The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

i 4 -- PORT PERRY STAR -- Tuesday, July 7, 1987 & Editorial Comments Parliament Decides By a fairly substantial margin (148 to 127) the House of Com- ,mons last week rejected a return to capital punishment in this country. The outcome of the vote on the Commons resolution is not especially surprising. None of the three party leaders supported it, and a fair numbef of ministers in the Cabinet were also against the resolution. What is a bit surprising is the margin by which the resolution went down to defeat. A lot of Parliamentary observers had been predic- ting a much closer vote on'this issue which has stirred public interest over the past couple of years. In fact, public interest was so great that most polls condusied in a credible fashion suggested that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent of Canadians favoured somegform of return to capital punishment for certain crimes. But Parliamentarians are not always. elected just .to parrot the wishes of those who sent them to Ottawa. Obviously, a great many - members simply could not find it in their own thinking to support a © return to capital punishment. And others no doubt felt the pressure of their own parties, not to mention the pressure that was exerted by a large number of outside groups and agencies which lobbied ex- tensively and effectively against the resolution. It is likely that a lot of Canadians who indicated support for a return of capital punishment were doing so out of sheer frustration at what they perceive to be a breakdown in the order and morality of society when it comes to crime of all magnitudes, be it murder or the petty but often vicious violence of the street. ~ Too often, it seems, it is the innocent law abiding citizen, minding his/her business, who suffers at the hands of those who break the law. This feeling of frustration is fuelled not only by the perception that violent crime is on the increase, but also by the suspicion that many of those who commit these crimes laugh their way through the court system and prison and are soon back on the streets doing it all again. We suspect that a fair number of Canadians simply feel that the police, the courts and the penal systems are not affording them pro- tection from those who break the law. The number of small, indepen- dent shop keepers who are arming themselves against thugs and punks in search of a few bucks from the till may be an example of this frustration. The Parliament of Canada has spoken on the capital punishment issue, just as it did a decade ago. The debate was thorough and the country has no choice but to accept the decision. Some may register their displeasure at the polls next election, but that is their right on any issue. We hope that our Parliamentarians recognize and accept the message that was part of the capital punishment-debate: namely the fear of all types of violent crimes against people and property. Cana- dians want laws with teeth in them. They want a life sentence for "murder to mean.just that: life. They want some kind of a guarantee that those who commit murder will never be released to do it again. - They want guarantees that those who commit lesser crimes don't just "breeze through less than half their sentences. They want the parole system toughened up; likewise with the system of bail. A lot of Cana- dians are shocked at the turtle-like pace of the court system that can produce a seemingly endless string of remands. And an ever increasing number of Canadians have lost faith com- pletely in the "'bleeding-heart theories' about the causes of crime; i.e., that crime is merely,a symptom of some other social malaise like unemployment or lack of opportunity. He Said What? Canadian wine makers won a battle of sorts when an Ontario Supreme Court judge ruled recently that they do have the rights to call their product champagne. French makers of bubbly had gone to court s§dking an injunc- tion against the use of the word champagne. They claimed that the word should be only used on those products mage in France. Well, Mr. Justice W.R. Dupont thought otherwise in his judge- ment handed down last week. In what has to be a bit of a judicial under-statement, he said "Canadian champagne is a distinct Cana- * dian product not likely to be confused or even compared with French: champagne." In other words, champagne made in Canada cannot be confus- ed with the French stuff even by.those with an uninformed palate. You can call it what you want, but in the final analysis, the real test is in the glass. "| HAD ONE, BUJ JHE WHEELS Fell oF!" £5 - Chatterbox A MEATLESS A few weeks ago I wrote, in this column, how I would be exercising my right to express opi- nions, no matter how they might affect other people. Which is why, at the outset of this column, I must congratulate. John B. McClelland for his rather forthright views on overweight people wearing skimpy outfits, as expressed in his View- point column "A Meaty Issue' 'June 30. John certainly didn't pull any punches in that column, delivering his opinion with all the delicacy and finesse of a proverbial bull in a china shop. I'm not out to try and change his mind, - although I strongly disagree with his viewpoint, however, I too want to express my opinion on this rather non-issue of an issue. First of all, I'm shocked that John wrote the column at all. John has never been known, in my estimation, to come up with such a jarring assess- ment of something. More than that, I'm shocked at his conclusion that overweight people shouldn't wear skimpy clothing. And I'm doubly shocked at some of the adjec- tives he used to describe these people. Roly-poly slobs. Grotesque. Blimps. Fatties. Several square meters of cellulite. Rolls of fat on. thunder-thighs flapping together with every step. I can't believe my editor, whom I respect very much, actually used those words. Slob. Blimp, Fattie or Fatso. These are all words we've heard before, usually out of the mouths of children, who don't know any better, smart-aleck teenagers, or uncaring adults trying to be funny. I don't find these insults funny at all. I know that the surest way to hurt an overweight person is to call attention to his or her shape. Overweight people are extremely sensitive to such labels, and to call such people "blimps" or "fatties'" or ""slobs'" is cruel and unusual punishment. What's more, I don't see any. difference bet- ween calling an overweight person a "blimp," and calling a black person a "nigger;" a Pakistani person a 'Paki; or an Italian person a "'wop." All are vicious, mean insults, and while they're rascist in nature, which makes them different than calling an overweight person "fatso," they also reflect deep-rootéd prejudice. Something that fatso also reflects. Basically, anyone who calls someone else "fatso" is revealing a prejudice against large- sized people. Name-callers of this gendre actual- ly have a prejudice, just as vicious as rascists. This point, however extreme as it may sound, was proven in John's column. Besides the name- calling, he revealed some pretty scarey opinions about what overweight people should and should not do. ISSUE by Cathy Olliffe Basically, he stated that overweight people * should not wear skin-tight clothing unless in the privacy of their fenced backyard. Worse, he said, "They would be doing my eyes a favour if they exercised at least a semblance of modesty." To that, my immediate response is, "Why should they do your eyes a favour? Why should overweight people worry about what scenery your eyes take in? If you don't like it, don't look." Overweight people are just that, people. They have the same bodies as skinny folks, merely larger. I mean, a leg is still a leg, a waistline is still a waistline, no matter what size it is. So why should fit people be the only ones allowed to show off those legs? Why should large people have to cover up what nature has bestow- ed upon them? John says that "fatties' are "grotesque." He doesn't enjoy looking at "several square meters of cellulite."" He doesn't mind looking at sleek bodies crammed into short shorts and halter tops, but he does object to the same outfits on their size 20 counterparts. I think his reasoning is ridiculous, and I ap- plaud those brave souls courageous enough to show off their large bodies. For too long, the people of this world have worshipped the body beautiful, paid tribute to long legs, slim waists and huge bustlines. They've writ- ten poems about slender necks, delicate hands and beautiful faces. Traditionally, Oriental women have gone to the extreme of binding their feet to make their feet smaller, more "feminine."' This image of perfect bodies we worship is both destructive and cruel. Most of us will never, no matter how we try, attain the perfect figure. Heavy dieting may reduce our waistline, but it won't give us longer legs, and it will decimate our bustlines. Maybe many of us enjoyed coltish bodies at sixteen, but the chances of returning to that taut, wrinkle-free exterior of our teen years is pretty much nil. And some of us have never had slim bodies. There are those who grew up with obesity, grew up with the cruel teasing of other children, the lonely Saturday nights and the trauma of merely going for a swim at a public beach. Knowing the public attitudes towards overweight people, and having read John's opi- nions about how they shouldn't wear skimpy clothing in public, can you imagine how difficult it is for an overweight person to put on a bathing suit and show off "seéveral meters of cellulite' at a public beach? I can't imagine anything more difficult, more 'embarrassing. (Turn to page 10) TOT Ip r N IO a et i I i t i