advertisement

Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

____

Sept. 27

The Arizona Republic on endorsing Hillary Clinton for president:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That's why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting.

Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not.

Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not.

Clinton knows how to compromise and to lead with intelligence, decorum and perspective. She has a record of public service as First Lady, senator and secretary of state.

She has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians. The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity.

Trump hasn't even let the American people scrutinize his tax returns, which could help the nation judge his claims of business acumen.

Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton has flaws. She has made serious missteps.

Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State was a mistake, as she has acknowledged. Donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State raise concerns that donors were hoping to buy access. Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, she should have put up a firewall.

Yet despite her flaws, Clinton is the superior choice.

She does not casually say things that embolden our adversaries and frighten our allies. Her approach to governance is mature, confident and rational.

That cannot be said of her opponent.

Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She's tough. She doesn't back down.

Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.

That's beneath our national dignity.

When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet.

Clinton has argued America's case before friendly and unfriendly foreign leaders with tenacity, diplomacy and skill. She earned respect by knowing the issues, the history and the facts.

She is intimately familiar with the challenges we face in our relations with Russia, China, the Middle East, North Korea and elsewhere. She'll stand by our friends and she's not afraid to confront our enemies.

Contrast Clinton's tenacity and professionalism with Trump, who began his campaign with gross generalities about Mexico and Mexicans as criminals and rapists. These were careless slaps at a valued trading partner and Arizona's neighbor. They were thoughtless insults about people whose labor and energy enrich our country.

Trump demonstrated his clumsiness on the world stage by making nice with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto only a few hours before appearing in Phoenix to deliver yet another rant about Mexican immigrants and border walls.

What's more, Arizona went down the hardline immigration road Trump travels. It led our state to SB 1070, the 2010 "show me your papers" law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration.

Arizona understands that we don't need a repeat of that divisive, unproductive fiasco on the national level. A recent poll shows Arizonans oppose both more walls and the mass deportations Trump endorses.

We need a president who can broker solutions.

Clinton calls for comprehensive immigration reform, a goal that business, faith and law enforcement leaders have sought for years. Her support for a pathway to citizenship and her call for compassion for families torn apart by deportation are consistent with her longtime support for human rights.

As secretary of state, Clinton made gender equality a priority for U.S. foreign policy. This is an extension of Clinton's bold "women's rights are human rights" speech in 1995.

It reflects an understanding that America's commitment to human rights is a critically needed beacon in today's troubled world.

Trump's long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes.

They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.

Trump mocked a reporter's physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can't be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.

Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn't grasp our national ideals.

Many Republicans understand this. But they shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton naming Supreme Court justices. So they stick with Trump. We get that. But we ask them to see Trump for what he is - and what he is not.

Trump's conversion to conservatism is recent and unconvincing. There is no guarantee he will name solid conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton has long been a centrist. Despite her tack left to woo Bernie Sanders supporters, Clinton retains her centrist roots. Her justices might not be in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but they will be accomplished individuals with the experience, education and intelligence to handle the job.

They will be competent. Just as she is competent.

Trump's inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony.

The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can't command his own rhetoric.

Were he to become president, his casual remarks - such as saying he wouldn't defend NATO partners from invasion - could have devastating consequences.

Trump has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, a thug who has made it clear he wants to expand Russia's international footprint.

Trump suggested Russia engage in espionage against Hillary Clinton - an outrageous statement that he later insisted was meant in jest.

Trump said President Obama and Hillary Clinton were "co-founders" of ISIS, then walked that back by saying it was sarcasm.

It was reckless.

Being the leader of the free world requires a sense of propriety that Trump lacks.

We understand that Trump's candidacy tapped a deep discontent among those who feel left behind by a changed economy and shifting demographics.

Their concerns deserve to be discussed with respect.

Ironically, Trump hasn't done that. He has merely pandered. Instead of offering solutions, he hangs scapegoats like piñatas and invites people to take a swing.

In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord.

In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.

America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class.

This is Hillary Clinton's opportunity. She can reach out to those who feel left behind. She can make it clear that America sees them and will address their concerns.

She can move us beyond rancor and incivility.

The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

Online:

http://www.azcentral.com/

___

Sept. 27

The Telegraph, United Kingdom, on the resignation of England soccer manager Sam Allardyce:

Managing the England football team is more than a job. The incumbent is not merely responsible for the performance of the national team of the country that invented the game, he is a figurehead and standard-bearer for a sport that stirs emotions to unique depths. He is a leader, or should be.

Sam Allardyce has manifestly failed to live up to the standards expected of an England manager. His willingness to engage in detailed conversations with people he believed represented wealthy foreign business interests about how to get around football's rules show that he is not the man to champion probity and honesty in the game. It is right that he has gone.

Mr Allardyce's early departure from the job is necessary, but not sufficient, to address the deep and troubling problems in football identified by this newspaper's investigations. Those problems are partly organisational and partly cultural.

Football's cultural problem is, of course, about money. The sums of cash that wash around the global game are almost unimaginable to the people who ultimately provide it, the fans in the stands and - increasingly - on the sofa at home.

The role of big money in football is much discussed, and it should be remembered that it is often a force for good: better stadiums, better facilities, better broadcasting and possibly even better football are among the results.

To a man of Mr Allardyce's age, the financial transformation of the game must seem scarcely believable: his generation of players earned wages comparable with those of well-paid tradesmen. Today's teenage stars can earn millions, even for less than stellar performances.

Huge wealth has become the norm in professional football. Perhaps this dramatic shift in what is normal in the world of football explains why a man paid ˆ£3 million a year would appear so recklessly keen to accept another ˆ£400,000.

Mr Allardyce's behaviour may also be explained partly by one of the institutional failures we have highlighted. In perhaps his most telling comments to our reporters, he said that any deal with our fictitious Asian company would have to be agreed by the Football Association, then immediately began discussing business trips to Asia. That suggests blithe confidence the FA would approve his arrangements, not fear of a rigorous watchdog.

That brings us to the organisational problems with English football and the FA in particular. In the short term, the FA has questions to answer about the decision to appoint Mr Allardyce without apparently considering other candidates. Given the previous concerns about his conduct, did the association subject him to adequate scrutiny before handing him this most sensitive of posts?

More broadly, the FA is supposed to be the game's regulator, the body that sets and enforces the rules that are needed to retain public confidence in the sport's conduct. Yet the FA fails to meet that standard, not least because of its own structure.

Despite repeated recommendations from MPs on the Commons culture committee and the Government, the FA still gives a majority of seats on its ruling board to representatives of football clubs, not independent executives and outside experts. The FA is thus less of an independent regulator than a trade body dominated by the interests of the clubs.

Are the big clubs - who deal most frequently with the agents and middlemen that broker transfer deals - truly committed to ending dubious financial practices?

And are they truly committed to ensuring that an appropriate share of football's riches trickles down to the grassroots game in England, which is still painfully lacking in professional coaching support and thus ill-equipped to produce the home-grown stars that would give England a better national team?

Sadly, much of the evidence suggests that the answer to those questions is "No".

If the big clubs are happy to turn a blind eye to the dark side of football's recent enrichment, they are unwise in the extreme. Corruption in football is not a victimless crime. The cash involved comes from fans who pay because they want the best possible sporting entertainment, not to buy new sports cars and holiday homes for agents and managers.

Their loyalty to their clubs has been sorely tested by rising prices and squads devoid of players with any local connection. It may not survive the idea that the game is largely a racket run for the benefit of fixers and middlemen: if managers, agents and players are willing to bend the rules on transfers, might they also do so when it comes to results on the pitch?

This affair is about much more than one manager's career. Confidence in football as a whole hangs in the balance. The river of money that flows from fans' pockets into the professional game may not run forever. The FA and the clubs have much to lose if they fail to recognise what is at stake here.

Online:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

___

Sept. 26

The Wall Street Journal on the first presidential debate:

The two most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history had their first debate Monday, and the best we can say is that they lived up to those expectations. Hillary Clinton offered a relentless assault on Donald Trump's business record and qualifications to be President, but she offered little reason to believe she would lift the country out of its economic and psychological funk. Mr. Trump made the case for change, but in a blunderbuss fashion that will have voters wondering if he knows enough for the job.

There's little doubt that Mrs. Clinton won on debating points. She can master a briefing book, and from the first answer she dumped most of it on Mr. Trump. The central argument of her campaign is to elect her because the New Yorker is "unfit" to be President, and her strategy was to taunt him with attacks on his business record that always seem to drive him to distraction.

And sure enough, Mr. Trump often took the bait, wasting time on details about his company's history while barely going on offense against the Clinton Foundation. He also couldn't resist a long, defensive explanation of his opposition to the Iraq war and why he hasn't released his tax returns.

These columns warned Mr. Trump - and GOP voters - during the primaries that by not releasing his returns he was giving Democrats an opening to assert what he might be "hiding." Mrs. Clinton took full advantage, offering a list of imagined horribles and even suggesting he might have paid "zero" taxes.

On policy Mrs. Clinton rolled out her list of seemingly endless programs that amount to the agenda of the last eight years, only more so. She has a government solution to every social and economic anxiety, and if you like the current economy she is your candidate.

That unhappy status quo remains Mr. Trump's opening, yet he missed more chances than he hit. Offered a lay-up opportunity at the start on the economy, he sounded a Donny-one-note on trade - as if cutting imports is the magic cure for 1% growth. He eventually got around to touting his tax cut, albeit with few specifics, but he barely mentioned the burden of regulation.

The Republican did better on race and crime, showing a sympathy on the question while calling for "law and order." He also had a better grasp of the legal history of New York's "stop and frisk" policing than moderator Lester Holt, who took the liberal line that it was declared "unconstitutional." That ruling was by a lower court judge whose bias was rebuked by an appellate court, and then New York's new mayor dropped the city's appeal.

Speaking of Mr. Holt, he clearly took to heart the liberal media assault on his colleague Matt Lauer three weeks ago, as his questions and fact-checking tilted in Mrs. Clinton's direction. Mr. Holt challenged Mr. Trump on his dubious claim that he opposed the Iraq war before the invasion, but he didn't challenge Mrs. Clinton on her false claim that George W. Bush decided the U.S. should pull out of Iraq in 2011. If you think we're wrong, watch who praises Mr. Holt this week.

For all of Mr. Trump's substantive weaknesses, the challenger did score points by portraying Mrs. Clinton as an architect of America's current malaise. His taunt that she has been around "for 30 years" strikes home. The central question in the election is coming down to whether an American majority that wants a change in direction is willing to take the risk on Mr. Trump to deliver it. It's still a question after Monday night.

Online:

http://www.wsj.com/

___

Sept. 26

The Washington Post on the U.S., Russia and Syria:

"WHAT RUSSIA is sponsoring and doing" in the Syrian city of Aleppo "is barbarism," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Sunday. She's right: For days, Russian and Syrian planes have rained bombs - including white phosphorus, cluster munitions and "bunker-busters" designed to penetrate basements - on the rebel-held side of the city. Hundreds of civilians have been killed; as many as half are children. U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura described "new heights of horror." Ms. Power said that "instead of helping get lifesaving aid to civilians, Russia and (Syria) are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive."

It goes without saying that this war-crimes-rich offensive, which Syria's U.N. ambassador said is aimed at recapturing east Aleppo, has shredded the Obama administration's attempt to win Russian and Syrian compliance with a cessation of hostilities. So naturally reporters asked senior officials as the attack was getting underway how the United States would respond. "I don't think .?.?. this is the time to say where we will go from here," one answered. Said another: "We're waiting to see what the Russians come back with."

In other words: Hem, haw.

By Monday, the administration's response seemed clear: It will hotly condemn the assault on Aleppo, but do absolutely nothing to stop it. On the contrary, Secretary of State John F. Kerry insisted he will continue to go back to the regime of Vladimir Putin with diplomatic offers, hoping it will choose to stop bombing. "The United States makes absolutely no apology for going the extra mile to try and ease the suffering of the Syrian people," he grandly declared after a meeting Thursday on Syria. By "extra mile," he doesn't mean actual U.S. steps to protect civilians - just more futile and debasing appeals to Moscow.

The Putin and Bashar al-Assad regimes are well aware that the only U.S. action President Obama has authorized is diplomatic, and that they are therefore under no pressure to alter their behavior. They already obtained, via Mr. Kerry, U.S. agreement to the principle that the Assad regime should remain in power while the United States and Russia join in fighting those rebels deemed to be terrorists. The regime then took advantage of a mistaken bombing of Syrian soldiers in eastern Syria to launch the assault on Aleppo, and Russia joined in. If it succeeds, Damascus will have essentially won the civil war and will have no real need for the negotiations Mr. Kerry says the cease-fire should lead to. If the offensive stalls, Mr. Putin can send Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov back to renew the deal with Mr. Kerry. Either way, Russia wins.

The losers are the civilians trapped in eastern Aleppo - 250,000 to 275,000 human beings - who are cut off from supplies of food and medicine and being bombed mercilessly. They are being offered the same choice the regime has successfully imposed on other towns across the country: surrender or starve. Those who try to approach the evacuation corridors Russia says have been established are shot at. They are, indeed, victims of barbarism - but the rhetoric of U.S. diplomats, and continued petitioning to Mr. Putin, won't help them much.

Online:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

___

Sept. 25

The Miami Herald on the death of Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez:

It's amazing - the nightmares that José Fernandez survived and the common reward of the American Dream that he didn't. The Marlins pitcher with the golden arm made it across the Florida Straits to this country on a boat fleeing Cuba. This, after failed attempts landed him in prison on the island.

Early Sunday, another boat ride, this one for fun, ferried him away forever. A 32-foot SeaVee on which he was riding with two friends smashed into the unforgiving rocks of Government Cut. All three died. Mr. Fernandez was 24.

Mr. Fernandez was the other Mr. 305, our biggest hometown sports star today, and its most joyful. And his loss has sapped so much of that infectious joy out of our community, our team and Major League Baseball.

Mr. Fernandez was an engaging ambassador, the face of exile and success, a young man who found the American Dream by throwing a ball - extremely well - and, in the process, lifted his family and Greater Miami into a better way of life.

Whether or not you are a sports fan, you were charmed by Mr. Fernandez. He wasn't the least bit embarrassed to put his love for his mother and grandmother on heartwarming public display. His grandmother made it here from the island thanks to his fame. And he was about to become a dad. He recently went on social media to announce that he and his girlfriend were expecting a child.

Mr. Fernandez usually played his best baseball to the home crowd. The young phenom was a marvel on the mound, striking out hitters like no other Marlins pitcher before him.

Despite his youth, Mr. Fernandez was one of the team's leaders, an enthusiastic teammate who played with joy and abandon, a cheerleader for the team, a young man full of life, never too busy for fans. Sportswriters say a frequent phrase that he uttered was, "I'm lucky."

But what did Oprah Winfrey call luck? "Preparation meeting opportunity." Mr. Fernandez, who, as a child hit baseball-sized rocks with sturdy tree branches, clearly was ready when chance gave him a wink.

He knew that fame, wealth and a Major League baseball career were not originally in the cards. At a tearful Marlins news conference Sunday, team president David Samson said Mr. Fernandez often tried to explain how far he had come in a journey that began after he finally escaped the island on a boat at age 15.

"He would say to me: 'You were born into freedom, you don't understand,' " Mr. Samson told reporters.

And things were going his way. After elbow surgery last year, Mr. Fernandez was getting his mojo back. His last start against the Washington Nationals was the best of his four-year career, he told a teammate. He allowed no runs, only three hits and struck out 12 batters - just the latest indication of how great he was going to be. The Marlins definitely needed him, but Major League Baseball hungered for a star like him, too.

After that stellar showing last week, the usually stern-faced former Major League slugger Barry Bonds, now a Marlins hitting coach, hugged and squeezed the young pitcher in the dugout in front of fans and cameras. Mr. Fernandez laughed like a kid.

That's one of the final public images of him: joyful. And, no doubt, it will be one of the most enduring.

He was a pitcher primed for the record books. Instead, there is this final, heartbreaking stat: Miami Marlins pitcher José Fernandez, 1992-2016.

Online:

http://www.miamiherald.com/

___

Sept. 25

The Orange County Register on a Freedom of Information Request regarding last year's San Bernardino shooting:

After the attack in San Bernardino last December that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others, the FBI hired a private hacker to unlock the iPhone of one of the two dead terrorists. Perhaps the FBI learned some of Syed Rizwan Farook's evil secrets. But it also created unsettling secrets of its own.

The mysteries left over from the episode start with these: Who is the unnamed private party the FBI paid to break the smartphone's security device? How much taxpayer money did the agency pay?

News organizations that have been stiff-armed by the FBI in their Freedom of Information Act request now are suing the bureau for answers.

We hope they succeed. The public should be able to know more about how the FBI cracked the privacy safeguards on the terrorist's Apple phone. This is about more than one investigation and one wrongdoer's phone - it's about the threat that the government's ability to break into electronic devices could pose to anybody's online privacy and safety, especially if the tools fell into the wrong hands.

As the lawsuit, filed last week by the Associated Press, the Gannett media company and the Vice Media digital and broadcasting company, said: "Understanding the amount that the FBI deemed appropriate to spend on the tool, as well as the identity and reputation of the vendor it did businesses with, is essential for the public to provide effective oversight of government functions and help guard against potential improprieties."

Of course, there may have to be limits on what civilians can know about law enforcement's methods without compromising their effectiveness. But the proper limits almost certainly are fewer than government officials would claim.

Last winter, the FBI tried to force Apple to devise a way to unlock Farook's work phone, while tech companies argued this would undercut all smartphone owners' privacy. A day before a scheduled showdown in a Riverside court, the FBI announced it had hired someone to hack the phone. The question remains whether the FBI had been bluffing, claiming it needed the power to compel private companies to cooperate with it when it really didn't.

But first questions first. Americans should cheer the AP-led lawsuit.

Online:

http://www.ocregister.com/

___

Sept. 24

The Charlotte Observer on the release of dashcam and body camera videos showing the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott:

The dashcam and body cam videos released Saturday neither prove that the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott was justified nor that it was unjustified. They are one batch of evidence that tells us certain things but not others.

The dashcam video shows that Scott was walking backwards with his hands at his side when Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Brentley Vinson fired four shots at him. Scott does not appear to lift his hand, was not aiming a gun at an officer and did not make any abrupt movements. The videos also don't show a gun on the ground near Scott's feet, where a highly publicized photo on social media showed it.

The videos do not show conclusively, though, whether Scott had a gun in his hand. CMPD Chief Kerr Putney said he did. The videos leave that question unresolved.

Both sides can claim the videos support their view of the case. Those who think Scott was unjustifiably killed can reasonably say the video shows Scott did not pose an imminent threat to Vinson. Police can reasonably say the totality of the evidence justifies Vinson's claim that he felt threatened and that the videos do not disprove that.

Even though the videos were inconclusive, Putney and Mayor Jennifer Roberts were right, if late, to release them. They did so only after claiming that they couldn't because the videos were in the custody of the State Bureau of Investigation - and the SBI correcting them on that point. Now the public can see, in part, what happened, as it should. Residents on all sides of the issue now need to be patient and let the SBI complete its independent investigation.

Online:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/

___

Sept. 23

China Daily on the refugee crisis:

On Monday, at the first United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants, UN members pledged, through the New York Declaration, to protect and help refugees, and better respond to the refugee crisis.

On Wednesday, more than 40 lives were lost in the Mediterranean off Egypt's north coast when a boat carrying hundreds of migrants, reportedly Italy-bound, capsized.

If the current refugee-induced and refugee-related troubles in Europe illustrate the challenges in accommodating those who have already reached European shores, the latest incident is a tragic reminder of the broader refugee crisis.

That makes the commitments of world leaders in New York worthy of imminent action. They are of utmost importance to improving international humanitarian guarantees and services for this vulnerable group. If all the promises made in New York can ultimately be honored, it would help to end the refugee crisis.

But just as a UN official conceded: "We have been able to give the basics to refugees, like blankets, medicine, some food. But what refugees want also is a future, is education, is jobs."

We are talking about the largest refugee crisis since World War II, with 65 million people considered refugees and migrants. Yet the New York Declaration treats only the tail end, not the root causes, of the ongoing crisis.

The massive inflow of refugees adds extra burden to destination countries, which are already struggling financially. The rest of the world has a moral obligation to help such countries to help those unfortunate newcomers.

Indeed, the refugee flow into Europe has dropped significantly over the past year. But that is mainly an outcome of tighter border control. On the other hand, the civil war in Syria, sectarian strifes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and domestic conflicts in some parts of Africa have never stopped creating new refugees, only it is a lot more difficult for them to make it to foreign countries.

The short-lived ceasefire in Syria and the corresponding finger-pointing between the United States and Russia are symbolic of the difficulty in restoring basic security and basic order there, which US President Barack Obama said "has broken down".

Therefore, besides organizing better responses to the refugee crisis, the world needs to place equal, if not more, emphasis on tackling its root causes, and maneuver and broaden consensuses on solving the most devastating refugee-creating conflicts.

Because people will continue fleeing their homelands as the "cycles of conflict and suffering", Obama lamented, perpetuate.

Online:

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/

___

Sept. 21

The Toronto Star on genetic testing and discrimination:

A well-founded fear of discrimination is keeping Canadians with potentially deadly genetic conditions from agreeing to be tested. To protect their privacy, they forego screening that could guide them in making sound medical and lifestyle choices.

The result is bad for the health care system and a stain on Canada's record of advancing human rights.

A bill now before Parliament would provide a necessary fix by outlawing discrimination based on genetic testing. It deserves unanimous support, but there's a catch: Canada's powerful insurance industry firmly opposes the measure.

The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, or Bill S-201, would forbid employers, insurers or anyone else from demanding the results of a person's genetic test. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the ground of genetic characteristics, and would change the Canada Labour Code explicitly to keep employees from having to undergo such testing.

This change is necessary given rapid developments in genetic science, including testing that can provide meaningful insight into a person's vulnerability to Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, early onset Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer and a host of other serious conditions.

In many cases, people could take steps to ease these dangers. But despite this potential benefit, there's strong evidence that many people are refusing to be tested for that fear an employer or insurance company will obtain their records and use the information against them.

Unlike most other Western countries, Canada doesn't protect against a third party demanding access to genetic test results, with those results used "often to one's detriment," warns Sen. James Cowan, the author of Bill S-201. "That is what is called genetic discrimination."

His measure received unanimous Senate support earlier this year and has moved to the House of Commons, where it is being advanced by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant. He recently expressed concern that the government may water down some provisions, but it's important that the protections offered by Bill S-201 remain intact.

The legislation is primarily aimed at insurance companies, and that's where the most fervent opposition resides. To be fair, the industry has understandable concerns. Companies typically require disclosure of health problems and lifestyle risk factors before setting a rate and agreeing to provide coverage.

If Bill S-201 passes, however, there would be nothing to stop someone from having a genetic test, learning of a serious health problem, and then investing heavily in life or other insurance. Industry officials warn the public would be stuck with higher premiums to cover this extra burden on insurers.

Perhaps. But this cost would be off-set, at least in part, by savings to the health care system as more people learn of the genetic threats they face and make greater efforts to reduce their risk. Preventive steps range from the simple, such as losing weight, to the extreme, including undergoing a double mastectomy to deter breast cancer.

People shouldn't be blocked by fear from obtaining useful information about their health in the form of a genetic test. Even if it carries extra costs, protecting the vulnerable from discrimination based on the content of their DNA is the right thing to do.

Online:

https://www.thestar.com/

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.