Alberto D. Hetman
11-30-2008, 11:23 PM
Living
and
dying
with Mc Guinty
One of those laws a bit absurd that were enacted in Ontario in the mid of 20.. was the "burial law". The Globe and Mail published a succinct version of it, which although incorrect (the full version abounded in subsections and it was said that the ones that understood the legal jargon that was written on it were counted on the fingers of the hand) at least it could be understood, and understanding is one of the superior faculties of the human being. Those who read the news that morning did not hesitate to ask themselves if indeed they had woken up.
Those who die while renting an apartment will have to be buried right there in the property. It could be set aside for this purpose a room especially ventilated like mausoleum, the basement, the parking lot, or the garden from either the front part of the building or the back of it. It is allowed to buy surrounding properties to be demolished and turn them into cemeteries, in the manner of certain small churches in rural towns.
If the death occurred in a rented house, or in a basement, it will be at the discretion of the owner who may dispose of all the goods of the deceased or to increase the rent if the dead was part of a family.
The owners of houses will be exempted from this law unless a visitor dies in the residence.
It will be fined those who throw a dead person on the public road.
It will be prohibited, and without any exception, to the cemeteries to accept the dead in these cases.
These five points, which might frighten those who have not lived in Ontario in those days, summarized in a few sentences a law that would set people talking in the following years of Mc Guinty’s term[1] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftn1).
The buildings justified the increase in rent making us see that they should dig deeper basements for the burials, or pull down walls to join apartments for those who chose mausoleums. The retirement homes talked about that in their case, and since they are the ones that were most affected by the law, they would dig so deep that they would reach hell[2] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftn2). Of course, that was nothing more than a literary resource. The imagination of the owners had no limit as shown by the method called "mincemeat" offered by some buildings, especially of the downtown area, so crammed with people. According to this method the dead was cut longitudinally in little pieces, which in turn were cut again transversally, then the liquid was filtered, repeating the procedure until what was obtained could be put inside an amphora of modest dimensions.
It was an option to be taken into account by those who believe that we are nothing after we die, and that we are all finally going to end up in the same hole. Anyway, it was seen as the nihilistic method of mincemeat, giving it to understand that to choose it was to reject any moral habit of the last 40 thousand years.
On the need to write the law again, no one could deny that it brushed aside millenarian rites, with an emphasis only on the Western Christian traditions. For example, what to say about those religions that choose to burn their dead on the top of the buildings. Perhaps was it not legal to do so? That foreboded an addendum to the law, and the following was proposed: "Funeral pyres are banned". And the habit of leaving the dead on the top of the trees to rot or be devoured by vultures? Of course, if this was accepted we would be talking about breeding vultures in Ontario everywhere. Firstly, it was pointed out that vultures in Ontario were not so common, and secondly, that to allow it would attract more tourists to the city. Another of the drawbacks of the Mc Guinty’s law was the death in pubs, restaurants and stores open 24 hours like the ones at the service stations. The question in this case was: What to do if a customer dies in the perimeter limited by the store? The lawyers quoted two examples, namely:
1) Pete L., dead almost at the end of a pool game. He was buried in the basement of the store, because the landlord knew that he was the son of a wealthy family. The amount requested for the burial almost bought a painting by Krieghoff.
2) Susan D., dead while eating at a famous downtown restaurant. The trial was based on the fact that a customer is a visitor in the property of the owner of the restaurant (read the law with respect to the owners of the houses). The burial was denied, and the family said that if at the place there was enough space for a wine cellar then it should also have room for a crypt. The owner indicated, of course, that the restaurant was not his but rented.
What before, in times of our parents and grandparents, was simple it was no longer so by the mid of 20.., a year after the law was enacted. Living and dying with Mc Guinty was a tough luck.
Renowned cemeteries went bankrupt and it was useless to offer discounts of up to 80%. It was known that in some cases, the deceased were buried without a coffin, and in tombs whose land at the time of torrential rains turned into Lovecraftian swamps. Other frauds were: burying the dead in fetal position to save space; the so-called “shared tomb” between two or three dead; the tomb upside down where the dead were buried standing; cane coffins, or plastic ones; the scheduled visits, which gave time to the people in charge to change one gravestone for another and thus leading the family of the dead to believe that they had the best location; and finally, the dead without tomb, fraud in which they throw away the dead who knows where and on the lot without tomb was placed a tombstone, even though made of granite, purposeless.
The inventiveness of the human being to cheat his neighbour has no end.
Prophets of the new millennium predicted early cemeteries opened 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There was no need to be one to read the newspapers. Among Mc Guinty’s proposals was to convert the Mount Pleasant Cemetery in a museum and charge a fee to view the graves. This idea was absurd because there were still people burying their dead in cemeteries, and did not faint to follow the recently fashion to build a crypt in the basement of a building. The other proposal, equally farfetched, was to offer the first cup of coffee free to the visitors of cemeteries after converting them into museums. Other cemeteries were talking about free breakfast or dinner. But, meanwhile, firstly it had to be proved that a relative was among the dead. It did not count: "it is over there", it had to be indicated the exact location of the tombstone. Who did not doubt that people would approach cemeteries simply because the coffee was free!
In this regard the most absurd idea we heard was that of "the exhibition of the dead". According to this variant they would bring for spring some dead exhumed from other countries, like Poe or Da Vinci. Did they not do the same with works of art? There were those who asked for Jesus, but surely these people did not know that Jesus had risen.
Those who did not accept the innovative proposals of Mc Guinty went even further and asserted that the right thing was to bury the dead where he had died (leaving aside obviously sidewalks and streets and avenues). That proved to be impractical because what should be done if a person died while traveling on an airplane, to bury him in the airplane? Or perhaps to send him in a hot air balloon into the air up to the stratosphere?
What about the addendum to the law? Who would write it, Stephen King?
Other suggestions were to bury the dead as well as his family. It was a humanistic touch to the monotonous life in Ontario; the heat hit on the forehead at the beginning of June, and the best remedy was to take part of the life in jest. This proposal, certainly, absurd, was a copy of the theological idea of the pharaohs of the ancient Egypt, who after dying were buried in turn with all their entourage, alive. Clearly, some would kill their neighbour to get rid of their families as well. Some, evidently jokingly, spoke that it had to be taken into account family members up to the 4th generation, like in the case of sin.
Then, we heard televised debates on the definition of the word "burial". What was it ultimately? According to some philologists it was to bring the body of the dead underground, but it was not true that the dead are buried, so to speak, in crypts and mausoleums. The ones that obeyed this tendency were the companies of polyethylene bags that proposed to leave the coffins simply piled up at the gardens (the roof of the buildings was ruled out because the bodies hitting a pedestrian in the head) and then wrapping the dead in plastic bags as if they were sandwiches of ham and cheese. These, in turn, say the owners, would force the family to take care of them again having left them exposed to the elements. These slogans were suggested: "Shame on you to leave it under the rain so it gets wet", "if you do not like it, take it away". And the more aggressive: "Eat if you want, but take it away".
Well, now that I have told you Mc Guinty’s law, I will fully refer to the building in which I lived, on Avenue Road and Poplar Plains Cr.
The first thing, and we should always start at the beginning, was the construction of something like a telephone booth and a railroad barrier to prevent the access and charge a fee to enter the building to those who were not tenants, even before the tombs were built . How wrong was I that thought that first they would build the latter, and then based on the results one would be charged to visit them.
The rent increased almost threefold. If one did not have money to pay, one would get oneself into debt up to the neck, and we had to live somewhere after all!
They demanded a medical certificate before renting the apartment to someone. Even the flu was more than quite enough reason to tell the applicant: "it begins with flu, and then who knows, you never know if you do not end with cancer or leprosy". In turn, doctors charge sidereal values for this certificate. A proverb reads: "you have to work overtime like a donkey for a signed paper".
The seniors were virtually rejected under the following argument: "Well, there is no room!" Other buildings welcomed them but those who could not pay the amount needed to accept works imposed by the building to cover up their expenses. Imagine that that work was the construction of tombs.
The new tenants had to sign a document asserting that they did not live in Ontario, and if they were found dead it was because they had broken into through the window in secret knowing that doing so was a crime.
In the event of sudden death, they could get rid of any identification and send it to the morgue with the label John Doe tied to the big toe.
One should have made every effort to die o somewhere else. It was suggested to visit the home of a relative, or friend, in order that they were the ones to bear the cost of the burial. And if the death was not so fast, go out to the sidewalk and die exposed to the elements.
I would not have been faithful to my story if I do not say that the same newspaper published another news, but a year later, and under pressure from the Mc Guinty’s government, letting its readers know that it was all a joke. The editor affirmed that he had come up with the idea of verifying if Orson Welles's idea, of October 30, 1938, would work in Ontario. Welles had transmitted on a radio program the novel by H. G. Wells, the War of the Worlds, an invasion from the planet Mars, as if it were really happening. The newspaper apologized, and everything was forgotten between laughter and bottles of wine.
After reading it, I did not laugh. We should not give these ideas to politicians. Because, with Mc Guinty, you never know...
[1] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftnref1) Dalton Mc Guinty: premier of Ontario between the years 2003 and 2007, elected again in 2007 for another 4 years.
[2] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftnref2) “Though they dig into hell…” Amos 9:2, the Bible, KJV.
and
dying
with Mc Guinty
One of those laws a bit absurd that were enacted in Ontario in the mid of 20.. was the "burial law". The Globe and Mail published a succinct version of it, which although incorrect (the full version abounded in subsections and it was said that the ones that understood the legal jargon that was written on it were counted on the fingers of the hand) at least it could be understood, and understanding is one of the superior faculties of the human being. Those who read the news that morning did not hesitate to ask themselves if indeed they had woken up.
Those who die while renting an apartment will have to be buried right there in the property. It could be set aside for this purpose a room especially ventilated like mausoleum, the basement, the parking lot, or the garden from either the front part of the building or the back of it. It is allowed to buy surrounding properties to be demolished and turn them into cemeteries, in the manner of certain small churches in rural towns.
If the death occurred in a rented house, or in a basement, it will be at the discretion of the owner who may dispose of all the goods of the deceased or to increase the rent if the dead was part of a family.
The owners of houses will be exempted from this law unless a visitor dies in the residence.
It will be fined those who throw a dead person on the public road.
It will be prohibited, and without any exception, to the cemeteries to accept the dead in these cases.
These five points, which might frighten those who have not lived in Ontario in those days, summarized in a few sentences a law that would set people talking in the following years of Mc Guinty’s term[1] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftn1).
The buildings justified the increase in rent making us see that they should dig deeper basements for the burials, or pull down walls to join apartments for those who chose mausoleums. The retirement homes talked about that in their case, and since they are the ones that were most affected by the law, they would dig so deep that they would reach hell[2] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftn2). Of course, that was nothing more than a literary resource. The imagination of the owners had no limit as shown by the method called "mincemeat" offered by some buildings, especially of the downtown area, so crammed with people. According to this method the dead was cut longitudinally in little pieces, which in turn were cut again transversally, then the liquid was filtered, repeating the procedure until what was obtained could be put inside an amphora of modest dimensions.
It was an option to be taken into account by those who believe that we are nothing after we die, and that we are all finally going to end up in the same hole. Anyway, it was seen as the nihilistic method of mincemeat, giving it to understand that to choose it was to reject any moral habit of the last 40 thousand years.
On the need to write the law again, no one could deny that it brushed aside millenarian rites, with an emphasis only on the Western Christian traditions. For example, what to say about those religions that choose to burn their dead on the top of the buildings. Perhaps was it not legal to do so? That foreboded an addendum to the law, and the following was proposed: "Funeral pyres are banned". And the habit of leaving the dead on the top of the trees to rot or be devoured by vultures? Of course, if this was accepted we would be talking about breeding vultures in Ontario everywhere. Firstly, it was pointed out that vultures in Ontario were not so common, and secondly, that to allow it would attract more tourists to the city. Another of the drawbacks of the Mc Guinty’s law was the death in pubs, restaurants and stores open 24 hours like the ones at the service stations. The question in this case was: What to do if a customer dies in the perimeter limited by the store? The lawyers quoted two examples, namely:
1) Pete L., dead almost at the end of a pool game. He was buried in the basement of the store, because the landlord knew that he was the son of a wealthy family. The amount requested for the burial almost bought a painting by Krieghoff.
2) Susan D., dead while eating at a famous downtown restaurant. The trial was based on the fact that a customer is a visitor in the property of the owner of the restaurant (read the law with respect to the owners of the houses). The burial was denied, and the family said that if at the place there was enough space for a wine cellar then it should also have room for a crypt. The owner indicated, of course, that the restaurant was not his but rented.
What before, in times of our parents and grandparents, was simple it was no longer so by the mid of 20.., a year after the law was enacted. Living and dying with Mc Guinty was a tough luck.
Renowned cemeteries went bankrupt and it was useless to offer discounts of up to 80%. It was known that in some cases, the deceased were buried without a coffin, and in tombs whose land at the time of torrential rains turned into Lovecraftian swamps. Other frauds were: burying the dead in fetal position to save space; the so-called “shared tomb” between two or three dead; the tomb upside down where the dead were buried standing; cane coffins, or plastic ones; the scheduled visits, which gave time to the people in charge to change one gravestone for another and thus leading the family of the dead to believe that they had the best location; and finally, the dead without tomb, fraud in which they throw away the dead who knows where and on the lot without tomb was placed a tombstone, even though made of granite, purposeless.
The inventiveness of the human being to cheat his neighbour has no end.
Prophets of the new millennium predicted early cemeteries opened 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There was no need to be one to read the newspapers. Among Mc Guinty’s proposals was to convert the Mount Pleasant Cemetery in a museum and charge a fee to view the graves. This idea was absurd because there were still people burying their dead in cemeteries, and did not faint to follow the recently fashion to build a crypt in the basement of a building. The other proposal, equally farfetched, was to offer the first cup of coffee free to the visitors of cemeteries after converting them into museums. Other cemeteries were talking about free breakfast or dinner. But, meanwhile, firstly it had to be proved that a relative was among the dead. It did not count: "it is over there", it had to be indicated the exact location of the tombstone. Who did not doubt that people would approach cemeteries simply because the coffee was free!
In this regard the most absurd idea we heard was that of "the exhibition of the dead". According to this variant they would bring for spring some dead exhumed from other countries, like Poe or Da Vinci. Did they not do the same with works of art? There were those who asked for Jesus, but surely these people did not know that Jesus had risen.
Those who did not accept the innovative proposals of Mc Guinty went even further and asserted that the right thing was to bury the dead where he had died (leaving aside obviously sidewalks and streets and avenues). That proved to be impractical because what should be done if a person died while traveling on an airplane, to bury him in the airplane? Or perhaps to send him in a hot air balloon into the air up to the stratosphere?
What about the addendum to the law? Who would write it, Stephen King?
Other suggestions were to bury the dead as well as his family. It was a humanistic touch to the monotonous life in Ontario; the heat hit on the forehead at the beginning of June, and the best remedy was to take part of the life in jest. This proposal, certainly, absurd, was a copy of the theological idea of the pharaohs of the ancient Egypt, who after dying were buried in turn with all their entourage, alive. Clearly, some would kill their neighbour to get rid of their families as well. Some, evidently jokingly, spoke that it had to be taken into account family members up to the 4th generation, like in the case of sin.
Then, we heard televised debates on the definition of the word "burial". What was it ultimately? According to some philologists it was to bring the body of the dead underground, but it was not true that the dead are buried, so to speak, in crypts and mausoleums. The ones that obeyed this tendency were the companies of polyethylene bags that proposed to leave the coffins simply piled up at the gardens (the roof of the buildings was ruled out because the bodies hitting a pedestrian in the head) and then wrapping the dead in plastic bags as if they were sandwiches of ham and cheese. These, in turn, say the owners, would force the family to take care of them again having left them exposed to the elements. These slogans were suggested: "Shame on you to leave it under the rain so it gets wet", "if you do not like it, take it away". And the more aggressive: "Eat if you want, but take it away".
Well, now that I have told you Mc Guinty’s law, I will fully refer to the building in which I lived, on Avenue Road and Poplar Plains Cr.
The first thing, and we should always start at the beginning, was the construction of something like a telephone booth and a railroad barrier to prevent the access and charge a fee to enter the building to those who were not tenants, even before the tombs were built . How wrong was I that thought that first they would build the latter, and then based on the results one would be charged to visit them.
The rent increased almost threefold. If one did not have money to pay, one would get oneself into debt up to the neck, and we had to live somewhere after all!
They demanded a medical certificate before renting the apartment to someone. Even the flu was more than quite enough reason to tell the applicant: "it begins with flu, and then who knows, you never know if you do not end with cancer or leprosy". In turn, doctors charge sidereal values for this certificate. A proverb reads: "you have to work overtime like a donkey for a signed paper".
The seniors were virtually rejected under the following argument: "Well, there is no room!" Other buildings welcomed them but those who could not pay the amount needed to accept works imposed by the building to cover up their expenses. Imagine that that work was the construction of tombs.
The new tenants had to sign a document asserting that they did not live in Ontario, and if they were found dead it was because they had broken into through the window in secret knowing that doing so was a crime.
In the event of sudden death, they could get rid of any identification and send it to the morgue with the label John Doe tied to the big toe.
One should have made every effort to die o somewhere else. It was suggested to visit the home of a relative, or friend, in order that they were the ones to bear the cost of the burial. And if the death was not so fast, go out to the sidewalk and die exposed to the elements.
I would not have been faithful to my story if I do not say that the same newspaper published another news, but a year later, and under pressure from the Mc Guinty’s government, letting its readers know that it was all a joke. The editor affirmed that he had come up with the idea of verifying if Orson Welles's idea, of October 30, 1938, would work in Ontario. Welles had transmitted on a radio program the novel by H. G. Wells, the War of the Worlds, an invasion from the planet Mars, as if it were really happening. The newspaper apologized, and everything was forgotten between laughter and bottles of wine.
After reading it, I did not laugh. We should not give these ideas to politicians. Because, with Mc Guinty, you never know...
[1] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftnref1) Dalton Mc Guinty: premier of Ontario between the years 2003 and 2007, elected again in 2007 for another 4 years.
[2] (http://www.ligotti.net/#_ftnref2) “Though they dig into hell…” Amos 9:2, the Bible, KJV.