Regarding the article written by Elinor Turrill on Wednesday, March 28 edition of The Morning Star “Justice Lost.”
I too am totally disgusted by our justice system and concur with everything written in Ms. Turrill’s letter. There is no justice for the innocent, only for the guilty. Foerster should never ever be allowed to walk among us. He is despicable and belongs behind bars for the rest of his life. The fact of the matter is that Taylor Van Diest lost her life because of him, therefore he should pay the highest price for his actions no matter how he spins it. It seems to me that the Van Diest family are the ones who are having to pay the price for the rest of their lives. How does that make any sense?
Pipelines are problematic
It is curious how some people can contradict their own argument. The argument presented in the letter “Pipelines relatively unproblematic” (Sunday, 2018-04-08) indicates first that “oil is not toxic” then a few lines later says “it is lethal if ingested.” Now admittedly it is qualified with the use of “in quantity” but that comparison is a red-herring as few people ingest any amount of oil (in this sense crude oil) at all. There are many known toxic effects of crude oil and none for water.
Regardless, the pipeline in case here is not going to carry oil. It is going to carry “dilbit” an emulsion of tar sand/bitumen within a different refined oil product. The raw product is called tar sands as it is not oil, but even after its first stage of refining most closely resembles tar, or asphalt – the smelly nausea inducing, headache creating sticky goo used on roads and flat roofed houses. Nausea and headaches are sure signs that something is not good (toxic) for the body.
Certainly tar sands and oil products are biodegradable. But before that they are highly toxic through inhalation or ingestion from the chemicals contained in the tar. Interestingly enough one of the more toxic products is a result of biodegradability – methyl mercury – which is a neurological and endrocrinological toxin that can seriously affect in-utero development and cause genetic damage for future generations.
Yes, as well there are many toxic chemicals going through Vancouver daily, but that does not excuse either their toxic effects or the dilbit which may end up in the waters of Vancouver Harbour or the Salish Sea. The latter presents an idea not even touched upon within the overall argument: B.C. consists mostly of unceded Indian land. Most bands do not want to have to suffer the effects of any kind of spill on their territory and infringe their territorial rights that have been supported many times in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Arguments using hyperbole – “fear of decapitation” and to “vow poverty and austerity” – do not support the argument. As for technology, yes it is wonderful, but it has yet to be shown that humans will be able to control it for their better uses. Ironically, much of that technology is used by the military industrial complex to harvest and control the world’s oil resources, long way of saying creating wars to control oil, with the largest user being…the military. Only 35 countries use more oil daily than the U.S. military. (CIA World Factbook)
But now I am circling the argument off course as it is an argument with a global breadth. So to sum, yes there are some large problems with another pipeline, carrying a tar sand distillate through Indian land over waters that support thousands of humans and a wide variety of natural life, with the distinct possibility of a leak or break causing serious harm to the living environment.
Regarding April 8, 2018 article “Downtown concerns aired.” With reference to concern of “public prostitution.”
This particular “job” requires a seller and a purchaser. It cannot produce a product on its own. If you take away one component, what is left is “no problem.”
How does one reduce a component?
One method may be to send a task force where this “job” occurs and:
1/ take pictures of car licences to send to police who would then contact said purchaser and ask them to refrain from polluting our dear city with illegal acts.
2/ Approach the “purchaser” at the time of purchase and politely inform them they are contributing to several possible illegal acts, not to mention furthering possible drug addiction for the seller.
Would the purchasers be upstanding citizens of our beloved city? Someone we do business with everyday?
Are we being “enablers,” not only to “street people” but to “purchasers?”
We look at part of the problem, when we should be looking at the whole.