Former U.S. president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a campaign event, in Chesapeake, Va., on June 28.Brendan McDermid/Reuters
Above all
Re “Jan. 6 case to return to trial court after Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official acts in office” (July 2): Who’d have thought the U.S. Supreme Court would replace the long-discredited concept of the divine right of kings with a legal definition of the divine right of American presidents?
Brian Caines Ottawa
It is interesting to contrast the evolution of the power vested in the Canadian head of state to that of the U.S. president.
The power of the kings and queens who once ruled Canada has diminished peacefully, to the level where King Charles is a “constitutional monarch,” a figurehead. Although the U.S. Revolutionary War removed the absolute power of the British Crown over the American people, the Supreme Court seems to have effectively returned much of that power to the presidency.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king, above the law.”
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Jim Waddington Hamilton
Re “My message to Canada: Buckle up and get ready for a second Trump presidency” (Opinion, June 29): Is it just me, or is the subtext of contributor Kelly Craft: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
Kate Lynch Toronto
On terror
Re “New human-rights chief made academic argument that terror is a rational strategy with high success rates” (June 29): I am appalled at the accusations being thrown about by those who have concerns with Birju Dattani. I believe he most certainly is the right person to be Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The conclusions of his research seem to be an accurate description of many groups who use terror as a tactic. I don’t read this as supporting terror but rather giving it a rational explanation, which helps then understand how some of these groups achieve success. And by understanding them, we can better develop strategies to ensure they are not successful.
We should have smart, rational thinkers in these positions, not ideologues.
Roger Emsley Delta, B.C.
I am a Jewish scholar of international human rights and comparative genocide studies. I defend Birju Dattani’s decision to research whether terrorism can be rational.
Some Jewish groups used terrorism against the British, helping to attain Israeli independence. France probably left Algeria in part because of anti-colonial terrorism. The African National Congress did not use terrorism in South Africa, but other groups did, probably influencing the apartheid regime to negotiate with Nelson Mandela. And so on.
To argue that terrorism may be rational in some instances is not necessarily to support it. The lesson from Mr. Dattani’s research ought to be that if one oppresses people so much that some of their leaders resort to terrorism, one ought to negotiate and give those people freedom as soon as possible, thus avoiding becoming terrorism’s victims.
Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, CM, O.Ont, FRSC Hamilton
Quick fix
Re “WestJet mechanics make only $109,000 on average. Oh, the humanity” (Report on Business, July 2): While I sympathize with WestJet’s frustrated holiday travellers, I believe Canadians owe a big thanks to the mechanics union.
We are in the midst of an affordability crisis where inflation is a major culprit. Some essential services should be protected from labour disruptions, yet arbitration-brokered settlements are inherently inflationary. Just look at the cost of wages over time in sectors where strikes are prohibited.
I find negotiated settlements the best market-tested way to determine the relative fairness of wages. Evidently, WestJet agrees.
David Roddick Toronto
There is precious little about the U.S. model of industrial relations to which we should aspire: the land of “right to work” states, a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and the precarity that comes from the burden of health care costs.
One can (and many do) take umbrage against well-paid technicians making such high wages. Admittedly it is highly disruptive to travel, but convenience and envy are not standards of fairness or equity. Like it or not, the right to organize is fundamental to democracy; it is the first thing to be fettered in authoritarian states.
There are clear laws and processes around collective bargaining for a reason. Personally, I prefer a model where employees have a voice that is protected by law.
Bernadette Lonergan Mississauga
I am a pilot who flies the aircraft that these aircraft maintenance engineers maintain.
They command the wages that they do because they are afforded the right to bargain collectively and strike.
More importantly, they earn the wages that they do because every time they complete a maintenance task, they sign a maintenance release in which they take responsibility for the maintenance performed and guarantee it was performed in accordance with acceptable standards. Just like pilots, with every action they take, they put their licence – and livelihood – on the line.
There is a cost associated with expecting nothing short of perfection, and asking someone to take on that professional responsibility.
Francis Hane Thunder Bay
Call off
Re “Technology and the law: Disconnect students and cellphones” (Editorial, June 26): Retired high-school teacher here. Policy is not practice.
To achieve deterrence, enforcement steps should be clear to teachers, students and parents. They should be sensible, practical and easily enforced. For example, a violation should mean a student loses their phone for a minimum of 24 hours.
An unserious ministry or school board recites the law; a serious one works to implement clear, equitable and workable practices. Do we want political theatrics or effective action?
Scott Lewis Toronto
In the early days of cellphones and pagers, our company consulted on changing IT systems for a key client. Not a simple project, and it necessitated many meetings and conversations.
Our client’s senior staff often engaged with their pagers while in meetings. We finally asked everyone to leave all devices at their office or workstation. Collaboration and communication immediately improved.
Almost four decades later, it seems the same lesson is still being learned in schools. Yes, tech can be helpful; yet most of the time, it is a distraction. Permitting students to access their devices may be the “crack” through which undesirable behaviour starts.
Why not require that students leave their devices at home? They (and parents) indeed would feel the initial pain of separation. And like similar pain, this would pass.
Would it be worth an experiment?
Brian Sterling Oakville, Ont.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com