“Insurer asks policy holders: Are you driving for Uber?” Wawanesa is asking the question directly, and won’t cover drivers who are charging for rides. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/12/26/insurer-asks-policy-holders-are-you-driving-for-uber.html I have for some time wondered why no one seems to be bringing up the problem of Uber-driver’s commercial insurance. It was my understanding that if you take passengers for a fee –in fact operating as a taxi –you had to have commercial insurance coverage; or your passengers, in the event of an accident, would not be covered, and you, as the driver/owner could be personally liable; or at a minimum; the insurance company could go after you for the compensation paid out to your “passengers”. Now it seems that Wawanesa has addressed this shady area by threatening to cancel or refuse insurance to anyone driving for Uber. This won’t let the foot-dragging City Council off the hook –they still have to address this problem to insure conformity with insurance requirements in this “wild west” activity by properly regulate, inspect and direct the free-for-all mess created by Uber; its willing participants, and their patrons. I don’t have a dog in this fight – I never take taxis; but I can see this for what it is: an unfair and shady practice detrimental to the fee-paying taxi-owners. Sigmund Roseth

Canadians reclaim their country from Stephen Harper: Siddiqui thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/22/canadians-reclaim-their-country-from-stephen-harper-siddiqui.html “Ideology doesn’t hobble most Canadians the way it does Americans. A liberal or a progressive conservative could vote for a Bill Davis, a Brian Mulroney or a Jean Chrétien. In 2011, I endorsed Jack Layton.” It appears that Haroon Siddiqui is back as a regular columnist. If so; welcome back. He was always one of my favourite columnists –for good and bad.  In today’s column I can find nothing to criticize. Like a Blue Jay; he hit the ball right into the park. His comment, quoted above, is right on the mark. We are different from most Americans –and from most other counties in our ability to tolerate and absorb different cultures and traditions –religious and social. We might not like it, but we “defend their right to be different” –to paraphrase a comment usually attributed to Voltaire. We seem to have avoided –largely –the polarization observed in the U.S. Probably, our style of governance has much to do with that. I too, voted for Layton. I also supported Mulcair in the beginning. I liked his style; and I was somewhat taken aback by some rather foolish statements and poor choices made by Trudeau in the early part of the race. e turned out to be a fast learner; though no doubt profiting from some rather serious N.D.P. mistakes; particularly in Quebec. There, the niqab was a real wedge issue; but rather than switching to the Harper; they –mostly –chose Trudeau as the alternative; voting strategically to oust the Conservative Napoleon wannabe. The saddest and almost maudlin moment was when he brought in the Ford mafia to help bailing his sinking ship. Politics don’t get more revoltingly bathetic than that. Ultimately, it matters little. Nero fiddled, but Rome didn’t burn. A new political day is born.

KATHY PORTER; Public Editor: Ljonny32@gmail.com, who are you really?. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2015/10/16/ljonny32gmailcom-who-are-you-really-public-editor.html “An embarrassing apology in the Star underscores the need for journalists to be skeptical when verifying identities of online sources”. Yes. Indeed. The Star has done it again. The last major faux pas was “My daughter's run-in with Ezra Levant at her first protest: Porter; The Star, July 6/15”; where a Star columnist Catherine Porter got caught on camera, and had to apologize; as did The Star; for a blatantly mendacious article that also was not properly vetted by the editors, who relied on the veracity of a known columnist. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/07/06/my-daughters-run-in-with-ezra-levant-at-her-first-protest-porter.html At the time, I wrote to you about this matter; but as usual; critical comments are ignored; no matter how factual and fair. Here it is again, for your edification and usual disregard: I don’t normally read Catherine Porter’s columns; and I only read this one out of curiosity after reading Ezra Levant’s letter in today’s Star. I am no fan of Ezra Levant –he is far to rightwing for my liking –but this time he got it right. His video interviewing some of the lesser intellects demonstrating, shone a light on the general hypocrisy of these part-time self-important phonies; though he seems to have managed to pick the most inarticulate and stupid participants. They surely do no good service to sincere environmentalists and their agenda. Catherine Porter and her daughter was but a small part of their video; and it appears that Ms. Porter thrust herself into the picture; manipulating and directing her poor daughter’s questions to Mr. Levant; and then, dishonestly, recasting it to suit her in her own agenda in her Star column. Involving her young daughter in such travesty does not reflect positively on Ms. Porter. She is lucky that Mr. Levant has not chosen to sue her for libel in civil court. I must give credit to The Star for giving Mr. Levant the lead letter in today’s Letters section; and for making a notation on your web page version of her column about Mr. Levant’s explanatory letter ( Note – July 8, 2015: See Ezra Levant’s response to this column, “Ezra Levant begs to differ.” ). I would expect no less from my favourite newspaper. There are many excellent freelance reporters available for The Star’s reader’s benefit. Ms. Porter is not one of them. Sigmund Roseth I don’t know if it is the dire straits of newspapers in our digital economy that causes a fine publication like the Star to take shortcuts in their editing process; but editing for facts is important, even online. I expect better from my Star. Sigmund Roseth

NAFTA; THE TPP AND THE GST: A Conservative legacy. Eventually; political leaders wear out their welcome; whether by accumulation or errors and missteps; bad judgments and controversies; often abetted by external factors outside their direct control. This is true for our present Prime Minister; who seems to have accumulated his shares of missteps and bad judgments –his Senate appointments and subsequent scandal is perhaps the worst of the issues hurting his stature and reputation. Yet; whatever the final outcome; he might go out with at least one victory to his name –the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Time will tell. There is never a pure gain on any such agreements; there are winners and losers in the trade-offs that must be made; or there would be no agreements possible. This was true with Mulroney’s NAFTA as well. Staying out of the accords would leave us vulnerable in an increasing global economy; subject to a slower growing economy at best and economic balkanization at worst. Though John Chretien vowed to cancel it; he did no such thing; nor did he keep his promise to cancel the GST. Reality looks different when in office; and blatant lies to the voters is expected; even accepted; as in the case of Harper’s solid promise not to abolish Income Trusts; taking retirement funds from seniors and retirees; yours truly one of many. He is making promises again; but I am not “banking” on them a second time. The GST, the other legacy of the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives, based on the European VAT, or value added tax; was also a mostly positive change. It made it easier for manufacturers to export; and shifted the cost to the end user –the consumer. The negative part of the GST is, of course, that it is a “regressive” tax; falling disproportionally on the lower income earner –though here it exempts food basics purchased for home cooking. It is ironic, that socialistic countries like Norway have an even higher taxation rate –some 25 percent on most goods; though somewhat less on food –11% last I heard. There are compensating income tax reductions for lower income families, as well as a number of subsidies available; yet it flies in the face of socialist dogma. Another drawback; quite salient in Norway; is the hidden economy it creates –or “under-the-table” as we often term it; which is an estimated 10-15% of the total economy; depending on whom you ask. It is also quite prevalent here, especially amongst small entrepreneurs such as handymen and even larger home improvement firms. On the positive side –with the foregoing exceptions –the GST is harder to avoid than income taxes. On balance; keeping the GST below 10% is probably advisable and on balance, positive. International trade agreements are a necessary evil. It keeps us in a game we cannot afford to sit out; but no doubt; there are major downsides. The flight of production to lower income courtiers like Mexico is well documented and still underway. One could take a charitable view of it and think of it as “foreign aid”; but unfortunately; the cost of this jobs transfer is borne by native Canadian labourers and semi-skilled workers whose jobs are gone overseas. The best that one can hope for is that our governments will assist and accommodate the losers in this economic race; spreading the cost fairly among all citizens. That; however, is not, and never truly was on the Conservative agenda; nor was it ever present in the Conservative DNA

A LETTER TO TOM MULCAIR. Dear Thomas; You don’t need my advice; and I am not going to give you one. I don’t know if I represent the average Canadian; if there is such a bird; but I do have some personal comments, for whatever its worth. First, about me: I do have a huge NDP sign on my front lawn; and also on my rental house here in Mississauga. Michelle Bilek is your candidate in my riding. I am NOT a NDP member; nor was I ever. The reason I have contributed (minimally) to your campaign is two-fold: I hate Harper (personally; going back to the Income Trust debacle and his blatant lies; which cost me a huge amount of retirement money; and less about the Conservative platform) and distrusted the Liberals; who, after two candidate mistakes in a row chose a name-brand in desperation. Justin Trudeau made some strange comments and made some very stupid candidate choices; so the NDP became my default position (yet, it seems that Justin Trudeau is growing up). Furthermore; I was and I am very impressed by you personally; by your professionalism and mature demanour; though that cannot be said about some of your candidates. Your Quebec contingent is rather shallow; as is many of your Ontario candidates. In particular, I attended a meeting with Michelle Bilek and some of her followers. I did not vote for you last time, because I was not impressed by her then, and I’m even less so now; having met her in person. She is an incredibly shallow and strange personality. In my brief conversation with her, she had absolutely nothing intelligent or informative to say. Some of her followers were also rather peculiar. It made me uneasy and somewhat concerned. For example; one hugely fat woman sat and munched on some food and occasionally grunted out some incoherent comment. Be that as it may; I am going to leave the two signs on my lawns (even though my renters didn’t like it); though I think my vote is wasted here; and that’s all right; because I would not want Ms. Bilek to represent me in Parliament. I have a couple of bones to pick with your platform though: 1. The “no deficit” stance; in the face of costly promises. I think you are walking on a tightrope there –definitely not on water. 2. Your niqab stance is most troubling, and I think you have unnecessarily alienated a large part of your Quebec base; which you need to win. I am also concerned about your general immigration position; and I say that as a onetime immigrant myself. These are, no doubt, wedge issues and somewhat trivial; but you have let Harper use it as a cudgel; playing to the vacillating voter who, like me, despise the niqab and what it stands for. I will take the liberty of attaching my letter to The Toronto Star on this subject. 3. Your statement about cancelling the TPP before even having read it borders on the absurd; and is going to hurt you. I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like you could agree to take this position. It must be heavy elbowing from your union support that caused you to take such a stance. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/07/can-stephen-harper-stoop-any-lower-on-the-niqab-editorial.html The Star spares no effort in attacking the Conservatives; having brought back the Islamist Haroon Siddiqui expressly to sling his arrows; even a cameo performance by your publisher John Cruickshank; backed up by today’s “editorial” (with which, of course, he had no involvement). I am not a Conservative, nor a “Harper-fan”; but your totally one-sided anti-Harper diatribes irk my sense of fair play. While The Star occasionally let a critical letter pass muster; when it comes to a direct criticism of your editorial policy –forget it. Nevertheless; I will vent my frustration with your singularly one-sided leftist political stance. Today; you have plastered he niqab-wearing woman across your front page and atop Mr. Cruickshank’s missive. While I agree that this has become a ridiculous election issue and a wedge item for the Conservatives (and a huge Quebec setback for the NDP); I do think you are missing a major point here –even partially acknowledged in your editorial; viz.: “Let’s be clear: A lot of Canadians are uncomfortable with the veil. Some see it as oppressive to women. Others see it as a sign of alienation from the wider culture. Some even take it as a positive rejection of our society”. Yes; indeed, and I am one of those scoundrels. Let me make one thing clear: I have absolutely no problem with Sikh turbans; Jewish skullcaps; or any other head coverings, including the hijab. What I object to is the blatant temerity of women who hide their faces behind a veil, and do so amongst non-Muslims in the public sphere. To do so is an insult to our society and individuals. It is an inherited instinct to recoil from covered faces; harking back to our human beginnings, when reading facial expressions could define friend or foe and life or death. You cannot wipe out thousands of years of evolution in one swipe. I also agree we should prohibit the niqab in the public service and allow the prohibition of it in business, for the same reason. I feel sorry for store check-out clerks who have to deal with a walking, talking sack from which only two eyes are peering out. The niqab is, at its worst, inimical; at least, a distraction; even potentially a danger to the public safety and peace. How would you like to sit across from a person with the head covered; peering at you from under a black cloth? If you want a civil uproar; you might just get it. You are not allowed to prance naked down the street or work in the nude; but you are free to do so in the privacy of your home. Ditto for wearing the niqab. I don’t expect The Star to have the courage or fairness to print this. But I do think you will read it. Perhaps some of it will sink in –for John Cruickshank. ---Sigmund Roseth I wish you well in the campaign; and I am somewhat comforted by the thought that whether you come first of second; Harper will be third; and you and Trudeau can work out a reasonable and sensible cooperative arrangement to put this country on the road to recovery from the Harper years. Yours truly, Sigmund Roseth

Can Stephen Harper stoop any lower on the niqab?: Editorial http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/07/can-stephen-harper-stoop-any-lower-on-the-niqab-editorial.html The Star spares no effort in attacking the Conservatives; having brought back the Islamist Haroon Siddiqui expressly to sling his arrows; even a cameo performance by your publisher John Cruickshank; backed up by today’s “editorial” (with which, of course, he had no involvement). I am not a Conservative, nor a “Harper-fan”; but your totally one-sided anti-Harper diatribes irk my sense of fair play. While The Star occasionally let a critical letter pass muster; when it comes to a direct criticism of your editorial policy –forget it. Nevertheless; I will vent my frustration with your singularly one-sided leftist political stance. Today; you have plastered he niqab-wearing woman across your front page and atop Mr. Cruickshank’s missive. While I agree that this has become a ridiculous election issue and a wedge item for the Conservatives (and a huge Quebec setback for the NDP); I do think you are missing a major point here –even partially acknowledged in your editorial; viz.: “Let’s be clear: A lot of Canadians are uncomfortable with the veil. Some see it as oppressive to women. Others see it as a sign of alienation from the wider culture. Some even take it as a positive rejection of our society”. Yes; indeed, and I am one of those scoundrels. Let me make one thing clear: I have absolutely no problem with Sikh turbans; Jewish skullcaps; or any other head coverings, including the hijab. What I object to is the blatant temerity of women who hide their faces behind a veil, and do so amongst non-Muslims in the public sphere. To do so is an insult to our society and individuals. It is an inherited instinct to recoil from covered faces; harking back to our human beginnings, when reading facial expressions could define friend or foe and life or death. You cannot wipe out thousands of years of evolution in one swipe. I also agree we should prohibit the niqab in the public service and allow the prohibition of it in business, for the same reason. I feel sorry for store check-out clerks who have to deal with a walking, talking sack from which only two eyes peering out. The niqab is, at its worst, inimical; at least, a distraction; even potentially a danger to the public safety and peace. How would you like to sit across from a person with the head covered; peering at you from under a black cloth? If you want a civil uproar; you might just get it. You are not allowed to prance naked down the street or work in the nude; but you are free to do so in the privacy of your home. Ditto for wearing the niqab. I don’t expect The Star to have the courage or fairness to print this. But I do think you will read it. Perhaps some of it will sink in –for John Cruickshank. Sigmund Roseth

It’s washing our hands of our terrorists’: The case for and against revoking a Canadian’s citizenship http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/its-washing-our-hands-of-our-terrorists-the-case-for-and-against-revoking-canadian-citizenship. I enjoyed reading the balanced and informative column by your Joseph Brean about the citizenship issue; and the pros and cons for revoking a citizenship of a criminal and/or terrorist. As a onetime immigrant myself; I do think I have some insight into the issue –or at least an opinion. First I must say I think the 1977 legalization of dual citizenship was a mistake. To me it is like hedging your bets –maybe Canadian; maybe not. You cannot have dual and equal loyalties –one is going to take precedence. It does not preclude honouring your origins and culture; but if your “old country” is so great; what are you doing here? Too many people are using Canada as a country of convenience –and for security; should they get into trouble “back home.” Then; of course, there will be great lamenting and calls on our government to bail them out of their miseries –which has happened on more than one occasion. Several countries do not allow dual citizenship –my birth country Norway does not. Unless I gave up my Canadian citizenship; I would be treated as any other “foreigner” if I wanted to return on a long-term basis; for work or otherwise. There is a movement afoot by Norwegian expatriates to allow duality. Some have been here for most of their adult lives, earned their living here and had all the benefit this country offers; except the ability to vote. Yet; they cling to the Norwegian citizenship as if it were gold; not seeing the inconsistency of their position. As a not “old stock” Canadian; I resent any criticism of this country by immigrants that have not seen fit to take Canadian citizenship. As to sending a dual citizen terrorist back to their other country; I do think that should be reserved for someone not borne here. Not allowing dual citizenship would at once rectify this problem, since by international agreement; no one can be deprived of a nationality and be without a country. The Old Norse had an excellent system for getting rid of unwanted killers; they sent them in permanent exile abroad to a special country to avoid continuing blood feuds from the relatives of the victim. That country is Iceland (no I don’t mean that Iceland is full of killers). Later, the British used Australia for somewhat similar reasons. Yes; I could always return by giving up my Canadian citizenship –when Hell freezes over.

On drinking and driving, ‘society has not come far enough’ – Judith Timson; The Star. http://www.thestar.com/life/2015/09/30/on-drinking-and-driving-society-has-not-come-far-enough.html “Marco Muzzo, 29, grandson of a billionaire and member of a construction clan whose proud business motto is “Do Good Work,” faces 18 charges in their deaths, including four counts of impaired driving causing death. The maximum penalty for this is life imprisonment” It is easy to condemn this spoiled “playboy”; and condemned he surely will be both in public opinion and severely by the courts. Not only has he caused irreparable harm to the victim’s family; but also to his own. He has ruined his own life and that of his fiancée. Surely, if he has a shred of conscience; he will regret this day for the rest of his miserable life. Having said this; I cannot help but feeling some kind of déjà vu; or in the words attributed to John Bradford (1510–1555) “There but for the grace of God go I”. I am old enough to remember when seat belts were optional and an extra charge (and so were armrests on basic models). I was an early adapter, and it saved my skin when I lost control on icy patch on highway 400 in the mid-sixties. In those days; driving and drinking was commonplace. We would go the pub and drive home; and there were an implicit agreement that the cops would not sit outside the pub’s parking lot to snare you. Later, in business; I would more than once attend business functions having more than one drink; and subsequently driving home. I don’t consider myself exceptionally stupid or careless; but it took an impaired driving charge in the seventies to give me a wake-up call. We all think we are –in the words of Garrison Keillor about the children at Lake Wobegon –“above average”; and this surely applies to our driving skills. Impaired driving today is even more dangerous; as traffic density is much greater on both highways and city streets. Rather than expect us to all to become teetotallers; let’s adopt the technology that require a breath analysis before a car will start. Sigmund Roseth

Stephen Harper waging phony jihad on the niqab: Siddiqui – The Star. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/09/23/stephen-harper-waging-phony-jihad-on-the-niqab-siddiqui.html I know that I am banging my head against a brick wall when I take up the cudgel against your Muslim apologist Haroon Siddiqui; whom I see you have brought back from retirement to browbeat Stephen Harper and the Conservatives –as if they need any help in that department. Mr. Siddiqui often had sensible arguments in his former station as your regular columnist and management employee; but it seems to me that as a “free-lancer” he is now showing his true colours. He is repeating the argument in favour of the silly woman, Zunera Ishaq; who, having escaped from her repressive homeland by the convenience of marriage to a Canadian; now, after a mere three years, is demanding her “rights” even as she is applying for citizenship. I have in the past voiced my contempt for this absurd affront to “old stock” Canadians, and if fact a vast majority of Canadians; including moderate Muslims and other immigrants like myself. On the immigration policy; including the recent hullabaloo regarding Syrian “refugees”; the Conservatives have a solid majority of support; and the opposition parties –one whom I support –have recently taken a beating in the polls. Thanks to the opposition, fishing for support amongst the various diasporas; Harper has now taken the lead due to the concerns of a large group of “fence sitters” and the much maligned “old stock” Canadians. This single issue is likely to sway enough voters to give Harper another term –or allow him to walk into the sunset with his head held high– Pierre Trudeau style. For this I blame people like Siddiqui and media like the Star; whose blind contempt for anything Conservative – and conservative –have open the door for the Left to turn Right. Sigmund Roseth Mississauga, ON (905) 820-6766 With just 24 days until the election, the federal Conservatives have 35.4 per cent support across the country, according to an Ekos poll conducted for La Presse newspaper.

With just 24 days until the election, the federal Conservatives have 35.4 per cent support across the country, according to an Ekos poll conducted for La Presse newspaper.

Hunger in Toronto is a tale of two cities –Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/21/hunger-in-toronto-is-a-tale-of-two-cities.html During over fifty years as a regular Star reader; I have never ceased to be amused at some of the woeful stories propagated by your paper. I see now that you even have a “Social Justice Reporter” in the person of Laurie Monsebraaten. The Star has a long and honourable history of muckraking; and ferreting out rogues and political rascals ( should I mention Rob Ford?). However; when you dredge up individual hard-luck stories; you sometimes go overboard in your sympathies; without vetting the stories properly before printing. First; just a personal comment: In the early sixties; I was a young immigrant in Toronto; without an extended family or other social support system; struggling to survive. There was a small café around Gerrard & Oakwood that sold “all you can eat” breakfast for 50 cents; on which I survived for quite some time. There were no “foodbank” in those days; and even if there were; I wouldn’t even know how to spell it. I could have returned to the “old country”; my parents would surely have sent me the fare; but I was determined to stay; even if it killed me. I did; and it didn’t. I don’t know the full story of Ashley-Victoria Martineau; but it does appear she is “old stock” Canadian with the available opportunities this country can afford. She also has a “partner”; who –unsurprisingly – is also disabled and on the public dole. Lest I sound too cynical and uncaring; let l me give just a few recent examples –amongst many –of my experience with people on disability “pensions”. I rent out a two-bedroom apartment; and it attracts not the upper crust of society; which I accept with proper vetting. I get some strange potential renters: once a young couple came; both on “disability” support; driving a large; fairly new pickup truck with three huge dogs in the back. They both smoked like chimneys. They were being evicted from a basement apartment because of the dogs. No; I didn’t accept them. However; I did accept a middle-aged couple who seemed nice; and checked out fairly well; though the lady was on “disability pension”; and the man was “partially disabled” and drove a delivery van pat time; until he decided it was too much and went on full time “disability.” The woman was not in any way handicapped that I could see; she got around fine; but if I knocked on the door unannounced; she would take a long time to get to the door; and I could hear shuffling and grunting; until the door opened and she was on her crutches! They both drank like fish and there were empty beer bottles stacked to the roof. However; she kept the apartment fairly clean and neat; and their welfare cheque never bounced, so I felt it was not my business; though I do resent this abuse of our generous welfare system. At least these people didn’t wreck the place; which another young couple did and then left when the welfare cheque was eventually discontinued. I realize that any welfare system is open to abuse; and the cost of closer monitoring would likely exceed the cost of the money wasted. It could also adversely affect people truly in need. I do think; however; that the The Star should look behind their door before splashing such lugubrious stories on your esteemed pages. It’s an affront to the really disadvantaged and suffering poor. Sigmund Roseth Mississauga, ON (905) 820-6766

Taking stock of ‘old stock Canadians’: Stephen Harper called a ‘racist’ after remark during debate. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/taking-stock-of-old-stock-canadians-stephen-harper-called-a-racist-after-remark-during-debate “Harper isn’t the first politician to slip “old stock” into a public comment, although it’s almost always been in reference to Quebecers”. While I am in no way a “Harperite”; I find it both galling and absurd to equate this term with any kind of racism or even discrimination. Have we –Canadians –become so sensitive politically correct and supersensitive that we find a slight in every innocuous –though partisan –comment; using it as a political cudgel? You have come a long way; Canada; since the days of yore when I was an immigrant. Though European and white; I faced many actions and comments that could have been interpreted as “discriminatory” by today’s standards. However; I always assumed I was not here to change the country, but to adapt or go back home. There were certainly favouritism to “old country” folks –the British in particular – who could become citizens after one year, while we second-class people had to wait five years; and were favoured in many jobs –especially government positions. Today you would call it “discrimination”; and I am happy that those days are past; but I never felt oppressed. Today; most immigrants are of Asian and Middle-Eastern origin; and most of them are hard working and honest people who want to become good Canadians. A minority; for religious and tribal-social reasons; want to change the society which they so ardently sought to join. Canadians of yore –yes “old stock” Canadians; fought hard and valiantly to make a fair and equal society. It isn’t done overnight, but we have come a long way. Canada is the most welcoming and open country on earth. Let’s not fall prey to naysayers and hypercorrect fanatics. There is room for all opinions, as long as they don’t affect others personal welfare. Such small issues as removing your niqab for the swearing-in of the citizenship you so ardently sought should not become a major issue worthy of the Supreme Court. Sigmund Roseth

Canada bashing is misplaced—LETTERS; TORONTO STAR “Mr. Kurdi is precisely the kind of refugee that Canada does not need: the ones who make “demands,” criticize everything and think that the world owes them a living”. ---Letter writer Claude Gannon. “It would have been ludicrous for me to somehow blame Canada for any untoward event occurring to me or my family, if Canada had denied my immigration application. Every sovereign country, based on its economic and social conditions, has a right to decide who it will admit”. --- Letter writer Rajeev Chopra These two –diverse –letter writers are saying exactly what I have tried to say –in letters –to The Star in the past; but been ignored. Kudos to you, for printing their letters. I am incensed at the blatant temerity and arrogance of this man, Kurdi; who was, probably; partly the author of his own misfortune; but now has the gall to blame Canada; and at the obsequiousness of the main media for going along with him. There are multitudes of people with personal stories and reasons for escaping their dysfunctional homeland –some more empathically justified than others; and as such should be individually vetted before allowing into Canada. In this matter, I am in total accord with the Government’s current position on this issue; and immigration in general. I say this, not as a rightwing radical; but as a former immigrant myself. In those days of yore when I immigrated; things were different; and I accept that today we are more fair and compassionate. Yet, it seems to me, in order to right the ship; we have tipped excessively to the other side and in peril of sinking. Allow me to give a personal example: In 1960 I arrived on this shores as a (very) young man. I was given an address to an “Immigration Office” who I was told would assist me in seeking work. In a small office there was a man sitting at a desk, with his feet on the desktop and reading the newspaper. After haltingly –my English was very limited –telling him I was looking for work; he handed me the newspaper, showing me the “Help Wanted” column. “There”, he said helpfully; “just look in those columns; you will find a job there”. That was the extent of my “immigrant assistance” experience. I should, of course, have gone to the “Human Rights Commission”; and sued the Immigration Officer for dereliction of duties. Oh; wait; there was no such thing then. It was “swim or sink” for “DP”s (– “Displaced Persons” –as I was often incorrectly called). I swam; and I did not sink. I have never considered myself “hard done by” here; nor expected Canada to adjust to my “habits”; mores nor my “old country” culture. Once; in a university discussion group; I listened to a woman from the West Indies complaining about discrimination here. Being a staunch diplomat; I asked her how she got here form there; and she answered “by airplane, of course.” “Well”; I said; “that plane also flies the other way”. I was given a stern lecture in diplomacy by the group tutor; but my opinion is still the same.

“HUGARY GETS THOUGH, E.U. BUCKLES IN THE WAVE OF MIGRANTS.” "Hungary has become a major bottleneck and entry point into the European Union for migrants, many of them war refugees from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. Prime Minister Viktor Orban, however, has insisted that most arriving are economic migrants seeking a better life, not war refugees entitled to protection". –Associated Press. There is no doubt many refugees; including women and children, have taken this perilous journey to escape the violence and chaos in their own country. They are accompanying husbands and other family members in disorganized; helter-skelter fashion. One has to question the wisdom of parents bringing young children on this perilous journey; when they clearly are not in mortal danger. Running away from civil strife this does not necessarily make them “refugees” in the true sense of the word. Most of them are economic migrants; many from well off families; even university students. The father of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, whose death pulled on the heartstrings of us all; had an active part in operating the boat that capsized; and was possibly a member of the smuggling group. He was certainly not escaping certain death or even in true peril; he wanted to emigrate to Germany; or Canada, where his sister lives. It is illuminating that in the many photos of the migrants; 90% of them are young men; well-fed and well dressed; and with iphones. Many speak English and appear educated and relatively sophisticated. They are certainly not the European refuges of yore. Then; through wars and internecine strife; Europe duked it out between themselves; and through these conflicts eventually cleaned their own houses. Today; in the Middle East; most of the countries are lead by despots and warring religious and political factions –much like Europe a few hundred years ago. But; rather than staying and attempt a reformation at home; the Middle-Eastern “refugees” escape to Europe for a better life –at least economically. It is invasion by stealth. Later; they might try to change Europe to fit their religious beliefs. Some –though not all. Germany; through national guilt and atonement for the horrors of the last two world wars; are accepting the lion share of these masses; but even for a large and rich country like Germany; there is a limit of its ability to absorb such huge numbers of people. The stress of Muslim immigration in basically mono-cultural Europe is all ready showing; even in well-meaning; “politically correct” countries like Sweden; and to a lesser extent, Denmark and Norway. A mass invasion of Middle-Eastern refuges strains the very social fabric of such small countries. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” ---Emma Lazarus The U.S., Canada and to a lesser degree; Australia; have a history of accepting immigrants; if not actually refugees. In fact; these countries were settled by immigrants of one kind or another. But even here; there was a limit of acceptance; as was shown in the Chinese Exclusion Act; and even after WW ll when Jewish refugees arriving by sea were turned back. I am not for a moment suggesting that we do not accept some of these “refugees”; or even economic migrants. They might well turn out to be productive and law abiding citizens. But; let us not take them in “wholesale” without proper vetting. If we do; we will live to regret it; but by then it will be too late.

Syrian refugee crisis exposes Harper's ideological choices –Haroon Siddiqui. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/09/09/syrian-refugee-crisis-exposes-harpers-ideological-choices.html I was surprised to see Mr. Siddiqui back with a column in today’s Star; and I must admit I agree with much of his assertions; yet I do have few disagreements and concerns. We have all experienced the tug of emotion and sadness witnessing the body of little Alan Kurdi. Yet; he is but one example. Mr. Siddiqui refers to the “Canadian tradition of bringing old warring factions together.” Really? There was no concerted and determined effort of the Canadian government to bring warring factions of Irish and Scottish here to continue their conflict. It was a side-effect of an open immigration policy. Ditto for Indian/Pakistani factions; and even more so; the Sikh feud with India; which culminated in the death of over three hundred innocent Indian civilians in the Air-India disaster. When you are allowing large numbers of people of any nationality, race or creed to enter without proper vetting and controls you are asking for trouble. I am not saying that Harper is right on this issue; he could have set in motion a system of controls that would allow a larger number of refugees to enter. The present backlog is also due to Conservative past reluctance on the immigration and refugee file. Yet; a helter-skelter intake of un-vetted people is dangerous. As well as the many women and children; there is a majority of young men who could become a fifth column in Canada. Whether they are pro-Assad fighters or part of the opposition rebels; they are still potentially violent young men. Be careful what you wish for… Mr. Siddiqui displays his Pakistan/India and Muslim/Hindu bias when he writes about “Hindu bigots who want to continue their ancestral animosity towards Muslim”. This; Mr. Siddiqui, is patent nonsense and an insult to Indians both here and in India. You might benefit from a bit of unbiased history teaching on this subject, and I highly recommend –for your edification – a recent book on the subject of the Partition in 1947/48, by Nisid Hajari: “MIDNIGHT FURIES”(Hughton Mifflin Harcourt 2015). Murder and mayhem was perpetrated on both sides –Hindus and Muslims with Sikhs bringing up the rear. As far as I can determine; the book is unbiased and well documented. Read it, and we could have a more enlightened discussion on this issue. Ethnic hatred is nothing to be taken lightly; be it domestic or imported. This is where I say: “I have many Muslim friends; Sikh friends and Hindu friends”. Hey; I even have some Christian ones. But; it does appear that at this time; Islam is in a upheaval; comparable to Christian conflicts five or six hundred years ago; with the Sunni/Wahabi /Shia duking it out as did the Catholic/Protestant factions of yore. Religious strife is tribalism writ large. Welcome to the human race. I am no Harperite; even Conservative; but I do think it is important to try to be fair and open-minded and receptive to other ideas on all subjects; it being politics or religion. Alas; on the latter; Mr. Siddiqui is found wanting. Sigmund Roseth

ON FORGIVING https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=ejRCmYFzgoI&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Du0kYf9KG9QA%26feature%3Dshare Forgiving –such an all-encompassing word; full of meaning for the “forgiver”; and yet; rather meaningless. I was listening to one of my favourite recordings of Willy Nelson –“Forgiving You Was Easy”; when I got thinking about the real meaning of forgiving; and who benefits; if anyone –of this “gift”. We hear this word often bandied about; sometimes casually, sometimes as a request; like the quintessential Canadian “sorry”; or the more formal “forgive me.” On the other side of this verbal chasm is the person who has lost someone to a murderous villain; but then is filmed as saying “I forgive him” when the perpetrator is sentenced –in some cases to die. Who is the beneficiary of this gratuitous forgiveness? Not likely the “forgiven” offender. No; if there is one; it is the “forgiver” who is struggling to adjust to the terrible loss caused by the perpetrator. “Forgiveness” in this sense; then; is more like deciding to not let the memory of the offence define ones future life; which I presume; is a worthwhile goal in itself, though it does not wipe the slate clean; nor expurgate it from memory and emotions. Forgiveness has been a major tenet of the Christian religion; from the banality of the Catholic priest in the confession booth forgiving all and sundry so they can go and sin some more; to the repenter asking God directly, through prayer, for forgiveness for his or hers transgressions; thus eliminating the stressful task of facing up to the offence and the offended. God will take care of that. No matter how derelict or deranged is your life; God will look after you if you only ask –if not in this life; then afterwards. All you have to do is believe. It might be useful to remove the word “forgive” from ones vocabulary all together; and replace it with “responsibility” for the aggressor, and “peace” for the wounded. And while we are at it; let’s eliminate all religion. It would go a long way towards “Peace on Earth.” But I am not holding my breath.

SLIPPING AWAY – Shannon Proudfoot; Maclean’s Sept.14/15. http://site.macleans.ca/longform/alzheimers/index.html I was deeply touched by this personal story about the horrible disease of Alzheimer. Many of us are touched, at least indirectly, by this horrible affliction; and nothing brings the matter alive like a personal story well told; as Ms. Proudfoot has done here. I saw a relative deteriorate over two years to where she did not recognize her own children; and I have watched an acquaintance of mine slowly losing his faculties over a two-year period. One is left feeling helpless and sad watching someone’s slow but steady march into oblivion. We shudder to think; “what if this should happen to me?” It is a horrible thing to contemplate. Yet; while there is no light at the end of the Alzheimer tunnel; I recall watching a T.V. program abut Glenn Campbell’s struggle with Alzheimer; and his incredible will to still perform his music. It seems that music and musical ability is the last faculty to decline. A friend of mine is a support worker at a nursing home with many Alzheimer patients. When she plays old songs for them, they quicken and sing along. Ms. Proudfoot explains that while assisted suicide for people suffering intolerably with a fatal decease there are options in some European countries (and some States), and will likely become legal in Canada also; it does not resolve the problem of people with dementia who are not able to make a rational decision for themselves. At what point would one’s life not be worth living? This is an existential question that has no easy answer. Thanks to Maclean’s for another profound and insightful article. Keep it up. Sigmund Roseth

A REVIEW AND COMMENTARY ON “ANONYMUS SOLDIERS –The Struggle for Israel, 1917 – 1947”. Bruce Hoffman; Alfred A. Knopf 2015. Mr. Hoffman; director of the Centre for Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, has written a detailed, thoroughly researched book on the Jewish insurrection and terrorism activity against the British during their Palestinian Mandate. The book is focusing on the crucial period of 1917-1947, leading to the British giving up the Mandate and handing it over to the United Nations; thus preparing Palestine for a Jewish State; but not for an Arab/Israeli peace. The Arabs never accepted partition as a solution then; and still don’t. They wanted “all or nothing”; nothing is what they eventually got. Mr. Hoffman covers much of the same territory as did Benny Morris in his 1999 tome “Righteous Victims” (Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881 – 2001); but only the last ten years of the British Mandate; and in more detail. While he also covers the Arab Rebellion (1936-39); his main focus is the British-Jewish conflict. Mr. Hoffman has written an unbiased and fair history of the British-Zionist conflict during that period of the Mandate; culminating in the British giving it up to the U.N. His details the horrendous attacks and murders committed by the various Jewish organizations; mostly the Stern Gang (Abraham Stern, founder of Irgun killed in 1942); the Irgun and Lehi; and the passive support and even collusion of the Jewish Agency and general Jewish population. While the King David Hotel bombing, causing the death of 91 innocent victims is perhaps the most remembered incident; many other assassinations and murders occurred; culminating in the murder of two British soldiers; Martin and Paice, in retaliation for the execution of three convicted assassins, Habib, Nakar and Weiss. The killing of Martin and Paice was particularly gruesome, with the two hanged from a tree, feet barely off the ground, and the bodies bobby-trapped and exploded when the Royal Engineers attempted to cut them down. The ironic thing here is that Meacham Begin, Irgun’s leader; had approved the kidnapping and killing of the two soldiers; and yet, rather than being convicted hand executed for his crimes, he went on to serve in the future Israeli Knesset in opposition, eventually become Israeli Prime Minister. Those killings caused an outcry in Britain; and the British Parliament realized that the time had come to abandon this impossible situation in which they found themselves. Even Churchill; a staunch defender of the Jews; found himself calling for an end to the Mandate. It is interesting to note that the development of organized terrorism and assassinations was a Zionist development; used effectively against the British and later against the Arabs. One could be tempted to suggest or intimate that the Palestinians learned their terrorism methods on the Zionists knees; and they were quick learners. Could it be that the current conflict there is a continuation of that earlier battle; and this is Israel’s Nemesis? Just askin’. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Jews did not have reason to fight; and the British made many mistakes; not adhering to the original Balfour Declaration (Arthur Balfour) of November 2, 1917; promising to facilitate “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” and bungling the management of the Palestinian conflict both with Arabs and Jews. Yet the British were in a “no win” situation; being unable to please neither Arabs nor Jews while trying to appear unbiased and fair. While the problem existed prior to WWll; it was as acerbated by the desperate situation of the thousands of displaced survivors of the Holocaust in Germany and other European countries hoping to immigrate to Israel. Britain’s allocation of 1500 people a month, were far from enough to fill the need; and the substantial illegal immigration caused another huge problem for the British and the Palestine Authority. The ideal solution –in my mind –would have been for the United Nations to have agreed to a partition of Palestine with forced relocation of Arabs AND Jews to separate areas; with sensible and rational borders; instead with the hodge-podge with which they ended up. Partition might have been stressful and problematic initially; but would have been anodyne in the long term. Peace between Palestinian Arabs and Jews was not what the Arab world wanted, however; and history shows that the adjoining Arab states were very reluctant to assist their brethren with resettlement or land; but were more than happy to stir the pot; using Palestine as a buffer zone; while continuing to poke the hornet nest; all but a few refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Bruce Hoffman’s book gives an unbiased overview of the recalcitrant and incorrigible nature of this conflict; which, still today, resists any attempt at a fair solution for either side.