Letters, Sept. 22

Opinion

All in this together

Re: “Help, but don’t enable” (Letters, Sept. 19)

I read Mac Horsburgh’s letter to the editor with some hesitation. Something in his message of helping but not enabling seemed off to me. On rereading the letter it was the use of the terms “hobos,” “tramps,” “bums,” and especially the phrase, “let’s not feel sorry for ‘them’” that disturbed me. Being the son of a “hobo,” who rode the rails in the ‘30s, I never thought of my father in such terms.

Last month, I walked from my home just north of the Disraeli Freeway over the Slaw Rebchuk Bridge and south on Main Street to The Forks. I chose that route so that I would walk by some of the areas inhabited by homeless people. I wanted to experience first hand whether I would feel intimidated or whether I would be accosted on my way. On my route I was joined by a “gentleman,” I use the word intentionally, who noticed that I was wearing a Blue Bombers T-shirt.

He was obviously poor, possibly homeless. We walked together for a couple of blocks talking about the Bombers, Jets and Blue Jays before he left me to join some friends by the Logan underpass. He shook my hand and wished me a good day. At no time did I think of him as a “bum.” And if truth be told, I did feel sorry for him. He obviously did not enjoy many of the material benefits that I do. I don’t know his story but I assume that he had lived a more difficult life than I did.

Too often we group people together with derogatory terms to ensure we feel separated from them. The use of these pejorative terms only serves to stigmatize groups of people. This is unfair and dangerous. Like us, the people that make up the “them” in Mac Horsburgh’s letter, have their own personal stories. We should keep that in mind when we speak of “them.”

To quote a good friend of mine; “there is no them, only us.”

Brent Corrigan

Winnipeg

Standing up

All around the world the fundamentals of liberal democracy are rapidly being discarded. And as governments become increasingly hostile and bellicose, those with less are mockingly abandoned to their fate. What this means internationally is those who still stand for higher principles, like Canada, must take on the burdens abandoned by others.

The Global Fund provides basic health services for many hundreds of millions of people and is due for funding replenishment this year. The U.S. and others have withdrawn support for this critical work, so Canada must step forward.

It’s more than just money, it’s about the kind of world we want to live in: one where belligerent governments watch impassively while treatable disease sweeps the world or one where good people come to the aid of suffering neighbours.

Without a doubt I know which group Canada remains a part.

Nathaniel Poole

Victoria, B.C.

Kinew has it right

Re: Manitoba details argument against Quebec’s secular law (Sept. 18)

Premier Kinew is 100 per cent correct when he says that “While that court might not be able to strike down the (unconstitutional) law, the court should still make the ruling so that people at the next election can decide what they think of the government that did that.”

This is a far better path to take than what we’ve also just seen from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has now decided to use the notwithstanding clause to shield three anti-transgender laws from the court system. She has gone from saying that she believed that her laws would fall within the provisions of our charter and being willing to prove it, to being yet another premier who is going to shield laws with the notwithstanding clause so that they can be enforced just because she says so.

Smith’s announcement makes me feel all the more grateful for the principled stand that Kinew is taking.

However, Kinew and his government could still do more. Manitoba could become the first province to pass legislation that would require a two-thirds majority to use the notwithstanding clause, prohibit it from being used pre-emptively, and require the government to state clearly why it is necessary for it to be used and why other measures haven’t been sufficient in order to use the notwithstanding clause.

That would show a real commitment to protecting our charter rights and make Manitoba a leader in halting the erosion of our rights that we’ve seen the last several years with the abuse of the notwithstanding clause.

Chris Barsanti

Grosse Isle

Can’t blame Fontaine

Re: Kinew’s tolerance for Fontaine’s antics could set dangerous precedent for others in cabinet (Sept. 15)

I have to say that after the ASL debacle I was no fan of Nahanni Fontaine. The degree of arrogance and insensitivity displayed in her comments was shocking. That said, I’m right there with her on the Charlie Kirk issue. In fact I am appalled that his death was even mentioned by our premier, let alone in the halls of Parliament.

Kirk, unlike recently assassinated Minnesota state legislator, Melissa Hortman, was a private citizen and political activist who spent his time spreading racist, misogynist, trans-hating views on social media and university campuses.

Melissa Hortman, on the other hand, advocated for environmental rights, women’s rights, police reform and gun control policies and she was assassinated in her home, along with her husband and dog, by a man posing as a policeman who subscribed to much the same views as Charlie Kirk.

So why a parliamentary standing ovation for Kirk and none for Melissa Hortman, once the house speaker in the Minnesota state legislature?

I, for one, am disgusted by it, and I’m appalled that Fontaine is being raked over the coals or worse, threatened with dismissal from cabinet, for expressing views to which most, if not all of us subscribe. Of course we should all decry gun violence and express our deepest sympathy for the families affected by it. But I find that I can muster very little in the way of sympathy for a man like Kirk and I certainly don’t blame Fontaine for expressing the same opinion.

Erna Buffie

Winnipeg

Alternate solutions

Homelessness and security. There have been a number of articles and letters about homelessness in Winnipeg but every conversation seems to just rehash the same old tired and ineffective solutions.

Firstly I am sure everyone would like to see a system where there is no poverty or homelessness but the reality is probably that this will not happen. So accepting that, then how do we help and protect the homeless and the general public?

So let’s start thinking about new solutions. For example in Kelowna, B.C. they have set up an area where tents, etc. are allowed. Safe and secure but away from public areas. In Gatineau, Que. they are using old containers that have been fixed up to provide transitional housing where appropriate.

Here in Winnipeg, what about using empty city land for a single city encampment? Or bring private business into the mix and use some of their undeveloped land such as the old football stadium? Or ask a company like CNR to step up and ask them to provide old rail cars on some of the unused tracks downtown as housing during the cold winter months?

With the homeless population in one place, all of the services the city now spends on the homeless in multiple locations can be allocated to one spot. Bring in the police and the Bear Clan to monitor people’s safety and security, health resources to take care of folks, etc. It would also help identify people who are ready to transition to regular housing and who isn’t.

Homelessness is a big problem for everyone, the homeless and the general public, so let’s start looking for new solutions to a problem that is probably not going away.

Michael Pigden

Winnipeg