Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - July 30, 2024, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 TUESDAY JULY 30, 2024 Ideas, Issues, Insights Firefighters need to focus on core jobs I T takes an average of six minutes for a house to become engulfed in flames. Not every house, of course. Depending on the building materials and contents inside, it may burn slower or faster, with newer builds typically experien- cing structural failure quicker than a house made of traditional lumber. In those instances, especial- ly, if firefighters aren’t on the scene immediately, it takes almost no time for it to collapse and burn to the ground. Thankfully, there’s a fire department nearby. Not just in my south St. Vital neighbourhood where I am three minutes away from a station but in every community throughout the city. I’ve had to call 911 exactly two times in my life, both for a loved one’s emergent medical crisis that was thankfully rectified, one with a hospital visit and one without. Of course, as anyone who has ever called 911 knows, it’s not usually the paramedics in an ambulance that arrive first but a fire engine and four firefighters with at least one dually trained as a paramedic. Yet having a fire hall close by does not always guarantee a fast response for a fire or medical emergency. Consider this: the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Services is one of the busiest departments in North America on a per capita basis, surpassing cities like Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles, yet resources have not kept pace. In the Canadian context, the WFPS nearly quadruples fire calls in places like Toronto and Calgary. Further, Winnipeg’s firefighters battle more fires of significance than any other jurisdic- tion, meaning Winnipeg has a greater frequency of big fires that take more than an hour to fight and require multiple apparatuses on scene. This alone should be a substantial part of any firefighter’s job. Yet ask anyone working in the department today and they’ll undoubtedly tell you that a significant part of the job nowadays is also doing things they weren’t trained to do and don’t always have the capacity for, causing incredible strain on the service and its members. Put bluntly, today’s firefighters spend countless hours attending non-emergent calls where there is no fire or safety hazard present. As an almost daily occurrence now firefighters provide well-being checks for people who are not experiencing medical emergencies and respond to mental health crises. It’s also not uncommon for them to get sent to scenes because someone is acting aggressively or belligerent. They are expected to intervene in incidents of vandalism and other criminal activity and even get involved in domestic violence situations. Undoubtedly, in most of the above-mentioned cases, intervention is necessary. But surely there’s got to be a better response to non-emer- gent situations than sending fire apparatus and a team of firefighters. Not only is it creating workload issues, fatigue and burnout, it’s putting us in danger. That’s because non-emergent calls routinely tie up emergency resources to the point of creating vulnerabilities or gaps in service. It is a grow- ing concern that, in any given week, there are moments when resources are unavailable and if a catastrophe or a major blaze erupts there’ll be a delay in the arrival of life-saving resources. In other words, if my house caught on fire and there was six minutes on the clock before it became fully engulfed, even though I’m only three minutes from a fire hall, resources may not arrive in time. So what needs to be done? The province has stepped up in a few ways, in- cluding a $20 million boost to ambulance funding by my former government. The current govern- ment deserves kudos for providing new funding for 40 more firefighters. Yet additional cash isn’t the sole answer when the system needs a reboot. For starters, empowering dispatch resources to find alternate responses for non-emergent situations is worth looking at. Yes, it’s complex. People calling 911 deserve to be treated first with an assumption there is an emergency. But when it is clear that there is no emergency, what then? Alternatives to sending a battalion of fire resources should be considered, including an expansion of the community paramedic program where personnel are trained to handle some of the aforementioned calls. Firefighters also spend countless hours sitting with stable patients waiting to go to hospital. Expanding transportation options would also go a long way in ensuring life-saving resources are available when most needed and firefighters should have the ability to disengage and be made available for prioritized emergencies. As stated before, it’s a complex problem needing a comprehensive solution. But nothing is more complex than waiting on help in a time of emergency. Rochelle Squires is a recovering politician after 7 1/2 years in the Manitoba legislature. She is a political and social commentator whose column appears Tuesdays. rochelle@rochellesquires.ca Bad decisions by U.S. Supreme Court BORN a slave in 1800, Dred Scott was about 30 years old when he ended up in St. Louis, Missou- ri with his master Peter Blow. Following Blow’s death two years later, Scott was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, who took him to Illinois, a free state. Later, he also lived with Emerson at a fort in Wisconsin, then a territory, which also did not have slavery. Scott could have made a claim for his freedom while in either Illinois or Wisconsin, yet he did not. In the ensuing years, Scott married and he and his wife moved to Louisiana, a slave state. Emerson died in 1843 and Scott attempted to buy his and his wife’s freedom but Emerson’s widow refused to consent. Scott then took his case to court and sued Mrs. Emerson and her brother, John Sanford. The case, which eventually ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, became known as Dred Scott v. Sandford (John Sanford’s name was incorrectly spelled in the official record). The case hinged on whether or not Scott was a citizen. In 1857, in a seven-to-two decision, the court ruled that Scott as a slave, was in fact not a citizen and had no right to sue. The decision, which to this day is regarded as one of the worst ever delivered by the court, stood until the aboli- tion of slavery at the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment. Just because the 14 th Amendment stipulated that the former slaves and their family members were citizens and entitled to equal protection of the law did not make it so in late 19 th century America. Starting in 1877, southern states began passing segregation laws. An 1890 Louisiana law stip- ulated that there were to be “separate railway carriages for the white and coloured races.” In all other respects, the separate cars were (supposed) to offer equal seats and services — which they did not. In June 1892, Homer Plessy, a shoemak- er, who was born between 1858 and 1863 to a French-speaking mixed-race family in Louisiana, purchased a train ticket in New Orleans for a short trip. He tried to sit in the “whites-only” car and then refused to move to the “coloured” car when the conductor ordered him to do so. He was arrested and put in jail. His lawyer argued that the state’s segregation law violated the 14 th Amendment but Judge John Ferguson of the criminal district court ruled against him and affirmed the state’s right to regulate local transportation. The case, known as Plessy v. Ferguson, eventually came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 1896, in a seven-to- one decision, the court ruled against Plessy and established the doctrine of “separate but equal.” That unjust verdict stood until it was overturned in the landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Since the Scott and Plessy decisions, the court has made many other awful decisions. A month ago, the court truly lowered the bar, and hear- kened back to those two terrible 19 th century rulings, with its controversial, if not absurd, six- to-three decision in Trump v. United States. Writing for the conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Trump — and all presidents now and in the future — are im- mune from criminal prosecution for their “offi- cial” acts as president. A president’s “unofficial” criminal acts could be prosecuted, yet evidence based on “official” acts could not be used to bol- ster the case under consideration. In an attempt to disarm his critics, Roberts insisted that the president is “not above the law,” and caustically dismissed the concerns raised by the liberal minority as “fear mongering.” Yet, the decision could indeed have grave consequences, especially with someone such as Donald Trump — should he actually regain the presidency in November — who does not believe the law or constitution applies to him. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the dissenting judges, wrote, the ruling “declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circum- stances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.” Naturally, Trump hailed the decision as a great victory and why not? Despite Roberts’s claim to the contrary, as president he literally could murder someone on New York City’s Fifth Avenue and then claim immunity based on the fact that the victim was an alleged terrorist. The same goes for taking bribes for pardons and all other types of corruption Trump is capable of; the list is endless. In the immediate future, whether Trump wins the election or not, this ruling will make it diffi- cult to prosecute him in both the classified docu- ments (now embroiled in an appeal) and federal election interference cases. Whatever transpires, the decision in Trump v. United States will tarnish what is left of the legacy of the Roberts court and I predict someday in the future will be nullified or overturned as the terrible Scott and Plessy decisions were. Now & Then is a column in which historian Allan Levine puts the events of today in a historical context. Civility, please A while back, I was welcoming home a Na- tional Guard unit that had been overseas. After the ceremony, a sergeant who had been deployed three times, including twice to an active combat zone, thanked me for my service, saying he couldn’t imagine a post so difficult. I was speechless. When those who have risked their lives in the defense of our coun- try think that political engagement is the tougher duty, we know our politics are too jagged, too mean, too combative. The tragic events that unfolded at former U.S. President Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania illuminated the anger that poi- sons the American national political climate. We’ve all felt the tension increasing over the past several years and we know the hate- ful rhetoric has risen well above its boiling point. Too often, we view people with differing opinions as enemies, rather than fellow Americans. Our country is not well-served by this. Anger is a powerful short-term motivator but it is not a foundation for successful mar- riages, churches, businesses, communities or careers. We need thoughtful discourse among engaged citizens, not emotional attacks from enraged partisans. For those willing to rise to the occasion, here are six pathways to civility: 1. Give others the benefit of the doubt: Relationships fail when couples stop seeing the best in each other. If our country is to stay together a while longer, for the sake of our kids, we can’t assume that people on the other side of the aisle are always motivated by racism, fascism, communism or some other evil-ism. Assume, instead, that they view an issue differently than you do. 2. Subscribe to reputable news sources: Facebook is not a reputable news source; it’s home to adorable puppy photos, cute dance videos and wildly unreliable news reports posted by your uncle Trent. All too often, free news, especially the kind shared on Facebook, fuels our fear, anger and outrage. Instead, find two professional news sourc- es, pay for their content and consume it regularly. If a source tells you only what you already believe, you are paying for propa- ganda, not news. 3. Reject whataboutism: Rather than engaging on the merits of an issue, an online commenter will say “what about this” and point to a past mistake made by the other side in an attempt to discredit its view. This diverts the discussion from the issue at hand. We should evaluate the merits of an argument, not the imperfections of its mes- senger. No one is perfect, so all good ideas come from flawed people. 4. Criticize actions and ideas, not people: Insults abound in political discourse, but you’ll be a better citizen if you avoid using them. We should have robust and spirited de- bates. It is possible to attack weak ideas and improper actions without labeling someone evil, crooked or a traitor. 5. Amplify constructive views: Facebook and X can steam with fury. Support com- menters who try to be constructive by using logic rather than bile. It can be as simple as giving their remarks a thumbs up. It’s more fun to repost an angry hot take but it’s better for our nation to share something produc- tive. Politics must be about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division. 6. Illegitimi non carborundum — “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”: Even when overwhelmed by negativity, don’t give up. Politics is not a spectator sport. If the respectful citizens allow negativity to drive them out, the trolls win. Tragedies like the assassination attempt on Trump can be a catalyst to bring us together. I’m ready to do my part. I can’t change things overnight but I hope my ac- tions move the needle in the right direction, and that yours will, too. Dusty Johnson, a Republican, represents South Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives. This column first appeared in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. DUSTY JOHNSON JOHN WOODS / FREE PRESS More and more frequently, firefighters are attending to non-emergent calls, putting the community at risk that they will not be available in an emergency situation. ROCHELLE SQUIRES ALLAN LEVINE We should evaluate the merits of an argument, not the imperfections of its messenger. ;