We shouldn’t interfere in U.S. politics

Re: “Canada must meet a threat to democracy,” column, Feb. 12.

I am confused as to what action Harry Sterling proposes. As a Canadian, I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that threats made by a legally elected president of a foreign country (who has been in office less than one month) should be something that would warrant my interference.

Are these threats legally actionable? Should they be part of our Canadian governmental system?

If we were to leave “personalities” out of this, what law(s) has the U.S. government passed since Jan. 20 that affect Canada? What actions are Sterling suggesting we, as individual Canadians, take?

When he refers to “trans-boundary environmental relations” does he include the Keystone pipeline that originates in Canada and has been approved to extend into the United States?

I still believe that the rule of law is one of the foundations of a free society. We are often told talk is cheap (and cheeper on Twitter); does Sterling think we ought to react to bombast? If not, what — exactly — is he suggesting?

It has been my experience that the “unwashed” public prefers action to talk when asked to act on threats to their chosen government. That is the threat that concerns me most of all.

Lavonne Huneck Cobble Hill