Vulgar flags don’t add to political debate
It is sad to see the disregard for public decency displayed by a vulgar flag prominently flown on the edge of the hamlet of Plato, Sask., alongside the municipal road.
You’ve likely seen bumper stickers and these flags that feature an obscene four-letter word (with a maple leaf replacing a middle letter), followed by the name of the Canadian prime minister.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Christine Van Geyn, director of the Alberta-based Canadian Constitution Foundation, claims that “technically, it is not a profanity” to display these flags, and that citizens of Canada have a right to express their political views.
Expressing opinions about Justin Trudeau is not the issue — that’s a right. But you have to ask yourself, what is gained politically by those using boorish attacks that imply violence? And to incorporate the Canadian maple leaf symbol into this trash is insulting to the memory of all who fought and died while wearing it.
Former Conservative Party of Canada leader Erin O’Toole has said, “these flags and their hyper-aggressive rhetoric that accompanies them are slowly normalizing rage and damaging democracy.”
He went on to say, “but the real risk to our democracy stems from the growing complacency of the majority. Canadians seem to be getting used to this high level of polarization in our country. Too many people just shrug and ignore the rise in aggressive language, the social media pile-ons and the elimination of informed debate.”
Even current Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre has said, “I don’t like the flags, and I don’t like the rage.”
Safety concerns for our political representatives are now a reality, thanks in part to unhinged attitudes creeping in from across our southern border.
Exercising freedom of speech in Canada is a right, but as with all rights, citizens have responsibilities. Political opinions are most effective when expressed responsibly and with respect.
Doug Bone
Elrose, Sask.
Using food for fuel is gross and ridiculous
Re: Feb. 29 Western Producer coverage of Clean Fuel Regulations process for biofuel.
Sean Pratt quotes Michelle Belisle, regulatory affairs and planning adviser for Imperial Oil, as saying, “Ottawa still needs to level the playing field with the U.S. to get these plants built.”
In other words, these companies need subsidies to offset subsidies paid in the U.S.
Sean also noted concern about sparking the old food-for-fuel debate as well as hoopla about what a market would be created for canola. Is our government going to subsidize burning an edible oil crop that was the result of a lot of research and development involved in changing rapeseed canola?
I personally question the energy output versus energy input of this whole scheme.
I once heard Dr. Dwayne Beck, renowned research manager and dedicated soil health and cropping economics researcher from the South Dakota State University farm, make a statement: “To manufacture, transport and apply five pounds of actual nitrogen uses the energy equivalent of one U.S. gallon of diesel.” Nitrogen is only part of the energy input involved in producing, harvesting, transporting and processing canola into oil.
I am reminded of an elementary school policy as matter of factly stated by an older kid: “No more digging holes in the schoolyard, you won’t be able to find enough dirt to fill them in again.”
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. There can be a lot of slippage in a transformation process.
I see using canola as a feedstock for biofuel as a ridiculous and gross misuse of resources that would be comparable to using sides of bacon to resurface our highways and airport runways.
Wait a minute, now. Wouldn’t that create a market for hogs ? It would even check the box for not sparking a food for fuel debate. Canadian renewable runway retrofit resurfacing. Maybe the federal government would pay a subsidy for this.
On this note, there must be some kind of subsidy for a renewable use for manure produced by bovine males as there seems to be an abundance of it. Hmmmm — Redneck Ruminant Rejected Renewable Resources?
Wait another minute. There is coverage on that subject — the High River, Alta., biodigester — on page 16 of the Feb. 29 Western Producer.
Jim Brown,
Edgerton, Alta.
It’s the far left who are the real extremists
I must respond to Anders Bruun’s letter in the March 7 Western Producer.
He categorically refers to federal Conservative leader Pierre Piolievre and Alberta premier Danielle Smith as “extremists” without any specific reference.
He states that they are “prepared to abuse the law to widen social division and ultimately force others to behave as they would like them to,” even equating it to Russian president Vladimir Putin’s silencing of Alexei Navalny.
Has he forgotten how prime minister Justin Trudeau silenced Jody Wilson-Raybould? Is he aware of the “extreme” left as it affects Canadians?
Here are some specific Liberal “extremes” perpetrated upon the citizens of our once democratic society in Canada:
- Forced injections of a foreign substance when non-conformity could result in the loss of employment and even frozen bank accounts.
- The slippery slope of increasingly lax requirements for free government-sponsored suicide.
- The mutilation of children through trans-gender surgery without parental consent.
- The proposed new legislation concerning hate speech that could result in life in prison for making a disparaging remark about a neighbour or anyone.
There are many more examples of the “far left extremism” that the Liberal/NDP government has and will impose that erodes the principle of democracy in Canada.
If anyone objects, he is labelled as a “close-minded, extreme-right undesirable” until he “behaves as they would like him to” and embraces their latest woke concoction.
Ken Hoff,
Camrose, Alta.
