Have your say

Backwards argument

The thesis of the June 21 article by Karen Busby and Lorna Turnbull, Humiliation of judge was avoidable, is that if complaints against judges are given a full public hearing, their independence would be undermined.

This argument should be turned around to say that any person who has a background deserving of a public hearing should never be allowed to become a judge in the first place. Moreover, regardless of the legal niceties and intricacies, if a candidate for the judiciary thinks that availability -- or even its remote possibility -- of disgustingly obscene images on a public website would not undermine her credibility as a judge, she exhibits very poor judgment and is woefully out of touch with what the general public expects from the judiciary.

By a legal sleight of hand, it is being argued that since the existence of Justice Lori Douglas's pictures was an "open secret" in the legal community at the time of her appointment, well, then everything is just fine. But, on the contrary, what this actually shows is that rot has penetrated Manitoba's entire law establishment who chose to look the other way.

NASH SOONAWALA

Winnipeg

Why on earth would Lorna Turnbull and Karen Busby argue the case for Justice Lori Douglas when it is a matter being adjudicated by a properly constituted review panel?

They both hold responsible positions at the University of Manitoba's law faculty -- guiding the education of young men and women who will hopefully become professionals dedicated to the highest standards of ethics, morals and justice in society.

Although many in the legal and judicial family were aware of Jack King having photographed his wife in bondage with pictures available on the Internet, no one stepped forward to question his continued practice of law in the family court where his wife was a judge. This is mind-boggling.

What is further amazing is the role of the Manitoba Law Society. Why didn't it summon Jack King for a disciplinary hearing, doing nothing until there was a public disclosure?

Why did the law society allow King to return to the practice of law upon payment of a small fine, without even imposing restrictions that he not practise in any court division where his wife would be presiding?

AL MACKLING

Winnipeg

Affront to Parliament

Please allow me to correct some misinformation published in John Feldsted's June 21 letter, Time for debate. He claims that the so-called budget implementation bill, C-38, was tabled in January. In fact, it had first reading on April 26, 2012, and to that point, no one, including backbencher Conservatives, had any idea such a mammoth bill was planned.

He lists the days of debate in the House, failing to note that some "days" amounted to two or three hours, and that, at each stage, the Harper Conservatives imposed time allocation to rush things through. To have the finance committee be the only body to review changes to more than 70 different laws is an affront to Parliament. The review of the repeal of environmental assessment and gutting of the Fisheries Act had a grand total of 13 hours of review.

As for his claim that I "lost track of proceedings" and voted with the Conservatives, he might want to know that I deliberately voted with the Conservatives when I disagreed with NDP proposals.

Unlike Conservative MPs, I was allowed to read the bill, read the amendments and vote for what I believed best served Canada's interests.

ELIZABETH MAY

Green Party of Canada Leader

Ottawa

Absolutely clueless

I am absolutely appalled by Scott Malabar's June 21 letter, Civil servants must serve. This gentleman is absolutely clueless about civil servants at all levels of government.

Civil servants work hard, interact with the public on a regular basis and go above and beyond, in my opinion. I wonder if he realizes how many civil servants volunteered their time to sandbag during the 2011 flood?

How many give generously of their time and money to the community each and every day?

KELLI ADAMS

Winnipeg

Misdirected criticism

Don Hermiston's criticism of socialism in Europe (Socialist delusions, June 18) is misdirected. For example, Greece failed not because of socialism, but because of poor management. An economy where government employs 50 per cent of the workforce, has a large social safety net, yet has a soaring debt because tax avoidance is rampant, is unsustainable.

Renowned U.S. economist Paul Krugman has noted that Sweden, condemned for decades by conservatives who predict failure for their socialist welfare state, is doing extremely well economically. Meanwhile, Ireland, praised by conservatives a few years ago for its austerity measures, is now a economic basket case, with 14 per cent unemployment, no growth and desperate for a bailout.

DAN CHECCINI

Winnipeg

Depressing change

It is hard to read David Shorr's June 19 letter, Envy and greed, without being reminded yet again of just how hypocritical and mean-spirited too many Canadians are becoming about providing sufficient government revenues to fund programs that create a more equal and caring society.

Numerous factors probably contribute to this remarkable and harmful change, including simple ignorance of economic disparities, recent generations coming from too affluent a background to appreciate how many Canadians struggle, difficult personal economic circumstances, and politicians who promote such views to deliberately weaken our central government.

Whatever the cause, the ultimate outcome is a meaner Canada that many of us will no longer recognize nor admire.

JIM CLARK

Winnipeg

Supporting a plan

Re: Bring on 'enviropreneurs' (June 15). I am onside with Chris Buors in his respect for entrepreneurs, but with regard to central planning, methinks he doth protest too much.

Every business enterprise starts with a plan. Governments, too, have a plan, as the Harper government's so-called Action Plan for Canada illustrates.

The best example of successful central planning by a national government is none other than the United States of America during the Second World War when most elements of the American economy were controlled and directed by the government to achieve a specific end. The best example of failed central planning was arguably the Soviet Union in the 1980s. There can be good and bad central planning.

RUDY PETERS

Winnipeg

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 23, 2012 A17