The United Nations: When The Call Comes From Inside The House

This is a classic horror scenario: a vulnerable young woman is home alone, often babysitting even more vulnerable children, gets phone calls with increasing threats and the worst part is that the calls are coming from inside the house. What happens to her and the children? 

What does this have to do with the United Nations? A heck of a lot at the moment, unfortunately. 

After his actions in Venezuela, President Trump continued to threaten to invade and take over Greenland, Canada and other countries, violating international law. Trump stated, “I don’t need international law,” and the only limits to his power is, "My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, made it clear that U.S. foreign policy is now firmly in the corner of might-makes-right, saying, “We live in a world, in the real world...that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.” 

These increasing threats are coming from inside the house; the U.S. is a member of the UN, the organization that upholds international law. Some may think international law and international crimes are a total yawn but they are deeply mistaken and will be yawning their way into World War III, because international law was born, in large part, to prevent world wars.

After World War I and 16 million military and civilians deaths, the deeply traumatized citizens of war torn countries demanded an organization that would prevent a future world war. From this demand, the League of Nations 1920 – 1946) was born, composed of sixty-three countries, created to provide collective security: aggression against any member would be considered aggression against all. The League of Nations ultimately failed in preventing World War II because most members claimed neutrality and many were nervous about entering the war. In short: they failed to live up to the collective security agreement.

After World War II and up to 60M military and civilian deaths, countries took another kick at the can of preventing world war; this time even more earnestly. After four years of talks and debates, delegates from 50 nations, representing over 80% of the world’s population,  established the United Nations on 24 October 1945 to preserve peace. One big sticking point in the negotiations was permanent members (China, the USSR, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) demanded and finally got the right to veto any resolution passed by the UN Security Council. Many view this as the achilles heel of the UN, giving the most powerful nations carte blanche to override international law when it applies to them; putting this on a personal level, imagine that people who are most powerful and likely to harm you are given carte blanche to ignore laws that restrict them from harming you, so your murder by them is on the table of crimes that cannot be punished.

The United Nations, now comprised of 193 sovereign states and 2 observer states, is the world's largest intergovernmental organization and, given almost every state of the world is a member, it has legitimacy as the organization responsible for developing and enforcing international law.

Fast forward to the present;  President Trump has clearly broken international law and is threatening to break it in the future. “These actions represent a grave, manifest and deliberate violation of the most fundamental principles of international law, set a dangerous precedent, and risk destabilizing the entire region and the world,” a panel of United Nations experts said in a statement Jan. 7."

The crucial law presently being discussed is Article 2 that binds all members. It's posted below but, put simply, it states all member states are equal, no member should use threats or force against the political independence of members and, if they do, all members will assist the UN in enforcing international law. Trump broke international law and that pesky veto means that no actions can be taken against him or the United States - this makes the most fundamental part of this section inaccurate since all members are not equal.

Article 2:

One of Trump's excuses is that Venezuela’s President Maduro is a dictator and needed to be removed, but he is adamant that he will take Greenland, even by military force, as well as Canada, both countries with robust democracies.

In summary: Trump broke international law because he doesn't 'need it' and is constrained by nothing but his 'own mind' and because of the U.S. veto, the UN cannot act; the call is coming from inside the house of international law. 

International law, like local laws, exists to protect us and if those administering the laws aren't able to do that, is there someone else? Both Denmark and Canada are members and NATO, along with nuclear armed UK and France. NATO has a collective defence agreement; an attack against one is an attack against all but again, the call is coming from inside the house because the U.S. is a member of NATO. In January 2025, I wrote about the dilemma of one NATO nation attacking another, 

What a difference a year makes; NATO nations have now made it clear that an invasion of Denmark will change NATO and the nations have made statements that range from diplomatic to threatening:

"While NATO's leaders have focused their diplomacy on trying to convince Trump that anything he wants can be accomplished without actually taking over the island, other European politicians have been urging a more aggressive approach.

"If you take it, we will take every single base of the Americans, from Aviano from Ramstein, from Romania to all the other military bases — [they] will be confiscated, you will lose it — if you take Greenland," Gunther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austrian Committee for NATO Enlargement, said in a podcast."

It makes sense that Austrians, one of the first casualties of Hitler's territorial expansion, have little tolerance for Trump's ambitions. 

Many have commented that an attack on Greenland by the U.S. will effectively end NATO. Trump likely sees this as an incentive to attack Greenland; since 2024, he has been frustrated by his legal inability to leave NATO stating, "The US doesn’t need Nato." Attacking Greenland, and the subsequent dissolution of NATO, may give Trump the way out NATO he has been wanting. 

The reason for Trump's disdain for the UN and NATO is simple; both organizations are built to thwart territorial expansion by preventing invasion and annexation of sovereign countries and Trump has made it abundantly clear that he plans to invade and annex whatever countries he wants. This won't, as Trump hopes, lead to the dissolution of international law that holds countries in check. This is not based on a pollyannaish view of the world but a very realistic and practical one; people have no tolerance for mass war deaths and historically have demanded organizations that prevent the invasion of sovereign countries.

How this will play out is anyone's guess. The UN may restructure to finally get rid of vetos. NATO may change into an organization sans the U.S., much like the "Coalition of the Willing" that presently defends Ukraine. Ultimately, these organizations exist only to protect us and if, like the League of Nations, they don't protect us, they will be replaced. We'll build a world order educated by the fiasco of Trump, where calls coming from inside the house don't endanger us. Why? Because the people of the world will demand just that. 

The Louvre Heist: The Somber Rubbing Shoulders With The Absurd

On October 19^th, the news of the Louvre Heist hit. Eight crown jewels were stolen from the room that,  since 1887, has housed what is left of the French crown jewels.. These jewels are symbols of the French state and the history of the country, described as priceless and irreplaceable. It was, like much of the news these days, upsetting to read about, until some of the details came out and then, it became a story juxtaposing the grave with the absurd.

The first hint of this came in the details of how the heist was committed; the four thieves used a ladder and  escaped on scooters after spending less than eight minutes robbing the Louvre. Let's face it, it looks like a few friends wanting to avoid the holiday rush and deciding to pick up a few gifts by robbing the national museum of France that is, by the way, the most visited museum in the world. The ladders and scooters are hardly the stuff of a carefully planned modern heist one would expect. Add to this the comment by Lynda Albertson, chief of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art (ARCA), an organisation that examines and tracks trends in museum security including theft and vandalism, saying the Louvre’s architecture was not built “to address modern security needs, rigorous conservation controls, or the massive crowds it now attracts.”

The problem with that statement is that there were no crowds at the time and ladders are hardly modern security threats. Yes, the internet was abuzz with questions because seriously,  at a minimum one should protect the world's most famous museums and its priceless and precious works from being accessed by a something as simple as a ladder. 

While about 100 high powered detectives investigated the jewelry robbery, the news focused on this man and the internet initially identified as one of the investigators, "This is, by all accounts, genuinely the detective tasked with cracking the Louvre heist. God I love the French," writer David Patrikarakos said. 

It was only later that it was clarified that this gentleman was not a fabulously dressed detective but, rather, a passerby who was at the right place, at the right time and exuded enough je ne sais quoi to capture the imagination of the world. 

Then, Cosmopolitan put out an article discussing the suspects, replete with photos,"It is so French of them to both be this hot," activist and actor Jameela Jamil said in response to the two mugshots, with someone else commenting: "Why do they look like Calvin Klein models?"

However, the article informed the panting hordes that, "Hot as they may be, however, the Louvre heist mugshot men don't actually have anything to do with the jewel heist – as we've discovered..."

Of course, one can't help but picture Parisians following these guys around Paris and not just for being hot. Ditto for the man initially identified as a detective. 

After the modern heist that didn't use modern tools, a detective who only looks like a detective but is not one and suspects who are just two random hot guys who didn't rob the Louvre, surely we should be done with the hilarious part of this sad story.

Yet, we are not.

Even the high tech security of the Louvre is hilarious. Did someone ask a small child to make up a password?  Apparently so because, "one of the museum’s key passwords was simply “LOUVRE.” To add the absurd onto the ridiculous, the French Culture Minister Rachida Dati decided to respond to this with the understatement of the year by finally admitting, “Security failures did indeed occur.”

There is so little news to chuckle about these days. Most of the news has us diving under the covers of our newly made beds, in hopes of ignoring the world for a few moments. Despite the gravity of the theft, for the first time in a long time I found myself enjoying reading the news to follow the unexpected and hilarious twists and turns. That said, this theft is a grave and serious matter. I will continue to follow the story in hopes that the crown jewels are found intact and returned soon. While not so secretly hoping for a new funny twist, most of all, I'm hoping a mystery writer somewhere is inspired by all this and is making this dapper gentleman  the main character of a brilliant new novel. I would buy that book in a heartbeat. 

And on it goes...

Today, November 9th on APNews:

 "When 15-year-old Pedro Elias Garzon Delvaux realized an Associated Press photo of him at the Louvre on the day of the crown jewels heist had drawn millions of views, his first instinct was not to rush online and unmask himself. 

Quite the opposite. A fan of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot who lives with his parents and grandfather in Rambouillet, 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Paris, Pedro decided to play along with the world’s suspense.

Pedro began dressing this way less than a year ago, inspired by 20th-century history and black-and-white images of suited statesmen and fictional detectives. 

“I like to be chic,” he said. “I go to school like this.” 

 He loves Poirot — “very elegant” — and likes the idea that an unusual crime calls for someone who looks unusual. “When something unusual happens, you don’t imagine a normal detective,” he said. “You imagine someone different.”

Well played, Pedro. Well played. 

Being the first woman to do the job doesn't mean they'll like you.

Normally, one starts a story at the beginning, but this is best understood by its ending. In 1930, Frederick Griffen wrote about a funeral in Hamilton Ontario that may still hold the record for the largest, most flamboyant funeral the city has ever seen with over 20,000 attendees.

The article seems, at first glance, full of over the top descriptions but, history has confirmed the accuracy of the details.

"She had lain in state, like a princess, for three days and nights while ten thousand people filed in to see her… The massive coffin of bronze, with heavy silver steel trimmings, was scarcely to be seen, hidden, as it virtually was, with flowers. What flowers! I am not an expert in funerals but, personally, I never saw anything to equal them."

Her two daughters "had to be borne aside in a semi-comatose state of bewilderment and woe." and from the cellar below, her German Shepherd bayed loudly.

"At the head of the coffin was a magnificent pillow of mixed flowers, orchids, roses, gladioli and other blooms, literally hundreds of them, [with] a wide ribbon of gauze. And on it in letters of gold were the words, “To my wife.”

The man who organized and paid for the funeral, Rocco Perri, sat, overcome with grief between her daughters but he was not the father of her daughters nor, despite the gold inscription he wrote on the ribbon, was the woman his wife and, although the funeral he organized and paid for was a Jewish funeral, Rocco was not Jewish but, rather, an Italian immigrant.

The woman he was burying was Bessie Starkman, the first female Canadian organized crime boss. She was gunned down, at the age of forty, in the garage of the home she shared with Rocco, who was referred to as "Canada's Al Capone" and was one of the most prominent Prohibition-era crime figures in Canada.

Bessie Starkman was born into a Polish Jewish family, immigrated to Canada at about the age of ten. At age eighteen, she married Harry Tobsen, a driver at a bakery, and had two daughters. In 1912, they took in a boarder named Rocco Perri. After a brief romance, Starkman left her husband, children and Jewish faith for Perri. They lived in St. Catharines, Ontario, where Perri had a labourer job, and then moved to Hamilton. Perri worked as a travelling salesman until the couple opened a small grocery store.

They went from ordinary, low paying jobs to becoming mob bosses with a lavish lifestyle, including diamonds and expensive cars, because of the Ontario Temperance Act of 1916; boot legging became a new money maker. Perri became the 'King of the Bootleggers' and, ignoring the rule that women can't join the mob, he made Starkman the first female crime boss. She negotiated orders of liquor and beer, laundered money and dealt with other gangs. They operated in Kitchener, Toronto, Windsor, Hamilton and Niagara, ran bootleg liquor to Detroit, Chicago and New York State and were involved in prostitution. When prohibition ended in 1927, the couple then moved on to illegal drugs and gambling.

The Italian-Canadian journalist Antonio Nicaso wrote: "Up to that time, a woman's role in the underworld was relegated to wife and mother, or mistress and prostitute. Until Bessie came along, none had been in a position of authority in a major crime gang-let alone entrusted to manage a massive flow of dirty money."

Of course, being a mob boss, even the first woman mob boss, meant that Bessie was involved in violent interactions with people. Her relationship with Rocco was also troubled and she left him and returned a number of times. Despite his progressive views of women in the mob, Rocco had an old fashioned wandering eye. He had an affair with Sarah Routledge, beginning in 1918, and had two daughters with her. He maintained a home and paid child support. Sarah, when falsely informed Rocco was married to Starkman, committed suicide in 1922.

Bessie's murder was never solved but much was written about it:

"Bessie died after being ambushed by two men with shotguns in the garage of their home, Aug. 13, 1930. She had alienated so many people, including possibly her own husband, police could not narrow the list of potential suspects to a workable number."

Though the 'alienated' husband was not married to her, he threw a heck of a funeral for her. Or was it her actual husband, who she never divorced, who killed her?

The first woman to do any job often garners respect and admiration. Not so with Bessie Starkman. The qualities that made her successful were the same as any mob boss: she was ruthless, greedy and had emotionally volatile relationships. The 20,000 people at her funeral were not devoted friends but were mostly strangers drawn to the spectacle of a very expensive funeral. The title of the article by Frederick Griffen says it all:

Grotesque Ceremony Becomes Free-For-All of Morbid Curiosity

Twenty Thousand Mill and Fight to See Bessie Perri’s Magnificent Funeral

Harming or murdering one person is illegal but doing the same thing on a mass scale is legal?

The recent release by the Canadian Medical Association seems, on the surface, like a sensible response to growing misinformation. 

However, it should never have to be written. We are living in a time when a national medical association imploring us to speak up against absolutely dangerous ideas is just another weekday event.

If a person is attacked with a knife or gun and ends up in hospital or dies, it is illegal and they will be prosecuted. If many children are hospitalized or killed by antivaccine propaganda or many cancer patients die because they eschew cancer medications, the people fomenting these ideas while making money from the alternate treatments they offer will not be prosecuted, so experts must resort to pleading with people to protect their health and save their lives. 

Harming or killing one person with a knife or gun is illegal. Harming or killing many people with inaccurate propaganda is a legal moneymaker. 

For those of us who are sticklers for law and order, who long for a just society, who love it when the criminals are stopped in their tracks - the lovers of mystery stories and citizens of democracies - what are we to do when mass harm and murder is now another weekday event? 

How many have been harmed by antivaxxers? In the United States, as of September 2025, 1454 have been infected with measles, 92% were unvaccinated or vaccine status unknown, 12% were hospitalized and there have been 3 deaths.

Before we Canadians tsk, tsk and point at Robert Kennedy Jr., Canada's numbers are worse: 4,849 measles cases have been reported in Canada, 88% were unvaccinated, 8% hospitalized and 1died. 

In Canada and the U.S. many communities are well below the 95% vaccination level needed to keep measles at bay for those children too young to be vaccinated or adults and children too ill to mount an immune response. 

Given the reduction in childhood vaccination rates because of inane fears of 'vaccine injury', this is just the beginning. Hospitalization and deaths from measles will rise and other vaccine preventable diseases are emerging. The World Health Organization has warned that not only measles, but meningitis, yellow fever and diphtheria are on the rise. 

While naming and shaming diseases that were once in our rearview mirror, let's not forget polio, a vaccine preventable disease with no treatment. “People think that polio is gone, but that virus is not gone.” says Paul Offit, director, Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. "It could be circulating in pockets of the U.S. right now, with cases being prevented only by high vaccination levels. But if those levels drop dramatically, we might not realize the dangers until it’s too late.

“If we stop vaccinating today, we probably wouldn’t have outbreaks tomorrow because it would take some time for susceptible people to accumulate.”

So, we were once here and we are heading back there again: 

If this isn't all concerning enough, let's look at cancer and the pushback against evidence based treatments to sell ineffective, untested cancer treatments. The numbers of people who have died from refusing their cancer treatments are difficult to calculate because it differs with different cancers, their stages, age of patient etc. However, it is a fact that survival times without effective treatments is decreased. There are other costs as well. I've seen this up close. 

Some of you may have read my article about my dearest childhood friend, Carol, and her death from breast cancer.What I didn't include in that article was how she was inundated with misinformation. Carol died nine months after diagnosis and, for someone so healthy and strong, that was like a fast, horrible ride down a rollercoaster, with garbage advice being shouted at her along the way. Anyone who has read the article knows that Carol had a spine of steel, was a science researcher and wouldn't be pushed into idiocy. However, some criticized her chemo therapy (easy to do because chemo can be tough to go through) while pushing unproven cancer cures like diet (she was one of the healthiest eaters I've known) exercise (she hiked and did yoga) and relaxation (her attitude was excellent). It was all about identifying a nonexistent problem and fixing it as a cure to cancer (of course, all these cures were grifts that cost money). A lesser woman may have succumbed to these 'cures' given how difficult chemo was and how increasingly scared she became. Instead, Carol limited her interactions to those she trusted and lived the best life she could for those short months. 

The harms of misinformation aren't limited to vaccines and cancer - they are rampant for many diseases. 

Just as the CMA response shouldn't be necessary, neither should mine. We need to do more than cataloguing the harms endlessly. We need action. 

First, let's make childhood school vaccinations mandatory and effective by closing all loopholes antivaxxers are using to avoid vaccinating their children: no more 'conscience and religious' exemptions; only medical exemptions for vaccinations should be allowed. Mandatory childhood vaccinations are supported by 70% of Canadians; let's make it an effective law that protects children and society without allowing absurd loopholes for anti vaxxers to put us all at risk. 

Second, let's get some of our excellent legal minds around a table and figure out how to prosecute those who peddle dangerous medical misinformation. Harming and killing people must have consequences. Since I'm not an excellent legal mind (without legal training, I'm not even a mediocre legal mind) I can't say how the solution will look, but it's time we demand a solution. We cannot be in the position of watching harm and death and simply cataloguing it ad absurdum and begging them to stop. Going back to the statement by the Canadian Medical Association, "false health information is being normalized"; this normalization is largely because it can be done without consequences. Can you imagine if parents kept writing about how people were being paid to attack their children with baseball bats, often hospitalizing the children, and all they could do was beg people to stop? It would be absurd. Yet here we are - harm with no consequences. With vaccines, it's often the tiniest of children who are too young to be vaccinated, who end up hospitalized. With cancer treatments and treatments for other illnesses, it is the vulnerable and the sick who are most at risk. We must have ways to protect them and pleading doesn't protect them - we need laws backed up with the ability to prosecute those responsible. 

This must end. Making money from harming and killing people must have legal consequences. 

Whodunnit?

This article is a mea culpa. My thoughts (in italics) are as best as I remember them.

It all began in April of this year when this article appeared:

"Police in Hamburg have launched a murder inquiry after bestselling German novelist Alexandra Fröhlich was found dead on a houseboat following a violent attack.

Fröhlich, 58, was found dead last Tuesday morning by her son,” The Guardian reported.

The police said she was likely killed between midnight and 5.30am.

Authorities said on Sunday the case had been assigned to the murder squad, forensic evidence had been collected from the cerise houseboat docked on the Elbe river Holzhafen bank in the eastern Moorfleet district, and the coroner had submitted their report.

Swabs had been taken from at least one family member for possible gunpowder residue, according to Welt. Divers from the police as well as a 3D scanner had also been deployed, amid speculation that the murder weapon might have been disposed of in the river.

German broadcaster NDR reported, citing police sources, that Fröhlich had been shot.

“According to current information, relatives found the 58-year-old woman lifeless on her houseboat and alerted the fire brigade, who were only able to confirm the woman’s death,” The Guardian quoted a police spokesperson as saying.

“After evaluating traces and evidence, the investigating authorities now believe that the woman died as a result of violence. Given the ongoing investigation, no further information can be provided at this time.”

German media reported the police had requested the public to report any information they might have about the incident, particularly any suspicious activity in the area around the time of the novelist’s death.

Fröhlich started out as a journalist in Ukraine, where she founded a women’s magazine. She later worked as a freelance journalist in Germany before publishing her first novel, My Russian Mother-in-Law and Other Catastrophes, in 2012.

The novel, based on her own experiences, became very popular, selling over 50,000 copies and landing on the Spiegel bestseller list. It was translated to and published in French in 2015.

Fröhlich also published Traveling with Russians in 2014, a sequel to My Russian Mother-in-Law and Other Catastrophes.

She followed with detective novel Death is a Certainty in 2016 and Skeletons in the Closet in 2019, both of which found great success.

She is survived by her three children."

This is so tragic. Her son who found her must feel awful. What a tragedy for all her children. I hope her privacy and that of her family and friends will be respected at such a sad time. These stories often turn into a nightmare of constant lurid and invasive details. Who insists on knowing every detail of a tragic murder, with no respect for privacy? What kind of person does that? Though the murder of mystery writer who wrote a book called 'Death is a Certainty' will raise some eyebrows...

Some other articles were published about this murder but most simply stated the same basic facts and on the 30^th of April another article appeared:

"Police have since confirmed that "blunt force trauma" led to her death; they are treating the case as a homicide. No suspects have been publicly named yet… Fröhlich said in an interview with her publisher that family stories were always a fascinating source of inspiration for her — especially those that are "wonderfully dysfunctional." She also noted that she aimed to explore in that novel the so-called transgenerational transmission of trauma, or how "unspoken family secrets are passed down from generation to generation and influence the lives of children and grandchildren."

What on earth? Pick a lane - blunt force trauma or shooting- how did she die? Given her interest in "unspoken family secrets", could a family member be chagrined and murdered her? 

Could the murderer be a disgruntled fan? This has always worried me because writers don't have protection and are vulnerable. Along with my other concerns about invasions of privacy that come with fame, there are also security issues that are worrisome. 

Or could it be someone she knows? A scorned lover looking for revenge? A family member wanting their inheritance early?

Why aren't they telling us more about her family, her social circle or possible leads???

On May 7^th:

"German police have arrested the son of bestselling novelist Alexandra Fröhlich on suspicion of murder, after she was found dead on her houseboat in Hamburg.

The 22-year-old is accused of fatally beating his mother during the night of April 22."

That's it? No details? Why not release more details because they are now known? Why keep us all in the dark?

But, as we roll into August, no more details are forthcoming. That's it. No information.

As can easily be seen, I moved quickly from hoping there would be some respect for privacy, to full on stalker mode wanting all the details because the privacy of the family and loved ones was respected. So, in answer to my own question,

Who insists on knowing every detail of a tragic murder, with no respect for privacy? What kind of person does that?

Me. It's me.

Give me all the details and I am appalled at the invasion of privacy. Don't give me all the details and I demand them. 

Mea culpa.

Normal and Enjoyable

Watching what’s going on, I’m flabbergasted.

I began this article by writing about some of these things and then realized that the crucial problem is actually people's reactions.

Some people are overwhelmed and stick their heads in the sand because it’s too much.

Some people aren’t overwhelmed - they just haven’t bothered looking.

Some have looked and simply can’t find it within themselves to care.

I've had two different types of conversations lately.

Regarding infectious diseases we put to bed with vaccines but are now on the rise, I've been told that we should just live normal lives. Regarding political events that have increased suffering, I've been told that we should enjoy ourselves.

Of course, we all want to wake up, drink our coffee, chat with whoever is around, go to work, care for our children, hang out with our pets, travel and go to dinner with friends. All that is truly the stuff of life. What makes it enjoyable is liking ourselves - thinking we are good people - and the companionship of people who we care about and who care about us. Without that, we're just an engaging in a bunch of actions with no meaning.

The crux of all that is normal and enjoyable is respect for ourselves and the true companionship of others, all of which depends on empathy; who can see themselves as a good person without empathy and who can have relationships without mutual empathy?

If someone has no empathy for others - unable to put themselves in someone else's shoes and seeing that person as they would their daughter, son, mother, father and not just a stranger who is a data point - then there is no point in listing atrocities. It becomes just a list of things that people don't care about. This is why a very long article became this simple one about our growing lack of empathy.

No empathy? People will argue they have empathy for others - their friends, family, even their pets - they just don't want to look at events around the world. True empathy isn't a choice. If we see a child writhing in pain alone after being hit by a car, turn away, happily go home to our own child to play catch and hug them if they're hurt, then calling ourselves an empathetic person is a low bar.

True empathy isn't a choice - it extends to those who are suffering. Without that empathy to guide us, without empathy to stop the worst of the worst, the number of those suffering will grow and how many of us will care?

The fear of being overwhelmed should pale in the face of fear of what we will become if we turn away. We can look and care, from the comfort of our lives, and not fall apart. 

History, Language and Crimes

This is exhausting. Life once seemed like a road to travel - choose the less traveled one or walk the one you know, whatever you wanted, but it was a road going forward. Now, it feels like a merry go round without the fun, just the going round and round part because:

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The learning part is missing, hence the round and round part, as well as the language, history and crimes part. 

What have we failed to learn? 

Way back 1946, In Politics and the English Language: An Essay on Writing George Orwell wrote, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better."

In 1949, in the Appendix of 1984, The Principles of Newspeak, George Orwell wrote, "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view...but to make all other modes of thought impossible."

If we travel forward in time to just a few years ago, we will remember a world where infectious diseases like measles were held at bay by a robust uptake of vaccines because vaccines were considered a responsible way to protect our children and those around them. However, today we have measles outbreaks throughout North America because what has decimated vaccinations are antivaxxers words like "freedom". Freedom is defined as, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" and its antonyms are "slavery, bondage, captivity, confinement, oppression, imprisonment". One can see why antivaxxers chose the word 'freedom' to describe their dangerous choice. They also tout phrases like, "do your own research" to dismiss the expertise of researchers and doctors and pretending that true expertise can be replaced by internet searches. This language hides the truth of community responsibility, the complicated expertise behind vaccine effectiveness and worst of all, it hides the suffering and deaths caused by these infections. The freedom to cause suffering and death is a freedom no one should want. 

Fast forward to a meeting last week between Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump where language was again used to 'corrupt thought'. President Trump revisited the annexation of Canada, claiming the Canada-U.S. border is an "artificially drawn line...Somebody drew that line many years ago with, like, a ruler — just a straight line right across the top of the country... When you look at that beautiful formation, when it's together — I'm a very artistic person — but when I looked at that beaut, I said, 'That's the way it was meant to be.' "

Prime Minister Carney responded by saying, “Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign ... it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.”

Prime Minister Carney's response was applauded throughout Canada by the owners of Canada. However, there was a great deal to worry about in that meeting. The U.S. president, on the world stage, touted some dangerous language, inciting some dangerous crimes and all crimes have victims.

Annexation of countries is prohibited by international law and at the core of that law is respect for territorial integrity of countries and their borders:



"The international legal norm that prohibits forcible annexations of territory is foundational to modern international law. It lies at the core of three projects that have been central to the enterprise: (1) to settle title to territory as the basis for establishing state authority; (2) to regulate the use of force across settled borders; and (3) to provide for people within settled borders collectively to determine their own fates." 

This International law should not just be known, but the history of it must be understood as a law born from the atrocities of WWII. German annexation of Austria in 1938 was accomplished without the use of force but with the threat of force. Germany then went on to 'annex' other countries, igniting a world war and then losing that war. When the allies occupied Germany after the war, they did not annex Germany, hence earning the allies a place in history as standing on the side of ethics while German actions have been rightfully scorned. 

The prohibition of annexation was born from the need to protect countries and protect the world from devastating wars. Understanding that history - the difference between those who annex and those who don't - is important. 

What about the talk of calling the Canada-U.S. border an "artificially drawn line"?  Well, that goes hand in hand with annexation because not invading countries means you respect their borders and their right to decide what happens within their borders. 

"Respect for territorial integrity - the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states, nor impose a border change through the use of force - is a guiding principle among OSCE participating States under Article IV of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975."

This language of annexing Canada, making it the 51st state, by erasing the borders between the countries is dangerous. Orwell said, "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view...but to make all other modes of thought impossible." What is missing in this world-view is the illegality of annexation, the respect for borders as crucial for territorial integrity, the history of why annexation is illegal and how it has kept the peace. Basically, the complicated issues and history are replaced with catchphrases. On social media, even democrats opposing Trump have done so by buying his statements, saying they want to be annexed by Canada - a shocking statement indeed. 

If we don't understand and learn from history we are forced to repeat it and the history we should remember is not just recent, it's ongoing - the attempt of Russia to annex the Ukraine has led to a devastating loss of life and the destruction of a way of life for Ukrainians within their borders. The reason annexation is illegal is because, like all crimes, there are victims that suffer. That is what would result in Canada as well if the U.S. attempted to annex us and make no mistake, Canadians understand the risk this poses for the ones they love, the life they love and the country they love. The anger of Canadians is because we understand what is at risk and have no patience with ridiculous jokes about our lives.  

Imagine if this was another action that was once legal and is now illegal, like rape, was turned into a line repeated without acknowledging the ethical and personal implications. It would be outrageous to debate who will rape who, or saying that the use of the word 'no' is artificial and can be ignored. This is exactly what Orwell meant when he wrote, "language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better."

So here we sit, on a merry go round of history not understood, language corrupted and limited to words and phrases failing to encompass any complexity of the concepts and the human costs of crimes. We have learned little from how simple words and phrases dismantled 225 years of robust vaccination. Annexation has been illegal for less than 100 years. What are the chances that it will withstand the new assault with language and how long until countries revert to taking over other countries as if it's not illegal?  

Many of us tried to fight back against antivaxxers, and now we're fighting against annexation - the language, the simplicity of thought, the shrugging off of complexity and human suffering - it's all the same. So, round and round we go. While some have conversations about annexation with smiles on their faces, nodding in agreement, the rest of us are drowning in frustration, sadness and fury at the suffering and crimes their words are hiding. Language is being bastardized - removed from the history of words, the grave issues those words entail and this is a call for crimes to be committed with no regard for the victims impacted. When Putin called for the annexation of the Ukraine, the rest of the world was appalled and the resulting death and destruction has broken our hearts. Yet, a few years later when President Trump calls for the annexation of Canada, he is surrounded by supporters nodding, smiling and speaking with the media supporting this horrific action. 

This is the exhausting round and round trip we're on - all it would take is a deeper understanding of history and language to get off the roundabout and walk forward on an open road again.

A Tragedy

In two trials in 2023 and 2024, Lucy Letby, a 33-year-old nurse in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital in England, was found guilty of the murder or attempted murder of 14 babies in her care between June 2015 and June 2016 and sentenced to life in prison. 

Her murder trial lasted more than ten months and captivated the United Kingdom. The press called Lucy, "UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times". The judge highlighted, "the cruelty and calculation" of her actions and a mother of an infant girl stated, "I don't think we will ever get over the fact that our daughter was tortured till she had no fight left in her, and everything she went through over her short life was deliberately done by someone who was supposed to protect her and help her come home, where she belonged."

Prologue: 

All tragedy invokes the question of what could have been done to stop it, but the prologue is Lucy's life before this tragedy and it's remarkably normal, with no indication that she was a danger to the tiny, premature babies she looked after. She appeared to have been a psychologically healthy and happy, with many close friends and a dedication to nursing. She wanted to be a nurse since she was a teenager, 

“She’d had a difficult birth herself, and she was very grateful for being alive to the nurses that would have helped save her life,” her friend Dawn Howe told the BBC. An only child, Letby grew up in Hereford, a city north of Bristol. In high school, she had a group of close friends who called themselves the “miss-match family”: they were dorky and liked to play games such as Cranium and Twister. Howe described Letby as the “most kind, gentle, soft friend.” Another friend said that she was “joyful and peaceful. Letby, who lived in staff housing on the hospital grounds, was twenty-five years old and had just finished a six-month course to become qualified in neonatal intensive care. She was one of only two junior nurses on the unit with that training. “We had massive staffing issues, where people were coming in and doing extra shifts,” a senior nurse on the unit said. “It was mainly Lucy that did a lot.” She was young, single, and saving to buy a house. That year, when a friend suggested that she take some time off, Letby texted her, “Work is always my priority.”

Act I: The Trial

The prosecutors, in seven of the murder or attempted murder charges, relied on an academic paper written in 1989 by Dr. Shoo Lee, one of Canada’s most renowned neonatologists, on a rare complication in newborns — pulmonary vascular air embolism — to argue that Ms. Letby had intentionally injected air into their veins.

At her trial, Lucy suffered from PTSD, was barely coherent and, despite denying that she murdered anyone, she was found guilty of the murder or attempted murder of 14 babies.

Act II: 

Dr. Lee had retired to a farm in Alberta in 2021 and only heard of the case when Lucy's lawyer emailed him in 2023. Dr. Lee agreed to help with Ms. Letby’s request for an appeal because the expert witness had misinterpreted his work, but the court ultimately denied her request, saying Dr. Lee’s testimony should have been introduced at trial.

Dr. Lee assembled a team of neonatal specialists to look into the case with the caveat that the panel’s review would be released even if they found Lucy guilty.

Fourteen specialists from around the world assessed the clinical evidence and found: In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.

“There was no medical evidence to support malfeasance causing death or injury” in any of the babies that Ms. Letby was charged with harming.

“If there’s no malfeasance, there’s no murder. If there’s no murder, there’s no murderer,” Dr. Lee said, adding, “And if there’s no murderer, what is she doing in prison?”

Some of the hospital staff, the panel concluded, were caring for the most critically ill or premature babies in a unit that was only meant to treat babies with lesser needs. 

Act III: The Hospital

The neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, run by the National Health Service in the west of England, was found by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to have inadequate nursing- and medical-staffing levels and the increased mortality rate in 2015 was not restricted to the neonatal unit.

Burkhard Schafer, a law professor at the University of Edinburgh who studies the intersection of law and science, said,

 “Looking for a responsible human—this is what the police are good at. What is not in the police’s remit is finding a systemic problem in an organization like the National Health Service, after decades of underfunding, where you have overworked people cutting little corners with very vulnerable babies who are already in a risk category. It is much more satisfying to say there was a bad person, there was a criminal, than to deal with the outcome of government policy.”

That last sentence warrants repeating: It is much more satisfying to say there was a bad person, there was a criminal, than to deal with the outcome of government policy. It was precisely the need to find a culprit that led to the failure to understand the real reasons that babies died. 

Act IV: Yet to be written

We have a nurse in jail for life for murders she didn't commit and a hospital woefully underfunded, that put babies lives at risk. There is no way to rectify things. Lucy, even if released, will be irrevocably damaged. The families who lost their babies will never get them back. The underfunding of hospitals remains unchanged.

It's all a damn tragedy.

Give Me A Reliable Narrator, Please.

Sometimes one has to write a potentially very unpopular article and today is my day. I hope you'll give me a break on this one, because I purchased a book and read it till the end and, given my investment, I have an opinion. You can call it a whine and offer me some cheese, but here it is.

Just read a mystery novel. The narrator appeared nice, sympathetic with the victim and then, bam, it turned out that the narrator lied the whole novel.

The writing was exquisite, the characters finely drawn and yet, at the end, I was not impressed. Dashiell Hammett famously said (referring to people not narrators) that liars are bores. In this case, I was not bored, I was annoyed. There are different types of unreliable narrators: ones who fool themselves and ones fool the reader. The former, narrators who fool themselves are utterly human - I expect and enjoy them in novels. The latter, the liars who fool the reader, are different. Some enjoy the twist of the narrator as liar in a novel. I do not. Give me an honest narrator. Make them limp with naiveté, hobble with some impairment in insight, and I'm still on board. Make them a liar and I feel like I've wasted my time.

Now that, in two paragraphs, I've probably annoyed many, let me spend the rest of the paragraphs explaining.

Like many people, I'm a two-fisted reader. In one hand, I always hold a mystery novel and in the other hand, I've  always held science books. I expect the narrators in both hands to tell the truth.

Can you imagine reading one of Louis Leaky's books - where he presents careful fossil evidence showing that the birthplace of humans was Africa and not Europe or Asia as previously thought - only to reach the end of the book where he tells you that he'd been digging in Scotland? Or imagine a doctor meticulously going through your results, telling you that you have incurable lung cancer and, after helping you tell those who love you, hearing their anguish and sharing yours, the doctor explains you don't have cancer but was enjoying the reactions you and yours had to the false diagnosis. I suspect that you would never read Leaky's books or go to that doctor again.

Even science and mystery books with reliable narrators have intrigue - the narrator is limited by their knowledge, the times they live in, their own foibles and shortsightedness. I'm fine with all that. I just don't like being told, at the end of investing my time, that I've been lied to.

How is any of this a walk-back of my initial criticism? That was the explanation, here's a part of the walk-back: I strongly suspect that when any of us reads mystery novels, our criteria for judging them is impacted by what else we read. If you're a two-fisted reader of mystery and impressionist art or, mystery and Shakespeare, for example, what you expect from a book may be different. A book that annoys one person, delights another.

Here's the other part of the walk-back: the books we read push us towards certain professions, then our profession in turn pushes us to certain books and these books push back into our professions - this is an endless loop, a constant dialogue - a dialectic - where one changes the other. Many have discussed the natural relationship between medicine and writing mystery novels - many of my colleagues also read mystery novels - but I recently read this very clear explanation of the relationship:

"Almost all mystery novels open with something unpleasant happening to the victim (read, patient). The perpetrator (disease) causes harm, but does so in such a sly and covert fashion that the protagonist (doctor) is left in the dark. Through diligence and careful observation, new clues (symptoms, signs, laboratory tests) are discovered and the villain (disease process) begins to take shape and structure. If it is a good novel with a happy ending, the perpetrator is uncovered by the protagonist and is punished or eliminated (treated successfully). As you see, there is not a whole lot of difference between mystery novels and complex discharge summaries. Thus, in a sense, doctors are trained to be writers and storytellers."

One can see how a profession, in my case medicine, influences how one feels a story should progress. In other words, I was not built - by my two-fisted reading and my work - for a unreliable narrator who lies as a technique to tell their story. I apologize to the excellent author who triggered this article but I will not be buying their books. Luckily, many other readers will because they're an excellent writer.

As the final part of my walk-back, this as an ode to the reliable narrator - please write that book. Give the reliable narrator warts or shortsightedness, give them anguish or arrogance, but make their attempt to tell an honest story an earnest one - no matter how much they fail at it - and many of us will truly appreciate this book.

2025: Reshaping the literature of our time.

Does anyone else wonder if 2025 will change the nature of mystery and crime novels, as well as literature as a whole? 

Where to stand during an earthquake is one question, how to write during and after one is an entirely different question. Readers gravitate to the genre of mystery and crime novels for many reasons and, though the novels vary from the slow unraveling of puzzles, to the fast paced action to save the innocent or capture the dangerous, at the core of all of them is a world where there is right and there is wrong, where justice is served or, if it's not served, then it still exists as a beacon to light the way and where Orwellian newspeak is called out in the plain language of truth.

Rather than dwell on specifics, because goodness knows we've been inundated with them, I'd rather focus on principles that are often lost in the noise. If someone is convicted in a court of law, then serving their time in jail is something we expect, we rely on. If they are released for no legal reason but, rather, on a wish and whim, is there still a rule of law? If the free press, a pillar of democracy, faces retaliation for printing facts in a democracy, then is it still a democracy when this pillar falls? If the most sacred role of democratic governments - to keep their citizens safe - is eschewed by defunding and inserting an anti-science control over the health science that keeps citizens safe - what other roles no longer matter? If a democracy embraces the Latin term imperium, which originally indicated unrestricted authority of a single person, is it still a democracy?

If all this is changing - how do you write that? Literature must be reflective of the times. Will post-2025 mystery and crime writing, as well as literature in general, change by incorporating - by the osmosis that writers are famous for - the new world we find ourselves in? If settings and characters remain impervious to change, then the literature becomes irrelevant to readers who live in the setting of the day and are, indeed, the characters who live there. If literature ignores the changes in society, it inadvertently becomes historical fiction.

It is not merely the United States that has changed. The world is changing. As the U.S. withdraws from crucial health organizations like the World Health Organization and threatens – for the first time – to take over the countries of allies, the world is realigning. Long time alliances are being questioned. Many thrillers involve international settings and international law enforcements and one must ask, how will those change?

We've seen many authors of mysteries and thrillers become political – some of the biggest names in the business, from James Patterson, Don Winslow, Stephen King to Celeste Ng, have spoken out. Authors speaking out politically in such large numbers is something that we haven't seen since the 1930s. Given the rise of book bans, it takes courage to speak up and the muzzling of authors will also be something all genres will have to contend with. To become irrelevant or be silenced is the question that authors will have to grapple with and, many will speak out knowing that book bans are temporary but valuable literature lasts for generations. Further, history has shown us that, in times when there is much harm being done, those who are silent are judged harshly. 

All these changes feel new and we'll have to see how they play out - it's only February for goodness sake! – but I truly don't believe that the genre will be the same after this. It doesn't feel like a blip in time but, rather, a fundamental change – an earthquake beneath our feet that is reshaping the literature of our time.

2025: The Year of The Bizarre Legal Questions

 

With 2025 in it's infancy, it can already be dubbed The Year of The Bizarre Legal Questions. One of the weirdest of the lot, and one none of us have ever heard before is: if Canada is attacked by the United States, what protections does Canada have? 

This is a rather breathtaking question, given the longstanding friendship between our two countries, but here we are. How we got here and where we go from here are the crucial questions. 

The GOP began threatening Canada around the convoy protests, when in February, 2022, Republican congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, claimed that the United States has, "neighbors to the north who need freedom and who need to be liberated.”

Then entered Tucker Carlson, with comments and a film, proclaiming, "the US should invade our neighbors in the north."

Many Canadians thought this was an extremely odd way to object to how Canada handled a domestic issue, but most of us shrugged and continued on with our lives. Then, in November, 2024 when Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, met with the incoming U.S. president-elect, Trump talked about the potential annexation of Canada to make Canada the 51st state.

Since then, this conversation has become one where the issues are a moving target. 

After threatening 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports if Canada didn't improve border security, Trump responded to Canada's proposed border investment of $1.2-billion with a new spin that the United States pays to protect Canada. Since Canada has never required protection from attacks, this must mean NATO investments, but Canada's ramping up their investments in NATO also doesn't seem to satisfy Trump. He responded by saying, "Canada and the United States, that would really be something," Trump said. "You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security." 

After meandering around this issue, trying out many narratives, Trump seems to have settled into the idea that he will use, ''economic force to acquire Canada." 

Others in the GOP are lining up on this with Rep. Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas saying, "I think that the people of Canada, for that matter, should be honored that President Trump wants to bring these territories under the American fold." 

The moving of goal posts is breathtaking, but worse is the misuse of language. 

"In his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946) Orwell observed that “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In other words, certain political language (propaganda) uses words and phrases to hide ugly truths. He foresaw how politicians would misstate and mislead in order to stay in power, using words to distort more than to inform, not to convey meaning but to undermine it." 

The deliberate misuse of of language is hiding a potential march to war.  

Clearly, Canada is an independent and sovereign country and is not a 'state' or 'territory' but by refusing to call Canada a country, Trump et al suggests that 'annexation' of Canada is easy. 

But we all know that any attempt to 'annex' another country is a declaration of war and we only need to look at Russia's attempt to 'annex' the Ukraine to know the dire consequences of such actions. 

So, as we meander along the path of Trump and his sycophants, it's understandable why Canadians - who are generally a calm people -  are asking about international laws. 

I really hope that someone with true expertise answers the questions that are arising from all this. Certainly, Canada has many multilateral defence agreements, but the most significant and most talked about these days is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Canada was one of twelve founding members of NATO in 1949, and now there are 32 members. Of these, three of NATO's members have nuclear weapons: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

Since the United States and Canada are both founding members of NATO, perhaps this article analyzing this question in the context of the 2020 tensions between NATO allies Turkey and Greece, helps clarify the issue: 

"what if this altercation between two NATO allies did escalate, leading to the beginning of a new armed war? Considering there are no such precedents, what would this mean for the fighting allies and in what way will NATO interfere?

"The goal of collective defence is codified in Article 5 NAT. It states that an attack against one member of NATO should be considered an attack against all. In this case, all other NATO allies will assist the said attacked member...it is important to note that this article does not make a distinction between NATO members and external attacking parties. This could imply that the article could even be triggered when the attacking party is a NATO ally. Since an event like this never occurred, there are no precedents to look into.

"Another Treaty article that could give us more insights into the consequences of such conflict between allies, is Article 8 NAT. The specific article states that ‘Each Party undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty’. Knowing that the main purpose of the Treaty is peacekeeping and preventing attacks against NATO members, this could imply that fighting allied nations means disobeying the article and therefore breaching the Treaty." 

The last point is crucial. The main purpose of NATO is to prevent attacks against members. So, will NATO act as a form of deterrence? Will the United States, if it attacks Canada, be expelled from NATO? Given that the United States is a major contributor to NATO, this will give everyone pause. However, the United States attacking a peaceful country like Canada, with a stellar reputation around the world, will worry all NATO nations that their country could be next on the list and joining Canada in this fight would be a form of self-defence much like the Ukraine is seen as the frontline of Russia's aggression and, if it falls, other countries will be that frontline. 

Underlying all this Orwellian language is the key deception by Trump et al: that mild and meek Canada can easily be invaded by the mighty United States. I leave it to experts to analyze the real numbers in terms of military might of the United States verses the military might of the other thirty one NATO nations combined, as well as other nations Canada has military and cooperative agreements with, such as Canada's defence relations in the Asia Pacific . However, if I can be forgiven for spitballing in lieu of expertise, the United States has touted its large military contribution to NATO of 1.3 million troops. Let's put this in context. Canada contributed  1.159M  troops to World War II, when Canada's population was a mere 12M. Today, Canada has a population of 40M. And we are just one country in NATO.  Also, despite Trump's claims that the United States contributes two-thirds of the NATO overall budget, that number is actually only 15.8% of the total NATO budget as of 2024. Add to this the other two NATO nations besides the United States that have nuclear arms and we have the makings of a real mess. This is why an actual expert is needed to gauge the military might of the United States verses all other NATO countries because if NATO is to function as a deterrent to war - and it should - the might of NATO should be stated as a counterweight to the spin emanating from Trump et al. 

After walking down this road, one can't help wondering how the road ahead will look. First, it could go like all the other trade and tariff wars Canada and the United States have had over the years and end up at a negotiating table with a deal hammered out. We will then have proof - lacking at this time - that all this talk of war was just a negotiating strategy, however, the moving goal posts of how to resolve this makes this narrative a tad questionable. Second, Trump et al could be forced to back down by Americans - citizens and members of the government - calling out the Orwellian language and demanding a stop to calls for war. These first two options are the preferred choice for all those who want peace and a continuation of the long, fruitful friendship between our two nations, so we can go back to walking our dogs, sipping lattes and pondering real problems such as what to make for dinner.* Third, it could end up as a war where the United States attempts to take Canada by force with NATO and other allies of each country being involved. As Canadian citizens from coast to coast and Canadian governments at all levels have clearly stated:  Canada, an independent country, will not become a part of the United States without a fight. Avoiding that war is a crucial issue for 2025. 

*Update: while I was writing this article, my husband made dinner so, that problem is solved. 

A Good News Story of a Cigar, a War Won and Priceless Stolen Art Returned

In these difficult days, we all need a good news story and this one began eighty-four years ago when an Ottawa photographer, Yousuf Karsh, pulled a cigar out of Winston Churchill's mouth, rushed back to his camera and took a photo of the furious Churchill. 

The day was December 30, 1941 and Churchill had just given a speech to the Canadian House of Commons to rally support for the war against Hitler. Britain and Canada had been at war for two long years, endured the loss of many lives, and America had just entered the war on December 8, 1941. Churchill was desperate to steel the resolve of the allies and to rally more help from America; Churchill's annoyance at Karsh for taking his cigar would help with both of those, while also becoming the most reproduced portrait in the history of photography. 

Canada’s leading general interest magazine at the time, Saturday Night, published the scowling photo of Churchill, dubbed the Roaring Lion. When Life magazine put The Roaring Lion on their cover three weeks later, it focused the attention of the American public on the plight of Britain, and convinced them of Britain’s determination to win the war. The Roaring Lion photo is widely credited with helping Churchill rally the support he desperately needed to win the war. 

Maria Tippett, Karsh’s biographer, stated: 

“Just like the Old Masters who made kings and queens appear more beautiful or more powerful than they were, Karsh had used artful manipulation to transform an unpromising negative of a tired, overweight, sick, and slightly annoyed man into a photograph of a heroic figure.”

The Roaring Lion photo also catapulted Karsh's career and he soon became one of the most famous portrait photographers of all time. He went on to  photograph many famous political and military leaders, writers, actors, artists, musicians, scientists, and celebrities in the post-war period. Among his other famous portraits are the iconic photos of Ernest Hemingway, George Bernard Shaw, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. 

Karsh gifted the Roaring Lion photo, along with with other portraits, to the Chateau Laurier, the Ottawa hotel that was his home for almost two decades. This was another part of the good news story - these photographs were placed in the Château’s reading lounge, where everyone could enjoy these priceless works of art in the same lounge that Karsh and his wife spent many hours. 

Unfortunately, making The Roaring Lion accessible to everyone who loves art also made it accessible to those who love to steal art and, sometime between December, 2021 and January, 2022, it was, indeed, stolen. However, because it was replaced with a forgery, it was eight months before the theft was discovered. 

Robert K. Wittman, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent said, “The real trick in art crime...is not in the stealing; it’s in the selling.”

The time between the theft and the discovery of that theft gave the thief a window of opportunity to sell it when no one knew it was stolen property. When The Roaring Lion photograph was finally located in Italy, in the home of art lover, Nicola Cassinelli, the problem was that Italian law didn't oblige him to relinquish it. He had bought it in good faith and he could keep it. 

Here's where more good news comes in: Cassinelli waved his rights as a good-faith purchaser along with any financial compensation for the portrait, and he handed it over to Italian police. 

“It cannot belong to one person and cannot be confined to the private space of a living room,” Cassinelli said. “The Roaring Lion belongs to anyone who cherishes freedom… I did not hesitate to return it.” 

The other piece of rather charming good news is that Cassinelli still enjoys the photo, because he purchased a cheap replica from an online poster shop and hung it in place of the stolen original. 

The thief? He was arrested on April 25, 2024, and charged. 

When I first wrote about this art heist, it was not as a good news story but a story of a tragic loss for Canada. Now that the Roaring Lion was put back in it's original place in Chateau Laurier on November fifteenth, 2024, I'm able to see the thread of good news in this eighty-four-year-old story. 

I'm not a 'glass half full' person because, like with most sayings, I don't even understand what it means. If there's good news and bad news, putting it in a glass doesn't change that - it's just good and bad news in a glass - whatever putting it in a glass means in the first place. However, I am forever in love with stories because turning the page in time brings a new twist, another turn, and that can alter everything. 

Who knew that taking away Churchill's cigar could result in the good news stories of helping to win a war and also helping a Canadian photographer capture images of many iconic figures of world history? Many years later, the good news continues in the form two other utterly unique stories; priceless works of art that can be enjoyed by anyone who walks into the reading lounge of a downtown hotel and an Italian returning a priceless piece of art back to its home in Canada, just because it was the right thing to do.

Crime Fiction has a new role: Preventing Patients from getting Healthcare.

Has anyone else noticed it's becoming a thing to write crime fiction about healthcare and present it as fact? People are drawn to crime fiction. It gets their hearts racing. But this crime fiction writing has real victims - patients denied healthcare because of fictitious crime. One recent story that made me ponder this whole strange issue once again is the story of the safe drug consumption sites and the healthcare of addicts.

There has been a push by politicians to shut down supervised drug consumption site by claiming they increase crime in the neighbourhood. One can see this is an effective strategy for closing all supervised drug consumption sites because people worry they could come into their neighbourhood, bringing in a wave of crime. No one wants a crime wave in their neighbourhood, where their children play and grandma and grandpa come to visit. Stories have power and stories of threats to those we love are perhaps the most compelling – they make us act, vote, do anything to protect our loved ones. However, this is fiction, presented as fact.

We have years of data showing that crime doesn't increase around these sites but the latest data from Toronto caught people's attention:

"Toronto police data shows they may have the opposite effect.

Crime types including robberies, bike thefts, break and enters, thefts from motor vehicles, shootings and homicides dropped among neighbourhoods with supervised drug consumption sites between 2018 and 2023, often more than they did in the rest of the city, the data shows....One exception was the crime of assault, which rose by 22 per cent among neighbourhoods with sites, though neighbourhoods without sites saw a rise of 24 per cent“

So, even if these safe consumption sites don't increase crime, why have them in the first place? The answer simple: they are a crucial form of healthcare for addicts and the facts about addiction are concerning.

"More than one in four deaths among young Canadians (in their 20s-30s) between 2019 and 2021 were opioid-related..They found that in three years (between 2019 and 2021) the annual number of opioid-related deaths rose from 3,007 to 6,222. And the number of years of life lost due to opioids increased from 126,115 to 256,336."

This is the other story, a true one, about the young people we know, in the very neighbourhoods many wanted to protect from a fictitious crime wave in the wake of safe drug consumption sites, who are dying in increasing numbers.

Some argue that those young people who die from overdoses were going to die anyway. There is no saving an addict, so why bother?

We should bother because addicts can be saved. The first safe consumption site in North America opened in British Columbia, Canada, in September 2003. With over 4 million visits by users, over 11,000 overdoses reversed, they have had 0 drug overdose deaths. Instead they have many stories, true ones, of success, like Felicella, who spent two decades using drugs and "was one of the first through the door when Insite opened, and he credits it with saving his life. Now married with three kids, he works as a Peer Clinical Advisor for both Vancouver Coastal Health and the BC Centre on Substance Use, and is an in-demand harm reduction public speaker."

These safe consumption sites are healthcare, providing a safe place to do drugs and also the resources to get off drugs and build a life. To have a job, to have children and to help build the community your live in.

This continuing controversy over safe consumption sites is another of the sad tales of healthcare fighting crime fiction. The real victims are patients who can be denied healthcare if these fictional stories are believed and people vote to make them policy. Whether it is safe consumption sites, vaccine safety or a myriad of other issues, healthcare is butting heads with crime fiction. Medicine is faced with constant stories of vaccines that cause death and threats of doctors being jailed or killed in response. One of the latest and weirdest is the crime fiction of babies being murdered by doctors after birth under the name of 'abortion'. These crime stories are made up to make people's blood boil and they create real victims: patients who fail to get the healthcare they need to keep them safe.

As someone who is passionate about healthcare and mystery novels, never did I think the two would meet in such a dangerous way.