PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1982, WHITBY FREE PRESS w h itby Published every Wednesday by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Inc. Phone 668-6111 Voice of the Clunty Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing EditorTh eePssBidn Te Free Press Building oB131 Brock Street North, The only Whitby newspaper Independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. P.O. Box 206. Whitby. Or MICHAEL J. KNELL Community Editor MARJORIE A.BURGESS AdvertisIng Manager Malling Permit No. 400 Going to the metrie system may be madness, but we think it's at least worth the try Second Clas Mail Registration No. 6351 Never has the Government of Canada so fla- grantly Ignored the wishes of the Canadian people as it did last week when phase two of metrifica- tion took place in selected areas across the nation. Public opposition has been not only wide- spread, but extremely vocal ever since the govern- ment decided that Canada should be using the metric weights and measures system. The reasons for the government's actions are many, and Indeed, many of therncan be justified quite easily. Firstly, the vast majorlty -of nations on -this planet are using the rmetric system. This Includes all the member nations of the European Economic Community (EEC), Japan and those countries known collectively as "The Third World." The only known major hold-out against the metric system is the United 5tates of America. However, former President Jimmy Carter esta- blished the American Metric Commission with a mandate to find an efficient method of implement- I understand it was on December 16 in 1773 that Amer- ican colonists dressed as Indians staged the so-called Bos- ton Tea Party. They dumped 342 chests of tea off a British ship into Boston harbor, in their attempt to dramatize the belief that they should not be taxed without their own representation in the body that approved the taxes, the British parliament. The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party is not one that always catches my eye, but this year it happened to come at a time when I was reading a biogra- phy of Samuel Johnson by John Wain. That's W-A-I-N. I'm not talking about the other John Wiyne, the late actor. Although Johnson was a compassionate man and a prag- matist, he we also an 18th century Englishman and a monarchist. So its not surprising that he saw the American revolution with a somewhat jaundiced eye. "Why is it", he once thundered, "that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" As Wain puts it, Johnson's blood boiled when he thought of the slave trade. He once silenced an Oxford dinner party by holding up his glass and saying, "Here's to the next insurrection of the Negroes in the West Indies". But it wasn't just the south- ern planting class and the slave trade that turned Johnson against the Americans. What he objected to basically was what became the American rallying cry in the early days of the revolution - no taxation without representation. His point was that the American colonies would not have existed and would not exist then, without the army and the navy of the British crown. And, as Johnson put it: "No man has a right to the security of government without bearing his share of its convenience. Those who increase the expenses of the public ought to supply their portion of the expenses increased". He also made the point that a tax was a law, and if the Americans were able to disregard a law simply because they were too far away to send mem- bers to a British parliament, what about the disenfran- chised in England, or the Englishmen who voted for the party which did not form the government. Were they too entitled to disregard the law? Oddly enough, even in Can- ada, we hear very little about the British view of the Amer- ican revolution and its causes. And I suppose one excuse is as good as another to quote a little Johnson. That's not news, but that too is reality. lng the system. It would appear, therefore, that the- Americans are at least thinking about going to metric. Canada's economic position. can be greatly enhanced if the goods and services that we are able to pr.oduce can be measured metrically. This will make them more appealing to our other major trading partners. However, Canada's major trading partner, the United States, stili follows the Imperial system. Perhaps the major reason why, Canadians op- pose the metric system so vigourously is that we have become ernotionally attached to the old lm- perlai system. Most of us have become accustomed to measuring things in feet, yards, rods, miles or in pounds. We were taught in school that this was the correct way of measuring things. Most of us have gained a natural aversion to changing our ways. Another major argument against introducing the metric system that has usually been made by businessis the cost. Most of them, and rightly so, say that the conversion will cost literally millions of dollars - which will have to be passed on to the consumer.' This is especially true when thinking of the buying of meat and other grocery products. Most consumers are used- to buying things such as meat by the pound. Purchasing steak, for example, at $3.25 a pound seems to us to be almost reasonable, but when we have to buy it for $8 or so a kilogram we are horrified at the thought. Yet, the amazing thing is, we are not really paying that much more. If the introduction of the metric system is finalized, the worries currently expressed by many Canadians will eventually vanish. Our children are currently being educated in the metric system and when they assume our roles in the workplace and as consumers, measuring things metrically will be the normal experience. Mathematically, the metric system is much simpler to use. After ail, wIth 100 centimetres to the metre and 1,000 metres to the kilometre, what could be simpler. When it is looked at in the cold light of day, the metric system is easier to use considering that there are 12 inches to the foot, three feet to the yard and 5,280 feet or 1,760 yards to the mile. It seems to us that the metric system is easier to use. For the last few years, we have become ac- customed to drivling at 50 kilometres per hour in the city and at 100 kilometres perhouron the high- way. We have even become used to saying that downtown Toronto is some 45 kilometres away. Most of us didn't like It then, but as time went by we gradually become more accustomed to it. Now, we tend not to think about it that much. Let's face it, most of us still think in the old lm- perial system and we are not anxious to change our way of thinking. Most of us don't think in metric, therefore, we really don't want to incon- venience ourselves by learning to think in metric. It seems to this publication that Canada could be forced to go metric at some point in the future. We would really have no choice if the Americans, our major trading partner, went metric. Doing it now gives us a leg up on the Ameri- cans. Since the rest of the world is on the system, there will come a time when the United States will adopt It. Even this publication has an emotional attach- ment to the old Imperial system, but we have to confess that the metric system offers many more benefîts than it does disadvantages. Perhaps more than anything else, we would argue that the metric system should be given the chance to become part of our daily living. After ail, to the next few generations of Canadians, it will be the normal method of measuring and ail that is really needed is a change in our thinking. After ail, doesn't 40 cents a litre for gasoline sound a lot better than $1.81 a gallon? ,1 ýnt.