Loading...
The Goderich Signal-Star, 1984-11-21, Page 4PAGE 4 —GODERICH SIGNAL, -STAR, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21,1 DAVE SYKES Soh Bradley nearly madethecelebrated trip down the church aisle Saturday. Admittedly his almost -trek down the aisle was 20 years premature and. his mother and I had hoped he would make it with someone, else. You know, a girl. Bradley's aunt was married on the weekend andalong with the female member of the dynamic duo and his partner -in - crime, Laura, the kids got their first look at marriage from the very start. It was an auspicous social debut for the children and by all accounts they passed the test. While they were in attendance largely on the pretext of witnessing their aunt's mar- riage, there was also the matter of watching their mother, the matron -of -honour, making it down the aisle without falling, tripping and generally making a scene. She was preoccupied with the notion of tripping for the entire week but I did much, in my usual consoling manner, to allay those fears. "What's the big deal. You've been walking for 29 years," I offered without a trace of sympathy. "If you find yourself tak- ing a second step with the same foot, panic." The procession to the front of the church went smoothly and Bradley watched wide- eyed at, w the edge of the ped, while his mother and aunts made their nervous ap- proach to the scene of the nuptials. ' Tailing his father by. Burp . , when the wedding, party had reached the front of the church and prepared for the charge by.the minister, Bradley made an pnpetuous dash out of the pew and was pros g down the aisle. Fortunately, one of his uncles manag- ed to lunge into the aisle and grab an arm, thereby sparing this dutiful dad great em- - Amassment. "I just wanted to go see Aunt Kay," he of- fered matter of factly while the congreaga- tion giggled and guffawed. "Sorry pal, but you have to stay here and talk quietly please everyone is looking at us," I said. "You have to talk quietly in church don't you dad?" he says in not too quiet tones. "Hear that organ. Nice music isn't it dad? Look there's a piano, can I go and play it dad?" He tries to wrestle out of my grasp and go and play the piano. Fortuneately, I manage to restrain him but the chatter continues in- cessantly, albeit, semi -quietly. "Where are the men with the waste baskets? Can I have a quarter to put in the waste basket dad?" he, asks. "It's a collec- tion basket," 1 answer: "And hopefully they won't be collecting today." "Why not dad? Why do they don't want to do it?" he asks while I grapple with the com- plexity of the question. "Lots of people here ell dad? There's Un- cle Craig. Did you drive your Oldsmobile here?" he questions before moving right on to the next topic without hesitation. "They all have the same dresses on dad," he offers as his mother and bridesmaids lineup at - the front for the marriage ceremony. "Is that guy the Pope dad?" "No Bradley he's the minister." "Why isn't he the Pope? He looks like a Pope dad," he offers while I bury my head in my hands. "Dad, I better hold my sweatei= `up like this so everyone can see my new tie," he says admiring the midget clip -on version purchased that very morning for the occa- sion. I suggest people can see he's wearing a tie and without too many more inquiries he falls asleep in my arms while his aunt ties the knot. I'm not sure if he'll remember his first wedding but I will. THE NEWS PORT FOR GODERICH & DISTRICT SINCE 1848 Founded in 1848 and published every Wednesday at Goderich, Ontario. Member of the CCNA and OCNA. . Subscriptions payable in advance '20.95, [Senior Citizens '17.95 privilege card number required) in Canada, '55. to U.S.A., '55. to all other countries, Single copies 50e. Display, National and Classified advertising rates available on request. Please ask for Rate Card No. 15 effective October 1, 1984. Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, the advertising apace occupied by the erroneous item, together with reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for but that balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rote. In the event of a typographical error advertising goods or services at a wrong price, goods or services may not be sold. Advertising is merely an offer to Bell, and may be withdrawn at any time. The Signal -Star is not responsible for the lose or damage of unsolicited manuscripts, photos or other materiels used for reproducing purposes. PUBLISHED BY: SIGNAL -STAR PUBLISHING LIMITED. ROBERT G. SHRIER - President and Publisher DON H U BI C K - Advertising Manager DAVE SYKES - Editor P.O. BOX 220 HUCKINS ST. INDUSTRIAL PARK GODERICH, ONT. N7A 4B6 Member Second class mail registration number 0716 FOR BUSINESS OR EDITORIAL OFFICES...please phone (519)524-2614 Beach bird By Dave Sykes An informed decision POSTSCRIPT Last week the fledgling Huron Chapter of Canadian Parents for French held an infor- mation meeting at GDCI featuring three pro -immersion speakers. A great deal of dialogue has ensued over the past year since the prospect of the im- plementation of French immersion in the county school system surfaced. Subsequently, a great many letters have appeared in the newspaper and submissions have been made to the Huron County Board of Education expressing a myriad of opipions both pro and con on the subject. Perhaps, through meetings like this, worried parents can have some of their questions answered and some of their concerns alleviated. If these professionals cannot alleviate those concerns, then parents utlimately must make a decision for their child based on the best information available. Many people are against the concept of immersion and a number of people are obvious- ly in favor of its inception in county elementary schools. Still, there must also be a seg- ment a parents who are still unsure of the benefits of the program and who wonder if it's the right choice for their child' or children. It's not an easy decision for either the board orthe parents of the children. The Huron -Perth Roman Catholic Separate School Board has made the decision to of- fer early -total immersion from Kindergarten to Grade 2 in St. Marys Separate School in Goderich. The board motion authorizing that landmark step in local education contains a number of provisos that should easily be met in Goderich. The public school board will soon act on a recommendation from its ad hoc committee set up to investigate immersion. ,At the Goderich meeting last week, a representative of the Concerned Citizens for a Better Basic Education outlined that group's concern with respect to the cost of immer- sion for rural taxpayers. The group advocates a user pay system so proponents would pay the entire bill of the program if it was implemented. Cost is not the only factor that worries parents. A number of other concerns have been expressed with respect to social differences the program could create with identity or the effect of the program on a child's learning capabilities. Proponents of the program have valid arguments to back the launching of this unique educational experience which now involves more than 150,000 children across Canada. Ostensibly, parents will have to make the choice for their own child and hopefully that choice will be made without apprehension. It may be a frightening proposition for both parent and child and that's why the program merits careful consideration. But while people are quick to either praise or downgrade the program and the effect it has on the child, those comments may be offered without extensive research. Meetings like the one in Goderich at least serve to put people in contact with professionals who have .worked with the program. At least there was some meaningful dialogue on the sub- ject and both sides expressed their views. Irrespective of whether you believe in French immersion or not, hopefully the decision you make for your child will he an informed one. D.S. JOANNE BUCHANAN At the risk of offelktl ing a lot of people out there this week -including some of my own friends -I am going to write an anti-smoking column. I'm giving you fair warning -if you are a smoker who is going to get all defen- sive about your `right' to smoke, then you can stop reading right now. I got the idea to write this column after editing some copy which came across my desk recently from the Huron County Health Unit. It stated that the dangers of smoking are even more extensive than originally believed and went on to list a whole series of healthroblems directly linked to the filthy habit. But just when I was breathing a sigh of relief over the fact that I'm a non-smoker, I also read about the dangers of second-hand smoke. Unfortunately, we non-smokers are con- stantly being assaulted by the smoke exhal- ed by others. I used to just grin and bear this, but now that research has shown that second-hand smoke poses a serious threat to the health of us non-smokers, I've decided to take a stand. I'm really angry because I feel that smokers have no right to pollute my en- vironment. If they want to close themselves up in a little room and literally smoke their lungs out, I don't care. But when they're fill- ing up the same room I'm in with their stink- ing smoke, it really bugs me! The most distressing thing about a smok- ing habit is that it affects everybody, not just the person with the habit. For instance, if you are in the habit of biting your nails, drinking too much coffee or over -eating, the only person you are hurting is yourself. But if your habit is smoking, then you harm everybody around you. Have you ever noticed how the smoke from a cigarette never drifts into the face of the smoker? It always heads for a direct, at- tack on the eyes, ears, nose and mouth of the non-smoker. Being in any confined space or travelling in a car with a smoker -especially when it's too cold to roll down the windows -is the ab- solute pits. It's very hard to breathe in those situations Also, at dances, I've been left sitting at a table with two cigarettes going full blast in the ashtray, while their owners are up danc- ing, blissfully unaware that their smoke is billowing into my face. I used to just blink a lot and try to dodge the smoke. But no more Mr. Nice Guy. Next time, I plan to stub the rotten little offenders out when the situation calls for it. It's time we non-smokers started sticking up for our rights! I heard a comedian on television the other day who feels the same way. He said when smoke from someone's cigarette blows into his face, he feels like he's having a bodily function directed right at him -like someone burping in his ear or sneezing on his shoe. Disgusting as it sounds, it is a very accurate comparison. You know what else? I can never figure out why people who smoke bother to shower, put on deoderant and perfume, get all dress- ed up or even brush their teeth. Smoking cancels all those things right out. And what's even worse is that the smoke is pass- ed onto the skin, hair and clothes of the non- smoker. Personally, I'm sick and tired of coming home from the office and most social functions reeking of smoke. But perhaps the worst scenario of all is go- ing out for lunch and having someone who is sitting near you, light up a cigarette before you've even had a chance to savour your last morsel of food. This is the epitome of rudeness. For me, it's like having someone throw up right at my feet. It spoils my whole meal. All I can smell and taste is cigarette smoke when I should be smelling and tasting the food I paid for. What is truly frightening though is the ef- fect a pregnant women who smokes can have on her unborn child. Research has shown that smoking increases the risk of miscarriages, still -births, low birth weight babies and health problems in the newborn. Why would anyone deliberately harm their child this way? I think the most pitiful sight I ever saw was a woman balancing a baby on her knee with one hand while smoking a cigarette with the other. A shroud of smoke was sur- rounding the poor child who was actually blinking and coughing. The child's right to clean air and healthy lungs were clearly be- ing violated and there wasn't a darn thing that could be done about it. Pm not saying that everyone who smokes is as totally inconsiderate as those I've described in this column. But while they may net blow smoke directly into the non- smokers' face, they still represent a serious health hazard. They are poisoning everyone's lungs, not lust their own. I don't know what the solutions are. Perhaps more places should have designated non-smoking areas and no - smoking rules should be more strongly en- forced. I do know that we non-smokers have to - start being more vocal about our rights. We shouldn't allow people to smoke in places where we have control over our environment -like our homes and our cars. We should ask to be seated in the no - smoking sections of restaurants, trains, planes, etc. and insist that the rules be obeyed in these sections. And finally, if so- meone's smoke is bothering us, we should speak up and tell them. It might not do any good but it's better than sitting there chok- ing down our anger and resentment along with the smoke. We wouldn't allow someone to spray toxic chemicals right over our heads, into our faces, on our clothes and skin and into our food, so why are we so willing to put up with other people's smoke? Smoking is now considered the chief preventable cause of death in Canada. And knowing this fact, if people still want to kill themselves by smoking, that's their business. But they shouldn't be allowed to drag the rest of us down with them. When a meeting is called by a group of evangelists in order to spread the Word, can the atheists claim a right or equal time at such a meeting? Wh n a farmers' organization conducts a le rning session on crop improvement, do urb n activists get to use the occasion for making anti -farm speeches? Or do equal rights meap that the atheists and the activists have-dvery right to call similar meetings for the advancement of their own messages, in a place and at a time of their choice? These thoughts went through my mind last week when I attended the first information meeting organized by the recently formed Huron Chapter of Canadian Parents for French. I went as an interested observer, to learn from speakers "with access to the latest research, information and trends in core and immersion programs". Having learned several languages, but not by early immersion, I find this method of considerable interest and worthy of dose attention. The meeting presented three experienced and articulate speakers whose observations were enjoyably informative. Many people had come to learn how to make French immersion work in our area for local children. When some vigorously anti -French sentiments erupted from the floor during the question period, it became equally obvious that a number of people had come in order to rain on the CPF parade - to declare war on language immersion within our school system. The meeting was indeed referred to as a public debate and thus had no clearly defined format or mandate. The "question period" started with the reading of the long anti -French letter to the editor recently printed in the area newspapers under "Parents alone don't have the right to decide". The additional comments made by the reader on behalf of the "silent majority" left one with the uncomfortable feeling of witnessing a deeply anti -French (not just the language) sentiment. I had thought that in this part of the country we can do better - that we were long past the linguistic and ethnic • animosities and intended to educate the children for the benefit of their more varied future possibilities. While it is perfectly natural that practically any subject can invite expressions for and against, there is no good excuse for attempting to block for others what we do not, like for ourselves. The French immersion discussion is entirely voluntary. The king list of objections has really no validity for those parents who are willing to overcome all the expected and imaginary difficulties. The "user pay" attitude applied to French could be logically concluded by a suggestion that perhaps only people with children at school should carry the education costs which are considerable. In reality the taxpayer who never had children .or whose children are grown shares the education burden handsomely. These taxpayers can also make a boomerang out of the statement used in the immersion opponents' letter saying that "we don't feel that parents alone have the right to decide what their childreh should take at this age". Indeed, parents should not perpetuate their prejudices and old grievances through their children's education. If a valuable element in today's education for tomorrow is French immersion, those who want to make use of it have a good case for going ahead. The program would be available to all children. The only way how it becomes "elitist" is if you make it so by refusing to let your child participate. Backward and arrogant language legislation in Quebec is indeed irritating and objectionable, but ignorance in Montreal does not warrant imitation. Being neither French nor English I see good reason for.prying open more old doors in our large and marvellous country. ELSA HAYDON