We’re not as good as we think we are in Canada

RCMP watchdog to examine handling of Colten Boushie shooting


Indigenous leaders call for resignation of Thunder Bay police chief over non-investigation of death of Indigenous man

My home town seems to have become the epicentre of institutional racism in Canada.

I grew up in Thunder Bay, Ontario, a city sometimes called the Lakehead. Years, decades can go by without it getting noticed in the national news.

But it’s certainly been in the news a lot over the past year, and not in a good way.

Here’s one from the Globe and Mail of March 5, 2018:

“Indigenous leaders call on Thunder Bay police chief to resign after report alleges neglect of duty”

Then there’s this one from last summer:

First Nations woman dies after being hit by trailer hitch thrown from passing car in Thunder Bay, Ont.”

Barbara Kentner, left, was struck by a trailer hitch thrown from a moving car in Thunder Bay, Ont. Photo: CBC

Let’s look into these things a little closer.

Indigenous leaders like Robin McGinnis, Chief of the Rainy River First Nation, and Grand Chiefs Francis Kavanaugh and Alvin Fiddler, called for the chief of the Thunder Bay police force to resign or be fired over the investigation of the death of Stacy DeBungee, an Indigenous man in 2015.

DeBungee’s body was found in the McIntyre River in Thunder Bay. An independent report on the police investigation into the death found there were “serious deficiencies.” The victim’s brother said that the police immediately dismissed the death as not suspicious, and did little to no investigation. According to Brad DeBungee, the officers neglected to canvass witnesses, and ignored a woman who confessed to pushing Stacy DeBungee into the river. That woman has since died.

This case happened during an inquiry into the deaths of seven more First Nations people in rivers in Thunder Bay between 2000 and 2011. They were all initially deemed accidental, with alcohol involved. A coroner’s inquest changed that determination to “undetermined” in three of those cases. Which means there could have been foul play involved.

Then there’s the case of Barbara Kentner, a First Nations woman who was hit by a trailer hitch thrown from a passing car in January 2017 in Thunder Bay. The passenger in the car yelled “Oh, I got one,” after throwing the hitch. Ms. Kentner died of her injuries in July. Brayden Bushby, who was 18 at the time, has been arrested and charged. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for September 10.

First Nations people, including relatives of the victim, say it’s not uncommon for them to have things thrown at them from passing cars in Thunder Bay.

Do you see a pattern here? Blatant racially motivated violence and lack of concern over it by police.

But Thunder Bay is not the only place where this goes on.

Last month, Gerald Stanley of Saskatchewan was acquitted of killing Colton Boushie, a First Nations man.

The fact that Stanley shot Boushie is not in dispute. He claimed he was not responsible, that the rifle in his hands went off accidentally, and the jury believed him.

Or rather, the Crown prosecutors did not convince the jury that he was guilty beyond doubt. That’s the way our criminal courts work—which is good.

What is not good is that the investigators and prosecutors did not even try. The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP has begun investigation into the original investigation of the event, to determine whether it was done “reasonably” and whether race was a factor.

You think?

The RCMP did not take photos of the evidence at the scene for hours, until after dark. They then left the vehicle where Boushie died uncovered, in the rain, for two days. They did not test it for blood or gunpowder residue.

The RCMP took Gerald Stanley to their detachment to take photos, then let him go, allowing him to return the following day to make a statement. Which means he had opportunity to confer with other witnesses. The RCMP did not even take his shirt, losing potential evidence of blood spatter and gunpowder residue.

According to Boushie’s family, the RCMP were much more assiduous in investigating them. They rushed to his mother’s home in two cars and came in with weapons drawn. After announcing to Debbie Baptiste, Boushie’s mother, that her son was dead, they asked whether she’d been drinking and searched the home.

Communication: it’s what police do

A criminal case, particularly when it gets to court, is a particular exercise in communication. Investigators find facts, then link them to build an argument, or case. A Crown prosecutor (that’s what we call them in Canada) then presents that story to a jury or a judge, who decides whether to believe the story or find it less than convincing.

In our system, it’s up to the prosecutor to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do that, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty.

In Saskatchewan, the Crown failed to make its case convincingly. It’s as if the RCMP were trying not to collect a convincing weight of evidence.

The same story plays out across the country wherever Indigenous people are involved. Over and over, white people get away with murder when it comes to Indigenous people.

We’re not what we say we are

Canadians like to think of ourselves as open, inclusive and fair. And we like to project that image to the world. But the image fails under the lightest scrutiny.

Canada has consistently failed to treat Indigenous people fairly. We’ve known it for a very long time. We have accepted this contradiction between what we say to visitors and immigrants, and the way we treat Indigenous Canadians.

The Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls only got started  last year, after years of being opposed by the previous Prime Minister.

Governments budget less than half as much money per student in an Indigenous community. More than 100 First Nations communities in this country don’t have clean drinking water. Some have been boiling their water for decades. And it’s only in the past two years that any effort has been taken to correct this.

When did our civilization decide that ensuring its people had safe water to drink was a priority for government? Oh, yah, about 5,000 years ago.

It’s time we non-Indigenous Canadians—okay, I’ll say it: white—acknowledged how badly we’ve been treating Indigenous people.

It’s time to change. And if the police at any level, across the country, can’t, it’s time to change the police.

Leave a comment.

Merry Christmas


Best wishes for the season and the coming New Year.

From the Written Word

Why I am hopeful this holiday season

It’s been a crazy, depressing, tragic month around the world. There has been so much to stress us, to make anyone really doubtful about the prospects for peace, health or happiness in the future. But when I check into social media this morning, I was pleasantly surprised not to find as much negativity as I expected.

So many ridiculous memes and comments on Facebook that link recent extremist attacks in the U.S. and France to refugees fleeing war and oppression in Syria and other places.

And then there’s the ridiculous posturing and the twisting of logic following the shooting at Planned Parenthood location in Colorado. People who argue that those who argue for better gun control in the U.S. are more blameworthy than someone who murdered innocent people.

But thankfully, I found that the majority of commenters were sensible, looking calmly and rationally at the facts and offering rational discussion.

Someone on the Internet is wrong!

I know that it’s useless to debate politics on Facebook. No one ever changes their minds because of some comment I, or anyone else posts. But sometimes I just cannot help myself.

Like when someone posts “Accepting Syrian refugees will make Canada/America vulnerable to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.”

  • Fact: No refugee has ever committed an act of terrorism in the U.S.
  • Fact: Refugees accepted into Canada or the U.S. have to go through 18 to 24 months of screening, with extensive background checks.
  • Fact: The terror attacks in San Bernadino were carried out by a native-born U.S. citizen and his wife, who came from Pakistan on a fiancé visa.
  • Fact: The November 13 attacks in Paris were committed by people who were born in France or Belgium.
  • Fact: The Charlie Hebdo shootings in January were committed by two men who were born and raised in France.

Or that “passing more restrictive gun laws will only prevent good people from defending themselves.”

  • Fact: Good civilians with guns almost never do anything about bad guys with guns, whether they’re mass shooters or terrorists or whatever. Almost always, it’s the police, or the army, or another organization that ends mass-shooting situations. And in the extremely rare instances when it IS an individual, they’re usually off-duty or retired police or military people. In other words, it takes more than a weapon to end a situation like that. It takes training and experience in dealing with high-stress, high stakes situations.
  • Facts: In August, a man with a rifle tried to attack a train in Belgium. He was taken down by three American travelers, a Briton and a French man. None of them were armed. Two of the Americans were military men—in other words, trained how to react to a stressful, life-and-death situation.

Why be a troll?

There are a lot of trolls and people who will post very hurtful things, argue by insulting you instead of presenting a logical counter-argument. In the past, getting into a serious discussion over Facebook has often left me feeling bad because of such insults and really vile statements.

I was expecting to read a lot of such comments recently, as the events in the U.S. have inspired a lot of Facebook commenting. However, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the comments—when I counter the incorrect or illogical statements, I have read a lot of supportive and logical comments. Not everyone agrees with me—and that’s not my goal—but I have been pleased by the level of respect I find.

Now, I know that those who I read and respond to on Facebook, and those who respond to me, do not constitute a scientifically representative sample of the population. But still, I am gratified to read less truly

So, there you go. My political post for the year. Maybe now I can learn to ignore people who are wrong on the Internet and concentrate on writing books.

Happy Hanukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Yule, Saturnalia and whatever you celebrate this time of year.

Why I just cannot support the Conservative Party

Creative Commons

It’s not because of hair or niqabs. I’m not afraid of refugees in my back yard.

It’s partly because of the economy. The Conservative narrative, dictated almost entirely by Stephen Harper himself, says that the economy is so fragile, only the party that is the best economic manager can handle it.

Well, the “Harper Government” has been in power for a decade. After inheriting a $13 billion surplus and immediately producing a deficit, followed by seven more, the best they can boast about is a surplus so narrow it amounts to rounding error, according to independent economists, and engineering a recovery so fragile it needs massive transfers of wealth from the working class to the wealthiest people and corporations to make it last.

But there’s a bigger reason to oppose Harper’s Conservatives: Stephen Harper is anti-democratic.

Since his early days in politics, Harper’s hostility to the media has been well documented. He is the only Prime Minister not to have appeared on This Hour Has 22 Minutes since the show began 22 years ago. Even some of his cabinet ministers, notably Peter MacKay, have been frequent guests.

Harper rarely gives media interviews, with the notable exception of a holiday-season interview by a gushing Peter Mansbridge.

Listening to radio news, I get the distinct feeling that the most frequently repeated phrase is “We asked the federal department of X, but received no response before deadline.”

Creative commons image

The Harper government muzzled scientists who work within the federal public service, which means they are not allowed to talk about their scientific findings with any member of the public, especially the media, unless they are accompanied by political.

Over their terms in office, the Harper government has squelched the release of a number of research reports, paid for by taxpayers. They have sent copies to Library and Archives Canada, which meets the legislated requirement for “publication,” but have not released copies to the media. Hint to news media: ask Library and Archives for some research reports “published” but not released over the past two years. You’ll find stuff that for some reason embarrasses the government. Oh, those pesky facts.

Speaking of facts, there’s the cancellation of the long-form census, something developed to provide facts to base policy on. It’s an idea that dates from the Roman Empire, for crying out loud! But apparently, the Harper government does not need facts to develop policy.

The control of the Ministers of the Crown has expanded to the extreme where virtually every single communication from any department needs approval by the Privy Council and the Prime Minister’s Office.

During the current election campaign, Conservative candidates have declined to participate in all-candidates meetings and debate across the country. In my own riding, Conservative candidate Walter Pamic is one who refused to go to an all-candidate debate in Kanata-Carelton. He’s been almost invisible, except for a couple of posters with his picture on it and an online exposé of his more questionable and extreme statements over the past couple of years. Oh, and the revelation that his business received $400,000 in federal government contracts after he declared his candidacy.

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant also refused to attend an all-candidate debate in her riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. A major issue was door-to-door mail delivery, something that the Conservative government ended. The next day, Gallant put an ad in her local newspaper, claiming that only a Conservative government could save Canada Post, and used a Canada Post logo in it, without permission.

The City of Ottawa held a city-wide debate on issues in the federal election that will have local impacts. All the parties sent candidates from different ridings, for a city-wide perspective—all but the Conservatives. Out of eight Ottawa-area ridings, and given flexible dates, the Conservatives could not find one candidate who could fit it into his or her schedule.

Staying out of debates is a Harper hallmark. Sure, there have been a number of leaders’ debates in this election, but their format was dictated by the Conservative Party. It seems that Harper did not feel comfortable in the debate format of previous elections, held by a media consortium of all the major broadcast networks. Instead, this election’s debates were narrowcast and had a fraction of the audience of previous years.

Harper is a dictator within his own party. Members repeat the party line and stay on message, or they’re gone. Every word out of every Conservative’s mouth in the current election has been scripted by the party, and echoes Harper’s pronouncements. This video on YouTube is a hilarious demonstration of that.

And the message? A series of half-truths and outright lies.

  • The Conservatives’ economic ability I’ve already dealt with, as has the Huffington Post.
  • Their characterization of the other parties’ economic and taxation policies is a series of outright lies. The Cons keep saying the Liberals and the NDP will raise taxes. A cursory look at their platforms proves the opposite. Anecdotally, I have not seen my income taxes fall in the past nine years. Quite the contrary. This year, the feds want more from me, not less, even though my economic situation has not changed appreciably. Under the Liberal plan, I’ll actually save over $1,200 next year.
  • Then there are the BC ads in Cantonese and Punjabi that state that “Trudeau wants to sell marijuana to children, have injection sites in every neighbourhood and allow neighbourhood brothels.” That is so outrageous, I hope that no one would believe it.

But if we cannot believe something, why say it?

It all adds up to manipulation. And manipulation opposes democracy. Citizen in a democracy need to make their choices based on facts.

The fact is, the Conservatives’ behaviours and policies do not support democracy. And I cannot support that.

Congratulations to Smashwords for pushing back against censorship

Originally published on Blogger in 2012.

Image courtesy Kofegeek

Kudos to Smashwords and its head, Mark Coker, for pushing back against censorship.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a column about how Paypal was forcing e-book retailers like Smashwords to remove e-books whose content it found objectionable. If any e-book seller was found to be selling books with content about rape, incest, underage sexuality and bestiality, Paypal would deactivate its account.

This amounts to censorship—the restriction of content. And because of Paypal’s size and dominance of the online payments market, it had the potential to enforce it.

At the time, Smashwords President Mark Coker explained that he managed to get Paypal to grant a “temporary reprieve as we continue to work in good faith to find a suitable solution.”

On March 13, Mark Coker announced through Smashwords’ online newsletter that “PayPal today announced plans to revise their content policies to allow Smashwords writers full freedom to publish and sell legal ebooks….

“This is a victory for all writers and readers. It removes credit card companies, banks and payment processors from the business of censoring legal fiction.

I agree with Paypal’s stated aversion to the kind of material it listed. But outright banning of books that meet the criteria of “including” rape, incest, underage sexuality and bestiality is a blunt instrument. By that token, my book may be banned, as it contains frank description of sexual activity by people who would today be considered “underage”—but who were, in the time the book is set, of marriageable age. Other works that fall into that description would include not just Lolita, but also Romeo and Juliet, Gone with the Wind and The Return of Martin Guerre.

And as I said in my blog post of March 6, while rape, incest, bestiality and underage sexuality may be problems, censorship is not the cure. All it does is limit the freedom of legitimate artists, writers and readers, while forcing the truly objectionable material that celebrates these acts further underground.

Coker attributed the turnaround to thousands of independent authors who made phone calls, wrote letters, emails and blogs and otherwise raised the issue in the world.

Interestingly, I did not hear anything about Amazon’s response to this. Did they face the same pressure? Maybe they’re just too big to worry about pressure from Paypal. But from banks? Unimaginable. Smashwords, as a much smaller company, had far less ability to push back, yet did so gracefully and successfully.

So, congratulations, Mr. Coker, and Paypal, too. But let’s not get complacent.

Where did this latest attempt to limit free speech come from? According to Paypal, the pressure came from banks, credit card companies and others in the financial industry. But that sector is not known for its morality—so who or what was behind the effort?

We should all thank and esteem Mr. Coker for his astute handling of the issue and a real victory for freedom of expression, but at the same time, we need to stay on guard against the next time some faceless organization tries to limit our freedoms.

This issue has not gone away. All writers, fiction or non-fiction, secular or belonging to any faith, political or not, along with all creative people, as well as anyone who values their freedom to choose the art material for themselves—we all must not stay quiet the next time censorship comes cloaked as “decency” or “protecting the most vulnerable.”

And don’t fall into the trap of saying “I don’t read that kind of stuff, so it doesn’t affect me.” Because if those four subjects get banned today, then tomorrow there will be four more that someone finds objectionable.

Don’t think it can’t happen. It’s happened before. And while censorship does not work, it sure leads to misery for a lot of people. Remember samizdat?

Think of the children: what will happen if they learn sex exists?

Photo courtesy cbc.ca

News item: Ontario sex ed: Protesters disrupt school meeting

Protesters turned out in force at a Scarborough school Thursday night, disrupting efforts by two local MPPs to discuss Ontario’s new sex ed curriculum. 

The information session at Agincourt Collegiate Institute was cut short when demonstrators moved inside — chanting “We say no” at MPPs Soo Wong and Bas Balkissoon. 
The new curriculum has drawn criticism from some parents and religious groups who say it is too explicit for young children. 
A group of loud parents protested against the new Ontario health and physical education curriculum at a public meeting in Toronto this past week. They carried signs that bore phrases like:

“Too early, too soon”

“Our children, our choice”

The ruckus drew media attention, of course. One of the protesting parents asked: “Can you justify to me why a Grade Six needs to know about masturbation? Can you answer that?”

Today on a newsstand near you

Some of the cover headlines on the current edition of Cosmopolitan:

63 Secrets to Better Orgams—Get Over the Edge!I Like High-End Sex Parties—and I’m Not a Weirdo.

Last issue: 
Cover lines: 

How I solved our sex issueHow to touch a naked man: 16 Naughty Strokes That Will Send Him Over the Edge.

Apparently, an orgasm is like falling off a cliff at Cosmopolitan.
From the current issue of Women’s Health magazine: 
“The positions men prefer most”—a how-to guide.
Unlike porn magazines, which are, at least where I live, out of reach and sight of children, these magazines are all the most popular, biggest-selling women’s magazines. Most are regularly displayed in racks beside the check-outs of grocery and drugstores.
Kids see them all the time, and whether or not they ask Mom “What’s an orgasm?” they’re going to wonder.
And they’re going to get the information somewhere.

The connected generation

Kids today get most of their information today not from parents or school, but from the Internet, and they’re accessing it through mobile devices.
Cover line: “The best hour for
amazing sex”
In other words, when they have questions, they go for answers to the Internet first. And they probably won’t look up Cosmo or Women’s Health. They’re more likely to get misinformation from irresponsible like soft porn sites or, worse, the Centre for Canadian Values.
It’s the same argument that led to sex ed in schools in the 70s: kids are getting bad information about sex from uninformed sources—the “kids in the schoolyard” argument. That’s why it’s important to give children correct information based on facts before they hear misinformation and outright lies.

The big lie succeeds

The Big Lie technique is simple: if you want a large number of people to believe something that’s not true, make it as big, as ridiculous as you can, and keep repeating it. Political opponents of the Ontario government are using it in the pointless sex-ed debate have floated the phrase that under the new Health and Physical Education curriculum, Grade 6 students will the “taught masturbation.”
That’s the phrase used by a former reporter from the defunct Sun News TV channel on an online rant against the curriculum. “Taught masturbation.” Not “taught about masturbation” or “taught the definition of masturbation.”
Phrasing it this way is clearly meant to evoke the idea of a teacher showing students how to masturbate. But the curriculum says that among the physical and health education concepts Grade 6 students will learn, is:

“Things like wet dreams or vaginal lubrication are normal and happen as a result of physical changes with puberty. Exploring one’s body by touching or masturbating is something that many people do and find pleasurable. It is common and is not harmful and is one way of learning about your body.”

Why should a Grade 6 student learn that?

News item:

Woman, 33, watching 50 Shades of Grey arrested for masturbating at movie theater in Mexico during S&M-filled drama

Because the word comes up in mass media, in social media and in the schoolyard. Because in a year, that 12-year-old will be 13 and masturbation will move from a word on a screen to reality.
Cover line: “Is Everyone Sexting
Without Me?


If schools cannot teach facts that children will need in their life, then where will they learn it?

(Mis)Information is everywhere

A lot of parents, understandably, want to control the information their children get. The trouble is, that’s a futile effort. Kids are getting more information than ever before, all the time. The only thing we as parents can do is make sure that we give them correct information about the most important things in their lives.
What do you think about this? What do you think about teaching children about sex—not how to do it, but that it exists. 
And I would be interested to hear from those who oppose the sex education parts of the health and physical education curriculum: what do you think will happen if a young child learns about sex?

What is freedom of speech? Opinion or bullying and mocking?

Guest post by award-winning, bestselling author Samreen Ahsan 
Our world is trending on controversial hashtags these days: be it #JeSuisCharlie, #PeshawarAttack or #IWillRideWithYou. We all have our own opinions and thoughts—but what exactly does “freedom of speech” mean?

Is it having the right to express an opinion on something that you observe or read, or is it the power to criticize someone on the basis of their religion, nationality or colour?
To me, it is simply the power to generate your idea and raise your voice for justice.
I’d like to emphasize that I’m not here to criticize any theory or ideology. Everyone in this world has the right to believe in their own ways and no one has the right to mock them. God gave us the freedom of making our own decisions and taking charge of situations. He never asked us to rely on Him for every act. True, there are certain things that are in His hands (like our life and death) but on the journey from life to death, He has given us the power.
And what are all we doing here with that power? Just passing discriminatory remarks about each other and bullying in an immature way. Sure, it boils your blood if someone bullies your faith or ridicules your religion, but does that mean you should take out the sword and cut his throat?
I believe that everyone has the right to form his expression, yet I also believe that if you know something will offend a certain group, why take that path? There are other ways to make your magazine popular…is it necessary to choose the sensitive path? Make it more controversial just to get fame or some buzz?
Religion has always been a sensitive topic. Be it Jesus, Moses or Muhammad, I don’t think anyone should criticize someone’s belief system or the way they respect someone. Freedom of speech does NOT mean criticizing and mocking! It means you have the right to give your opinion on any matter without ridiculing someone’s ideology. And how do you do that? Work on the idea of think-before-you-speak.
On the other hand, I also believe that one should not react to someone’s criticism. I’m a practicing Muslim—why didn’t I react to Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons? Does that mean I don’t love my Prophet or I’m not sincere about Islam? NO! I believe no matter how much any other person criticize or mock, they cannot ruin Muhammad’s honor and dignity. He was chosen to be the last prophet and the religion and revelation of God is completed in him. So if someone picks Muhammad as a topic of criticism, it’s his mindset and his mindset own problem.
If I respect Jesus and follow Muhammad, I don’t expect the entire world to think the way I think and respect the way I respect. God is the one who gave us free will, so He is the one to give us freedom of expression. Everyone has the right to make an opinion. And this mocking won’t harm my faith and my honor toward Muhammad. It’s how God picked him. No one can cause dishonor because God honored him. We are not the ones to avenge Muhammad because his dignity is NOT going anywhere. He was and is a most noble man ever created.
The Quran says:

“We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound”

but it also says:

“if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong.”

When we are taking revenge—are we sure if it is eye-for-an-eye, or are we taking the entire head with it? When you try to form an opinion about Islam or Muslim practices, do you have an idea that incidents can occur as a backlash? Mocking Muhammad, hurting people’s belief for NO reason, in the name of “freedom of speech” or for the sake of fun, is not a mature act.

I’m a proud Muslim, I’m NOT oppressed. My religion gives me the right to practise how I want and how much I want because it has taught me that I will be going in my own grave and will be responsible for my own deeds. No one has the right to drag me to the mosque and pray five times. I’m responsible for myself.

Anyone can stand up and take out a sword; anyone can raise the voice and bully the other. We are not thinking about the collateral damage resulting from these revenges. Our governments are spending millions of dollars on nuclear weapons, ready to kill each other, while people around the globe are dying of exposure or the lack of food and clean water. It’s a shame to all of us!
We all have to live in this world till the Day of Judgement so why not make it a more tolerable and peaceful place to live in? When our house is burned, we don’t curse the fire or reason behind it. We try to either extinguish the fire or save what we can.
Being a Muslim, I condemn all these acts these Jihadists or unknown people are doing in the name of Islam. This is NOT Islam. Islam means peace and Jihad means fighting the demon in you first. Muhammad was dishonored during his time in Mecca and Medina, but he never raised his voice to kill anyone who disgraced him. There was NO blasphemy at that time.
Muhammad always stayed on this Quranic verse: “To you be your religion, and to me my religion”. And I think we should all follow this verse, whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or any other faith.
Remember, there’s a very fine line between an opinion and bullying. What is your freedom of speech?
Samreen Ahsan is the award-winning author of the “Silent Prayer” series, A Silent Prayer and A Prayer Answered, paranormal stories based on Islamic concepts.
History, art and literature are her passions. “I love digging out information about prophecies, divine miracles and paranormal events that are mentioned in history and holy books, that don’t sound possible in today’s modern world.
“Since childhood, I have been into reading and writing–and yes, it can’t happen without imagination, which luckily has no boundaries. Dance and music are also pastimes I enjoy, as well as reading romance fiction. I love to travel and explore historical cities.”
Samreen Ahsan lives in Toronto, Canada.