Letters, May 21

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/05/2024 (862 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Longer sentence needed

Re: Impaired driving warrants jail time (May 15)

I read in the Free Press, with some astonishment, the court hearing of a drunk or impaired driver who drove on the Trans-Canada Highway from Regina and was stopped in the Brandon area. According to the RCMP, the driver was “passed out” in the vehicle. He had narrowly missed striking other drivers along the way, putting them in great danger of death or injury.

My astonishment is how the Crown and judge, in my view anyway, seemed to take an “oh well…” attitude to this most serious offence. The Crown suggested a 30-day sentence which the judge accepted, in spite of his comment that the offence was almost viewed as dangerous driving. In my view, a six-month prison term was absolutely appropriate, to bring home to others who drink and drive that they will be dealt with in the serious manner they deserve.

The facts of the case here are perhaps the worst kind of drinking and driving offences with high risk to the public, which can occur without actually having caused injury or death. The courts of Canada still seem to take a far more lenient view of vehicular crimes or offences than they do of other life threatening events.

Decisions like this one certainly will not help cut down drinking and driving offences.

Allan James

Minnedosa

Do away with denialism

Re: Reaping what we’ve sown (Editorial, May 16)

The editorial notes that large insurance companies in the United States are saying climate change is real and hence increasing numbers of people will be unable to get home insurance. Proof, as if we need more, that we are no longer in the realm of hypothesis and theory.

Climate change has indeed become part of our daily life. And let’s not forget that the vast majority of scientists who study climate change have been warning of this for decades (see the UN IPCC reports since 1988). As the editorial states, “We are, quite literally, reaping the whirlwind.”

So, what to do? Let’s start with putting an end to climate change denialism. We need to have a serious discussion about a serious problem that demands a serious response. This, I think, means a discussion about how to mitigate as much as possible (every tenth of a degree matters), and how to prepare to adapt as best we can.

Hence, every individual and organization should ask itself, what can and will I do. And every politician at every level should have to answer the question, policy-wise, what do you propose to do?

And then let’s hope for an outcome that is not only less than catastrophic but, maybe, even a better place to be.

Gerald Farthing

Winnipeg

Where blame lies

Re: ‘It’s free speech’ is no defence for threats (Think Tank, March 16)

Shannon Sampert’s op-ed on the limits of free speech, could be retitled Who Let The Dogs Out?

With Pierre Poilievre buying Timmies for the “freedom convoy,” to supporting those encamped on the New Brunswick border.

The visceral hate being directed at Justin Trudeau, the verbal attacks on ministers Chrystia Freeland and Catherine McKenna (the latter of whom was accosted while out walking with her children), are examples of the prime supporters of the CPC. You could also add in those who stand up at a CPC rally and shout verbal abuse at Mr. Poilievre in this group, but that pales in comparison to paralyzing downtown Ottawa, or stashing arms at the Coutts, Alta., border crossing.

What started out as target issue, by Stephen Harper’s 2015 campaign, has eight years later turned into reality. Ask any woman or man on the street why they despise Mr. Trudeau. They can only cite innuendos hurled his way, with no concrete examples of how he has reputably done disservice to Canada.

Society as a whole, and the press looking for sound bites, are both equally at fault. The motto “do not believe everything you hear,” applies to all of us, even though some would agree with the rhetoric. The press in pursuit of a story before deadline share in the responsibility to put it in the manure pile, rather than spread it.

Democracy takes work to maintain, we must all join in this noble cause.

Thomas Tierney

Winnipeg

Much to be desired

I was hosting a colleague from Toronto last week. Because we both do work with social justice issues, I thought it would be appropriate to take them to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

While I had not visited the museum in a number of years, I made the assumption the museum would be a great place for my colleague and I to go and learn about human rights related challenges both from the past and present. Unfortunately this was not our experience. Upon entering the permanent exhibits, we both stood looking at the “timeline of human rights” and realized that it stopped at 2013.

In the Canadian Journeys section, there was a kiosk on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Girls and Women, however the remainder of the kiosks dealt with issues from the 20th century. These issues from the past are important, and no doubt play a part in our lives in the present; but the museum failed to mention more recent events, such as Idle No More, #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Every Child Matters, Occupy Wall Street, let alone the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

I took my friend from the big city to show off the crown jewel of Winnipeg, trusting the museum had the ability to address human rights injustices occurring in the present; unfortunately, I left disappointed and even a little embarrassed.

Mike Edwards

Winnipeg

Less-lethal methods

Re: Protest camps and higher learning (Editorial, May 13)

This editorial provides a thought-provoking look at the significance of the current student protest camps, and on how universities should best respond.

Current protests appear to be diffuse in their targets of discontent — or “muddy”, as the editorial writer aptly stated. In contrast, the anti-war protests at American universities during the 1960s were much more than a philosophical goal to the protesters. It was personal for the young American men whose age made them highly likely to be drafted into the front lines of war.

Sending in armed troops to arrest and even to shoot protesters (at Ohio’s Kent State) was wrong then, and would be wrong as a response now.

If our present-day student protesters really want to understand warfare, they need more knowledge about the circumstances producing conflict. Start, for example, by asking about water and land resources — the control of which is a universal source of dispute.

Then ask experts in the geopolitics of war to provide regional context.

Can nations replace armed conflict with less-deadly ways to resolve perceived injustice? Our universities as places of “higher learning” should rise to the protesters’ challenge!

Why not consider hosting informative debates with invited speakers representing many viewpoints — authors, diplomats or other experts in world affairs?

This type of constructive event might lure students out of the protest tents and into the knowledge-building work that they need to do as future leaders.

Jean A. Paterson

Winnipeg