On second thought
Re “A Senate reshaped in Trudeau’s image makes a showdown with a future Conservative government a near certainty” (Opinion, June 1): Columnist Andrew Coyne critiques the idea that the Senate can legitimately act to prevent a government from passing “blatantly unconstitutional bills” or “rights-violating laws,” on the basis that “that’s what the Supreme Court is for.”
So one is moved to ask: If a Poilievre government precluded the Supreme Court from exercising that role by pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause, would his logic lead him to agree that the Senate could legitimately act to fill this void created by Mr. Poilievre?
Doug Ewart LLM, Toronto
“There is simply no basis in a democratic society for a group of 53 or more senators to be substituting their views for that of elected MPs, and the millions of Canadians they represent.” But do governing MPs really represent voters, or do they operate at the pleasure of the Prime Minister’s Office which, in turn, seems to operate at the pleasure of the powerful interests bankrolling election campaigns?
A distinguished record of public service is the usual prerequisite for appointment to the Senate, where a range of backgrounds is represented. In contrast, getting elected as an MP looks to depend more on self-promotion than admirable accomplishment.
Far from undemocratic, the Senate’s “mandate of virtue” feels reassuring. In the absence of overt partisanship, there’s greater likelihood of open communication and productive collaboration – so much more constructive than the sniping and sneering I see from MPs.
P. A. Cornell Kingston
Graeme Young, a lecturer at the University of Glasgow, wrote in a 2022 issue of the Literary Review of Canada that “transforming the Senate … into a forum for citizen deliberation” would be a better solution for our ailing democracy than electoral reform.
I assume this would take the form of a series of rotating citizens’ assemblies. A change in our Constitution would be required, but at least we’d have a ready-made chamber for the proceedings to occur.
Evan Bedford Red Deer, Alta.
Whither justice?
Re “What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?” (Opinion, June 1): Contributor Rosalie Abella writes superbly about the importance of the possibility of subsequent judicial reckoning. We can all take comfort in that idea, whether lawyers or not.
Look how long it takes for any kind of justice to be served. Hitler’s Nuremberg laws were enacted in 1935. By 1945, six million Jews had been erased. The word genocide did not even enter the language until after lawyer Raphael Lemkin (by then an old, sick man) worked tirelessly to get it recognized at the Nuremberg trials.
We can only hope the world will listen to sensible voices such as Bob Rae and Mélanie Joly (”A war-crimes investigation against Netanyahu is a favour to Israel and the world” – Opinion, June 1). They see clearly the moral issues on both sides of the current war.
Margaret van Dijk Toronto
Any nation wishing to inflict unbridled violence on an adversary, or simply deny them their human rights on a daily basis, most often goes about vilifying their opponent to the greatest extent possible, to get public approval.
I saw this happen in the U.S. characterization of North Vietnamese people as godless communists in the 1960s, justifying an unbelievable amount of violence perpetrated upon them, and more recently in Vladimir Putin’s characterization of Ukrainian leadership as Nazis. This is also the approach I see taken by many to justify the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, blaming them all for the actions of a few.
When all is said and done, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice will hold people to account. We should all be able to support that.
Karlis Poruks Edmonton
There are indeed far too many among us today, political leaders in particular, who seem to believe “the law is what they say it is.” One cannot overstate the danger of this, given the authoritarian impulse which now permeates the executive branch in many of our governments.
The signs of democratic decline are everywhere, but are enough people paying attention?
Shaun Fluker Associate professor of law, University of Calgary
With pride
Re “ ‘Going both ways’: Young women are increasingly identifying as bisexual, but what does that mean?” (Opinion, June 1): If we need to explain the “why” of a shift toward bi-identification in younger women, it should be to inform us as human beings, perhaps even to positively influence policy to reflect shifting realities – not to question its veracity or cast doubt on individual motivations.
I can only see bi-identification, whatever the reasons behind it, as a step forward where female sexual autonomy is concerned, if that is what suits an individual at any given time. Sexuality, like society, is ever-evolving.
Understanding trends is important, but situating the sexual preferences of others within a narrow heterosexual frame feels like a step in the wrong direction.
Shirley Phillips Toronto
Does this have to be something we stress about if it’s not problematic in nature?
Despite what some people might believe, it’s not impossible to have multiple identities. It’s possible to be asexual in addition to something else: born without a libido, for example, but with the desire to have an intimate relationship, perhaps involving a wedding.
Something else that hits me hard are assumptive tones about desires to come inside community space; if someone is a member of multiple communities, they can run the risk of not feeling like a total member (say dealing with food allergies at a queer program). Our identities can prove pretty complex and don’t deserve any assault owing to their failure to honour assumptions.
Amy Soule Hamilton
Claim that bisexual women are trying to be “interesting” or “politically enlightened” is not only laughable but also completely offensive to me.
It discounts the real struggles we face, including increased rates of depression, anxiety and sexual assault. Coming out remains a difficult process for many, and suggesting that someone is picking a sexual orientation for social cachet only fuels bi-phobic claims that we do not exist.
Bisexuality isn’t a trendy accessory we’re flaunting for attention. It’s a valid sexual orientation, and we don’t need an itemized list of same-sex experiences to prove it to anyone.
This Pride Month, let’s celebrate the progress we’ve made instead of casting doubt on our identities. Ditch these tired stereotypes and give bisexual women the respect we deserve.
Erin Tobin Richmond Hill, 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