christmas

Thursday January 30, 2003

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday January 30, 2003 Sweating the Sweater Stuff Defence Minister John McCallum came under a barrage of unfriendly fire yesterday when he made a "flippant" remark about Tory MP Elsie Wayne's glistening sweater. The comment came after Wayne asked the minister if special paint to identify Canadian armoured vehicles in the battlefield would be used to ensure our soldiers didn't become victims of friendly fire. "What steps has the minister of defence taken to obtain the necessary marking system to avoid any more tragic losses?" Wayne asked as the sequined pattern in her black sweater shimmered under the Commons lights. "If our soldiers were to wear the dress of the honourable member ... they would be very well identified," shot back McCallum to the laughter of some Grit MPs. "It was a sexist remark and it was a remark that trivialized a very serious question - quite literally about the life and death of Canadian Forces in service," grumbled Tory Leader Joe Clark outside the Commons. A furious Wayne demanded an apology. (Source: CBC News) Canada, Elsie Wayne, clothing, Christmas, John McCallum, Parliament, sexismÊ

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday January 30, 2003

Sweating the Sweater Stuff

Defence Minister John McCallum came under a barrage of unfriendly fire yesterday when he made a “flippant” remark about Tory MP Elsie Wayne’s glistening sweater.

The comment came after Wayne asked the minister if special paint to identify Canadian armoured vehicles in the battlefield would be used to ensure our soldiers didn’t become victims of friendly fire.

“What steps has the minister of defence taken to obtain the necessary marking system to avoid any more tragic losses?” Wayne asked as the sequined pattern in her black sweater shimmered under the Commons lights.

“If our soldiers were to wear the dress of the honourable member … they would be very well identified,” shot back McCallum to the laughter of some Grit MPs.

“It was a sexist remark and it was a remark that trivialized a very serious question – quite literally about the life and death of Canadian Forces in service,” grumbled Tory Leader Joe Clark outside the Commons.

A furious Wayne demanded an apology. (Source: CBC News)

Tuesday December 18, 2001

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday December 18, 2001

Open hearts, wallets make merrier season

Poverty: Cry was never louder The huge, free Christmas dinner served to some 3,200 people by the Hamilton’s Good Shepherd Centres is a wonderful event that affirms the values of our community and of the holiday season. 

But the dinner has almost nothing to do with feeding the poor. As greatly as the meal is appreciated and enjoyed, as much hard work and volunteer effort that goes into it, a bellyful of turkey on Sunday afternoon does little to ease the pangs of hunger mid-week when the cupboards are empty. 

A Christmas dinner such as this is less about the food and more about the meal shared with others. It has more in common with a church’s potluck meal than with shelters and food banks. A communal meal is about feeding the soul, not the stomach. 

Poverty isolates its victims, cutting them off from the so-called mainstream. A Christmas dinner such as this is, for many people in need, a rare time to feel part of a larger community. The weariness of living hand to mouth is assuaged, we can only hope, by sharing a meal with others who also share similar circumstances. 

Humans are social animals, and there is little that brings us into more intimate contact with others than breaking bread with them. For the most marginalized in our society — the homeless, the runaways, the mentally ill — a shared meal may be a bright spot in the bleakness of winter on the streets. (Hamilton Spectator)

 

Thursday February 8, 2001

 

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 8, 2001

The End to Office Xmas Parties?

So what will it be now? Waiver forms at the entrance saying the host is not responsible for how much you chug this evening? Maybe a security system that beeps every time someone passes through with car keys?

Monday’s decision by a Barrie judge to order an employer to pay $312,000 to a worker who was brain-damaged in a drunk-driving accident brings to the fore once again the question of who is responsible when someone drinks too much and takes control of a car.

It takes the issue of responsibility for someone else’s drinking one step further down the line than Canada has ever walked before, from decisions that hold tavern owners responsible for serving inebriated clients who suffer injury or inflict injury onto others, to employers at office parties. And it has some believing the next likely step is hosts of private home parties, an issue that has never reached a judgment.

In her decision, Justice Clair Marchand tallied the lost earning, general damages and future care costs at over $1 million. He declared Hunt’s own “self indulgence” in drinking and driving in poor conditions meant she was responsible for three-quarters of that amount. He held Hunt’s employer and the pub she visited 25 per cent responsible. The pub owner is now out of business and there is no insurance. So Sutton Realty is responsible for $312,000. (Hamilton Spectator)