Tom Long piece right, says right-winger
I just want to applaud NOW for the outstanding accuracy of the article on the Canadian Alliance and Tom Long (NOW, May 25-31).
Having been both a Liberal and a Reform party president, I can personally attest to the bullying of Reform in Calgary. Reform is not a grassroots party.
My principles have been consistent -- support for small business, opposition to special status for Quebec and to the FTA, NAFTA. It has been upsetting to watch leaders and all parties flip-flop on these issues.
The purpose of this letter is to warn against the dangerous authoritarianism of Tom Long.
As a social conservative, I believe all the Bible is true. Everywhere the Bible opposes oppression and supports justice. Never mind the life and gay issues -- all of us would lose our political and economic freedoms under Tom Long.
Leviticus 25:17 says "Therefore, you shall not oppress one another, but you shall fear your God."
Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing."
I invite all NOW readers of whatever political persuasion to do what they can to oppose Tom Long.
Another chance to take swipe at Mumia
NOW's ongoing criti-
cism of Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Move organization (NOW, May 25-31) constantly makes the same mistake. Nobody claims that Mumia and Move are angelically beyond all contradiction and above all critique. What can be thoroughly argued, however, is that they have been subject to intense terror at the hands of the state.
Many unanswered questions remain that strongly point toward police corruption, cover-up and systemic racism. As such, Move's situation represents business as usual with respect to the approach the States and Canada continue to take toward black communities. NOW's shallow examination merely contributes to the status quo.
Local literary hero pummelled in print
NOW's pervasive hipper-than-thou attitude has never been more inappropriately directed than in your recent book review of Hal Niedzviecki's We Want Some Too (NOW, May 18-24).
Is Toronto's original alternative weekly unable to provide even competent commentary on one of this city's more original new voices? Apparently so. Niedzviecki deserved a cover story, not the slap-dash whatever critique he received. Like, duh.
Why does her hair colour deserve note?
For years, I've played a
little game. When reading an article about a woman, if she is described by her hair colour in the first few sentences, I always check to see if the article is written by a man. It almost always is.
Holds true for this one. Who cares if Brenda Hawtin (NOW, May 25-31) is "brunette"? If I cared I'd look at the big photo.
Nobody else's hair colour is mentioned. I think it goes back to the days when, for example, if a woman was running for some kind of office, the headline would read, "Blond in the running."
Canuck government used to being eco joke
Regarding the article on dioxins and diabetes (NOW, May 18-24). I'm sorry to have to say it, but the finding of a correlation between exposure to toxins and diabetes is most unlikely to "push the corporate-friendly Canadian government into regulation overdrive." The Canadian government is well accustomed to being a joke.
For example, look at the all-too-familiar story of Port Hope in the 1950s, when jurisdictions such as the UK recognized 1 rem per year as "maximum permissible exposure" for nuclear workers.
Canada eagerly accepted 25 rem per year for their workers in the crown-owned Port Hope uranium refinery -- anything to sell cheap uranium to the U.S.