Letters, May 21 – Winnipeg Free Press

Opinion

Need a long sentence

Again: Traffic violations are punishable by prison terms (May 15)

I read inside Free press, to some surprise, the trial of a drunk or impaired driver who was driving on the Trans-Canada Highway from Regina and was stopped in the Brandon area. According to RCMP, the driver was “passed out” in the vehicle. He collided with other drivers on the road and threatened them with death or injury.

To my surprise, the crown and the judge seemed to take an “oh well…” approach to what I believe to be the most serious crime. The Crown recommended a 30-day jail sentence, which the judge accepted despite the fact that the offense was classified as dangerous driving. I think a six-month sentence is very appropriate, it will give people who drink and drive the harshest punishment they deserve to bring them home.

The facts of the case here represent perhaps the worst type of high-risk drinking and driving offense that can occur without actually causing injury or death. Canadian courts seem to take a much more lenient view of vehicle crimes and offenses than other life-threatening incidents.

Such decisions, of course, will not help reduce drinking and driving crimes.

Allan James

Minnesota

Get over the rejection

Again: We are reaping what we have sown (Editorial, May 16)

Editorial Major insurance companies in the United States say climate change is real, so more people can't afford home insurance. We seem to need more, proving that we are no longer in the realm of hypothesis and theory.

Climate change has become a part of our daily lives. Let's not forget that the vast majority of climate change scientists have been warning about this for decades (see UN IPCC reports since 1988). As the editorial says: “We are literally reaping a whirlwind.”

So what to do? Let's start by stopping climate change denial. We need to have a serious discussion about a serious issue that requires a serious response. This means, I think, a discussion about how to reduce the reduction as much as possible (every tenth of a degree is important) and how to prepare to adapt as much as possible.

Therefore, every person and organization should ask themselves what they can do and what they can do. Every politician at every level should answer the question, what do you propose to do in terms of policy?

Then let's hope for no less than disastrous results, maybe even a better place.

Gerald Farthing

Winnipeg

Where is the fault?

Again: “It's free speech” is not a defense against threats (Think Center, March 16)

Shannon Sumpert's article on the limits of free speech can be retitled Who let the dogs out??

Pierre Polievre purchased Timmies for his “freedom convoy” to support those camped on the New Brunswick border.

The visceral hatred directed at Justin Trudeau, and the verbal attacks on ministers Chrystia Freeland and Catherine McKenna (the latter called out while walking with their children) are examples of CCP supporters. You could also add to this group those who stood at a CPC rally and verbally abused Mr. Poillevre, but that pales in comparison to paralyzing in downtown Ottawa or hiding guns at the border crossing in Coates, Alta.

What began as a target issue in Stephen Harper's 2015 campaign has become a reality eight years later. Ask any woman or man on the street why they despise Mr. Trudeau. They can only cite words of encouragement, without concrete examples of how he served Canada honorably.

Society in general and the sound-biting press are equally to blame. While some may agree with the rhetoric, the motto “don't believe everything you hear” applies to all of us. The press that followed the story before the deadline shares the responsibility of putting it on the dunghill instead of spreading it.

It takes hard work to preserve democracy, and we must all join in this noble cause.

Thomas Tierney

Winnipeg

A lot is to be desired

I hosted a colleague in Toronto last week. Since we are both involved in social justice issues, I thought it would be a good idea to take them to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.

Although I haven't been to a museum in years, I thought the museum would be a great place for my colleague and I to visit and learn about human rights challenges past and present. Unfortunately, this was not our experience. After entering the permanent exhibits, we also looked at the “chronology of human rights” and realized that it stopped in 2013.

The Canadian Travel section had a booth about missing and murdered Indigenous girls and women, but the rest of the booths dealt with 20th century issues. These issues of the past are important and inevitably play a role in our lives today; but the museum failed to address recent events like Idle No More, #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Every Child Matter, Occupy Wall Street, let alone Israel's occupation of Palestine.

I took a friend from the big city to see Winnipeg's jewel, believing that the museum could address the human rights injustices happening today; Unfortunately, I was disappointed and even a little embarrassed.

Mike Edwards

Winnipeg

Less lethal methods

Again: Protest camps and higher education institutions (Editorial, May 13)

This editorial presents a thought-provoking look at the importance of today's student protest camps and how universities should respond.

Current protests seem differential in their protest goals – or, as the editorial writer rightly puts it, “muddy.” In contrast, the anti-war protests at American universities in the 1960s were much more than a philosophical goal for the protesters. It was personal for young American men, whose age made it more likely that they would be called to the front lines of war.

Sending in armed squads to arrest and even shoot protesters (in Kent, Ohio) was wrong then and would be wrong in response now.

If our current student protestors are to truly understand war, they need more knowledge of the conditions that create conflict. For example, start by asking about water and land resources, whose control is a source of universal contention.

Then ask experts in the geopolitics of war to provide regional context.

Can nations replace armed conflict with non-lethal methods of addressing injustice? Our universities must rise to the demands of the protestors as “institutions of higher learning”!

Why not consider an informative panel discussion with invited speakers representing a range of perspectives – authors, diplomats or other experts on world affairs?

This type of constructive activity can draw students out of the tents of protest and into the educational work they need to do as future leaders.

Jean A. Paterson

Winnipeg