American way
Re “I know firsthand why the U.S. will never admit that it lost the war in Iran” (Opinion, May 16): This incisive diagnosis of the Trump administration’s disastrous assault on Iran speaks volumes about the decline of U.S. diplomacy as a force for promoting international peace and security. Despite its lead role in founding the United Nations, not to mention the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the United States has frequently employed the threat or use of military force rather than diplomacy to address strategic interests, usually with disastrous results. The case of Iran is particularly troubling, since the present war is the direct consequence of the Trump administration’s repudiation of the Obama-era treaty designed to ensure Iran did not redirect its peaceful nuclear industry to develop weapons. The Carney Liberals, having called for the world’s middle powers to promote the global rule of law, should address this diplomatic void.
Scott Burbidge, Port Williams, N.S.
Too soon
Re “How Americans are trying to lure us back” (Report on Business, May 16): While friendship initiatives and discounts are nice, this is one Canadian who will not be returning to the United States until there is a change in the presidency, the tariff nonsense stops and our sovereignty is respected. My elbows remain firmly up.
Sally Plumb, Toronto
In defence
Re “Lady Justice may be blind, but Canadians shouldn’t shut their eyes to the system’s shortcomings” (Opinion, May 16): A “fundamental question” is posed as to whether the Canadian court system is a “reliable – or even viable – means of regulating safety and security in this country.” But that is not its function in Canada. The court’s primary task is administering justice. That is, ensuring disputes are settled and crimes are prosecuted fairly and in accordance with the Criminal Code and Charter. I’ll admit my bias as a retired judge who presided over many criminal trials: The Charter was often close at hand in most of those trials. Living in a liberal democratic country, I believed then, as I do now, that we are fortunate to have this document to protect us from state overreach. Regulating safety and security is the job of the police, not the courts.
Robert Spence, Toronto
The independence of the judiciary is a core principle of Canadian law. The merits of any legal argument must be decided by independent judges and not by police or Crown prosecutors. They, acting in good faith, may believe an accused is guilty, but they are not disinterested parties who can objectively determine an accused’s guilt or innocence. That trials have become increasingly complex since the expansion of common law rights and the advent of the Charter is not justification for placing limits on motions that can be brought by lawyers. It is in keeping with judicial independence for judges to determine the merits of any motion or argument brought forth. Any substantive errors in law made by judges can be corrected by a court of appeal.
Donald MacIntosh, Lawyer (retired), Toronto
I’m afraid this article about our malfunctioning courts and manipulation of the Charter by defence counsels brought to mind a quotation by a famous Englishman. Something by Shakespeare about lawyers.
Nigel Smith, Toronto
Next time
Re “Canada’s not ready for the next viral outbreak. We didn’t even bother with an inquiry on the last one” (Opinion, May 16): As the national representative for thousands of nurses and allied health care workers at Hamilton Health Sciences, when the 2003 SARS epidemic produced a “spring of fear” and felled hundreds of health care workers and quarantined thousands of patients, I find this to be a timely reminder that doing nothing has its own costs. Government failures to enact the precautionary principle in health care emergencies is no reason to stop highlighting that when precautions go up, disease goes down, and when precautions go down, disease goes up, as the Campbell Commission on SARS reported in 2007.
Tom Baker, Hamilton
The next viral outbreak could be from another zoonotic virus, which jump from animals to humans. COVID-19 most likely was a zoonotic virus that spilled over from bats to humans. The world’s ecosystems have been weakened by human effects such as climate change, deforestation, pollution, habitat destruction and continued use of pesticides and herbicides. We are in the latest global mass extinction of species, making ecosystems less diverse and less resilient and creating conditions where zoonotic viruses can cross over to humans. We continue to destroy natural habitats, but eventually nature bites back.
Reiner Jaakson, Oakville, Ont.
If Canadians truly have lost faith in public-health measures to control the next viral outbreak, we are in big trouble. Last time, following these measures as a group kept our death rate low. Compared with the U.S. approach, with an administration that denied the problem for far too long, our pandemic death rate has been calculated at 1,424 deaths per million people versus 3,624 there. In another example, Sweden’s leadership carried on normally and allowed its healthy population to naturally achieve herd immunity before vaccines became available, leading to a death rate of 2,811 per million. Next-door neighbour Norway followed more strict measures and its death rate was only 1,050 per million. We are all in this together.
Tom Suhadolc, MD, CCFP, FCFP; Grimsby, Ont.
Two halves
Re “Living apart together: By ditching cohabitation, these couples became closer” (Online, May 12): Living apart together isn’t a lifestyle plan, it’s something that evolves organically over years. It takes enormous communication, trust and two like-minded people to sustain a loving, committed, fun relationship while living separately for decades. No one sets out to design a relationship like this. My partner and I each own our own homes; had brief marriages long ago; and have no pensions, children, property or inheritance binding us. Financial independence is essential. Living apart doesn’t make us closer, it keeps us together. Both of us are fiercely independent and I am most happy that we protect each other’s solitude. We stay together for one reason only: the sheer joy of liking and loving one another. If we ever choose to live together, finances won’t be the motivator: It will most likely be supporting one another with aging and subsequent health issues.
Debra Dolan, West Vancouver
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
