The Unearned Title: Why Politicians Are Not “Honourable”

December 16, 2025

Politicians routinely refer to themselves — and are formally addressed — as “The Honourable.” It is spoken in chambers, printed in official correspondence, and repeated by the media as if it were an earned distinction.

It is not.

At no point has the public, through vote, referendum, or consent, granted politicians the moral title of honourable. They assigned it to themselves.

Honour Is Not Self-Declared

Honour is not a job title. It is not conferred by office. It is not bestowed through tradition or ceremony.

Honour is earned only through conduct, specifically, through the consistent application of the same rules to oneself that are imposed on others.

By that standard, much of the modern political class fails the test.

A Separate Moral and Legal Class

Across Western democracies, politicians:

1. Exempt themselves from fiscal discipline while demanding restraint from citizens.
2. Design pension and benefit systems vastly superior to those available to the public.
3. Set ethical rules that carry weak enforcement and minimal personal consequences.
4. Control the rules of elections and finance in ways that entrench incumbency.
5. Avoid accountability for failures that would end careers in the private sector.

This is not honour. This is self-protection.

Titles Without Consent Are Pretensions

In a true democracy, legitimacy flows upward from the people to their representatives.

Yet the title “Honourable” flows in the opposite direction:

• It was not voted on
• It was not debated
• It was not earned
• It was simply assumed

A title taken without consent is not a recognition it is a presumption.

The Language of Authority vs. the Reality of Conduct

Words matter.

When politicians refer to themselves as honourable while:

• shielding themselves from the consequences of bad decisions,
• transferring risk to citizens,
• moralizing to the public while violating their own standards,

they erode trust not only in individuals, but in institutions themselves.

Cynicism is not born from disagreement, it is born from double standards.

The Only Legitimate Test

There is one simple test of honour in public life:

Would you willingly live under the laws, taxes, penalties, and standards you impose on everyone else?

If the answer is no, the title “Honourable” is undeserved, no matter how often it is spoken.

Where the idea actually comes from

The statement rests on foundational democratic principles, not on a signed mandate:

1. Elections grant authority, not virtue. Voters authorize someone to exercise power; they do not certify honour, wisdom, or moral superiority.
2. Authority is delegated, not surrendered. In a representative democracy, sovereignty remains with the people; politicians act as agents, not owners of power.
3. The “conditions” are philosophical and ethical. Thinkers such as John Locke, James Madison, and Montesquieu argued that government legitimacy depends on:

But crucially, these were assumptions, not enforceable guarantees.

What voters actually do grant

At the ballot box, voters grant only three things:

1. Temporary authority, Power limited by term length.
2. Conditional confidence Revocable through future elections, scandal, or public pressure.
3. Permission to act within the law Not permission to redefine morality, insulate themselves, or exempt themselves.

No voter ever checked a box saying:

“I declare this person honourable and morally superior.”

The central democratic flaw

Modern politics quietly inverts the relationship:

• Ethical expectations become optional
• Accountability becomes procedural
• Titles and privileges become self-assigned

The result is a political class that claims:

authority implies honour

When in fact, democracy assumes:

honour must restrain authority

Conclusion: Honour Is Conferred, Not Claimed

The public did not grant politicians the right to call themselves honourable. “Voters grant politicians temporary legal authority through elections; any expectation of trust, competence, or restraint arises not from consent, but from democratic principle and is far too often violated.”

Until politicians live by the same rules they impose, the title “Honourable” remains not a mark of integrity but a self-awarded badge of privilege.

 

Religious Hatred, Political Cowardice, and the Line Democracies Must Draw

“Those who remain silent do not merely fail to stop hatred; they permit it. History does not reserve its harshest judgments for fanatics alone, but for the voices who found reasons to look away.”

Antisemitism is not just associated with fascism and Nazism; it is one of their defining pillars.

Historically:

Nazism was built explicitly on antisemitism. It was not incidental or rhetorical — it was central, ideological, and operational. The Nuremberg Laws, Kristallnacht, ghettos, and ultimately the Holocaust were all expressions of a worldview that framed Jews as an existential enemy.

Fascist movements more broadly rely on:

Conceptually:

Antisemitism functions as a litmus test for fascist thinking:

Once a society tolerates antisemitic rhetoric or action, it has already accepted the moral logic of authoritarianism, whether or not it uses the word “fascist.”

There are moments in history when moral clarity is not optional. This is one of them.

Across the world, Jewish and Christian communities are facing a surge in intimidation, violence, and open hatred that can no longer be explained away as “geopolitical tension,” “context,” or “passionate protest.” What we are witnessing is a measurable rise in religiously motivated persecution, driven in significant part by extremist Islamist ideologies — and enabled by the refusal of Western political leadership to name the threat plainly and act decisively.

This is not an attack on Muslims as a people. It is a condemnation of radical political Islam, an ideology that fuses religious absolutism with coercive power and treats Jews, Christians, and dissenting Muslims alike as legitimate targets. Precision matters and the facts demand it.

Antisemitism: The Oldest Hatred, Reborn

Antisemitism is not merely resurfacing; it is being normalized at scale.

Recent data removes any doubt. In 2024, over half of Jewish respondents in the United States reported personally experiencing antisemitism. Globally, recorded antisemitic incidents increased by several hundred percent between 2022 and 2024, with monitoring groups documenting sustained, daily incidents across Western campuses and public institutions well into 2025. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of religion-based hate crimes now target Jews, driven by a combination of far‑right ideologies and Islamist extremism.

Synagogues require armed guards. Jewish schools operate under threat. Students are harassed, doxxed, and assaulted in the name of “resistance.” Open calls for violence against Jews are tolerated so long as they are framed as activism. This is not a protest. It is collective punishment — the same moral logic that underpinned fascism and Nazism in the twentieth century.

History is unambiguous on this point: antisemitism is not a side effect of authoritarian movements; it is one of their defining features. Where antisemitism is excused, authoritarianism has already arrived — whether or not it announces itself by name.

Christian Persecution: The Ignored Emergency

While antisemitism dominates headlines only episodically, Christian persecution remains one of the most underreported human‑rights crises in the world.

In 2025, more than 380 million Christians globally faced high to extreme levels of persecution, an increase over the previous year. In Nigeria alone, thousands of Christians have been killed, with churches burned, clergy targeted, and entire communities displaced by militant Islamist groups. Across parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, persecution is systematic, ideological, and often tolerated by weak or complicit states.

International monitoring consistently ranks countries such as North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya among the worst offenders, while sub‑Saharan Africa has seen the sharpest escalation in violence. Yet Western political and media attention remains sporadic at best.

Silence in the face of this reality is not neutrality — it is abandonment.

At the same time, Christian persecution has reached levels unseen in modern history. Churches are burned, congregations attacked, clergy murdered or imprisoned, often with little more than passing notice in Western capitals.

In many regions, the perpetrators are not “random extremists” but organized actors motivated by jihadist doctrine or militant Islamist movements that reject pluralism entirely. These crimes are systematic, ideological, and intentional.

The silence surrounding this reality is not neutrality — it is abandonment.

Extremism Is Not a Culture — It Is an Ideology

It must be stated clearly: Islamism is not Islam. Millions of Muslims live peacefully, value freedom, and are themselves victims of the same extremists who terrorize Jews and Christians. Pretending otherwise is not enlightened — it is lazy and dangerous.

But refusing to confront Islamist extremism out of fear of being labelled “intolerant” is an abdication of leadership. Democracies are not required to tolerate ideologies that seek their destruction, nor movements that sanctify violence and religious supremacy.

Tolerance is not self-erasure.

Political Failure in the West

This crisis did not emerge in a vacuum. It has been compounded by bipartisan political cowardice and by a growing refusal to confront uncomfortable historical and ideological realities.

Allowing the charge of “Islamophobia” to shut down honest discussion is not tolerance, it is intellectual surrender. The historical record is clear: Islamic expansion was frequently driven by conquest, coercion, and bloodshed. Acknowledging this is not bigotry; it is history. Pretending otherwise, or attempting to repackage that legacy as purely peaceful spiritual diffusion, is historical revisionism that convinces no serious scholar and insults public intelligence.

Yet modern Western politics increasingly operates on optics rather than truth. Empty gestures, carefully worded statements, and symbolic condemnations do nothing to alter ideological trajectories rooted in more than fourteen centuries of precedent. They are designed to manage polling numbers, not defend democratic principles.

In Canada and elsewhere, political leaders speak eloquently about diversity while failing to protect free expression, secular governance, and the rights of women and minorities, the very values that distinguish liberal democracy from the ideologies that reject it. Appeasement is repackaged as virtue; silence is reframed as sensitivity.

This failure crosses party lines:

• Elements of the Democratic Party have minimized antisemitism when it conflicts with activist coalitions, reframing religious hatred as contextual or understandable.

• Segments of the Republican Party have addressed the issue selectively, using it rhetorically without consistent moral clarity or sustained policy enforcement.

Ignoring patterns, historical or contemporary, in the name of what has become diversity theatre is not compassion. It is negligence.

The result is a vacuum where hatred flourishes and victims are told, implicitly or explicitly, to endure it quietly.

A Line Must Be Drawn

A free society cannot survive if it:

• Treats antisemitism as conditional

• Ignores Christian persecution because it occurs “elsewhere”

• Excuses religious violence when it is politically inconvenient

• Confuses moral clarity with bigotry

Defending religious freedom is not a partisan act. It is a civilizational obligation.

Governments must enforce laws against incitement and violence without apology. Institutions must stop sanitizing hate with euphemisms. Political leaders must name extremist ideology — not communities — as the enemy it is.

The Choice

The question before the West is not whether it values diversity, tolerance, or inclusion. The question is whether it still possesses the courage to defend them.

History will not judge us by our slogans, but by whether we were willing to confront hatred when it wore a fashionable mask.

Silence is no longer an option. The line has already been crossed.

The only question left is whether democracies are willing to draw one of their own.

Affordability in Canada: When the Rhetoric Collides With Reality

For years, the Liberal government has insisted that affordability is its driving mission. The speeches say the middle class is being “supported,” that “historic investments” are transforming housing, and that Canada is “leading the G7” in economic resilience. The rhetoric is polished. But the lived reality of Canadians — and the government’s own data — tells a starkly different story.

Below is the record, not the talking points.

I. Shelter Costs: The Biggest Affordability Crisis in Modern Canadian History

Shelter is no longer one line in the budget. It is the budget.

1. Home prices have decoupled from income.
   In most major markets, the average home is 9–10× the median household income. In Toronto and Vancouver, it’s 12–15× ratios normally seen in financial bubbles, not functioning societies.

2. Rent is crushing an entire generation.
   A one-bedroom unit in Toronto or Vancouver now runs $2,600–$2,800, meaning more than 50–60% of take-home pay for most people under 40. That is not a “housing challenge”; it is economic suffocation.

3. A mortgage-renewal crisis is already unfolding.
   Hundreds of thousands of families who locked in 1.5–2.5% rates during 2020–2022 are renewing at 4.5–6% — adding $1,000–$2,000/month in extra payments.
   This is a silent financial heart attack, playing out one household at a time.

4. Housing starts per capita are lower than in the 1970s.
   The government has spent $80+ billion on housing programs since 2015, yet the vacancy rate is still scraping 1% and supply growth remains anemic.

Rhetoric: “We’re making historic investments.”
Record: Housing has never been less affordable in Canadian history.

II. Food-Bank Usage: A National Disgrace for a G7 Country

Food Banks Canada’s 2024 HungerCount showed more than 2 million visits in just one month — a 90% increase since 2019.

Even worse:

• 33% of users are children.

• 20–25% are employed full-time.

This is not “the vulnerable” or “the marginalized.” This is the working class — the very people the government claims to champion — being crushed by costs and falling wages.

Rhetoric: “Targeted supports are helping families.”
Record: Food-bank dependence is the highest ever recorded.

III. Inflation Moderated — But the Price Level Never Came Back

Politicians boast that inflation is “back under control.” That misses the point.

• Grocery prices are 30–35% higher than in 2019.

• Shelter costs are 50–60% higher in many cities.

• Wages since 2019 are up 18–22%.

The math is not complicated: Canadians are going backward. The cost resets of 2020–2023 are permanent, and households have never caught up.

Rhetoric: “We beat inflation.”
Record: Prices stabilized — at levels millions can no longer afford.

IV. The Government’s Favourite Trick: Announcements vs. Outcomes

The federal government continues to conflate:

• Money spent

• Programs launched

• Press conferences held

with actual outcomes.

But results are stubborn:

• Core-housing-need rates are rising, not falling.

• Housing affordability continues to deteriorate.

• Construction capacity has barely moved in 20 years.

You can’t “announce” your way out of supply-and-demand math.

V. The Structural Forces Behind the Crisis (the part Ottawa avoids)

1. Mass immigration into a supply-constrained country

Canada added:

• ~1.2 million people in 2023

• another 800–900k in 2024

while building only 240–260k housing units per year.

Population growth at 3–4% with housing supply under 1% is not sustainable — it is mathematically guaranteed to detonate shelter costs.

2. Municipal zoning as a co-conspirator

Over 70% of Toronto’s residential land is locked to detached housing. Vancouver is similar.
If density is illegal, affordability is impossible.

3. Bank of Canada missteps

Rates stayed too low for too long, igniting a speculative frenzy, then were raised too fast, crushing those who bought in good faith at peak prices.

All of these were policy decisions — not natural disasters.

VI. What Would Actually Move the Needle (if anyone had the courage)

1. Freeze or radically cut non-permanent-resident immigration until supply catches up.
   Return to ~250–300k permanent residents per year and tighten foreign student and temporary worker inflows.

2. A federal carrot-and-stick for cities
   Tie all infrastructure funding to as-of-right missing-middle density everywhere — not just transit zones.

3. GST/HST removal on all new purpose-built rentals and first-time-buyer homes under a capped price.

4. 30-year amortization for first-time buyers + stress-test reform
   When contract rates are 4–5%, a 7%+ stress test is punitive and unnecessary.

5. Real transparency on grocery-chain profitability
   If margins exploded post-2019, levy windfall-profit taxes and transfer the proceeds directly to struggling households.

None of these ideas are politically comfortable. All of them would help.

VII. The Bottom Line: Rhetoric Hits a Wall

The government’s story is one of compassion, investment, and “historic action.”
The record shows:

• Highest food-bank usage ever

• Runaway shelter costs

• A generation priced out of home ownership

• Record debt loads

• Evictions and renovictions surging

Canadians no longer need statistics to understand the crisis — they feel it every month, every rent cycle, every grocery bill, every mortgage renewal.

The rhetoric says relief is coming.
The record says it isn’t.

And the real question as we move into 2025 is simple:

Will any major party finally tell Canadians the truth and adopt the hard policies required — or will we get another election cycle of slogans, hashtags, and “help is on the way”?

So far, the evidence isn’t encouraging.

Canada’s Strategic Betrayal: Decades of U.S. Protection, and Carney Turns to Europe and Beijing

 

Canada’s decades of military freeloading on the United States — and the slap-in-the-face pivot to Europe under Carney.

When an Ally Stops Acting Like One
Seven Decades of Taking the American Shield for Granted
The SAFE Pivot: Diversification or Disloyalty?
The China Question: Carney’s Blind Spot, or Carney’s Alignment?
What This Means for the United States

SAFE May Be the Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Decision Canada Has Made in 50 Years

December 2, 2025

When an Ally Stops Acting Like One

Allies don’t always fight on your soil. Sometimes they simply stand there while you carry the weight for both of you. For more than seventy years, the United States has protected Canada militarily, economically, and technologically through NORAD, NATO, missile defence, and intelligence sharing.

America built the radar shield over our Arctic. America provided the jets, the satellites, the command-and-control backbone. America put its own troops where Canada could not, or would not.

And what did Washington receive in return for seven decades of subsidized security?

A country that has consistently spent half of what it pledged on defence. A military eroded by political neglect. And now, under Mark Carney, the clearest signal yet that Canada is pivoting away from the United States in favour of Europe and, in the shadows, China.

SAFE the EU’s new €150-billion defence financing program is only the latest symbol of a deeper trend: a Canadian political class happy to accept U.S. protection, but unwilling to honour the responsibilities that come with the alliance.

This is not “multilateralism.” This is strategic freeloading, followed by strategic betrayal.

Seven Decades of Taking the American Shield for Granted

NORAD: 75% Paid by the United States

NORAD — the bi-national command guarding North American airspace is the single most important security structure Canada has.

The United States pays three-quarters of the operating and modernization costs. Canada pays the rest.

Yet Canada’s fighter jets are decades old, its northern radar chain is obsolete, and its Arctic sovereignty patrols barely register on a map.

NATO: Canada’s 1.3–1.4% Spending vs. the 2% Pledge

For twenty years, Canada has promised 2% of GDP in defence spending. It has delivered:

• 2004–2014: Averaged 1.2%
• 2014–2024: Averaged 1.36%
• 2025: Still well below 1.5%

Meanwhile, the U.S. spends 3.4% and covers 70% of NATO’s budget.

Procurement Reliance: 65–75% of Canada’s Military Hardware Comes from U.S. Firms

For decades, Canadian governments bought American equipment because:

• It was interoperable
• It was reliable
• And it came with U.S. operational support, Canada could not afford to replicate

Carney suddenly wants to cut that to less than 30% not by strengthening Canada, but by substituting U.S. suppliers for European ones.

The U.S. Has Subsidized Canada’s Security for Generations

Missile defence? Arctic surveillance? Nuclear umbrella? Intelligence pipelines? Shared cyber defence?

Canada enjoys them all without paying even close to proportional costs.

This is why U.S. leaders across parties, Trump, Biden, Austin, Blinken, and Congress have called Canada a “free rider.”

SAFE is the moment the U.S. may stop whispering and start acting.

The SAFE Pivot: Diversification or Disloyalty?

What Carney Signed Canada Up For

On December 1, 2025, PM Mark Carney announced that Canada would join the EU’s SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program — a €150-billion rearmament pool designed to rebuild Europe’s defence industries.

Canada becomes the first non-EU country in the program.

The move comes with:

• An undisclosed entry fee (likely $1–2 billion CAD)
• Commitments to buy European-made equipment
• Restrictions on U.S. defence suppliers
• Favourable loans that tie Canada to EU procurement chains

Why Americans See This as a Slap in the Face

Carney explicitly stated he wants over 70% of future Canadian procurement not to come from the United States.

The subtext is clear:

“We trusted the U.S. too much. We’re hedging. Europe is more reliable.”

That is not what allies say. That is what opportunists say.

SAFE Is Not Complementary, It’s Competitive

The F-35 program depends on U.S.-Canadian synergy. Canada is now exploring Swedish Gripens instead. NORAD depends on radar and missile systems built with U.S. standards. SAFE funding pushes Canada toward Franco-German systems incompatible with U.S. platforms. Canada’s submarine bid is now leaning towards German or South Korean, bypassing U.S. defence entirely.

This is not “diversification.” It is an economic and military pivot.

The China Question: Carney’s Blind Spot, or Carney’s Alignment?

This part, Peter, is where the gloves come off because much of the Canadian media soft-pedals this.

Carney’s Deep Ties to China Are Not Speculation, They Are Documented

As Bank of England Governor:

• Pushed for renminbi internationalization.
• Signed agreements opening London’s financial sector to Chinese state banks.
• Promoted UK participation in Belt and Road–linked financing streams.

As UN Climate Envoy:

• Worked closely with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) headed by Jin Liqun, a long-time CCP operative.
• Structured climate-financing vehicles that funnelled Western capital into Chinese renewable giants.

As Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield expanded its China exposure under Carney:

• $2B Shanghai commercial real estate holdings
• A $276M refinancing deal with Bank of China in 2024, weeks after Carney met PBOC leadership
• $750M stake in China Xintiandi
• Several green-energy JVs with Chinese state-linked conglomerates

Investigators like Sam Cooper have laid out how these deals connect, indirectly, to CCP United Front networks.

The Ethical Nightmare

Carney now controls:

• Canadian defence procurement strategy
• Canada’s foreign policy posture
• Canada’s alliance architecture
• Canada’s economic diversification strategy

While having spent a decade building relationships with CCP financiers.

SAFE does not distance Canada from China. It distances Canada from the U.S. while keeping China channels quietly warm.

What This Means for the United States

The U.S. will not ignore a decades-long free rider now shopping in Europe and cozying up to Beijing.

Expect:

• Tariffs on Canadian autos and energy
• NORAD modernization cost-shifts
• Possible Five Eyes downgrades
• Reduced access to U.S. defence technology
• Reprioritization of Arctic strategies without assuming Canadian reliability

America does not punish allies for being poor. America loses patience with allies who exploit U.S. strength, then pivot away when politically convenient.

Conclusion: SAFE May Be the Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Decision Canada Has Made in 50 Years

Canada has every right to diversify, strengthen its military, and modernize its industry.

But turning your back on the nation that protected you for seven decades while entertaining ever-closer ties with Beijing is not a strategy.

It is short-sighted opportunism, executed by a Prime Minister whose global financial networks raise legitimate questions about whose interests he truly serves.

If Canada wants to be treated like an ally, it must start acting like one.

Otherwise, the United States will eventually respond, and when it does, the shock in Ottawa will be entirely self-inflicted.