Letters, March 13

Watching councillors

In the 22 months following the death of cyclist Rob Jenner on Wellington Crescent, many motions and design plans have gone around like a perverse version of Whose Line is it Anyway?, but with city officials instead of witty comedians, and “no, buts” instead of “yes, ands”.

The back-and-forth has been exhausting as politicians who vow to be allies repeatedly push this bike lane project into the unknown and change their minds on temporary versus permanent.

Councillors Janice Lukes and Ross Eadie professed they shouldn’t do anything until they heard more from the Wellington building owners, while also claiming a permanent project would be better than a temporary one, even while the Public Service employees told them, point-blank: the best way to get feedback is to put up temporary, inexpensive infrastructure.

This, plus two other city councillors spewing hate-filled delegations against people on bikes that, had it been directed against any other group, could have gotten them fired.

Sometimes I wonder — could the “radical bike lobby,” to use Jeff Browaty’s and Russ Wyatt’s words, actually just be a group of citizens who are engaged and enraged enough to show up?

We have gained a lot from this struggle; we have built and strengthened our community despite tragedy, and look to a hopeful future.

We also watch committee and council meetings closely; we analyze councillors’ voting records; we see if councillors show up, or simply warm a seat; and most of all, we look carefully at how to replace our local politicians who lack the basic respect for their fellow citizens, the ones who aren’t willing to protect these citizens in favour of tending their own bias.

Patty Wiens

Winnipeg

Iran, the U.S. and terrorism

Re: “More to the story,” Letters, March 9

I agree with Bradley Pollock: let us have honesty and moral clarity, not selective outrage.

Mr. Pollock spoke of imprisoning dissidents, execution of protesters, violent suppression of women and threats to LGBTTQ+ people demanding human rights. To be clear, was he speaking of Iran or the United States of America? We have all witnessed the atrocities being committed in the U.S. against its own people.

But Canadians are not going to war with our neighbours to the south simply because we do not like how the government is behaving.

Iran does not have exclusive rights to funding terrorists. It is well documented that the United States has funded and armed authoritarian, paramilitary and terrorist groups. The U.S.A. funded the Nicaraguan Contra rebels in the eighties and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, also in the eighties, to name just two of many examples. Usually as a tool of repression for assorted reasons, such as corporate interests etc.

So selective outrage becomes a double standard depending on a person’s politics, international relations, understanding of morals/honesty and geographic location etc. Wishing us to believe that Iran is solely the aggressor, Iran has ownership over human rights abuses and solely funds terrorists does create a deeply unbalanced picture.

Now let us get honest. Despite outrage against Iran, which I share, especially around regime actions, international law experts suggest this joint Israel/U.S. war against Iran violates international law. The Israel/U.S. aggression against Iran is not justified by claims of self-defence. According to President Donald Trump, he removed all capabilities of Iran being able to produce nuclear weapons during his first strike a few months ago. What threat then justifies this war?

There are rules of engagement that protect countries and their citizens. This war fails to meet strict legal requirements for pre-emptive attack.

We must experience collective outrage from a world that has been experiencing a break in international order. Wars are being waged because of individual feelings, premonitions of danger or selective outrage. We have lost our shared moral imagination, our shared humanity.

All human suffering, wherever it may be, needs to be met with urgency. Until this happens justice will remain uneven and peace will remain painfully out of reach.

Jane Pogson

Winnipeg

Canadians should recognize that Iran’s regime has been engaged in a long‑running war against Israel and the West.

This is a government that massacres its own citizens — tens of thousands reportedly killed or imprisoned in January alone for daring to protest. A state that treats its own people with such brutality has never hesitated to export violence abroad.

Iran continues to arm and direct terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, using them to destabilize the region and target civilians. Its leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction, and these threats are backed by an expanding ballistic missile program and a persistent pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Understanding the scale and intent of Iran’s actions is essential. Canada cannot afford to ignore a regime that systematically undermines human rights, regional stability, and the security of democratic nations.

Hartley Macklin

Winnipeg

Raising questions

The article about the ongoing legal battle between the province and Wally Daudrich over permits to run tundra buggies for polar bear viewing in Churchill (Province appeals ruling on polar bear tours run by high-profile Tory, March 9) raised a few questions for me. Perhaps Justice Shawn Greenberg needed to dig a little deeper into the history of the matter.

The 1984 decision by the province to cap the number of licences at 18 was presumably made with relevant investigation into the negative impacts of this new tourism sector.

The article goes on to state provincial officials defended the decision to revoke the permits based on protection for the “local ecosystem, address the crowded market and align with a 2013 wildlife-management plan.”

So we are informed the issue of protection has been investigated and addressed at least twice.

The curious piece then becomes why, in 2020, did the Conservative government suddenly approve two more permits?

And was it just a coincidence they went to a “longtime PC member”? Was there a new report, or data showing the current (at the time) 18 operators posed so little in the way of negative impacts, it could then be increased by more than 10 per cent with no additional stress?

If not, what was the rationale in 2020 to reward Mr. Daudrich with new access?

Clark Marcino

Brandon

Straight talk on clocks

Daylight Saving Time? People are dying in wars all over the world, health care is in disarray, people are addicted to drugs and/or are homeless, the planet is being destroyed by climate change (and on and on).

And people have time to worry about DST?

Turn your clock ahead and get on with real life.

Allan Jakilazek

Winnipeg