Opinion: Letters, Feb. 2
Be unequivocal in condemnation
Re: The battlefield between feminism and rapes of war (Jan. 26)
Winnipeg’s Jewish community is profoundly disappointed and hurt by Jen Zoratti’s column on the Hear Our Voices event, which explored sexual and gender-based violence perpetrated by Hamas during the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, along with the impact this has had primarily on Jewish women.
Since Oct. 7, there has been a collective silence from the mainstream media, silence from governments, and silence from feminists. To now have that silence turn into denial or diminishment is beyond reprehensible.
Furthermore, stating that rape is a consequence of war offers a pass to the Hamas terrorists who committed these despicable acts. We must be unequivocal in condemning such actions and holding those responsible accountable, without any caveats attached.
There is no room for selective feminism, and no one should undermine the pain of the survivors by justifying rape as an acceptable consequence of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Ayelet Razin Bet Or, the authority on this subject and having spoken directly with families affected, has a clear understanding of how they wanted their stories to be portrayed — and bearing witness means sharing uncomfortable and traumatic images to counter denialism. In addition, Jewish Child and Family Service, which hosted this event, provides services to 2,500 women throughout our community each year, and whose voices were present throughout every aspect of planning the event.
The silence on the gender-based violence experienced by Israeli terror victims speaks to the failure within the feminist movement. To silence Jewish victims or try to contextualize the brutality leveled upon them when it is not placed on other women, is a double standard.
What Ms. Zoratti’s column showed is that these conversations matter more than ever in the face of half-truths and misinformation. She has a responsibility to right this wrong and apologize for her very flawed coverage of the Hear Our Voices event, and for the collective pain she has caused through it.
Paula Parks, president,
Jewish Federation of Winnipeg
Al Shpeller, president,
Jewish Child and Family Service
Winnipeg
Can’t take democracy for granted
Every day in the pages of the Free Press, we read about citizens all over the world struggling to have their voices heard, fighting for their country’s democracy. Some good news. Canadian MPs have a rare opportunity to improve our democracy by voting in favour of motion M-86 for a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. This motion has support from all parties in Parliament and broad support from Canadians.
In recent years, citizens’ assemblies have been used with great success in several countries to come to decisions on long-standing controversies within their societies. Some people think citizens’ assemblies are the future of democracy, while others say that they, at the very least, increase citizens’ participation in government and policy-making.
Should M-86 pass, the citizens’ assembly would meet with experts on electoral reform and conduct extensive research with the goal of arriving at the best voting system for Canadians. The three choices are: stay with our present first-past-the-post; ranked ballots; or proportional ranked ballots (of which there are several systems).
Overwhelmingly, Canadians who support this motion would be optimistic that the citizens’ assembly recommendation would be a proportional system. Imagine being able to vote for the party (or person) you hope to represent you instead of holding your nose and voting for the party which might be able to defeat the one you dislike the most. Imagine collaboration of parties to arrive at decisions that are reflective of the greatest number of Canadians.
Democracy can’t be taken for granted. Let’s hope our MPs agree.
Adina Lyon
Winnipeg
Let kids play
Re: Learning by doing — and taking risks (Editorial, Feb. 1)
Kudos to the Free Press for its editorial discussing the Canadian Paediatric Society’s recommendation to allow children to engage in “unstructured” and “risky” play.
Risk aversion among parents, like so many psychological phenomena, exists on a continuum, with the extremes of over-permissiveness to the so-called helicopter parenting. It is unlikely that people at those extremes will be open to recommendations, even from a professional organization. The majority, however, exist in that wide range between the extremes. It concerns me that those folks could easily misinterpret the pediatrics society’s open-ended message and its vague caveats: ignoring “reasonable safety standards,” supervising in “potentially dangerous situations,” and “not pushing kids to take risks beyond their comfort levels.”
As a father of three children and grandfather to another three, I have experienced situations in which I erred in my assessment of danger levels for the kids engaged in play. Fortunately, none resulted in visits to the emergency room, but they well could have. I myself was seriously injured when, as a preschooler, I picked up an axe and almost lost an eye. I still recall my father sternly warning me not to touch the axe, yet I did so while he became preoccupied with his building project. Most of us have similar stories.
So, what is a parent to do about these cautions from the Paediatric Society? As with most things, it requires the exercise of good judgment based on what you know about yourself and your child. How does your own risk aversion intersect with that of your child? For example, if you tend to be nearer to extreme of permissiveness and your child is described by many as a “daredevil”, it would be prudent to exercise closer supervision as your child makes her way up a tree. If you are more on the “helicopter parent” end, and your child wants to go down the slide by himself, you may dispense with walking up the slide ladder behind him.
The common denominator remains the same: staying mindful of the great responsibility you carry when you sign up for parenting.
Edwin Buettner
Winnipeg
Brilliant editorial. I hope schools, and other child-focused providers, pass along the message and/or even the actual editorial on their newsletters, websites. Resilience is one of the best ways to prepare our children for real life.
June Slobodian
Winnipeg
We raised our children during the 2000s and 2010s based on many principles, one of which was: “Are you hurt or are you injured?”
What’s the distinction you may ask?
When you are hurt, you continue to play; when you are injured, you do not.
We were always there to assess the situation, but let the children have a say in which of those two things they were. What did they learn from this approach?
Self-confidence and awareness that they were in control of their bodies, and keenly aware forever thereafter, the difference between risks and hazards while still knowing their parents were there to comfort, and protect them, if they were indeed injured.
Darren Stevenson
Winnipeg
Credit: Opinion: Letters, Feb. 2
