Skip to main content
Open this photo in gallery:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani: "If we achieve the deal's goals in co-operation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place. By exiting the deal, America has officially undermined its commitment to an international treaty."Danish Siddiqui/Reuters

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:


The Iran deal’s demise?

Re The Iran Deal Is Hurt, But It’s Not Dead Yet (editorial, May 9): The U.S. did not commit to the original Iran nuclear deal – it became nothing but Barack Obama’s personal commitment when he refused to have the Senate approve the deal, knowing the flaws in the agreement would keep it from becoming law. Did the lifting of sanctions bring Iran into the mainstream, or did sanctions relief merely finance terror in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere?

The world’s on track to be safer. The main agitator and sponsor of violence in the Middle East now has a choice to make: Develop a bomb or have a functioning economy. Under the Obama deal, it needed to make no such trade-off.

Joe Shlesinger, Toronto


Why is anyone surprised that the U.S. is walking away from an international agreement on Iran? The U.S. has a history of leaving allies in the lurch when accords are no longer of immediate discernible value. In the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the U.S. supported, then abandoned the Taliban as soon as the Soviets left. In Iraq, the same behaviour with the Kurds. With NAFTA, witness the softwood lumber and other disputes. With power comes disregard for partners and self-absolution for criminal acts in the rest of the world: The U.S. has refused to ratify its membership in the International Criminal Court.

Lucy taking away the ball when Charlie Brown winds up for a kick isn’t a cartoon, it’s a visualization of U.S behaviour, not just Donald’s Trump’s actions on Iran.

Hadi Dowlatabadi, Vancouver

Least (fill in the blank)

Re What On Earth Is The Responsible Ontario Voter To Do? (May 8): I can’t bring myself to vote for either of the main parties, given the leaders and their platforms, and I have serious qualms about the third party and its leader.

Our options in Ontario on June 7 will be reduced to voting for whoever seems the least incompetent. How sad is that?

Helen Godfrey, Toronto


NDP Leader Andrea Horwath’s progressive platform is worthy of serious consideration.

To pay for its progressive programs, an NDP government would run a modest deficit and increase taxes on those who can most afford to pay more taxes. The NDP tax proposal would also modestly increase taxes on individuals earning more than $220,000 by 1 percentage point and on individuals earning more than $300,000 by 2 percentage points. Social equity, justice and peace can only be assured if all Ontarians are provided with their basic needs.

Ontarians deserve more than a “Trump light” inexperienced, populist premier, or a premier with a spending record of the proverbial drunken sailor.

Jim Hollingworth, Goderich, Ont.


For the first time in my life, I find myself in the unenviable position of intending to vote for the NDP. I still don’t agree with their policies, but find them to be the least objectionable.

James Steward, Toronto

2018, circa 1955

Re Ford Targets Education As Ontario Election Kicks Off (May 9): Doug Ford seeks to turn back time – it sounds like 1955 would suit him – and do away with our updated health-education curriculum. This curriculum was years in the making, with experts of every stripe weighing in to provide our children with an education to safeguard them from this ever-changing world. Mr. Ford is choosing the path of pandering to the fear and ignorance that is so prevalent these days around the issue of sex education.

This proposed move would make our children more, not less vulnerable. I really wish he’d done his homework on this one.

Susan Gordon, Toronto

Don’t ‘out’ students

Re LGBTQ-Focused Policy Resolution Overshadows UCP Convention (May 7): I encourage Jason Kenney, the United Conservative Party and all Albertans to consider carefully any policy that would “out” LBGTQ students.

As a high school teacher in the early 2000s, I started a Friends of LGBTQ club after a hurtful incident in our school. This was an important club for our LGBTQ students, some of whom wanted to remain anonymous to school peers (arriving after the majority of students had gone home) or their parents (“I told them I’m going to chess club”).

What struck me most though about my students, was their desire to have other teachers know they were gay and to accept them. We invited various staff members to our meetings, another school’s club for a social, and a gay university student to discuss her experiences. Discussing this issue with parents is not easy. Let our students make this decision for themselves.

Jo-Anne Twamley, Belleville, Ont.

Land acknowledgment

Re A Prescription For Reconciliation (May 8): I share many of André Picard’s thoughts about the benefits of reconciliation and the daily realities for many Indigenous families. But then he asks us if a brief land acknowledgment, as “recognition of our shameful history,” is too much to ask.

Many interpret the gesture as implying that each one of us is somehow responsible for the colonial land grab and other injustices that were the practice of others long ago. While some may find the acknowledgment soothing or uplifting, others find it awkward, insulting and entirely misplaced.

Unresolved land claims can be resolved amicably and fairly, without the sop of a guilt trip. The reconciliation effort is generally well-intentioned and probably necessary. But let’s remember that we’re all descendants of settlers, every last one of us, even if some of them migrated here much earlier than others.

Robin Collins, Ottawa

Justice for the Rohingya

Re Canada Must Be Unafraid In Its Quest For Justice For The Rohingya (May 5): Nobel Peace Prize winners Shirin Ebadi And Tawakkol Karman are right: Canada should lead.

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has described the ongoing persecution of Rohingya people in Myanmar as “one of the great atrocities being committed right now in our time.” Yet she wouldn’t commit to significant funding because “there are a lot of problems in the world and these decisions need to be taken carefully and thoughtfully.” How much thought does this need? How long must the suffering continue? What is “commitment” without action? So much for Canada being back.

Jason Scott, Kanata, Ont.

Hmm …

Re The American Media Are Trapped In Trump’s Cauldron (May 9): I was curious about the statement that an author is soon to “punish” a book about life in the United States. I would suggest a reminder that there are no bad books … only bad authors.

Morris Sosnovitch, Toronto

Interact with The Globe