Editorials - March 6, 2026
Masters of War
While opinions are divided on the American-Israeli strikes in Iran - some basking in relief from an oppressive terrorist regime while others decry the United States of America and Israel (two countries with what could be generously described as tepid international reputations right now) sticking their noses where they don’t belong - what’s irrefutable is that people have died and will continue to die as a result of this decision.
Fathers and grandfathers will again send their sons and grandsons, daughters and granddaughters to their deaths. In service of what? That remains to be seen. Even part-time conspiracy realists have no trouble connecting this war to nagging allegations from the Epstein files, the never-ending American quest for oil and Trump’s flagging support (even ignoring his tanking approval ratings on domestic issues, just a quarter of Americans supported strikes on Iran in a weekend poll) yet its consequences are and will be very real. As of Monday, six Americans were dead in addition to hundreds of Iranians, including the bombing of a girls’ school that killed over 165 people (including dozens of children).
The President of Peace, a title Trump gave himself, claims to have ended eight wars. This is untrue and further complicated by the ones he’s initiated. Furthermore, Trump and his team are cognizant of the optics of bombing an oil-rich Middle Eastern country for dubious reasons, insisting it’s different now and this will not be a “forever war” like the conflict in Iraq. Again, that remains to be seen.
The average citizen - job, spouse, kids, bills, debt, hobbies - yearns for peace. They want to work their job, play with their kids and indulge in their hobbies in a satisfying, yet financially-responsible manner. They do not want their lives negatively affected by wars beyond their shores. And yet this feels like the latest chapter - whether it be pollution, climate change, the ever-growing power of the ultra-rich or artificial intelligence - in a book of our stories that are, notably, not written by us. – SL
Idiot Wind
U.S. President Donald Trump stopped caring long ago about using music by musicians who never authorized its usage and who, frankly, deeply disagree with his politics. We’ve all read the statements. The artist in question distances themself from Trump, confirms they were never asked and says they will be initiating the legal process to stop it.
There is strong language ahead - don’t say you weren’t warned. It is commendable then to see Radiohead, one of the most creative and dynamic bands of the modern era, take it one step further and speak Trump’s language back at him. The White House used “Let Down” in a video trumpeting the work of its ICE goons and it’s safe to say that wasn’t Radiohead’s cup of tea. The band issued a statement demanding that the video be taken down, ending it with, “go f—k yourselves.”.
You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more direct rebuke than that, and yet, it’s unlikely to make a difference with a man who does what he wants, somehow able to break every law and violate every nicety while retaining the support from his ardent, law-and-order supporters.
It may be more symbolic than anything, but it must have felt good to send that statement into the world, speaking up for so many. – SL
Shelter from the Storm
In the pages of the Toronto Star, Conservative strategist Jaime Watt made a clear and deliberate argument: King Charles III should step aside. Watt did not frame this as a provocation. He presented it as a sober and serious assessment of the monarchy’s current standing and the risks it faces if it does not adjust to present realities. His conclusion is straightforward. The Crown would be better served by a voluntary transition now than by prolonged erosion later.
Central to Watt’s reasoning is the strain placed on the institution by ongoing controversies, including the lasting damage associated with the former Prince Andrew. The fallout from that scandal has raised broader questions about judgment, accountability and the monarchy’s ability to protect its own credibility. Watt’s point is not that the King is personally responsible for every misstep within the Royal Family, but that the institution as a whole bears the weight of those failures.
This is not about scrapping the monarchy in Canada. It is not about re-opening the Constitution or cutting ties overnight. Watt’s argument is narrower than that. It is about leadership and timing. It is about whether the person at the centre of the institution can best restore confidence at a moment when trust has been shaken.
Watt argues that a voluntary decision by the King to step aside would demonstrate that the monarchy recognizes the seriousness of the moment and is prepared to act in order to protect its long-term stability. Far from undermining the institution, such a move could help steady it.
Canada’s constitutional monarchy does not stand or fall on any one individual. Supporting Watt’s proposal is not the same as calling for abolition. It is acknowledging that institutions only endure when they show they can renew themselves in the face of difficulty. – SBS