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
...................................................................................................................................................
Think rights
Re Want To Get Ahead? Think Like A Liberal (editorial, Oct. 5): Rachael Harder has a right to her opinion. That doesn't give her a right to chair the committee on the status of women, one of the most influential bodies addressing women's sexual and reproductive rights in Canada.
There is no equality of the sexes without a right to abortion, and you cannot seriously address violence against women and girls without factoring in the right to abortion.
Women's abortion rights are not defined by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his party. They are defined by the law.
Yasemin Heinbecker, Ottawa
.....................................
I live in Lethbridge, the constituency Conservative MP Rachael Harder represents. This is a city of close to 100,000 with a university, college, regional hospital, and many other amenities.
Last fall, a young woman I know asked if she could borrow my car. Turns out she is part of a group of volunteers who drive women to Calgary if they need an abortion. She had been asked to drive just such a young woman.
Working for minimum wage, no car, no money for the bus and then a taxi to the hospital, and no family to help: This is the reality for many women in Alberta. This is a big province with huge distances to cover, yet abortions are available only in Calgary and Edmonton. We might as well be in Texas. Highly restricted access to abortion, even in 2017, and even though it is a legal medical procedure, is certainly one of the consequences of decades of Conservative government here.
I would prefer that no woman be forced to seek an abortion, but that said, your analogy that if Ms. Harder "were fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights" simply does not make sense. The Conservatives sent in a stalking horse which has succeeded, probably beyond their wildest dreams, partially thanks to the Liberals' handling of the situation.
Leslie Lavers, Lethbridge, Alta.
.....................................
As Canadians, we have watched with dismay – and decried – the silo-ization of American politics, where Republicans speak only to Republicans and Democrats listen only to Democrats.
The blocking of Rachael Harder from assuming the chair of the House of Commons status of women committee is a sign that we're suddenly no different – especially when it was marked by Liberal members of the committee covering their ears and fleeing the room to avoid contamination by any words from the chair – such as, "Let's begin"?
Those Liberals have lost sight of how committees work. The job of the chair is to move the agenda along; the chair has the least opportunity to express her views. As the saying goes: Don't like what she has to say? Make her the chair.
Most importantly, Ms. Harder's views reflect those of a segment of the population that deserves to be represented and heard, especially in a setting which purports to examine the status of (all?) women.
Ab Dukacz, Mississauga
.....................................
'Winner' politics
Re Singh Has 'Winner' Written All Over Him (Oct. 4): Gerald Caplan says of Jagmeet Singh that NDP members "mostly knew nothing about him until he belatedly threw his hat in the ring."
I think this is true – but doesn't it reflect an immaturity in the NDP? Niki Ashton and Charlie Angus in their leadership campaigns both called on the NDP to move back to its socialist roots, and they received respectable levels of support for that position. Mr. Singh basically offered "Love and Courage" as his major policy position, a slogan which belongs on 100 Huntley Street rather than in our national politics.
I compare Mr. Singh's election as the NDP's leader to a child picking up a shiny object on a deserted beach – and that is something that this long-time New Democrat regrets.
John Smart, Ottawa
.....................................
Newly elected NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh reminds me of Kip Singh in the novel The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje. Both are charismatic, take-charge gentlemen on a mission to save their fellow compatriots, Kip a bomb-disposal expert in the Second World War, and Jagmeet an expert in diffusing differences and tensions in the federal NDP. He is a breath of political fresh air.
J.D. (Doug) Cowan, Thornbury, Ont.
.....................................
Arming evil
It's: Gun control is not the answer. Someone bent on mass murder can always carry out his plans using illicit weapons. Or it's: A gun doesn't get up and shoot itself. A person operates it.
We have heard these canards too often. How many people would have been killed in Las Vegas if the perpetrator didn't have 23 guns, and a device to allow him to fire rifles like automatic weapons? What other country can "boast" 273 mass shootings so far this year? Where else would a person be considered normal as he amassed 23 guns? There is evil in the world. Do we really need to arm it?
Marcia Zalev, Toronto
.....................................
It is true that gun control, in and of itself, is not a panacea that will eliminate mass killings. But it is also true that tight restrictions on gun ownership and sensible limits on the types of weapons and ammunition that can be purchased have been shown to greatly reduce the frequency and extent of the carnage caused by deranged killers.
Lawmakers need to understand that gun control is a regulatory necessity, like stop lights, speed limits and food safety rules. It is not an individual rights issue. No one should have to sacrifice their safety for someone else's misguided "right" to walk around in public with a loaded weapon.
Frank Malone, Aurora, Ont.
.....................................
Beware raves
Re How Analysts' Stale Advice Hurt Freshii Investors (Report on Business, Sept. 28): Ian McGugan is spot on. When I was a Bay Street summer hire in an old-line stock brokerage, a senior trader told me: "In the morning, the experts will tell you what will happen that day, and at the close of day, they'll tell you why it didn't."
In my more than 40 years in the investment business (I retired in 2009), I amassed a large "Forecast File" of prognostications that have proved remarkably wrong, especially those concerning currency valuations, gold prices and of course, the world price of oil.
I've also kept a "box score" of analysts' rolling, year-over-year stock-price projections. Many are chronically, sometimes egregiously, overoptimistic. Still, these ladies and gentlemen draw large salaries and bonuses, when perhaps a new field of endeavour might better benefit their employers' clients.
Twenty years ago, a financial newspaper featured an article headlined: The Decline Of The Toronto Dominion Bank. Numerous bank analysts were interviewed. All recommended the sale of TD common shares – at a split – with the adjusted price of $7.62. With TD trading above $70 as I write, and with multiple dividend increases having accrued, this remains one of my favourites.
W. Selby Martin, Toronto