Letters, Jan. 30

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/01/2024 (957 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canada’s silence deafening

Re: Canada takes no clear position on interim ruling in genocide case against Israel (Jan. 26)

The Canadian government’s silence on the International Court of Justice’s ruling of Jan. 26 is deafening. In an almost unanimous ruling, the ICJ made a landmark statement reiterating many of the key points delivered by South Africa’s outstanding team of lawyers, that were particularly damning to Israel, conceding that what is happening in Gaza is a plausible genocide. The ICJ has made mandatory demands on the Israeli government to stop genocidal acts in Gaza against the Palestinian population.

Rather than acknowledging and respecting the ICJ’s ruling, and immediately pledging to stop selling arms to Israel, Canada chooses to stop funding UNRAW, the main lifeline for aid to the starving population of Gaza. Why? Because Israel has alleged that some of its workers participated in the Oct. 7 attack. These are unproven allegations, but UNRAW fired the accused workers in lieu of a proper investigation. This was apparently not enough for the U.S., Canada, and the UK. These countries have chosen to punish the UN rather than admit that they are complicit.

Meanwhile Pierre Poilievre describes the case that South Africa presented as “shameless and dishonest.” He is no doubt describing himself. Nothing can be farther from the truth in what he has said. South Africa’s distinguished group of lawyers presented an incredible body of evidence with elegance and dignity, showing empathy for their fellow human beings. They delivered a stellar presentation which no doubt took weeks to prepare by a team of researchers, funded by a country which has nothing to gain in this fight. South Africa is a shining light for humanity amid this horror.

Canada’s complicity will have a lasting negative effect on this country’s place in the world.

Jennifer W. Rahman, MD

Winnipeg

Don’t distance from present pains

Re: The battlefield between feminism and rapes of war (Jan. 26)

The report by Jen Zoratti about a presentation at the Museum of Human Rights, concludes, “I believe her (the speaker) when she says her heart is hurting.” But the reporter’s expression, which sounds sympathetic, serves as a distraction from a specific crime.

Yes, “gender-based violence has long been used as a tool of war.”

True, “this is not the way they (the victims) would want to be remembered,” brought to public attention simply as rape victims. (Both quotations from the article).

When the media report a murder, would they say, “murders have always been part of human reality” or, the victim would not have wanted this kind of public attention or remembrance, identity: murder victim?

A crime must be dealt with specifically. Treating a particular crime as another historic example is a way of distancing ourselves from the horrors of right now. Emphasizing sympathy for the dead and for those grieving distracts attention from the accountability of criminals.

Paul Henteleff MD DSc. (Hon.) University of Manitoba

Winnipeg

Work together for a change

Re: Time for blame game rapidly running out (Editorial, Jan. 27)

I couldn’t agree more as to the blame game that is a constant in today’s politics. The current concerns at MPI are being laid on the previous PCs, yet it was PC MLA Kevin Goertzen that recognized the issue last spring and instigated the inquiry.

The current health staff shortages, the pre-election NDP suggested a quick fix, if elected. Now they find it’s not so easy to correct. The NDP’s current policy of adding more beds is so self serving, when there isn’t the staff to care for them, actually makes the problem worse, and fools no one. Health-care issues go way back, and seriously can’t all be laid at the feet of the previous PC government, but all the previous governments. Gary Doer was going to eliminate the need to use health test facilities in North Dakota. Never happened!

Would Wab Kinew be in power now if his government was the one hit with an unprecedented pandemic? Doubt it, as uncharted waters in today’s world are learning curves, and pleasing everyone while trying to keep everyone safe was impossible! To those old enough: can you imagine protest convoys or areas refusing or having to be bribed by a lottery to take the vaccine for polio in the ’50s? No, it was welcomed and saved lives.

I would also suggest the previous PCs started the ball rolling on the highway changes needed for the deadly Carberry intersection, although the current NDP government wasted no time in lining up behind the mic to take all the credit.

Is there no such thing as partisan politics anymore?

Unless it’s your party’s idea, it has to be totally flawed. If Wab Kinew truly wants unity in our province, I’d suggest he try listening to compromise. I’d also recommend that to the opposition parties, and particularly the unions too. It’s not always about power, try working together for a common solution. I bet we’d all be pleasantly surprised at what gets accomplished!

Dennis Popkes

Winnipeg

System burdened enough as it is

Re: Judge denies killer’s ‘faint hope’ bid for early parole; Cracks showing in justice system: judge (Jan. 27)

Erik Pindera reports that a convicted murderer was denied application for early parole after a multi-day jury trial. That individual had been found guilty of a vicious premeditated murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend. In 2009 he was sentenced to life in prison without the ability to apply for parole for 25 years. That would be in 2034.

Apparently the Criminal Code allows for a “faint hope application” for early parole after 15 years. Why? The crime has been committed and a firm penalty assessed by the courts. Why should the sentence be possibly modified 15 years after the fact?

Think of the waste of human and financial resources in this type of special hearing, and all like it across Canada. Recall the chronically backlogged Canadian justice system where guilty parties sometimes walk free, uncharged, because their cases were unduly delayed and were not finalized in a “reasonable” court stipulated time period.

The front-page headline Jan. 27 reads: Cracks showing in justice system: chief judge. Perhaps this described situation is one of the many cracks in a seemingly fractured Canadian justice system.

Does the ability of a previously sentenced criminal to apply for “faint hope” which potentially changes original sentencing provisions, really meet the “reasonable man standard” which cornerstones Canadian law? Would a reasonable man reduce/change a completed historical judicial decision? Doubtful, but at least arguable!

Alan Hurlburt

Winnipeg

Watching with interest

Re: MPI management blasted in organizational review (Jan. 26)

I will be reading with interest to see how the new MPI board chairperson Carmen Nedohin handles her new position of this huge government agency.

I will watch very closely how Nedohin and her new board handles the placement or should I say “displacement” of the excess management of MPI. What will she do with the 349 management employees holding managerial titles? What will she do with 20 of those managers who had no one reporting to them? Or the 84 managers who had fewer than four people reporting to them?

Will there be a reduction in management employees at MPI as we would expect, or will these excess managers just be absorbed by MPI and shuffled into different areas without too much public exposure? Interesting and eager to see the outcome.

Ken Butchart

Winnipeg