HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2017-04-13, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2017. PAGE 5.
Other Views
Only one story is permitted
Jf you want to understand at least part of the
reason people like Donald Trump get as
much support as they do, you need to look
at the insistence of those on the other side of
the spectrum that there is only one story that is
permitted to be told.
Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak is
certainly aware of that reality these days. The
Senator, stepped on a landmine of controversy
and was booted off the Senate's Aboriginal
Peoples committee when she said that while
"one can never excuse or minimize the
suffering that victims have experienced" in the
residential school system, there were some
children who experienced good stories and
there were some kind and caring people who
worked in the system.
But even though the vast majority of stories
over the last few years from the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission outlined the
horrors committed in the residential schools
which took children away from the families
and communities and forbad them to use their
own language, and despite coverage that
emphasized the long-term damage still
affecting aboriginal communities today, there's
no room for even a mention that there might
have been some good stories. It stands to
reason that since 150,000 First Nation, Metis
and Inuit youth went through the schools over
several decades, there must have been some
who came out with a happier story than the
many thousands for whom the system was
toxic.
More unfortunately Senator Beyak got into
trouble for suggesting that some well-
meaning, good-hearted people worked in
residential schools. The focus has been on the
bad teachers, principals and other officials in
the system who abused children, physically
and sometimes sexually. The residential school
system was a magnet for bullies and racists
who thought all signs of students' native
languages and culture must be beaten out of
Keith
Roulston
From the
cluttered desk
their young charges.
But Beyak expressed concern for the
children and grandchildren of those who
worked in the residential school system that
everyone shouldn't be tarred by the same brush
of doing evil to the children in their care. Must
those whose parents or grandparents did their
best to help children bear the same shame as
the abusers? Apparently, according to the
acceptable story, they must.
This goes directly against the normal,
progressive, liberal line. We argue against
Islamophobia because all Muslims shouldn't
have to bear the blame for a tiny percentage of
religious extremists. Why then do we turn
around and make all residential school
teachers and officials guilty of the sins of those
who really did the damage?
There's a British judge who has also been
hammered publicly for telling a story that's not
acceptable in the current social climate. Judge
Lindsey Kusher, sentencing a man for rape of
an 18 -year-old woman with whom he'd been
out drinking, said there was "absolutely no
excuse" for what the man did. Her trouble
began, however, when she went on to warn that
girls and women put themselves at risk when
they get drunk. She pointed out they're less
likely to be able to fight off an attack, less
likely to report an attack because they don't
remember what happened clearly, and they're
less likely to be believed than someone who
was sober.
Girls are perfectly entitled to "drink
themselves into the ground", Judge Kusher
said, but they should be aware that potential
attackers often target women who have been
drinking.
The judge got hammered as climbing on the
"blame -the -victim" bandwagon.
One group complained: "When judges
basically blame the victims for rape — by
suggesting how much alcohol a woman drinks
or what she wears is part of what causes rape,
we remove the responsibility from the man
who did it."
The judge did nothing of the kind, of
course. She found the man guilty, but perhaps
because it was her last case before retiring, she
had the courage to state the obvious. What she
said was basically the same as police warning
people that leaving their keys in the ignition of
an unlocked car increases the risk of having it
stolen. It doesn't mean the thief is any less
guilty (although there are jurisdictions that
charge people for "tempting" thieves by
leaving their keys in their cars).
But the only acceptable story is that women
should be able to go out and get plastered just
as some men do and society must find a way to
keep them perfectly safe. If they are too drunk,
they are considered incapable of giving
permission to have sex so their partner is guilty
of sexual assault, even if he's also pie -eyed.
The real issue society should be taking aim
at is the current vogue of young women and
men to go out to a bar or party, get zonked and
hook up for sex with someone whose name
they may not even remember the next morning.
Male or female this is just plain dangerous,
stupid, irresponsible behaviour.
The greater issue is the determination of
some people to punish anyone who steps off
the acceptable path, even an inch or so. Yes, we
always need to fight against the neo-Nazis, the
anti-Semites and Islamophobes — the haters.
But widening the bullseye to target anyone
who tries to take a more subtle view of an issue
goes against the freedoms we cherish.
All comedy aside, this must be a joke
When I first sat down to tackle the
issue of a proposed change to North
Huron's waste program, I had
envisioned something light-hearted
referencing comedian Yakov Smirnoff but,
after writing that column, I decided that didn't
serve the purpose I was hoping it would.
Last week, at the suggestion of North Huron
Township's Director of Public Works Jeff
Molenhuis, North Huron Council directed
Molenhuis to investigate reducing the
frequency of garbage collection to bi-weekly
in urban areas of the township as opposed to
the weekly collection that is the norm in Blyth
and Wingham. The change is billed as a cost-
saving measure.
He also suggested increasing the costs of
various services, including tipping fees and
bag tags, to make waste collection a user -
funded program.
I think, somewhere along the way, North
Huron Council and staff may have forgotten
that townships are in the business of providing
services to their ratepayers.
The reason municipalities, or democratic
governments of any kind, exist is because
people came together and decided they wanted
to give up portions of their earnings for
services and protection.
Reducing services should be the last resort
of a municipality trying to save money, not the
first — especially when a municipality recently
conducted a survey where the majority of
respondents said they wanted weekly pick-up.
Taxes in North Huron are pretty high as a
result of the services provided. As a matter of
fact, since Ashleigh and I moved here six
years ago, our taxes have nearly doubled due
to growing assessment and increasing
township levies. However, we would never
suggest reducing essential services as a means
Denny
Scott
ygagi Denny's Den
of countering that.
It could be that North Huron is trying to save
money on services to afford its new Director
of Public Works.
Earlier this year, the municipality dissolved
the Shared Public Works Department it
operated with Morris-Turnberry, one of the
biggest portions of the shared services project,
but decided to keep Director Jeff Molenhuis.
At the time, I interviewed North Huron
Chief Administrative Officer Sharon
Chambers about the change. I asked how
North Huron would afford someone who was
previously paid for by two municipalities.
Given Molenhuis' extensive (and no doubt
expensive) qualifications when compared to
the two directors that proceeded him in North
Huron and Morris-Turnberry, I had made an
educated guess that he would make more than
his predecessors.
Chambers said, in no uncertain terms, that
part of Molenhuis' job would be to report on
how the department could be restructured to
accommodate his position and salary and that
was after his contract was renegotiated,
according to Chambers. She also said it would
be better to share the cost of someone with
Molenhuis' qualifications, but that wasn't
possible.
I don't recall seeing a report about how his
salary would be maintained. I have, however,
read the report that would reduce garbage
collection, an essential service, to save $100,000.
In past columns I've defended the taxes in
North Huron because the township was
providing services. This proposed change,
however, feels like a slap in the face to
everyone who has paid the rising taxes to
maintain services.
I'm not against lowering taxes, but, to
borrow a phrase from a fellow Blyth ratepayer,
you can't cut your way to prosperity. Weekly
garbage removal didn't attract my wife and me
to buy in Blyth, but the lack of it certainly is
something that could see us leave in the light
of the taxes we pay.
Whether it's cutting back on charitable
donations, getting out of non-essential
services or raising taxes yet again, there have
to be other options to make the budget work.
I know I'm not the only person who would be
adversely affected by this poorly -thought-out
proposal. How do I know? Well the majority of
more than 300 respondents in the township
survey were in favour of weekly collection.
So, since I know I'm not the only person
who disagrees with this decision, I urge
everyone who feels the same way to tell your
representatives that Molenhuis needs to be
sent back to the drawing board with clear
instructions: ratepayers aren't interested in
reducing essential services to help balance the
budget.
Finally, to North Huron Council I have two
things to say. First, if you have to reduce
services to afford a new hire, maybe the new
hire shouldn't be the priority. Remember, you
answer to us, not the other way around.
Second, garbage collection is a service that
residents pay for through their taxes, like
infrastructure and policing. It isn't meant to be
user -funded or a money-maker. Give your
heads a shake and do a better job.
Shawn
Loughlin
gab Shawn's Sense
Dorito-hands the ref
For one of the more infuriating sports
stories in recent years, we turn to
women's golf. Or, rather, we turn to
someone who has no doubt accomplished
nothing with his wretched life sitting at home
with his hand in a bag of Doritos sending an e-
mail... while watching women's golf.
Lexi Thompson is an accomplished athlete
on the Ladies Professional Golf Association
(LPGA) tour. She won an LPGA tour event
when she was 16 and has won a handful more
since, one of which was one of the tour's major
championships. And she would have won a
second major championship if it wasn't for
aforementioned Dorito-hands.
What does one have to do with the other?
You might ask yourself that. But they have
very much to do with one another now. You
see, golf is a bizarre outlier when it comes to
its rules where people watching on T.V. at
home can call in or e-mail what they perceive
to be rules violations.
That's right. Some loser at home with a
television and a cable subscription directly
caused Thompson to incur a four-stroke
penalty, which lost her the championship. Her
sin? Well, Dorito-hands seemed to think that
when Thompson was about to tap in a putt she
placed her ball in a slightly different spot than
where she initially marked it.
So he took it upon himself to e-mail golf's
powers -that -be and told them what he thought.
Four penalty strokes later, Thompson had the
championship in a playoff and was seen in
tears on the course.
He wasn't even current. He was watching a
delayed version of the round played the day
before and e-mailed to report what he saw.
The same thing happened just a few years
ago to one of the top athletes in men's golf,
Dustin Johnson. A viewer at home thought
Johnson grounded his club in a bunker at
Whistling Straits — a course with almost 1,000
bunkers, many of them not clearly defined —
and Johnson would lose the U.S. Open.
Many of Thompson's fellow golfers
immediately took to Twitter to defend her and
take shots at the system. Tiger Woods, for
example, said that no one sitting at home
should have any influence over what happens
on the golf course.
Golf is the only sport in which you can
"report" violations like this. Imagine if other
sports were like this. What if viewers at home
could call Major League Baseball every time
they thought a called strike was actually a little
outside, or if hockey fans could call up on -ice
referees like my high school friend Dave
Lewis and tell him that Mitch Marner had in
fact been held in the corner on the Leafs' last
push for a goal? It would be anarchy.
Some fans tried their best to make their
favourite sport a little more like golf just a few
weeks ago when Kentucky basketball fans
thought their team wasn't quite getting the rub
of the green from referee John Higgins. There
is no number for them to call to report how
wronged they felt, so instead thousands of
Kentucky Wildcats found Higgins' roofing
business on Facebook and trashed his
professional skills because they thought his
refereeing left much to be desired.
Regardless of which sport we're talking
about, it should be a universal rule that it's
settled on the field, the court, the course, the
ice or the pitch. No one at home, unless it's
LPGA CEO Michael Whan, who is for some
reason watching at home and decides to e-mail
in a rules violation, should have any say over
whether Thompson wins or loses one of the
biggest rounds of golf of her life.