Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic

 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (photo credit: Jason Franson/ Canadian Press via AP)

     

Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic

And should be seen as such by all Canadians, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever.

 

 By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

Mark Carney took over Justin Trudeau’s job as Canada’s prime minister on March 14, 2025. Whether Mr. Carney continues as PM depends on the federal election on April 28th. In the meantime, Canadian voters are scrambling to know more about Carney.[1]

Let’s look at PM Carney’s view on abortion. Below I will set out Carney’s view, then I’ll set out my assessment. My conclusion: Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic—and should be seen as such by all Canadians, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever.

Carney’s view on abortion

In a recent short video from Global News, Carney states his position on the abortion issue clearly and succinctly as follows:

I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose—unreservedly—and will defend it as the Liberal Party has defended it, proudly and consistently. I will defend the Charter, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does.[2]

I appreciate PM Carney for being clear and succinct, but his view has serious problems. Very serious problems.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, abortion is NOT a Charter right

I am glad PM Carney wishes to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on the topic of abortion he’s got a problem: abortion is not a Charter right. It’s not in the Charter, nor is it implied by the Charter.

Contrary to what Mr. Carney and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, Canada’s 1988 Supreme Court ruling did not give women the right to abortion. In fact, “Ultimately, the 1988 Morgentaler decision did not assume a right to abortion, did not create a right to abortion, and cannot be interpreted as implying a right to abortion.”[3]

Yes, there have been some failed attempts by Canada’s parliament to pass laws related to abortion, and, yes, since 1988 in Canada there have been no abortion laws.[4] But, again, abortion is not a Charter right.[5]

All Canadians—especially Canada’s PM—should be clear on this fact.

We need an abortion law (of some sort)

Moreover, Canada needs an abortion law, at least in some cases. Why? Because abortion kills human beings—a lot of them.

Every year in Canada between 90,000 and 100,000 pre-natal children are destroyed by abortion. Compare that to the fact that between 700 and 900 homicides occur yearly in Canada.

Let. That. Sink. In.

Also, presently, abortion in Canada is legal right up to birth. Yes, most abortions occur much earlier, and most doctors don’t do late-term abortions. Nevertheless, a law would be appropriate to protect children in their, say, fifth or sixth month and later. Surely.[6]

Also, a law would be appropriate to protect children from sex-selective abortion, that is, the killing of children merely because they are girls. Sadly, gendercide is popular among immigrants who value boys more than girls.[7]

Moreover, a law would be appropriate to protect children who risk being killed merely because they have Down syndrome. How many Down syndrome babies are aborted in Canada? I asked this question on Google. Google’s AI answer: “While Canada doesn’t collect specific data on abortions following prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome, studies suggest that a high percentage of such pregnancies are terminated, with some estimates reaching around 90%.”[8] From what I have heard from friends and neighbours who have children with Down syndrome (and were often advised by doctors to abort), these ghastly estimates seem correct.

Surely, for the sake of protecting young children who are clearly part of the human family, at least some legal restrictions on abortion are needed. Surely, too, most Canadians, whatever their political stripes, can agree on this.[9]

Defend abortion as the Liberal Party has defended it?

Carney says he “will defend abortion, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does.”

Really? It turns out that such a defence is the height of absurdity—and should be understood as such by all thinking Canadians.

Bear with me, and think.

The Liberal Party defends abortion (a) as a part of “reproductive health and rights” and (b) as “an essential health service.”[10] But such a defence is an intellectual disaster.

(a) Is abortion a part of “reproductive health and rights”? Is this true?

Answer: No, not at all.

Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child (pre-natal human being/person) conceived via sex, occurs before abortion takes place. The right to reproductive freedom is exercised before abortion takes place.

The late Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, observes:

When pro-choicers have unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if someone has to die.[11]

In other words, justifying abortion via “reproductive health and rights” is an intellectual bait and switch. If unintentionally done, it’s merely a mistake (a big mistake). If intentionally done, it’s a ruse (and evil).

(b) Is abortion “an essential health service”? Is this true?

Answer: No, at least not in general, i.e., not in the majority of cases.

The claim that abortion (in general) is essential health care is false because most abortions are not done for medical reasons. The vast majority of abortions are done not for medical reasons but for other reasons.

It turns out the hard cases—rape, incest, threat to life of the mother—to which many abortion-choice proponents point as justification for abortion account for fewer than 5 percent of all the abortion cases.

In his 2015 book The Abortion Wars ethicist Charles Camosy reports that the number for the hard cases is 2 percent.[12]

But there is more to be said—much more.

Abortion is not even needed medically.

Dr. Kendra Kolb, a neonatologist, stated this in 2019: “There is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.”[13]

Yes, treatments for ectopic pregnancies occur, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. Yes, treatments for heart disease or cancer can involve pre-term deliveries that might result in the death of a child, but they’re not abortions per se, if we use language accurately. When we accurately define “abortion” as the direct and intentional ending of a pre-natal human being’s life, abortions are not medically necessary.

As Dr. Kolb points out, medical treatments/procedures have different purposes, which need to be made clear with language that accurately describes reality. This is important to remember, especially when we are being told by politicians and others that, in general, abortion is “an essential health service.”

Contrary to what Mr. Carney and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, abortion (in general) is not an essential health service.[14]

Again, for Carney to say he “will defend abortion, proudly and consistently, as the Liberal Party does” (my italics) is to embrace absurdity—and should be understood as such by all truth-seeking Canadians.

One more Liberal defence of abortion deconstructed

But perhaps (probably) PM Carney agrees with former PM Trudeau, who two years ago stated this on his (Trudeau’s) official Facebook page: “[The Liberal] government will never tell a woman what to do with her body.”[15]

In reply, we should notice that in the context of abortion, the issue is not merely about telling a woman what to do with her body. In the context of abortion there are two bodies, not just the woman’s body.

The fact is that the unborn baby is not the woman’s body. It is the child’s body. And abortion destroys the child’s body. And whenever someone chooses to destroy another human body, government has a legitimate interest.[16]

Conclusion

Canadians—whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, or whatever—should realize that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic. Contrary to what Mr. Carney claims, the facts are these: abortion is not a Charter right, some abortion restrictions are needed, abortion is not a reproductive right, and abortion (in the vast majority of cases) is not health care.

Most abortions are due to social and economic problems. But social and economic problems should have social and economic solutions, not the killing of children.

O Canada, be strong and free, but not at the expense of your weakest and most vulnerable.

May God have mercy on us.[17]

 

Notes

1. For an overview of Mark Carney on matters other than abortion, see Joe Oliver, “The authors of Canada’s ‘lost decade’ would like another try,” Financial Post, March 26, 2025. For a review of Mark Carney’s 2021 book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, see Peter Foster, “Mark Carney, man of destiny, wants to revolutionize society. It won’t be pleasant,” National Post, June 5, 2021.

2. “Carney says he supports a woman’s right to choose abortion,” Global News, March 23, 2025 (1 minute video, my transcript).

3. See “Under Section 7 Abortion is Not a Charter Right,” Position Paper, We Need a Law, 2019.

4. For two examples of reasonable but failed attempts in 2012 to pass laws related to abortion, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Reflections on Motions 312 and 408,” APOLOGIA, October 4, 2012. On a more recent reasonable but failed attempt in 2021 to pass a law against sex-selective abortion, see “Sex-selective abortion bill fails in House, but debate reignited,” We Need A Law, June 3, 2021.

5. See again “Under Section 7 Abortion is Not a Charter Right.”

6. According to the results of a DART & Maru/Blue poll conducted for the National Post (reported by the National Post in January 2020) in answer to the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal in the last three months of pregnancy only 30% of Canadians polled favoured legal late-term abortions whereas a majority of 70% favoured making late-term abortions illegal. (Sharon Kirkey, “As abortion debate becomes increasingly polarized, poll shows the views of many Canadians are more complicated,” National Post, January 31, 2020.)

7. About sex-selective abortion, the following observations from Margaret Somerville (Professor of Bioethics at University of Notre Dame Australia and founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University) are important:

“That unfettered access to abortion should be the litmus test of whether a society respects women and their rights is a long-standing claim of pro-choice advocates and at the heart of their rationale for supporting unrestricted access to abortion. They focus on women’s rights to autonomy and self-determination and argue that such access is required to protect these rights and women’s dignity. But sex-selection abortion promotes the exact opposite values—it expresses a lack of respect for women in cultures in which sons are highly valued over daughters. It also differs from other abortions in that the woman wants a baby—just not a girl. In one study reported from India in which 8,000 consecutive abortions were followed, three were of unborn boys and 7,997 of unborn girls.”

(Margaret Somerville, “The preposterous politics of female feticide,” The Globe and Mail, September 29, 2012.)

8. This is Google’s answer to my question “How many Down syndrome babies aborted in Canada?”

9. Importantly, Canadians should notice that there’s room to be creative here. Because of the polarized political views on abortion presently in Canada, perhaps a politically practical law against abortion could at the very least (1) criminalize late-term abortionists only, not women pressured into abortion, plus (2) help women so pressured (just as Canadian anti-prostitution law criminalizes pimps and johns, not the women pressured into prostitution, plus helps the women get out of prostitution). Or perhaps we could take the view of Canadian lawyer Leslyn Lewis, PhD (a Conservative Member of Parliament who placed third as a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2020). Her fourfold platform on abortion could easily be supported by people of all political stripes: (1) ban the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion (since many girls are aborted just because they are girls), (2) protect women from coerced abortion (who wouldn’t want that?), (3) support pregnant women via government support for pregnancy care centers (which help both mother and child), plus (4) direct foreign aid away from abortion providers and instead to those groups who promote overall health care (which is supportable by all, surely).

          Such a law/laws could save the lives of many children and help desperate women, plus provide political space—political common ground—to encourage thoughtful, democratic discussion about creating even better, more life-affirming laws and ways to help desperate women facing crisis pregnancies. Perhaps it could even be a significant step to making unthinkable the idea that to solve problems surrounding a pregnancy we should kill children.

10. The Liberal Government of Canada’s document “Sexual and reproductive health and rights” includes abortion as part of reproductive health services and understands abortion as a reproductive right. And the Liberal Government of Canada’s document “Abortion in Canada” refers to abortion as a “healthcare service.” Also, former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in “Statement by the Prime Minister on International Safe Abortion Day” (September 28, 2022), states that abortion is part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights” and abortions are “an essential health service.”

11. The late Michael Bauman made this comment on Facebook in 2018.

12. For my review of Charles Camosy’s book, see “Beyond the Abortion Wars (book review),” APOLOGIA, August 8, 2016.

13. Kendra Kolb, “The Pro-Life Reply to: ‘Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?,’” Live Action, July 30, 2019.

14. For more criticisms of the claim that abortion is so-called essential health care, see my article “Is abortion really ‘essential health care’?” Mercator, January 26, 2021. In this article I set out reasons for thinking not only that abortion (in general) is not health care but also that it’s logically contradictory and even sexist.

15. Justin Trudeau Facebook page, April 22, 2023 (1.5 minute video). A link to Trudeau’s video (and my criticisms of it) can be found here: Hendrik van der Breggen, “Trudeau’s Defence of Abortion is a Fail—Again,” APOLOGIA, April 22, 2023.

16. At this juncture, Carney (following Trudeau) might argue that the fetus/ unborn child is a part of the woman’s body, so abortion is still justified in terms of the right of a woman to control her own body. However, such a move logically implies absurdities that show this view is false. In fact, the fetus/unborn child is not a part of the woman’s body, though it is (temporarily) connected to it. For more on this topic, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Aborting Trudeau’s (other) abortion argument,” APOLOGIA, January 30, 2018.

17. For additional thought about the abortion issue, see Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion (Amazon KDP, 2020).

 

---

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik’s most recent book is Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. This book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney (and other Liberals) who supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

 

Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals)

 

Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals)           

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s election looming in the near future (April 28, 2025), political discussion sometimes devolves into mud-slinging. Or tar-slinging.

Sadly, a meme/bullet-point-list titled “Pierre’s Record,” sponsored by the Liberal Party of Canada, led by present Prime Minister Mark Carney, is such a case.

It tells us that Conservative contender Pierre Poilievre “[u]sed the term ‘tar baby’ in the House of Commons.” The not-so-subtle suggestion is that Mr. Poilievre is a racist—so he shouldn’t become Canada’s prime minister.

Whether we support Poilievre or Carney or whomever (or nobody), fair-minded Canadians should realize this Liberal talking-point reeks of political propaganda—and even backfires.

Yes, Poilievre said “tar baby,” but…

So let’s pause and carefully consider the claim that “[Poilievre] used the term ‘tar baby’ in the House of Commons.”

Yes, it’s true. Poilievre in fact used the term “tar baby” in the House of Commons.

But before the reader gasps, the reader should also notice it’s also true that by not providing context the claim makes it look like Poilievre was setting out a racial slur when in fact he wasn’t.

Poilievre was using the term “tar baby” appropriately. In fact, most appropriately.

Proper English meaning of “tar baby”

In proper English usage, “tar baby” means a difficult problem that is only exacerbated by attempts to solve it. It’s a problem that is sticky, like tar. The more you handle it, the worse your situation gets.

The term’s etymology goes back to a much-loved children’s story of the 1800s and has to do with a fictional doll made with tar and turpentine. In this story a fox attempts to catch a rabbit by using bait—a sticky, gooey, gluey tar baby. Brer (brother) Fox attempts to catch Brer Rabbit by tricking the rabbit into touching and getting stuck to the tar.

This children’s story is a classic folktale, especially in African American culture. (Spoiler alert: Brer Rabbit is the hero who, though he gets stuck, outwits the wily Brer Fox and his tar-baby trap.) The story is still popular today, at least in schools and families that value education.

All this to say that in the story, as well as in proper English, the meaning of “tar baby” is not a racial slur. Not at all.

Context is crucial

Back to Poilievre. When Poilievre used the term “tar baby” in 2009 (sixteen years ago, but dredged up by Liberals in 2025 as the federal election approaches!), the context shows he wasn’t using it or intending it as a racial slur.

Consider this report from CBC News dated May 29, 2009: 

Tory MP Pierre Poilievre came under fire in the House of Commons on Friday for using the term ‘tar baby.’

The controversy arose as Poilievre accused Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff of distancing himself from the carbon tax policy initiated by former party leader Stéphane Dion.

“On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,” said Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister [Stephen Harper].

The Liberals and the NDP later asked Poilievre to withdraw the comment and apologize, saying the phrase carried racist undertones, but Poilievre refused.

“Tar baby is a common reference that refers to issues that stick to one,” he said.

While that is a dictionary definition of tar baby, the term has also been used as a slur to describe black children.

About the CBC’s last sentence, please notice this: While “tar baby” has been used in some contexts as a slur to describe black children, the relevant fact here is that in the context of usage in the discussion at the House of Commons—a context involving a truly difficult/ sticky tax problem having to do with the oil and tar sands industry, a sticky problem introduced/ birthed by a Liberal leader and then cast aside/ handed off to another Liberal leader—in this context the proper English dictionary definition of “tar baby” was in use.

And, significantly, if meaning arises via use in a particular context (or “language game,” as philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously argued), then Poilievre handled the term “tar baby” and its proper English dictionary definition with finesse.

A sticky problem remains

I will close by saying this: It seems to me that those who suggest Poilievre was intending or using “tar baby” as a racial slur show their ignorance of proper English and perhaps their lack of proper education.

So now I have a question for Liberals who in 2025 continue to suggest Poilievre’s one-time use of “tar baby” in the House of Commons in 2009 counts as a racial slur. Here is my question: What about Justin Trudeau’s countless episodes of blackface?

The fact is that these Liberals supported Trudeau as their leader for ten years. And Canada’s present Prime Minister Mark Carney supported Trudeau, too.

If anyone has a sticky problem, it’s the Liberals.[1]

 

Note

1. At this juncture, a Liberal might object that at least Justin Trudeau apologized for his racism but Pierre Poilievre did not. My replies: (1) Poilievre had nothing to apologize for whereas Trudeau did; (2) Trudeau’s apologies are a dime a dozen; (3) Liberals who make this objection continue to show ignorance of proper English usage (see my argument above). Again, if anyone has a sticky problem, it’s the Liberals.

 

---

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik is author of the book Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. (Hendrik’s book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney and those who have staunchly supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Also, the book should be read by Conservatives and others who hold views similar to Liberals on medical assistance in dying, Covid mandates, abortion, and LGBTQ matters.)

Poilievre is wise to resist Canada’s weird security clearance law

                                            Pierre Poilievre (photo credit: The Walrus)

 

Poilievre is wise to resist Canada’s weird security clearance law

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s election looming so near (April 28, 2025), there’s little time for Canadian citizens to think carefully. But think carefully we must. 

Conservative Pierre Poilievre, Canada’s opposition leader, is running for prime minister against Liberal Mark Carney, Canada’s present PM. 

An alleged problem for Mr. Poilievre has to do with Mr. Poilievre refusing to agree to a security clearance. Much brouhaha is being made over this by Liberals. 

The not-so-subtle suggestion of the brouhaha is that because Poilievre is refusing a security clearance Poilievre is hiding something—and so this counts against him as a possible PM. 

But, to borrow some words from Paul Harvey, we need to know the rest of the story. And it seems that the rest of the story counts in favour of Poilievre’s candidacy for prime minister. 

Poilievre’s refusal to agree to a security clearance in the instance under discussion has to do with a particular—and questionable—security law that will not allow him to talk about the topic of a top secret document if he sees that document, a document the Liberals—i.e., Poilievre’s political enemies—apparently want him to see. 

The document apparently has something to do with foreign interference from India in Poilievre’s 2022 Conservative leadership bid, an interference that had already passed an appropriate legal review process headed up by Madame Justice Marie-Josée Hogue (a high-ranking Canadian judge). It was determined that there is no evidence that foreign attempts to meddle succeeded. 

Interestingly, this was all known since at least last June. Interestingly, too, the document has been brought to the public’s attention near the beginning of a national federal election campaign by being leaked to The Globe and Mail (one of Canada’s major legacy news outlets, heavily subsidized by Canada’s Liberal-led government). This is suspicious. 

Perhaps, though, as some CBC political commentators have pondered, the topic has changed, and perhaps the document has to do with other matters of national security. 

Whatever the case may be, it turns out that if Poilievre sees this document, he will be hamstrung as Canada’s opposition leader. That is, if the document perhaps discloses wrong-doing by the governing Liberal party, Poilievre will not be allowed to speak freely about the matter. (He would risk serious prison time—up to 14 years—if he did.) In other words, that is a weird law. 

So Poilievre has declined top-secret security clearance to see the document so he may be able to speak freely on behalf of Canadians about the document’s topic (whatever it is) if he needs to, especially if it involves wrong-doing by the Liberal government. Surely, Poilievre is correctly resisting possible manipulation by those in power. Wisely, it seems to me, Poilievre is instead leaving the document in the hands of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) which can brief Poilievre if CSIS believes he should be briefed. 

Canadian lawyer Don Hutchinson helpfully explains in more detail:

Mr. Poilievre has declined to agree to a unique security clearance controlled by the prime minister’s office rather than by parliament. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) was structured during the Trudeau majority to report to the prime minister rather than parliament, with the prime minister controlling security clearance requirements, content of NSICOP reports released to parliament or the public, and comments that might be made by those with clearance to see unredacted NSICOP reports and materials. Mr. Poilievre declined as the Leader of the Opposition should not be constrained by extra-parliamentary requirements controlled by the prime minister.[1]

Hutchinson adds:

Former Leader of the Opposition Tom Mulcair has been vocal in support of Mr. Poilievre’s stand to not be compromised in his constitutional parliamentary responsibilities.[2]

Here is an example of the support from former NDP opposition leader Tom Mulcair (from a recent interview with CTV News; my transcript):

I agree completely with Pierre Poilievre on this. I believe he is completely right. You do not accept to play this mug’s game where you restrain your ambit and your ability to act as leader of the official opposition, which is a constitutional role to hold the government to account. And this game where you have people in the hierarchy of the security establishment saying, “oh, he really should come in, but then he’s not really allowed to talk about it anymore.” Really? Didn’t we just have a commission of inquiry headed up by Madame Justice Hogue [concerning India’s interference with Poilievre’s leadership bid of 2022] who put all this stuff away and said that there might have been a little bit of this and a little bit of that? But all of a sudden we’re talking about whether Poilievre actually got the 68 percent. What, maybe it was 67 percent? This is madness, you know, to try to make this an issue in a campaign that is so serious for the country, to try to go back to this stuff, and to try to complain about Poilievre wanting to do his constitutional duty. He wants to do his job of holding the government to account and—no—he’s not going to walk into that bear trap that consists in getting a security clearance, seeing documents that could be important, and not talking about it.[3]

Moreover—and significantly—Canadian lawyer Christine van Geyn (of the Canadian Constitution Foundation) reports that the security clearance law at issue is presently on its way to Canada’s Supreme Court and is “likely unconstitutional.”[4] 

Yes, Canada’s election is coming very soon, so there’s little time for Canadian citizens to think carefully. But we must make time to think carefully. 

My conclusion: In the matter of refusing a unique/weird security clearance that might compromise the role of Canada’s leader of the official opposition, all Canadians—whether Conservative or Liberal or whatever—should appreciate Pierre Poilievre for acting wisely on their (our) behalf.[5] 

 

Notes

1. Don Hutchinson, Facebook comment, March 31, 2025; comment used with author’s permission. 

2. Hutchinson, Facebook comment. 

3. Tom Mulcair, “Mulcair on why Poilievre shouldn’t get his security clearance,” CTV News, March 25, 2025 (1-minute video). 

4. For a more in-depth discussion about the legal situation having to do with Poilievre’s security clearance, see Christine van Geyn’s recent analysis (15-minute video): “The real reason Pierre Poilievre doesn’t have security clearance,” Canadian Constitution Foundation, March 27, 2025. 

5. Again, for a more in-depth discussion about the legal situation having to do with Poilievre’s security clearance, see Christine van Geyn’s 15-minute video “The real reason Pierre Poilievre doesn’t have security clearance.”

 

---                     

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik is author of the book Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. (Hendrik’s book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney and those who have staunchly supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Also, the book should be read by Conservatives and others who hold views similar to Liberals on medical assistance in dying, Covid mandates, abortion, and LGBTQ matters.)

Gaza is a war machine

 

A Hamas jihadist in a tunnel under Gaza. “Hamas” is an acronym for the Arabic words Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya which in English mean Islamic Resistance Movement. Gaza is 25 miles long and its width varies from about 4 to 8 miles, yet the length of the military-grade tunnel network under Gaza has been estimated to be between 350 and 450 miles. (Photo credit: Ashraf Amra, a pro-Hamas Gazan.)

 

Gaza is a war machine

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

Gaza is tiny, but it’s dangerous. From my personal research over the past year and a half (as I’ve been following the Israel-Gaza war during my retirement), I have come to the conclusion that Gaza is, for lack of a better description, a war machine.

Gaza is 25 miles long and its width varies from about 4 to 8 miles. Yet the length of the terror tunnel network under Gaza has been estimated to be between 350 and 450 miles. Since Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, many tunnels have been destroyed by Israel, but many remain.

Moreover, there are (were) an estimated 5,700 tunnel shafts coming out into Gazan homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, chicken coops, and fields. And there are (were) huge stockpiles of rockets and other weapons distributed throughout the underground landscape. Much has been destroyed by Israel, but much remains.

Led by Hamas, Gaza has been building its tunnels for almost two decades (reminder: Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas was elected by Gazans in 2006). In fact, many Gazan tunnels were built through the 1990s and 2000s prior to Gazans voting in Hamas. Some tunnels were built between Egypt and Gaza for smuggling purposes (weapons, soldiers, and other supplies were smuggled into Gaza), and some were built as attack tunnels into Israel (used in the early 2000s and in 2014). Many—most—of the tunnels were built within (under) Gaza in recent years and are a part of a war effort. The tunnels facilitate troop movements throughout Gaza, provide access to rocket-launching sites, serve as command centres, protect troops and leaders, provide weapons building areas, facilitate easy access to weapons caches distributed throughout Gaza, store supplies, and imprison hostages. Connected by a web of hundreds of miles of tunnels, Gaza’s towns and cities have been tooled for war—war against Israel.[1]

Not only has the land of Gaza been tooled for war, but also Gaza’s people have been tooled for war. Gazan children (now young adults) have been indoctrinated over the past two decades (or more) to serve not only as fighters but also as human shields—martyrs—in Gaza’s Islamist jihad against Israel. (An Islamist martyr is one who is killed or dies for the cause of Allah, typically via jihad/war, and thus skips Allah’s judgment and gains immediate entrance into paradise/ heaven, which is filled with sensual delights.) The parents and grandparents of Gazan young people also drank heavily at the well of Islamist jihadist doctrine. It should be remembered that many of the older Gazans were original so-called Palestinian refugees who moved to Gaza in 1947–48 and did so to facilitate the (failed) war on Israel by Islamist neighbours bent on wiping out Jews.[2]

This means that Israel’s fight in Gaza is not similar to the urban warfare as in, say, Mosul (when US-backed Iraqis fought to liberate Mosul from the Islamic State in 2016-17). That is, the war in Gaza is not merely a fight that happens, unfortunately, to occur in towns and cities. It’s not due to mere happenstance. Rather, it is due to deliberate decisions by Gazans and years of preparation by Gazans.[3]

This should be emphasized and remembered: The choice for tunnel warfare was made by Gazans years prior to its Hamas-led invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023. Reminder: In that invasion 1,200 Israelis were brutally murdered and 240 hostages taken into Gaza. Over the at least two decades prior to October 7, 2023, Gazans spent billions of dollars (repurposed internationally-supplied aid funds) building terror tunnels, stockpiling caches of weapons, and teaching (indoctrinating) its people to hate and murder Jews. By its massacre of Israelis and then taking hostages into Gaza—a land outfitted for war—it is clear that Gaza’s goal was to have a war against Israel inside Gaza.

In other words, leading up to October 7, 2023, Gaza made itself into a WAR MACHINE. This war machine includes not only its terror-tunnel-infested land abundantly seeded with rockets, grenades, and booby traps, but also its blood-thirsty Jew-hating jihadist soldiers, mostly young men, and jihadist martyr-minded civilians, whether children, mothers, or elderly, willing to die as martyrs—human shields—for the fighters.

Apparently (if my most recent news sources are correct), Hamas has been using the most recent ceasefire to re-group, re-arm, and prepare for yet another October 7-style massacre in Israel.

Yes, many civilian deaths have occurred in Gaza. This is horrible, to be sure. Nevertheless, the number of civilian deaths relative to combatant deaths is low in the Israel-Gaza conflict when compared to urban warfare ratios in Mosul and elsewhere. This is a tribute to the Israeli Defence Forces.[4]

And, yes, among Gazan’s civilians, many Gazan children and women have been killed. This is a tragedy. But keep in mind that for Gaza (led by Hamas), it’s a strategy. And keep in mind that in Gaza the line between civilian and non-civilian is blurry. 

With its many miles of military-grade attack tunnels coupled with the Islamist jihadist mindset of many of its people, Gaza remains a war machine, not a peace-seeking nation.

Westerners in general and Israelis in particular should remember this.[5]

 

NOTES

1. The news agency Reuters published an informative and visually impressive report on the Gazan tunnels about a year ago. See Adolfo Arranz, Jonathan Saul, Stephen Farrell, Simon Scarr, and Clare Trainor, “Inside the tunnels of Gaza: The scale, and the sophistication, of Hamas’ tunnel network,” Reuters, December 31, 2023.

2. For more on this topic, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing: Two false assumptions about Israel’s inception,” APOLOGIA, October 8, 2024 (see especially reason 3 of part 1 and the whole of part 2).

3. The innocence of large numbers of Gaza’s civilians is dubious. In fact, it very much seems that large numbers of Gaza’s civilians are either terrorists or supporters of terrorists. There is much evidence to support this view. Consider the following:

 

• (a) Evidence of many Gazan civilians cheering when dead Israelis were paraded in Gaza shortly after the Hamas October 7 attack.
• (b) Evidence that many Gazans (including children) were involved in the looting during the October 7 attack.
• (c) Evidence that many Gazan young people have been for years indoctrinated with a murderous anti-Jewish/anti-Israel ideology (in UN schools) and have helped Hamas terrorists by carrying messages and munitions.
• (d) Evidence of 560 to 700 kilometres (350 to 450 miles!) of cement tunnels that were built in Gaza over the past 16 years—so surely many Gazan civilians were aware of this.
• (e) Evidence of 5,700 tunnel shafts being hosted by (i.e., coming out of) homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals all across tiny Gaza—and again, surely, many Gazan civilians were aware of this. And surely many Gazan civilians were aware that the tunnels’ purpose was for war against Israel and to wipe out Jews (per the Hamas charter), yet Gazans did not protest.
• (f) Evidence of hostages being held in civilian homes.

 

For some references concerning the above evidence, see notes for Reply 4 of “Israel’s response to Hamas is not proportional?” which is chapter 12 of my book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War; link here.

Also, for additional evidence for thinking the people of Gaza are not innocent, see Einat Wilf, “Einat Wilf Answers 18 Questions on Gaza, Anti-Zionism, and the Israel-Hamas War,” 18Forty, December 4, 2024 (80 minute video). Einat Wilf has a BA from Harvard, an MBA from INSEAD in France, and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cambridge. Wilf served as an intelligence officer with the Israeli Defense Forces, is a former member of the Israeli parliament, and works presently with the Israeli Citizen Spokespersons’ Office. Also, Einat Wilf is co-author of the book The War of Return: How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream Has Obstructed the Path to Peace (St. Martin’s, 2020), which I highly recommend.

Many Gazans—especially children—are innocent, of course. And some adult Gazans no longer support Hamas. The following recent report from Gatestone Institute is relevant. “Although many Palestinians continue to support Hamas and the ‘resistance’ against Israel, a growing number are speaking out against the terror group.” “If the Palestinians living in Gaza want to end the war, they must revolt against Hamas and provide Israel with information about the whereabouts of the hostages. Sadly, most Palestinians seem unwilling to do so, either out of fear of Hamas or because they simply identify with the terror group and its goal of destroying Israel.” Khaled Abu Toameh, “Palestinians: ‘We Are Dying Because of Hamas,’” Gatestone Institute International Policy Council, March 20, 2025.

4. Yes, we should keep in mind the fact that the civilian-combatant death ratio in Gaza is low when it is compared to other cases of urban warfare in recent history. That is, the other cases of urban warfare by Western democracies have more civilian deaths per combatant death than is the case in Israel’s war against Hamas (even though Hamas has, unlike the other cases, spent years not only embedding itself among civilians in Gaza but also fortifying its underground war machine). And add to this the fact that the misfiring of many Hamas rockets caused many Gazan casualties.

It also is important to keep in mind that before and during the war with Hamas, Israel engaged in extraordinary efforts to protect Gazan civilians from potential harm. How? By warning them of Israel’s invasion by dropping millions of leaflets, sending millions of text and voice messages, and “knocking” (hitting a building’s roof with an unexploding “bomb” to warn residents that the next bomb will explode). And Israel has provided humanitarian corridors and safe zones (often made unsafe by Hamas).

5. And we should remember that the Gazans, led by Hamas, started the war with Israel, a war in which it was foreseeable and planned by Gazans, led by Hamas, that Israel’s military response would appear to Western observers to be lacking proportionality and thus be deemed unjust. How so? By using Western moral qualms (which Hamas does not have) against Westerners. Reminder: Hamas/Gazan terrorists embedded themselves among Gazan civilians (of whom many have aided and abetted the terrorists; see evidence in note 1 above), knowing there would be huge numbers of civilian casualties which constitute, for Hamas, a military strategy, not a moral tragedy. Moreover, the foreseeable-to-Hamas vividness of the horrors of dead civilians, especially children—vividness provided by the terrorists themselves to the world in abundance via photos and video on the internet—is intended by Hamas to play on the oft-emotion-based moral reasoning of Western observers. For many Westerners, bloodshed of civilians is repulsive, full stop, and no further moral reasoning is done to discern who is actually responsible. This is sometimes called “the CNN effect.” The byline of ethicist Shlomo Brody’s article “Israel and the CNN Effect” is helpful here: “Images of bloodshed in Gaza should upset anyone with a healthy moral sense. But they don’t help determine whether the actions that brought these scenes about were ethical.” (Shlomo Brody, “Israel and the CNN Effect,” Mosaic, January 4, 2024.) Brody adds: “We might be saddened by these deaths, but our moral analysis must remain sober. Good reasoning must overcome our instinctive revulsion to bloodshed. We cannot fixate on body counts or CNN coverage. Instead, we must determine with whom culpability lies.” Sober-minded moral reasoning based on evidence shows that the culpability lies with Hamas-led Gaza, but Gaza hides its culpability (along with its fighters) behind the broken and bloody bodies of its Gazan human shields, children included. Thereby Gaza, led by Hamas, gains world sympathy and Israel loses it. The alleged lack of proportionality and alleged injustice, then, are more apparent than real—and more by Hamas design than by Israeli intent—due to Hamas’s wicked machinations coupled with Gazan civilian help and Western gullibility.

 

---

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik is author of the book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War.