Try Again I Want to Try Again That Slope Down Going in the Future
Today's letters: Slippery slope vs. right to choose
Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Feb. 9.
Re: This Ruling Changes Everything, Feb. 7.
The Supreme Court of Canada has once again declared it is the justices who run this country, legislative bodies be dammed. Their ruling that demands assisted suicide in this country is a dark blight on our nation.
For more than 30 years I have counselled and sat with families who have watched loved ones die, often a painful or prolonged process.
Nonetheless, I believe this decision will send Canada down the slippery slope the same court led us when it effectively demanded the legalization of abortion. Of course, there were supposed to be "safeguards" to stop abortion from degenerating into another form of birth control — what a joke that has been. And there were "matters of conscience" regarding medical and other personnel we were assured would not be violated — again, what a joke.
The court knew this would happen because over the years it has been in the forefront to assault those provisions. Do we think it will be any different in this case? The change won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen, given the activist nature of the courts. And given the incremental nature of their manipulated change, like the frog in the kettle, most Canadians will not be aware of the change until it is upon them.
Jim Church, Kelowna, B.C.
I see only two arguments against legalization presented: Religion and morality. Who is Barbara Kay or anyone else to tell me their personal beliefs about what is right for me are more important than my own? I find this disturbing. Isn't this precisely what we are fighting in the Middle East?
The "slippery slope" argument implies future generations cannot be trusted to make decisions about what they want for themselves. No doubt 97 years ago there were those who said giving women the vote was a slippery slope.
Hugh McCoy, Toronto.
Re: Highest Court Covers Its Eye, Andrew Coyne, Feb. 7.
Andrew Coyne's logic that nothing should be done legally to assist those who wish to be permitted to exercise their self-determination is condemning people who are crying out for help to a cruel and unusual punishment.
In contrast to the Supreme Court, Mr. Coyne's verdict that others must suffer because we as a society are not morally reasonable enough to administer a just outcome for those asking for assisted suicide is justifying pain without just cause.
Pleading ignorance to avoid social responsibility seems to be a cop-out. If Mr. Coyne is arguing the court is covering its eyes, isn't he in response sealing his open mindedness to working things out?
Pleading to those in pain to please continue to suffer because we as a society are too stupid to help them carry out their wishes is downright vicious. Pleading the court's decision is judicial advocacy that will make matters worse is surrendering logic to despair.
Advocating such inaction in the face of complexity guarantees nothing will ever be done to improve the human condition.
Tony D'Andrea, Toronto.
Fire Brian Williams
Re: Brian Williams Takes Temporary Leave Amid Scandal, Feb. 9.
NBC News anchor Brian Williams recanted his story about being shot down in a helicopter over Iraq because he was called out about it, not because he felt guilt pangs. Here is an individual who, night after night, is supposed to deliver news facts from all over the world, but makes up them up when it comes to him personally.
His actions were disgraceful, and did a major disservice to the brave American men and women in uniform who have been killed, injured and shot in combat. Mr. Williams should be fired, but because he is one of the darlings of the left the incident will be swept under the rug.
Stephen T. Flanagan, Ottawa.
Turning the other cheek
Re: Many Faiths, Many Sins, Rex Murphy, Feb. 7.
It's no surprise that of all religions to make a negative comparison to, Barack Obama would use Christianity. This is because it is politically incorrect to say anything negative about any other religion and Christians generally do not respond with violence.
Imagine if a Christian had burned the Jordanian pilot alive and Mr. Obama used Islam as a point of negative comparison. Not only would there be a bounty on his head, but to which event would he refer? It seems there's a story every day about Muslims committing some sort of atrocity in the name of Islam.
The fact Mr. Obama had to use events like the Inquisition or the Crusades shows atrocities committed by Christians are rare.
James Kang, Toronto.
The sad part about Rex Murphy's column is that almost everyone younger than Rex (and me) would totally agree with President Barack Obama's rebuke to Christianity. His comparison of Mr. Obama to Abraham Lincoln is impressive, but he could have gone further back in the 19th century to compare Christian and Islamic attitudes toward slavery.
Slavery has been a horrible constant throughout human history. Christian countries profited from slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Europe and America were the retailers of slaves, and people in the Islamic world were the wholesalers. The movement to end slavery started with committed Christians in England and elsewhere in the late 18th century. This movement to end slavery never took hold in the Islamic world and, in fact, continues to this day.
It would have been nice if Mr. Obama's prayer breakfast speech had referred to this curious bit of history. More people should know about it. In fact, everyone should.
John Bateman, Toronto.
Politics as usual
Re: Business As Usual For Ontario's Liberals, editorial, Feb. 7.
As morally bankrupt as the Ontario Liberal government has become, much of the blame must be shared by the people who have kept them in power for the last 10 years. It boggles my mind voters keep on rewarding their scandalous behaviour.
The only way politicians will get the message is when disenchanted voters boot them out of office.
Wayne Fraser, Toronto.
What the Post calls a "stinker" merely has a questionable odour. A political party's first obligation is to get elected and select the candidate who appears most able to win the seat. Party supporters try to sign up members who will deliver the needed votes to win the nomination and then the election.
Political leaders usually have the right to pick candidates in certain ridings that are more likely to win and negotiate a drop-out for a strong candidate not in favour with the party insiders. As the disfavoured candidate likely gave time and money to get the nomination, it is not unusual for the party to offer him or her a position with the party as a consolation prize.
Reading between the lines it seems quite appropriate to seek a candidate other than Andrew Oliver in Sudbury. Premier Kathleen Wynne and her operatives do not appear to have done anything out of the ordinary in securing the nomination for the winner, Joe Cimino.
Charles Patrick O'Neill, Ottawa.
Fahmy's choice
Re: Clooney Heads To Egypt As End Game Nears For Fahmy, Feb. 9.
There is a world of difference between the Australian journalist recently freed and Mohamed Fahmy. Many countries do not acknowledge dual citizenship and only accept that of the country of birth.
As far as the Egyptians were concerned, Mr. Fahmy's Canadian citizenship was irrelevant and he was tried as an Egyptian. He should give up his Egyptian citizenship to become a Canadian only.
Tom Singer, Burlington, Ont.
National Post
Source: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ed021015-letters
0 Response to "Try Again I Want to Try Again That Slope Down Going in the Future"
Post a Comment