Letters, June 20

Another displacement story

Re: Museum’s core mandate is to confront inconvenient truths (June 18)

Here’s an inconvenient truth: in 1948, Jewish leadership said yes to partition. Arab governments and Palestinian Arab leadership said no. Instead, they decided to fight a war to the death. They lost. In the course of the war Arabs were displaced. And the Arab governments in control of the ancient Jewish populations of Syria, Iraq (i.e., Babylonia) and Egypt evicted or made continued life for Jews under their control impossible. Hence more Jews than Arabs were displaced as a result of that war. Try reading some history. I can help you with a reading list.

Sheryl Rosenberg, Winnipeg

Farley incident has broad impact

Re: Victim ‘not happy’ with judge’s decision (June 17)

I was troubled to read the article regarding the revocation of Trevor Farley’s high-risk accused designation.

While the court’s decision was based on medical evidence concerning Mr. Farley’s current condition and treatment progress, the article also highlights issues that continue to receive far too little attention: the role of Manitoba’s health-care system before this tragedy occurred and the lasting impact on those whose lives were forever changed.

Reports surrounding this case have indicated that Mr. Farley was already receiving psychiatric care and was subject to legal mental-health provisions prior to the events of Oct. 27, 2021. Manitobans deserve answers. What safeguards were in place? Were warning signs recognized and acted upon? Were existing policies followed? Were there opportunities for intervention that could have prevented this tragedy?

These questions are not about assigning blame. They are about examining whether the systems responsible for protecting patients, health-care workers and the public functioned as intended.

Many staff members affected by this tragedy continue to live with its consequences. They deserve more than expressions of sympathy. They deserve transparency, accountability, and a meaningful examination of what went wrong and what has changed since.

If health-care organizations expect staff to place themselves in challenging and sometimes dangerous situations, they must also demonstrate an unwavering commitment to supporting those workers when tragedy occurs. Accountability does not end when the immediate crisis is over. It extends to how organizations treat the people who continue to live with the consequences long afterward.

The public should not only be asking whether Mr. Farley is progressing in treatment. We should also be asking whether Shared Health, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and Manitoba’s mental-health system have fully examined the systemic issues that preceded this event.

Public confidence depends on knowing that lessons have been learned and improvements have been implemented. That confidence is especially important now that Manitoba’s mental-health system will continue to play a central role in assessing risk and making future decisions regarding Mr. Farley’s care and community access.

The focus should not solely be on the rights of the accused. It should also include accountability, transparency and justice for the victims, their families and the health-care workers whose lives were permanently altered.

Phyllis Gallimore, Winnipeg

C-30 loosens pesticide controls

Please note my serious concerns regarding Bill C-30, which implements measures from the spring economic update, including major changes to Canada’s Pest Control Products Act.

As a senior, disabled and chemically sensitive woman living in an agricultural region, I am terrified by the variety and toxicity of the chemicals already in use, and now the Liberal government has unleashed Pandora’s box of banned pesticides to throw into the mix.

Mr. Carney and his cabinet have no right to overthrow scientifically based legislation to satisfy crop life. The health minister should be ashamed of herself.

Glenda Whiteman, Finns

A public option for food

Re: Small grocers embrace Ottawa’s national food security strategy (June 13)

The recently announced federal national food security system proposes to spend $3 billion over 10 years, including $1 billion for infrastructure, as in food terminals and hubs to “remove middlemen, making prices more competitive while improving quality.”

These terminals and hubs would be modelled after the already existing Ontario Food Terminal in Etobicoke. The food hubs would serve as “distribution link, consolidating local supply and lowering shipping costs … especially important in rural and remote areas, including northern and Arctic communities … The funding is expected to support 20 to 40 hubs.”

Sounds like a plan, in fact it sounds a lot like the Avi Lewis NDP public-option plan for the delivery of more affordable groceries to food-insecure families which are increasingly relying on food banks. Putting aside for the moment the public, non-profit grocery stores aspect of the Lewis proposal, here’s what it says about food hubs: “Public investments (through an expanded mandate for Farm Credit Canada) in local and regional infrastructure hubs so that food can be grown, stored, processed and sold closer to home — outside of corporate value chains.”

As far as the public, non-profit grocery store component of the proposal, there’s nothing new here — Mexico and Argentina already have state-owned grocery stores. And Canada has a rich history of public ownership, including an airline, a railway, energy companies, public insurance corporations, and in Saskatchewan, still, a public telecom provider. Another interesting example: U.S. military families can shop in publicly-run, subsidized grocery stores known as commissaries.

Sustainable procurement practices, community economic development, workforce health and safety, and environmental care are not extraneous ‘nice to haves’, they are essential public values which a public option is more likely to deliver. In the face of evident market failure and anti-competitive practices, a public grocery option is not a far-fetched idea.

Surely access to food is a basic human right!

Sig Laser, Winnipeg

Fighting social media ban a head-scratcher

To anyone who thinks banning social media for children is bad: seriously, ask yourselves why?

So many parents today are afraid to let their kids play outside alone for fear some lurker might snatch their children. But they let their kids openly wander the internet, a land full of anonymous creeps, without supervision.

Statistically, your child is far less likely to encounter a predator outside compared to the internet. I would encourage every parent to read The Anxious Generation to learn just how social media companies have admittedly used psychology to prey upon our kids — their insecurities, their need to belong, their undeveloped minds — to create addiction.

Too many parents won’t parent and prevent their kids from accessing these media. Dare I say that’s because they don’t want to lead by example and get off the sites themselves? If you don’t want bans, then it’s time to parent.

Don’t give kids access. No smart phones, no social media until their brains are more mature.

Candace Weselowski, Winnipeg