Letters, May 21

Licensing issue

Re: Teachers give Kinew failing grade over proposal to ban YouTube in classrooms (May 19)

Intentionally or otherwise, Premier Wab Kinew’s proposed YouTube ban might protect teachers from legal strife.

When teachers use any audio-visual resource, some parents will inevitably object to at least some of those resources’ subject-material. Some of those parents will object only to subject material per se and will not use other strategies. From experience, I can assure Manitoba’s teachers that other parents (admittedly a small but well-organized minority) will use the above-noted “other strategies.”

One such “strategy” entails researching the licensing of audio-visual materials that teachers have used in their classrooms. Is the licensing strictly for those materials’ use in a residential setting, or is the licensing for use in a “public” setting (such as classrooms)? If the licensing is solely residential, it’s not unheard of for some members of that “well-organized” minority to attempt facilitation of civil and/or criminal proceedings against a teacher for violation of the materials’ licensing.

So, what’s the answer, for Kinew and for the teachers? Access Copyright (a.k.a. “Can Copy”) already allows teachers to photocopy print materials from sundry publications and distribute those materials to their students. How difficult, then, would it be to ascertain which YouTube materials allow non-residential use and to use only those types of materials in classrooms? Surely, this would avoid the “baby-bathwater” scenario implicit in total prohibition.

Edward Keith Bricknell

Toronto, Ont.

Thanks for McLaughlin’s input

I want to express appreciation for the regular contributions in the Free Press by David McLaughlin.

Do I agree with all he writes? No. However, what I truly appreciate is the views of someone who has dedicated at least a good portion of his career to public service, having occupied the highest position in Manitoba’s civil service. His articles help the rest of us understand better the critical distinction between pure politics and good governance and strong public policy.

Our elected officials, much as I appreciate their contributions to public service, often put the good of their political party ahead of the good of the province or the country they have been elected to serve. We, as citizens, have to be alert to and critical of that tendency.

The boundaries are murky but Mr. McLaughlin helps us better to see through the murkiness and fulfil our responsibilities to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.

Sheldon McLeod

Winnipeg

Trump’s many follies

Re: The folly of war: the wisdom of peace (Think Tank, May 19)

I was struck by John Wiens’s excellent article which states “war is a folly” and cites examples to illustrate that point. He goes on to detail the resulting “underestimated” toll in deaths and misery, yet offers hope in saner approaches. In contrast, Trump not only cancelled an effective international agreement in his first term, but opted for war on the brink of a potential settlement, and then acted against his own military advisers in that war, to his disadvantage.

(Also, let’s not forget the U.S. and U.K. overthrowing an elected Iranian government in 1953, and installation of the brutal Shah of Iran.).

Wiens’s article reminds us of historian Barbara W. Tuchman’s remarkable book The March of Folly. The book cites historic follies leading to the downfall of past regimes, where tendencies towards failing policies were repeatedly pursued contrary to their own interests despite available, viable alternatives.

Predicting the decline of the American empire is not new, however, their current leader is going the wrong way time and time again.

Dan Furlan

Winnipeg

Surveillance concerns

I am a secondary social studies teacher who is very concerned about recent Canadian legislative bills proposing increased surveillance identity verification (Bill C-22, Bill and S-209).

These proposals are not true safety proposals; they are mass surveillance, tracking, and de-anonymization laws. The right to security and privacy are needed for any free, democratic society to function. Academics (including Dr. Michael Geist) have expressed major misgivings about the expanded powers in these bills, and what they mean for Canadian freedom of expression. With such laws, citizens often silence their opinions and critiques, because they fear reprisal even if their actions are legal. Furthermore, Canadian legal principle has traditionally only allowed surveillance of specific individuals under suspicion of conducting specific crimes.

Surveillance of all citizens is not a hallmark of a safe, secure, free, and democratic society, but a tool of repression used traditionally by repressive regimes, such as former East Germany, the Soviet Union, the current Chinese CCP regime, or fascist states.

Technically, security experts are indicating it is not possible to backdoor communications without significantly endangering Canadians. This has already been proven in the real world, when foreign governments used American surveillance wiretaps to monitor millions of Americans during the Salt Typhoon attacks in 2024. Our databases will be vulnerable to the same attacks. In fact, cybersecurity experts recommend increasing the use of encryption and security protocols, not weakening them. As of writing, several major businesses are indicating they will end operations in Canada if forced to comply with the surveillance bill, Bill C-22.

Are we truly embracing the idea of creating a “papers, please” society? Is that truly the best we can aspire too? Is that even an acceptable way to live? I call on my fellow Canadians to remember what we stand for as a sovereign nation, and to stand for the principles of freedom and human rights that define our society.

Daniel Hunter

Williams Lake, B.C.

Support geothermal

Re: A critical project in waiting (Think Tank, May 16)

Stuart Williams’s article provides excellent food for thought relating to the potential of geothermal heat in Manitoba. When I had our in-fill home built almost 20 years ago I went “all electric.” After 15 years of eye-watering utility bills, I had a high-efficiency natural gas furnace installed.

The savings in heating costs paid for the furnace in five years and my heating bill has now dropped $1,200/year. The old furnace now lives on a nephew’s acreage and heats a machine shed.

I could have installed a heat pump to reduce fossil fuel during shoulder seasons, but at the time Manitoba Hydro was not offering the kind of incentives that would make this a sound economic decision, and our air conditioner barely gets used. We have an energy-efficient home that was designed with excellent natural ventilation and ceiling fans. A geothermal could do it all, and we have a park right across the street where a system large enough to accommodate the needs of the entire block could be installed!

I’m surprised that the province of Manitoba or the city of Winnipeg hasn’t considered geothermal heating/cooling in the downtown and for the legislative building “campus.” Way back in the day there was a steam plant near the Red River in the Exchange District that heated most of the buildings downtown. The underground infrastructure that was used for steam pipes might well be used for new geothermal piping.

Tom Pearson

Winnipeg