Letters and comments, Feb. 27

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/02/2018 (2989 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Cormier verdict must spur action

In the wake of the fateful circumstances of Tina Fontaine’s death and its aftermath, it is clear the spinning, conjoining and seemingly formidable adversities embedded in outdated systems of social services, education, law, health care — and the plain old ways we treat each other — require a good, long look.

We have 94 ways to do this.

Choose one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 calls to action that involves an area of your life. Then, simply speak about it to friends, co-workers and others. (It may be difficult to pick just one).

Isn’t it high time to have a simple discussion?

Shirley Kowalchuk

Winnipeg

▼

The list of failures is staggering. The groundswell of people demanding “justice” as if convicting Raymond Cormier would make everything right is off base. It would not bring back Tina. She was alone and desperate enough to accept anyone who offered her relief from lonesomeness.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is risky. Prominent cases where a convicted person was found innocent years later include James Driskell, Anthony Hanemaayer, Donald Marshall Jr., Simon Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, William Mullins-Johnson, Romeo Phillion, Thomas Sophonow, Steven Truscott, Kyle Unger and Erin Walsh.

It is easy to shift blame to family services, or the justice system, but why was family services involved in a stable and supportive family? Once family services intervened, dumping a child in a hotel room without companionship and support was unforgivable.

Removing children from Aboriginal families and moving them from one unstable situation to another is inane. Calling for changes to the justice system is wrong-headed. We must focus on preventive measures to avoid removals rather than wringing our hands after yet another tragedy.

Tina Fontaine’s family needed assistance and support. That is where we failed. We didn’t look hard enough to see whether she could remain in the community and familiar surroundings. Her removal led to disaster. We must find a better way to support dysfunctional parents and families in co-operation with Aboriginal communities and break the chain of events at the outset.

John Feldsted

Winnipeg

Plenty of maples here

Re: Symbol leafs him cold (Letters, Feb. 23)

Mike Priaro asks for a “symbol that represents all of Canada,” because he states that the numbers of maple trees across the Prairie provinces are too low for its leaf to be representative of all of Canada. Maples are not predominantly Prairie trees, but there are maple species other than the sugar maple that thrive in Manitoba. In a few years, Priaro may discover that only maples, a few scrub oaks and maybe some errant willows will be left south of the boreal forest.

The Winnipeg region is suffering a net loss of thousands of trees each year; elms and ash to disease, and birch and aspen to developers’ indiscriminate chainsaws. A decade from now we will be lucky to have some maples for shade and Siberian elms for windbreaks and air-pollution filters.

In view of the way provincial budgets, like urban forests, are being slashed, our national symbol should be a chainsaw.

Jean A. Paterson

Winnipeg

Closer look at armed forces

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This clause of the Constitution is not a trifle to be ignored. The Constitution has proven its mettle several times in the history of the United States.

However, the premise of this assertion, concerning militias, is no longer true. In fact, there are federally regulated armed forces, which are far more effective than any militia in protecting the U.S.

Further, even if one allows that a militia is necessary, the mass shootings that have taken place over the past several years demonstrates that the group of gun owners in the U.S. is anything but a well-regulated militia.

Finally, the term “arms” has changed in meaning substantially since the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. It is doubtful that the framers of the Constitution could have imagined the evolution of arms over the ensuing 200-plus years.

It would seem reasonable, therefore, to repeal the Second Amendment. Failing this, Congress could pass laws that restrict the types of arms and ammunition that citizens can purchase. If these laws were challenged at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court — the word “when” is more appropriate — the above arguments demonstrating the inapplicability of 21st-century reality to this 18th-century amendment would surely convince the court that some form of restriction on gun ownership and possession is consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

Francis Newman

Winnipeg

The common good

Re: Common courtesy becoming uncommon (Feb. 23)

I agree with Carl DeGurse; when we look, we will always find discourtesy.

However, I emphatically disagree with his assertion that courtesy is becoming uncommon.

I encounter courtesy everywhere. In the past month, I have had the pleasure of visiting the University of Manitoba twice. Both times, I was offered courteous, helpful advice from passersby about parking and nearest exits. Last month, at SHE Day, several people held doors, offered to fetch coffee and helped with my display setup. Today, at the St. Boniface Hospital, all I needed to do to have right advice offered was to hesitate, briefly.

But, finally, I agree with DeGurse. Each experience moved me to offer friendly help to folks I met.

Should I meet Carl DeGurse, I promise not have a tantrum, to offer a toonie for parking and to call him “sir.”

Lynn Silver

Winnipeg

▼

I totally agree that common courtesy is becoming uncommon. I see it from people of all ages, though. I’m curious though if “the lack of civility shown by the theatregoers isn’t unusual these days” includes the guy who asked the woman to take the kid out of there. Someone had to say it.

The other evening in the movie theatre, I was sitting next to two young girls who kept checking their phones and were on Facebook for several minutes at a time. I politely leaned over and whispered, “Phones off.” I got a death stare that didn’t ease up until the woman sitting behind me, who I had heard previously comment about the two women constantly on their phones, yelled loudly for them to please turn off their phones as it was distracting to everyone else. One of the young girls said, “Sorry,” and that was the end of it.

— ProudToBeCanadian

Silver lining

Re: Silver medal can still be symbol of pride (Feb. 23)

Everyone piling on Jocelyne Larocque should chill. This woman devoted years of her life to the sport she loved and the chance to represent her country. I, for one, am very proud of her and the rest of the team. I don’t blame her for not wanting to wear the medal. It’s hers to do with as she wishes.

Let’s face the facts. The women’s Olympic hockey competition is basically a two-team tournament. Maybe, to her, that medal seems to be nothing more than a participation medal. I’m sure in time it will become a proud reminder of her team’s accomplishment.

Rene Vincent

Winnipeg