Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

Pierre Poilievre on Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

 

Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s federal election coming soon (April 28, 2025), political “discussion” is often reduced to—and stymied by—memes.

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 “[r]eceived a government pension at 31 then raised the retirement age on hard-working Canadians.” The not-so-subtle suggestion is that Mr. Poilievre did a couple of really bad things—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.

 

Receiving vs. becoming eligible

First, it should be noticed that Poilievre didn’t start receiving a government pension at age 31. Rather, at age 31 he became eligible for the government’s pension plan.  The government pension payments would kick in later, at retirement age.

In fact, it is standard policy for Canadian members of parliament—whether Conservative or Liberal or whatever—to qualify for the government’s pension plan, which begins payments at retirement age, after they have served as an MP for six years. Poilievre was 25 when he became an MP, so he became eligible at age 31.

Yes, Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition of Canada, is the youngest MP to do this, but that is because he was elected into parliament as a very young man—unlike most of his colleagues.

Yes, Poilievre’s pension is a lot. But that’s because Poilievre, now 45, has contributed a lot into it (MPs pay about 20% or more of their pay into their pension plan). Significantly, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pension is also a lot—and more than Poilievre’s.

MPs earn considerable incomes (at least compared to me and most other Canadians) and their pension plans are “gold plated” (unlike mine and most other Canadians). If we Canadians have concerns about MP pensions, it seems unfair to focus on Poilievre when we should put all MPs—and the former PM—into the spotlight. (And what about PM Mark Carney’s pension?)

Again, contrary to what Liberals would have us think, Poilievre hasn’t been receiving a government pension since he was 31. Becoming eligible is different from receiving—a distinction blurred in anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

About raising retirement age

Now, consider the point about Poilievre raising the retirement age for Canadians (so their retirement benefits don’t kick in until later).

Yes, in 2012 Poilievre, along with then-prime minister Steven Harper, did pass a plan to increase retirement age (for eligibility for benefits) from 65 to 67 (to commence in 2023). And this plan was rescinded by Justin Trudeau in 2016 (Trudeau became PM in 2015 when he defeated the Harper Conservatives).

But it helps to know why Poilievre and Harper wanted to raise the retirement age. It turns out that they were concerned about Canada’s national debt. It was part of an attempt to cut back on costs. This is not a bad thing (though, understandably, many Canadians were not happy).

Trudeau, on the other hand, didn’t care about Canada’s national debt. Sadly, Trudeau’s record over his ten-year tenure as PM shows he spent like a teenager who had stolen his parents’ credit cards, and Canadians are the parents footing the bill. In fact, Trudeau increased national debt so much that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for the retirement benefits we enjoy.

Presently, Poilievre is promising to keep the retirement age at 65, but he is also working on plans to sell Canada’s clean energy to pay down the national debt. It helps to know this, but the meme doesn’t make this clear.

Don’t be fooled by the anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

For additional thought

“Poilievre is wise to resist Canada’s weird security clearance law,” APOLOGIA, March 31, 2025.

“Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals),” APOLOGIA, April 2, 2025.

“Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic,” APOLOGIA, April 6, 2025. (I add this article in this list because Poilievre seems to hold a similar view on abortion as Carney and so my criticisms of Carney’s view seem to apply to Poilievre, too. I hate propaganda, regardless of which political party is espousing it. In other words, I am an equal-opportunity political offender, though I presently see a great deal more anti-Poilievre propaganda coming from the Liberals than anti-Carney propaganda coming from Conservatives.)

 

---                     

 

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.)

The Problem of the Misleading Headline

 

The Problem of the Misleading Headline: Yet another way news media promote anti-Israel bias

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(Originally published May 22, 2024, at The Stream.)

For many in today’s TikTok world, awareness of news is limited to mere headlines. Instead of carefully reading reports, screen-fatigued people tend merely to scroll from one headline to the next. I’m guilty of that. Probably you are, too.

Enter: The problem of the misleading headline.

This is a mistake (or is it?) whereby a news headline doesn’t convey the truth (or full truth) contained in the story. Those who’ve been made stupid by their smartphones are especially susceptible to this issue.

Sadly, misleading headlines can create or reinforce propaganda and distort public opinion about any number of issues. But for our purposes, let’s focus on the anti-Israel protests in major cities and university campuses. (For my assessment of anti-Israel propaganda, such as the idea that Israel is committing genocide, apartheid, and oppression, see my recent Stream article “Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students.”)

Let’s analyze three recent headlines.

 

Misleading CNN Headline

“Nearly half of the Israeli munitions dropped on Gaza are imprecise ‘dumb bombs,’ US intelligence assessment finds.”

This headline gives the impression that Israel is bombing Gaza indiscriminately (because “dumb bombs” are not guided). Such bombing is a concern because it violates the just war principle of distinction. In war, combatants should distinguish between civilians and enemy soldiers, and aim only to destroy enemy soldiers. Israel claims to be targeting Hamas terrorists, not Gazan civilians, so this headline suggests Israelis are liars — and war criminals.

But if we read only the headline, we would be misled. Deep in the article we read the following:

“A US official told CNN that the US believes that the Israeli military is using the dumb bombs in conjunction with a tactic called ‘dive bombing,’ or dropping a bomb while diving steeply in a fighter jet, which the official said makes the bombs more precise because it gets it closer to its target. The official said the US believes that an unguided munition dropped via dive-bombing is similarly precise to a guided munition.”

Even deeper in the article we read that: “the US also provides Israel with systems that can transform those dumb bombs into ‘smart’ ones….”

Clearly, a headline that’s less biased against Israel would go something like this:

“US assessment: Israel uses precision to strike Gaza — even with ‘dumb bombs.’”

(Acknowledgment: I learned about this CNN example from former Israel spokesperson Eylon Levy in his excellent interview with military reporter and defense analyst Yaakov Katz on Israel: State of a Nation with Eylon Levy.)

 

Misleading Headlines from Various News Sources

“Palestinian death toll in Gaza climbs to 34,844.”

This is another headline that can shape public opinion against Israel in its war with Hamas, and may even encourage allies to withhold military aid. Even President Joe Biden used the headline’s casualty number in a speech. This headline and slight variations of it have been often presented in recent news reports around the world. See links above and see Google.

That is a large number of casualties, for sure. The impression the headline leaves is that Israel is simply doling out a whole lot of death!

But we should think for a minute. Yes, that’s a lot of ended human lives. And, yes, we should mourn such a terrible loss.

It turns out, however, that the number comes from Gaza’s Ministry of Health — run by Hamas — so it’s dubious at best. Reminder: Hamas is the terrorist group that murdered 1200+ Israelis, injured many more, and took 240 hostages on October 7.

Reminder: Hamas lied about the al-Ahli hospital in Gaza, saying it was destroyed by an Israeli bomb that allegedly killed nearly 500 civilians when in fact, the bomb was a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket (Islamic Jihad is a Gazan ally of Hamas) that landed in the hospital’s parking lot, killing, according to US intelligence, about 100 to 300 people.

Surely, numbers provided by known murderers and liars lack credibility.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say the number of almost 35,000 is accurate. (Keep in mind that more recent news tells us Gaza’s Ministry of Health cannot verify about 10,000 of the alleged casualties, which makes it reasonable to suspect the actual number is considerably lower.)

But even if we say 35,000 Gazans have been killed in the war so far, we should realize that this number (and the new, perhaps lower number) fails to indicate that a large portion are Hamas fighters, not just Gazan civilians.

The Israel Defense Forces estimate they have killed 14,000 Hamas fighters (if we take a terrorist’s number seriously we should at least take a democratic state’s number seriously). Now, let’s do the math.

The number of Hamas fighters killed is about 40% of the total casualties in Gaza. This means that for every combatant killed, 1.5 civilians are killed.

Of course, each civilian death is tragic. But the combatant-civilian death ratio shows how careful and precise Israel actually is when compared to other instances of recent urban warfare.

For example, in Mosul, Iraq, US-backed forces killed 4,000 Islamic State terrorists and 10,000 civilians. This means that, for every combatant killed, 2.5 civilians were killed. And, in the fight against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, for every combatant killed, five civilians were killed.

Keep in mind, too, that in Gaza many civilians are killed by misfired rockets launched by Hamas and its Islamic jihadist friends. Since October 7, 2023, Hamas has fired well over 10,000 rockets into Israel. And it’s estimated that between 10% and 20% of those rockets (1,000 to 2,000 rockets) misfired and landed in Gaza. That’s a lot of Hamas’s rockets landing in Gaza — which is populated densely with Gazan civilians.

There’s no doubt, then, that many Gazan civilians are killed by Hamas, not the IDF. Clearly, this reduces the IDF’s combatant-civilian death ratio even more.

Moreover, keep in mind that Hamas — unlike ISIS in Iraq and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan — has had nearly 20 years to embed itself in the Gazan population, where it routinely uses civilians as human shields, and to build hundreds of kilometers of attack tunnels under Gazan homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques. This has made it all the more difficult for the IDF to target Hamas and minimize civilian deaths.

Clearly, in view of these difficult circumstances of war, the above combatant-civilian death ratios demonstrate that Israel has minimized civilian deaths in a way that will no doubt be hailed by Western democracies which value human life as the gold standard in urban warfare.

All this to say: Without further details, the headline “Palestinian death toll in Gaza climbs to 34,844” makes Israel look bad — but misleadingly and unjustly so.

 

Misleading Headline from Reuters

“Satellite images show 35% of Gaza’s building destroyed, UN says.”

 

Wow. That is a lot of destroyed buildings! If you scroll on without reading the article (or without reading it carefully), you can’t help but think: Those darn Israelis.

But wait. The article tells a significantly different story.

Consider this (from the article): “In its assessment, the United Nations Satellite Centre, UNOSAT, used high-resolution satellite images … [and] found that 35% of all buildings in the Gaza Strip—88,868 structures—had been damaged or destroyed.”

Put on your thinking caps.

 First, notice that to say 35% of all buildings are damaged or destroyed (according to the article’s text) is not the same as saying 35% of all buildings are destroyed (according to the article’s headline). Logic (and common sense) tells us that something can be damaged but not destroyed.

So the headline misleads us by telling us that 35% of the buildings are destroyed, while neglecting to tell us that the 35% includes buildings that were merely damaged. That is an important difference.

Second, and more significantly, notice that the article goes on to say: “Among these [the 88,868 damaged or destroyed buildings], [UNOSAT] identified 31,198 structures as destroyed, 16,908 as severely damaged, and 40,762 as moderately damaged.”

That means of the 88,868 damaged structures 35% were destroyed, 19% severely damaged, and 46% moderately damaged.

Here’s the rub: The headline makes it seem that 35% of all of Gaza’s buildings were destroyed, when in fact only 35% of the damaged structures were destroyed.

That’s a huge difference in meaning. And terribly misleading.

 

Don’t be bamboozled by misleading headlines, especially if you are interested in truth about the Israel-Hamas war and wish to avoid anti-Israel bias.

Read more — and read more carefully.

P.S. On the broader theme of misleading articles about the Israel-Hamas war, this recent article by Douglas Murray is important: “All eyes should be on Al Jazeera for being founded, funded — and directed — by terrorists,” New York Post, June 20, 2024.

 

---

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor (formerly at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada) and author of the recent book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War. A PDF of this book is available for free at his blog APOLOGIA or the paperback can be  purchased at Amazon.

Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students

 

Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(Originally published at The Stream; reprinted here with permission.)

 

If recent encampments and protests on university campuses have demonstrated anything, it’s that many of today’s university students are woefully ignorant about Israel and the Israel-Hamas war. Clearly, students have been bamboozled by anti-Israel propaganda and need actual schooling rather than woke indoctrination.

Surprise Quiz!

Here, then, is a surprise quiz. (I have added answers to minimize “triggering” those students who confuse vandalism and waving placards with studying and seeking truth.)

TRUE or FALSE?

1. October 7 didn’t happen.

False. The footage from the Hamas fighters’ bodycams, the testimony of survivors, and forensic investigation provide ample evidence that on October 7, 2023, Hamas brutally murdered more than 1,200 Israelis, injured many more, and took 240 hostages.

2. Israel was occupying Gaza immediately before October 7.

False. Israel gave Gaza its independence in 2005, hoping for peace. In turn, Gaza embraced Hamas — a terrorist organization — and over the past nearly two decades has launched thousands of rockets against Israel and constructed a vast underground war machine.

3. The Israel-Hamas war is about land.

False. See above answer (i.e., Israel gave Gaza back to Gazans in 2005).

Also, Gazans (more generally, Palestinians) have repeatedly rejected Israel’s offers of peace in exchange for land.

In fact, Gaza — led by Hamas — is fighting a religious war against Israel. Hamas is an Islamist terror organization that seeks to exterminate Jews and their Jewish state. Islamists see Israel as a satanic affront to the “true religion” of Islam. Israel is the “Little Satan” (and the U.S. is the “Great Satan”).

4. Israel is committing genocide.

False. Israel is fighting a war of self-defense — a war started by Hamas. And it is Hamas that is the genocidal regime.

In the Israel-Hamas war, Israel is targeting Hamas fighters and is not trying to wipe out Gazans. Hamas, on the other hand, targets all Israelis and wants to exterminate all Jews — whether women or men, children or aged, civilians or soldiers. That is genocide!

Yes, sadly, in targeting Hamas fighters Israel has killed many Gazan civilians. This is a tragedy. But for Hamas it’s a strategy.

Hamas hides behind (and below) Gazan civilians, knowing Israel is reluctant to kill civilians, yet also knowing Israel is morally obliged to risk killing Gazans to stop Hamas and thereby protect Israeli citizens. To Israel’s credit, the civilian-combatant death ratio is low when compared to other cases of urban warfare in recent history. And this is all the more impressive when we also realize that many Gazan casualties are due to the misfiring of many Hamas rockets.

Again: Israel is not committing genocide. Rather, Israel is engaging in self-defense against a genocidal Islamist-jihadist regime — a regime that deliberately sacrifices its own citizens so gullible Westerners will believe it is the victim, and thus not support the only democracy in the Middle East. (In view of the campus anti-Israel protests and the Biden administration’s waffling support for Israel, Hamas is playing its wicked game all too well!)

5. Israel’s military response is not proportional.

False. Class, please put down your placards and put on your thinking caps.

Proportionality in war is not mathematical equality (one side rapes and murders 100 people, so the other side rapes and kills 100 enemies in response — that’s gang warfare). Rather, it involves weighing, on the one hand, possible deaths on one’s own side if opposing military targets are not struck, and, on the other hand, possible deaths of civilians on the other side if the military targets are struck.

Hamas, which the majority of Palestinians (and Iran) support, has vowed to commit the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again in order to wipe Israel off the map and exterminate Jews. Therefore, Israel has been forced to defend itself against Hamas by striking Gaza.

And this is no easy task. Why? Because Hamas has spent nearly 20 years embedding its fighters in hundreds of kilometers of tunnels located under Gaza’s hospitals, homes, schools, and mosques. And this task is all the more difficult because Israel is attempting to target Hamas without targeting civilians, even though many of those civilians have helped Hamas build its war machine.

Therefore, Israel’s military response is proportional. Israel is doing what is needed to prevent a death cult — Hamas — from murdering millions of Israelis.

6. Israel is an oppressor.

False. Again, Israel is acting in self-defense. Again, Hamas brutally attacked Israel on October 7.

If any country is an oppressor, it’s Iran. Iran explicitly advocates for (and even shouts,) “Death to Israel” (and “Death to America”). Also, Iran supports and surrounds Israel with terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Via this “ring of fire,” Iran is attempting to exterminate Israel. That is oppressive!

But aren’t Israel’s Gaza border policies oppressive? Perhaps, though certainly not like that of Iran’s oppression via its proxies (including Hamas). Keep in mind that the efforts on Israel’s part to ensure secure borders between Israel and Gaza are a result of Gaza’s deadly actions against Israel. Remember the almost two decades of rocket fire? Remember the attack tunnels? Israel’s border policies protect Israel from Hamas.

7. Israel should agree to a permanent ceasefire before eliminating Hamas.

False. Hamas (Gaza’s leadership) started the war and so should lay down its arms, return all hostages, and agree to an unconditional surrender. If Israel agrees to a permanent ceasefire before Hamas surrenders and releases all hostages, Hamas will regroup and continue its promised genocidal war against Israel. Moreover, other terrorist groups around the globe will be emboldened by Hamas’s success.

As an Israeli spokesperson said: If there’s a fire, you don’t just put out 80% of it — you put out all of it. It’s the same for Hamas.

Think about it. We didn’t let Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan off the hook until they were thoroughly defeated. And rightly so.

8. Israel is an apartheid state.

False. Israel is a democracy in which Arabs and other minorities (and women) have full rights. There is no apartheid in the State of Israel.

At this juncture, a student might try to justify the apartheid charge against Israel by pointing to the West Bank. But this would be a(nother) mistake.

First, the West Bank is not Israel. It is a disputed territory, of which parts are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and parts by Israel (it’s messy).

Second, yes, Palestinians and Israelis are segregated in the West Bank. But segregation in the West Bank is done for security reasons, not apartheid.

This segregation is no doubt difficult for Palestinians, but it’s not an instance of apartheid (or racism). The segregation and Israeli occupation in West Bank is Israel’s response to the many past Palestinian attacks and suicide bombings against Israel.

Again, it’s not apartheid. It’s not discrimination or oppression based on race or ethnicity. Rather, it’s an attempt to restrain hostile actors. This is an important difference!

To see what real apartheid states look like — which includes discrimination and oppression based not only on race or ethnicity but also gender and sexuality — look at Israel’s neighbors and ask: Why are there so few (if any) Jews living in those countries? Why are women less than first-class citizens? Why does Gaza toss gay people off tall buildings rather than celebrate Gay Pride Month?

End of quiz. Class dismissed. Please leave your placards in the garbage can, clean up your mess on campus, and apologize sincerely to all Israeli and Jewish students on your way out the door.

---

For additional thought, see my article (also at The Stream) “The Problem of the Misleading Headline.”

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor (formerly at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada) and author of the recent book Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War. A PDF of this book is available for free at his blog APOLOGIA or the paperback can be  purchased at Amazon.

New article at The Stream

 

New article at The Stream

Dear readers of APOLOGIA,

I have a new article at The Stream (a Texas-based news and commentary site, with an office in Washington DC): “Untangling Anti-Israel Propaganda for Today’s College Students.”

Al Perrotta, The Stream’s Washington bureau chief, describes my article as “a really delicious piece … that you must share with your college-aged family members and friends.”

Yes, please feel free to share my article!

Hendrik

 

Vaccine mandate propaganda?

 

                    Cartoon by Peter Kuper, The New Yorker, Facebook post, February 4, 2022

Vaccine mandate propaganda?

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

On February 4, 2022, The New Yorker presented a cartoon that smacks of vaccine mandate propaganda. The cartoon depicts two astronauts in outer space and one says, as he’s about to take off his helmet, “I’ve had it with the helmet mandates.”

The cartoon seems to be a visual form of argument (by analogy) in favour of COVID vaccine mandates: COVID vaccine mandates are like space helmets—so the COVID vaccine mandates protect us similarly.

But it’s a weak argument. I see (at least) three relevant dissimilarities that render the analogy deeply problematic from a logic/critical thinking point of view.

Relevant dissimilarity #1

Unlike helmetlessness in space, which kills everyone (as far as we know), COVID doesn’t kill everyone (as far as we know). COVID tends to kill primarily those people who are vulnerable: older folks, immunocompromised people, obese people, people with cardiovascular disease—i.e., people with serious underlying medical conditions.

From World Health Organization: “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention.”

Relevant dissimilarity #2

Unlike the fact that we all need helmets to live in outer space, not all of us need vaccines. In the COVID situation some (many?) people can live without “helmets” (vaccines). Again, as stated by WHO, “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment.” It also turns out that some (many?) people who have had COVID, and have survived, have developed a non-vaccine-induced immunity.

Relevant dissimilarity #3

Unlike helmetlessness in space, a situation in which it’s clear that helmetlessness is the culprit, it’s often not clear that in the COVID situations that COVID is the culprit. Hospitalizations due to COVID have been over-reported by up to 50%, as has been admitted recently by various medical officials (e.g., Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer). And in recent weeks it’s become clear that health officials have failed to make a distinction between deaths with COVID and deaths because of COVID.

These three dissimilarities make the helmet mandate analogy to COVID vaccine mandates faulty.

So, yes, wear your helmet in outer space, but on earth a thinking cap is prolly enough.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

P.S.  I think the above cartoon of The New Yorker is propaganda for what some have called “vaccine-ism.” For additional thought about the new scientistic ideology called “vaccine-ism,” see Norman Doige’s “Needle Points” on Jordan B. Peterson’s podcast S4: E79. Dr. Norman Doige is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing. He is Executive Director of Health and the Greater Good.  The podcast is a whopping 3.5 hours long. For a link to a transcript of Doige’s paper, which Doige reads on Peterson’s podcast, see here.

P.P.S. Objection: It’s only a cartoon. Reply: Only if you ignore all of the above.