Free Fishing for Vets......

I know this is going sound petty, mean-minded and perhaps even unpatriotic - but for the life of me I do not understand why the Ontario government has decided that members of the Canadian Armed forces - veterans and those presently serving - no longer are required to purchase fishing licences. I understand the optics of it - it makes the provincial government look caring and patriotic as opposed to the federal Liberals and perhaps by extension such a gesture enhances the reputation of the federal Conservatives. But is this the best way of doing it? While I would never suggest that Canadians should not respect the services that the Canadian Armed Forces provide - I would argue that (1) most of the members do not put themselves at any risk and (2) there are other professions that contribute just as much to Canadians' wellbeing.

There are approximately roughly 68,000 men and women, plus 27,000 reservists who are employed by the Canadian Government (1). Of those approximately 95,000 individuals - a very small percentage ( less than 4%) are serving in other countries (2). While just over half of those individuals are serving in areas that are clearly potentially dangerous, many of the personnel are not. To suggest, as did Ontario Provincial Minister Yakabuski that we need to " salute the sacrifice and bravery of our service members who have defended and continue to defend the rights and freedoms we enjoy" (3) feels as if the government is getting cheap political points for little work. It is an easy way to get votes and means little.

The vast majority of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel are engaged in activities that are, at the very least, no more dangerous than most Canadian occupations. For example -a care aid in a long term residential care facility is far more likely of being injured on the job (4) than is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Perhaps even more importantly, by singling out one type of employment, the Ontario Government has suggested that others in Ontario who do much to contribute to Ontarian's rights and freedoms and the province's quality of life are less valued and certainly less recognized or rewarded.

There are thousands of workers in Ontario who do difficult jobs, frequently with poor pay, few benefits and no job security who are never recognized for their service. Care aids, early childhood educators, developmental service workers or those who support individuals living on the street or in halfway houses are never recognized for their contributions to the fabric of our society. The thousands and thousands of individuals who are employed by the multitude of not-for-profit agencies and who (in Ontario) carry out the government's social programs do so without fanfare and certainly no additional benefits other than the satisfaction of doing a good job. If armed services personnel, the majority of whom never leave the country deserve to be recognized - then so to do those who commit their lives to serve others.

There are significant problems and gaps in the way that the Canadian government supports members of the armed forces who are struggling with the consequences of their service. Letting them fish for free seems to be a not particularly useful response.



(1) Canadian Armed Forces - Wikipedia
(2) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-current-military-operations-abroad-1.3154603
(3) https://news.ontario.ca/mnr/en/2019/01/recreational-fishing-now-free-for-canadian-service-members.html
(4) www.vancouversun.com/health/long+term+health+care+workers+highest+risk+injury /11688532/story.html

Questioning Who/What to Believe

There can be no doubt that the president of the USA is a bit of a fool. That is to say - he is not very bright - I am not even sure if he can read above a primary grade level. He is self-centred, egotistical and has probably been a bully all of his life. To suggest that he has a one track mind is to suggest that he is capable of thinking at all. How do I know all of this? Everything that I read and all of my friends say that it is so. If perchance I come across an article or a program on television that suggest that the president is not an idiot, I only pay attention long enough to make sure that item is not intended to be funny or satirical. People who try to rationalize, explain or defend his actions irritate me.

I wonder if that is how the supporters of Trump feel when they see news items or editorials that criticize their president. Is their commitment - perhaps even dedication to the president and his agenda so firmly entrenched into their daily lives because they only read things that they agree with; only talk to people who think the same way as they do? Which of course does not make them right - but it does not automatically make me right either.

The above thoughts flittered through my mind as I was reading about the allegations against the prime minister of how he or his office may have tried to interfere in an investigation - or rather how the charges would be dealt with. I found the news items irritating and not particularly useful. I am tired of columnists and political pundits going on and on about something that has not been proven or confirmed by anyone in a position to know what happened. The Globe and Mail have not released their sources - so no one knows who said what to whom, or if in fact anything was said at all. We also do not know why this individual released the information to the Globe and Mail.

I realized that I was not just irritated because of the one-sided feeding frenzy that was generated by the Opposition parties and the press. If I disliked or deeply disagreed with the politics or tone of the present prime minister - I might quite enjoy the potential political bloodbath. I find the whole thing pointless and annoying because, while I have never voted Liberal in my 40+ years of voting, I like the youthfulness and public attitude of the present government and find it slightly more palatable than any of the other parties. In other words, I am irritated because someone who, at the very least, I do not dislike is being "picked on".

It was disturbing to realize that in spite of my frequent suggestions that we would all be better off if people would learn to think critically, I am as guilty as the next person of only listening to the news sources that say what I want them to say; who attack those who I have decided deserve to be attacked. It may be that the middle road, that roadway that at least contains some of the truths from either end of the continuum is getting harder and harder to find as the pathways of our lives get clogged up by the detritus of previous debates. But surely we have to start trying.

Perhaps the first step would be to accept that there are multitude points of view - some which might be opposite of mine and which - whether I like it or not - might be right.

Former ISIS Soldiers - What to do With Them?

What should Canada "do " with its citizens who left Canada, usually surreptitiously, to join ISIS? According to the U.S., we should repatriate them and when appropriate charge them with participating in ISIS. While it can be clearly argued that given what some of those individuals did - specifically those who created videos aimed at radicalizing/recruiting more soldiers need to face consequences for their actions. For those who committed a documented crime, they too need to face trial. I am less clear as to whether or not those who joined and fought within some loose definition of what is allowed, should face punishment.

This is not the first time that Canadians who fought in foreign wars have been deemed to be criminals. Individuals from Canada who in the 1930s went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists were judged by many to be criminal. By 1937-38 it was illegal for Canadians to go to Spain to fight. They were labelled as Communists, initially prevented from returning to Canada, investigated by the RCMP and in some case became unemployable when they returned. Some were not allowed to enlist in the armed forces in WWWll because they were politically unreliable. Six or seven decades later - we see those men as heroes who had the courage to fight against oppression.

I am not in any way supporting ISIS. Their existence has only caused destruction and death. Millions of people have become homeless as a result of their insistence that their interpretation of the Koran was the right one. The suffering that their regime and the resulting war has caused is incalculable The damage their ideology has caused will last for decades. But do all of the Canadian's who supported ISIS by participating need to be punished and who should do the punishing?

It would seem to me that if an individual who fought for ISIS is judged to have broken the law in the lands that they fought it - then that country, if it so wishes, needs to press charges. Assuming that the individual was a competent adult when they left the country - then whatever consequences derive from that decision are their responsibility. It will, however, feel profoundly unfair to friends and family that the consequences might be death. I am not sure why they, after the fighting has finished, become Canada's problem to prosecute.

The issue becomes far more complicated when one discusses what to do with those individuals who did not break the law (other than fighting on the losing side) and say that they want to/need to come home. There may be as many as 200-300 Canadians somewhere in Syria or the neighbouring countries who sided with ISIS and who have been or are about to be arrested by the victorious forces. Not all of them have changed their minds as to the rightness of their cause, some of them may think that what they did was the right thing to do. A few of them might come back to their families and continue to advocate for a separate Muslim state - regardless of the strategies used to achieve it.

Clearly, the Canadian government will need to something. Human rights advocates will demand that it is not a legal problem but rather that sufficient supports and funds be allocated to ensure a successful re-integration; others will demand justice (vengeance) for those Syrians who have been killed or forced to live in refugee camps and therefore prison sentences will need to be handed out to the majority of those who are repatriated. There will be others who don't particularly care what happens to the returning individual as long as the individuals live somewhere else other than in their neighbourhood.

The Canadians in Syria are Canadian citizens. If they are not being held by the authorities for significant crimes than they should come home - on the assumption that they agree to live by Canadians rules and Canadian culture. If they are committed to living in an Islamist state - then they need to immigrate to one.