Nothing to Cry Over

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Good thing that our government and its police forces are fighting the good fight and taking down those severe threats to our society – like a farmer who champions the right to sell and drink raw milk.

Thank goodness we know they care. Now I can feel safe when I go to the store. In fact, I think I’m going to go buy some legal cigarettes, high-fat foods, and copious amounts of alcohol – after all, the government’s taking care of the truly bad stuff, right?

Yes, with amazing speed and co-ordination, last week inspectors from the Ministry of Natural Resources descended upon the Durham, ON farm of Michael Schmidt, confiscating some of his equipment. But that wasn’t enough.

In protest of the Ministry’s actions, Schmidt has engaged in a hunger strike, drinking only water and the demon’s nectar – raw milk. And just recently his bus – from which he sells his organic food – was surrounded by police and public health inspectors. Of course, the little matter of no search warrant prevented them from hopping aboard, but the point was made.

So why all this crying over a little raw milk?

There is a law in Ontario that prevents the sale or gifting of raw milk. Apparently everything has to be pasteurized. The idea behind the law is that e-coli and other nefarious organisms, including salmonella, can be present in the unpasteurized product.

Funny, last time I checked raw beef and chicken is available on your grocery store shelves. My butcher still is able to peddle his trade, so why the disparity?

I’m not a raw milk proponent. Of course I’m not opposed to it. I do like the concept of pasteurization simply because I’m a little less-than-enamoured with where the milk comes from. And I still question to this day, who discovered this product? And how.

But I digress. The point is I’m allowed to make my choice to not drink raw milk. I’ve eaten raw milk cheese, though – and lived to tell the tale. I’ve eaten a Lebanese raw meat product, yet still am able to draw breath. And, most importantly, I’ve been able to sample bits and pieces of the global cuisine simply because I have the right to make my own choices.

So why should it be any different for raw milk aficionados? Currently Schmidt is able to circumvent the law by making all of his customers part-owners of his cows. Because of that they’re able to take advantage of the loophole that allows farmers to drink their own milk products – even if they’re unpasteurized.

It’s a choice and a right people should have. Our commitment to banning raw milk products is based on a shaky foundation of concern for public health when cigarettes are still able to be sold at the local variety store, alcohol is sold in government-run establishments, and high fat foods are prevalent everywhere. So is our government really looking out for our best interests in the long run? Or does the raw milk lobby not have deep enough products.

Cigarettes, alcohol, fat, sugar – and milk? Which one of these things is not like the other?

We play Russian Roulette with every meal we consume. Does everyone follow proper sanitation techniques at home when they’re preparing chicken or pork? Is it possible their meals could be contaminated by less-than-fastidious washing and disinfecting? Of course, but it’s a risk we’re willing to take.

When I go into a restaurant and order a “rare bordering on blue” steak, I know that my epicurean joy could be followed by severe gastrointestinal distress. Having worked in a grocery environment in the past, I’m pretty sure some places play fast and loose with the ol’ health regulations. In fact, if we really knew everything that went into the processing, preparation, and distribution of our foods, we’d probably all go on a permanent hunger strike.

It’s our choice. And unless our health authorities are willing to assume full responsibility for ensuring that we only consume products that are devoid of potential health risks, then they can’t play the selective enforcement game. I can’t buy raw milk without owning cattle. Funny, I can buy smokes and booze, but I don’t own shares in DuMaurier or a backyard distillery…

You want to ban raw milk? Fine. But that should be low down on the totem pole. In fact, we should be allowed to toast the banning of malignant products like cigarettes, alcohol, and saturated and trans fats with that milk first, before we’re forced to give it up.

After all, if this is truly about health – and not about lobbyists’ deep pockets – then doing the right thing should be painfully simple. Until then, the government should not just stay out of the bedrooms of Canadians, but also the refrigerators and pantries as well.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

What’s in a Nation?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff brought this particular Pandora’s Box to the party, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois is ready to pry that sucker open and unleash its contents on the country – for better or for worse.

The Bloc has submitted a motion to the House of Commons, to be debated on Thursday and voted upon early next week that reads: “Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation.” Simply put, the debate will be open as to whether the people of Quebec represent a nation.

… And with the children of Canada all tucked snugly in their beds, visions of Meech Lake and Charlottetown will dance through their heads!

But could this work? Could the age-old issue of Quebec separatism really be solved by a House proclamation that Quebec should be recognized as a nation? Will millions of Quebecois suddenly be comforted by being able to say “Canada is my country, but Quebec is my nation”? And if this motion doesn’t pass, does this mean that we’re headed down the path of another linguistic crisis?

Surprisingly, this latest round of the “My Canada includes Quebec” debate has largely slipped by unnoticed by the masses. And this has happened because the debate has been restricted greatly to the confines of the Liberal leadership debate. Ignatieff’s use of vocabulary to solve this challenge has been met with opposition – not with the concept, as such, but rather with the timing and the designation — by his fellow candidates, including noted federalist Stéphane Dion and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae. However, at last month’s meeting, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party did, in fact, adopted a resolution to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada and to call for the establishment of a body to determine how to best make this a reality.

The funny thing is that although this is truly a federal issue, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been able to tread lightly around the issue, not even dipping a toe into the water.

Well, it’s everyone in the pool now – and the Bloc have pushed Harper in with both hands. And once again the question is… what is the question? Perhaps we need Dion to draw up another Clarity Act because this idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation, while it does have merit, leaves too many Questions unanswered.

As shown by the lessons learned by Meech Lake, before it fell victim to the public relations nightmare of the use of the Notwithstanding Clause to defend Bill 178, the Canadian public is willing to acknowledge Quebec’s unique status within the country. However, it’s safe to say that special should not mean superior.

So what does the word nation mean in this context? And where do we stop? If Quebecers are a nation, are not the Cree of Quebec also considered a nation? In fact, we already have the First Nations, so where do we stop? Can it not be argued that Acadians are a distinct society within Canada and therefore deserve nation status? What about French-Canadians living outside of Quebec? Do those living in Ontario and Manitoba become part of the nation of Quebec, or are they simply living in exile? Heck, if Quebec becomes a nation, can those living in the Anglo bastion of Westmount not rise up and claim nation status for themselves?

During the last referendum the idea of partitioning came to the fore, the argument being that if Quebec was able to separate from Canada, then segments of Quebec should have the same right to leave Quebec – and any argument from Quebec against that would invalidate the initial separation argument.

The problem with this resolution is that it’s only a word. And the great thing about this resolution is – it’s only a word. You see, words are extremely powerful things. A word can be a source of pride and inspiration for an entire people! Look at the word Quebecois – it alone is a symbol of strength and fidelity for a significant portion of our population. While simply adding an extra meaning to a word that already exists in the Canadian lexicon may not be enough to satisfy the most ardent separatist, its recognition of the distinct society that Quebec is may be enough to bring those fires to a dull ember.

However, if we start bestowing nation status on a number of groups – and it’s hard to create an argument for one group of people without allowing those same rules to applied to another – then the value and power of that word becomes diluted. And, proportionately, the impact of the word is rendered negligible. In the end, recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada is a no-brainer and it should be done. It’s what happens next that matters most. But should this symbolic recognition should open up the topic of constitutional reform – ay, there’s the rub. Those who are so happy to toss the word nation may become strangely reticent when it comes to putting those words to paper and entrenching nationhood rights and protections into the very framework of our country.

In the end, like the song states, they’re only words and words are all I have to steal your heart away. In this case, the right word can also represent our country’s soul.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Grey Cup Start Time One Day Too Late

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

There’s nothing wrong with competition. The problem comes when you’re throwing away your best stuff against something that’s way out of your league.

The Canadian Football League, an entity that seems to succeed from time to time in spite of itself, will broadcast its annual showcase event on Sunday, with the playing of the Grey Cup final between the B.C. Lions and the Montreal Alouettes. Of course, with a 5:00 p.m. start time, the game will be up against the Detroit Lions versus the Arizona Cardinals, the Seattle Seahawks facing the San Francisco 49ers, and a marquee match-up featuring the Dallas Cowboys hosting the Indianapolis Colts.

Sure, the Grey Cup will pull in its standard numbers, but how much better could they be if they stopped playing David to the National Football League’s goliath each and every week? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with learning when and where to pick your fights, but the CFL brass continues to fight a battle it can’t win, when an easier – and more profitable – solution is at hand.

Sundays are NFL days for football fans. Sure, there are those hardcore CFL fans who will choose to watch their beloved league over any gridiron competition. However, by continually matching CFL games against NFL competition, the league’s brass is missing an opportunity to attract new fans to the game.

Football fans love their sport. South of the border, Friday nights are dedicated to high school games, Saturday’s are the domain of the collegiate ranks, and the NFL rules Sunday. And while the CFL has a die-hard contingent of regular fans, for the most part Canadians aren’t as invested at the high school or university ranks. U.S. college programs can fill 80,000+ seat stadiums. Canadian colleges consider 3,000 fans an outstanding gate. High school sports south of the 49 th are broadcast on TV; here you’ll have to trek to your local school to peer through the gates. But instead of condemning fans’ lack of support for the amateur ranks, it’s high time the CFL take advantage of the time that’s available to them and make a play for the viewing public.

In the States, the NFL shies away from Friday and Saturday broadcasts because they don’t want to undermine the popularity of amateur sports. They know that the popularity of those levels eventually acts as a free feeder system for the professional ranks. In Canada, the opposite must happen. Instead of developing grassroots support, the CFL must establish the professional game as the ideal, towards which younger people will be drawn.

Some people get it. TSN has created a very successful franchise in Friday Night Football. It’s a popular broadcast and it serves as a forum for attracting football fans – not just CFL afficiandos – north of the border. We need more of this thinking, not less. The CFL needs to understand that Sundays are taken. The last three games of the year – arguably the most compelling matches of the season – are broadcast head-to-head against NFL competition. Sure, you’re going to retain the same audience as always, but you’re missing out on an opportunity to showcase your wares to an even larger demographic.

Play these games on Saturday. If the CBC gets its act together, they could anchor a Grey Cup broadcast with two compelling all-Canadian match-ups on Hockey Night in Canada. Promote the hell out of it as a celebration of Canadian sport! Start hyping the event weeks in advance and cross-promote on various network shows. Essentially, capture the eyes of those for whom the CFL is not a regular part of their viewing diet and stoke the fires of hunger for the event!

Unfortunately, the same people who have made the Grey Cup a tradition in their living rooms will continue to do so. Those others, for whom the NFL remains the Holy Grail, will not choose an unknown commodity over the product that they’ve confirmed that they enjoy. And save for a Janet-Jacksonesque slip by Nelly Furtado, the CFL’s marquee game will represent another opportunity lost.

The CFL’s decision to force people to choose between sports is a losing cause. This year, many people will be tuning in to watch the Colts continue their quest of perfection. Then they’ll transition into a Sunday night game that’s been bolstered by the NFL’s decision to permit flexible scheduling – thereby ensuring that a compelling match-up will be shown on their prime time schedule.

Those fans are spoken for. But what are they doing on Saturday afternoon? If they’re hungry for football, and the game’s marketed correctly, is it not conceivable that some of them may tune in for the Canadian league’s most important event? And what’s the worst that could happen? Some of them may actually enjoy the game. The CFL is an exciting product, featuring talented athletes playing a dynamic version of the game. Many people, in fact, think the Canadian game is the better version overall – so why not expose football fans to this event without making them actively stray from the brand to which they’ve been loyal?

Perish the thought. Marketing a great game to a football-hungry audience at a time where there’s no similar competition? That makes too much sense. Of course, for a league that stumbles upon success in spite of itself, the easy road is never the one taken.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Blind Justice Doesn’t Mean Lack of Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Justice is blind. While the positive image behind this statement implies that all are equal in the eyes of the criminal justice system, the negative connotation is that our justice system also suffers from a horrendous lack of vision.

Yes, justice may be blind, but that doesn’t mean that the community as a whole will merely follow in blind allegiance to its principles – especially when dangerous criminals are increasingly benefiting from questionable calls by those in our justice system.

When Christopher Broad, an admitted sex offender, steps of the bus and essentially warns the community that they should be afraid for their children, the community has a right to be concerned. That fear is augmented by the fact that a Superior Court judge expressed certainty that this man would be before the courts again – moments before he sentenced him to time served and released him into the public.

And just recently, a man charged with multiple shootings in the downtown core gets released on bail – then promptly disappears. It’s enough to make one lose faith in the criminal justice system. And that’s one path we don’t want to find ourselves taking.

Obviously I’m not so naïve to believe that this 32-year-old sex offender — who pled guilty on Tuesday to forcibly confining a nine-year-old boy and possessing child pornography – is the only predator currently taking refuge in our fair city. And there’s something to be said for knowing who to watch out for. But none of us in this community relishes the idea of someone with this predilection coming to town, especially when he’s admitted that there is a potential that he can fall prey to his own demons.

The judge in Timmins who let him go expressed the belief that he’ll leave “a wake of tattered and shattered lives,” on his way back into the justice system. Parents throughout this community have to wonder why our children are being put at risk. Why does one more child have to have their innocence taken from them before the justice system does it job.

And what happens if someone makes the misguided decision that they will cure the disease that the justice system has inflicted on our community? Would any of us be surprised that this could happen? Should we?

Our system of justice and order is predicated on the belief that our police and legal system will catch the bad guys so that the good guys can live their lives in peace. We can safely go about our lives, not armed to the teeth, because we feel confident that there are those watching out for our best interests. But what happens when the community feels its protectors are abdicating their jobs? What happens when red tape threatens to cut off the Thin Blue Line from the community it’s dedicated to protecting?

Anger and fear are a toxic combination. And unfortunately hysteria can run rampant amongst the masses. Actions normally frowned upon can suddenly become much more appealing when the justifications hit closer to home.

I have two children and I don’t know how I’d react if they were abused by someone. I’d like to think that I would be content to let the justice system run its course. But I’m not sure I’m that good of a man. Just the thought brings my blood to a boil and sends hatred coursing through my veins. And if my child’s abductor was given a light sentence in return for the life sentence that they’ve inflicted on my son or daughter, the temptation would be strong to exact a measure of revenge. I like to believe that I’d stand behind the integrity of the justice system and support it to the ends – but I don’t know how I would react if that faith was put to the test. Do any of us?

Is it right? No. Is it primal? Yes. Is it reality? Unfortunately.

We’re not that far removed from the days of vigilante mobs. We’ve seen in this generation how fear and anger can make groups of people do strange things. The only thing that separates us from that type of mass hysteria and the evils that it can bring is the fact that we have a set of rules and laws that ensure we live in a civilized society.

The police do an admirable job with the resources at hand. We, as a public, can feel their frustration when criminals of this nature fall out of the system into their laps. And there’s also the need to understand that these criminals need to have the opportunity to get the help they need – to rehabilitate and reform in the hopes of becoming a functioning part of the community. But to do that, we have to trust that our lawmakers and justice system will do right by us. We need to know that our interests are being protected – otherwise it won’t be long until a misguided few will take matters into their own hands to protect their families.

Justice can remain blind, but it needs to have the vision to see what can happen when those who are supposed to be protected by its laws suddenly feel abandoned by them.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Intelligent Solutions to School Bus Safety

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

When it comes to school bus safety, who truly needs to smarten up: the school bus designers or those who share the road with these yellow behemoths?

The question comes up again in light of the horrific accident in Huntsville, Alabama, which saw three teenaged girls killed and 30 other high schoolers injured when a school bus was involved in an accident that sent it through the guardrail of an overpass. The bus plummeted 30 feet to the ground, landing nose first.

Of course, nobody on that bus was wearing a seat belt, because as we all know most school buses aren’t outfitted with restraining devices. But would seat belts really help? Our knee-jerk reaction, cemented in the fact that the mantra of wearing a seat belt saves lives has been driven into our skulls, is yes. However, according to the Ministry of Transportation – Ontario, seat belts may in fact do more harm than good – and the buses’ design alone makes them safe for students.

School buses are designed to be compartmentalized, essentially creating little pockets of safety for each child. By installing well-anchored seats with higher backs that are filled with energy-absorbing material and placed closer together, those who have engineered the school buses have done what they can to promote safety for its occupants.

Conversely, putting restraining devices, such as seat belts, into a school bus may cause even more problems. As any parent knows, as children grow, their belt requirements change. In a school bus environment, it’s nearly impossible – and at the very least excessively impractical – to ensure that all seat belts are properly adjusted to the size and weight of a constantly changing series of seat occupants.

A poorly fitted seat belt can cause serious injuries in the event of an accident. And would that make the bus driver liable for any injuries caused by a child’s inability to properly adjust his or her restraining device? Should we expect our children to be able to handle this responsibility on their own?

Too many parents focus on the lack of a seat belt and look at that as a negligent act. They don’t look at the engineering and design aspects that have been implemented to compensate for the lack of a restraining device. In the end, save for any future adjustments and improvements to the design of the bus, it would seem that our children’s safety has been well accounted for. As hard as it may for us inundated with the importance of seat belts throughout our lives, the lack of seat belts in a school bus seems to be the right choice.

So if we can’t improve bus safety on the buses, then we have to look elsewhere for improvements. Specifically, instead of making the buses safer for the road, we have to make the road safer for the buses – and our children.

There are still times when we see people passing stopped school buses, either trying to beat the extension of the stop arm, or in complete defiance of it. There are still drivers who race through school zones at speeds well in excess of the posted speed limits. And there are still those motorists who choose to drive aggressively and erratically through our city streets.

The buses aren’t the problem. We are.

But what can be done? On a couple of occasions I’ve called police to report someone blowing past a stopped bus with its lights flashing. And while the dispatch person has been pleasant, the fact is that the police don’t have the man power to chase after every person who ignores not just the law, but basic common sense.

In fact, the greatest risk to our children doesn’t come while they’re on the bus, it comes as they’re getting off. And no belt in the world is going to protect them from that danger.

Currently there’s a national study looking at the issue of seat belts on school buses. The Ontario government has indicated that it will take the findings into consideration for the future. But chances are the status quo will be upheld.

In the end, assuring the safety of our school-aged children isn’t one that’s the domain of engineering. And no fabric strap or metal buckle will ever replace common sense as a deterrent for accidents.

Slow down. Watch for kids. And try to avoid the giant yellow vehicle in front of you. Then the whole point about seat belts becomes moot. After all, the best way to ensure the effectiveness of safety devices and design is to make sure they’re never called into use.

Inside the bus isn’t where the problem lies. Therefore, the burden falls squarely on our shoulders. If we drive safer, then maybe tragedies like the one in Huntsville can be avoided.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved