Ontario Premier Ford’s Ban on U.S. Booze: A Clear Violation of Trade Law

Doug Ford’s decision to strip American alcohol products from LCBO shelves and threaten global distiller Diageo is more than political theatre — it is a reckless abuse of provincial power that places Ontario, and by extension Canada, in breach of international law.

CUSMA: The Law of the Land

The Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which replaced NAFTA in 2020, is unambiguous.

• Article 2.3 (National Treatment): “Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of GATT 1994.” This means that U.S. goods cannot be treated worse than Canadian goods once they are admitted into the market.
• Article 2.4 (Market Access): “No Party shall adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another Party or on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of another Party.” Banning U.S. alcohol from LCBO shelves squarely violates this obligation.
• Article 22.2 (State Enterprises): Even state-owned enterprises (like the LCBO) must operate on a commercial basis, not political whim, and cannot discriminate against goods from CUSMA partners.

There are exceptions in Article 32.1 for measures necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health — but Ford has not even pretended this ban is about safety. He openly admits it is political retaliation.

The Facts of Ford’s Move

• In March 2025, Ford ordered all American alcohol removed from LCBO’s wholesale catalogue. Because LCBO is the province’s exclusive wholesaler, this ban cut off restaurants, bars, and private retailers from restocking U.S. products.
• In September, he escalated the fight by threatening Diageo’s Canadian-made Crown Royal after the company announced a plant closure. Yet Crown Royal is distilled in Manitoba and Quebec, and 75% of it is exported to the U.S. — Ford’s threats target a Canadian success story.
• His justification? Pure politics. He cited Trump’s tariffs and claimed to defend Ontario jobs, even though the closures were part of a global restructuring affecting plants in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.

Why It’s Illegal

1. Discrimination (Art. 2.3): Singling out U.S.-origin goods and banning them is a textbook violation of CUSMA’s national treatment clause.
2. Import Restrictions (Art. 2.4): The LCBO ban is a prohibition on U.S. goods already meeting Canadian standards. That’s exactly what Article 2.4 forbids.
3. State Enterprise Abuse (Art. 22.2): The LCBO, as a Crown monopoly, cannot be used as a political weapon against foreign goods. Ford’s threats make clear it is being used precisely that way.
4. No Legal Exception (Art. 32.1): Health and safety exceptions don’t apply here — Ford has admitted this is political punishment.

The Consequences

Ford’s theatrics have real costs:

• For consumers and restaurants: Fewer choices, higher prices, and disruption in supply.
• For trade stability, Canada is now exposed to a CUSMA dispute. The United States could challenge Ontario’s ban and, if successful, impose retaliatory tariffs on Canadian exports — from whisky to lumber to autos.
• For Ontario’s reputation: Multinationals considering new facilities in Ontario will think twice if a premier can weaponize the LCBO against them on a whim.

The Bottom Line

Doug Ford accuses Donald Trump of being a bully. But what do you call a premier who uses state monopoly power to punish companies for business decisions he doesn’t like?

This is not “Ontario Open for Business.” It is Ontario Closed for Business. And it is almost certainly illegal under CUSMA’s Articles 2.3, 2.4, and 22.2.

Canada signed CUSMA to prevent exactly this kind of political vandalism. Ford’s stunt not only undermines the treaty — it invites retaliation that could devastate far more than Ontario’s liquor shelves.

Canada’s Illusion of Security: Carney’s 2035 Pledge Can’t Defend 2025

 

❄️ “We are unarmed and undefended right now.”

— Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve (Ret’d)

While Ottawa boasts of future spending, Canada remains a glasshouse today—undefended, unprepared, and dangerously dependent.

Canada’s Boutique Military: The Liberal Legacy

Canada is not a fireproof house. It is a glasshouse with no alarms, relying on its neighbour to call 911. What was once a nation of peacekeepers is now a country outsourcing sovereignty while pretending all is well.

This decline was no accident. Since 2015, Justin Trudeau and his advisor Mark Carney treated defence as theatre—obsessed with image and pageantry while the Canadian Forces crumbled.

• NATO ignored: Barely 1.37% of GDP in 2024.
• Procurement chaos: Endless delays, grounded planes, rusting submarines.
• Personnel crisis: Recruitment collapse, scandals, and distrust.
• Arctic neglect: Talk, delay, and hope instead of hard defence.

This was ideology—the illusion that Canada could “opt out” of geopolitics.

The Great Pledge: Reality or Mirage?

Now, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada has joined NATO’s new pledge: 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% for core military and 1.5% for dual-use infrastructure.

The rhetoric is grand. Carney promises modernized forces, new industries, and high-paying jobs. But let’s be clear: this pledge is a decade away. In military terms, that is an eternity—and Canada’s enemies will not wait until 2035.

A review in 2029? That’s four more years of drift before accountability even begins. Carney may be buying time, not security.

A Culture Afraid of Strength

While Liberal elites mocked Thatcher, Reagan, and Trump, it was their resolve and spending that held the line in global crises. Canadians cheered Trudeau’s selfies while U.S. pilots intercepted Russian bombers over our skies.

Now they applaud Carney’s polished speeches, even as today’s military sits in ruins. Canada remains addicted to consensus and allergic to strength.

Delusion or Defence: Canada’s Choice

Canada cannot coast on a decade-long promise. We need urgent action now, not vague targets for 2035.

The Minimum Reset Canada Needs

• Action this year, not 2035: Carney’s 5% GDP pledge sounds bold, but Canada must reach 2% immediately to meet NATO’s minimum standard now.
• Procurement by purchase, not promises: Buy modern off-the-shelf systems—F-35s, drones, Arctic submarines—before another decade of delay.
• A recruitment renaissance: End bureaucracy; rebuild pride, purpose, and trust in service.
• Arctic sovereignty secured: Bases, early-warning systems, drones, and allied integration must be operational before others claim the frontier.
• Purge leadership paralysis: Clear out the culture of delay, denial, and political theatre that has crippled defence for decades.

Wake Up, Canada

A pledge for 2035 does not defend Canada in 2025. Pearson once called Canada a “fireproof house.” Today it is a glasshouse filled with tinder—waiting for someone else to hold the matches.

Gaza, Genocide, and the Propaganda Machine

 Allegations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza (2023–2025) are factually false. They rest on manipulated data, Hamas propaganda, and uncritical amplification by UN agencies, NGOs, and media.

Israel must be judged on facts, not fabrications. The Hamas-UN-NGO propaganda machine spreads falsehoods that delegitimize Israel and undermine international law itself. And the world must recognize the danger of genocide inflation — before it becomes the excuse for the next real genocide.

The Gaza war was brutal. Innocent people died. Israel made mistakes, and Hamas committed crimes against its own civilians. But the charge of genocide? It is a lie, born of Hamas propaganda, legitimized by flawed UN and NGO reporting, and echoed by a lazy global media.

The war between Israel and Hamas from October 7, 2023, through June 2025 was bloody, tragic, and devastating. Tens of thousands were killed, and Gaza’s civilian population endured immense suffering. But the charge that Israel committed genocide is not just false — it is a calculated propaganda weapon. It is designed to delegitimize Israel while cheapening the very meaning of genocide itself.

The Starvation Myth

For nearly two years, NGOs, UN agencies, and media outlets echoed the claim that Israel intentionally starved Gaza. The “evidence”? The 500 trucks per day figure, supposedly the minimum for survival. In reality, before the war, the daily average was 292 trucks, of which just 73 carried food.

From October 2023 until the January 2025 ceasefire, Israel allowed more food into Gaza than before the war. Famine projections — such as the UN IPC’s claim of 78,582 hunger deaths by January 2025 — never materialized. Life expectancy and infant mortality rates in Gaza were improving until Hamas launched its war.

Israel’s March 2025 halt of aid was a mistake and deserves criticism. But even then, Gaza still had months of food stocks, looted by Hamas and local armed groups. This was not genocide — it was war distorted by propaganda.

Hamas’s Human Shield Strategy

Gaza was the most fortified urban battlefield in modern history: a 500 km tunnel network with 5,700 shafts, deliberately interwoven with homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques. Hamas fighters wore civilian clothes, launched rockets from UN facilities, and booby-trapped entire neighbourhoods.

Civilian deaths were not just collateral to Hamas — they were a deliberate tactic to generate outrage abroad and constrain Israel’s operations. Any serious analysis of Gaza’s casualties must account for Hamas’s strategy. Most NGOs and journalists never did.

The Massacre Narrative

Propaganda painted a picture of Israeli soldiers mowing down civilians, executing children, and slaughtering families. The evidence? Thin to nonexistent. Out of more than 50,000 deaths reported, only 61 cases had any credible forensic backing for deliberate killing by Israeli troops.

There is no evidence of systematic massacres. No videos, no photographs, no mass graves — nothing comparable to Syria’s sectarian killings, ISIS in Mosul, or even Hamas’s own atrocities on October 7.

Some Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes. Those cases must be investigated and punished. But isolated crimes are not genocide. The narrative of mass executions is a Hamas fabrication eagerly recycled by NGOs hungry for headlines.

The Indiscriminate Bombing Lie

Accusations of “carpet bombing” crumble under scrutiny. The IDF took unprecedented precautions: phone calls, text messages, leaflets, and “roof-knock” warnings to evacuate civilians. Hundreds of operations were vetoed over proportionality concerns.

Fatalities in Israel’s designated “safe zones” were only 2–3.5% of total deaths — proof that these zones, while not immune, were indeed safer. Claims of “civilian death quotas” (e.g., 20 per Hamas fighter) were never substantiated and are flatly false.

Yes, civilians died in horrifying numbers. But this was the nature of a war fought in one of the most densely packed battlefields on Earth — not proof of intent to annihilate.

The Casualty Count Manipulation

For years Hamas’s Gaza Health Ministry has ordered combatants listed as “innocent civilians.” During this war, the pattern repeated. Early claims that 70% of casualties were women and children were false. Updated lists show women and minors made up ≈50.7%, while most adult males were combatants.

Hamas’s figures included natural deaths, inflated child numbers, and quietly deleted thousands of “verified” victims. Yet UN agencies, Western governments, and even some Israeli critics parroted the numbers uncritically.

The UN/NGO Bias Pattern

This is not new. In the 1990s, the UN claimed half a million Iraqi children had died under sanctions. It was a lie — later admitted, but long after it had shaped world opinion. The same pattern repeated in Gaza: alarmist claims amplified; corrections buried.

This “humanitarian bias” — believing the worst, repeating it without verification, and refusing to retract loudly — fuels propaganda and delegitimizes international law.

Genocide Inflation

Throwing the word “genocide” at every bloody urban conflict does not protect victims. It destroys the word’s meaning. Real genocides — the Holocaust, Rwanda, Yazidis under ISIS — involved deliberate campaigns of extermination. Gaza does not.

If every war marked by urban destruction and tragic civilian deaths is labelled genocide, the world will lose the ability to confront actual genocides when they come. Hamas and its enablers are not just lying about Israel — they are weakening the very laws meant to prevent future atrocities.

Conclusion: Truth Without Blinkers

The Gaza war was brutal. Innocent people suffered and died. But genocide? No. That accusation is a propaganda weapon forged by Hamas, fueled by NGOs and UN echo chambers, and spread by a credulous media.

Israel should be judged on facts, not fabrications. And the world must wake up to the danger of genocide inflation before it becomes a license for the next real genocide.

SOURCE:

https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/213-2.9.2025-Edited.pdf

Mandatory Public Health and Substance Testing for Candidates: A Democratic Imperative

 1. The Nature of Democratic Power Demands Maximum Transparency

In a transparent democracy, elected officials are entrusted with authority by the people. This authority includes decisions over war and peace, life and death, economics, public safety, and civil rights. For such a sacred trust to be legitimately conferred, votersy must have complete and equal access to all material information that affects a candidate’s fitness to serve.

To conceal potentially disqualifying health or addiction issues under the veil of “privacy” is to subvert the electorate’s right to make an informed choice. This is not just imprudent—it’s undemocratic.

---

2. Office Seekers Are Not Private Citizens

There is a fundamental difference between a private citizen and a candidate for office. The former has a right to privacy; the latter voluntarily enters a contract with the public, where transparency becomes a condition of entry.

This contract must include:

• A full public health test, including cognitive, neurological, and physical assessments.

• A substance use screening, covering both recent and habitual usage patterns.

• Public disclosure of results, without redactions, sanitized summaries, or politically massaged reports.

If teachers, pilots, soldiers, and commercial drivers must meet clear medical and drug standards to ensure the public’s safety, how much more so should those who seek to govern?

---

3. No Elitist Exceptions in a Real Democracy

To argue that the public cannot handle a candidate’s medical truth is to infantilize the electorate. To say that disclosure may “stigmatize” is to prioritize personal reputation over democratic legitimacy.

Health issues that do not affect performance will be judged fairly. Those that do should be known. Truth cannot harm democracy—only its concealment can.

---

4. Proposed Standard

A democratic reform bill should include:

• Mandatory health and substance tests for all candidates seeking public office, regardless of level (municipal, state, federal).

• Independent public agencies (not political appointees) to administer and publish results.

• Annual re-testing for incumbents seeking re-election or holding executive office.

This would set a global gold standard for integrity in democratic elections.

---

Closing Thought

A democracy that shields its most powerful aspirants from scrutiny—while surveilling and judging ordinary citizens—is not a democracy at all. It is a hypocrisy.

If you want the people’s vote, you must submit to the people’s test.