Related:
Want To Get Involved?

Even though the G20 summit is three weeks away, security barriers are already being constructed in Toronto. The Star reports that “Thick concrete blocks and steel poles holding wire mesh fencing have gone up overnight just south of the Rogers Centre as crews start installing security barriers for the G20 summit in Toronto.” These security measures are necessary because of violence at past G20 summits. Although protests have usually begun peacefully, they have sometimes turned violent as tensions escalate and clashes with law enforcement occurs. The security measures will also disrupt traffic in downtown Toronto and make life miserable for anyone who lives or works in the area before and during the June 25-26 summit.

The cost for the security measures for the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto will be approximately one billion dollars. This does not include all of the other expenses. The Star also suggests some other ways the billion dollars could be spent, like $1,000 in tuition cuts for every student in Canada, or create 11,000 new construction jobs. Another way it could be spent: Build thousands of permanent water wells in Africa to drastically improve lives of millions of people who live there. To put the billion dollars in perspective, it is double the total yearly amount Canada spends on foreign aid.

Is this really a wise way to spend money? The meeting just seems unnecessary. Technology allows us to meet using videoconferencing. What purpose does it serve for the leaders to physically meet in the same room, other than the intangible qualities of talking face-to-face? This would reduce the security costs to nearly zero, and would still accomplish the same ends.

Rather than hold this conference, shouldn’t the money be used to care for the less fortunate in the world? James, Jesus’ earthly brother, explains to us what type of religion God considers worthy: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

I’m not objecting to keeping our world leaders secure, there is a real need for security whenever leaders meet together. Rather I’m suggesting, along with many others, that this meeting as it is being conducted is unnecessary in the first place.

What do you think? Would you prefer that the money for the G20 summit be spent elsewhere, and if so, where?

Even though the G20 summit is three weeks away, security barriers are already being constructed in Toronto.

The cost for the security measures for the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto will be approximately one billion dollars. This does not include all of the other expenses associated with the summit. In a second article, The Star suggests some other ways the billion dollars could be spent, like $1,000 in tuition cuts for every student in Canada, or create 11,000 new construction jobs. Another way it could be spent: Build thousands of permanent water wells in Africa to drastically improve lives of millions of people who live there. To put the billion dollars in perspective, it is double the total yearly amount Canada spends on foreign aid.

The meeting just seems unnecessary. Technology allows us to meet using videoconferencing. What purpose does it serve for the leaders to physically meet in the same room, other than the intangible qualities of talking face-to-face? This would reduce the security costs to nearly zero, and would still accomplish the same ends. The security costs even give protesters an additional reason to protest: Obscene spending on security!

I’m not objecting to keeping our world leaders secure, there is a real need for security whenever leaders meet together. Rather I’m suggesting, along with many others, that this meeting as it is being conducted is unnecessary in the first place.

What do you think? Would you prefer that the money for the G20 summit be spent elsewhere, and if so, where?

The debate over Africentric schools in Toronto is raging [due to] a controversial step to help struggling black students with alternative education. By a vote of 11 to nine, school trustees agreed on an "operational model" for a black-focused school. The school would focus on the experiences and contributions of African people with a goal of discouraging students in the black community from dropping out.

A study done in 2006 found that 40 per cent of black students do not complete high school. [Source: CTV News]

Do you think a race-focused school will help? Is it appropriate to create schools which are tailored to specific races, or should public schools attempt to present a unified and diverse curriculum that is applicable to everyone in modern multicultural North America?