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

THE NEW TANNERTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 5THE NEW TANNER THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 20184 Just a thought Errors of argument create false courtsports talk By Trish Bell The NBA All Star Weekend By Michael Oke The New Tanner welcomes your Letters to the Editor, but, please keep in mind that letters must include the author's name, address and phone number in order for us to contact you if needed. Letters that are sent in anonymously will not be published. They may be edited for content or length. They are published as a first come first serve basis and we do not guarantee publication due to space availability. Re: Serf Up To the Editor, Clearly, it did not take long for Trish Bell to reprise her role--starring in the Return of the Bride of Stephen Harper, or better, Bridezilla Rides Again. She just cannot step away from her Liberal bashing, vitriolic uber partisan diatribes. Clearly, she obviously fan- tasizes herself as some sort of phoenix rising from the ruin of "reprimand" and ridicule. She fantasizes being "Fifty Shades Freed" of Liberal tyranny. Equally clear is the attendant master-slave fantasy of throw- ing off her shameful chains and marching in some form of polit- ical apotheosis to Queens Park, or Parliament Hill or "Duck Dy- nasty" Heaven. Clearly, Bridezilla revels in the political or personal role characterized by victimhood, abuse, betrayal and subjuga- tion. It seems that this has been, is, and will be her ani- mating dynamic. Clearly, I am at a loss why this ostensibly community paper indulges almost half a page to such shriekingly par- tisan rhetoric. As I reflect on Bridezilla's column, I am reminded of the axiom-- "Nothing is harder to open than a closed mind." Trish Bell should "chill", as they say. After all, "Surf's Up" and "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun". Terry Ferguson Dear Editor: It seems to me that Trish Bell should stand back, take a deep breath, and assess her level of anger and hate. This was the most extraordinary column. The comparison to Hitler--Justin's spewing of lies have been fast- er than Adolf's--tipped off that Ms. Bell has got some serious personal issues that need to be attended to. I have appreciated her writing about the need for more sup- port for children on the autistic spectrum, but after this article, I could never take her seriously again. You may want to assess whether she should again be al- lowed to issue forth such hateful words in a publication like yours. Sincerely, Peter Carver Rockwood letters The views expressed in these published letters are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The New Tanner Publishing Ltd. Re: Serf Up The NBA All-Star We e k e n d i s u p o n us. This annual fes- tival celebrates the National Basketball Associa- tion and all its affiliates and roughly marks the half way point of the 82 game regular season. The three-day event comprises the celebrity game, Three Point and Slam Dunk contests, and the highlight is the "All Star Game" which is traditionally held between a select team of the NBA's best players from the Eastern and Western Conferences. The 2018 All Star Weekend will be held in Los Angeles. The 2016 All-Star Weekend in Toronto was particularly interesting. It brought with it all the national attention of the major media outlets in the USA, along with all the "who's who" of the East- ern and Western conferences of the NBA. That particu- lar celebration was hugely significant--it was the first All-Star Game to be held out- side the USA, and also the final All-Star to feature the highly decorated basketball legend Kobe Bryant. The ce- lebrity game for that year was between Canadian stars--in- cluding Eugenie Bouchard, the Scott twins from Property Brothers and their American counterparts coached by the comedian Kevin Hart. The Canadians won 74- 64. T h e f o r m a t o f this year's All-Star Game has been changed. Due to the observed non-competi- tive nature of previous games, which could be linked to play- ers not wanting to get injured for a game that has little con- sequence and the generally held notion that the Western Conference has more talent depth than the East, the teams have been put together using a draft pick style selection pro- cess, led by respective team captains. In this case, LeBron James of the Cleveland Cava- liers and Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors. It remains to be seen wheth- er this change will bring some much-needed excitement and competitiveness to the All- Star Game. On a serious note, the end of festivities this weekend marks the countdown to the playoffs with teams beginning in earnest to jostle for places on the standings as well as put themselves in contention for the post season. It is important that the Rap- tors prove doubters wrong by confirming themselves as more than just a very good regular season team, but a championship caliber side. This is our year. Let's go, Raptors! Outrage is easy; raw emotions simply letting loose. And in the death of Colten Boushie and the subsequent trial of Gerald Stanley that is exactly what has happened. One Canadian died and an entire community, province and nation became divided as to whether an- other one should be--or would be-- punished for it. Yet, some- where in that visceral anger, facts became murky as they gave way to emotion. And it is in this perfect mix of reaction and assump- tion that arguments get sloppy. Because--contrary to emotion-- arguments are not easy. They, like so much in our lives, have rules, and sorry Canada, in your so- called pursuit of justice, you just broke a bunch of them. First--and sit down 'cause this isn't gonna be easy to hear-- this case is NOT about racism. If every time you end a tidbit about this case with "because they were white" or "because he was Cree," there is a good chance you are perpetuating a false argument based on what big thinkers like to call Argu- mentum ad Populum--or more specifically the Bandwagon or Snob approach. Basically, by appealing to popular thought, often arousing emotions and hearing famous people like Jus- tin Trudeau--who really have no expertise and are they them- selves wanting to appear on the popular side--spew opinion as truth, a seemingly compelling case is born. Actual truth matters little in these versions because validity comes from how many people--and who--is making the points. It becomes so murky that even truth becomes painted as propaganda. But kid your- self not: race had nothing to do with why Boushie died or why Stanley, the man on trial, was acquitted. Race was merely a tool to fuel the idea of injustice, and sorry folks, we took the bait: hook, line and sinker! Now, it isn't entirely your fault. The devices at work here do some heavy lifting, mak- ing us all easy prey. Basically, logical fallacies are arguments that sound true but are actually flawed because there is an as- sumption or false linear thinking at play. In this case, there are several. A key one involves the overwhelming outcry that a guilty man was set free because he was white, despite killing an aboriginal man. Problem is: there is absolutely no evidence that this is what happened, nor why he was set free. In fact, there is little to no proof either way-- nor will there be. Witnesses have changed their stories. Evidence has been cast aside. And mo- tives have been ignored. The game here has eroded any value truth ever had. People will now only see what they want to see. But kid yourself not: this crime was never about race. Stanley never claimed he felt threatened, got his gun, or fired it because the people in his yard were not white, nor did Boushie's cohorts ever claim to go on the land because the landowners were white. In fact, race didn't mat- ter to anyone--until the court of public opinion got involved. Courts, on the other hand, are about holding any person who breaks our laws to account for those transgressions via ad- missible proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, judged by a group of one's peers. That's it. B u t , s a d l y, t h e r a c i s t argument--even a fallible one-- persists further. The idea that there was an unjust jury selec- tion--and subsequent upheaval over it--is based on a genetic fallacy; the argument that the jury couldn't be trustworthy be- cause of its racial origins. This assumes that the twelve white jurors would not--or could not--be fair and unbiased in their ruling despite the facts of the case. These jurors were chosen randomly from some 750 potential names. None of these people had done anything to demonstrate they could not be trusted, save--according to some--the fact they were white, which, last I checked, is the very definition of racism. This begs several questions, which Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson put nicely: "are we to assume that jurors invariably reach their verdict based on race, that Indigenous jurors would have found him guilty?" Clearly, this is not how justice remains blind. If race and all other identi- fiers are ignored as they should be, then how is the jury not fair? Yet, let's entertain the idea that the jury--on the basis of race alone--wasn't representative of the population. According to Statistics Canada, 4.42 per cent of the population self-identifies as Aboriginal. If the jury is to be representative, that means one member on each jury needs to be .52 per cent Aboriginal across Canada while in the province of Saskatchewan, two members of a 12-person jury would be re- quired. Would this have changed anything? Should it have? Let alone the fact such numbers might be easier accomplished had the other 77 per cent of pro- spective jurors even shown up to the court as requested. And leaving out such facts--for the record--is called a fallacy of omission. No, this case, like so many other populist-charged cases in the media today, wasn't about justice, or rights, but thanks to hasty generalizations, either/ or fallacies, false causes and other faulty logic, it became a muddled example about race. In places like Saskatchewan, where this recent courtroom saga and its outcome, will have lasting implications, we should all take heed. Some might call it outrageous. Some might label it blatant racism. And some might even call it aboriginal injustice. However, that is not the only story and we should all remem- ber that just like the jury on this case, we should let the facts dictate our decisions, not what others say.