º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Michael Bines, Toronto

Before U.S. President Donald Trump was first elected, the Republicans’ love affair with gun manufacturers was problematic. Now, America has a president who pours accelerant onto the long-smouldering fires of racism and misogyny, grumbling that too much is made of the evils of slavery and setting a course to fire thousands of public servants, most of them women. In Canada, our streets are infested with U.S. guns, evidently obtained with ease by what seem to be increasingly young shooters. We lack the determination to sweep our cities free of guns, as has been done in other Commonwealth nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia. Yes, shame on the U.S. — but shame on us, too, for not insisting that Canada take action on this country’s own gun problem.

Ron Charach, Toronto

Animal testing may not be the best thing

Animal testing isn’t just cruel. It could also be setting us back, Aug. 29

I couldn’t agree more that animal testing is both cruel and unethical in this day and age. There are so many non-animal testing methods available today. We can and should use them for the betterment of human life. Health Canada and our political leaders should’ve moved faster in this field, and they should’ve done so years ago. This really is a huge opportunity that’s been wasted. It is time for Canadian research to modernize, and we just needed some whistleblowers to remind us of that.

Mel Ransom, Ottawa

In assessing the role of animals in research and testing, it’s important to make a distinction between the discovery phase of research and the drug-approval phase. Once a drug has been discovered, it goes through pre-clinical testing on animals. This is to test, among other things, whether the drug is safe for humans. If it passes that test, then the next phase involves testing the drug on healthy human volunteers. We need to test drugs on animals before we test them on humans. There’s a role for the government to play in regulating how these animals are treated (such as by mandating minimum cage sizes), as well as a role for third-party inspectors. Animal welfare should not be left entirely to university committees or the private sector.

Bruce Couchman, Toronto

Air quality? More like air inequality

Is it dread or déjà vu? There’s a much bigger problem under all those air quality warnings, Aug. 26

It’s been rather a difficult summer for those with breathing and heat sensitivities. And given that most of us don’t have the option of not breathing, I say we should be calling it not “air quality” but “air inequality.” Reducing carbon emissions should be a high priority for all governments, yet many don’t follow through on their policies to that effect (and in some cases, even make things worse). Also, Canada should start including carbon emitted from forest fires in its national total of greenhouse-gas emissions and mandate reductions in driving and flying on particularly bad days, potentially helping to save lives and the climate.

Hamish Wilson, Toronto

Let’s ‘stand on guard’ against bad ideas

Does Canada need to update its self-defence laws?: Letters, Aug. 30

Yes, being able to protect your home as if it were your castle sounds like it would be empowering — until you realize that others would be similarly empowered but without necessarily sharing your sense of justice. Picture a scenario in which you’re lost and knock on a homeowner’s door to ask for directions: Are you a “reasonable threat” to that homeowner?

Remember when Florida’s “stand your ground” law allowed George Zimmerman to walk free after he killed an unarmed teenager whose sole offence seems to have been “existing while Black in the wrong neighbourhood.” Now it seems that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wants to import this standard here with his “stand on guard” proposal — because nothing says “Canadian values” like the presumption that deadly force is reasonable when used against intruders.

Maybe instead we should stand on guard against importing bad ideas from the U.S. that will inevitably produce negative consequences for Canada.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

While I’m dismayed by the decision to charge the homeowner in Lindsay, Ontario who defended himself against an intruder, there are some scenarios where I believe charges would be justified. Suppose the homeowner had managed to subdue the intruder and tie him up. Would it be acceptable for him to then harm him further? What if the intruder ran when confronted and had made it halfway down the sidewalk before the home owner shot him in pursuit? Most of us would think it wrong if the police were to take either course of action.

Anita Dermer, Toronto

When Detective-Constable Jeffrey Northrop of the º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøPolice Service was killed in a parking garage at City Hall in 2021, the suspect, Umar Zameer, was granted bail. Without knowing all the facts, the mayor of Toronto, the premier of Ontario, the head of the police union and many others cried foul, demanding immediate changes to prevent people like Zameer from being granted bail in future. At trial, Zameer was found not guilty. Now, politicians are jumping on the bandwagon once more to demand legislative change. Instead, they should await the results of the trial and review all the relevant information — or else end up with egg on their faces again.

Bill Kennedy, Burlington, ON

Premier Doug Ford’s track record of commenting on cases that are still before the courts is poor. He condemned Umar Zameer, who’d been charged in an incident at City Hall, without any apparent concern. When Zameer was found not guilty, Ford clammed up. In the Lindsay case, both men have been charged, and neither has been convicted yet. This is sensible: any use of lethal force should be investigated in a civilized country. Poilievre’s poorly thought-out “Stand on Guard” policy could lead to disastrous consequences. It increases the potential for innocent lives to be lost; it also seems likely that domestic abusers, for example, might try to use the policy to justify committing acts of violence. Canadians must not be swayed by yet another attempt by Poilievre to turn a complex issue into a catchy slogan.

Allan Ross, Toronto