You all remember the Millington Massacre, right?

Somehow, and I really don't know exactly how, I've been included on the fundraising mailing list for the Tuscola County, Michigan's Sheriff.  Thanks to a scan from my Uncle I've been able to examine the most recent mailing, a letter from the Sheriff seeking donations to the Michigan Sheriff's Association.

One thing that amazed me about the letter, though it probably shouldn't have, was the clear inclination to emphasize threats to the community and the pervasiveness of crime.  In just the second sentence the letter warns that

Every day we hear of the ravaging effects of violence, theft, predators, drug abuse, and many other deadly types of crime.

Seems to me that the Sheriffs might be better served by focusing on the good work they've already been doing preventing crime rather than emphasizing the continuing spread of crime under their watch. You know, provide some evidence that existence of Sheriffs helps keep a lid on crime rather than implying that crime has continued to spread.  But this disinclination to highlight achievements was really hammered home when by the Sheriff suggesting not that he is busy doing everything is his power to keep you safe, but that "I will do everything in my power to keep you safe [emphasis in original]." I can't help but come away with the feeling that the message is that he will step up to the plate and start doing his job, the job for which he is currently being paid by the County, once the voters have made enough donations to his Association.  Or am I being to cynical? 


(I was curious to know how much crime there is in Tuscola County and how many of the reported crimes are resolved, so I visited a Michigan State Police site that provides crime and arrest stats on county and agency basis.  It seems that in 2010 the Tuscola County Sheriff received 89 reports of Burglary - Forced Entry while the county total was 179. As far as arrests go, the Tuscola County Sheriff reported 7 Burglary - Forced Entry arrests while the arrest total for the county was 18.  I should also mention that in the same year there were zero murders reported and zero arrests for murder.)


Anyway, fear mongering aside, the part of the letter that really got under my skin was the following sentence.

My law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity.

Really?  Are you sure about that?


At this point I think it is important to think about what a crime against humanity really is, and whether or not such crimes really exist in a rural county in one of the richest countries in the world.  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as follows:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)     Murder;(b)     Extermination;
(c)     Enslavement;
(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f)     Torture;
(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j)     The crime of apartheid;
(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Unless the "crime against humanity" the Sheriff is talking about is simply the "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" that may come as a result of living in Michigan, I have a hard time imagining that the Sheriff of Tuscola County, Michigan's "law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity."  Not only do I doubt that they witness the "some of the worst crimes against humanity," I doubt they even witness any such crimes.

So not only does this letter betray a limited understanding of the term 'crime against humanity,' I think it goes one step further.  By labelling run-of-the-mill rural crimes as 'crimes against humanity' the significance of the term in the global context risks being diminished.  By using the term in this way at least one key aspect of the concept, which is that the crimes must be "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population," is lost.  Thus recipients of this letter, or other individuals who've seen the word used in a similar way, may not understand the significance and particular meaning of the term.  When they hear the term in relation to a real 'crime against humanity' they may not understand the widespread nature of the crime that the term is meant to indicate.  We risk diminishing our common understanding and appreciation of the particularly heinous nature of this class of crime, a class of crime that has included such things as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.

Sure, to quote Cheech and Chong, "Things are tough all over," but that doesn't mean that when describing these problems we should overemphasize the frequency of their occurrence or overstate the nature of the problem.  Not only does the bearer of this questionable news risk undermining their own credibility, but they risk diminishing our collective understanding of important and meaningful concepts like 'crimes against humanity' that have very specific definitions and are thus not something that should be used as a rhetorical tool.

Mainlanders

While at work a few days ago I had a discussion with a co-worker about what it meant to be a mainlander. It was my contention that the term ‘mainlander’ referred to just about anyone, though particularly North Americans, not from Newfoundland (the province not the island). This would mean that an Ontarian and Brit would both be mainlanders, while someone from Lab City would not be a mainlander. While we did not discuss the grey area of Labradorians, she did question whether or not an American, or anyone not from Canada, could properly be referred to as a mainlander. Actually, she believed that Americans should not be considered mainlanders and that the term referred only to Canadians.

The obvious first step seemed to be to check the dictionary of Newfoundland English (which is freely available online). Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, the dictionary did not explicitly define ‘mainlander’ only ‘mainland’ (mainlander only comes up in relation to ‘mainland’). They go one to define to ‘mainland’ as the provinces and territories that comprise the rest of Canada. Generally, it seems that this would be a relatively undisputed definition, but it also does not really help when it comes to defining what a ‘mainlander’ is.

It seemed that the next obvious step would be to consult people that might reasonably be expected to regularly use the word or at least have a fairly good grasp on the various contexts in which it could or should be used. To achieve this end I emailed about 20 individuals who had all been raised and educated in Newfoundland (and as far as I know they were all born here also, though there may be one or two exceptions).

The email that was sent was incredibly short and was intended to not include any material that might bias the answer of the respondents. The thrust of the email asked how the term would be defined and used. Within several minutes I started to receive replies.

While several people agreed with my co-worker and suggested that a mainlander is someone from anywhere in Canada other than Newfoundland, a few other individuals provided definitions closer to my own. In particular, the suggestion was that if you were not a Newfoundlander than you were a mainlander (a two category classification system into which almost everyone can be placed). The question then becomes how far this term can be stretched. In one case it was argued that certainly all North Americans could be considered mainlanders. A follow up question then is whether or not Europeans should also be considered as mainlanders (particularly in light of their past and they way in which Newfoundland was ruled from afar by some of these countries).

Two additional issues that were raised related to the status of Labradorians and those individuals from identifiable cultural groups. While no one suggested that Labradorians should be classed as mainlanders there was clearly apprehension about what they should be called (as it has already been stated – this is a two class system). A further point was whether or not Quebeckers, Acadians, Prince Edward Islanders, and Cape Bretoners should be considered mainlanders. At least two people suggested that they would have a harder time using the term mainlander to refer to an individual that could be a member of any of these groups.

All of this to say that there doesn’t appear to be consensus (at least among my friends) as to whom the term refers. The only element of the definition that did seem to be universally agreed upon is that Ontarians are definitely mainlanders.