In Trumpworld, Refraining From Violence Is 'Political Correctness'

Watch as Rachel Maddow traces the evolution of violence in the Trump campaign, aided, abetted and encouraged by the demagogue himself:

A Walk In The Neighbourhood

Having pretty much recovered from a nasty stomach bug that laid me low for about 24 hours, I thought it might be a good time to take a brief walk to the local plaza, situated about seven minutes from my house. The first part of my perambulation depressed me; one of the homeowners on my route decided, for reasons not apparent to me, to cut down an old fir tree enisled in their circular driveway. At least 50 feet high, its desecration thus far had left it with only the top three or four feet of branches, the rest already consigned to a shredder.

Aesthetics aside, I saw this termination as yet another flagrant example of how we like to mouth the right platitudes about climate change, but whenever doing something to mitigate it encroaches upon our personal freedoms and choices, our truer, more selfish natures come to the fore. I wondered, as I passed by, if they had given any thought to the stored carbon that this tree's termination will see released into the atmosphere. Even if it is relatively little, the choice to cut it down does not, in my view, reflect mindful stewardship of our environment.

The same could be said of other aspects of my community. Although it is a very walkable one (e.g., a pedestrian trek to our library takes about 10 minutes at a brisk pace), I would classify only a handful of people in my neighbourhood as walkers: the young couple who moved in next door, having abandoned the dream of home ownership in Toronto where they were renting, are out and about on a regular basis, often with their little girl in her stroller. I suspect their sojourn in Toronto taught them that walking is often the best way to get about. The other person, on the street over from mine, regularly walks to the plaza. And, of course, my wife and I do much walking as well.

Only five people, living in a very walkable community, regularly walk. What is wrong with this picture?

My own affection for the pedestrian way is long-standing; however, as I get older I think more and more of my father who was a lifelong walker, frequently perambulating to his place of work which must have been at least 40 minutes from where we lived. Despite two heart attacks and crippling pain in his later years, he still got about with his walker. When he died four years ago at the age of 90, he was still compos mentis, a fact that I believe had a lot to do with his walking habits. Indeed, research tends to support that hypothesis.

Perhaps I am rambling a bit here. My point here is not to suggest that I am some kind of exemplar of environmental consciousness; indeed, in my working years I drove pretty much every day (about a 15-minute car-trip) to the school where I taught; I could probably have arranged car pooling, but I never felt it would work very well, given that teachers operate on different after-school schedules, some staying late to mark, others leaving earlier. But the point is I never even tried unless my car was not working.

Is this our fate, to live in our own closed universes where our needs and wants take precedence over the most pressing of issues?

Time Grows Short

As The Mound of Sound points out, it is getting very late on the climate-change front. The goal of keeping global warming at below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 seems a fool's errand, given that it is now predicted to be reached by 2030. A bitter truth that too many wish to ignore, some people are facing up to it, as reflected in the following two letters from yesterday's Toronto Star:

Re: Climate change to wilt food supply, March 6

This story makes it clear that those scientists predicting the end of planet Earth in a few hundred years are more accurate than many would believe. Climate change, rising sea levels, deforestation, fishing the oceans bare, the slaughter of our wildlife, the ongoing pollution of air, land and water, new diseases emerging, overpopulation, global terrorism, the real threat of a major world war, etc. should make all those denying the grim reality pull their heads out of the sand.

Sadly, it’s too late. Man’s ignorance has placed this world on the “fast track” to its doom.

I am nearly 70 and can honestly say that I am glad to be “on the way out.” I weep for those now being born.

Planet Earth could have been a paradise. Corporate greed (profits trump the environment) and the lust for power will bring it to an end.

I think of an old saying. “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.”

Robert Trowell, Ingersoll

Congratulations to the Star for its stand on climate change. In addition to its March 6 editorial (“Going green no time soon”), there were four great letters under the headline: “Feeling hopeless over climate change.” On the previous page, A9, there is yet another article supporting attempts to roll back climate change: “Climate change will wilt food supply.”

One thing we must know is where we should be heading in this struggle. Unless we get our carbon dioxide emissions down to the level that the world’s vegetation can assimilate, we are doomed.

Canada’s part in this process, according to our population, is 42 megatonnes of carbon dioxide annually. In 2014 we produced 699 megatonnes.

We have a long way to go. Let’s make sure that we know the destination. Let’s hope that the Star will continue to guide us.

Ken Ranney, Peterborough

Sadly, these periodic recognitions of climate doom are likely be too little, too late, but at least we will recognize, when the time comes, that we were collectively responsible for our demise.

And as a graphic illustration of our peril, you might want to take a look at this:

Remembrances Of Things Past (And Present)

I suspect it is only the very young and the profoundly naive who believe that justice is blind, that all are treated equaly under the law. While a pleasing fiction that governments like to perpetuate, nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider the latest revelations about the Canadian Revenue Agency's shoddy hypocrisy, begun under the Harper regime but showing no signs of abatement under the Trudeau government.

The Canada Revenue Agency offered amnesty to multi-millionaire clients caught using what's been called an offshore tax "sham" on the Isle of Man — a reprieve that was supposed to remain secret and out of the public eye until it was uncovered by a CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation.

Canada Revenue officials demanded, and offered, secrecy in a no-penalty, no-prosecution deal to high net worth clients of accounting giant KPMG involved in a dodgy offshore tax scheme.

The amnesty allows for "high net worth" clients of the accounting giant KPMG to be free from any future civil or criminal prosecution — as well as any penalties or fines — for their involvement in the controversial scheme.

The clients simply had to agree to pay their back taxes and modest interest on these offshore investments, which they had failed to report on their income tax returns.

While this might come as no surprise to many, what compounds this egregious injustice is the fact that the CRA is far less forgiving of ordinary people, many of whom, through no fault of their own, found themselves the victims of very punitive CRA action:

Toronto tax lawyer Duane Milot, who represents middle-income Canadians in disputes with the CRA, says his clients are routinely dragged through the courts for years by Canada Revenue.

"It's outrageous," he told CBC News after reading the leaked document. "The CRA appears to be saying to Canadians, 'If you're rich and wealthy, you get a second chance, but if you're not, you're stuck.'"

Just how much contempt the CRA feels for non-wealthy people is evident in the first four minutes of the following report:



Will relief for such iniquitous inequity be forthcoming from our 'new' government? In his finely-honed prosecutorial style, Thomas Mulcair asked some hard questions of the Prime Minister in the House. I was less than reassured by the answers he was given:


I couldn't help but note that in the response he gave, Mr. Trudeau sounded alarmingly like his predecessor, deflecting the questions by criticizing the questioner and then launching into some pious platitudes.

It seems that in some ways, our new government is getting old very quickly. Consequently, the CRA's foul practices continue apace.

The Archbishop And Assisted Dying

One of the things that I think distinguishes progressives from rabid reactionaries is that the latter tend to have reflexive positions on key issues, while the former can appreciate nuance. I hope the following helps to reflect that difference.

The other day, the Archbishop of Toronto, Cardinal Thomas Collins, issued a statement and a video about assisted dying, read and shown in over 200 churches in the Archdiocese of Toronto:



If you watch the above video, you will note that Collins is citing from a 70-page report tabled Thursday, called "Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach," a report that sets out the recommendations of a special committee of MPs and senators on who should be eligible to request assisted suicide. When I first heard what he had to say, I thought that Collins was engaging in some dishonest fear-mongering, but closer examination shows that, for the most part, he was not.

The report includes the following recommendations:

- the right to assisted death should not be limited to physical conditions, and that Canadians with psychiatric conditions should not be excluded from doctor assistance to end suffering.

- a two-stage legislative process. The first would apply to competent adults 18 years or older to be followed by a second stage with competent mature "minors" to come in to force no later than three years later.

- establish a process to respect health care practitioners' freedom of conscience.

- doctors opposed to assisted suicide would have to recommend someone willing to perform it.

While there is much more to the report, including safeguards against abuse, I must confess that I feel deeply ambivalent about the anticipated legislation for a number of reasons. I am cautiously supportive of its overall goal, to offer a way to end intractable suffering, but it is the parameters of how that suffering will be defined that bothers me.

For example, when one ventures into mental suffering, one cannot help but wonder if such a request for termination would spring from a failure of all treatment modalities, or an inability of the sufferer to access those modalities. Waiting lists for treatment can be very long indeed. Can a person truly be deemed competent to choose death over life in the midst of crippling mental illness?

The proposal to lower the age of consent to include minors also troubles me deeply, especially if we are talking about suffering that is not strictly physical. As well, can a minor, no matter how mature, truly make such a momentous decision. I can't help but think, for example of the 11-year-old girl, Makayla Sault, who, with her parents' support, opted to end treatment for her leukemia, treatment that would have likely resulted in a cure. She died as a consequence of that decision.

The matter of a doctor's conscience also causes me some concern, While some go so far as to argue that a publicly-financed hospital should provide a completer suite of services, including assisted suicide, most seem satisfied that they provide a referral to someone who will. However, I can see that in such a contentious issue, even that might be too much for some medical practitioners. What will be the consequences of a refusal to refer?

As you can see, I have but scratched the surface of this issue. While I have no window into the suffering that others experience, I do believe that much more vigorous debate is needed on this question. It demands that we examine our own values, and the values we think are important in our country, so that we don't plunge headlong into a practice that, once begun, could lead to consequences that none of us desire.

More On Freelands's Double-Speak

Recently, I wrote a post about CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; part of it examined the double-speak of Chrystia Freeland when she talked about both the protection of investor rights and the benefits of the deal that will redound to Canada. To me, the two are mutually incompatible, especially since the former allows for the virtual abrogation of our sovereignty rights over any issue that could adversely affect corporate profits.

Reading this morning's Star, I was glad to see that others are rightfully suspicious of our International Trade Minister's claims. Here is what reader Mary Crosato of Burlington had to say:

Re: Canada-EU trade deal could take effect in 2017, March 1

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says, “This is a gold-plated deal. It’s going to bring tremendous benefits to Canada.”

Please show us in black and white what benefits Canadians will receive from this agreement. What manufactured goods are we going to be exporting to create more jobs here, in our country? Are we just going to keep importing substandard products and clothing, some of which are made by underaged children in Third World countries?

We must start taxing companies that choose to manufacture goods offshore and continue making billions of dollars to increase their bottom line. We have to create a level playing field for companies that want to manufacture in Canada.

I hope Ms Freeland will not be bullied into accepting any agreement that is not fair or beneficial to Canadians.

I'm not so sure it is bullying that we have to worry about so much as the seduction of Ms. Freeland by the siren call of neoliberalism.

Looking In The Mirror

A recent Toronto Star piece about climate change chose to explore, not the well-known physical peril it poses, but rather the mental one. Citing a 2012 report from the U.S. National Wildlife Federation, it offered the following grim predictions:

... cases of mental and social disorders will rise steeply as the signs of climate change become clearer and more frequent, and as more people are directly affected by heat waves, drought and other extreme events that put pressure on clean water resources, food prices and public infrastructure.

“These will include depressive and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders, substance abuse, suicides and widespread outbreaks of violence,” predicted the report. It singled out children, the poor, the elderly and those with existing mental health problems as those likely to be hardest hit.

It is an article well-worth reading in its entirety.

In today's Star, readers respond to it with their usual perspicacity. While I reproduce only a few below, all are worth reading:

Thanks to David Ouchterlony for expressing what many of us must feel about the lack of concern over climate change. I find my sense of hopelessness and despair is directly related to my increase in knowledge of our situation.

I refuse, however, to buffer my mental well being by “disengaging” my concern over the future of our planet. I do not know what type of a catastrophe it will take to bring climate “delayers” and “deniers” into acceptance of the dire situation all living creatures now face, but I know I must continue to try. For me, inaction will only increase my anxiety.

We must all confront this issue now before it is too late, and perhaps in numbers we can create the political will to mitigate this disaster.

Sue Braiden, Erin

I am sure I am not alone in having suffered from environmental anxiety since I was a teenager in the 1960s, when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, among other unbelievable events. In my 50 years of adulthood I have watched humans double and triple our world population, dump toxins and plastics into the air and water, pave everything around major cities, deplete animals and plants, and generally behave badly as citizens of the world.

We don’t seem to be able to stop ruining everything, despite both evidence and predictions. We seem to think Mars is the more beautiful planet, which Earth should emulate.

Martha Gould, North Bay

Climate change is destroying our coastal cities, causing unprecedented chaotic floods and now we are learning how this is wreaking havoc on our mental health. This mounting evidence should be a wake-up call.

However, the wealth of evidence that environmental change is caused by global “greed versus need” does not seem to have resulted in drastic changes that each of us are called upon to make – urgently.

Are we pushing our governments, and especially ourselves, to take tough measures to counter climate change and save planet Earth?

Rudy Fernandes, Mississauga

No government can fix global warming and stay popular, but we Canadians can reduce our CO2 emissions by burning less gas, eating less meat, and turning off the heat and lights when we’re out. If we each do our part, there’s no need for despair. Everything will cost a bit more, but not as much as doing nothing.

Canada should lead, not wait for Americans to change their thinking.

Simon Leigh, Toronto

As the letter-writers make abundantly clear, we all have a responsibility here, both in the creation of the catastrophe, and in the measures that must be taken to mitigate it. The ball is indeed in our collective court.