Right from wrong
Parents must raise their kids to be good people who will be positive members of our society. They do not have the right to control every aspect of their lives and decide their future and lifestyle (Four Died For His 'Twisted' Sense Of Honour – Jan. 30).
In Canada, as long as there is nothing illegal, each person decides for themselves how they will live their life. These four women never had a chance to enjoy what was their right in our country.
This is not the first time potential victims have reached out in vain. We cannot be afraid to offend some religion or culture. Next time, we must offend whoever needs to be offended if it might save a life.
Phil Marambio, Oakville, Ont.
.........
In Afghanistan, South Asia and much of the Muslim world, the second-class status of women will take many decades to reach Western standards. As those societies do inevitably modernize, I wonder if the price they will pay will be a concomitant mainstreaming of pornography, which is the realm to which we have relegated our darker impulses of violence against women.
Gwydion Plumstead, Ottawa
.........
While I agree the Shafia trial is a wake-up call for Canadian Muslims, these "culture shock" events are occurring here in other cultural communities, too. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Only through education, tolerance and enlightenment can we avoid such tragedies here and abroad.
Jalaluddin S. Hussain, Brossard, Que.
.........
Physical violence motivated by honour is an abomination. But so, too, is the notion of family honour itself. With or without a risk of heinous crime attached, the value placed on family honour is itself a problem. Antiquated views of family honour and the attempts to foster and preserve that honour through the suppression of the desires of girls to live and love – to be themselves – are at the core what we must attack. Men must be pushed to rid themselves of their preoccupation with their daughters' chastity.
Kumail Karimjee, Toronto
.........
The Shafias' decision to kill four female members of their family should be understood as a crime of status addiction. This would shift the motivation out of the sphere of culture or religion. This doesn't absolve the participants of legal or moral responsibility for their crimes. Those who choose to drive after drinking or to use certain drugs are already held accountable for their actions. Those who choose to act on their addiction to status must also be held accountable.
Jennifer Thomas, Bath, Ont.
.........
For reassurance
As a fourth-year medical student currently applying to residency programs around the country, I admit I was a bit alarmed to read Gwyn Morgan's assertion that "many new doctors" aren't able to obtain residency spots (Systems On Verge Of A Breakdown: Prescription For A Quick Fix – Report on Business, Jan. 30). For reassurance, I reviewed the summary of last year's residency match results. Not only did over 98 per cent of Canadian medical graduates obtain a residency position, but about 95 per cent obtained one in the first round of the match. This is not the only distortion in what is otherwise a poorly argued call for increased privatization.
Josh Gould, Halifax
.........
Retrofitted promise
Re Tories Stop Short Of $400-Million Home Retrofit Promise (Jan. 30): This reminds me of those insurance ads where the suit-wearing adult plays dirty tricks on kids, such as offering a child a toy only to take it away saying, "That was a limited-time offer. It's right here in the fine print."
Stephen Harper should remember that "government of the day" is a time-limited offer, too, before ending programs two months before the promised date.
Ken DeLuca, Arnprior, Ont.
.........
Mining partnerships
Partnerships between CIDA, NGOs and Canadian mining companies are not corporate subsidies (CIDA Funds Seen To Be Subsidizing Mining Firms – Jan. 30). These investments, to which the companies contribute significant dollars, do nothing to lower production costs or make it easier to extract minerals.
What they support is the capacity of local governments to optimize the benefits of having major private sector investments in their area, and to provide training and education to local citizens so they can also benefit from the business mining generates. The programs are not dissimilar to those our own governments implement here, investing in community colleges and trade schools – to which our companies may also contribute. They are not unlike programs to help aboriginal Canadians benefit from mining or other natural resource sector investments in their traditional territories. We applaud such programs here, so why shouldn't we do so in countries worse off than ours?
We do not call them subsidies, because they aren't. They are good social and community investments.
Pierre Gratton, CEO, Mining Association of Canada
.........
CIDA's new private-public partnership initiative with mining companies is an abomination of the values of Canadian international development (Miners Show New Way For CIDA – Jan. 30). CIDA's stated priorities for international outreach are not to improve the image of Canadian industries, they are to improve social development, economic well-being, environmental sustainability and governance, regardless of whether there is valuable metal underneath a village.
Robert Huish, assistant professor, International Development Studies, Dalhousie University
.........
Freedom 67?
As letter writer Margaret Drent points out, "Rae days" were then-premier Bob Rae's response to Ontario's need to cut government spending (With Rae In Charge – Jan. 30). Were they preferable to laying off civil servants? That seems debatable. But they sure beat depriving seniors of Old Age Security income (Conservatives' Agenda Bold – And Risky – Jan. 30).
William Cooke, Toronto
.........
Uh, say again
The rules of cricket are quite simple really (How I Got Myself Out Of A Sticky Wicket – Facts & Arguments, Jan. 30). Two teams decide to play, a coin is tossed to see which will play first. There is a field house where those waiting to play wait until it is their turn.
So the team that is in goes out, first in a twosome, then one by one until one of the two that is in, is out. When the one that is out comes in, he is replaced by the next member of the team that is in, who goes out until he is out and then he comes in. The whole team that is in goes out one by one until the team that is in is all out.
Then it is time for the team that is out to go in and each of them goes in until he is out and he is replaced by another member of the team that is in until he is out and he, of course, comes in. And after the second team that is in is all out, the umpire checks the scores and declares one team the winner. Of course, one of two teams might already have declared but that's another matter and I won't talk about that as it might confuse you.
Any questions?
James P. B. Kelly, Markham, Ont.