Letters to the Editor: Canadians' rejection of US goods took off faster than boycott of Israel
For decades, campaigners have been calling for a boycott of Israeli goods due to its actions in the Palestinian territories. Picture: Larry Cummins
I doubt Iâm alone in cheering Canadians. In shops, there are cute signs with red maple leaves on empty shelves which read âBuy Canadian Insteadâ near shelves which usually contain US products.
Many retailers are stocking American goods out back so that only customers who really want them, ask for them, and buy them, thus boosting Canadian sales.
Iâm a little disillusioned, however, that it has taken off so much faster compared to BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions]. BDS has taken 20 years, a couple of wars, and a genocide to make any impact.
Consumers are clearly capable when it comes to patriotic consumerism and can group-think accordingly. The Canadian perspective is that the maniacal neighbour is threatening annexation, and they are showing their collective consumerist might.
This makes sense considering its would-be foe; US primary considerations are economic, not social or human-centred.
Why is it that the promotion of ethical consumerism is like drawing blood from a stone?
The fast fashion industry has survived numerous campaigns against it pretty unscathed. It doesnât even have to invest in a major counter campaign.
At least the Israeli state has to spend trillions on hasbara [propaganda]. Israel has been particularly concerned with shutting down BDS since its inception in 2005. Various laws have been passed in the US, you can even report a post on X if it promotes a boycott. Yet go to McDonaldâs today, there will be people stuffing their faces with food that is highly processed.
Palestinians begged us for years to divest and sanction. Imagine instead of the ghastly spectre of current reality â that our government threatened to leave the EU due to the trade-association agreement and military support.
Imagine a world where a small handful of rich countries stood up to the occupation before the Hamas attack on Israel.
I am fed up waiting for the free HRT scheme to be rolled out. There still is no definite date. Right now, women are having to pay for prescriptions that were meant to be free â in many cases women cannot do without this treatment, so they have no choice. It feels like a sound bite from the Government in October with no forward planning.
The way the free HRT scheme has been handled is typical of the way this country has treated women since the foundation of the State.
Menopause will affect every single woman â negatively impacting a large proportion.
Twice yearly GP visits for bloods and prescribing, plus the cost of HRT and dispensing, is something that is too expensive for many.
HRT should be made available for all women, as the cost is prohibitive and out of reach for many.
The knock-on impacts of menopause and perimenopause can have long-term implications for many women â including cardiac, brain, mental health, and musculoskeletal effects â so long-term costs related to overall womenâs health borne by the public health system may substantially decline if women have access now to information and properly âfreeâ medical hormone treatment in the form of HRT.
The implementation of this scheme is sub par and insulting to women, and I would imagine very unsatisfactory for pharmacists.
According to Irish tradition there once was a King of Leinster called Labhraidh Lorc. That king had a big secret which he jealously guarded, and anyone who learnt it came to a sorry end.
Eventually, however, Labhraidhâs secret was given away by a singing harp. It sang âtĂĄ dhĂĄ chluas capaill ar Labhraidh Lorcâ over and over every time it was played. With the passage of time this became loosely translated as âtwo horse ears around Lowry lurkâ.
Furthermore, it was now being said that is was Lowry himself who had something on the two horse ears who were by then the leaders of Government.
I read your report about the latest threat issued by the current odious regime in Washington â âTrump warns of âbad situationâ after Iran rejects direct nuclear talksâ (Irish Examiner, April 1). Iran is warned that unless it makes a âdealâ in relation to its nuclear ambitions âthere will be bombing ... the likes of which they have never seen beforeâ. This is appalling gangster talk â if you donât do what we tell you, weâll break your legs. It echoes Hilary Clintonâs threat of âannihilationâ (genocide?) against Iran if that country were to attack Israel. When Madeleine Albright was asked if the lives of 100,000 Iraqi children were a price worth paying for the sanctions imposed on that country, she said âyesâ.
George W Bushâs illegal invasions and wars in Iraq have led to the deaths of 200,000 civilians and 100,000 defenders and, in Afghanistan, almost 50,000 civilians and 120,000 defenders. This is a total of almost 500,000 people.
Both US Democrats and Republicans happily arm and enable Israel in its genocide and displacement of Palestinians â in fact, the current regime actually encourages it.
Thus, the US (and several other countries) are most certainly party to these war crimes by providing arms and political cover. What are the chances of any of these genocidaires ever facing justice? A snowballâs chance in hell. After all, weâre only talking about the lives of mere Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Afghans, and Iranians.
As the number of asylum seekers coming to Ireland has increased since the end of the pandemic, it is no surprise that the cost of translation and interpreting has also increased (Ken Foxe, 1 April).
It is, however, surprising that despite two reports (Judge Brian McMahon, Catherine Day) and a white paper â all of which address the need for training and an accreditation system for interpreters â nothing has been done to ensure that the service that the State is paying for is fit for purpose.
Moreover, as international protection interviews and tribunal hearings are not recorded, applicants have no way of proving that interpreting has been problematic or inadequate.
When one looks at the approach taken by Canadaâs prime minister Mark Carney to US president Donald Trump, and when one juxtaposes same to the approach taken by British prime minister Kier Starmer to Donald Trump, they couldnât stand in greater contrast.
Mark Carney has called a snap election and he may or may not be prime minister in a short while.
I, for one, certainly would hope he will be voted in as the countryâs next prime minister.
Mark Carney is standing up to Trump and I really like the cut of his jib.
He is basically telling Trump where to go.
He is standing up to the schoolyard bully, whereas Keir Starmer is trying to appease him.
One has to worry that Keir Starmer is falling into a trap laid by the Trump administration. Trump wants to peel Britain off from any entanglement with Europe.
He wants to encourage a gap between the EU and Britain.
Trump is doing that by slamming tariffs of 20% on the EU, while imposing tariffs on Britain of 10%, in the hope this will be something that will really annoy Brussels.
This will of course delight all the people in Washington DC, such as JD Vance, who abhor Europe as they hope to see the fissure between the EU and Britain grow wider.
Whether or not this is the USâs stratagem, I would still find it somewhat worrisome that Kier Starmer is not standing up to this schoolyard bully.
Maybe Mr Starmer will be aware that whatever agreement is signed with Trump, it wonât be worth the paper that itâs written on.
Itâs accepted that Trump will never stick to any agreement.
I find it rather intriguing to hear many commentators applauding Starmer in taking the emollient diplomatic approach with Trump.
Itâs my contention that such an approach is an akin to negotiating with Vladimir Putin.
