Why We Refrain From Calling Out the Evil That Surrounds Us

Patrick Gossage • July 31, 2024

It was unusual and instructive to hear the outgoing chief of the Canadian chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre quoted in his outgoing speech urging Canada to prepare for war and saying: “The implications of the outcome of this war are momentous for our global future. Evil walks the face of the Earth, and it must be stopped.”

It is now seen as ineffective to characterize modern conflicts as battles between good and evil. It’s been many years since George W. Bush used

the “axis of evil” to describe the bellicose tendencies of Iran, North Korea and Iraq in the early 21 st century.


Yet Eyre correctly said that “evil” walks the face of the earth. It is interesting to note that both the Gospels and the writings of Paul often refer to the

ubiquity of evil. The first epistle of John makes an even more sweeping claim than Eyre: “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole

world is under the control of the evil one.”


Currently in the United States, and to a less degree in Canada, the degree of polarization in political beliefs has led to a liberal conservative gulf where each side increasingly hates and distrusts the other. Survey data reveals that more than half of Republicans and Democrats view the other party as “a threat,” and nearly as many agree with the description of the other party as “evil,” Lillian Mason of John Hopkins University said.


Yet it has been remarkable that Democrats resist calling Trump evil even if he shows so many evil characteristics. Listen to no less an authority than

Jesus himself quoted in Marks’ gospel: ‘‘ For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality,…adultery,

greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly.” A pretty comprehensive list of Trum sins. Many believe that Trump has taken cues from dictators, and we have had no problem calling them evil. He takes the same road as the Nazis in demeaning a common enemy – in this case immigrants who he calls savages and backs his statements by threatening to deport the millions of the undocumented.


It is interesting to discover that science studying evil comes to much the same conclusion that the Judeo-Christian teaching of original sin - claiming we all have the capacity to be evil. Paul puts it this way in his epistle to the Romans: “Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me. So, I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.” 


Recent scientific studies of evil come a similar conclusion - that we all have evil thoughts and desires, yet most people don’t act on them. It follows

what we call “evil” will be associated primarily with failures of inhibition. In other words, it’s all about self-control. The apparent normal behaviour

exhibited by many killers would seem to fit with people like the young man who tried to assassinate Trump who suddenly became a crazed assassin.


In a celebrated exchange of letters Sigmund Freud had with Albert Einstein in 1931-32. Einstein asked: “Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness?” Freud replied that “there is no likelihood of our being able

to suppress humanity’s aggressive tendencies” It has been pointed out that conservatives are so suspicious of people who look for “root causes” of

crime, and why they describe sociology as “the science of excuses.”


However the difficulty of ridding individuals of evil tendencies may be, the collectivity surely has moral standards that should apply to collective action. So, in a broader context, are we reaching a stage in our politics where we must call out the evil of systematic lying and inflated vitriolic hate both conservatives and liberals display for each other in the USA and to a lesser extend in Canada? The much-published US author Arthur C Brooks thinks so. In a 2019 excerpt from a lecture he gave in Australia in the New York Times he wrote: ”It may be true that all humans, all societies, are capable of becoming so corrupted as to come to see destroying others’ lives, outside of open combat, as a needed or heroic thing. (as was the case in Nazi Germany) But societies cannot typically survive undamaged, let alone flourish, if a culture of systematic lying is fostered and allowed to grow.”


This is a stark warning for us all. Even our noble politicians pay the price for outright lies, particularly when it comes to election promises, as is the case of Juston Trudeau who promised in the 2015 federal election to reform the first past the post electoral system. This lie, or the inability to action, has dogged him for nine years.


I feel strongly that calling out evil behavior in our politicians is a civic duty. Freud might be right and curing the individual violence in our society is

extremely challenging, as is bringing peace to Gaza or Ukraine where both sides are convinced they are fighting for good versus evil. But we can

influence our politicians with our votes and ensure that wild rhetoric and lying are not allowed to lead to dangerous actions.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts