Letters, Sept. 7

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/09/2022 (1354 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Three-strike law needed here

Re: Drug, alcohol use caused stabbing suspect to lose mind: parole document (Sept. 6)

At least one of the Sanderson brothers who allegedly went on a stabbing spree in Saskatchewan on the weekend had an extensive criminal background and history of violence, yet he had been released on parole.

Canada should have a three-strikes law like the United States, imposing significantly harsher punishments on repeat offenders. When convicted of three crimes in the U.S., and one of the crimes is serious, the guilty person goes to prison for life or at least 25 years with no parole.

If Canada had such a law, maybe the 10 people killed in Saskatchewan on the weekend would be alive today.

Robert J. Moskal

Winnipeg

View of drug user alarming

A few weeks ago, I was transported to St. Boniface Hospital by ambulance from Selkirk Regional Hospital for an important test. As I was being wheeled back to the ambulance on a gurney for my return trip, I glanced left at the hospital entrance for pedestrian traffic to the emergency department.

There, perhaps 12 or 15 feet away, was a shabbily dressed man, spread-eagled on the sidewalk, administering the contents of a syringe into his left forearm.

I cannot say for sure why he was there, but his location seemed to be intentional. It sure wasn’t for privacy or comfort. It was extremely hot and I can’t imagine lying on an asphalt sidewalk in the glaring afternoon sun. The likely reason he chose that spot was that he might be saved if he put bad drugs into his arm. For him, it was “a safe injection site.”

Nobody paid attention to him. People stepped around and walked by. My paramedics walked by. I am truly ashamed I did not speak up either. No excuse. I hope I will do better next time.

I wish I could have shared that experience with Premier Heather Stefanson. Surely that would change her mind about safe injection sites. People need safe places to use dangerous drugs, sometimes to stay alive.

Bob Greenhalgh

Lockport

View of child benefits opposed

Re: PC payouts unfair (Letters, Sept. 2)

Letter writer Stewart Jacques is enraged about government subsidies for people having children, and he advises: “Quit having kids if you cannot afford them, or only have the number of children you can afford without expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.”

Perhaps if workers made a living wage, they wouldn’t need government “benefits” to raise their children. The last increase in the minimum wage was a joke.

I wonder if Jacques was also enraged when the provincial government gave property tax rebates and when they lowered the GST rate? This benefited property owners and those who had disposable income to buy large-ticket items.

I believe his outrage is misdirected.

Nettie Lamb

Carman

Welcoming foreign doctors

Re: Recruiting doctors? Others don’t see it that way (Opinion, Sept. 3)

Carl DeGurse writes that “Manitoba should break the dishonourable habit of poaching medical professionals from countries that need them more than we do.”

I disagree with DeGurse. In my former employment, I interviewed many doctors, including some who emigrated to Canada from South Africa. The basic message I heard was that social conditions in South Africa, particularly the crime rate, had led the doctors to make the decision to emigrate. Often the concern was focused on the welfare of their children.

Once a doctor has made a decision to emigrate, the only question is what country will benefit from her/his decision.

As there are many countries suffering a doctor shortage, I see nothing wrong with making Canada an inviting country to work and live in. If Canada does not benefit from these doctors, be assured that the U.S., Great Britain and many European countries will be happy to have their services.

The question of providing financial aid to disadvantaged countries to improve medical training and infrastructure, as DeGurse suggests, is an entirely different matter. There is nothing illogical about providing financial assistance while at the same time making Canada an attractive location for doctors who have made a firm decision to emigrate.

Kurt Clyde

Winnipeg

Adjust expectations of students

Re: Students’ recovery requires extraordinary effort (Opinion, Sept. 3)

University of Winnipeg Prof. Marilyn Simon seems to be treating student expectations as a simple high-to-low continuum, writing “the worst thing we can teach our students is that we have low expectations of them.”

However, my work in education has taught me the issue is not quite that simple. I have found many of the challenges for students experiencing learning issues have more to do with the appropriateness of expectations.

By nature, we humans want to learn and will put forth the appropriate effort to do so, but only if it is within a certain range of potential success. It is what some educators have dubbed the “Goldilocks principle”: not too hard and not too easy, but “just right.”

I believe many of Simon’s list of “things students are” (she notes they are “curious, hard working, rebellious, funny, lazy, gifted, bored and enthusiastic”) ought to include a caveat of appropriateness: for example, lazy when the material is beyond their background knowledge and/or aptitude profile.

Edwin Buettner

Winnipeg

Freedom often misunderstood

Re: Court to weigh in on convoy-linked group’s right to stay in building (Sept. 3)

Emergencies Act inquiry delayed until October due to health issue (Sept. 3)

These two articles both concerned a definition of “freedom.” The “Freedom Convoy” had little to do with freedom. Freedom usually considers the rights of others.

Libertarians frequently think only of themselves. Hence, the correct name for the convoy is the “liberty convoy.” The incorrectly named “freedom convoy” cared little for those who honoured the Unknown Soldier or those in Ottawa who would have chosen a quiet night’s sleep to the blaring of horns.

Liberty’s focus of action is on oneself, while freedom always considers the rights of others. Discussion of issues will be clearer in future when we use liberty instead of freedom when we speak of the convoy.

Barry Hammond

Winnipeg

Parents must back educators

Re: Good behaviour learned trait (Letters, Sept. 5)

I could not agree more with letter writer John Frostiak, who writes, “We should know at a young age that there will be negative consequences for inappropriate behaviour. These could include loss of privileges, financial penalties or, in some cases, incarceration.”

I had a neighbour whose child got in trouble at school. When my neighbour found out, instead of punishing his child, he took the child back to the school and proceeded to berate the principal in front of his child. In effect, he taught his child that there were no consequences for his actions at school.

Too many times, parents take the side of their child no matter what the offence. I have news for these parents: sometimes your child is in the wrong, and often they will lie to you about it.

When I was young, if I was in trouble at school, then I was also in trouble at home. Parents need to back up the school unless they know for a fact the school was in the wrong.

Rene Vincent

Winnipeg