DRINKING AND DRIVING DOESN'T PAY
- Details
-
Hits: 1231
VICTORIA -- This is probably one of the more difficult columns I have ever written, but write it I will because I promised myself to do so and because it may have a positive effect, something my regular columns are at times accused of not having.
More than a year ago now, I was arrested and charged with impaired driving or, to use a less euphemistic phrase, drunk driving. I am no more inclined than the next guy to seek solace in public confessions, but I believe that with the privilege of using my public platform as a columnist to criticize our political leaders, ought to go the responsibility of not hiding from my own shortcomings. Sounds a bit pompous? It isn't meant to.
You may have seen the slick public service announcements on TV, sponsored by the broadcasters of British Columbia, in which actors take you through the process of an arrest for drunk driving. Everything you see in those 30-second spots is true to life; the problem is that it looks like everything else on televisions -- entertainment.
Believe me, the real thing is far from entertaining. It is the most humiliating, mortifying and embarrassing experience you can dream of in your worst nightmares, but perhaps I can describe the events graphically enough to keep some of you from getting behind the wheel, next time you've had a couple of drinks.
The story begins with dinner in nice downtown Victoria restaurant. The meal is great. I drink coffee, because I've got the car with me. On the way home, someone suggests we stop at a cocktail lounge for a drink or two. I weaken. I have one, I have two, and then a few more. The effect doesn't make itself felt until I get into the car. At this point, I drive anyway. One of the invariable effects of alcohol is that you believe you can drive. Well, you can't.
It's about a five-mile trip home. About two miles from my home, I notice a flashing light behind me. I pull over. A police officer approaches the car and asks me if I have been drinking. I say I have had a few beer. He obviously smells a rat and asks me to step out of the car.
Next follows a series of sobriety tests which, according to the police report, I flunked. The officer asks me to accompany him in the cruiser car to the police station for a breath test. I want to smoke. He says no. I insist. He puts handcuffs on me.
I'm normally an agreeable and easy-going person, but with the alcohol in me, the tight handcuffs, and the fear which has, by now, set in, I become belligerent. The handcuffs stay on.
At the police station, I blow into the breath tester twice, 20 minutes apart. Each reading is over the 0.08 limit. Now the real humiliation begins. I'm finger-printed. Each finger first, then each hand. The mug shot is next. I have to hold a sign with a number against my chest. Eventually I am allowed to leave.
It is December 22, 1986. I'm in a court room, waiting for my name to be called. You've never felt alone until you stand before a judge. Guilty or not guilty? Guilty, Your Honor. I've written too many columns decrying the legal system which lets the guilty off the hook on some stupid technicality to try that ruse myself.
The judge fines me $450 and suspends my driving privileges for six months. Next morning I wake up to the news of a local radio station.
"Victoria journalist Hubert Beyer was fined ...." The Victoria daily newspaper gives me a four-column headline that day.
My friends try to be nice about it, although God knows it's not much to be nice about. I hear a lot of "there for the grace of God ..." etc.
There remains one thing to be done: a letter of apology to the police officer who, I believe, took some verbal abuse from me with remarkable composure.
What remains with me to this day, more than a year later, is the stark realization that I might have killed someone if I hadn't been stopped by that police officer. What also remains vividly in my memory, probably for the rest of my life, is the awful humiliation I put myself through.
From the police reports, fewer impaired drivers were picked up by the Counter-Attack road checks than ever before during this year's Christmas holiday season. Fewer drunk drivers means fewer innocent people at risk, and fewer people at risk means one thing only -- fewer deaths.
Two things to keep in mind when drinking are: one, you think you can drive, when you can't; two, you believe you won't get caught, when chances are good you will.
Few of us have the opportunity to save lives through some heroic act. Being sober behind the wheel of a car may not be the stuff heroism is made of, but it saves lives. Do yourself and everybody else a big favor: don't drink and drive. If you do, you might find yourself testing the validity of the other television spot, in which a few obviously impaired people get into a car and turn into skeletons.
Now, if this column keeps just one impaired driver off the road, it was worth writing.
ABORTION ISSUE COULD BRING DOWN GOVERNMENT
- Details
-
Hits: 2240
VICTORIA -- It's one of life's little ironies that the abortion controversy may achieve what all the opposition leaders, New Democrats, union bosses and "bleeding hearts" haven't been able to do since 1972 -- unseat the Socred government.
The process has already begun. The Vander Zalm government has been on the skids ever since the premier took it upon himself to play Philadelphia lawyer with the landmark Supreme Court ruling that abortion committees are unconstitutional.
What makes the situation somewhat ironic is that abortion is really not a political issue. Stripped of its rhetorical embellishments, every political issue is centred on economics.
The greatest ideological debate of the 20th century, socialism versus capitalism, is a confrontation of economic models, and virtually every major political issue you care to mention can be slotted into this conflict. Every issue, except abortion, that is.
The cost of abortions neither makes nor breaks British Columbia's health services budget. At an estimated $300 per operation, last year's 11,000 abortions cost to total of $3.3 million, a little more than one-tenth of one per cent of the total health budget.
Since most abortions are performed on women in border-line economic circumstances, it can be assumed that the cost to the taxpayers would have been far greater -- in terms of future welfare payments -- had those 11,000 pregnancies not been aborted.
Abortion is a moral issue, and that makes it potentially far more dangerous to governments than any economic issue. It's an issue that blurs the distinction between church and state, a distinction over which wars have been fought.
\It's an issue that turns the clock back, dividing the populace along the lines of medieval Europe. The debate over abortion is tantamount to a rerun of the religious wars, and when it's over, governments will have been severely shaken. Some may bite the dust.
Here in British Columbia, the government is deeply divided over the abortion issue. Seven backbenchers have openly criticized the government for its stand on abortion. Even a cabinet member, Grace McCarthy, has been critical.
If so many Socred MLAs are against the government's policy on abortion, who is for it? Premier Vander Zalm, that's who. The premier is deeply and devoutly opposed to abortion. That's his right. I'm opposed to abortion, too, but that doesn't give me the right to impose my beliefs on every woman. Vander Zalm's first duty is to govern on behalf of all citizens, in accordance with the laws of the day.
Every edict, every statement coming from the premier's office regarding abortion since the Supreme Court ruling has been a dictatorial abuse of power.
What's even more disturbing is that he has somehow managed to silence cabinet. People who should and do know better are lending their passive support to a man who is abusing the democratic process.
Criticizing the premier is difficult for any MLA, but that didn't keep Kim Campbell, Socred MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey from speaking out. She obviously had agonized over her decision to denounce the government policy of not funding any abortions, including abortions for victims of rape and incest and in cases of severely malformed fetuses. She was close to tears when she voiced her opposition publicly.
Faced with growing unrest in the Socred ranks, the premier back-tracked a bit, agreeing to fund abortions for victims of rape and incest. Other than that, the policy stands: the government will only pay for abortions performed in hospitals and if the woman's life is in danger. That means the rich can afford to have an abortion, while the poor can't.
The agony over the abortion issue isn't lessened by the premier's parsimonious attitude when it comes to alternatives. He promised better adoption policies and a public education program. That's not an alternative. That's an insult.
Where is the assurance of financial support for women the premier hopes to force into giving birth to children they can't afford to have? Where is the day-care program that would allow these women to hold jobs? Where are the jobs, for that matter?
If Vander Zalm abhors the very thought of abortions, he should have become a preacher. He could then devote his entire energy to change the world. That's a luxury he doesn't have as premier.
His unbending stand on abortion may make him feel good. It may make him a hero with the pro-life faction, but it doesn't make him a champion of democracy. In the contrary, it makes him an authoritarian, a despot, a tyrant.
SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAM AXED
- Details
-
Hits: 2035
VICTORIA -- Well, it looks like the NDP proposal for A government-sponsored meal program in Vancouver schools is dead. Good thing, too.
Social Services Minister Claude Richmond gave the plan the deep-six at a press conference last week. He said the government had carefully considered the scheme and come to the conclusion that it would, at best, address the symptoms, but not the causes.
Here are the facts: Between 400 and 700 children in Vancouver come to school hungry. They have not had breakfast and often bring no lunch. These are estimates by teachers and principals who recognize the problem but are unwilling to identify the kids out of respect for their human dignity.
To address the problem, the NDP proposed a general school Meal program. Any student could take advantage of the offer, but those who could afford to pay would do so. Assurance of anonymity wouyld be guaranteed.
Richmond said the biggest problem was that any such program Would probably get out of hand, even if the number of hungry kids doesn't go up. Anyone familiar with government has got to agree with that assumption. Government programs, even the smallest ones, have a tendency to become empires onto themselves.
The administrators of the programs will see to that. The minister also pointed out that even if the program Succeeded in feeding the hungry children, it wouldn't address the Root problem -- parental indifference, neglect or a family's Inability to manage its budget. Right again.
Contrary to many claims, B.C.'s social services system is Quite adequate. Nobody needs to fall through the cracks. Here are Some examples.
A single parent with two children gets $435 in monthly Support benefits, $486 in shelter allowance, $10.99 a month (averaged) in school start-up and Christmas allowance. The federal family allowance, child tax credit and federal sales tax credit add another $147.84 a month.
That gives a single parent with two children a total Monthly income of 1,079.83. Free drugs, dental, medical and hospital care add an average of $114 a month to that total. And if, for some reason, that amount should ever fall short of what's needed, the government will provide crisis grants.
The benefits increase with the number of dependents. A Single parent with three children has a disposable income of $1,256 a month plus free health care; the figure for two parents with three children is 1,368 a month.
Keep in mind that the provincial portion of those benefits is not taxable income. The federal portion will also end up non-taxable if it's the only income. An employed person would have to earn at least $1,600 a month to take home $1,386. That amounts to 9.85 an hour, not a princely wage, but more than a lot of working people make.
Don't get me wrong. The question is not whether it's fun to be On welfare. It isn't. A job beats welfare six ways to breakfast. Unfortunately, our free enterprise system is unable to provide work for everybody. The question here is simply: are welfare payments too low for families to feed their children?
Based on the figures above, the answer to that question has got to be no. Cries by the NDP that the Socreds have no compassion for hungry school children were as predictable as they are unconvincing. The NDP has no monopoly on compassion. It is, however, often convinced that there's a government program for anything that ails society.
Richmond said he would much rather see his ministry's Financial advisers counsel families who can't seem to manage their budgets. He urged teachers and principals to identify children who come to school hungry and without lunch.
When reporters asked Richmond what he would do if teachers refused to co-operate, he was evasive, saying that it was their moral responsibility to identify the hungry kids. As for their legal responsibility, the minister wasn't so sure. Maybe he should check into that.
According to the law, any citizen has the legal responsibility To notify the authorities of child abuse. Letting children go Hungry is as much of an abuse as any other, and professing to Lofty ideals of respecting the dignity of children doesn't put Food into their stomachs.
RESPECT THE LAW, MR. PREMIER
- Details
-
Hits: 1144
VICTORIA -- The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that our abortion laws are unconstitutional certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Abortion king Dr. Henry Morgenthaler greeted the decision with a jubilant "every child a wanted child, every mother a willing mother;" pro-choice supporters everywhere were ecstatic, while pro-life disciples went into mourning.
Here at home, Premier Vander Zalm was less than pleased with the ruling, but an NDP member "celebrated" it in a church basement. Health Minister Peter Dueck is trying to hang onto abortion committees by calling them something else, but doctors are refusing to go along with the government.
The ruling has instilled new life into B.C. politics. old animosities have been renewed, ideological lines drawn and dictionaries of political platitudes dusted off.
Opposition Leader Mike Harcourt has called for Dueck's resignation; the health minister accused Harcourt of wanting everybody to have an abortion, whether they're pregnant or not. Whether Dueck should resign is academic. He won't. Nor is the premier about to ask him for his resignation, although he should. The minister's response to the Supreme Court ruling was in clear defiance of an order by Canada's highest court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the nation's abortion laws are unconstitutional. It ruled that women are free to choose, in consultation with their doctors, whether, when and where to have an abortion.
Hours after the ruling came down, Dueck announced that the provincial government wouldn't fund abortions performed outside hospitals. He also said the government wouldn't fund abortions, the need for which wasn't certified by "some sort of mechanism" within the hospital structure.
That sounds an awful lot like abortion committees which had just been declared unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. Not so, said the health minister. The government wasn't trying to outlaw abortions. It was just trying to make sure that only necessary abortions are performed.
"Abortion committees have been disbanded by the Supreme Court. We are not trying to get them back. We just want a second opinion on whether an abortion is necessary for the health of the woman. That opinion can come from a "doctor or an advisor or whatever," Dueck said.
It still sounds like abortion committees. The doctors must have thought so, too, because they immediately announced that they wouldn't provide any such second opinions.
It's a sad day when a premier and his health minister must be reminded that compliance with the law is an absolute necessity, if our system is to work.
Governments are always eager to point out that defiance of the law is no way to bring about change. When Vander Zalm rammed Bill19 down the unions' throats, he advised them to take their complaints to the ballot box, but not to defy the law.
It's time for the premier to eat his words. He may not like abortions. A lot of people don't. That doesn't give him or anyone else the right to defy a Supreme Court ruling.
Vander Zalm and his health minister are the victims of a disease which strikes many politicians. They confuse their responsibilities to their own consciences with their responsibilities to the public. They believe they know what's best for the public, and they will go to any length to impose their principles on others.
Well, that's not the way it's done. The premier probably knows better than anyone what's good for himself and his family. To pretend he knows what's best for his fellow citizens is presumptuous and arrogant.
There was nothing wrong with the premier's initial attempts at stemming the rising tide of abortions in British Columbia. His government was within its rights to introduce any measures that would reduce the number of unnecessary abortions.
When his government established abortion committees, pro-choice supporters didn't like it, but they had to live with the law. Now that law has been struck down by the Supreme Court, and pro-life supporters must live with that decision.
No-one is above the law, not even the premier. In fact, the premier least of all. It's time for the premier and his health minister to reaffirm that basic principle and start living with the law, whether they like it or not.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search