Loading...
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.