Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2013-05-16, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013. PAGE 5. One of the more cynical rationalizations used by the U.S. government for its use of drones to kill foreigners is the fact that there’s a legal precedent. The official argument goes that it’s okay to target enemies in their own countries because the U.S. did the same thing to Cambodians during the Vietnam War. True – but not something you’d think a country would want to brag about. Back in the 1960s and 1970s in what became known as Henry Kissinger’s Secret War, American bombers flew 230,000 separate sorties over Cambodia, dropping more than three million tons of bombs. It was, as a U.S. General said at the time, “the only war in town” since a temporary truce with Vietnam had been declared. It was also a bit like shooting fish in a barrel; the Cambodians had no air force, no anti- aircraft ordinance – no armed forces to speak of. They were mostly rice farmers. Their great crime was allowing the Viet Cong to use their country as a short cut to South Vietnam. Not that the Cambodians had much choice. They were as powerless against the Viet Cong as they were against the U.S. bombers. The U.S. military rationale was loopy at best; a bit like bombing Vancouver because it lies between Seattle and Alaska. Now, the U.S. is arguing that the thousands of innocent Cambodians who died as a result of the U.S. pursuing North Vietnamese were a legal precedent which makes it okay for the U.S. to go after enemies in any neutral territory. No one knows how many Cambodians died in the bombings, but estimates run as high as 500,000. We do know that Cambodia was devastated, many of its towns reduced to rubble, the infrastructure shredded, its economy ruined. Which made it easy for the monster known as Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge to take over the country and utterly destroy what was left of it. Pol Pot was Joseph Stalin on steroids. He practiced ‘social engineering’ with a sledge hammer and a meat cleaver. In four devastating years, Pol Pot oversaw the gutting and abandonment of all Cambodian urban centres. Organized religion was abolished, banks were closed, private property, markets and even money was eliminated. The Khmer Rouge tore down 95 per cent of the country’s Buddhist temples. Christians, Muslims, Chinese, ethnic Vietnamese and Thais were murdered on sight, as were government officials, professionals such as doctors or lawyers – indeed, all ‘intellectuals’. Wearing eyeglasses was enough to get you branded an ‘intellectual’. Pol Pot’s so-called ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ was in fact a prison-camp state. Twenty-five per cent of the population – about two and a half million people – were executed, died of disease or simply starved to death. The best thing you can say about Pol Pot and his evil horde is that they only lasted for four years. He died under house arrest, probably a suicide, in 1998. Today, Cambodia has its old name back, a thriving tourist economy and best of all, a young and healthy growing population. Especially young. Seventy-five per cent of living Cambodians are too young to even remember Pol Pot. But they’ll have no trouble remembering the U.S. bombings; it’s a gift that keeps on giving. Those millions of tons of bombs that were dropped did not all detonate. Some experts estimate that 30 per cent of them still lie in the jungle waiting to explode. And they do, with deadly regularity. There are 40,000 amputees in Cambodia today, almost all of them victims of UXO’s – unexploded ordinance. There will be many more amputees for decades to come. “History”, as Winston Churchill tartly observed, “is written by the victors.” How true. That’s why no memorial on the face of the earth marks the passing of Pol Pot. And Henry Kissinger, the architect of the Cambodian Secret War? Why, he won the Nobel Prize for Peace. Arthur Black Other Views Cambodia: Phoenix rising Local municipal councils are in a tough place right now. They are right in the middle of a number of crucial issues they can do absolutely nothing about. I have to say, I can feel their pain on this one. After a heartfelt presentation by a Huron East couple at the May 7 council meeting, Huron East Mayor Bernie MacLellan said that while council often agrees and sympathizes with residents who come to them with issues they’re having with higher levels of government, there is nothing council can actually do to help them. MacLellan lamented that the Province of Ontario has never changed a single law to reflect the needs of Huron East or rural Ontario and that it was unlikely to start now. The couple is upset with a transmission line associated with a wind turbine project in Bluewater. The line will have to travel in front of the couple’s property and knock out a number of mature trees. However, because it is a transmission line running along a provincial highway, unlike a wind turbine project, companies don’t even need permission from landowners to run lines, so the couple is left with no say in the decision. Now I can understand the situation from both angles. I have essentially been immersed in it for the last few years through my own coverage of local council meetings as well. Much of this feeling of helplessness, from both sides, has originated with the Green Energy Act. When it came into effect, all planning power was taken out of the hands of local municipalities. This left people at the mercy of their neighbours and anti-wind turbine groups have sprung up all over Huron County, as well as across the province, for people who feel their rights as landowners have been taken away as their neighbours authorize the construction of wind turbines while they are left to deal with alleged negative repercussions such as dropping property values and adverse health effects, among others. So while anti-wind turbine groups have done their best to lobby against the provincial government, they have also spent the last few years pleading their case to local municipal councils, leaving many councillors to wonder what, if anything, they could do to change provincial regulations. The answer, unfortunately, is nothing. MacLellan made the point that he has been lobbying the province for nearly five years for changes to the Provincial Policy Statement regarding planning to no avail. And entering into any ill-advised legal action against a regulation that is out of the municipality’s jurisdiction could cost the municipality (ratepayers) millions of dollars. “Just give me something that’s not going to cost the municipality a fortune,” MacLellan said of getting legally involved with the issue. This hasn’t stopped anti-wind turbine groups, however, from pointing the finger at their municipal councillors, saying that it has been the inaction of council that has left residents in the predicament they’re in. These are regulations made by the province. It seems the municipalities are victims here too. So after numerous different legal opinions and hundreds of hours spent on the wind turbine issue, all some municipalities are left with is a motion declaring the municipality “an unwilling host” which, legally, means nothing. So while I understand people’s frustration, I can’t help but think that energy would be better spent on the people who can make decisions on an issue, not those who are just as frustrated about it as you are. Classic misdirection Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense The world is a scary place; there’s war, famine, disease, death, microbial agents, and now, dogs attacking without recourse. Confused? Well so am I. I’m confused why the owner of a dog that bites someone is entitled to privacy that could literally cost someone else their life. That was the reason that Dr. Nancy Cameron of the Huron County Health Unit gave when asked why Bob Trick, Animal Control Officer for pretty much all of Huron County, was unable to access information about animals that have been involved in just one bite. Trick only receives notice after a dog has bitten someone a second time or a dog is involved in an unprovoked “vicious” attack. Gotta love that vague government language, am I right? Now, before anyone thinks of labelling me anything but a friend to the dogs, I am a dog person. My family is full of dog people. There has never been a dog in my life I didn’t like or at least find tolerable. I’ve spent time with small dogs like Juno my miniature poodle, large dogs like Bishop (a husky cross), and everything in between. I’ve had purebred boxers, purebred poodles and Heinz 57 dogs and every one of them has a place in my heart and, more often than not, some of the food off my plate when no one else is looking. However, the day one of my dogs, or a dog I’m responsible for, seriously bites someone is the day that dog will have to go to doggy heaven. You can call it cruel if you want, but if a dog proves they are capable and willing to injure people, they can’t be around people and should likely be put down. (I put the capable part in because Juno loved socks and wouldn’t always wait until you took them off to tackle them and gnaw on them relentlessly. It didn’t really hurt.) Anyway, back to the issue at hand here. Dogs, while undoubtedly the best creation of [insert whatever creator/deity you pray to here] are only as good or as bad as the person who owns them, trains them and treats them. That said, as Stephen King so eloquently put it in The Green Mile, you can look at a dog 100 times, but on that 101st, he may decide you’re looking at him funny and he will bite you. Fortunately, no dog that I claim as my own has ever done that to anyone. I’ve never had to say goodbye to an animal because of a biting incident. Dr. Cameron, however, states that, to keep in line with the Personal Health Information Protection Act, which dictates “custodians may disclose personal health information if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is necessary to eliminate or reduce a significant risk of serious bodily harm to a person or a group of persons,” dogs will only be reported after unprovoked biting incidents or two biting incidents. In the letter from Cameron and Public Health Manager Jean-Guy Albert, it states the following: “In order to comply with the Personal Health Information Protection Act while ensuring that public health is protected, the medical officer of health (the custodian) has determined that in the case of animal exposures, an unprovoked and vicious biting incident or two or more biting incidents by the same animal constitute a significant risk.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe that stupid people or people who do stupid things around dogs deserve to be bit. I, for example, have had a scratch or a minor cut from playing too rough with the dogs or trying to take a ball they’re not ready to give up. If you’re going to be stupid and approach an unknown dog on his or her property and put your hands near their mouth... you might get bitten and, in my mind, you might deserve it. However, the line between accident and stupidity and the line between vicious and benign can be blurry. A dog that can be a danger needs to be treated as a threat the first time, not after it has attacked again. Sometimes dogs have bad experiences with a certain individual and then, people who share a trait, an appearance or a smell with that person can end up getting bit. The dog may never see a person like that again, but on the off chance they do, we can’t wait for a second bite to occur. We can’t wait for a second person to be attacked before we do something about it. A dog bite should be a known fact for animal control officers. While letting the public at large know that a dog has bitten someone may lead to unsavoury consequences, letting the animal control officer know will let them assess the issue and decide whether the dog needs to be put down to prevent a second injury. A dog biting one person is too many, however a dog being allowed to bite twice, simply because a government- mandated group believes they have more of an obligation to protect people’s privacy than they do to protect people’s person is just plain stupid. While it requires some doctoring, I believe that there is a perfect cliched saying to apply to this reality: Get bit once, shame on you. Get bit twice, well it might not be your fault, and that’s the dog- gone truth. Denny Scott Denny’s Den Get bit once, shame on you...