Jan. 27: Rough justice/injustice. Plus other letters to the editor

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

......................................................................................................................................................................................

Rough justice/injustice

I absolutely agree that without due process, without a trial, we are saying an alleged perpetrator of a sexual offence is guilty (Sex And Politics – letters, Jan. 26).

The problem is this: As reported in The Globe and Mail over the past months, only some 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported, until recently 20 per cent of those reported were deemed "unfounded," and only 10 per cent of those actually going to trial resulted in conviction (a much lower number than for any other crime).

For decades, without a trial, the vast majority of perpetrators were essentially deemed innocent and their victims treated as though they were guilty.

I don't know which is worse – the virtual impunity with which harassers have been acting, or the rough justice of social media.

Leslie Lavers, Lethbridge

........................................

No official charges, trial or verdict will protect those accused in the public thoroughfare of sexual improprieties.

Even if found not guilty, their lives will have been ruined. Just ask Jian Ghomeshi.

Nancy Marley-Clarke, Calgary

........................................

Is there no responsibility to go to the police to determine criminality before embarking on a public lynching? It is one thing for the courts to protect the identity of a victim during a trial, it is quite another for anonymous accusations of "possible" sexual misconduct (or possibly just a bad date) to destroy someone's career and life in an instant.

I'm not a Conservative and I certainly don't like Patrick Brown's leadership (or lack thereof), but what I saw was not an empowering moment for the #MeToo movement. It was the public hanging of Patrick Brown.

Blair Boudreau, Toronto

........................................

Pols? 'None of the above'

Re Ontario Tories In Turmoil Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations (Jan. 26): Before anyone in the Ontario Liberal Party injures themselves dancing in the streets because of the Tories' current misfortunes, I have a message for them: It just got a whole lot easier for me, and other like-minded people, not to vote Liberal.

After the Wynne government's cynical accounting treatment of the electricity rebate plan that, according to Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk, was an unprecedented violation of Canada's public-sector accounting rules, they lost all chance of my support, except for my fear that Patrick Brown could form a majority government.

That fear has now been removed and I am able to vote against an arrogant party that has proven time and again that it will do anything it can to stay in power.

I only wish that "none of the above" was an option printed on the ballot.

Stuart McRae, Toronto

........................................

Until Jan. 24, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party held out as its leader a person with no significant real-world experience except political hustling, who was mainly known in his (and my) riding for his hockey-related social events, and who apparently hadn't the wit to recognize the gravity of sex-related allegations and had to be forced out of office by colleagues who feared for their own political futures.

While the demise of the Patrick Browns of this world comes as no surprise, I worry that, in the current political and social culture in which manoeuvre, egocentricity and entitlement have replaced substance, principle and dedication, we will never see an era of quality politicians again.

J.D. Murphy, Barrie, Ont.

........................................

Night-stand reading

Re U.S. Trade Advisers Single Out Trudeau Over NAFTA Tactics (Jan. 25): I understand that Donald Trump is not an avid reader but I am surprised at the "beggar thy neighbour" policies supported by members of his cabinet.

Is there no one who can explain to the Great Leader and secretaries Wilbur Ross and Steven Mnuchin that protectionist trade measures, such as currency depreciation and the erection of trade barriers, are a negative sum game that enhances the odds of another great depression? Maybe a Reader's Digest version of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and works by John Kenneth Galbraith or John Maynard Keynes will one day soon be on their reading list. Fat chance.

Steven Diener, Toronto

........................................

Not in our parks

Re: Calgary Mulls Changes To Olympic Plan After IOC Raises Concern About Ski Venue (Jan. 23): IOC representatives are right to be worried about plans to host the 2026 Olympics at Lake Louise in Banff National Park: Plans like these have been hatched before, and soundly rejected by Canadians.

In the 1960s and 1980s, Canadians said "no" to the Games in Banff, which is also a World Heritage Site, because of unacceptable risks from development.

Lake Louise already struggles with protecting wildlife while managing millions of visitors and infrastructure – struggles the Olympics would exacerbate.

Allowing the Games at Lake Louise would create a divide among Canadians and put even more pressure on our natural heritage – the very thing our national parks are meant to protect. The minister responsible for national parks has a legal obligation to manage them to protect nature and a clear mandate – "protect our National Parks by limiting development within them." It is time for the minister to end to this repeated debate by stating unequivocally that the Olympics are not appropriate in our national parks.

Alison Ronson, national director, parks program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

........................................

Your mail? Robot's got it

Re Liberals Opt Against Canada Post Overhaul (Jan. 24): The future is not going to be an extension of the past because some very disruptive technologies will soon be deployed: autonomous cars, flying taxis, artificial intelligence and robots.

These all create opportunities for new ways of doing things. There is a wonderful video on YouTube of a Boston Dynamics robot doing back-flips. This shows that the technology is already more agile than most Canadians (including me).

We are not far from the time when robots will be able to deliver mail to homes. I support the government's strategy because it is a step toward a not-too-distant future in which AI-enabled robots will deliver mail door to door without the associated expense of salaries. And yes, I understand the human costs associated with job losses, both for the employees and their families.

I repeat a proposal I made last year: that Canada Post launch a formal challenge to develop and demonstrate a prototype of a robot to deliver mail to homes. Each team competing in the challenge would comprise a university and a company. As well as bragging rights, it should offer a prize for the winner.

Barrie Kirk, executive director, Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence