Eby says Burnaby, B.C., hospital expansion will go ahead, despite cancelled contract

The right to a private life is a fundamental human need — that is not in dispute. However, our current practices of privacy, particularly when it comes to privacy for children, are a recipe for deprivation, an unintended consequence of our otherwise good intentions.

Two articles in the Oct. 17 Free Press — “If every child matters, why no public inquiry?” by Marion Willis; and “Student violence surges” by Maggie Macintosh — raised serious questions which make privacy seem more like neglect than benefit.

A democratic society has every right to be concerned about privacy and its many advantages. Ancient Greeks likened privacy to home life, a safe place where you could make foolish mistakes, behavioural and otherwise, away from public scrutiny and judgment. The point was that it was a place to test your ideas to make them fit for appearing in public.

Our public schools are to a large measure built on those premises — classrooms out of the public eye where children can make mistakes and learn without paying a price. It’s why all visitors must first report to the office to establish their validity. That sense of privacy has proved beneficial and essential as we try to teach children the civility, respect, empathy, integrity and personal responsibility essential for entering and contributing to a healthy public — thriving communities and a humane society where everyone is welcomed and valued.

Privacy risks of health information

Manitobans deserve answers about how their personal health information is collected, accessed and protected. Three everyday practices warrant public scrutiny: repeatedly requesting birth dates at pharmacies; exposing historical medical records to reception staff; and requiring callers to disclose personal details to Health Links.

A Manitoba health card proves health coverage. Why must patients repeatedly disclose their birth dates to collect prescriptions? What assumptions or biases might arise from a person’s age or outdated medical history? Being classified as “authorized personnel” does not eliminate the risk of unnecessary scrutiny.

I have personally experienced the distress of a doctor’s receptionist drawing attention to a decades-old medical entry by asking, “Is this you?” A last name which had apparently been removed legally was visible again. Patients should not have to explain or relive painful chapters of their past simply because historical information appears on a screen.

A Winnipeg woman who helped dispose the body of a slain Mexican man under threat of death from his killers has been ordered to serve another 8½ months in jail.

Devlin Langlois, 25, had pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact to murder in the March 2025 killing of 28-year-old Diego Moscoza in a Selkirk Avenue house.

Court of King’s Bench Justice Candace Grammond, in a written ruling delivered Friday, rejected a recommendation by Langlois’s lawyer Joshua Rogala that she be sentenced to the equivalent of nearly 16 months of time served.

Grammond said she accepted that Langlois feared for her life. However, she made no effort to help Moscoza when he was gravely injured and his killers were not present in the home and had not yet threatened her.