Defends farmer
To the Editor:
Your story of June 13 about the acquittal of Saskatchewan farmer Bruce Croal was contradictory and raises many questions.
The contradiction starts in the headline “Farmer acquitted after shooting at thieves.” While announcing his acquittal the second part says in effect he was guilty. The verdicts were “not guilty of assault with a weapon and carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace.” Yet the story also does it again with “acquitted of charges … after he fired shots at four young men.”
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
Not until paragraph five is there a description of events which mesh with the verdict: “he shot at a vehicle”and “one shot hit the left rear tire, another shot hit the spoiler on the back of the car.”
Thus the evidence of the results and of the close range at which the shots were taken supported Mr. Croal’s action. Clearly, the jury, which in a jury trial is the judge of the facts, believed his action to be a reasonable use of necessary force to effect a citizen’s arrest as provided by law.
The attempt to imply a use of lethal force by various media is contrary to the facts. This case is markedly different than that of 88-year-old farmer Paul Zary who used lethal force in self-defence of his life when confronted by three violent robbers who had broken into his home.
Consider the likely police high-speed car case scenario which Mr. Croal prevented by his citizen’s arrest. How much danger would that involve for the thieves or innocent people who happened to be on the road at that time?
As a result of being charged, Mr. Croal faced trial on two serious indictable offences, suffered the stress of waiting many months for the trial to begin and is now left with a hefty legal bill. The RCMP and Crown Prosecutor’s office have treated him much worse than the thieves. I suggest Mr. Croal’s R.M. council pay half of his remaining legal bill out of their local RCMP’s policing budget. Then they should send the other half to the Attorney General’s office.
Perhaps next time they will remember whose rights they are supposed to be protecting and who pays their salary.
– Larry James Fillo,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Farmers pay
To the Editor:
Re Goodale wheat exporting decision may cause confusion: I would like to point out to Mr. Goodale it’s not the only point that may cause confusion.
How about the farmers paying demurrage on ships sitting at port waiting to be loaded but labor will not load grain because they are protesting or on strike?
Which court or judge gave the government orders to send the demurrage bill to farmers? Why should we be paying it if I withhold grain from the Wheat Board or export it myself because I am protesting low prices for my own grain?
How or in what way does Mr. Goodale think that this is different than labor refusing to load my grain?
Why should we be sent the bill for demurrage when it was not our protest?
Why should our protest or strike be considered different in court than that of labor loading our grain?
In some cases even sales were lost and resulted in lower price for grain. I want this confusion cleared up.
It must be nice to pack a suitcase from a law office and go farming to Ottawa.
– John Pokorney,
Tilley, Alta.
Co-op confusion
To the Editor:
Farmers to learn from miners? An article by John Peters, Opinion section, Western Producer, June 13, is a questionable collection of ideologies.
Trying to unravel what Mr. Peters is trying to express in a confusing mix of human life styles, commercial enterprise preference, and what he considers as the best for Western Canadian grain producers is a formidable task.
Comparing Bolivian tin miners to Bolivian soybean producers and extending this confusing description to private enterprise as conducted in Bolivia to the grain producers of western Canada, all of this based on the articles he has read in some farm papers, forces the question:
Does Mr. Peters really understand the terminology he uses in his article?
As the past Director of the School of Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan, surely Mr. Peters must know.
Co-operation is the willingness and ability to work well with others. A co-operative is an enterprise owned and operated for the benefit of those using the service.
Unlike the above, the Canadian Wheat Board was created as an act of the Canadian parliament established in 1935 as an agency to provide wheat farmers a voluntary alternative marketing agency.
On Sept. 27, 1943, over 50 years ago, by an order in council the CWB was affirmed as part of the War Measures Act.
The express purpose of the War Measures Act during the war years was to hold down prices for wheat and a host of other products.
At war’s end all products were allowed to return to market supply and demand price levels except wheat, oats and barley under the CWB.
Co-operation in the form of a co-operative is no doubt the best way to market primary agricultural products.
The wheat pools and the co-ops of western Canada are indeed co-operatives, and a fine example of co-operative effort. No one should be led to believe that the CWB is the same as western co-ops.
Co-op members get a chance to vote annually to voice their opinion on how their co-ops should be operated.
Having a vote once in 43 years is stretching the CWB co-operative concept well beyond the breaking point.
As a western grain producer I sympathize with the Bolivian soybean grower having to make several trips by bus to collect final payment for his crop.
I also wonder if his trip is any more difficult than travelling 20 miles through a Western Canadian winter snowstorm to see if the CWB final payment has finally arrived in the mailbox.
If Mr. Peters’ “Farmers to learn from miners” was meant to lend support to the CWB, it is my opinion as a CWB supporter his comments should have best been delegated to the tropical lowlands of South America, and not have appeared in the Opinion section of the Western Producer.
– R. Pankiw,
Dufrost, Man.
Crime pays
To the Editor:
From reading the papers and listening to the news on the radio and TV and personal experience I do believe Canada would be a lot better place to live if the politicians and police had to take a lie detector test twice a day, and may I add the justice system is making far more money out of crime than the criminals ever thought of making. And those paying for the cost of crime are not living as good as those supposedly fighting it.
– Lloyd V. Scott,
Shawnigan Lake, B.C.
