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
.................................................................................................................................................
Um … what fun
Re What Not To Wear: Schools Target Offensive Costumes (Oct. 11): Ah, Halloween – now a holiday where the culturally sensitive Canadian kid can only dress up as … themselves. What fun.
Cindy Storey, Chatham, Ont.
.............................................
What guidelines will the Conseil scolaire Viamonde offer me if I open the door on Halloween and find a child in an outfit I find "offensive," such as a costume from a Slasher movie, a monster mask with blood dripping from its teeth, a military-style outfit with a toy automatic rifle, or a Donald Trump mask? Should I only give treats to the children dressed in a manner I approve of, and not to those I don't?
If we're at the point where cultures and people are so fragile in their beliefs and self-confidence that kids' Halloween costumes are deemed serious threats to their integrity and values, we may as well go all the way and dictate the use of a universal, generic costume that would offend no one.
Ray Arnold, Richmond, B.C.
.............................................
While Canadians' reputation for being the most inoffensive people on the planet will surely be bolstered by the Ontario board's advice to parents about their kids' Halloween get-ups, perhaps it would be best to let the kids make the dress-up decision. After all, trick-or-treaters who wear offensive costumes will get fewer treats; market forces will soon ensure that only the cutest, most innocuous Halloween garb will appear on the nation's streets and in its schools. I predict a rash of kids dressed up as marshmallows.
Mark DeWolf, Halifax
.............................................
Predator parade
Re Everybody Awed By Entertainment Is An Enabler Of Harvey Weinstein (Oct. 11): Harvey Weinstein is just the latest in a parade of powerful men facing allegations of predatory, dehumanizing treatment of women. Unfortunately, we saw the consequences of this kind of behaviour when similar patterns came to light around then-candidate Donald Trump: None. He was still elected President after everyone became acutely aware of how he treats women, and this despite having a woman as his main political rival.
Our problem is not that we are all starry-eyed about Hollywood and Hollywood types, it is that it still doesn't truly cost powerful men very much to be predators.
We still rationalize, minimize, or normalize their behaviour in just about any context.
Adam Green, Ottawa
.............................................
Math's beauty
Re Why I Quit Teaching Math (Facts & Arguments, Oct. 11): I commend Sunil Singh for furthering the case that math students should "flourish," and learn to see the "beauty, truth, justice, love and play" in the subject. But unless the teachers themselves have flourished, and keenly appreciate the beauty of mathematics (never mind the justice), how can we expect them to inculcate these feelings in their students? We need to examine how our math teachers are being trained. The "boring curriculum" is not the major obstacle.
Ronald Jhu, Toronto
.............................................
Disclose the training
Re Request To Reveal Training Material For Judges On Sex-Assault Law Is Denied (Oct. 11): Education is best done in the open, not behind closed doors.
The National Judicial Institute's refusal to disclose the training materials used for judicial education on sex assault is preposterous and counterproductive. If the institute is truly concerned about correcting the "false connection between education that judges may receive and bias in deciding a case," then making those materials available for public consideration is the only route to go.
Allan C. Hutchinson, Distinguished Research Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
.............................................
Scheer insights
Re Andrew Who? (Focus. Oct. 7): All we really need to know about Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is revealed in his actions involving the Commons status of women committee. This committee is intended to work toward promoting the rights of women. Mr. Scheer nominated as chair an anti-abortion MP, a person who publicly advocates for the reduction of the rights of women. So either he's a bit confused or he's trying to emulate Stephen Harper with little spurts of contempt for particular groups, to please his base. This divisive activity is not remotely like leadership.
Margaret Tough, Peterborough, Ont.
.............................................
A Regina shop owner, whose business is across the street from Andrew Scheer's constituency office, says "he doesn't come with suits or staff or anything. He just comes as he is. He's one of us."
That warm, fuzzy "aw-shucks" moment evaporates rather quickly when one reads about Mr. Scheer's archaic personal and political views: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-carbon tax, almost near-silence on marijuana legalization … to name a few.
Dan Fraser, Toronto
.............................................
Strike 1. You're out
I agree that a joke that causes offence should be taken seriously as a symptom of a larger problem (Let's Not Dismiss The Painful Pattern Of Microaggressions, Oct. 11). However, that doesn't mean we should overreact in determining what the consequences should be. Prof. Michael Marrus's comments were extremely ill-considered and he certainly deserved to be penalized in some manner, but the reaction of Massey College and some students was over the top.
Universities used to be bastions of freedom of thought and expression; if the government threatened civil liberties, one could count on universities to stand up for individual rights. Nowadays, they seem to be mere foot soldiers in the politically correct brigade. One strike and you're out seems to be the new motto in our centres of learning.
Adam Plackett, Toronto
.............................................
It's who we are
Re Industries Adapt, But Can Our Culture? (Oct. 11): This, more than ever, is not the time to dismantle the system of Canadian cultural supports. These "subsidies" are not a "crutch." Are hospitals, roads and schools crutches? Of course not. The same is true for money spent on "culture." This is what helps us to be who we are.
John Ibbitson writes, "Maybe governments fear to intervene because they know Canadians just don't care about culture any more." I ask: Who are these Canadians? We are not a monolithic group; we do not all think the same. Many of us support Canadian "cultural" institutions. And almost all of us agree on one thing – we are not American.
Increasingly, if we want to set our own course as a nation, we need to resist domination by the United States. One tool in this is support for Canadian artists, musicians, writers and filmmakers who can tell Canadian stories – to us and to the world. Let's remember that and support them.
Carol Town, Hamilton