Raise the crosswalks to save some lives
In view of the recent tragic loss of another young life on a crosswalk, something has to be done to curb the speeding drivers.
I suggest that in areas where speeding is a problem, crosswalks should be built on a raised stretch of roadway at least three inches high, preceded by large warning signs.
Speed merchants might show more respect for their suspensions than they do for pedestrians.
John Winstanley
Colwood
We need to see new perspectives
Re: “Before destroying museum exhibits, plan a replacement,” commentary, Dec. 9.
Thanks to John Lutz for his thoughtful and sensible opinion piece about the Royal B.C. Museum’s plans to shut down and then obliterate much or all of their third floor. His suggestions are practical and make total sense to me.
Colonialism is part of B.C’s story and should be included in an historical display about this province so it can be discussed from the perspective of now.
It occurred to me when reading Lutz’s commentary that many visitors to the museum, especially those from other countries — including the U.S. — do not realize that B.C. has a colonial past, with shameful treatment of Indigenous peoples, Chinese, Indo-Canadians and African Canadians. With careful consultation, this is an opportunity to retell that past.
Augment the third floor as needed with other perspectives in text and visuals, and gradually reinvent it. Save what’s good and say goodbye to what’s not.
Heather MacAndrew
Victoria
Two complications regarding the Crown
Re: “Canada’s link to the monarchy might be tested,” editorial, Dec. 10.
Interesting observations, leading to the conclusion that the death of the Queen may stimulate a lively discussion in Canada about the future of the monarchy. The editorial argues that her death might prompt Canada to consider a constitutional change.
May I suggest two complications. The first complication is time.
Her Majesty has had an impressively long reign, but she is old, and could die suddenly. Stability is always an important consideration for any government, and it is more that likely that the U.K. will quickly arrange a coronation since succession is not really an issue.
Decision-making in Canada is complex and slow, and the odds are that Canada will have to come to grips with the new situation in Buckingham Palace after Charles has been crowned King.
He might not have the same respect as the Queen, but we will be confronted with a fait accompli.
I bet that Charles will find himself King of Canada.
The second consideration worth contemplating is the position of the First Nations and their treaties: how would they be rewritten?
Boudewyn van Oort
Victoria
Monarchy exists for the benefit of the people
Re: “Canada’s link to the monarchy might be tested,” editorial, Dec. 10.
Only when emphasis is placed on the person of the Sovereign does Canada’s constitutional monarchy become controversial.
Canada’s founders deliberately designed a system with “the Crown” as the source and centre of it and as our Charter says, upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
All power comes from the Crown. The Crown is the font of all official honours. All laws are passed in the name of the Crown.
Allegiance to the Sovereign of Canada (not any other realm) in the name of our head of state is to a person who personifies our loyalty to all Canadians and not to a document such as a constitution, a banner, a flag or a geopolitical entity.
All those elements are encompassed by Canada’s Sovereign. The Sovereign in the coronation oath promises that Canada will be governed according to Canadian law and custom.
It is therefore guaranteed that the Canadian Crown that embodies the Canadian State will protect our rights and freedoms.
It is the bond between the people and those whom they choose to govern. The notion of heirs and successors represents the everlasting vitality of the Crown and its continuing place in how we govern ourselves.
Sovereigns come and go … the Crown is constant.
On the other hand, Prince Philip offered that: “The monarchy exists in Canada for historical reasons and it exists in the sense that it is of benefit to the country or the nation. If at any stage any nation decides that the system is unacceptable then it’s up to them to change it. I think it’s a complete misconception to imagine that the Monarchy exists in the interest of the Monarch — it doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people.”
Gerald W. Pash
Victoria
Room for debate about the monarchy
Re: “Canada’s link to the monarchy might be tested,” editorial, Dec. 10.
This is a start to opening up a sensible discussion as to what Canada’s new constitutional disposition might look like when we replace our monarchy with a republic.
I say when because I think many Canadians accept that we are heading down that route, regardless of the affection and respect many still hold for the Queen. The editorial rightly alludes to the fact that the Constitution Act 1982 does not make change easy requiring majority approval in both houses of Parliament and in each of the provincial legislatures to effect change.
But there is room for debate now as to what type of change we would want. The American style where the offices of head of state and government are combined? The French model with a strong president and a weak prime minister?
Or a version of the Westminster model where power is vested in a strong prime minister and cabinet with a ceremonial president, not unlike what Barbados has just chosen.
What we do need to focus on is not a nostalgic debate about the merits of a “foreign” monarch — that day is past, but rather a mature discussion of how we want to identify ourselves in the future, reflecting the multiracial and inclusive country we have become.
There is a huge opportunity here, but it is not without challenges, as the editorial points out.
David B. Collins
Victoria
Never forget the Holocaust
Re: “Comparing vaccine passports to Holocaust is dangerous,” commentary, Dec. 10.
I applaud the passion and clarity of the opinion piece by Michael Bloomfield addressing the ignorance of protesters against vaccine passports.
In particular I was shocked to learn from the cited “Knowledge and Awareness Survey” that 62 per cent of Canadian younger people do not know the facts or have even heard of the tragic history.
Not wishing to diminish the author’s thoughts on this matter, it is unfortunately a similar case with regard to the tragedy of Hiroshima.
Though my birthday on that day (not date, fortunately) reminds me individually of that event, the blank stares I get from many people (not just young people) regarding this epic death and destruction amazes me.
The linking of vaccine passports to the Holocaust is beyond ignorance and oversight to that point that the protesters become as vile as the perpetrators of the terror against Jewish people.
Never forget.
Max Miller
Saanich
A death from toxic drug supply
Our 25-year-old son died on March 7 from a toxic drug supply, three days before his birthday.
A bright light was extinguished from the lives of the the many friends and family members who knew him. He had dealt with mental-health issues from an early age, but refused to get counselling.
We watched him struggle with alcohol and drugs, as his personality changed in front of our eyes. He stated that when he drank, the possible consequences of the drugs were obscured.
He knew the risk of taking the drugs. In fact, he even volunteered at a safe drug-injection site.
The school system now wants to remove counselling from the budget. So many of our young people are suffering from anxiety.
There is a mental-health crisis that is being ignored. We feel that it would be helpful to include cognitive behavioural training in the school system, to teach the youth how to deal with feelings of anxiety.
Parents and educators, please inform the young people about the consequences of alcohol and drugs from a young age.
Government officials, please include more money for counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy, as well as treatment for alcohol and drug addiction in your budgeting. We don’t want to see any more lives needlessly lost or destroyed.
Noelle and Ev Davis
Saanich
Look to the future with new buildings
Re: “The Ice Wars: Vancouver’s Ice Pick and Victoria’s Iceberg,” commentary, Dec. 8.
I am not surprised by the tone and content of Pam Madoff’s dissertation on the proposed Telus Ocean building. Madoff is noted for her support of all old buildings commonly referred to as heritage.
In some cases it is important to protect heritage buildings that have redeeming architectural features that reflect their time and place within the city.
At the same time, we should be encouraging and embracing current architectural design that makes a statement about our present time so that in 100 years people will remark on how a building is an example of architectural and engineering excellence of the 2020s, not a copy or reproduction of something from the 1800s.
Bev Highton
Oak Bay
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
