Letters, April 9

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/04/2025 (353 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On playing politics

Re: No room for misinformation on drug policy (Editorial, April 7)

A significant number of Canadians have been touched by the tragedy of addiction-related untimely death. Members of my family, including myself, have friends whose beloved children — both youth and young adults — have died as a result of a drug overdose or through a poisoned drug supply.

It is, therefore, acutely distressing to me to read in the April 7 edition of the Free Press about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s plan to address addiction in Canada through the wholesale closure of harm reduction programs. His cheap use of the term “drug dens” to refer to supervised drug consumption and overdose protection sites; his false claim that there is a causal relationship between harm reduction practices and high rates of crime and drug overdoses; and his blunt assertion that harm reduction doesn’t work, can be described at best as uninformed and at worst as disingenuous and self-serving.

It’s important to recognize three things about harm reduction. First, it emerged in the field of public health in the 1980s in response to the ineffectiveness of traditional approaches for individuals living with multiple and entrenched addictions.

Second, ongoing support for harm reduction over the decades has been based on empirical evidence, not on political ideology or on targeted appeals to a specific body of voters.

Third, abstinence as a treatment goal is not in opposition to harm reduction. It is, in fact, a location on the harm reduction continuum that individuals with their health providers can collaboratively identify as a desired treatment outcome.

It’s such a pity that Poilievre plays politics with human suffering and with the astounding capacity of individuals and families living with difficult life challenges to strive for healing and wellness.

Frances Ravinsky

Winnipeg

Few good alternatives to Senate

Re: “Do away with Senate” (Letters, April 8)

Irwin Corobow wrote: “Canada in 2025 does nor need nor can afford the Senate.”

On the surface it may seem a huge expense to have a Senate, however what will replace it and at what cost?

A majority government has no checks and balances except for the Senate.

I struggle to find an alternative, except perhaps elected senators. The cost would probably be much higher in the end.

Karl Lang

Navin

No need to stomp flag

As fun and cathartic as it must have felt to cheer as the American flag was stomped into the ground at the Rally for Canada, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Americans from all corners are apologizing to us for the actions of their government. As dire as the situation looks for us, we should remember that it looks much worse for them.

Call me sappy, but Canadians should focus on supporting each other rather than unproductive acts of antagonism like booing — or burning — the stars and stripes. (But I’ll be the first to boo Gretzky if he ever crosses my path.) We should avoid at all costs hosting the event that is used as an excuse for the actual invasion. Make any Americans “woke” enough to visit us, play on our professional teams, and spend their dollars here, feel even more welcome than usual.

Mark Doerksen

Winnipeg

True Canadians do not “jig” on another nation’s flag, especially the U.S flag. Nor should Canadians boo the U.S. national anthem at sporting events.

True Canadian patriots know better than that. This symbolism belongs to other people from other countries who come here and burn our flag. It is unfortunate that this country allows such behaviour.

Meaningful peaceful protests, are one thing, desecration is another, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Claude Nolin

Winnipeg

Re: Patriotic pride, anger on display (April 7)

I don’t like Donald Trump. I don’t want to live in the 51st state. But, I’m ashamed to read on the front page of the April 7 Free Press that people were trampling the American flag into the dust.

Millions of our U.S. neighbours and relatives will be grossly insulted and angered by this desecration of their dearly beloved flag. Protesters went too far.

Robert W. Page

Oakbank

System needs rework

Re: Politics should extend beyond self-interest (Think Tank, April 7)

While I agree with Wiens that we would all benefit from politicians who didn’t focus on self-preservation and self-aggrandizement, I believe his essay missed the mark.

Our political system, centered around a hierarchical structure which centralizes power, and aided by the first-past-the-post voting system strongly attracts precisely the wrong kind of person.

Urging these people to be less self-interested is futile.

A better approach would be to restructure the system to encourage a wider variety of people to serve. The easiest starting point would be to provincially implement a better voting system such as mixed-member proportional. This would lead to more parties and points of view. More parties represented in the Legislature would require more cooperation rather than mere opposition.

I wonder if our premier cares enough about our province to set aside loyalty to his party in favour of loyalty to the citizens of Manitoba, and implement such a change.

Kevin McGregor

Winnipeg

Anger at U.S. justified

Should Canadians blame and show hostility towards all Americans because of Trump 2.0’s virtual coup d’etat and economic warfare? Well, yes. For starters, Americans have had over two centuries when they could have reformed a system of government emulated by only four other nations; namely, Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

Given that this trio does not exemplify the best that democracy can offer, one might conclude that an insouciant American population has wilfully created a scenario in which Trump’s return to the White House could occur.

As for November 2024, let’s look at the popular vote’s totals: Trump, 77,284,118; Harris, 74,999,166; and, voter turnout, 63.9 percent. So, we have 77,284,118 Americans who wilfully chose Trump despite his abysmal first term and first attempted coup d’etat in January 2021, and 36.1 per cent of the electorate who wilfully chose to abstain from voting.

One could expect forgiveness for believing that our current plight reflects abjectly misguided partisanship and wilful neglect by citizens of a country whose form of government found only by nations that its current president has characterized as s—thole countries. And yes, one can feel sympathies for such countries, given their myriad challenges.

Equally, though, one can, and should, feel angry at our southern neighbour, given its myriad advantages and blessings.

Edward Keith Bricknell

Toronto