Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimes Advocate, 1991-10-02, Page 4Page 4 Times -Advocate, October 2, 1991 Publisher: Jim Beckett News Editor: Adrian Harte Business Manager: Don Smith Composition Manager: Deb Lord «». Second Class Mail Registration Number 0386 SUBSCRIPTION RATES: CANADA Within 40 mMes (65 km.) addressed to non tetter canter addresses 630.00 plus 62.10 0.5.T. outisde 40 miles (65 km.) or any letter carrier address 630.00 plus 630.00 postage (total $60.00) pias $4.20 O.S.T. Outside Canada 668.00 I I':l)I"F()Itl , Creative taxation f Bill 118 goes through the Provincial Legislature as pro- posed, then Ontarians can likely see a new tax added to their al- ready staggering burden. The bill is being opposed by the Mu- nicipal Electric Association and many Public Utilities Commissions because it threatens to change the way in which the province pays for electricity. By in- creasing the number of Ontario Hydro directors, the province will be in a posi- tion to dictate economic policies of On- tario Hydro, possibly even forcing Hy- dro to fund programs which would have previously fallen under provincial jurisdiction. By switching the cost of these pro- grams from the province's budget to Ontario Hydro's the government will have effectively hidden some of its tax- ation and electricity will be paid for at cost plus. We are all familiar with the nature of hidden taxation. Few of us can say ex- actly how much tax is on a litre of gaso- line, but we all know it goes up with every new budget, federal or provincial.. The same applies to alcohol and tobac- co. And it could be expected that the province, year after year, would funnel more and more Ministry of Energy pro- gram costs to Ontario Hydro. Ontarians are already saddled with double digit increases in electric rates year after year as nuclear reactors cost more to build and run than their optimis- tic designers predicted. We don't need to see our hydro bills become a cash cow or another sin tax. Especially since the supply of cost efficient energy and the economy are inexorably linked. A.D.H. Save some tears for the victims! This is the age of ruined repu- tatiosn. Hardly a day goes by without some professionals - physicians, lawyers, educators, clergymen and others in posi- tions of trust and power - being discredited, stripped of their jobs and even charged under the criminal code. Many tears are being shed over these "good men" (for they usually are men an they often do good work) whose careers are wasted and whose lives are often ruined Their families, friends, patients, clients and pa- rishioners - if they can believe the accusations at all - often take the side of the accused rather than sympathizing with the victims. But who is destroying the rep- utation and career of a wrong- doer? Not the investigating offi- cial, not the prosecutor, not the judge, and certainly not the vic- tim. It is the wrongdoer him- self. If he had not committed an offence, his reputation and ca- reer would still be in place. By behaving in a socially unaccept- able, unethical and illegal man- ner, wrongdoers expose them- selves to the danger of prosecution and punishment, and they sacrifice their standing in the community. It is therefore ludicrous to lay the blame on the accusing vic- tim or on those who investigate the case and who see that jus- tice is done. The victim had no intention of blemishing any- one's character. It was the per- petrator's act that forced the vic- tim's hand, not the other way around Nor should those who administer justice - police, law- yers, the judiciary, and certain quasi -judiciary bodies - be blamed for "ruining the wrong- doer's life". They are only per- forming a duty that society hap- pens to delegate to them. They could misjudge and come to wrong conclusions, but checks and balances are usually in place to correct errors. Victims can also err, accuse the wrong person or accuse someone of an act he did not commit, or exag- gerate the nature of the act. But our system of justice generally ensures that false and errone- ous accusations are not be- lieved. Of course we must have compassion for wrongdoers who lose their good name, re- spect, career, or livelihood, or Peter's Point • Peter Hessel who may be punished by fines or imprisonment. No matter what motivates a perosn to commit a wrongful act, it is al- ways a human act, and as such it can be understood by sens- tive and intelligent fellow hu- mans. Many offenders - including professionals guilty of abuse - simply make mistakes, for which there could be a great variety of reasons. Very few wrongdoers - if any - are "evil by nature". Given the com- plexities of the human mind, there could be thousands of reasons for unacceptable beha- viour. Even mass murderers have "their reasons" for their heinous crimes. But our compassion for the offender must not cloud our sympathy and compassion for the victim, the innocent prod- uct of someone cisc's prob- lems, receives our support and understanding. Concern for victims and their families should have precedence over conccm for wrongdoers, who are the cause of all the grief - the victims' and their own. It is characteristic of our misguided view of the world - badly distorted by sensational- ized reporting, by movies and television series picturing criminals either as heroes or as misunderstood "good guys" - that we pay far more attention to attackers and their light than to victims and their suffering. Of course, it isn't pleasant to suffer the consequences of a mistake, to be fired or demoted, to lose one's livelihood, to live as an outcast, or even to lan- guish in prison. But it is even less pleasant to be brutally killed or maimed or disfigured or sexually assaulted or robbed, and it is very unpleasant indeed to carry the scars of an attack for a lifetime. These scars often continue to hurt long after the punishment of the attacker has ended and after he may be ready to commit a new offence of a similar or worse kind. It is extremely unpleasant for vic- tims to have part of their digni- ty and self-respect destroyed by an act another person has com- mitted. We easily lose track of who must be protected against whom. We owe it to victims to bring their attackers to justice. We owe it to society to protect others from the same kind of at- tack. Only after those two pri- mary responsibilities are met,can we exercise our secon- dary responsibility - concern for the welfare of offenders. We must ensure that they are treated fairly, that their punish- ment fits the crime, and thal they have an opportunity for re- habilitation. Yet far too often we place at- tackers on a pedestal. They be- come local heroes - like in the movies. Is there anyone who has watched "Bonnie and Clyde" and didn't feel sorry for them when they were finally gunned down in the big shoot- out?They were the heros of the film. The audience paid no at- tention to their victims at all. we are turning our criminals and wrongdoers into Bonnies and Clydes, and we forget about the heartache and suffer- ing of their victims. I think we need a public in- formation and education cam- paign to change this attitudes Perhaps there will be less crime and less abuse when society stops shedding all its tears for the attackers and saves some for the victims and the families of victims. "Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely." ... Thomas Macauley Published Each Wednesday Morning at 424 Main St., Exeter, Ontario, NOM 156 by J.W. Eedy Publications Ltd. Telephone 1-5i9-235.1.331 a.s.T. M106210031 I HATE THE GOVERNMENT I SE DETESTh LE 9UVERJEMENT• I HATE THE GOVERNMENT 1 A �.,T THE rl_ GOVERNMENT, r THE lr-1 IHATE T GOVERNMENT II It (A'r% II.r 11.,...._ I I IUN' L UNI 1y AT LAST! Posties had it tough Ever since the postal strike be- gan several weeks ago, there has been a steady flow of editorial cartoons coming across my desk that suggest the urge to strike is closely related to the baser in- stincts of mankind. I even have one cartoon in hand that por- trays the evolution of mankind from ape to human, and back to an ape with a picket sign in hand. That may be a little cruel, but it docs bring up one interesting point. How are we, as consu- mers, expected to restore our faith in postal employees, gov- ernment workers, or even auto workers when they go back to work after a violent strike? Am I to hand over faithfully an im- portant letter to a person I saw on television shouting and screaming and bashing away on the side of delivery trucks? Would I buy a car made by that person? The posties, of course, are presently back on the job after a brief sojoum on the picket lines. They are patiently awaiting the outcome of mediation. But it was not always so. I have also on my desk copies of personal correspondence from the files of the Lambton Mu- seum. Dated February 1912, the two letters are between MP J.J. Meurer and one John Sherrett of Harply. Harply used to be a small village between Grand Bend and Greenway. Sherrett, was pleading to the MP on behalf of Grand Bend's Hold that thought... By Adrian Harte postmaster, a Mr. William Amos. "1 believe nine tenths of our people at Grand Bend is in fa- vour of Amos remaining in the Post Office. I don't know of one of our friends opposed to him. He is a good Post Master. He votes Reform, it is true but as far as I can learn, he does not fight us at elections." As you have probably already guessed, Amos was in danger of losing his job because he was not a Conservative. The usual practice was to turf out govern- ment employees after each change of government and have them replaced with party faith- ful. This was pork barrel poli- tics at its best, however Amos was allowed to keep his job for Lotter to Editor another year until he moved to Ailsa Craig. And so we fast forward eighty years to the present when public service employees wave pickets signs complaining about govern- ment policy and post office em- ployees accuse the government of waging war on their union. Seems a little ironical, no? I imagine that in 1912 to sug- gest that employees of Her Ma- jesty's government actually had such rights would seem almost like heresy. At the very least you could say it was a drastic case of biting the hand that feeds you. But no, in 1991 such things are possible. And even when the government again brings forth back to work legislation later this week for the PSAC strikers, they will still not have the courage to throw those who defy it in jail. Fortunately, I haven't been around long enough to try and cope with this extraordinary change in attitudes towards la- bour and government in a rela- tively short 80 years. My sym- pathy goes out to those who have seen traditional values dis- appear over the years to be re- placed by what would appear to be radical sentiments that would have been unthinkable in 1912. Concerns over new Hydro Act Dear Adrian: Ontario's long -cherished princi- ple of power at cost is under attack by the provincial Government. Under amendments to the Power Corporation Act introduced last June, the province will be able to force Ontario Hydro to implement "policy directives" that may have nothing to do with Hydro's busi- ness - the supply of safe, reliable, sufficient electricity. This means Hydro can be used as an instru- ment of the Ontario Government's social or economic policy agenda - even if it has nothing to do with electric power. And that's not all. These amend- ments would make you and me - Ontario's electricity consumers - pay for policy directives in our electricity bills. This is a new "tax grab" - an unprecedented, regres- sive tax that uses our electricity rates as a new source of Govern- ment revenues. In addition, this legislation would allow Hydro to use your electricity rates to pay people to switch from electricity to natural gas. Why should the electricity con- sumer pay to give private gas utili- ties more customers? Municipal electric utilities have no quarrel with Government on the need for social safety nets, but their customers should not be financing the Government's social assistance s in their cost of power as a form of "hidden" taxation. We are concerned about provisions of Bill 118 that permits utilities to capitalize, and thus borrow to finance energy 111 conservation pro- grams. We do not believe that utili- ties should go into debt to finance programs that result in no capital asset. In addition we believe par- ticipation in such programs must remain optional. We also oppose the recent partici- pation in Ontario Hydro in the bail- out of Elliot Lake. The contribu- tion of $65 million to the Northern Heritage Fund - which has nothing to do with the supply of electricity - should not be paid for by Ontario electricity consumers. Such com- munity assistance packages may be necessary, but they are the respon- sibility of the Government to fi- nance; not Ontario electricity cus- tomers. Ontario's economic health and industrial growth has been due, in large part, to a reliable supply of electricity at reasonable cost. It's time to take a stand against the Government's attack on the princi- ple of power at cost. To provide you with additional information, we arc enclosing some background information that we trust will better inform you of the seriousness of Bill 118. Yours truly, Harry DcVrics, Chairman Exeter Public Utilities Commission