Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..............................................................................................................................
Khadr backlash
Re Canadians Of Many Stripes Are Unhappy About Khadr (July 11): Justin Trudeau's government had no choice but to pay $10.5-million to Omar Khadr?
I suspect Canadians might overwhelmingly support a politician or prime minister who said s/he would rather be sent to jail than mail a cheque to Omar Khadr.
Ian Guthrie, Ottawa
...................................
What a nation of hypocrites. We proudly fight for freedoms (we say), yet actually carp about paying a settlement that amounts to not much more than 25 cents each, when it was our employees who assisted in the torture of a child by a foreign power.
Why isn't this a simple problem? Only because of the victim. We only want to disapprove torture of demonstrably nice people.
Would you meet that test? Would you want all Canadians weighing you on a scale of deserving torture or not? Instead of admitting the outrageous state-crime and honourably remedying this deplorable conduct as best we can, to whitewash our conscience we take recourse in blaming the victim.
I thought our forebears fought for such freedoms. Not for the easy cases, but the hard ones that test our resolve. Don't compound Canada's crime. For once, the PM has done something sublime.
Richard Barrett, lawyer, Mississauga
...................................
The settlement sits ill with me due to the way it was done. It was executed during the summer recess, thus eliminating the chance for the Opposition to question the PM and government about it in the people's House in public. The PM was conveniently out of the country, so out of the public eye and out of reach of the usual press gallery. When it became known that lawyers for Tabitha Speer, the widow of medic Christopher Speer, wanted to seek an injunction to stop the settlement, the government consummated it in record time, making the hearing moot.
The government's public stance is that the case was a loser and that it had already spent some $5-million in legal fees. Doesn't it have a cadre of lawyers on salary for just this kind of work?
Did Justin Trudeau settle the case to keep his father's good friend, former PM Jean Chrétien (under whose watch the Khadr matter began) and his Liberal successor Paul Martin (under whose watch it continued) from having to testify in open court?
There appears to be more here than meets the eye. Canadians deserve better from their government, especially since the Liberals campaigned on a platform of transparency. Canadians deserve to have the House of Commons intelligence committee hold public hearings into these events.
Mark A. Greenberg, Toronto
...................................
I'll defer to the Charter and the judgment of the Supreme Court when it comes to attempting to make good after the Harper government's utter lack of effort or concern to spare a child from torture at the hands of an ally. And I'll reflect on how frequently and badly the majority get it dead wrong when they, and only they, want to decide what is "right."
If Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer really believes the government should have fought Omar Khadr in court, it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" time for the Conservatives.
Good luck rebranding the party with that attitude.
Bruce Mason, Meaford, Ont.
...................................
Kids are dying
Re When Will We Wake Up To This Tragedy? (editorial, July 10): You are wrong to suggest most Canadians aren't angry about the youth suicide tragedies on Indigenous reserves. We care deeply, but we're frozen out of the debate by what is essentially a prohibition on public discussion of the only real solution to the problem – repealing Section 35 of the Constitution (Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada), repealing the Indian Act and abolishing the "apartheid" reserves.
I attended an Indigenous law conference last fall. A senior bureaucrat, after saying we must "respect the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People" and "respect the bargain that is Section 35" on our "journey of deconstructing colonialism," went on in a refreshing and unusual moment of candour to say that "for the past 40 years, we have been plowing money into programs. We have no evidence that it's working."
Everywhere there is fundamental detachment on the part of our elites, pure abstractions like "reconciliation" through "nation to nation" relationships, "deconstructing colonialism," the sickeningly trivial "cultural appropriation" – official rhetorical morality without any relation to practical life.
While our well-meaning, well-fed elites continue to jaw endlessly and intoxicate themselves with such abstractions in editorials, and at meetings and conferences, more and more tragic events will occur – isn't life really about events, and not processes? – where another lost, Indigenous youth on a reserve will climb up on a chair, put a rope around her neck and step off.
Peter Best, Sudbury, Ont.
...................................
You write: "If it's a case of more money, spend it. If it's a case of hiring more mental-health and social workers, do it. Most of all, we must treat this as an emergency, and act accordingly. There is no higher priority than the lives and safety of Canadian children. No one must be allowed to look away."
These words merit being reprinted on your front page in large, bold type!
Elizabeth G. Hughes, Halifax
...................................
Heart of America
Re Beware The Populist Prescription (July 10): This article, which has nothing good to say about populism or populist leaders, is obviously directed at the new U.S. President.
The concern might be justified, but the U.S. survived its share of populist leaders long before Donald Trump arrived.
Perhaps the most successful was William Jennings Bryan, the Democrat from Illinois, who in the early 1900s gained immense popularity by warring against the "deep state" establishment of bankers, corporate leaders, journalists, academics and bureaucrats. His battle cry was, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Bryan was portrayed by the media and his opponents as a redneck from the midwest. But John Dewey, the American philosopher, warned that Bryan shouldn't be dismissed so hastily since within his criticism of the status quo, there was anchored much of what the heart of America stood for, and to ridicule him was to demean democracy and negate some of the best and essential elements of American society.
There are obviously many millions of Americans who feel the same about their current President.
James Bissett, Ottawa
...................................
Hysteria, redux
Oh my, we are a hysterical bunch. There is Trump hysteria, terrorist hysteria, heat wave hysteria and now "geezer" hysteria (Provinces Struggling to Provide Proper Care For Seniors, July 11).
Egads, soon there will be hordes of old people shuffling across our lands seeking shelter. Indeed, the future is bleak.
Barb Sullivan, Windsor Forks, N.S.