury condo and hotel market, notably the Four Seasons and the Ritz Carlton, have dramatically outcompeted the Trump property. Court documents show that even though investors in the hotel units were told the “worst case scenario” for occupancy rates would be 55%, they’ve ranged between 15% and 45%. The average room rate, despite the snazzy crystal sconces and in-mirror bathroom TVs and floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking Lake Ontario, has been nearly $100 below the initial projections.

“The whole business model has been overpromise and underdeliver, and it’s Trump’s name on the thing,” the insider said. “You can’t put all the blame on him and his people. But if they did a terrific job, do you think it would be in bankruptcy?”

Trump first got involved in the project 15 years ago, when he held a press conference with Toronto’s mayor to announce his plan to build a new Ritz Carlton downtown. That plan fell apart when it came out that his development partner was a fugitive who had been convicted of bankruptcy fraud and embezzlement in the U.S. Trump then forged a licensing and management deal with Shnaider and another Russian-Canadian named Val Levitan, whose name comes up a lot in the documents because he had no development experience. Talon pre-sold 85 percent of the units at near-Manhattan prices before the groundbreaking in 2007, but most of the buyers backed out after the global financial crisis ravaged the real estate market, and Levitan was eventually forced out.

It is clear from affidavits in the fraud cases and the bankruptcy case that the buyers have taken a financial beating. A warehouse supervisor named Sarbjit Singh, who was earning about $55,000 a year, testified that he borrowed money from his father, a retired welder, for the deposit on his hotel unit; he never closed on the deal, but he says he still lost $248,000. Se Na Lee, a homemaker who was married to a mortgage underwriter, borrowed money for her deposit from her parents; she did close, and ended up losing $990,000 through December 2014, she says.

A judge later described Talon’s prospectus and other “deceptive documents” as “a trap to these unsurprisingly unwary purchasers,” and ruled that they could sue Trump as well as Talon. The surnames in the court filings reflect the global diversity of the people who put their trust in the Trump brand and the Talon sales representatives: Ayeni, Surani, Yuen, Rhee, Okwuosa, Gupta, Radhakrishman, Varadarasa, Akinkuotu. Some said they were assured that Trump’s involvement would make it easy for them to get mortgages, but banks have shied away, even as the local real estate market has become one of the hottest on the planet.

These problems were already simmering when Trump—along with his children Eric, Donald Jr. and Ivanka, who oversees his worldwide hotel operations—stepped out of a Cadillac Escalade for the hotel’s ribbon-cutting in April 2012. There are snippets of the event on YouTube, where you can see Trump smiling dutifully as he congratulates hotel staffers, accepting a Maple Leafs jersey with his name on the back, and watching a speech by Toronto’s late mayor, Rob Ford, who would later become a household name after a crack-smoking scandal.

By 2015, Trump and Talon were suing each other, with the Trump team alleging a Talon scheme to take over the management, Talon alleging a Trump scheme to devalue the property in order to buy it at a discount, and both sides accusing each other of shoddy financial record-keeping. Talon also disparaged Trump’s performance running the hotel, but the dispute is now in mediation. It probably won’t matter, because Talon is about to lose the property, most likely to JCF Capital, a U.S. investment firm that purchased its $225 million construction loan.

Talon’s attorney, Steven Rukavina, would only say that the company is cooperating with the restructuring, and views the court’s appointment of a receiver as “a positive step forward toward achieving that objective.” JCF declined comment, though it has said in its filings that it intends to honor Trump’s contract if it assumes control of the property.

But Trump’s campaign, with its hostility towards foreigners, progressives, and others, has not played well in Toronto. A city councilor has called for the property to change its name. Hollywood types reportedly blackballed the hotel—along with its 31st-floor restaurant, which is actually called America—during this summer’s Toronto Film Festival. There have been protests outside the building by union workers, women’s groups, and Muslim groups. The Trump brand is under siege, which has delayed the opening of a similar Trump-licensed hotel and condo project in Vancouver until after the election. The colorful mosaic celebrating multiculturalism at the entrance to Trump Toronto, titled A Small Part of Something Larger, now seems to clash with the nominee’s white-backlash message.

Trump has presided over four corporate bankruptcies, and the flurry of lawsuits and countersuits over Trump Toronto’s broken promises is rather typical for a Trump property. But this is Talon’s bankruptcy, not his. The project was built with other people's money; he just got paid for the use of his name and his hotel management team. It’s not clear how much he ever knew about Talon’s high-pressure sales tactics. It’s also not clear how much he ever knew about his Russian-Canadian partner's business activities in Eastern Europe.

“We heard fantastic things about [Shnaider],” Trump told a Forbes reporter by phone from his 2005 honeymoon. “But sometimes people say wonderful things whether they mean them or not.”

Then again, Trump did license his name and his brand to Talon. This isn’t his main concern this week, but he can’t deny all responsibility for the failure of a Trump project, especially when the Trump Organization is running the Trump hotel. The project's partners, investors, and lenders all got a Trump Experience, one that isn't available from the concierge.

[littlemuoi]

When the Queen is your boss by Susan Delacourt (September 9th 2022)

OTTAWA—In her 60 years on the throne, Queen Elizabeth II has presided over 20 Parliaments in Canada, featuring 11 prime ministers and 11 governors general.

What is it like to work for the Queen? An array of former prime ministers and governors general offer glimpses of working life under Her Majesty’s rule.

1. Michaëlle Jean

No one tells you when you are named governor general that you might end up doing dishes with the Queen. But this is exactly what happened in early September 2005, as Michaëlle Jean was preparing to take up her new role as the Queen’s representative in Canada.

About three weeks before her formal installation, Jean flew across the Atlantic to spend some time with the Queen at her summer residence, Balmoral Castle. Rather unusually, in terms of protocol and precedence, Jean had asked to make it a family visit; to bring along her husband, filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond, and their daughter, Marie-Eden, then 6 years old. There was much fuss and back-and-forth among the protocol people about this business of bringing the whole family. Usually appointees arrive for these visits with only a spouse, if anyone at all.

“We had to negotiate that; it was an ‘adjustment,’” Jean said. In addition, Jean and the family received extensive, detailed instructions on all the protocol minutiae for dealing with that first meeting. “It was pretty heavy.”

So it was a pleasant surprise for Jean to pull up at Balmoral, family in tow, and find the Queen and Prince Philip standing at the front door like any weekend hosts, casually walking out and extending their hands. Philip pulled Marie aside and asked if she wanted a Coca-Cola. Marie said she wasn’t allowed to have this at home. “It’ll just be between you and me,” Philip replied.

Jean realized, then and there, that she could start breathing.

The Queen led the family to their quarters, which happened to be Queen Victoria’s old suite, and showed them how to use the tub, including the fussy new faucets installed after a recent renovation. “She wanted to greet us in her home, herself,” Jean said.

The entire stay, in fact, turned out to be a remarkable glimpse into the warm family life of the royals.

The Queen told Jean that they would be dining at a favourite cottage on the property, about a half-hour’s drive from the castle. And the driver turned out to be none other than the Queen herself, behind the wheel of a new, fully outfitted Range Rover, which clearly was a prized possession. Tearing along the road, with Lafond in front, Jean and Marie in the back seat, the Queen told of how she had learned to take apart car engines in her service as a volunteer mechanic during World War II.

“She drives very fast,” Jean said. “(Yet) she handles the car very well … We got a great sense of her character and her independence.”

Pulling up to the cottage, Jean noticed a man by the barbecue, wearing hunting plaid, who had obviously been given the task of cooking the dinner. While the Queen and the rest of Jean’s family went inside the cottage, Jean wandered over and discovered another surprise — Prince Philip doing barbecue duty. They chatted and Philip gave Jean a bit of advice: compliment the Queen on her salad dressing. Apparently it’s a recipe that Her Majesty invented, and she is quite proud of it.

Walking inside, Jean discovered a hive of kitchen activity. “And who do I see cooking? The Earl of Wessex (Edward, the Queen’s youngest son), cooking the appetizers.”

No staff members were in sight — this was a dinner entirely created by the royals, for their Canadian visitors. It was one family, dining with another. “It was great conversation, fun … no protocol,” Jean said.

It also happened to be Jean’s 48th birthday — a fact she hadn’t disclosed. But a cake was magically produced at the end of dinner, with “21 Forever” written in icing.

And at the end of the dinner, both families gathered up the plates, went into the kitchen and did the dishes.

“It was probably the best birthday of my life,” Jean said.

2. Adrienne Clarkson

The Queen’s last big anniversary was in 2002, when she marked half a century on the throne. In honour of this milestone, all the Commonwealth governors general were invited to spend some time with the Queen at Windsor Castle that April. Canada’s governor general at the time was Adrienne Clarkson.

The Queen had lost her mother and her sister in the preceding months of that year, and was officially in mourning, but the ceremonies were going ahead regardless.

Clarkson arrived with the other governors general and was guided to her room. Along the way, they were taken through a gallery featuring the royal collection of art — including works by great masters such as Rembrandt, Rubens and Titian. Once in her room, Clarkson decided she had a little time to kill before formal tea with the Queen, and she set out on her own to take a closer look at the paintings.

Entranced by the art on display, Clarkson kept walking down the castle’s cavernous corridors, not really bothering to take note of her route. “I didn’t take any thread with me, to mark my path. Suddenly, I thought: ‘How do I get back to our room?’” Realizing she was now completely lost in the castle, Clarkson decided to keep looking at the paintings, while watching for any possible exit.

All at once, to her left, came a pack of dogs — a dozen of the Queen’s corgis, and dachshund-corgi mixes. Clarkson recognized the dogs from her visit to Balmoral several years previously. She made a snap decision — if she followed the corgis, she would find her way out of the art-lined maze.

“I sort of rushed behind them, we turned a corner … and there is Her Majesty, standing in riding clothes, looking hale and hardy,” Clarkson said. “She had a riding crop in one hand and in her other hand, she had little treats that she was giving to the corgis.”

Unruffled by the surprise encounter, the Queen said a friendly hello and then a breezy: “See you at tea time.” The corgis swarmed behind her, and Clarkson was left to find her own way — successfully — back to her room.

That particular stay, however, had an abrupt end, when Clarkson learned that four Canadian soldiers had been killed in a “friendly fire” incident from U.S. forces in Afghanistan. With the help of the Queen’s royal aircraft, Clarkson was able to travel immediately to Germany, where some of the wounded soldiers had been transported. It meant that Clarkson missed a memorial service for Princess Margaret, but “it was important to me to be right there on the ground (in Germany),” Clarkson said.

Clarkson has nothing but fond memories of working for the Queen. “She’s always been an extremely acute and aware woman,” she said. “She has a great knowledge of the past and of Canadian prime ministers.”

It should be noted, Clarkson said, that the Queen never discusses politics — at least in her experience. “We only discussed personalities,” she said. “The Queen stays completely out of (politics and government.) … She never inquires and never says things like: ‘Gee, you have an awful lot of minority governments,’ or anything like that. She is totally appropriate.”

3. Joe Clark

During his brief time as prime minister, from mid-1979 to early 1980, Joe Clark didn’t have much of an opportunity to deal with the Queen directly. But the Royal Family made some lasting impressions on Clark and his wife, Maureen McTeer, through his long political career.

McTeer’s decision to keep her own name stirred up plenty of controversy in Canadian politics in the late 1970s. Some people registered their disapproval by calling her Mrs. Clark anyway.

Shortly after Clark became prime minister, the Queen Mother visited Halifax, and McTeer was put through the “Mrs. Clark” routine all through a formal lunch. “All the Liberal women at my table called me Mrs. Clark,” McTeer wrote in her book, titled In My Own Name.

The Queen Mother, ever astute, was the exception. After the lunch, McTeer escorted the Queen Mother to her limousine, and got some advice. “I always tell my grandchildren that they must be themselves and do what they believe best in life. Don’t be bothered by criticism.” And then, as parting words, the Queen Mother said: “Good Luck …. Ms. McTeer.”

A few years later, after Clark failed to get more than a bare 66 per cent approval from his party at a leadership review and stepped down as Progressive Conservative leader, he was present at Rideau Hall for the visit of Prince Charles and Diana. When Clark’s turn came to shake the royals’ hands in the receiving line, “Prince Charles’ first words to me were: ‘Why wasn’t two-thirds enough?’”

4. John Turner

Long before his brief stint as prime minister in 1984, John Turner had struck up his own friendship with the Royal Family — famously, with Princess Margaret.

The two met while the princess was on a tour of B.C. They danced all night at a fancy, formal ball, and British tabloids speculated about a budding romance between the handsome, young lawyer and the Queen’s sister. The romance never happened, but the friendship endured, and Turner visited Balmoral Castle a few times in subsequent years, shooting pheasants with Prince Philip and mixing drinks for the Queen Mother.

More than 20 years later, after Turner won the Liberal leadership and the prime minister’s job, he was faced with an awkward situation. He felt he had to call a general election, but that would require a postponement of a planned visit to Canada that summer by the Queen. Turner could have made the request by phone, but in deference to his long friendship with the family, he decided he should go in person. “It was a matter of courtesy,” Turner said.

So off Turner flew to Windsor Castle in early July, accompanied by his wife, Geills. The Queen was reportedly very understanding, and agreed to postpone her trip until the fall — when, as it happened, Turner would no longer be prime minister. During this visit, Turner and his wife dined with the Queen on the terrace of the castle. And during lunch, the Queen asked Turner’s views on the monarchy. “I’m with you 100 per cent,” Turner told the Queen.

In 2000, when the Queen Mother turned 100, Turner sent her a note, wishing her a happy birthday. Not long after, he received a formal reply — with a personal postscript from the Queen Mother. She said she remembered him fondly. “You make the best martinis,” the Queen Mother wrote.

5. Brian Mulroney

In his nine years in office, from 1984 to 1993, Brian Mulroney had an opportunity to forge a deep friendship with the Queen. He dined with her and other world leaders at Buckingham Palace in 1986, at the height of efforts to free Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa.

And on many occasions, during the Queen’s trips to Canada, Mulroney would convene small, convivial dinners with Her Majesty at 24 Sussex Drive, often with just his family and perhaps a couple close friends as guests. The eldest Mulroney children, Ben, Caroline and Mark — Nicholas was then too young — were included as well.

“The kids loved her. She was terrific with them, too,” Mulroney said.

One memory stands out. It was Canada Day 1992, and the country was celebrating its 125th birthday. The Queen had a busy day of events, but had explicitly asked to clear some time in her schedule to relax with the Mulroneys at 24 Sussex.

They laid out a low-key lunch on the second floor of the residence, which has a spectacular view overlooking the Rideau River and Quebec on the far shore. The Queen, a modest glass of wine in hand, kicked off her shoes, put her feet up, and started to chat with Brian and Mila Mulroney about “free spirits” — people who throw off their societal obligations and go where their hearts take them.

“I thought it was fascinating, because she’s so constrained by protocol and all the stuff she has to do,” Mulroney said.

She spoke in particular about Susan Barrantes, mother of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. (Ferguson was married at the time to the Queen’s son, Andrew.) In the 1970s, Barrantes shocked English high society by deserting her family and running off to Argentina to marry professional polo player Hector Barrantes. She earned the nickname “the bolter” for the decision and was largely ostracized by the upper class in Britain.

But the Queen, in conversation with the Mulroneys that afternoon, pronounced no judgment whatsoever. “She was almost wistful,” Mulroney said. She spoke of the need to understand such free spirits, to respect their life decisions. “It was almost as if she was saying: ‘Don’t make hard and fast value judgments on people just because they’re not like you.’ I was taken by this.”

Was this a hint of the Queen’s preoccupations with her own family at the time? Two of her children’s marriages were crumbling — Prince Charles and Diana, famously, as well as the marriage between Andrew and Sarah. If so, she betrayed no hint of it to Mulroney. “I don’t remember it being apropos of anything,” Mulroney said. “It wasn’t like I brought it up.”

Mulroney’s friendship with the Queen has endured. He’s seen her socially on occasions over the past few years. “She’s delightful. She’s known everybody since Adam. She’s shrewd and thoughtful and incisive,” Mulroney said.

6. Kim Campbell

Canada’s first female prime minister, Kim Campbell, didn’t stay in office long enough to have any direct dealings with the Queen.

But Campbell does have some strong views, informed by her years in government, about the importance of the Queen in this country.

Through the Queen and her representatives in Canada — governors general and lieutenant governors in the provinces and territories — Canadians have celebrated the diversity of the country. “It’s interesting that we had our first woman governor general (Jeanne Sauvé) before we had our first woman prime minister,” Campbell says. The royal representatives in Canada have also included aboriginal people, people of colour and more diversity than one often sees in the political class, she notes.

The Queen has also come to represent duty and a life of public service and charity, Campbell says, and these are what Canadians celebrate with the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royals.

Campbell says no prime minister can remain unaware of the links between the Crown and Parliament. The royal presence is felt when ministers and governments are sworn in at Rideau Hall and it is also ever-present when prime ministers consult with their governors general. The monarchy infuses the job with dignity and discretion, Campbell says.

“My audiences with (the late governor general) Ray Hnatyshyn were ones in which you knew you could discuss what you were doing and what you were thinking about things, with the absolute assurance that what you were saying would never go out of that room.”

7. Jean Chrétien

One prime minister can claim a very special relationship with the Queen — Jean Chrétien, who has the title to prove it. In 2009, Chrétien was made part of the Queen’s Order of Merit — an elite group with just 24 members, described as “individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service.”

And this year, in deference to that relationship, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named Chrétien as Canada’s representative to the Diamond Jubilee Trust.

Some of Chretien’s stories about the Queen are legendary. There was the famous signing of the Constitution on Parliament Hill in 1982, for instance, when Chrétien was justice minister and the Queen was present for the ceremony. When it came time for Chrétien to put his signature on the document, he found that his prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, had broken the nib of the pen. “Merde,” Chrétien proclaimed, just before he realized he had sworn in front of Her Majesty. While he was red-faced, though, the Queen was laughing.

As well, in Chretien’s second biography, My Years as Prime Minister, he tells a couple more anecdotes about his long association with the Queen.

As prime minister, his first encounter with her was at Sandringham in January 1994, when he learned that the Queen and the Queen Mother loved to speak French. In Chretien’s mother tongue, they spoke of Her Majesty’s first trip to Canada in 1939, when she was a child, and long before her coronation.

Less than six months later, Chrétien lent his counsel to the Queen, advising her not to agree to a request to apologize to Maoris in New Zealand for their treatment under the colonial regime. Chrétien said it would set a precedent, which would find the Queen obliged to apologize to more than 600 First Nations bands in Canada as well. “You’ll be on your knees for quite a long time,” he told her. With some quiet diplomacy in the direction of his New Zealand counterpart, James Bolger, Chrétien managed to get the apology request withdrawn.

Chrétien and the Queen also shared some laughs in 1995 about a Montreal radio prank, which had inadvertently revealed the monarch’s affection for the Canadian prime minister. A comedian named Pierre Brassard, pretending to be Chrétien, had managed to get the Queen on the telephone and kept her on the line for 15 minutes, asking whether she would make a nationally televised speech in the midst of the Quebec referendum.

“I will probably be able to do something for you ... No problem, no, I can do that,” the Queen told the fake Chrétien. The conversation also included nonsensical rambles by Brassard about the Queen’s picture on Canadian Tire money and what she was wearing for Halloween.

In his biography, Chrétien recalls the Queen’s lack of amusement at Brassard’s prank. But she did reportedly tell Chrétien: “I didn’t think you sounded quite like yourself, but I thought, given all the duress you were under, you might have been drunk.”

8. Paul Martin

In 2005, Saskatchewan and Alberta were celebrating their 100th year as provinces in Canada. The prime minister was Paul Martin and the Queen arrived in May to lend her royal presence to the anniversary festivities in the West.

In Regina, a torrential rain was pouring down on May 17 when the Queen and Prince Philip pulled up at the Legislature. Undeterred by the downpour, the Queen went ahead with her remarks and then proceeded, according to plan, on her walkabout, accompanied by the prime minister.

Martin has a reputation for courtly good manners around women and in the midst of the deluge, guiding the Queen on the rain-slick surface of the Legislature grounds, he reached out and touched her on the back. Chivalrous perhaps, but it was also a big, diplomatic no-no. One does not place one’s hands on Her Majesty.

“Protocol gave me the heights of hell,” Martin said.

Later, the Queen sat down with Martin at the Hotel Saskatchewan and the two had a good laugh over his alleged protocol blunder. She didn’t mind at all, apparently, and they had a wide-ranging conversation that included talk of Martin’s parents. Paul Martin Sr. and his wife, Nell, got to know the Queen when the elder Martin served as Canada’s high commissioner to Great Britain in the 1970s. “They liked her very much,” Martin said. “So we talked about them, and we brought it all home.”