Globe calls train delays "injustice"

I hate unsigned editorials. Unfortunately, they are a mainstay of newspapers in this country. The problem with them is this: editorials are seen to be the opinion of the newspaper. But they are written by one or a few individuals and really don't represent the body of journalists at a paper at all.

When I read an editorial in the Globe and Mail today about the Mohawks who blocked the VIA rail line in Deseronto, Ont., this point came back to me again. Here's a choice selection:

It is that time of year again when radical native protesters with one grievance or another engage in criminal acts dressed up as civil disobedience. They inflict injustice to draw attention to what they allege is an injustice done to them.

Now why can't we know who wrote this? It is a highly irresponsible way to deal with a very serious grievance of people in the province, and it taints the entire paper. This writer is equating the frustration and annoyance rail passengers experience with the very real pain and injustice of having land stolen from you by the state.

The editorial goes on:

There are always the courts. But the radicals don't want to wait; they think they know a better way.

To that, I'd say, probably no other group in Canada has so much experience dealing with courts. Perhaps this experience has shown them there are, indeed, "better ways."

So, besides this totally reactionary, offensive editorial, the news is that the blockade is down. Originally the Mohawks of Deseronto said they would keep the lines blocked for 48 hours. They made it to 30 under a great deal of pressure from government and police.

The dispute is over a quarry, which is being used by Thurlow Aggregates, trucking away gravel. The protesters say that the quarry is actually theirs and therefore the gravel cannot be taken like that. It's been simmering for a while now, with very little coverage.

They got it now.

Not afraid to sign my opinion,

Jenn Watt

Ontario set to vote on electoral system

I've heard and read a lot about this citizen's assembly on electoral reform in Ontario. There are a lot of skeptics.

In issue #1 of Blackfly, we featured an article about the citizens assembly that will be recommending an electoral system for Ontario.

An independent assembly of citizens set up by the government voted overwhelmingly yesterday to have a referendum during this fall's provincial election on replacing the current winner-take-all system with a proportional representation system modelled on those used in Germany and New Zealand. The Globe and Mail

There are many who think that electoral reform would be bad for the province. Ian Urquart of the Toronto Star created this list of "consequences":

More politicians. There would be at least 22 more in the Legislature under MMP. Advocates say that would just restore the Legislature to its former size before Mike Harris cut it back by adopting the federal riding boundaries.

Bigger ridings. With just 90 constituencies, the average riding would have about 143,000 people, compared to about 125,000 today. Geographically, a northern riding like Kenora-Rainy River, which is already bigger than Italy, could grow to the size of France.

Permanent minorities. MMP is designed so that a party cannot win a majority of the seats in the Legislature without a majority of the popular vote, which no party has received in an Ontario election since 1937. The experts who advised the citizens' assembly tried to sugar-coat this point by saying that MMP would lead to "majority coalition governments," which is an oxymoron.

Seats for fringe parties. In the last provincial election, not even the Greens, with 2.8 per cent of the popular vote, exceeded the 3 per cent threshold established by the assembly. However, a forward-looking analysis of the proposed change suggests MMP would encourage votes for fringe parties so that not only the Greens, but also groupings like the Family Coalition (a pro-life party), could exceed the threshold. Toronto Star

Not everything he lists would actually be a bad thing. So-called fringe parties would no longer be the fringe -- as in, they would be able to impact decisions just like the "fringe" members of our society should.

By pulling out the pro-life party, his comments automatically scare the Left, but I don't think they should. If pro-life party can attain enough votes to get some seats, other progressive parties could do the same. The damage would really be minimal.

Further, permanent minorities are generally a good thing. When a party has majority control of the government, the Opposition is basically powerless. If parties have to work together, it means that all people's representatives are working together. Much better than being steamrolled over by the majority.

But, sadly, most predict that Ontarians won't understand the new systems proposed and we won't have any change at all.

Some links:
Fair Vote Canada
Ontario Citizens Assembly

Bus accident kills 10-year-old

On Thursday, a 10-year-old boy named John Pham died on a school field trip in a bus accident near Brampton. At first, reports said he had brain injury, but later he was pronounced dead. The family had John's organs donated.

This case, of course, raises the obvious questions of seatbelts on school buses.

When I was growing up, I rode the bus to and from school every day and used to purposely choose to sit at the back because when the bus hit a bump, I would fly out of my seat.

Being older and wiser now, it seems this was a little unsafe and certainly could have had major consequences had my bus been in any sort of accident.

This is what our premier, Dalton McGuinty, told the press about calls for seatbelts:

While Premier Dalton McGuinty offered his condolences, he stressed that federal officials continue to advise "that it is safer for our children (on buses) not to have them in seatbelts." Hamilton Spectator

And Transport Canada:

Suzanne Tylko, chief of crash worthiness research for the federal agency, confirmed Transport Canada is looking into the crash, but noted this is only the sixth fatality involving school bus passengers under the age of 19 since 1995.

Tylko said school buses are currently designed with tall, padded seats that are placed fairly close together to minimize injuries in case of an accident.

Adding seatbelts to school buses wouldn't ensure compliance, she said.

"When you talk about a child, some as young as four, it becomes a very challenging responsibility to expect that young child not only to buckle in, but to buckle in correctly," Tylko said. Guelph Mercury

And this is what Transport Canada has on its website on passenger safety:

The seats are spaced and the seat backs sized to resist occupants being thrown around in an impact. A barrier is provided in front of the first row of seats. The seat backs and barrier are designed with a balance of energy absorption and strength.

A head impact area is defined together with a head impact protection standard that precludes, for example, simple overhead luggage racks. In other possible impact areas the joint strength standard reduces the possibility of sharp edges. The result is very few injuries inside school buses, even in severe crashes and those involving rollover.

It should be noted, that most reports of this crash say that the children were thrown around like "rag dolls" in the crash and John's injuries were to the head.

In my own childhood experiences, when I was riding that bus every day, one of the most coveted positions was that of the "bus monitor" who would help the children cross the road and resolve conflicts between children on the bus. Perhaps the monitor could also help the young children with their belts, should belts ever be put in place.