Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
........................................................
Wrongs and rights
Re Mike Duffy Made His Own Reputation (Aug. 28): The Crown alleged in Mike Duffy's criminal trial that his actions "were driven by deceit, manipulations, and carried out in a clandestine manner" representing a serious departure from standards expected of a person in his position. In acquitting him of all charges, Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt stated: "If one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence, you would have a more accurate statement."
Neither the forensic auditor nor Judge Vaillancourt found that Mr. Duffy's expense claims were inappropriate or that they violated the Senate's rules. Mr. Duffy, however, suffered financial loss, as well as emotional and other damages, as a result of the Senate's sanctions and its other actions against him.
Were Mr. Duffy's rights violated by the Senate? Is the Senate above the rule of law, or is it subject to acting in accordance with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, as well as the Charter? Mr. Duffy is fully justified in seeking to enforce his civil and personal rights.
Garfield Emerson, Toronto
..........................................
Legal. Ethical. The two don't seem to have much in common. Mike Duffy was his own man. He wasn't forced to feed at the trough, or bed down in the barn. Yet he did both, and now wants us to provide him with a bigger trough and softer bed? Disgusting.
Pamela Wilson, Edmonton
..........................................
If Mike Duffy wants to sue someone, why doesn't he sue those who conspired against him? Even though he was found not guilty of breaking the lucrative, self-serving Senate rules, he broke the ethical rules the rest of us live by.
Similarly, I have no problem with Omar Kadhr being compensated for the government's failure to repatriate him from Guantanamo in defiance of a Supreme Court finding that his rights had been violated by Canadian officials. I just wish that instead of us innocent taxpayers having to face footing the bill again, why not have those who actually denied Mr. Kadhr's rights pay for their mistakes? We know who they are.
They're the same folks whose actions led to Mr. Duffy's lawsuit.
Al Yolles, Toronto
..........................................
Welcome to Canada?
Re Trudeau Muddles the Message (Aug. 28): Canada has long had a reputation, scarcely dulled by the Harper years, of welcoming refugees. Current policies reinforce it, but the present situation is also a result of conditions in the United States, and an example of the global phenomenon of population migration. This is a new experience for Canada; the government has responded effectively.
What would constitute a credible alternative? The opposition parties do not deserve a pass on having to come up with a better policy. Frankly, I'm happy to see the RCMP helping migrants with their children and belongings. It reassures me that Canada has not become the Hungary, Poland or America of North America.
Rod Phillips, Ottawa
..........................................
With a Canadian refugee review process that takes years, we now learn that 260,000 Salvadorans in the U.S. may face the same looming deadline in March that Haitians think they face in January.
Justin Trudeau sent an ingratiating tweet to the world earlier this year welcoming the displaced to Canada, knowing full well our infrastructure and processes were cumbersome and slow. We have now had two weeks of Mr. Trudeau, and ministers Ralph Goodale, Marc Garneau and Ahmed Hussen suggesting everything is under control, and that we have good processes to accommodate and adjudicate. Five years and counting to adjudicate an asylum seeker's claim is a disgrace. Canadians and the asylum seekers know the likelihood they will have to leave is remote.
This is a mess of the Liberals' making, despite hollow assurances to the contrary. What's the important message the Liberals are sending to Canadians here?
James Thomson, Calgary
..........................................
A knockout? Well …
Re Mayweather, McGregor Each Got A Fair Deal In A Match Where Boxing Was Beside The Point (Aug. 28): I felt compelled to write you a fan letter after reading Cathal Kelly's analysis. I would not describe myself as a sports or boxing fan, nor did I pay much attention to all the chatter around the much publicized fight. But after dipping into the first few paragraphs of Mr. Kelly's front-page article, I found myself immersed and read his entire account from start to finish.
It's one thing to get sports fans to read about something they are already passionate about. But getting someone with little interest in the topic to read an article from start to finish because they suddenly find themselves absorbed in the story – that's a reflection of a great writer.
My thanks to Mr. Kelly.
Jennifer Pearson, Toronto
..........................................
Cathal Kelly missed the point: This fight was not only about boxing, but about the hype that goes with this sort of entertainment.
Many fights have been held in Las Vegas, which is arguably the entertainment capital of the world. People come not only to see the fight, but to be in Vegas.
At the post-match media conference, both fighters sounded like people reading a script. Vegas is all about showmanship, glitter – and money, which the fighters, the promoters, and the pay-per-view providers all made lots of. Vegas has been doing this type of show for years and it's good at it.
Gregory Boudreau, Halifax
..........................................
Zap! Bam! Walk on
Re It Is Time For Pedestrians To Stand Up For Their Rights (Aug. 26): I have long had the fantasy of being a pedestrian with superpowers. With the flick of my wrist, I deflate tires, bringing cars to a stumbling halt to allow for that old lady to make it to the other side. With diamond lasers from my eyes, I run a sharp, squealing cut through that Mercedes-Benz's paint job, so that car never ever again races around a corner and clips a pedestrian.
With the bat of an eye, I cut the power on the smartphone in time for the red sedan to see the girl with her arm out in the crosswalk, and stop. With mind control, I set fire to fast moving engines, and so ensure that every kid going to school makes it to class and back home alive.
In reality, I do what I can.
When the old man with a walker is taking time to cross, I cross with him, keeping eye contact with the truck driver who waits. And when an idiot in an SUV yells at me to hurry up, I roar back, "I do not walk for you!"
Concetta Principe, Toronto
..........................................
Me and her
Re Are You Smarter Than A Globe And Mail Editor? (Aug. 26): More and more these days, I notice people using the objective pronouns as subjects. For example, "Me and her went to a movie."
They probably wouldn't say, "Me went to a movie" or "Her went to a movie." But for some reason they think it's okay as long as they combine the two pronouns.
Ah, what the heck. Maybe me should just relax and roll with it.
Don Orloff, Winnipeg