HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2007-01-04, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 4. 2007. PAGE 5.
Bonnie
Gropp
TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt
How many times must members of the
Ontario legislature vote for a new law
to protect lives before a government
provides it?
Three times in little more than a decade,
MPPs of all parties have approved private
members’bills and motions that would make it
compulsory for all cyclists to wear helmets.
There is still no reliable sign it will be made
into law.
The first time the MPPs made their views
known was when Dianne Cunningham, as a
Progressive Conservative backbencher in the
early 1990s, introduced a private member’s
bill to force all cyclists to wear helmets. The
legislature approved it and New Democrat
government even set a date to start it.
But Conservative Mike Harris defeated the
NDP and became premier in 1995 and first
said he would implement the law, because it
was the will of the people. He then back-
pedalled under pressure by highly vocal
objectors outside the legislature. He decided
MPPs were less important and compelled only
cyclists under 18 to wear helmets.
The issue got back on the road in 2004, after
Liberal Dalton McGuinty became premier,
when one of his back-benchers, John Milloy,
introduced a private member’s bill to require
cyclists of all ages, and inline skaters and
skateboarders, to wear helmets on roads.
MPPs of all parties endorsed it.
The government still did not set the wheels
turning and before the legislature adjourned
for Christmas 2006 Milloy introduced a
slightly changed motion to make helmets
compulsory for all cyclists and explore ways
of doing the same for those involved in the
newer pursuits of in-line skating and
skateboarding, and all parties supported it.
There is ample evidence brain injury is a
common cause of death among cyclists.
Helmets reduce the risk substantially. Deaths
of under-18s on bikes also have decreased
significantly since Ontario brought in
legislation requiring that age group wear
helmets.
Legislators pushing for compulsory helmets
for all have cited tragic personal experiences.
Cunningham told of a son who suffered severe
head injuries while cycling.
New Democrat Michael Prue spoke of a
brother who made sure his children wore
helmets, but left his off to cycle to a corner
store, fell and suffered a fatal head injury,
which a helmet would have prevented.
Liberal Tony Ruprecht recalled a woman
cycling with him was hit by a car and fell on
her head, but was saved by a helmet.
Conservative Laurie Scott, a former hospital
nurse, remembered handling a succession of
cyclists with brain injuries that could have
been prevented if they had worn helmets.
Milloy and Health Promotion Minister Jim
Watson described a mutual friend aged 26 who
hit his head on the pavement and died while
inline skating without a helmet.
Watson added a properly fitted helmet
reduces the risk of serious head injury by as
much as 85 per cent.
This support from a senior minister in the
health field and the fact McGuinty has not
tried to stifle debate on the issue may suggest
the Liberals are on the verge of making
helmets compulsory for all. But Milloy says he
has had no indication of this directly from
government.
McGuinty has a strong record of intervening
to protect people and may be reluctant to make
helmets compulsory for all because its
opponents are a particularly vocal and forceful
lobby.
Their claims include it would discourage
people from cycling, which provides exercise
and reduces pollution, and helmets would give
cyclists a false sense of security, so they would
take more risks.
But their argument that may weigh heaviest
with McGuinty, which they have used before
and would again, is compulsory helmets
would take away people’s right and freedom to
decide for themselves and be a large step on
the road to a “nanny state.”
This is a label McGuinty is anxious to avoid,
but none of these is a good reason for refusing
to pass a worthwhile law that would save lives.
There’s always hope
Consider what you tell the world with
the index and middle finger of one
hand.
Pop those fingers up against your temple
and you’re telling everyone that you’re a loyal
member of Lord Baden Powell’s own – you’re
a Boy Scout.
Hoist those fingers in a tavern and you’ve
just ordered a couple of beers – if you catch
the waiter’s eye.
When posing for a group photograph you
can hold the two fingers up behind someone’s
head just before the flashbulb pops. It’s called
giving someone “bunny ears”.
It’s also called ‘being a dork’.
And you can make wiggly V signs with both
hands to form ‘air quotes’ giving ironic
distance to something you’re saying.
I’m sure Marc Antony was tempted to use V
signs in his eulogy to Caesar when he said:Yet
Brutus says that Caesar was ambitious. And
Brutus is an (air quote) honourable man (air
quote).
Very handy, the V sign. But if you happen to
employ it overseas, particularly in England,
Ireland or New Zealand, be sure your palm is
facing outward not inward.
Two fingers up (slightly curled) with
knuckles facing outward means something
quite ah, different over there. It’s the most
insulting gesture you can make – but with a
fascinating history. Legend has it that the
‘bowfinger salute’ as it’s called, goes back
about six centuries to The Hundred Years War
between England and France.
One of England’s deadliest weapons at that
time was the longbow, which they used with
great accuracy from astonishing distances. The
French feared the English longbowmen and
whenever they captured one, made a point of
chopping off the archer’s index and middle
fingers – the ones used to steady the arrow on
the bowstring – so that he could never again be
a threat.
Before battle, unmutilated longbowmen
would waggle their two bow fingers defiantly
at the French forces to indicate that they were
in fine shape and a blizzard of incoming
English arrows could be expected imminently.
That’s the legend – and if it isn’t true it
ought to be.
But that’s the rude V sign. The more polite V
sign (palm outward) was also championed by
an Englishman of note. Sir Winston Churchill
made it famous as a victory symbol during
World War II. Many a Pathe newsreel would
show the doughty, embattled PM trudging
through the rubble left from yet another
German bombing raid, then turning to face the
cameras and hoisting a pugnacious ‘V-for-
Victory’ salute – frequently with a fat cigar
wedged between the fingers.
Speaking of embattled politicians, Richard
Milhous Nixon appropriated the gesture as
well, stealing it – as was his wont – from the
burgeoning anti-Vietnam war peace movement
in the ‘60s. Once, when faced with a streetful
of war protesters in California, Nixon flashed
them the double V sign. The crowd raged;
Nixon cackled. “That’s what they hate to see,”
he sneered.
Nixon had his own ironic involvement with
the famous symbol. His last gesture as
president of the United States? A grotesque
parody of the V sign, hunched over, just before
boarding the helicopter that would whisk him
away from Washington forever.
Just two fingers raised, the others clenched
below, palm outward. Such a simple gesture
but what a long strange history it’s had.
Today, it’s safe to say that the gesture
signifies “Peace” much more than “Victory” –
particularly as it’s come to be identified with
the world famous peace symbol – the one that
looks like a trident inside a circle. That icon
started off as the logo for the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament, but expanded to
become the symbol for the Peace Movement
in general.
Well, for most of us, but not for Bob Kearns.
Mister Kearns is the president of a
homeowners association in Pagosa Springs,
Colorado. Recently he had to order Lisa
Jensen, a resident of Pagosa Springs, to take
down a Christmas wreath on her front porch.
Reason?
The pine boughs of the wreath were
configured in the shape of a peace symbol, and
that, according to Bob Kearns, was
just…Satanic.
“The peace sign has a lot of negativity
associated with it,” said Kearns. “It’s also an
anti-Christ sign. That’s how it started.”
Once the press got hold of the story and
made him the laughing stock of late night
television, Bob Kearns relented and decided
the wreath could stay.
Comforting.
And speaking of comfort, I want all my
readers to know that in this season of
goodwill, the index and middle fingers of both
my hands are extended – palm outward – to all
of you. I wish you happiness, prosperity and
above all, Peace.
And Bob Kearns, if you still find that
gesture threatening or Communistic or the
work of the devil, well…
You’re welcome to make do with my middle
finger.
Arthur
Black
Helmets for cyclists stalled
“January, to December, we’ll have
moments to remember.” Some, not as
pleasant as we’d like.
With the arrival of 2007 came the task for
me of reviewing the previous year’s highlights
— and its low points for this week’s issue of
The Citizen.
And honestly, I have to tell you I would have
been quite happy without another look at 2006.
Last year will be held in my memory forever
as one of the saddest, most tragic in recent
recollections.
As I celebrated the arrival of Jan. 1, 2006,
little did I know what was in store. The year
that followed brought to our extended family
serious illness on more than one occasion and
frightening mishaps. It was 365 days that held
more than its share of bitter break-ups and
unpleasant roadblocks.
There was also heartbreak. With summer’s
arrival came overwhelming sadness with the
loss of our dear friend Sarah Mann. Then
weeks ago there was the shock and grief of
suddenly losing a loved family member, just a
few short hours after being with him. Then as
the days of 2006 clipped along to a finish, we
anticipated the loss of a long-time friend.
But it wasn’t just the personal experiences
that wore me down; there was also the sheer
volume of tragedy and loss that seemed to be
happening everywhere. People always have
their struggles but those that seemed to be
challenging friends appeared more serious and
happening with increasing regularity. Where
once I could believe the sun shone on a few, it
seemed there was a dark cloud, some smaller
than others, but there nonetheless over every
household.
And there was so much pain. I cannot recall
another year when I have hurt so deeply for so
many people. It was as if tragedy had become
an epidemic and this area was particularly
vulnerable.
So, for the first time in my entire life, I
eagerly awaited the arrival of a new year.
When I announced this once in the final weeks
of 2006, an acquaintance asked me why I
thought the next year would be any different.
My answer is simple. Hope. Certainly,
things can always be worse, but we always
hope they can get better.
It would be a pretty sad thing, after all, to
not be able to look forward with expectations
of fulfillment, to not view the time before us
with promise. Life has treated me fairly in the
past and I have no reason to suspect that this
year was anything more than just one of those
things. ‘Do-do’does happen and sometimes, I
guess it’s bound to pile up.
What makes hope easy to believe in is that
even in a year that seemed to bring so many
trials, there were occasions that reminded it
isn’t always like this. Following the scare of
illness we enjoyed the blessing of recovery.
The reminder that each day is a gift to be
savoured, that taking every opportunity to tell
the people you care about how much they
mean to you, was never more vivid than after
seeing the health of a loved one restored, or
suffering a loss.
Hope is there anytime we spend time in the
company of other people. Acquaintances are
made that bring something special to one’s
life. New beginnings are celebrated with birth
and at weddings.
Hope for tomorrow is more than wishful
thinking. It sustains us when we struggle or
hurt. There’s always hope and not even a year
like 2006 will convince me otherwise.
Other Views A sign for peace on earth
Eric
Dowd
FFrroomm
QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk
Common sense and a sense of humour are
the same thing, moving at different speeds.
A sense of humour is just common sense,
dancing.
– Clive James
Final Thought