Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 22, 2015, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A11 IDEAS �o ISSUES �o INSIGHTS THINK- TANK A 11 Winnipeg Free Press Thursday, January 22, 2015 I N the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, journalists have quickly sought out a local imam who then publicly denounced Muslim extremists for their terrorist acts against innocent civilians. Such reassurances allow Westerners to feel secure in the knowledge that authentic followers of Islam have nothing in common with radicals. Yet if non- Muslims are ever going to truly understand the plight of Muslims worldwide, they need to address the suffering and violence that has been an ongoing reality in the Middle East for decades. This entails both an understanding of and a responsibility for the Muslim other. The Washington Post reported recently that since 1980, Syria has become the 14th country in the Islamic world that U. S. forces have either " invaded or occupied or bombed" and the seventh during Barack Obama's presidency alone. As American political scientist Andrew Bacevich notes, the actual list is chilling: Iran ( 1980, 1987- 1988), Libya ( 1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon ( 1983), Kuwait ( 1991), Iraq ( 1991- 2011, 2014-), Somalia ( 1992- 1993, 2007-), Bosnia ( 1995), Saudi Arabia ( 1991, 1996), Afghanistan ( 1998, 2001- ), Sudan ( 1998), Kosovo ( 1999), Yemen ( 2000, 2002-), Pakistan ( 2004-) and now Syria. Bacevich was attempting to steer the narrative away from the mindset of radical jihadists and back toward the root causes of terrorism. What makes Westerners feel uncomfortable is that the storyline then becomes more about us rather than them. In other words, Bacevich was suggesting the West plays a causal role in fomenting extremism. This is why the Toronto Star 's Haroon Siddiqui felt the obvious needed to be stated: " To end terrorism by Muslims, end wars on Muslims." Siddiqui added the bombing and occupation of the predominantly Muslim countries above excludes " coups against democratically elected governments, torture and imprisonment of people with no charges." One would think that a pattern of atrocities against Muslim nations would garnish mass public sympathy in the West. Unfortunately, part of the problem is that Westerners remain largely oblivious to the suffering experienced by Muslims overseas. While French citizens and German nationalists take to the streets to protest the Islamization of the Western World, one has to wonder whether they are even aware of the four- decades- long bombing campaigns and the daily strife experienced by Muslims living in war- torn countries. In the context of the Paris shootings, however, Muslims have become easy scapegoats. They are so busy defending themselves against charges of radicalization that any conversation surrounding Western violence against Muslim nations is met with derision. Non- Muslims in the West have obtained a false sense of superiority because they believe indoctrination and terrorism are inherent characteristics of the Muslim world's supposedly aberrant mentality, surely not features of the more " civilized" West. This frame of reference, for most of us, is still shaped by the " clash of civilizations" mentality - the incompatibility of the " Muslim" and the " Westerner" - and what The Globe and Mail 's Doug Saunders calls " the myth of the Muslim tide." For any substantial change in attitudes to occur, Muslims - and the imams that provide spiritual guidance - must become more assertive in activating the consciences of non- Muslims. Learning about the history and the hardships of the Middle East is a good place to start; that is, if we are genuinely interested in a more compassionate society. For this shift to materialize, a new narrative is required. Westerners need to recognize that the suffering of Muslims abroad is our suffering too. It feels no different than those who experienced the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris. This kind of compassion - meaning to truly know the other - is also the basis of cosmopolitan society. We first take an interest in one another, and then realize we have obligations to one another, whether Muslim or non- Muslim. Stuart Chambers, a professor in the faculties of arts and social sciences at the University of Ottawa, teaches media ethics in the department of communication. W HAT would Hillary do? That's becoming my new rallying cry following a busy week for discussions about women in leadership positions. It began last Thursday, as I attended the day- long SHEDay 2015 conference on women in leadership roles organized by Economic Development Winnipeg and it culminated with me meeting women- in- leadership personified: Hillary Rodham Clinton Wednesday at the RBC Convention Centre. This has led me to start examining my life through the lens of ' what would Hillary do?' She's a woman of enviable firsts. First female senator from New York. First first lady to become a senator. And one of a few female secretaries of state. The air she is breathing is pretty damn rarified and it has not been without its problems. Her bid for the democratic nomination in 2008 was met with vitriol and to this day, she remains a target for those who believe she is, to quote US News and World Report, " the overbearing yuppie wife from hell." But even those who seem to support her do her few favours. Sen. Clinton spoke to Wednesday's sold- out lunch crowd as part of the CIBC global perspectives series. After her keynote, she sat with the CEO of CIBC for a more relaxed chat about global issues. The first question out of Victor Dodig's mouth was about her granddaughter. Wait. What? Seriously? Once again, a woman of incredible power is reminded subtly that she is first and foremost a mother/ grandmother. But here's what Hillary would do, or in this case, did. She responded politely, making a joke about the fact she and her husband Bill ( former president Clinton) make excuses to stop by and visit their granddaughter regularly in New York. Former Winnipeg MP Anita Neville shrugged afterwards that women politicians get asked that question so often, they just have to deal with it and move on. Perhaps more insidious was Dodig's supercilious treatment of Clinton's three- point response to the situation in Ukraine. Dodig brought up the ongoing conflict, pointing to the large population of Ukrainians living in our city. Clinton suggested the Ukrainian government should receive more financial support, that more should be done to help Ukraine protect its borders and finally that eastern Ukrainians need to feel they, too, have a seat at the table in government so they don't feel marginalized. Dodig praised Clinton for her good grasp of the situation. Again, what? Seriously. You did read her C. V., right? You know, where it talked about her being a former secretary of state? Much of my response to the way Clinton was treated by someone who should know better was also discussed last week at SHEDay, with many of the speakers talking about the difficulties they faced while trying to get ahead in male- dominated leadership roles. Michelle Aitkenhead, a regional vice- president at the Royal Bank of Canada, drew my instant admiration when she bristled at a question about how to react when people call you bossy. As she rightly pointed out, being bossy means you're being a leader. Men get called bosses. Women get called bossy. Methinks Clinton got called bossy a lot. And so, what would Hillary do? Well, one of Clinton's main supporters, Facebook chief administrative officer Sheryl Sandberg, has actually mounted a " Ban Bossy" campaign to encourage people to stop using the word bossy. Let's hope it works. And if Clinton is too bossy, she's apparently also not qualified enough to run as for president in 2016. A 2014 Gallup poll suggested people would vote for Clinton because she is a woman, but six per cent of those polled still felt she wasn't qualified enough to be president. Let that sink in for a while. At SHEDay, we heard about that, too. Keynote speaker Gail Stephens, the interim president and CEO of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, talked about the corporate glass ceiling that prevents women from getting too close to the top. Despite the fact women now make up more than half of undergraduates at universities, but hold only 15.9 per cent of board seats in corporate Canada. Around 40 per cent of companies had no female board directors, and although one- fifth of companies have 25 per cent or more women serving on their boards, more than a third have zero women on their boards. It's really a recruiting problem. And as IBM's Beth Bell pointed out, companies need to go after women to fill these leadership positions. And they have to remain vigilant to ensure those numbers don't go down. It's pretty clear Hillary Clinton is raising funds as she ponders her future. Wednesday's talk in Winnipeg is one of several she's given in Canada, including Saskatoon last night. She's also been making the circuit in the United States, attracting support at dinners around the country. If she wins the nomination and then the presidency, she'll be the first woman president, breaking yet another glass ceiling. That's what Hillary could do. Shannon Sampert is the Free Press perspectives and politics editor. shannon. sampert@ freepress. mb. ca Twitter: @ paulysigh M AKAYLA Sault, the 11- yearold girl who refused medical treatment for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia, died tragically and, likely, unnecessarily. She was let down, first by her parents, and then by Ontario's family services department, which should have intervened to get this child appropriate medical intervention. This case was enveloped by the debate over mainstream vs. alternative medicines. More importantly, however, it struck at the heart of the issue of whether children are competent to make their own health decisions. Canada's Supreme Court, in Mallette v. Shulman, has ruled that healthcare decisions of intellectually competent adults, prudent or not, must be respected. But Sault was a child, and therefore a different moral calculus was required in deciding whether to respect her wishes to stop chemotherapy, against the advice of her doctors. In assessing the competence of a patient, the medical community typically considers whether that person's stated goals match the actions they take to achieve them. If someone with dementia and congestive heart failure states, in moments of lucidity, that they intend to live, but then refuses to take their heart failure medication, they can reasonably be judged not intellectually competent. Morally, then, a doctor would be right to administer the medication. Given the fact Sault actively sought alternative treatment, we can assume she wanted to live. The success rate of curing her type of leukemia in children is greater than 90 per cent, according to the medical literature - a very curable disease using mainstream medical techniques. But patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who do not follow such treatment essentially have a zero per cent chance of surviving. That is a stark contrast between the ability of mainstream medicine to cure the disease, and the ability of alternative medicine to cure it. So, if the goal is to live, the rational decision is to undergo chemotherapy. Given all of that, it's clear Sault was not mentally competent to decide on her health care. It is the government's responsibility to act in the best interest of individuals who are not mentally competent. Ontario family services officials were wrong, then, to have allowed Sault to halt chemotherapy, known to have a very high success rate. Some argue the side effects of chemotherapy were sufficient to make her decision to stop treatment a rational one. But that decision requires a person to be able to think in an abstract, future- oriented way, something 11- year- olds simply can't do. It is well- known that until late adolescence, decision- making tends to be based on instant gratification rather than on the future. ( This explains much of the risk- taking behaviour characteristic of young adults.) It's not until our mid- to- late 20s that decision- making becomes fully future- oriented and abstract. Sault lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand the full nature of the decision she was making. Some have argued chemotherapy caused the stroke that killed Sault. This cannot be true; a 2006 study by Bowers et al. showed chemotherapy for her form of leukemia does not increase a patient's risk for stroke. Makayla Sault's unfortunate death was the result of the natural history of her disease. The government is permitted, even morally obligated, to act in a child's best interest when it is contrary to the parents' wishes. This is true whether the parents' decisions cause direct or indirect harm. A parent's right to make decisions for their child is not inalienable; it only exists insofar as their decisions are in the child's best interest. Given the clear disparity in success rates between the possible treatments, her parents' desire to withhold mainstream medical care should have been ignored. Her parents' decision clearly was not in her best interest. Ontario's family services authorities were wrong in not intervening at that point to ensure appropriate medical care continued. If they had, there is an 90 per cent chance Makayla Sault would be alive today. Evan Wiens is a second- year medical student at the University of Manitoba. The West needs more compassion for Muslims Makayla Sault should not have died By Evan Weins It's clear Sault was not mentally competent to decide on her health care STUART CHAMBERS SHANNON SAMPERT What would Hillary do? Women leadership the topic in Winnipeg this past week JOHN WOODS / THE CANADIAN PRESS Former U. S. secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks with CIBC CEO Victor Dodig in Winnipeg Wednesday. A_ 13_ Jan- 22- 15_ FP_ 01. indd A11 1/ 21/ 15 10: 49: 31 PM ;