Letters, Dec. 5

On rushing to judgment

Re: Charter prevents proper protection for Canadians (Think Tank, Dec. 4)

In his Think Tank piece, Stan Tataryn offered his perspective as a former police officer to the challenges in our justice system as it relates to crime and safety in Winnipeg, specifically the challenges in downtown Winnipeg.

My concern in reading this article was Tataryn’s naming of two very distinct types of people; criminals and honest citizens. It breaks my heart to hear the very clear lines drawn between people and the dehumanization of those involved in the justice system. Unfortunately, this is very common. When we draw such clear lines between “us” and “them,” maybe we are being dishonest with ourselves.

I also fall into the temptation to put people into the “them” category. One of the problems I see when we dehumanize our fellow community members in our minds, hearts, and words, is how it pushes us further and further away from them. We are then more likely to stay away from “them,” from downtown, from our inner-city communities out of a fear of “them.” This adds to the separation and disconnection we see in our city and in society. This separation and disconnection shows up between the inner-city and suburbs, the poor and the non-poor, the criminals and the honest citizens, the homeless and those who own their homes. This list could go on.

My young adult foster son is in jail. He would clearly be part of the “criminal” group that Tataryn so clearly defines. My son was not able to live safely in the community and for his safety and the safety those around him, he needed to be removed from the community. He had hurt some people and committed some crimes. However, I cannot and will not see him or refer to him as a “criminal.” His identity is so much more than that dehumanizing label. Neither will I refer to anyone else who is or has been in jail solely as a criminal. I would dare to say it is being dishonest when we do that. It is way to limiting to the whole of who they including the other parts of them that are good and beautiful.

I also will not refer to myself as the “honest citizen.” Am I a citizen? Yes. And I do my best to be honest. Do I make mistakes? Yes. Do I sometimes hurt people unintentionally? Yes. Do I feel regret and shame sometimes over the hurt I’ve caused? Yes. So does my son.

What if we could move away from polarizing ourselves and others by trying to say (and trying to convince ourselves) “I’m good” and “they’re bad,” and instead we started with acknowledging each other’s human dignity and complexity? Then maybe we can discuss and working at these challenges together.

Jeremy Zehr

Winnipeg

A frightening path

Re: Patrimonialism: global phenomenon, American threat (Think Tank, Dec. 4); Trump administration halts immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations (Dec. 2)

An excellent article by John R. Wiens on patrimonialism, but I am thinking of another word: dictatorship. U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly condemned someone of a particular ethnic background, claiming this person committed a crime.

He then went on to ban all people from that country of origin. This kind of action has historical roots, and with very frightening consequences, with hatred and slaughter of millions of people.

Let us not go down that route again, never again, never forget.

Judy Herscovitch

Winnipeg

Patrimonial patterns

Re: Patrimonialism: global phenomenon, American threat (Think Tank, Dec. 4)

John R. Wiens’s patrimonialism piece rightly worries about leaders who weaken institutions, yet his examples are all from one side of the political spectrum. Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and others have also gutted courts, silenced media, and rewarded loyalists — the same “patrimonial” pattern.

In Canada, the federal public service grew over 40 per cent from 2015–2024 while productivity fell. Wanting a leaner bureaucracy is a normal policy debate, not a slide into dictatorship.

The U.S. still has courts that block presidential orders, a Congress that controls the purse, and elections without tanks. These are real differences from Putin’s Russia.

Fair criticism needs balanced examples.

Lana Hunstad

Winnipeg

Don’t give up

Re: Mayors as frontline ‘climate doers’ — not in Winnipeg (Think Tank, Dec. 2)

Kudos to the Free Press and Erna Buffie. A recent editorial brought to our unfortunately flagging attention that climate change is here, it’s having real impacts and it will only be getting worse.

While Erna’s recent op-ed reminded us that even though global climate change indicators continue to deteriorate, we — and our city government — can still make useful contributions by thinking globally while acting locally. When the world is cooling on global warming, let’s not give up the fight.

Norman Brandson

Winnipeg

Power plant tech a relic

Re: ‘Power sovereignty’: combustion turbine facility proposed for Brandon by 2030 (Nov. 18)

How can our provincial government announce a new $3-billion gas-power plant just a month after announcing its Path to Net-Zero strategy, where it recommitted to a fully clean electricity grid? Is it unaware that a fossil fuel power plant is a scientifically proven noxious artifact of the past century?

Affordable and reliable alternatives to address peak power gaps, such as renewable energy with battery storage, better address the problem of peaking energy demands than the proposed plant which would keep us reliant on imported fossil fuels for decades to come.

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar linked to modern battery storage, create tons of good green jobs across the province instead of bad greenhouse gases. Our government should encourage the construction of more energy efficient homes, the use of heat pumps and geothermal heating, and building retrofits to reduce electricity demand.

This proposed gas plant wastes $3 billion which could be better spent on alternate power sources, demand reduction and redundant transmission lines to safeguard against future climate impacts such as drought, fires and floods.

Amid a climate emergency, we cannot afford to build new fossil-fuel infrastructure. As last summer’s fires, evacuations and smoke showed us, the cost of climate impacts is high and will only grow the longer we put off the energy transition.

Gail Faveri

Winnipeg