Oda’s Spending Behavior Odious

Canada’s International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda seems destined to go down in Canadian political history as the self-appointed Queen of Spending from the Public Trough for her apparent extravagant financial habits at the public’s expense. She has been caught on at least two separate occasions in the past six years, racking up expenditures that apparently were more a result of her high opinion of herself, rather than necessity. Oda apologized this week for her latest publicized overspending, in London, England last June. But the situation still reeks of her apparent cavalier approach to spending money that isn't hers.

In the first publicized instance of Oda's perceived reckless spending of taxpayers' money, in 2006, she was called on the carpet for paying to use limousines at Canada's biggest music show, the Juno Awards, in Halifax. At that time, according to The Huffington Post, "Oda told the Commons she had partially repaid the government for her use of limousines. In 2006, she had spent $5,476 for the limos during the Juno awards in Halifax. She later reimbursed the government for $2,226 of the bill."
Now, this week Oda apologized in the House of Commons, this time for her latest big-spending extravaganza last June--or at least the latest one that has been made public. But saying 'I'm sorry' only when questioned about her extravagances, a year after the fact, leads her so-called apology to seem questionable at best. 
Childish or Piggish?

In the latest instance of Oda's wild overspending of taxpayers' money, in June 2011 while attending a conference in London, England, she seemed to behave like a kid locked in a candy store--determined to take all she could while the going was good; or like a hog at meal time--determined to slurp up as much slop as she could at the public trough before the farmer saw what she was doing and made her stop.

Oda apparently thought staying at London's swanky Grange St. Paul’s Hotel—where the conference was being held--wasn’t good enough for her. So she upgraded herself to the five-star Savoy Hotel. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html), the London Evening Standard newspaper claims the Savoy “has been a favoured destination of royalty — the real kind, as well as the Hollywood and rock-music variety.”

Just a Politician, Not a Princess

Unfortunately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize she is really just a well-paid public servant and not an actual princess or other royalty—notwithstanding her apparent self-perception. Perhaps she thought the accommodations at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel were inferior for someone of her perceived stature; and that being booked into that hotel reflected badly on her, compared to accommodations she believes she deserves. 
So Oda did what seems to come so naturally to her: using taxpayers' money, she blithely upsized her London living quarters to the Savoy. To those who haven’t been to merry old England, the Savoy Hotel reportedly is just a 25-minute walk from Oda’s conference at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel; also the site of her original accommodations. 
Then, despite the short distance from Oda's new accommodations at the Savoy Hotel to the conference site at the Grange St. Paul's Hotel, The Huffington Post says today Oda charged $2,850 for three days of a luxury car service, "including 15 hours on June 13, 2011. Oda’s itinerary shows she was supposed to be at the conference site — the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel — from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day, after which she had private time.”

Access to Information

Oda apparently felt no shame or guilt or otherwise had no qualms about her spending in London until earlier this week when the media got wind of her actions. The Huffington Post says The Canadian Press obtained documents under the Access to Information Act, showing “Oda refused to stay at the first location, and was booked into the Savoy hotel two kilometres away for $665 a night. The government was billed a cancellation fee for the Grange hotel of $287. Oda repaid $1,353.81 to cover the difference between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, plus a $16 orange juice she had charged to her room.”

An Apology of Convenience?

Earlier this week, Oda apologized in the House of Commons for her extravagance last June in London: "Mr. Speaker, the expenses are unacceptable, should never have been charged to taxpayers, I have repaid the costs associated with the changing of hotels and I unreservedly apologize," Oda told the House of Commons (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html).

Despite Oda’s apology, many of her spending critics, including me, think she apologized because she got caught and felt forced to apologize, not because she really believed she did anything wrong. Otherwise, why didn’t she come clean and repay the money long before now? Why did she apologize and say her spending was out of line only when questioned about it and when she knew the jig was up?

Earlier this week NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) took Oda to task in the House of Commons. He said he even called the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel and was told the hotel had free limo service Oda could have used if she felt compelled to have that kind of transportation. Even so, in Oda’s apology this week she didn’t explain why she changed hotels, or why, at the time of her apology, she was not reimbursing taxpayers for a luxury car and driver that spirited her around London at nearly $1,000 a day.

Repaid Expenses

Today, though, the Halifax Chronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/90511-oda-has-repaid-limo-bill-her-office-says) reports that a brief message from Oda’s office said all incremental costs "that should not have been expensed" — including the car service — have been repaid.

“The repayment covered the costs associated with changing hotels: the difference in cost between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, the car service in London, and all incremental costs that should not have been charged to taxpayers,” spokesman Justin Broekema is quoted as saying, but apparently without providing a dollar figure.

Appearance of Wrongdoing Important

Ultimately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize or care that the appearance of wrongdoing is just as important as actual wrongdoing itself. When she was elected by her constituents she was effectively hired by them as a Member of Parliament. Thus, she works for her constituents and all other Canadians. She is not self-employed as she seems to think she is; she cannot do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with public money.
Oda Owes Better Behavior
Finally, by any reasonable standards, Oda is obligated, as a minister of the Crown, to behave responsibly in every way when representing her constituents and the country at home and abroad. She cannot be allowed to rip off taxpayers, and squander money from the public purse out of an apparent need to feed her ego; whenever she feels like it, or whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

As an employee of the taxpayers of Canada, Bev Oda was hired, in part, with the implicit understanding she would spend taxpayers’ money wisely and carefully. Clearly, however, she, and those who allow her to thumb her nose at honest Canadians have a lot to learn about maturity and behaving responsibly.

On Misteaks and Spell Cheque

Sew, the universe of north Carolina (UNC) has decided to change it’s spelling and grammar test for students studying journalism and mass communications. Starting in the fall of 2012 these students are naught going to halve two pass a spelling test on they’re own, using there own no how. 

The students—who might bee the professional righters of too morrow--won’t half two show they no how too spell write, with there own a bill a tea. They will bee able two rely on spell cheque on there computers and other devises. And UNC has decided grammar is more important than spelling any ways. That is good too no.

Puzzling

I halve to say eye was perplecksed when I red about this in the Toronto Star (Shauna Rempel, April 4, 2012). Rempel sez the university “introduced the famed spelling test in 1975 and has made it a requirement that students pass the test with a grade of 70 per cent or higher. But in a memo to students…the school explained its decision to drop the spelling portion of the spelling and grammar test.” 

On the UNC web cite, Andy Bechtel, an associate professor who teaches courses in copyediting, reportedly “originally suggested the change because he believes memorizing a spelling list isn’t the best measure of competence in communication” (http://www.jomc.unc.edu/homepage-news-slot-23-merged/j-school-spelling-and-grammar-test-revised-to-better-measure-language-expertise).

The Change

According to Rempel, beginning in the fall of 2012 journalism students at UNC will have to complete a ‘word choice’ section on “problems that spell checkers can’t catch such as the proper use of it’s and its, your vs you’re or their/they’re/there” (Toronto Star, April 4, 2012). Rempel ads the ‘word choice’ section of the test “will also test knowledge of commonly confused homonyms: Did she pore or pour over the dictionary when studying?” (Toronto Star, April 4, 2012).

This distinction buy Rempel between the ‘word choice’ and ‘homonyms’ aspects of the test shows she does not no that “the proper use of it’s and its, your vs you’re or their/they’re/there” actually pertains to homonyms; and is not different from homonyms as she implies. Sow, can we assume she studied journalism at UNC and took it’s test four wood-bee reporters and other righters?

In fact, one online definition of ‘homonyms’ states they are “Two or more words that have the same sound or spelling but differ in meaning…Generally, the term homonym refers both to homophones (words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings, such as which and witch) and to homographs (words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, such as "bow your head" and "tied in a bow") (http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/homonymterm.htm).

The Rationale

Chris Roush, senior Associate Dean of UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, suggests the update to the spelling and grammar test is a natural change in this technological day and age. “Word usage is a much more important skill to have given the widespread use of spell check on most computers,” he said. “And the change reflects that we expect our students to know how to spell by the time they get to college.”

Roush seems naïve on too counts—at least inn the comments at tributed two him on UNC’s web cite. First, he seems two believe spell cheque on computers will always provide the write word four student’s all the thyme—weather they use spell Czech won time or fore times. Second, he seems too expect all post-secondary students will no how two spell write just because they are inn college, and will all ways use the rite words in the wright way.

Dreaming

Roush’s ladder point is a nice idea, but is wishful thinking, from my experience. An acquaintance of mine who has been teaching high school for 25 years told me recently students at his school are no longer taught the basics of grammar and spelling in high school. So, when they go to college they are unprepared for even the most basic academic writing. I have scene this many thymes as a college professor who is currently teaching critical thinking-writing-reading. 

Some of my first-year students regularly make many astonishing basic spelling and grammatical mistakes in essays. Yet, these students claim they’re high school teachers always told them they where “great” writers and they always got writing marks in the 80s and 90s in high school. If this is rite, these student’s righting skills suddenly got much worser between finishing high school and starting college.

Spelling Important

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe student’s knead to no how to spell write. I think they are wrong to believe they’re computer will think for them, and they are wrong to think there computers spell cheque will all ways spell rite for them. I do not encourage students to use spell cheque because I think its naught RE lie able.

Dr. Rhonda Gibson, associate professor in UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, seems to disagree with her colleague, Roush, about the reliability of spell cheque on computers. Wear Roush suggests, above, that this popular fee chur on computers can all ways bale out students when they halve spelling problems, Dr. Gibson is quoted on UNC’s web sight as saying “Spell check can tell you whether ‘their’ is spelled correctly but not if it’s the right word.”

On the face of Dr. Gibson’s comment, above, I agree with her intended or unintended implication: student’s RE lying on spell cheque is knot a good idea. In fact I halve learned only two well that many college student’s don’t no how too spell even the most basic words in English; sad but troo. 

Four my part, I am glad I usually spell things write. But some thymes I half made spelling misteaks two and then even I mite yews spell cheque…like I did in this peace so I wood no eye got every thing rite.

 

Graham James: Predator or Victim?

Most people who are aware of the Graham James sexual assault cases likely know he received a fairly light sentence yesterday for sexually molesting two teenage boys, by all accounts hundreds of times, when they played minor hockey under his supervision and tutelage many years ago. He’s done jail time before, for similar crimes against other boys.

Yesterday in court in Winnipeg, James was sentenced to two years in jail. But Bruce Owen of the Winnipeg Free Press reports James’s two-year sentence is “actually two two-year sentences, to be served concurrently;” meaning the two sentences are rolled into one two-year sentence. Thus, although we can infer James technically got four years, he does not have to serve the two year sentences consecutively.

Victims Teen Hockey Players

This latest sentence for James was “for repeatedly and systematically sexually abusing former NHL star Theoren Fleury and Todd Holt, Fleury's younger cousin, when he coached them as teenagers during the 1980s and early 1990s” (Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press). James was released from prison in 2000 after his first conviction for similar offences against former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy--when Kennedy, like Fleury and Holt, was a teenager under James’s supervision and control in minor hockey.

Kennedy was the first one to blow the whistle on James several years ago. His enormous courage undoubtedly made it easier for James’s other victims, such as Fleury and Holt, to speak up and reclaim their own dignity and lives. In the case involving Kennedy, James served about 18 months of a 3 1/2-year sentence.

Latest Sentence Appalling

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, as a result of yesterday’s sentence James “is eligible for day parole in September, when he will have served six months. He's eligible for full parole when he serves one-third of his sentence, meaning he could be released in November.” The Crown had asked for a six-year sentence, while James’s defense lawyer asked for a conditional sentence with no jail time.
From the outside looking in, James’s latest sentence could be interpreted as one year in prison per boy: one year for scores of sexual assaults on each of the two victims. To me, this concurrent sentence, especially for James, a repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of vulnerable and helpless teen boys in his care and control, is an abomination. 

The Crown has 30 days to decide on appealing the sentence. Considering James's notorious status as a repeat sex offender against young boys, I suggest the Crown should appeal yesterday's sentence as vigorously as possible. 

Sympathy for the Devil

To the casual observer, James seems to have gotten quite a break from Provincial Court Judge Catherine Carlson. I was not in that courtroom for any of the proceedings, but her priorities during sentencing seem seriously skewed. Yet, in fairness, maybe she saw something from the bench, not perceived by anyone else, that justified her lenient sentence for James. Or maybe she didn’t see or perceive enough.

James's sentence yesterday seems to reflect Carlson's lack of appreciation and understanding about the well-documented negative effects of sexual assault on James’s victims; despite her articulate description of what James actually did to Fleury and Holt. She reportedly said James is a master manipulator who preyed on Holt and Fleury, coercing sex from them in exchange for keeping alive their dreams of playing professional hockey.

"If they said anything about the assaults, they believed, and in fact it was so, that Mr. James could have put an end to their hockey aspirations. Mr. James could essentially do what he wanted to do to them and could rely on their compliance and silence because he controlled whether they would get the chance at what they really wanted or would have their dreams crushed. And so Mr. Fleury and Mr. Holt became mired in putting up with Mr. James' sexual assaults on them, and not saying anything about them to anyone, in the hopes that they could just keep playing hockey and maybe, one day, reach the National Hockey League," the judge is quoted as saying. 
Even so, sadly, Carlson seemed to sympathize more with James, the widely-reviled repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of teen boys, than she did with his helpless victims. She seemed bamboozled by James’s apology. With his history as a manipulator, is it not possible he apologized--perhaps on the advice of his lawyer--merely to manipulate the judge into sympathizing with him and getting a lighter sentence?

Predator Became Victim?

Clearly, Carlson seemed to have some insight into James’s character, deviant sexual behavior and untold numbers of sexual assaults on vulnerable teen boys in his care and control. Yet, she seems to have allowed the predator to become the victim in her courtroom. She indicated she had to consider James’s personal discomfort and misfortunes; including the "relentless" media scrutiny he’s had to endure since being charged and convicted.

"Mr. James has experienced an extreme degree of public humiliation,” said Carlson. “Indeed, Mr. James' career and reputation have been ruined. He is, of course, the author of his own misfortune. But while publicity and stigma are ordinary incidents of the criminal justice system and are not always cause for mitigation of sentence, the fact that the intense media scrutiny of Mr. James has lasted for such a prolonged period of time and has been relentless is a factor to consider," the judge is quoted as saying at James’s sentencing.

Yes, poor Graham James.

The sentence and Carlson's comments suggest she perceived herself as a social worker or a nun out to save Graham James’s soul; not a jurist meting out a punishment to fit his crime of being a repeat sexual offender against children. The sentence suggests Carlson seemed more concerned about giving a figurative hankie to James to help him cope with all he’s been through after he sexually assaulted the teenage boys under his power. This is part of the reason the light sentence she imposed on him is so distasteful, to say the least.

In Carlson's apparent bid to sympathize more with James, the offender, than with the victims of his horrific crimes, she reportedly said he has made 'strides' since his first conviction in 1997, after Kennedy filed his complaint. In this context, Carlson noted James apparently has been learning to cope with his sexual deviancy--he's attracted to adolescent boys and has a foot fetish--since he was first released from prison. But in this case, what does ‘learning to cope’ mean? Maybe to James it means learning new ways to not get caught. 
Published reports of the sentencing also indicate Carlson said James has stayed out of trouble since 1997 and found a job with a Montreal software company. But who said James has stayed out of trouble? If he said that, about himself, the judge might want to consider the source. It’s entirely possible James has not stayed out of trouble since 1997 as Carlson seems to blindly believe. Maybe he has offended again but just hasn’t been caught. Maybe there are new victims who just haven't come forward. Yet, I realize this is hypothetical, and the judge can deal with only what she knows with certainty, or with what she believes.

Victims ‘Only Boys?’

Since the present case is not James’s first conviction and prison sentence for crimes of this nature, we can reasonably wonder about the real reason for the judge's proverbial slap on the wrist for James and slap in the face for Fleury and Holt. Did Carlson—consciously or unconsciously—decide James’s crimes really weren’t that serious because his victims were ‘only boys?’ Did she decide that as athletic boys they should have somehow been able to ward off James’ sexual assaults, more so than girls of the same age might have been able to do if they were sexually assaulted?

If James’s victims were teenage girls, who were physically weaker than well-developed male teen hockey players, would his sentence yesterday have been more-severe? This is hypothetical of course, since James is apparently sexually attracted only or primarily to teen boys. But the question I raise about this is worth considering, nevertheless. I can’t be the only person in the country wondering about this.

Victim Critical of Sentence

One of James’s victims in the latest court case, Todd Holt, was critical of Carlson’s obvious sympathy and empathy for James: “Graham James once again…spread his sickness right through the courts of Canada. He conned the judge with his 'poor me' and 'I regret' statements. His lawyer defended the indefensible, and he's been rewarded for doing so…Graham James is laughing all the way back to the life he's always led knowing that justice for him is but a blip on the radar" (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fleury+slams+James+sentence/6334953/story.html).

Pardon Me?

Astoundingly, Graham James was actually pardoned by the National Parole Board in 2007 for his first convictions involving Kennedy and another teenage boy, but news of the pardon became public only in 2010.

When James’s pardon became known two years ago, the Canadian Press reported that “Virtually any criminal can apply for a pardon--either three or five years after a sentence has been served, depending on the severity of the crime. The current law gives the parole board only a few grounds for rejecting the applications of ex-convicts. One reason would be if they didn't exhibit good behaviour after their sentenced ended. According to government records, James was one of 14,748 Canadians given a pardon in 2006-07, while 103 people were refused… A pardon does not erase a person's criminal record, but can make it easier for an ex-convict to get a job and travel abroad” (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=316693).

Changes to System

Graham James apparently will have a harder time getting a pardon after his latest convictions and jail time for sexual assaults, according to Bruce Cheadle and Jim Bronskill of The Canadian Press on March 4, 2012 (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/pricey-new-pardons-come-with-processing-wait-times-of-up-to-two-years-141343083.html).

Cheadle and Bronskill say Canadians seeking a criminal record suspension under a new, more expensive pardon system could wait two years or more for their application to be processed, and even then might learn they've been rejected. “Details published by the government this week show that…the Parole Board of Canada anticipates longer processing times and other changes to the system of granting pardons.

According to Cheadle and Bronskill the changes are part of reforms begun after Graham James was quietly issued a routine pardon in 2007. Parliament quickly agreed in June 2010 to ensure no pardon is granted that would bring the "administration of justice into disrepute"--meaning more intensive and time-consuming scrutiny of applications. Since then, the government has proposed that those such as James who are convicted of serious sexual offences are ineligible to ever receive a pardon. Under Bill C-10; lesser offenders will have to wait five years instead of three before they can apply; and those who have completed a sentence for an indictable offence will have to wait 10 years instead of five (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/pricey-new-pardons-come-with-processing-wait-times-of-up-to-two-years-141343083.html).

 

And Justice for All the Shafias

Last night Mohammad Shafia, 59, his second wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 42, and their eldest son, Hamed, 21, spent their first night in prison as convicted killers. They were all automatically sentenced to prison yesterday with no chance of parole for at least 25 years. I was glad to see these three members of an Afghan-Canadian family convicted of first-degree murder in the the so-called ‘honor killings’ of four of their family members. A first-degree murder charge means the crime was committed with planning and forethought. At least one of the defense lawyers has already said there will be an appeal.

The Victims 
Sadly, dead, but not forgotten, thanks to this trial which gave all four victims a loud, clear voice, are three teenage sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13 Shafia; all killed by their parents and older brother. And Rona Amir Mohammad, 53, Mr. Shafia’s first wife; murdered by her husband, her co-wife, and her stepson. Ms. Amir had entered Canada illegally some time ago, posing as Mr. Shafia’s cousin, some months after the rest of the family moved to Montreal a few years ago. She was actually part of a polygamous marriage, although Ms. Yahya testified her husband no longer had any intimate relationship with Ms. Amir; and Ms. Yahya seemed to boast that she—Ms. Yahya—was the ‘preferred wife.’
Reading about the daily testimony in this trial was often heartbreaking. But I’m sure my discomfort—far away from the trial site--was nothing compared to what jurors and others experienced in the courtroom. I have some sense of what it might’ve been like, though, since in one of my former lives, as a staff writer on four Canadian dailies, I covered the occasional murder trial and other unsettling events. 

Killings Noteworthy 
Still, this Shafia family ‘honor killing’ trial was one for the record books. The three girls and their stepmother—described today by the judge, during sentencing, as completely innocent victims—were all deemed by the 12-member jury to have been murdered by the girls’ parents and older brother. And while there have been other so-called ‘honor killings,’ they usually haven’t been “on this scale, and not involving parents who were willing to wipe out half their family for the sake of their honour, and then lie about it.” (Timothy Appleby, The Globe and Mail, Jan. 29, 2012).
In passing sentence, Mr. Justice Robert Maranger noted the murdered girls merely offended their killers’ “completely twisted concept of honour, a notion of honour that is founded upon the domination and control of women.” He also said the killings resulted from “a sick notion of honour that has absolutely no place in any civilized society” (The Globe and Mail, Jan. 29, 2012). Shafia and his so-called ‘preferred wife,’ Yahya, testified they had nothing to do with the deaths. Their eldest son and co-accused, Hamed, didn’t testify. At sentencing yesterday, when asked by the judge if they had anything to say, Shafia, Yahya, and Hamed all denied killing the girls and Ms. Amir. 

Planned Drownings 
The four victims’ bodies were found in a Nissan Sentra, in about six feet of water at a Rideau Canal lock, just east of Kingston, Ontario in June, 2009. The cause of death for all four victims was drowning. The day of the tragedy the Shafia family was supposedly on a small vacation, using two cars—the Sentra, which reportedly was bought just the day before the death trip; and the family’s other car, a Lexus SUV. In fact, the ‘holiday’ seemed a ruse for a planned watery execution of the three dead Shafia girls and Ms. Amir.
Court was told that in the months before the deaths, someone had searched on a Shafia family laptop computer for information about how to commit murders, and for locations of various bodies of water. Police determined the Sentra was pushed into the canal by the Shafias’ Lexus SUV. Portions of the SUV’s headlight were found at the site where the Sentra went into the water, and damage to the front end of the SUV apparently matched damage at the rear of the Sentra.
Shafia and Yahya claimed their eldest daughter, Zainab, who didn’t have a driver’s license, got the Nissan’s keys from her mother and took the other now-dead family members out for a joyride, around 2 a.m. on the day in question; ending with the drownings when the car accidentally went into the canal. But that story was at odds with what police investigators learned. 
For instance, if the car did go into the water accidentally while Zainab was driving, the engine would’ve been running and the lights would’ve been on. Yet, the victims weren’t wearing seatbelts, the Sentra’s ignition and headlights were off when it was pulled from the canal, the car’s windows were open, and the seats were reclined in a way they wouldn’t have been if the victims were out driving.
Also, if the victims had been alive or conscious when the Sentra hit the water they could’ve tried to escape through the open windows. But none did, even though they were in a relatively small amount of water. This seemed to support the Crown’s theory: the victims were either incapacitated but alive when they were in the car at the water’s edge and drowned when the car went into the canal; or they were already dead from being previously drowned and then their bodies were put into the Sentra, before the car went into the water. 

Why Kill their Daughters and Sisters? 
Why were the three Shafia girls killed by their father, mother, and older brother? Shafia insisted the girls had shamed him and his ‘honor' as the family patriarch, and the family, by adopting 'offensive' Western ways--including having boyfriends, dressing provocatively, and other behaviors. The eldest girl, Zainab, also horrified her parents by briefly marrying a young Pakistani man. The youngest drowning victim, Geeti, 13, apparently had asked to be put into foster care to escape her troubling home life.
On a secret police wiretap Shafia told his wife, Yahya, that his honor was the most important thing to him; and expressed his outrage, embarrassment, and distress over their daughters' Western behaviors. In the police wiretaps he spewed vile epithets about his daughters—calling them ‘filth’ and ‘whores’ and worse. Shockingly, Shafia also said in court his daughters deserved to die for the shame they’d brought onto him and their family. 
Teachers and social service workers testified the girls had expressed fear of their father and of the general abuse and violence in their home. Court was told Shafia ruled the home with a proverbial iron fist, and big brother Hamed was his surrogate enforcer when he, Shafia, was away. Yet, Shafia, and his family members and friends who spoke of him in court, testified he was a loving, liberal, open-minded father.

Did Ms. Amir Have to Die? 
And why did Shafia, Yahya, and their son Hamed murder Ms. Amir, who was Shafia's first wife and who lived with them in their polygamous marriage? The Crown Prosecutor said she’d become an expendable and troublesome burden to Shafia and Yahya because, among other things, she supported the girls’ bid for more freedom from the suffocating restrictions and violence they faced at home. 
Ms. Yahya claimed she and Ms. Amir got along well, like sisters, with no significant problems between them. Yet, in Ms. Amir’s own writings from her diary, read into testimony, she complained of being beaten by her husband, Shafia, of walking through parks and crying out of loneliness and despair, and being condescended to and treated as a servant by his second wife, Yahya. So much for sisterhood. Ms. Amir reportedly had also asked Shafia for a divorce. 

Becoming Dishonorable in Striving for Honor 
If the jury was right and Shafia did help kill his own daughters and his first wife, he proved himself to be dishonorable—at least in our society. This is ironic since honor is so important to him; and because he was so offended and outraged when he perceived his daughters had behaved dishonorably. If honor is so important to him, presumably being truthful might be integral to his personal code of honor, and he might consider being honest about how his daughters and first wife died. Not so.
Throughout the trial the Shafia parents blamed the victims. This is human nature perhaps, and a common tactic with those who are afraid to admit what they’ve done; or who believe they’ve done nothing wrong. But blaming the victims in this case is especially repugnant since the “completely innocent victims,” as Mr. Justice Robert Maranger referred to the dead girls and Ms. Amir, were the family members--the children, sisters, wife and co-wife, and supposed 'stepmother'--of their killers; killers who, as the jury concluded with agreement from the judge, executed them in cold blood, with planning, forethought, and presence of mind.

 

Suicide Not Painless, Despite the Song

One of the hit movies of 1970 was M*A*S*H, which spawned the highly acclaimed and wildly successful T. V. show of the same name (Sept. 17, 1972- Feb. 28, 1983). The film and series purportedly were set in an American mobile army surgical hospital during the Korean War, but many people believed that cleverly disguised the Vietnam War. I’ve always believed the T. V. show was a hit for various reasons—including the terrific acting, wry humor, inspired writing, and the bouncy and catchy theme song, 'Suicide is Painless.' The movie used the music and lyrics; the T. V. show, just the music.
I thought about the M*A*S*H theme song this week when, like many others, I was shocked and saddened to learn of the suicide of 11-year-old Mitchell Wilson of Pickering, Ontario. But is suicide really painless? If it’s not, who really suffers? Those who kill themselves? Their surviving family members and friends? Society as a whole?

I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

Refrain: …suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.

Refrain: …suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

--Excerpt from ‘Suicide is Painless’

(Lyrics, Mike Altman; Music, Johnny Mandel)

Mitchell Wilson's father has said publicly he thinks his son’s self-esteem plummeted in the past couple of years, and he believes he killed himself not just because of one thing, but an accumulation of various recent tragic events in his young life. First and foremost, was the untimely death of Mitchell’s mom when he was eight. Then, he was diagnosed about a year ago with muscular dystrophy (MD); learning his own future with MD was bleak at best; facing a life of no more walking, running, or playing, confined to a wheelchair, if he didn’t die first. 
Mitchell had also been bullied at school and elsewhere. Most recently, he was attacked while he was out walking, to keep his strength up; and listening to music on an electronic device. By all accounts the assault was so vicious his assailant, allegedly a 12-year-old boy, slammed Mitchell’s face into the sidewalk, even breaking some of his teeth. Then he stole Mitchell’s electronic device and, like most tough guy-cowards, ran away. They caught the boy believed to have committed the assault, and Mitchell was recently served with a subpoena to testify against him in court. But apparently he couldn’t face the prospect of confronting his alleged attacker in court, which he might've thought would set him up for even more assaults as a result. 
Mitchell decided he’d suffered enough. Now, tragically, he’s dead, at the tender age of 11, by his own hand, before his MD had a chance to really do its expected debilitating damage. His dad found him on his bed the following morning when he went to wake him for school; his head enveloped by a plastic bag, tied shut with the family dog’s leash. No more school, no more bullying, no more getting beaten up, no more pain--physical or emotional.

Was suicide painless for Mitchell, as the M*A*S*H song says? Was it painless as he lay on his bed for the last time, thinking about his dad and the rest of his family he’d never see again? Did he, mercifully, just pass out instantly from suffocation, and not suffer? Did he gasp for breath? Did he change his mind and decide he wanted to live after all, but was unable to untie the plastic bag from his head? Was his suicide painless for his dad and other family members?

Similarly, was suicide painless this summer for three active or retired NHL players, about whom I wrote in a previous blog entry? Was it painless for those who loved and cared for them? We could ask the family members of Wade Belak, the recently-retired NHL ‘enforcer’-fighter who apparently suffered quietly from some degree of depression while typically presenting himself to most who knew him as Mr. Happy-go-Lucky; and who reportedly hanged himself Aug. 31, 2011--supposedly to the surprise of all who knew him. We could ask the family members of NHL player Rick Rypien, whose depression was an open secret and who hanged himself Aug. 15, 2011. We could ask the family members of NHL player Derek Boogaard who’d been drinking and overdosed, apparently accidently, on other drugs May 13, 2011.

Bill Wilkerson, co-founder of the Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health, recently said suicide is a “societal phenomenon” and family members and friends might never know exactly why someone killed him/herself. But he said the rest of us can better-understand how someone can lean toward suicide, and maybe help prevent it from happening, if we recognize common scenarios that can be overwhelming (Globe and Mail, Sept. 7, 2011). These include:

Ø      emotional isolation (malignant loss of self-esteem and usefulness);

Ø      peer pressure and exclusion (deep sense of having lost acceptance, recognition, belonging);

Ø      void of joblessness (deep sense of loss of identity, self-worth);

Ø      emptiness of depression (pervasive loss of the energy and motivation to live);

Ø      impulse (why not right now);

Ø      drugs/alcohol (desperation peaks);

Ø      available means (gun, rope, drugs, locale);

Ø      family history of suicide (higher risk);

Ø      youth and children (altered perceptions of death and dying; loss of place); and

Ø      social disadvantage and grievance (profound weariness of perpetual worry and seething).

Wilkerson says the chain reaction among the above 10 symptoms can be broken with love and friendship which can help steer the suicidal person toward professional help (Globe and Mail, Sept. 7, 2011). I agree, but for this to happen the person who’s feeling suicidal must ask for or accept unsolicited help if it’s offered; and the person’s friends and family members must try to be insightful and perceptive, and not be afraid to ask the tough question: are you thinking about hurting yourself?

But I suggest those who are feeling suicidal, male or female, might not admit they’re feeling or thinking that way if they’re determined to die. Because if they really are determined to die they might not invite help by letting others know how they feel, and they might not accept help if it's offered to them. Yet, they might admit their suicidal feelings and thoughts, and therefore seek or accept help, if they mainly want or need attention, sympathy, or pity more than they have a need to die.

Kathy English, Public Editor at the Toronto Star, says suicide is “the 10th leading cause of death in Canada and the second leading cause for those aged 15 to 24;” and she believes the media’s traditional reluctance to report suicides has a lot to do with conventions of our society in general, and “conventional practice within journalism” specifically. But, she adds, usually when people commit suicide, “it seems to me there’s a case to be made for “overriding public interest” in seeking to understand why” (Sept. 30, 2011). 
English argues the media, by reporting “stories about suicide,” can initiate critical conversations about depression and serious mental health issues “that affect one in five Canadians.” She adds the “conventional media silence” over suicide seems to be changing, and more journalists are reporting “the facts about suicide — which claims many more lives in Canada than homicide or car crashes” (Toronto Star, Sept. 30, 2011). 
English might be right in saying publicizing suicides can be instructive. The suicides of Belak and Rypien, and the accidental overdose-suicide of Boogaard, were all widely-reported in the media; and the NHL paid attention, at least initially. And after the headlines this week about the suicide of 11-year-old Mitchell Wilson, who couldn’t take any more of what life threw at him, many people are upset and talking about him and his heartbreaking story too.

These suicides are just an iota of the total number of course, and most aren't discussed publicly. I suspect most family members and friends might be embarrassed—because of our societal stigma—to reveal someone they loved and cared for committed suicide. But perhaps having these few stories in print, and knowing many people are talking about them, might help reduce the stigma and awkwardness of these and other suicides a little; even though they’ll never be painless, regardless of what the M*A*S*H song says.

 

Rush to Judgment: Habit, Tradition or Human Nature?

I’m a little confused about the current situation concerning 46-year-old Randall Hopley, the British Columbia man accused of snatching three-year-old Kienan Hebert from his home in the early-morning hours of Sept. 7, 2011. Thankfully, and surprisingly, the boy was returned to his home, apparently unharmed, four days later, around 3 a.m. When Kienan was returned to his home, his family was, either by coincidence or design, staying at the home of friends nearby, and had left the doors of their own home unlocked; again, apparently. 

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, had previously made a public plea for the abductor to return his son to a safe place, and walk away. The person who took Kienan back home in the middle of the night, to an empty house, no less, left him on the couch in front of the television, then called 911, saying the child was safely home.

I’m confused because Hopley seems already convicted of this crime, but to my knowledge he hasn’t pleaded guilty or innocent, hasn’t had a trial, hasn’t spoken publicly about the situation, and as far as I know police haven’t said publicly what, if anything, Hopley has told them about his alleged role in all of this. Yet, in true Canadian fashion, or perhaps just in keeping with the age-old and unfair ‘rush to judgment’ aspect of human nature, Hopley’s already been tried and convicted in the media, and in the infamous so-called ‘court of public opinion;’ most of whom don’t know any more about the case than I do now as I write this.

In short, do we know for sure that Hopley took Kienan Hebert? Is Hopley necessarily guilty just because he’s been arrested? Many people seem to think so. When he made his first court appearance last week after his arrest, “Outside the courtroom, a small crowd was picketing against Hopley. Their signs called for the death penalty to be brought back for offences against children” (Calgary Herald, Sept. 14, 2011). His lawyer asked for a psychiatric examination, with his next court date, via video link, set for November 9, 2011. According to CTV News Hopley’s charged with kidnapping, abduction of a child under 14, breaking and entering, and two counts of breach of probation” (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110915/randall-hopley-arrest-110915/). 

A Globe and Mail editorial says Hopley’s record includes a 2008 sentence of 18 months in jail and three years’ probation for attempting to kidnap a 10-year-old mentally disabled boy from his bedroom (Sept. 14, 2011). He “had a conviction in 1985 for sexual assault in matters relating to children…So there was reason to suspect a long-term problem with pedophilia” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). And Hopley “had been released from jail just a few weeks ago after serving a two-month sentence for assault” (Toronto Star, Sept. 17, 2011). CBC News claims “in the mid-1980s Hopley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years in federal prison, the National Parole Board confirmed” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/08/bc-kienan-hebert-randall-hopley-amber-alert.html).

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has blasted the justice system for not keeping closer tabs on Hopley after his previous troubles with the law: “Hopley is [at large] for a reason: because someone didn’t do their job right,” he told the Calgary Herald. “The judges and the system failed us” (Macleans, Sept. 16, 2011). I understand Hebert’s anger, but perhaps he can save some of it for himself and his wife. After all, if they left their doors unlocked the night their son was abducted, did they not fail him by not protecting him and his safety to the fullest extent possible, and for implicitly and potentially putting the boy and their entire family at risk?

When I suggest here Hopley could be not guilty of the charges relating to Kienan Hebert, I’m not being naïve and I don’t have blinders on. I realize he might be guilty as sin. But he also might be not guilty. The public won’t know for sure until he enters a plea, or is found guilty or innocent, or there’s some other kind of resolution to the case. 

I’ve covered court cases, including murder trials, for daily newspapers in my previous life. I’ve seen and heard people profess their innocence and be proven guilty. I saw a 19-year-old boy-man with a criminal background, pimples and a peach-fuzz moustache in northeastern Ontario admit to robbing the night desk clerk of a local hotel; and brag he wanted to go to “the big house.” He got his wish: a two-year sentence in Kingston Penitentiary. But I’m also aware of the many cases, in Canada alone, where many men have been convicted of terrible crimes; only to be vindicated afterwards and eventually proven innocent. So, rushing to judgment, even when the situation seems cut-and-dried, can be grossly unfair and a huge mistake.

If Hopley took Kienan Hebert, maybe he has a penchant for little boys and a need to strike out at and be in control of those he perceives as more-vulnerable than he is. And by most accounts he’s one of society’s more-vulnerable souls: supposedly borderline retarded, according to his lawyer; not much formal education; a criminal past including crimes relating to children; a troubled childhood that saw his father killed in a mine explosion when he was two years old; gravitating toward trouble after his father’s death; and being taken from his mother by child welfare when he was six or seven years old. His mother, 70, has been quoted as saying she “didn’t mind” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011) when he was taken from her because she thought it was best for him but she loves him. “She lost track of his whereabouts and would mostly get second-hand accounts of his problems with the law” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

If Hopley did take Kienan Hebert from his home earlier this month, does his own wretched background justify his actions? No. If he took the boy, could his own background help to explain his actions? Perhaps. If he took Kienan should he be held accountable in some way? Yes. But if he did take the boy, is anyone else inherently complicit in enabling the intruder to enter the Heberts’ home and commit this crime? 

Kienan’s parents discovered him gone around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 7. He was an easy target because of his age. But did Kienan’s parents leave the doors unlocked when they went to bed; in effect potentially putting themselves and their children at risk? If so, they implicitly invited disaster, even or especially in their little town of Sparwood, B. C., population, about 4,000. If this were the case, perhaps any number of people could’ve entered and violated the Heberts’ home: anyone who checked their doors when the house was dark, or who might’ve known the family’s habits in that regard, or who’d been inside the home before and knew its layout; who knew exactly where to find Kienan, if he was the specific target. Perhaps Kienan was just the first child, or the first boy the intruder saw and decided to take, turning the Heberts’ lives upside down in the process by spiriting the boy away while the rest of the family slept.
If the Heberts left their doors unlocked all night, this seems unsafe and defies common sense in this day and age; even in the ‘safest’ communities, especially with precious children in the house. So, if this were the case perhaps Kienan’s parents must accept some responsibility for unwittingly helping to facilitate the crime. In fact, the acting mayor of Sparwood, Sharon Fraser, says this overall situation has taught the town an important lesson: "This is one of the hardest lessons all of us have had to learn, that we can't leave our doors unlocked and we can't let our children just run" (The Huffington Post, Sept. 19, 2011).

Paul Hebert, a self-proclaimed Christian, has even chosen to forgive Hopley for taking his son, even though Hopley hasn’t yet been convicted of or pleaded guilty to anything. Hebert says anger is for those who want to be victims, while compassion allows one to “move on...how can you be angry with someone who needs help as much as he does?...He still had the compassion to bring Kienan back and I can’t forget that…I think his mother needs to know that everything is okay…Hopefully, her son is going to get the help he needs now” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

At first glance, Hebert’s graciousness is admirable, but on closer inspection it's seriously tarnished and ultimately ineffective. That's because he seems to contradict his faith-based big-heartedness by jumping the gun and forgiving Hopley for something of which he hasn't even been convicted; and of charges to which he hasn't even pleaded guilty or innocent. In this context, Hebert, who wants to appear charitable and presumably different from those who are more narrow-minded than he seems to think he is, actually seems just like everyone else who’s already convicted Randall Hopley--before he’s had his day in court, before he’s entered a plea, before he’s been found guilty or innocent of taking Hebert’s son, or before there’s some other resolution to the case. 

Police say Hopley was the only real suspect, because of his particular criminal history. But my question remains: do we know for sure, yet, that he took Kienan Hebert?

Another Immature Middle-Aged Male Politician?

So now we have, this time in Canada, another middle-aged married male politician—53-year-old Conservative MP Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale)--exhibiting questionable personal conduct on the job with a woman who is also married, and who supposedly is just a friend. Dechert, a parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, sent problematic e-mails to Shi Rong, a reporter for the Xinhua news agency, which we are told is tied to China’s intelligence agencies. 
Critics of Dechert’s lovey-dovey e-mails are concerned Shi Rong is or might be a spy, and was using her ‘friendship’ with him to manipulate him into sharing Canadian government secrets with her. But the Chinese government claims the Dechert “affair” is a private matter and it’s “irresponsible” for the press to imply Beijing had any hand in it (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). This 'private matter' was made public after Shi Rong's husband apparently hacked her e-mail and found Dechert's letters to his wife. 
Dechert's actions allow him to join the pantheon of middle-aged male politicians who’ve demonstrated suspect personal behavior--through electronic communication or otherwise--on the job. Almost all of the male politicians who're known to have carried on these kinds of indiscretions, in recent memory, have been in the United States; the list is too long to include here. Dechert now has the dubious distinction of putting Canada on the map in this regard--but there also could be more politicians in Canada whose indiscretions haven't yet been made public. At least Dechert admitted sending the e-mails to Shi Rong, unlike most of these politicians who typically deny and try to lie their way out of the mess they helped create.
In fairness to Dechert, at first glance the published transcripts of his e-mails to Shi Rong seem more embarrassing to him and potentially hurtful to his family, than harmful to Canada’s federal government and national security. He’s suggested the e-mails are harmless notes to a “friend” he met “while doing Chinese-language media communications. These e-mails are flirtatious, but the friendship remained innocent and simply that – a friendship. I apologize for any harm caused to anyone by this situation.” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Yet, Dechert’s e-mails to Shi Rong suggest a closer relationship than just a harmless flirtation. Or, perhaps his cooing was one-sided and the result of his overactive imagination; wishful thinking, more than anything else. Regardless, published reports say an e-mail sent to her from Dechert’s parliamentary office account on April 17, 2010 states: “You are so beautiful. I really like the picture of you by the water with your cheeks puffed. That look is so cute, I love it when you do that. Now, I miss you even more.” The e-mail was signed, Bob Dechert, MP. The sender account named was decheB9@parl.gc.ca and the recipient was shirong2011@gmail.com, which Ms. Shi has used as an e-mail account (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

In an e-mail from April 20, 2010 Dechert asks Shi Rong to watch CPAC, the Canadian parliamentary TV channel, that night when he would smile for her on-camera. “Dearest Rong…I enjoyed the drive (to Ottawa) by thinking of you…We will be voting at 6:30 p.m. If you have time, watch on TV or on your computer…and I will smile at you. I miss you. Love, Bob,” the e-mail concludes (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Despite Dechert’s claims that his relationship with Shi Rong is innocent, former CSIS analyst J. Michael Cole says there’s good reason for concern: “A mid-level, middle-aged government official with access to information…He’s married, which creates another entry point for blackmail. What’s key is not so much the position or rank, but rather his access…His lack of judgment, using his government email . . . points to weaknesses that would have been identified by a professional intelligence agency…the Chinese are past masters at this game” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

In this context, The Toronto Star says Dechert, in an e-mail to Shi Rong apparently in 2010, notes “Shi interviewed officials at the Royal Bank of Canada. It’s not clear whether Dechert acted as a go-between to help Shi organize the interviews, but he asks helpfully, “Did you get enough information for your articles?” About three weeks later Xinhua promoted Shi’s article on how the Royal Bank weathered the 2008 financial crisis to emerge stronger, as an “exclusive” based on access to two top senior executives” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

Cole says it doesn’t matter that Dechert’s work for Foreign Affairs Minister Baird apparently pertains only to North American matters: “…There’s a lot in that portfolio that the Chinese would like to learn” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011). In this regard, an editorial in one of Canada's leading daily newspapers insists Dechert must come clean about the entire matter: "Chinese intelligence agents are said to gradually cultivate contacts with mid-level officials, first eliciting routine information, but eventually extorting genuine secrets. If such a process was in the works in this instance, Ms. Shi’s jealous husband may have done Mr. Dechert and Canada a favour by distributing his foolish e-mails...In any case, Mr. Dechert must be completely frank with the Canadian authorities...” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 13, 2011).

Presumably time will tell if Dechert did anything illegal, or put Canada’s security at risk, or committed moral blunders for which he might have to answer to his family and his own conscience, by sending his swooning e-mails to Shi Rong. But the appearance of potential or actual wrongdoing also must be considered. And it remains to be seen whether he resigns voluntarily, or stays in his present job, or is eventually asked or told to quit because of this situation. So far, Foreign Affairs Minister Baird seems unconcerned about Dechert’s e-mail behavior in this situation, even saying concerns about it are ridiculous. A published report attributed to The Canadian Press notes Dechert passed fresh security checks in March, 2011 (Sept. 14, 2011).

I've often thought questionable personal behaviors on the job--such as sending risqué e-mails, photos, and text messages or worse--by middle-aged, usually-married male politicians seem self-destructive: the politician could potentially lose his career, reputation, livelihood, family, and friends if the behavior is discovered; but he does it anyway. And this suggests these particular male politicians might be emotionally immature. Through their questionable or bad personal behaviors on the job they seem naive, unthinking, and/or arrogant; perhaps believing they're invincible and entitled to do what they want with impunity; and not thinking about possible consequences, or thinking they won’t get caught, or wanting to get caught. 

In short, the male politicians who behave in these ways seem like egocentric teenagers. The Free Dictionary, online, defines egocentric, in part, this way: “a self-centered person with little regard for others; regarding everything only in relation to oneself; self-centred; selfish” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egocentric). A key difference between these male politicians and teenagers, however, is teenagers, because of their age and emotional development, are supposed to be and expected to be egocentric. 

Does national politics, for some reason, specifically attract a number of emotionally immature and egocentric men? After some middle-aged, married male politicians get elected at the federal and national level, do they think and believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want because of their perceived power, position, and money?

I realize MP Bob Dechert, through his e-mails to Shi Rong, might be guilty only of non-criminal stupidity, carelessness, unprofessionalism, and indiscretion, such as: 1) not thinking or caring about possible harm to Canada by cozying up to a Chinese reporter who could be a spy—even if she’s not; 2) acting like a love-sick schoolboy instead of a mature responsible politician; 3) disregarding any shame or hurt he might inflict on his family and friends if and when his e-mails became public; and 4) either not thinking about the possible consequences of his behavior, or thinking he'd never get caught, or not caring about any embarrassment, shame or job loss he might potentially incur if he did get caught.

Do Canada’s Members of Parliament get any kind of training and firm advice about how to conduct themselves when communicating electronically with others, male or female, in their professional capacities as MPs? Clearly, some kind of training seems called for since, at least in Dechert’s case, we can’t rely on his common sense and maturity to prevail.

No More '9/11'

Now the dust has begun to settle, so to speak, after the often-riveting memorial ceremonies, newscasts, and human interest stories about the most-infamous day in recent U. S. history that tragically occurred 10 years ago, I think it’s also time to put an end to the well-worn but convenient expression, ‘9/11.’

I realize some people might believe I’m being almost sacrilegious, and committing some kind of grievous sin, by suggesting we do away with this expression that has become so common. One online definition of ‘sacrilege’ says it means “the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrilege). And of course, most reasonable people, with good reason, perceive that terrible day and its aftermath as something sacred, to be remembered, as they cherish forever the memories of friends and loved ones needlessly and brutally murdered that day.

But if many people like the expression ‘9/11’ because it’s so easy to use and because it’s become so common in our lexicon, or vocabulary, that lends credence to my suggestion that the expression should be phased out and discontinued. The expression ‘9/11’ is too easy to use, and also too common, and that’s precisely why it should be discontinued. It runs the risk of becoming trite, just a catchphrase, and somehow meaningless; notwithstanding the powerful and emotional significance of the expression when it first started being used--and of course which it still has.  
I believe that over time, if it hasn’t already begun happening, the continued use of the expression ‘9/11’ will lead many people to forget the specific year in which the ‘9/11’ air attacks occurred in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

For instance, as a rule I have a good memory for names, dates, song lyrics, melodies, and other such things. And while I always know the event to which the expression ‘9/11’ refers, I sometimes have to stop and remind myself of the year in which that awful event occurred. First, I think back to where I was, and the approximate time, when I first learned of the air attacks in New York. As I wrote in a previous blog posting, I was sitting at my computer writing an essay, around 9 a.m. I turned on the ‘Today’ show on T.V. and saw what happened just minutes earlier. ‘Oh, yes,’ I then tell myself, ‘it was 2001 and I was just starting my master’s degree.’
The meaning of the expression ‘9/11’ has even entered dictionaries, such as the online MACMILLAN DICTIONARY: “9/11’ definition: 11 September 2001, when planes flown by terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, damaged the Pentagon, and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing thousands of people” (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/number-9-11). Similarly, The Free Dictionary, also online, states: “9/11 or 9-11: September 11, 2001, the date on which two hijacked airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City and another into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in open land in Pennsylvania” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/9%2F11). 
Notably, both of these dictionary definitions of ‘9/11’ rightly specify the year in which the attacks took place. They would’ve been irresponsible if they'd just stated what happened, without specifying the year. Similarly, I think most people who use the expression ‘9/11’ without specifying the year to which it refers are unwittingly being irresponsible and even seem disrespectful to all of the unfortunate innocent victims, living and dead, of that terrible day. Nobody means to seem trite and disrespectful by omitting the year when they refer to the event, but I think that’s what has implicitly begun happening.  
I’ve often wondered who first used the expression, ‘9/11.’ Was it someone in the media? Or President George Bush? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? In fact, one online source, The Morning Delivery: Feats, Facts, and Historic Firsts About Items in the News (http://www.billlucey.com/2010/09/who-coined-the-term-911.html), concedes it’s hard to remember or to know for sure who first coined the expression ‘9/11.’ 
But the website claims the New York Times “first used the term ``9/11’’ in a headline for a Bill Keller op-ed article on September 12, 2001: ``Correspondent: America’s Emergency Line: 9/11’’ The Morning Delivery says when Jack Rosenthal, President of The New York Times Company Foundation was asked about the origin of the expression ‘9/11,’ he responded by email on his recollection of the day:

``Like just about everyone else in America, I kept asking myself all day, what can we do. That evening, the answer dawned on me: do just what we do every day at The Times Company Foundation, philanthropy. Why don't we start a relief fund?...Let's create a special solicitation of Times readers around the country. That night…I sent e-mails to…our…executives describing the idea and calling it The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund. By morning, everyone had signed on so I did the next natural thing for a former reporter and editor; I wrote it up as a story, as a convenient way to get the information across to the hugely harried Times news department.’’

The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund’s first article appeared on September 13; and according to Rosenthal, the fund raised $62 million with the money distributed within the first 6 months which benefited 30,000 of the neediest families.

                                                           

                                             --Bill Lucey (WPLucey@gmail.com)

                                               

We should also remember the expression ‘9/11’ is a quick and handy way for the media to refer to that day 10 years ago; to make snappy, eye-catching headlines and broadcast ‘sound bites.’ But if ‘9/11’ was first used by the media, partly for convenience because it’s a fast way to mention the tragedy, we should remember that those who don’t work in the media have no need to abbreviate references to what happened that dark day.  

So, to help preserve the memories of that day, we should all start including the year ‘2001’ when referring to the tragedy. In doing so, we could all seem more-respectful to the victims of that massacre, and help ensure we are always able to remember the specific date and year, by simply saying ‘September 11, 2001;’ or even ‘9/11/01.’ 
Neither of these two expressions is too long or cumbersome, and they’re both easy to say once you get used to them.   

NHL 'Enforcers:' Sadly, A Dying Breed

When the ‘sudden and unexpected’ deaths of three National Hockey League (NHL) ‘enforcers’—whose main job was to fight, not score goals--were announced over the past four months, in each case I automatically suspected suicide: Derek Boogaard (May 13, 2011, age 28), Rick Rypien (Aug. 15, 2011, age 27), and Wade Belak (Aug. 31, 2011, age 35). In assuming suicide, I was reminded of what my friend and supervisor—a psychiatric nurse—told me when I worked for the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) for nearly four years in the early-mid 1990s before I returned to school in 1996. She said when we hear or read about someone dying ‘suddenly’ at home or elsewhere, it often—but not always—suggests the person committed suicide. 
Widespread published reports indicate Rypien and Belak hanged themselves; Boogaard died of an accidental overdose of alcohol and oxycodone, according to the medical examiner involved. Regardless of whether we’re hockey fanatics or casual observers we should be concerned about these three tragic deaths, in just four months, of NHL ‘enforcers:’ three young men are dead—by their own hands, yes, either accidentally or intentionally—but they are still dead.

The term ‘enforcer’ seems to be a nice euphemism for ‘thug on skates,’ a tough guy whose main talent and ability seems to be fighting: either because of his size, physical hulk, and willingness and ability to fight; and/or because he doesn’t have the skill to actually play hockey and contribute to his team the old-fashioned way; by getting assists and scoring goals. His key role appears to be protecting his team’s more-talented hockey players by trying to ‘take out’ perceived or actual threats on the opposing team so they don’t hurt the ‘enforcer’s’ more-talented teammates.

• Belak, 6’5” and 223 pounds, was “known more for using his fists than stick-handling…played 549 NHL games, scoring eight goals and 33 points, racking up 1,263 penalty minutes” (Toronto Sun, Sept. 1, 2011). According to the Toronto Star, he “wanted to play the game so he willingly assumed the role of enforcer, taking part in 136 fights, even though he hated what he was hired to do” (Sept. 2, 2011). He recently retired from the NHL and planned a new career, partly in broadcasting.

• Rypien wasn’t a typical NHL ‘enforcer,’ said the New York Times: “He fought often — 39 times in his 119-game N.H.L. career — while scoring only 9 goals and 7 assists…at 5 feet 11 inches and 190 pounds, Rypien fell into the category of the useful, smaller, “character” player, willing to take on anyone. In each of Rypien’s 39 N.H.L. fights, his opponent was taller, according to Dropyourgloves.com…” (Aug. 16, 2011).

• At 6’7” and 260 pounds, Boogaard broke into the NHL “with the Minnesota Wild in 2005-06” (www.foxnews.com/sports), and “quickly gained a reputation as one of the game’s top enforcers,” said the National Post (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/05/13/derek-boogaard-found-dead-in-minneapolis/). He died in May, 2011 of an accidental overdose of alcohol and “oxycodone toxicity. Oxycodone is categorized as a painkiller. The (medical examiner’s) report said the manner of death was accidental and that no other data will be released” (May 20, 2011, www.foxnews.com/sports).

The most-recent of these ‘sudden’ deaths is that of Belak, a Toronto Maple Leaf for many years before ending his hockey career with the Nashville Predators and retiring several months ago. His death also seems the most-shocking to many people since he apparently showed no outward signs of anything amiss in his life or psyche. Yet, his mother, Lorraine Belak, has since confirmed he was suffering from depression: “I think he was taking control of that…He didn’t talk about it all the time or a lot…All I know is that it is still under investigation…The only thing I can tell you is he did not die of natural causes” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). In addition, columnist Dave Feschuk said two unidentified sources claim Belak secretly suffered from depression, for which he was taking medication (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011, http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/1048235--feschuk-belak-silently-suffered-from-depression-sources-say).

Belak’s father, Lionel Aadland, reportedly said his son hadn’t displayed any signs of “distress” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). Mark Napier, the executive director of the NHL’s alumni association, “which frequently arranges and pays for medical treatment for ex-NHLers” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011), said he believes Belak never asked the association for assistance.

Notably, Belak has been widely described as always gregarious, loud, fun, upbeat, and as one who never seemed to have a bad day; always kidding around and making jokes. But in hindsight, could he have been trying too hard to be Mr. Personality? When he entertained his friends and colleagues, could he have been mainly acting? Didn’t any of them ever sense he might’ve been trying too hard to be the life of the party?

From my experience, some people who are loud, gregarious, upbeat and ‘on’ all or most of the time eventually reveal, in one way or another, they have low self-esteem, a poor self-image, and generally feel inadequate and inferior to others; they don't really like themselves very much and assume if they're just ‘themselves’ others won’t like them either. So some of these people overcompensate for those perceived flaws by becoming the guy or gal everyone loves having around because they're always good for a laugh, they don’t seem to take anything or themselves seriously, and they can liven up any situation. Did Wade Belak fall into that category?

In a telling moment during an interview with Bruce Arthur of the National Post, Belak revealed something that seems significant and especially poignant about his self-image; which could be related to his apparent suicide. When asked if he ever got special treatment in Toronto, as a Maple Leaf, he said he did at McDonald’s sometimes, but “that’s about it.” He seemed to ruminate momentarily about what his life might be like when he retired from hockey: “I mean, I don’t go throwing around ‘I play for the Leafs’ to get free stuff all the time, because I hate doing that. But I could … I should enjoy it while it lasts. Soon I’ll be a nobody” (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/08/31/belak-death-an-end-to-a-wretched-summer/, Aug. 31, 2011).

In saying he’d soon be “a nobody,” perhaps Belak was living up to his reputation as a joker, and was kidding; maybe he actually believed he’d be a ‘somebody.’ But in the context of his suicide this week, I suspect his brief remark, above, betrayed what he really was thinking and feeling about himself and his future outside of hockey. And if he really believed he’d be “a nobody” when he retired from pro hockey, he could’ve been consumed by that thought, and it might’ve played a major role in his decision to kill himself; especially if he had low self-esteem and a poor self-image.

If Belak was taking medication for depression, this might help explain why he’s generally described as being always upbeat and outgoing. The medication might’ve affected him that way, depending on the medication and how he and his system reacted to it. But does his ‘sudden’ death suggest he’d been faking his outward sunny disposition? Was his outward happy nature genuine, even if aided by medication? Or was he actually despondent, lonely, sad, and frustrated--personally and/or professionally--much of the time? Did he feel inadequate or inferior compared to players who scored goals and got assists? Had he been planning to kill himself when the moment was ‘right’ for him? Or, was his ‘sudden’ death really sudden; an aberration, utterly out of character—perhaps the result of a split-second thought, feeling or impulse, or something suddenly happening to him, or in his life?

Since their deaths, Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard have all been variously described by family members, friends, and co-workers as great guys, good friends, caring family members, great parent, sons and brothers, and gentle giants: guys who fought on the ice because they had to, but off the ice they were proverbial pussycats and would do anything to help anybody, anytime.

Not surprisingly, nobody seemed to see the deaths coming—even though, in Rypien’s case, he took two leaves of absence from the Canucks for ‘personal reasons’ and apparently his decade-long fight with depression was common knowledge at least among some of those with whom he worked. After playing several years with the Canucks, he recently signed with the Winnipeg Jets for the 2011-2012 season. In a eulogy at his funeral last month, his uncle, Alan Rypien, asked the inevitable question: “Why? How could this happen? He had a great family, great friends and a great job... He fought this disease with everything he had in him…Unfortunately the disease won the battle…” (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/saying-goodbye-to-rypien-128143758.html, Gary Lawless, Aug. 21, 2011).

Interestingly, for all those who knew these three young men, various news sources suggest very few people seemed to know them well at all; how they really felt and what they really thought of being their team’s henchman on blades. By all accounts, none of these men’s family members, friends, or acquaintances knew they felt despondent, lonely, sad, depressed, or whatever feelings and thoughts they had running through their minds and bodies when they decided to end their own lives; either accidentally or intentionally.

If these three men didn’t reach out to anyone for help, this could reflect the nature of their work. Because of the notoriously ‘macho culture’ of the NHL, they might’ve felt or thought they couldn’t let their guard down and show their ‘real selves,’ fears and all, to anyone, including friends or families. Yet presumably these three young men, whose recent and untimely deaths are now being grieved by friends, families, and fans, became an ‘enforcer’ for their NHL team because they chose to do so.

Are these deaths just coincidences or a clear sign of the emotional toll being an ‘enforcer’ can take on a man, regardless of how physically tough and emotionally and mentally well-adjusted he seems to be? One former NHL enforcer, Georges Laraque, now a broadcaster, says these apparent suicides are not just a coincidence; he suggests they go with the territory.
“This job is so hard, physically and mentally. You can go to a movie theatre the night before a game, and you’re thinking of the fight you’re going to get into the next day…You try not to think about it, but you start with the drugs or the alcohol…And when you retire, most of the tough guys aren’t set (for life)," Laraque said. 
"You don’t make a lot of money as a fighter…so they go back to drugs and alcohol. There’s no options…there’s the people who say ‘let’s take fighting out of hockey.’ Are you kidding me? Whoever decides to make that rule (no fighting), then you’re really going to have a problem with these guys. If there’s depression when you retire, how bad do you think it’ll be if you take 75 (fighters’) jobs out of the NHL so they can’t even earn a living? You create a bigger problem by trying to fix the problem.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hockey+enforcer+deaths+coincidence+Laraque/5341512/story.html)

The apparent intentional and accidental suicides of Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard—all since May 2011--led NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr, Executive Director of the NHL Players' Association to say they won’t let the three deaths pass “without examining the events surrounding each one in full…these tragic events cannot be ignored…Our organizations are committed to a thorough evaluation of our existing assistance programs and practices and will make immediate modifications and improvements to the extent they are deemed warranted” (Aug. 31, 2011). 
Time will tell.