Letters, April 14

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/04/2023 (1255 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Familiar objections

The Chamber of Commerce is giving all the usual arguments for opposing the Orange Shirt Day (No Orange Shirt Day stat in Manitoba this year: Stefanson, April 11).

It reminds me of the long list of business representatives at the House of Commons in the early 1980s when there was a bill improving maternity leave and the right to refuse unsafe work. After listening to all the doublespeak, when the Canadian Bankers’ Association spoke, I had more than enough.

When it was my turn to ask questions, I asked what was the last piece of progressive legislation they supported and I started going through the list. I don’t think I got to the issues of slavery and child labour, but I made the point. They had never supported progressive legislation.

Rod Murphy

Thompson

Unfair to patients

Re: Chronic lack of transparency, (April 8)

So, do I have this right? A doctor does something (we don’t know what) to a patient at some time (we don’t know when) once or a number of times (we don’t know the frequency) in an undisclosed place (we don’t know the location), and the “something” that has occurred is serious enough that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba either forbids the doctor from examining specific people or specific body parts, or forbids the doctor from examining those people and/or body parts alone.

This cannot possibly be correct, can it?

What if a doctor randomly punched a male patient one time in the stomach in the doctor’s office one year ago?

The consequences the doctor would face would be:

Scenario A: Doctor punches man in stomach; doctor is forbidden from seeing all male patients. This tells me that the doctor cannot be trusted to refrain from punching male patients, that the doctor’s actions are triggered when seeing men. So there’s a pretty good chance that any man that sees this doctor for any reason, will get punched in the stomach.

Scenario B: Doctor punches man in stomach; doctor is forbidden from examining male abdomens. This tells me that the doctor cannot be trusted to refrain from punching men specifically in the stomach, that the doctor’s actions are triggered in the presence of a man’s stomach. So as long as a man doesn’t have a stomach, he should be safe to see this doctor. Wait, that can’t be right.

Scenario C: Doctor punches man in stomach; doctor must have a chaperone when examining all male patients. This tells me that the doctor won’t punch men as long as someone is watching. It also tells me that the doctor would likely take a swing at any man if unsupervised.

Scenario D: Doctor punches man in stomach; doctor must have a chaperone when examining male abdomens. Yet again, the doctor would likely punch the guy’s stomach if he could get away with it.

In all four scenarios, none of the restrictions actually remove the doctor’s desire to hurt the patient or change the doctor’s behaviour. The restrictions wrongly put the onus on chaperones and patients to modify their own behaviours instead. This is entirely unacceptable. It is the offender that must change, not the victims.

If the offending doctor is incapable of change, then they shouldn’t be practising. At all. On anyone.

Cheryl Miki

Winnipeg

Jets need accountability

So Mark Chipman is starting the guilt trip now huh? (Jets clinch playoff spot, owner urges local biz to buy in, April 11) Well, that’s what happens when you gouge your customers based on their 10 years of good will.

Personally, as a Jets fan, I want a couple of things to demonstrate the organization’s commitment to winning, not just making piles and piles of money. This season, despite potentially at least two guaranteed playoff dates, this team has proved it was not deserving of the ticket price — the same problems since the 2018-‘19 season, coming up again like clockwork. Address the team first — some accountability from management, please.

Here’s what I’d like: get our banners back from Arizona, make the heritage jersey our home and away sweaters and release the 1996 heritage sweater.

I want to lavish in my team’s success and its history, not simply pay lip service to both. Until then, the Jets won’t be seeing my wallet open for them.

Will Jones

Winnipeg

Keep faith, government separate

Re: Muslim groups promise to monitor Quebec ban on school prayer spaces (April 11)

Canada is a welcoming place for peoples from many countries, including highly religious ones. In the main, however, new Canadians have appreciated the value of practising their faith at home, in religious settings and even in public. But not in government institutions, which remained secular to ensure that indeed “government is the government of everybody.”

World events demonstrate the danger of violating that separation. Twenty years of progress in women’s education was destroyed in the blink of an eye in Afghanistan despite duplicitous promises from the Taliban. Turkey has banned the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is deemed controversial. Although debated, concerns are expressed about the demise of secularism in India, which is reflected in laws that restrict religious conversion.

A faith-based judiciary in the U.S. has undermined women’s reproductive health and, if a new ruling holds, even the authority of government to ensure the safety of Americans from dangerous products. With respect to the latter, we saw here people who believe that their religious beliefs trump health directives to protect Canadians.

The issue is non-denominational. Many faiths view abortion and euthanasia as immoral, and undoubtedly share other beliefs at odds with the Canadian collective. Irrespective of whether Quebec is taking the correct approach, all Canadians, including those of faith, should appreciate that a weakened commitment to a secular society risks regressive policies that harm us all.

Jim Clark

Winnipeg

Where the streets have no sidewalks

Brent Bellamy writes that “In most newer communities, less than one per cent of the population walks or bikes to work, and even in older areas such as North Kildonan, only four per cent do.” (Winnipeg winter shouldn’t translate to lower quality of life, April 10) This has to do, to a great extent, with the almost complete absence of sidewalks in these areas.

I assume that the city discovered, long ago, that if you just don’t build sidewalks then no one can complain about their condition and, as a bonus, the absent sidewalks never need to be plowed.

Even “older areas” like North Kildonan have very few sidewalks north of the Chief Peguis Trail. These housing developments are many decades old and they have sidewalks only on major streets.

Strood Avenue is without a sidewalk and has always been a huge concern for parents bringing students to Maple Leaf School. Thus, driving students to school becomes the safest option.

So to those who worry about less-than-perfect conditions on their sidewalks, be glad that you have sidewalks at all. Many, many citizens of Winnipeg do not have that luxury. Let’s see an article about that.

Lorie Battershill

Winnipeg