Water, water, everywhere. So is hokum

Aren't we a sophisticated bunch?

About the time of the First World War, people purchased sealed bottles. Manufacturers convinced them that opening the bottles during the night would ensure of a supply of fresh air. Yes, people paid for bottles of air.

During the time when many African nations were on the verge of independence, a new product appeared -- The Independence Box. People were told that the boxes contained all the wonders of independence: freedom, security, success, comfort, but on condition it be not opened until independence was realized. For sure, by then the vendor was gone.

Today, many people pay for bottles of water they can acquire next to free from a faucet in their kitchens. Dansani, the top-selling bottled water in the U.S. is municipal tap water. Aquafine is sourced from the local water supply.

Need we be reminded of the words attributed to B.T. Barnum? "There's a sucker born every minute."

What may be next expect?  One of today's modern aggravations is noise. Given that some people willingly pay for air that is free, water that is next to free, soon they will pay for silence. Cartons of bottled silence will soon appear in supermarkets. Whenever people want quiet, they need only open the bottle and enjoy the emerging silence.

Animal rights and wrongs

No reasonable person condones gratuitous cruelty to animals. Surely the line is drawn when one attempts to equate animals and humans?  

A media report of February 9, 2016, told of placard-waving protesters demanding justice for an maltreated dog. This, based on the belief that "the mind of a dog is roughly equivalent to that of a child of two or three years of age."  

Such loathsome comparisons are the work of Peter Singer. The Princeton professor claims that highly aware animals, such as the chimp, are owed more respect and protection than mentally-challenged humans. 

One of Singer's followers proclaims, "We are seeking to break the species barrier." There is no barrier, just a measureless chasm between humans and animals, no matter what tricks the animal can perform or how debased the human behaviour. 

Animals are deserving of limited protection with no equivalence to humans at any age or in any condition.

Peter Singer's heart must be broken today. 

To the professor's chagrin, a New York appeals court recently ruled that chimpanzees do not have legal rights. The court rejected the contention that chimps are worthy of a writ of habeas corpus, as animal activists demanded.

There is no legal precedent for the animals to be considered people, the court ruled. They do not have the capacity to be held legally accountable for their actions.  

Sorry, Professor, common sense occasionally holds sway.

The Police That Couldn't Shoot Straight

[Six updates follow]

On February 3, 2012, Michael Eligon, a mentally troubled man fled Toronto East General Hospital wielding scissors in each hand. On the street, eight to ten Toronto police officers surrounded him. The distance between Eligon and the police narrowed from nine to two or three metres, a witness said.

According to reports, one of the officers fired three shots in quick succession. The first shot hit a garbage can. The second bullet went through a porch window. The third shot  hit the victim's shoulder, that is, a near miss. He dropped to the ground. The police pounced on him. He died soon after.

A later report said he died of a shot in the chest. The officer in question claimed that the baton or pepper spray were not viable options. With about a dozen officers similarly armed surrounding the victim, we question why.

This incident gives rise to wondering what type of weapons training police receive. Police are trained to shoot straight at the centre of the chest, not at a nearby garbage can or house. Are front-line police required to up-date regularly their weapons skills? Should eight to ten physically fit, fully armed officers be able to disarm a lone man wielding non-projectile "weapons" without killing him?

One witness said that the officers kicked the downed man in order to clear away the scissors. Did that cause his death?

Toronto Police Chief Blair said that the police followed "sound, well-established practices and procedures." The Special Investigations Unit cleared the officer of wrongdoing. No mention of the officers who did the kicking. Is Blair's "practices and procedures" the problem?

A November 2012 report tells of a Durham Region policeman facing a teenager wielding an imitation handgun. The officer shouted several warnings. The young man pointed his weapon at the officer who fired eight times. Two bullets hit the teen in the upper body. It is not reported where the other six bullets became lodged.

A few months later comes a report of the New York City police who shot and killed a man just after he had killed a former co-worker.  The disturbing part of the report, besides the two deaths, is that nine passers-by near the Empire State Building were also wounded.  Some or all were injured by police gunfire. This is not surprising the report concludes for in 2008 the accuracy rate for New York City officers firing in the line of duty was 34 per cent.

March 20, 2015
In a take-down of a knife-wielding man, Marc Ekamba-Boekwa, three Peel Regional Police fired 19 bullets in quick succession at the assailant standing eight feet away. Eleven struck the target killing him. Another hit one of the officers. Yet another bullet lodged in the back of a neighbour, Suzan Zreik (in 2016 suing for $21 million), preparing dinner in her kitchen.  No mention of the resting place of the other six bullets. As usual, reports of police mischief remain secret or noticeably incomplete.

One questions the quality of weapons training that resulted in six shots missing a target eight feet away. It's reasonable to presume most of the bullets that did hit the target were fired after the assailant was on the ground. Or are we to believe it required 11 shots to down him? The news release (but not the full report) of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) makes no mention of these concerns.

Yet again police training both in weapons and pacification, if any, are called into question.

June 3, 2017
Twelve Toronto police officers confronted on the street a man with a history of mental illness holding a pellet gun. Three officers discharged their weapons killing Devon LaFleur.  He was hit by eight bullets, no report on how many went astray. The SIU report make no mention why the police did not use Tasers or rubber bullets. Nor did the report make mention of the commendable restraint of the other nine officers who did not shoot. Or did they all shoot and missed?

May 14, 2016
A Toronto police constable stopped a car he deemed suspicious and ordered the driver out. According to conflicting evidence, he exited the car and brandished a knife. At a distance one can reasonably suppose of less than a car length, the constable fired seven shots, three killing the driver. To be questioned is why at that close range four shots missed. We await the results of the coroner's inquest and possible further investigation, this decade hopefully.

July 23, 2016
A North Miami policeman shot and wounded an unarmed man as he lay on the sidewalk, arms outstretched, shouting he did not have a weapon. The policeman fired three shots. One hit the victim in the leg. That's a thirty per cent accuracy rate.

August 11, 2016
Punta Gorda, Florida. In a demonstration, a police officer accidentally shot and killed a community volunteer. The event was a role-playing scenario illustrating the split-second decisions an officer must make about firing. What live ammunition was doing at a demonstration has not been explained. Zero per cent accuracy.

October 14, 2016
An inquest into the shooting of John Caleb Ross by York Regional Police in April 2014 disclosed that the two fatal shots were fired by one police officer after the victim refused to drop a toy gun made to look like a real weapon. A second officer fired his shotgun and missed the victim. The question again arises: A trained police officer armed with a shotgun, in sight of his target, fires and misses? Again police weapons training is in question.

Human Rights. How Much for Hurt Feelings?

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal have done it again. They have forced a landlord to pay compensation to a tenant for hurt feelings, real or imagined.

In showing a rental unit to prospective tenants, the landlord did not remove his shoes. According to the complainant, that violated his Muslim practice. The victim also claimed the landlord violated his prayer space. Pray tell, how else might a prospective tenant be shown the apartment without entering the prayer space, actually the bedroom? Neither of these complaints has a religious basis. They are cultural or traditional practices in certain parts of the Muslim world.

Too bad, Tribunal Vice-Chair Jo-Anne Pickel wrote in her 38-page (yes 38 pages) judgement. You hurt his feelings, pay the guy $12,000.

Which raises another question. How was the penalty arrived at? Was it related to what the Vice-Chair had for breakfast that morning? Would the award be even more ridiculous had a stranger parked in her reserved spot?

Human rights tribunals are feel-good outfits. So, if you can concoct a vaguely plausible complaint, go there. It cost nothing. They supply a lawyer. The taxpayer foots the bill. Complaints are accepted face value. The accused must prove innocence. In the end you get a bag of money. The place is a cash cow.

Death by Doctor

In "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell takes merited jabs at the use (and abuse) of the English language. He wrote, "Pretentious diction [lends] an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements."

We see an example of the "air of scientific impartiality" in the matter of euthanasia. Regardless of one's position in this issue, clear, honest language is called for. The terms "mercy killing" and "death with dignity" have been replaced by "assisted suicide." The language is abused.

The death is not suicide, nothing to assist. The medical person occasions the death by lethal injection. The process is more accurately described as "death by doctor" or more graphically, "killing by doctor." Some may wish to consider the process dignified.

Evolution, a logical view

A superior being cannot "descend" from an inferior being.  Humans could not have descended from monkeys or apes or any other form of lower species.
 
The popular diagram of evolution shows an object emerging from a primordial ooze. Succeeding stages in this process depict a series of species each "descending" from its predecessor.

A more logical model of evolution shows humanity present ab initio. The force that ultimately produced us as we are today carried us through our stages of growth, always there, always human.

There may be a common source of all life. Each of the lesser species developed to the maximum of its particular characteristic. That's where they remain today. The human species, on its unique journey, thrust up and beyond all other forms of life.

Discontent

We are in an era of observable discontent. Former times, if not good, were tolerable, causing most of us to ignore the signs of protest. The power base of late mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, consisted of voters who felt left out of the good municipal life. He became mayor with almost half the votes cast, more than 383,000. The system was not working for them, the former suburbs.

In Great Britain, discontent moved 17 million to vote to leave the European Union. Few guessed 62 million Americans would cast ballots for Donald Trump, the ultimate candidate of discontent.

It may be argued these results were a good thing. They alerted us a revolution may be brewing, unless changes were made.

We like to believe we live in a society blessed with equality before the law, opportunity for all to achieve financial comfort, and freedom of expression. None of these is true.

Reasonable access to the legal system is a financial impossibility. Economic benefits go to a minority. Diversity of opinion is snuffed out when all political parties present the same policies. The media censors the whole truth, publishing only what suits their agendas. They no longer observe and report, but seek to direct public opinion.

We no longer vote for what we want, but for what we despise least.

Discontent.

Drug Dealing by the Government

While the federal government pimps for marijuana interests, the provincial government claims it simply cannot live off the avails of  drug dealing.  The Ontario Attorney General claims: "The revenues that are going to be raised (from marijuana taxes) most likely are going to be reinvested back in ensuring that we are protecting youth and the vulnerable."

It's a poor investment if all profit goes to rectify damage caused by the original action.

In fact, our money-addicted Ontario government will receive millions in revenue.  It is telling us that, on one hand, drugs do harm, while the other hand grasps the money.  The harm to our "youth and the vulnerable" is collateral damage.  Why did Premier Kathleen Wynne not voice objection to its legalization?

The  millions in revenue will be used to assuage the catastrophic effects of legalization.  Many of those dying each day from drug overdose began their downward odyssey with marijuana.

Another reason to legalize a drug about which science admittedly does not know the full effect.  How many tobacco company lobbyists have paid for access to the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Over the years, the government has spent millions of dollars to discourage smoking. We now have it legitimizing the re-appearance of discredited tobacco interests and their prospect of financial gain beyond the dreams of avarice.

It required but a few years for the computer industry to be controlled by a handful of conglomerates. So too, tobacco interests will inevitably control the "party drug" trade. After all, they did finance those early protests. To what extent are they financing existing operations?

All the while, government revenue will continue "protecting youth and the vulnerable" and pay for their rehabilitation.  Another example of privatizing profit while socializing the problem.  These costs should be charged directly against corporate profits, and not as a deductible expense.

Where is the outcry in the media against this mischief?  Are they quiet in anticipation of bolstering sagging revenues from the promotion of the non-smoking uses of this drug?  How else to explain the publicity showered on this looming menace?  We regularly see in newspapers and on television screens acne covered youngsters trying to look mature blowing smoke into the cameras or chewing on drug-laced cookies, all the while making tough-guy statements to the compliant media.

Thank you, Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne.  Future addicts and their families will sing your praise.

The Prime Minister to apologize for executions?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues his apologies. Last year, he apologized for Canada's exclusion of Asians a century ago. These would-be economic migrants attempted to enter Canada illegally. In other words, they attempted to break the law of the time.

The Prime Minister will soon meet the demand of gay activists for compensation and apology for the incarceration of homosexuals when that behaviour constituted a breach of the Criminal Code. In other words, they broke the law of the time.

Capital punishment has been abolished. The Prime Minister must compensate and apologize to members of the families of those who were executed. Taking the lives of convicted murders is now punished by prison. Applying the Prime Minster's logic, the lives of those executed were ended wrongfully even though hanging was the law of the time.

Political correctness runs rampant at the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Just as we believed there couldn't possibly be any more avenues of mischief the Ontario Human Rights Commission might tramp down, these righteous people have expanded their mandate to include language engineering.

According to news reports, our bleeding-heart Commission has added to its ever expanding list of nonsense grievances the refusal to address someone by that person's customized pronoun.

(These same people, not long ago, sought authority to censor the internet. Common sense blew that one out of the water. Where is common sense now?)

Yes. I can drag you in front of those apparatchiks should you refer to me as he or him rather than my chosen pronouns  -- maybe and perhaps. Yes, I have the right to change adverbs into pronouns. And never say you to me, say couldbe (sic).

It's political correctness run rampant.

For not using my selected pronouns, you will have disturbed this snowflake, insulted my personality, caused people to look at me funny, lowered my libido, offended my dignity, caused me to lose my job or fail my university exams, and more grievances in the developmental stage.

The good news is they will order you to give me a bag of money. That will immediately rectify all of the above.

The cash return is the main reason why anyone would appeal to this tribunal. At no cost to the aggrieved, it's worth a try.

Human Rights Commission in error, again

The Webber Academy of Calgary, Alberta, is a non-denominational school near Calgary Alberta.  For not allowing Muslim students to pray on school property, the academy found itself facing the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

On a misreading, if not abuse, of the concept of religious freedom, the commission found discrimination and fined the academy $26,000.

Some followers of Islam believe they must pray five times a day. No specific time is mandated. They can be grouped together, for example, two in the morning, one after school, two in the evening, all off school property. There is no obligation to pray during school hours. The need for accommodation did not present itself.

While school policy bans headgear and facial hair in the classroom, accommodation is made for Sikh students. The requirement of a turban and facial hair is continuing and permanent, no choice of times and places.

Alas! The ignorance of the human rights commission extended to the courtroom where a judge bestowed legal sanction on the error.

The academy is considering an appeal.

Dangerous Lawns

It wasn't that long ago when the familiar sign "Keep Off the Grass" was placed on lawns for their protection.  The grass and shrubs needed a chance to grow, so please tread not.  

Today, the lawn sign reads "Warning Pesticide Use."  It now means keep off for your protection.  Our public and private lawns are so loaded with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, that they can bring on headaches and skin disorder for you or your pet.  

Use at your own risk.

Toronto Star policy?

The Toronto Star has done it again -- says one thing, does another.

The newspaper has a strict policy that Letters to the Editor must be identified.

Yet, on July 13, 2016, the Star gave headline treatment to anonymity -- "Tenors' all-star anthem tweak ticks off Canadian viewers."

The basis for the report was the anonymous social media. Indeed, a single tweet was the basis for the entire report by the Star reporter.

Prolonging the error

A Canadian Press report in the June 29, 2016 issue of the Toronto Star claims that the First Nations residential schools were designed to "take the Indian out of the child." Neither CP nor the Star checked their facts. It's irresponsible to place non-attributable words in quotation marks.

No authoritative Canadian ever uttered that statement. Leading the charge was former prime minister Stephen Harper who voiced it in the House of Commons, and the agony of error more recently prolonged by Ontario Premier Elizabeth Wynne.

What to do when the tide of media and political error runs high? Let's try the whole truth.

From"The legacy of Duncan Campbell Scott" by Mark Abley: "The quotation can be traced back to a somewhat different statement uttered by a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Army, Richard Henry Pratt, the nineteenth-century superintendent of a residential school in Pennsylvania: All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."

Not a Canadian in sight, but why spoil a good story?

Erstwhile bigotry

Letter to the Toronto Star, June 26, 2016. Unpublished.

The reaction to "This is where I'm from" by Shree Paradkar (June 20), might leave the impression that the disparaging of others is something new in our city. 

When I was growing up in downtown Toronto, there was no Islamophobia; there were no Muslims. There was no racism; there were no people of colour. Yet there was animosity. 

During the war, our neighbours screamed at us across George Street, "Go back to Germany," and after the war,"dirty Catholics." At that time, Catholics were excluded from employment with the city, and likely other places. One had to state one's religion on an application form.

It was our perceived "otherness" that caused the reaction. It never occurred to us to plead injustice or bigotry. In time, understanding and friendship prevailed, 

However, to believe there will one day be an end to alterphobia, fear of "the other," is to deny human nature. 

Society must always be an educational work in progress.

Business must clean-up its own mess

About four years ago, there began the reclamation of tar ponds in Sydney, Nova Scotia. The cost of this process fell solely on the taxpayer, the company no where in sight.

A similar situation exists in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the former Giant Mine. Reports make no mention who will bear the cost of the clean-up. We may presume it will be the taxpayer.

Any business that harms the environment must post a bond sufficient to pay for all damage occurred during the operation and for its clean-up should operations cease. 

That is not the case with the Alberta oil industry where the bonds posted are grossly inadequate. One day, the Alberta taxpayer, and by extension the rest of us, will pay to repair the enormous damage being currently inflicted.

AND ANOTHER

Between 1962 and 1970, subsidiary companies of Reed International dumped 9000 kilograms of mercury into the Wabagoon-English River system to the severe detriment of the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation. In 1985, the company along with the federal and provincial governments made a one-time compensation payment of $16.67 million.

The problem persists in that fish from these waters are still contaminated with mercury. The people are ill with mercury poisoning. Again the perpetrator is no longer on the scene and all costs now borne by the taxpayer.

Again we ask -- Why was the company not forced to remain on the scene until the problem was totally resolved, the waters totally cleared of their pollution? Why were any governments involved at all in the compensation and subsequent costs persisting to this day? It was a private problem again turned into a public burden.

Repeated nonsense

Untruths repeated often enough become truths in some minds.   I can be persuaded the Toronto Star has a Board of Censors who delete any suggestion we did not get the whole truth concerning the residential school question. An unpublished letter: 

It is to be hoped Premier Kathleen Wynne did not use words attributed to her (An emotional apology, May 31).  

The phrase "take the Indian out of the child" has gained such notoriety many believe it to be incorporated in Canadian legislation. 

It is a corruption of a nineteenth-century statement of a residential school official in Pennsylvania. 

No knowledgeable Canadian has ever uttered it.

Let us end the apology binge

"The idea of apologies is demeaning of those at whom it is directed," according to Andrew J.M. Wheatcroft of Stirling University, Scotland. "They also deny the notion of the past and simply extend the present backwards."

Prime Minister Justine Trudeau recently issued an apology for Canada's denial of entry to a boat-load of Asians more than a century ago. He said, in part, "Canada's government was, without question, responsible for the laws that prevented these passengers from immigrating peacefully and securely."

A Toronto Star columnist complained that law was discriminatory because it prevented their entry.

Of course, the government was responsible for our immigration laws. Of course, the law prevented their entry. Of course, laws are discriminatory against those who seek to violate them.

The legislation was enacted for the benefit of Canadians, not would-be illegal economic migrants.

Let us hope this ends the recent binge of misguided apologies.

Real Canadians and others

The current debate over certain wording in O Canada has attracted many letters to the Toronto Star. Among those published on May 14 was mine:

Yes amend the national anthem to include both sexes. One thing more is necessary to make it totally inclusive. For millions of Canadians, Canada is their home but not native land. The words should offer the option and read "our home and native (chosen) land". 

Exercising rare restraint, I omitted a second suggestion:

We need also delete the word "home". To Canadian citizens living permanently in a  foreign land, such as Lebanon, Canada is not their home. Yet they feel free to call on Canada whenever trouble lurks. Such occurred during a crisis in 2007. These 15,000 Canadians of convenience waved their moth-riddled maple leaf flags and demanded safe evacuation to Cyprus. They were, at a cost of $80- to 100-million to tax-paying Canadians whose real home is Canada. 

These freeloaders, and plenty of others in Hong Kong for example, pay no Canadian taxes and have pseudo-Canadian addresses in order to fleece our healthcare system whenever needed.

To discourage this mischief, the residency requirement to qualify for citizenship must be increased from three years to ten. Passports must show a minimum of six months' Canadian residency every three years. 

Prime Minister Justine Trudeau has proclaimed, "A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. is a ..." 

Not so, Mister T.  

A real Canadian citizen contributes to Canada, not some foreign country.

Mercy killing

The Canadian media are all agog these days in promoting mercy killing. Ethicist Margaret Somerville urges restraint and some safeguards against abuse by the victim's family and doctors. My letter to the Globe and Mail. Unpublished.

Margaret Somerville deals with deep truths while outlining ethical problems in the matter of doctor-assisted dying (Why judges should have the final word, May 4). We can discuss ethics, legalities, rights, demands, conditions, immunities, and safe guards as much as we wish with regard to mercy killing as we once termed it. It will in no way affect the ultimate application of the proposed legislation. 

Human rights tribunals have the authority to override Bill C-14. They have the final word, not our legislators, not our judges. Someone refused a hastened death by the courts need only petition with a sufficiently heart-rending plea to one of these tribunals to qualify for death on demand. The history of these unregulated agencies in dealing with the vulnerable, as they themselves define the word, points in only one direction.

It's curious that the final arbiter of this issue is not even mentioned in the debate.