Skip to main content
letters

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

...........................................................................................................................

PMO's refugee fence

Re PMO Ordered Halt To Refugee Processing (Oct. 8): Stephen Harper personally vetting the files of UN-approved refugee claimants: I don't know what's more disturbing – his fear of Muslims or the historical redux, L'état, c'est moi!

Tom Clement, Toronto

.........

My guess is that Stephen Harper wanted to personally ensure that no one was wearing a niqab.

Bill Forman, Calgary

.........

At least the Hungarians built their shameful fence openly.

Fred Blair, Wooler, Ont.

.........

When many of the young men who fled Syria for Europe get frustrated because they can't get work and find themselves part of an economic underclass, where will they focus their anger and disappointment? The fact there was nothing fair about the life that brought them to this point doesn't change what comes after the euphoria of escape wears off.

Disaffected, angry, limited prospects – a perfect recruiting ground for Islamic State to unleash terror in Europe. That is what Stephen Harper is trying to save us from. We should be thanking him, not deriding him.

Sarah Johnson, Calgary

.........

Stephen Harper and those in the PMO who want to personally conduct Canada's screening process should be sent at once to the beaches of Turkey, where they'll find a number of kids face down in the water patiently awaiting this country's enlightened confirmation that, as refugees, they no longer pose a security risk.

David Wood, Mildmay, Ont.

.........

A defining moment?

Is the current niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies debate an irrelevant distraction to the election, or is it a defining moment for how far our tolerance extends?

A relative handful of people wear such a garment. They have every right to go about their daily business with their faces covered. But apparently, at a citizenship ceremony, some people demand that these women suspend their rights in order to become a citizen of the country that extends that very right.

Canadians like to feel they are open-minded and tolerant. Do we now have to have a discussion on defining where our collective tolerance begins and ends?

Are we going to create a shopping list of the religious and cultural garb we are not prepared to live with or the circumstances under which it must be removed?

Once a list starts, it will only get longer – and that is one genie we will not get back into the bottle.

Mike Winward, Hamilton

.........

I agree with everything Myer Siemiatycki and the other 100 signatories said in their letter, Values, Rights (Oct. 7) – except for one important point. What on earth does wearing the niqab have to do with gender equality?

Isn't it an age-old custom developed – and in other countries, enforced – by men? Foot-binding in ancient China is a better comparison: I'm sure many women "chose" that custom to have the tiny feet men found desirable.

I don't care what anyone wears, whether it's a man in a dress (cassock), turban or kipa, or a woman in a niqab or "sheitel," as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But don't defend an individual woman's decision to cover her face as an example of gender equality.

Renate Krakauer, Toronto

.........

I am not anti-Muslim. I do believe all Canadians should be in public with their faces exposed. Wear what you like on the street, in the bank, when driving or at work, but let me see your face.

Face-covering is common in Muslim countries, but it is not a religious requirement, so let's get off the religious "freedom" angle and get on with common sense. Welcome all, to one of the best countries in the world.

Clint Forster, Victoria

.........

Doctors' fee fight

Re Ontario Fee Fight Reveals Doctors' Sense Of Entitlement (Oct. 6): Health Minister Eric Hoskins repeats the same mantra: We will pay the physicians for every service they provide, that won't change. True, but disingenuous.

As the Liberals cut the fees to every medical service, and as our clinic operational costs keep rising, there is a ripple effect: less staff, reduced hours, leading to longer patient wait times.

Marlon Hershkop, medical director, Oshawa-Whitby Nuclear Medicine Clinics

.........

Ask any coach, professor, teacher and/or prospective employer and one would find that the "sense of entitlement" is pervasive, from kids (and their helicopter parents) demanding to be on a certain team, to students demanding certain grades and extensions/exceptions, to new graduates entering the work force unhappy with starting wages.

Why stop there? How about patients demanding 24/7 health services for non-emergent or non-urgent issues? Or demand for tests and/or procedures that have no medical evidence supporting their continued use?

Or how about the politician who spends millions of tax dollars to secure votes in a riding? Or better yet, one who uses taxpayer money for a son's wedding?

Absolutely, there is a sense of entitlement out there, but it isn't limited to doctors.

Silvia Orsini, MD, London, Ont.

.........

Off the air

Re Consortium Debate Cancelled (Report on Business, Oct. 8): Political parties should not have the power to determine if debates that are to be broadcast nationally go ahead.

They also should not be able to control the agenda of debates.

Leaders of parties who want to hold the highest public office in Canada must be willing to answer all questions and face everybody.

The public has been manipulated enough. Since the parties are unable to agree to a level playing field, some election rules should be set for this crucial process.

Ulla Colgrass, Toronto

.........

A nationally broadcast debate, the kind that has reached millions of Canadians in every election since 1968? Stephen Harper said no. Thomas Mulcair said no. So I say no, too. No to both their parties' candidates.

Jason Edwards, Vancouver

.........

Underwear politics?

Stephen Harper's plan to introduce a tip line so Canadians can report neighbours engaging in "barbaric cultural practices" reminded me of the Woody Allen movie Bananas, where the new dictator decrees that all citizens must change their underwear every 30 minutes, and that to help the underwear police enforce this policy, all citizens must wear their underwear outside their pants.

Is this where the Conservative Party wants to take politics in Canada? They are winning in the humorous category, but lagging in the serious-policy division.

Gary Bryck, Toronto

.........

I'm busy preparing my list of "barbaric cultural practices" – just in case the Conservatives form the government again. These include: piercings (ears and other body parts), tattooing, eyebrow plucking, shaving, waxing, bras, neckties, thongs, pantyhose, high heels, and more. I can hardly wait until Stephen Harper announces the phone number!

Jerry Steinberg, Surrey, B.C.

Interact with The Globe