Letters, July 15

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/07/2024 (447 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Shame, shame

Re: ‘A very disappointing meeting’ (July 11)

Isn’t the point of our justice system to have a judge and/or jury determine what the facts are and whether an accused is guilty or innocent? In this case, there is clearly evidence to support charges, as the Winnipeg Police Service recommended. The prosecution wants a “sure thing.” They don’t want to set precedent. They don’t want justice. They want an easy win. Shame on them.

And then the justice minister, who has no law experience, by the way, goes back to the same prosecutors for their feedback on whether to seek an independent third-party review. This is a blatant conflict of interest and hardly unbiased or external. Anytime an organization, especially an elected organization, refuses a second opinion, there is a lack of trust and transparency. What are they afraid of? The Reimers were victimized when their daughter was killed. They were victimized when Tyler Goodman was sentenced to only seven years. The justice minister has victimized them once again.

This is evidence of our shameful justice system. The NDP spews promises of change, but their actions show that changes are not coming. It appears that politics matters more than justice. It is clear that the prosecutor’s office has many issues. Matt Weibe doesn’t have the experience or courage to deal with it. Shame on him as well.

Shannon Anderson

Winnipeg

I totally agree with the Reimers! How is giving the keys to a drunk driver any different than being an accessory to murder? Similar to someone putting a loaded gun into a killer’s hands.

The law states that being an accessory is “someone who gives assistance to the perpetrator of a crime without directly committing it, sometimes without being present.”

The article states that it couldn’t prove the case against the passenger beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence and “alternative reasonable inferences.” What about the woman at the bar who took the keys away from Goodman to prevent him from driving — I believe she obviously thought Goodman was too drunk to drive! Isn’t this what we are supposed to do when we feel someone is too drunk or impaired to drive?

Drunk-driving charges don’t seem to deter as many drunk drivers to get behind the wheel as we would like and this just might be the answer. If Mr. Kinew wants to be tough on crime this would be a good place to start.

I feel there should be the same amount of Justice and compassion shown to Jordyn Reimer’s family as is shown to the families of those buried in the Prairie Landfill.

This would help bring closure to the Reimer’s and their family.

Debbie Painter

Winnipeg Beach

Downtown denizens

Re: Full-on assault on downtown safety (July 9)

Bronwyn Dobchuck-Land “worries the new measures will prioritize the desires of the business community.”

Does Dobchuck-Land realize the population density of downtown? We are more than just businesses. There are 18,000 people who chose to live downtown and enjoy this walkable neighbourhood. We are a community and we welcome any measures that will help address those experiencing hardship in our community, as any good neighbour would.

Premier Wab Kinew and Mayor Scott Gillingham should be commended for their investment in the safety and well-being of all those who live in and frequent downtown.

Beverly McIntyre

Winnipeg

Power of words

Re: Authors call for action (July 12)

No matter what organizations do when forced outside their purview into highly politicized issues, some individuals are offended, communities become polarized, and destructive consequences ensue. The Giller Foundation, long a supporter of Canadian literature, finds itself in just that sorry position.

Do as some writers insist and divest from funding tied to Israel, and the foundation appears to weaken the Jewish state and support the terrorist group Hamas. Do not divest, and inaction is seen as support for “occupation and genocide.”

It is unfortunate that writers (i.e., wordsmiths) forgo the potential of words to further mutual understanding and instead choose to force their views on a heterogenous community with destructive consequences. It certainly blocks any serious opportunity to engage with the issues and reeks of authoritarianism.

Jim Clark

Winnipeg

Who to trust

Re: We need less hot air in politics (Think Tank, July 11)

I totally agree with Peter Denton. This is already a scary world with a focus on ever increasing climate perils, the next virus pandemic and the manipulation of the masses with disinformation. Most of the major politicians of the world pretend they are concerned yet achieve very little progress or seem way too nonchalant about the existential crises we are facing. No wonder too many uninformed and/or dis-informed people are weary of present governments and world leaders. No wonder the so-called populist political figures can rightfully stoke the masses’ fears with no real intention of caring about and doing something for them and the planet we live on. Too many desperate people are believing the outright lies of too many politicians.

The day is coming in the near future that the tipping point for our existence is reached. Who do you think will have the most likely chance of survival? Certainly the wealthiest one per cent and maybe the wealthiest 10 per cent who will have the financial resources to cope with the explosion of prices unparalleled to even what we have witnessed since the COVID pandemic. That is why the gap between the wealthiest and the lowest-income/middle-income people continues to be allowed to widen. This is not a coincidence. When world food production and industrial production begins to shrink the majority of the world’s population will not be able to afford the prices jacked up by supply shortages. Already many countries’ populations are experiencing famines with at best a subsistence form of living.

Has anyone considered what the wealthy and powerful people of this world are thinking? I have believed for a long time that nothing will be achieved as long as the world population continues to grow. No climate targets will be met. Is it unreasonable to think that the wealthiest 10 per cent of this world also see the simple solution is a mass extinction of our population not including themselves? They could then carry on as they are now without all this fuss about cutting back on their style of life. The environment would become so much cleaner with a much smaller population. The lower echelons that used to serve them could be replaced by AI and robots.

Has anyone wondered why NASA has been privatized for space exploration and yet American taxpayers still subsidize these private corporations by US$25 billion a year and growing? Does it concern you that space flight tourism is one of the sidelines for these companies and only the wealthy can access a flight off this planet? Is this a possible escape hatch for the mega-wealthy if there is an even more catastrophic viral pandemic or extreme weather in the near future?

Are there enough independent-thinking people left to dismantle the people who are responsible for sending most of us down the path to our destruction?

Gary McGimpsey

Winnipeg