Rail Reality Check: Kingston Commuters Have Options — and Perspective Is Needed

The Kingston This Week piece sensationalizes a relatively narrow service adjustment (the VIA Rail Train 50 pilot reallocation) without presenting the full transportation reality — namely, the abundance of alternatives already linking Kingston and Ottawa daily: multiple intercity bus lines (Megabus, FlixBus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, etc.), Ontario Northland’s network, car-sharing services like Poparide and KABU, and, of course, direct highway access via Highway 15 or 401/416.

While politicians and a handful of commuters express outrage over VIA Rail’s temporary Train 50 service adjustment, it’s time for some factual grounding and perspective. The narrative that Kingston has suddenly been left stranded between Toronto and Ottawa simply doesn’t hold water.

1️⃣ The Myth of “No Alternatives”

Contrary to claims repeated in local media, Kingston residents have multiple affordable, accessible, and frequent alternatives to reach Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and beyond.

• Intercity buses: FlixBus, Megabus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, and Ontario Northland all operate daily Kingston–Ottawa routes.

• Car share options: Poparide, KABU, and other ride-share platforms post numerous same-day trips every morning.

• Highway access: The 401 and 416 corridors remain among the safest and fastest in the province.
  In short, the infrastructure and private services already exist — and they are widely used.

2️⃣ The Numbers That Matter

Before crying foul, let’s ask: how many daily commuters were actually dependent on Train 50?
VIA’s own data shows that the majority of Kingston–Ottawa traffic occurs via Trains 42 and 43, with Train 50 representing a fraction of total passengers. Yet media coverage treats the change as a citywide crisis.
Without publicly disclosed ridership figures, public outrage lacks factual grounding. Responsible journalism — and responsible politics — demand data before drama.

3️⃣ Smart Transit Means Testing, Not Clinging

VIA Rail’s three-month pilot is part of a broader modernization effort to evaluate more direct Toronto–Montreal service frequency. It’s an experiment — not abandonment. Progress sometimes means testing efficiency and redistributing resources temporarily.
Kingston remains a major VIA stop with multiple departures daily. The city is not losing service; it’s adapting to a pilot that will yield long-term gains in scheduling and connectivity.

4️⃣ Civic Leaders Should Lead, Not Stoke Emotion

Rather than amplifying public anxiety, political figures should engage VIA Rail constructively to ensure the pilot’s data collection is transparent and that commuter needs are fairly assessed after the trial. Leadership is about facilitating solutions — not fueling outrage for headlines.

5️⃣ The Bigger Picture: Choice and Competition

Canada’s future in transportation lies not in rigid dependence on one state-run carrier, but in embracing multimodal, competitive systems that give travellers options — trains, buses, shared rides, and electric vehicles alike. Kingston, strategically located, already benefits from this diversity.

Bottom Line

Commuter inconvenience is regrettable — but temporary. Exaggerating it into a civic crisis helps no one.
If the goal is better service and mobility for all, then Kingston should welcome this pilot as part of the national evolution toward modern, efficient, and sustainable intercity travel.

UPDATE: 

Here is Mr. Hall's email (1) to me, along with my rebuttal to his email (2), so everyone can make up their own minds: 

(1). Re: Rail Reality Check: Kingston Commuters Have Options — and Perspective Is Needed

Inbox

Hall, Bill	12:12 PM (1 hour ago)
to me, Jan

Dear Mr. Clarke,

Not once in my article regarding the changes in VIA Rail's services did I state it was "abandonment" or a "civic crisis" as you claim in your e-mail.

Nowhere in my article did I say there were no alternatives to Train 50 or any other train. 

I simply let a disappointed passenger explain how it was a terrible inconvenience, how it might impact his livelihood and that the other alternatives were not preferred.

I also gave, as an impartial journalist, an opportunity for all levels of government to speak on the matter.

If anything could "stoke emotion," as you put it, it would be your inflammatory remarks here, had they found a greater platform.

People have a right to complain when their quality of life declines, and The Kingston Whig-Standard ensures they have a voice.

Sincerely,

Bill Hall

bihall@postmedia.com

(2).

Peter R. Clarke <clarketoronto@gmail.com>	1:18 PM (19 minutes ago)
to Bill

Dear Mr. Hall,

Thank you for your reply.

You are correct that your article never used the literal words “abandonment” or “civic crisis.”
However, what I addressed — and still stand by — is the impression your reporting conveyed. Tone, framing, and omission often speak louder than words.

Your article presented a one-sided narrative by amplifying commuter frustration while offering no quantitative data or broader context. The casual reader is left to assume a major service collapse — when, in reality, Kingston remains well-served by multiple alternatives: frequent intercity buses (FlixBus, Megabus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, Ontario Northland), car shares, and other VIA departures. Those are undisputed facts.

You also cite a single passenger’s personal inconvenience as the article’s emotional anchor. Journalism is strongest when personal stories are balanced with empirical evidence. For instance, where are the ridership numbers for Train 50, the number of affected passengers, or VIA Rail’s stated trial objectives?

Yes — people have every right to express dissatisfaction. But citizens also have a right to accurate scale and perspective. The role of journalism, especially in smaller cities, is to inform, not inflame.

My piece did not attack you personally; it challenged the framing of the issue — a fair and necessary part of civic discourse. If such discussion is deemed “inflammatory,” then public debate itself is at risk.

Respectfully,
Peter Clarke

SOURCE: 

https://www.thewhig.com/news/a-rail-less-travelled-passengers-frustrated-as-via-cancels-morning-stops-in-kingston  

The Great Real Estate Disconnect, Part II: Report Card Exposes Canada’s Housing Mirage

 

A Market in Freefall

The illusion is over. For years, politicians, developers, and industry lobbyists have sold Canadians the fantasy that housing targets would solve our affordability crisis. They claimed supply was coming, affordability was on the horizon, and economic stability was just around the corner. The Q2 2025 GTA and Greater Golden Horseshoe Housing Report Card has blown that narrative to pieces.

Across 34 municipalities, housing starts are down 40% compared to the 2021–24 average. Condo starts plunged 54%, ground-oriented homes dropped 42%, and even pre-construction sales—a forward indicator—collapsed by 89% for condos and 70% for ground-oriented homes. The pipeline is empty. The promises are hollow.

A Failing Grade for Governments

Of the 34 municipalities studied:

• 22 received an F.

• 5 scraped by with a D.

• Only 7 managed a C or better.

Toronto, the country's economic engine, failed spectacularly, with 10,209 jobs lost due to reduced starts and a 67% shortfall against housing targets. Brampton, Vaughan, Newmarket, Innisfil, and Hamilton all cratered. Newmarket managed just 2 housing starts against a 600-unit target. This isn’t underperformance—it’s collapse.

I. The Housing Mirage in Numbers

• Housing starts across 34 GTA & GGH municipalities are down 40% in 2025.

• Condo starts: -54%, ground-oriented: -42%, sales: -70–89%.

• 22 municipalities failed outright (F grades), including Toronto, Brampton, Vaughan, and Hamilton.

• Employment impact: 24,195 person-years of construction work lost.

• Toronto alone: 10,209 jobs gone, 67% below housing targets.

👉 The Report Card proves Canada’s housing crisis is not easing—it’s imploding.

II. The Hidden Side of the Disconnect: Assessed Value vs. Market Hype

Even as starts collapse, sellers and agents inflate the prices of what little housing exists.

• MPAC and provincial bodies assess properties to set taxes.

• Yet when homes sell, those valuations are ignored—listings run double or triple the government’s value.

• Example: $600,000 assessment → $1.2 million listing, no upgrades. That’s not market forces—it’s a con.

And the kicker? Taxes don’t update right away. Owners of multimillion-dollar homes often pay taxes based on 2016 values, while new buyers shoulder speculative prices. The result is systemic unfairness and lost public revenue.

III. Case Studies in Distortion

• Two Homes, Same Street: both sell for ~$1.2M, but one buyer pays $500 less in tax because assessments lag.

• Frozen Assessments: Ontario hasn’t updated valuations since 2016, despite prices doubling.

This is the quiet scandal: the government has the system to ensure fairness but refuses to enforce it, leaving taxpayers overpaying mortgages while speculators profit.

IV. Winners, Losers, and the Mirage

• Winners: Agents (commissions), speculators (flips), banks (bigger mortgages), and governments (land transfer taxes).

• Losers: Young buyers, seniors downsizing, immigrants, renters—those simply seeking shelter.

• Illusion: Politicians boast about “supply targets,” but cities are missing them by 70–90%. Meanwhile, the properties that do sell are listed at fantasy prices, detached from assessed value.

V. A Modest Proposal: Reconnect Value to Values

1. Force listings to show assessed value.

2. Cap sale prices at 3–5% above assessment unless justified by renovations or rezoning.

3. Apply penalties for unjustified price inflation.

This isn’t anti-market—it’s pro-transparency. It stops speculation from masquerading as “market dynamics.”

VI. Conclusion: Time to Wake Up

Canada’s housing system is now a two-tiered hustle:

• On one side, a collapsing supply and vanishing construction jobs.

• On the other hand, wildly inflated sale prices are disconnected from the government’s own valuations.

The Great Real Estate Disconnect is no longer a warning. It’s a reality—and the 2025 Report Card confirms it. Unless governments enforce fairness and transparency, Canada will remain trapped in a housing mirage where the public pays the price and speculators always win.

No Country Above the Law — Recognition of “Palestine/Gaza” Now Is Rewarding Terror, Not Diplomacy

 

In an act of breathtaking moral inconsistency and legal heedlessness, several Western governments have moved to recognize “Palestine” (or Gaza) unilaterally — a move that, in practical effect, would reward terrorism and subvert international law. Countries that claim to defend the “rules-based international order” cannot selectively apply the law. Recognition under these circumstances is not compassion—it is capitulation.

The objective legal test — and why Gaza fails it

International law is not a hollow slogan. The Montevideo Convention (1933) sets out the tested, objective criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Any credible legal argument must start here. 

Apply it honestly:

1. Permanent population — yes, Gaza has people living there, but under siege, mass displacement, and the collapse of normal civic structures.

2. Defined territory — no. Gaza is a fragmented war zone; the West Bank is administered separately under Israeli military control and PA enclaves. There is no coherent, contiguous territorial sovereignty corresponding to a state. 

3. Effective government — no. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist group by multiple governments; Hamas does not provide the rule-of-law government that an internationally recognized state requires. 

4. Capacity for foreign relations — massively compromised. What passes for diplomacy is often mediated by third parties and lacks the independent, accountable diplomatic structures that states possess.

On these objective requirements, recognizing Gaza or a Hamas-dominated entity as a sovereign state is legally baseless. It is not a “fast-track to peace.” It is a legal nullity dressed up as morality.

This is not history-sensitivity — it’s hypocrisy

These same governments insisted on legal rigour over Crimea, Hong Kong, Kosovo, and Taiwan—invoking norms when it suited them. Now they seek to waive those standards selectively. That is not statesmanship; it is opportunism. The international system is credible only if rules apply even when doing so is politically inconvenient.

Rewarding terrorism — the perverse incentive

Hamas is not a political party in the democratic sense. It is a violent organization that has legitimized terror as policy and repeatedly targeted civilians. To transpose a sovereign flag onto territory governed — practically or symbolically — by such an organization sends a simple, lethal message worldwide: violence and mass atrocity can be rewarded with recognition. That mistake will not only embolden extremists in the region: it will reverberate across conflict zones globally. 

The political realities and recent moves

Western recognitions — decisions taken in haste or for domestic political cover — risk inflaming the very violence they claim to resolve. Recent reporting shows a surge of recognition by several Western states in direct response to the Gaza catastrophe and to pressure at the UN General Assembly. That surge is precisely the action we warn against: unilateral recognition without meeting legal tests or securing governance guarantees. 

What must follow — hard accountability, not rhetorical rebukes

If democratic governments proceed with recognition of a non-state entity dominated by a terrorist organization, they should face concrete consequences:

1. Domestic and international legal challenge (ICJ and treaty forums). Such actions are ultra vires and contravene established international obligations; affected states should pursue legal remedies in international courts and treaty mechanisms. 

2. Diplomatic penalties. Suspension of bilateral cooperative initiatives, downgrading of diplomatic ties, and coordinated governmental rebukes are warranted.

3. Targeted sanctions. Where recognition materially empowers violent actors or facilitates fund flows, targeted sanctions and financial restrictions should be pursued.

4. Naming and accountability. Where parliaments or officials vote for or execute such recognitions, they must be named publicly and held politically accountable; lawfare must be an available tool against ultra vires state actions that breach international commitments.

Why the United States (and like-minded states) cannot remain silent

This is not merely a “regional” quarrel. Unilateral recognition of an entity that fails the rule-based tests of statehood undermines decades of diplomatic architecture designed to separate legitimate national aspirations from violent extremism. A principled state must defend the integrity of the legal test. If the West abandons legal standards now, it forfeits the right to demand compliance from adversaries tomorrow.

The hard truth

Statehood is earned through accountable governance, the renunciation of terror, secure borders, and legitimate institutions — not awarded as a consolation prize for suffering, however profound. To recognize otherwise is to hand an international imprimatur to violence. That is not compassion. That is complicity.

Freedom from Ideologies: Why Ottawa’s Attack on the Notwithstanding Clause Betrays Our Heritage

 

A Forgotten Foundation: Freedom from Ideology

Western democracy did not arise from ideology, but from a rebellion against it.

• 17th-century empiricists—Bacon, Newton, Locke—recognized that human progress depends on escaping idealism (systems of abstract thought unmoored from reality).

• 18th-century Encyclopedists—Diderot, d’Alembert, Condorcet—argued that liberty required the active development of empirical faculties, not submission to dogma.

• The result was political liberty, scientific achievement, and the institutions that still anchor Western society today.

In other words, our democratic heritage is freedom from ideology itself.

Quebec, the Quiet Revolution, and Autonomy

Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause should not be seen as an attack on rights but as an assertion of autonomy—an extension of its Quiet Revolution tradition.

• The clause was deliberately embedded in the Charter because premiers in 1981 knew that unchecked judicial power could override both Parliament and provincial legislatures.

• It is not a loophole or abuse—it is a constitutional safeguard, a pressure valve to prevent Ottawa’s ideology or judicial activism from steamrolling provincial authority.

Quebec is exercising this right properly. Other provinces should consider it as well.

Ottawa’s Centralizing Authoritarian Drift

The Carney/Trudeau Liberals have repeatedly shown disdain for the clause, and their latest attempt to restrict its use is revealing:

• They have stacked the judiciary with Liberal-friendly appointees while presenting themselves as guardians of “rights.”

• They denounce provinces for invoking the clause even as Ottawa itself has trampled Charter rights during COVID, through speech restrictions and through regulatory overreach.

• Their real goal is not liberty—it is centralized control, dressed up in the language of rights.

To weaken the notwithstanding clause is to betray the very compromise that made the Charter possible.

The Irony of Liberal Gaslighting

• Pierre Trudeau only secured the Charter by agreeing to include the clause. Without it, there would have been no constitutional deal.

• Today, his son’s government wants to pretend the clause is a constitutional accident. It isn’t—it’s the linchpin that keeps Canada a federation instead of a unitary, Ottawa-dominated state.

• To frame Quebec’s use of the clause as authoritarian is a form of gaslighting. The real authoritarianism lies in Ottawa’s attempt to strip provinces of their only meaningful constitutional shield.

Conclusion: A Call for Courage

Canada is not a one-party state, and our Charter was not meant to be a Liberal monopoly.

• The notwithstanding clause exists for exactly these moments—when ideology masquerades as law, when courts forget Parliament, and when Ottawa forgets federalism.

• Quebec, by invoking it, is not betraying Canada’s heritage. It is protecting it.

If Ottawa truly wishes to defend rights, it should stop weaponizing ideology and start respecting the constitutional safeguards that make our federation work.

Québec’s Language Tests and Its Stand on Gender: Identity, Survival, and Fairness

 September 16, 2025

Growing up in Québec in the 1960s, English-speaking students like myself were required to pass a French language exam to graduate. No certificate, no diploma, without demonstrating competence in the language of the majority. At the time, it felt less like an opportunity for bilingualism and more like a government-imposed barrier, rooted not in fairness but in cultural insecurity.

History Cannot Be Rewritten

Let us not forget: the French lost the wars. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ceded New France to Britain. Sovereignty passed decisively to the English Crown. Yet, despite losing politically and militarily, Québec’s French-speaking population refused to fade away. They clung fiercely to their language, their religion, and their civil law system. That persistence is admirable, but it does not give license, centuries later, to impose compulsory French language requirements on English-speaking students whose families were loyal citizens of Canada.

The Nationalist Logic

Québec’s nationalist project argues otherwise. The recent Rapport sur la laïcité (2025) insists that French, alongside secularism and gender equality, forms the very foundation of Québec’s identity. To them, French is not simply a language; it is the nation’s safeguard. Rejecting Canadian multiculturalism, the report states that French as the common language — together with laïcité — is the “prerequisite for social cohesion.” In this framing, the mandatory French test was never about fairness, but about national survival.

A Binary Foundation of Equality

The same report also makes clear that equality in Québec is anchored in the binary of women and men. It recommends that the law be amended to spell this out explicitly: “l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes.” By doing so, Québec draws a line against what many call “gender ideology creep.” While Canada embraces multiple self-declared identities — non-binary, gender-fluid, two-spirit — Québec’s laïcité affirms equality in the traditional sense: male and female, nothing more, nothing less.

This is more than semantics. It reflects Québec’s belief that true secularism protects women from patriarchal religious practices, not by multiplying categories, but by enforcing equality between the two sexes.

The Problem of Coercion

But here lies the contradiction: if French is strong enough to be the cornerstone of identity, why force it upon others through compulsion? True confidence in a culture comes from openness, not coercion. Compelling English-speaking students to pass a French test in the 1960s — and continuing to entrench similar requirements today — undermines the very values Québec claims to defend: freedom of conscience, equality, and fairness.

The same risk applies to gender: by fixing equality narrowly on men and women, Québec may appear unbending to broader currents of Western liberalism. Yet, unlike the language test, here the firmness sends a clear cultural message — Québec defines equality on its own terms.

Toward a Healthier Model

Bilingualism should be celebrated, not enforced. Québec could lead by encouraging young people to see French as an asset in a global world, not as a mandatory gatekeeper. Likewise, on equality, it could present its binary model not as exclusionary but as principled: an insistence that male and female both matter equally, without dilution.

Bottom Line: Whether in language or in gender, Québec has chosen to stand firm against accommodation and ideological drift. The challenge is ensuring that firmness does not become coercion. True cultural survival must inspire confidence, not resentment.

SOURCE: 

https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/politiques-orientations/laicite-etat/comite-etude-respect-laicite

Faith, Rhetoric, and the Machinery of Death: From Holy Wars to Stochastic Terrorism

September 14, 2025

Ancient Flames, Modern Sparks

For centuries, religion has claimed to elevate humanity, to give meaning, morality, and order. Yet stripped of its sanctity, it often stands revealed as a mechanism of control, division, and death. When combined with ignorance, it has fueled the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the genocides of our time.

In the modern West, this same mechanism has mutated. It now thrives not only in holy texts, but in political rhetoric, media amplification, and social media hate. Words have become weapons. This is the era of stochastic terrorism — when speech, dehumanization, and propaganda make violence statistically inevitable, if individually unpredictable.

The blood shed under banners of faith and the blood spilled under banners of ideology are one and the same. Both prove a single truth: when belief is weaponized, civilization itself is on the chopping block.

From Dangerous Union to Civilizational Decline

In July 2025, I argued in The Dangerous Union: Religion, Ignorance, and the Decline of Civilization that religion, when armoured with ignorance, has become one of history’s most destructive forces. That article was written as an urgent op-ed — a wake-up call.

This expanded essay further develops the argument. It traces the blood-soaked record of religion across centuries, shows how radical faith still shapes today’s conflicts, and asks whether civilization can endure if we continue to confuse faith with governance.

1. Religion’s Historic Toll

• The Crusades (1095–1291): 10,000+ civilians massacred in Jerusalem — Muslims, Jews, and Christians slaughtered alike.
• The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648): Eight million dead, Germany’s population halved.
• Islamic Conquests (7th–9th centuries): Expansion by force, with non-Muslims taxed, enslaved, or coerced into conversion.
• The Inquisition (12th–19th centuries): Tens of thousands executed for heresy in Spain alone.
• Partition of India (1947): Up to 2 million dead, 14 million displaced in the largest forced migration in history.
• Modern jihadism: From 9/11’s 2,977 victims to Boko Haram and ISIS, leaving millions dead or displaced.

Religion, armoured with ignorance, has claimed more lives than it has ever saved.

2. Faith as Tyranny’s Mask

• Iran: Thousands executed under sharia law; 750 protesters killed in a single year.
• Saudi Arabia: Apostasy still punishable by death; Wahhabi dogma enforced by public executions.
• Taliban: Girls banned from schools; floggings and amputations restored as public spectacle.

Here, religion does not guide souls — it shackles them. Power wears the mask of piety, and tyranny thrives.

3. Ignorance: The Spark of Fanaticism

• Rwanda (1994): 800,000 murdered in 100 days by tribal propaganda mythologized as truth.
• Myanmar (2017–2021): Over 700,000 Rohingya Muslims expelled by a Buddhist-dominated state.
• Christian Nationalism in the West: Calls for biblical law threaten the secular backbone of democracy.

Ignorance provides the fuel. Religion provides the spark. The fire consumes everything.

4. Stochastic Terrorism: The New Holy War

If religion was the crusader’s sermon, stochastic terrorism is the politician’s soundbite. Both sanctify violence, both escape accountability.

The Process:

1. Inflammatory Rhetoric — Opponents branded “fascists,” “terrorists,” “enemies of the people.”
2. Culture of Hate — Media repetition conditions audiences to see fellow citizens as monsters.
3. Lone Actor Effect — One unstable individual interprets the words as marching orders.
4. Plausible Deniability — Leaders shrug: “I never called for violence.”

Case Studies:

• Ruth Marshall: A University of Toronto professor, tweets that “shooting is too good” for political opponents. Extremism dressed up as progressivism.
• Charlie Kirk Assassination (2025): A gunman, politicized by rhetoric, kills a conservative activist. Bullets engraved with slogans, blood spilled in the name of ideology.
• Ilhan Omar Outrage Cycle: Her cautious remarks after Kirk’s killing are clipped, distorted, and weaponized into viral outrage — proof of how amplification feeds polarization.

This is terrorism by probability, not by command. And it is tearing democracies apart.

5. The Media–Party Death Spiral

In the Middle Ages, pulpits amplified sermons of holy war. Today, the pulpits are digital: Twitter, TikTok, cable news.

• Republicans: “Radical left lunatics,” “domestic enemies,” “lock them up.”
• Democrats: “Fascists,” “threats to democracy,” “white supremacist terrorists.”

The media profits from outrage, platforms reward virality, and every shocking soundbite is amplified until someone acts. When they do, both sides exploit the blood to fuel the next cycle.

6. The Western Blind Spot

The West hides behind tolerance. Critiquing faith is branded bigotry. Calling out incendiary rhetoric is dismissed as censorship. Universities muzzle debate, politicians excuse extremism, and citizens are conditioned to look away.

But tolerance without limits is surrender. To excuse radical faith or stochastic speech is not virtue — it is complicity.

7. A Higher Principle Without Fanaticism

Human beings still need a principle greater than themselves — God, ethics, natural law. Meaning restrains selfishness, anchors morality, and sustains civilization.

But faith civilizes only when it remains personal.

• Faith inspires compassion when private.
• Faith kills when fused with power.
• Rhetoric guides debate when respectful.
• Rhetoric kills when it dehumanizes.

The lesson is universal: belief must remain in the heart, not in the gun or the law.

Conclusion: Breaking the Machinery

From Crusades to Charlie Kirk, the machinery has never changed: belief weaponized + ignorance tolerated = bloodshed.

“Civilization will not survive if we stop talking, stop listening, and stop exchanging ideas through honest debate. The moment we are silent, allow censorship, and trade debate for dogma, rage, or hate, we invite collapse.”

The path forward is clear:

• Private faith, not political law.
• Policy debate, not personal demonization.
• Media accountability, not click-driven outrage.
• Reason above revelation, humanity above ideology.

Every time we excuse violent religion or violent rhetoric, we gamble with blood. Enough. Civilization’s survival depends on breaking the cycle — before it breaks us.