Protesters gather outside an Indigo store in Toronto, on Nov. 30, 2023. The demonstration, organized by the group 'Jews Say No to Genocide,' gathered outside the bookstore chain owned by Heather Reisman, was partly in response to arrests made on Nov. 10, after the store was vandalized with red paint and had posters plastered on its window, claiming the Jewish founder of the company is 'funding genocide.'Chris Young/The Canadian Press
Lines crossed
Re “When protests become acts of intimidation” (Editorial, Jan. 5): When my family and I recently stopped at the corner of Avenue Road and Wilson Avenue in Toronto, we waited for several red lights because of the pro-Palestinian protest blocking traffic.
What caught my attention was a sign: “Move Israel to Florida.” At first sight, the words seemed ridiculous. Was this a joke? Then the message sank in: “Jews, move to Florida” – we are not welcome elsewhere, even 130 years after my family’s arrival in Canada, away from the pogroms and antisemitism in Russia.
Canada is my home; I am a proud Canadian Jew. My heart is filled with both anger and sorrow that anyone should wish me gone for their political ideas.
It is clear to me that this person does not understand the nature of being in and of Canada, nor appreciate the fundamental difference between a lawful protest and a hate-filled message toward another citizen.
Judith Leznoff Toronto
Fair’s fair
Re “The Moe government’s open defiance of the law brings us closer to the brink” (Jan. 3): Nova Scotia, the province with the lowest GDP per capita, has little natural gas, so most residents heat their homes with oil, one of the most expensive fuels that has spiked in price due to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Saskatchewan, with the second-highest GDP per capita, heats homes with local, affordable natural gas.
The federal government decided to give the poorest province with the highest heating costs some relief on the carbon tax. That seems like a fair thing to do.
The facts suggest to me that Scott Moe is acting like a spoiled child.
Hugh Holland Huntsville, Ont.
Judge of that
Re “People who represent themselves are failing at the Supreme Court in overwhelming numbers” (Jan. 3): There is a reason that self-represented litigants almost never make it to the Supreme Court of Canada: Knowing, understanding and practising law requires intense training, rigorous certification, years of experience and adherence to strict professional standards.
Do-it-yourself legal representation seems as bad an idea as kitchen-table surgery or building load-bearing bridges using only high-school math. And just who do we call upon to sort out the consequences after unqualified people do such things? Qualified lawyers.
Paul Walton Nanaimo, B.C.
A common trope used to discredit and dismiss self-represented litigants at all court levels is that they are, at a minimum, “tilting at windmills” or, at worse, vexatious.
It is argued that “self-represented litigants represent a large burden on the court’s time and resources.” That is a dangerous line to run if one is suggesting that a particular group of people should not have access to an institution that forms part of our democratic system. If self-represented litigants do not understand the process or bring the wrong cases, then wouldn’t the answer be to ensure they are better informed?
Moreover, the leave process is about deciding which cases can proceed and which cannot based on certain criteria. The majority of cases do not, meaning a significant number of cases with legal representation are also not being granted leave. Are these characterized as a burden on the system as well?
Jennifer Leitch Executive director, National Self-Represented Litigants Project; associate director, ethics, society and law, Trinity College, University of Toronto
The Supreme Court “does not explain why it dismisses or accepts a request for an appeal hearing, because it believes its silence is the best way to preserve its absolute discretion.” Is that really the reason?
An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court requires substantial time and expense. An applicant who is dismissed deserves some explanation. Also, jurisprudence would develop that provides guidance for preparation of leave applications.
Over the last several decades, the Supreme Court has required more and more administrative tribunals to provide written reasons for decisions. What’s good for the goose?
Judgments on leave applications need not be as verbose as the tomes frequently written in support of decisions on the merits; they could generally be written on several pages. I can think of only one negative consequence of doing so: the time it would take judges and staff to provide the reasons.
Peter Rosenthal Toronto
All signs point to…
Re “Donald Trump will be defeated, making 2024 a better year” (Jan. 4): I hope columnist Lawrence Martin’s faith in conventional wisdom, that incumbent U.S. presidents are re-elected during a strong economy, holds true with unconventional Donald Trump in the running. But like many, I have an abysmal record predicting things involving Mr. Trump.
My wife delights in reminding me that I predicted he wouldn’t gain the Republican nomination in 2016. When he did, I predicted he would lose the election. He didn’t.
After that, I predicted he would pivot and resemble a typical president despite his campaign bluster. By then, my wife was rightly laughing at my chronic inability to distinguish what should be from what will be.
But perhaps a professional pundit like Mr. Martin has a far better track record when it comes to predicting Mr. Trump.
Eric LeGresley Ottawa
Columnist Lawrence Martin’s thoughts about a likely defeat for Donald Trump are welcome, and I hope he is right. But I wonder if optimism based on the dismal science is such a good idea: Ten months, after all, is an eternity in economic terms.
But Mr. Martin does say Joe Biden “has to win.” He definitely got that right.
Nigel Brachi Edmonton
Behind the scenes
Re “Should I take the kids to Europe? Yes!” (Jan. 3): Now tell us what really happened.
Years ago, when I was on assignment for a newspaper, Quebec Tourism pulled out all the stops for our young family: black bears in their natural habitat, picturesque calèche rides, a slow boat down the river of a national park.
At one point, we had an entire museum to ourselves. The main attraction was a pirate exhibit, where we were greeted by a costumed guide who swept us into a replica of a 17th-century ship.
“Arrrr, do ye like pirates, me boy?” the swashbuckler thundered at our seven-year-old. “They’re fine,” came the nonplussed but un-quoteworthy reply.
Later, our hotel’s in-house astronomer retracted the roof of a hilltop observatory to reveal the infinite mysteries of the night sky. Our son was transfixed – by the roof levers and mechanisms.
When travelling with family, the most anecdotal moments aren’t in the itinerary. They’re in the outtakes.
Katherine Gougeon Toronto
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