letters
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012 THE VANCOUVER COURIER
WE WANT YOUR OPINION
Hate it or love it? We want to know... really, we do!
Reach us by email: editor@vancourier.com
The U.S.election’s possible influence on Canada
A
s of 1 p.m. Monday, the day before yesterday’s U.S. election, the Tea Party was working hard to secure a win for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock. News junkies —and regular watchers of The Colbert Report — will know Mourdock for his rigid stance on abortion. “… even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Isn’t it rather presumptuous of anyone to talk so knowingly of God’s will? To quote Susan B. Anthony: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” Mourdock joined a handful of Republican politicians on what Stephen Colbert termed Team Rape, which also included pro-life Republican politician Dr. Scott DesJarlais who told his mistress (a patient of his at the time) to get an abortion to salvage his marriage, and Republican Todd Aikin who said this year that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely experience pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” All I can say is I hope the good folks of Indiana are living in the 21st century and not the Middle Ages and will make sure Mourdock never holds political office — despite Mitt Romney’s ringing endorsement of the medieval man. The recent political discourse surrounding rape and abortion within the Republican ranks in the lead-up to the marathon American election has been nothing short of bizarre. Who are these “grey-faced men with $2 haircuts,” as Tina Fey described Mourdock, to tell women about what rape is. Stunning really. I can only hope Romney, who has flipflopped from his previous pro-choice stance when he was governor of Massachusetts, fails to make it into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and make good on his promise of getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade thus allowing states to set their own abortion laws. Apparently people like Mourdock et al, who don’t accept abortion in any situation, would prefer to see women of childbearing age (mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts) die in back alley abortions or develop chronic gynecological problems as is the fate of tens of thousands of women across the world. This is a touchy issue — always will be. I can safely predict that if Romney becomes the next American president, abortion rights in Canada will become an election issue with Prime Minister Stephen Harper ultimately reneging on his promise not to re-open the debate on women’s access to abortion. Harper is miles above Romney in the intellect department, but his list of broken promises is extensive. And signing a secret deal (FIPA) with a totalitarian state (China) without Parliamentary debate doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in someone’s “promises” of government accountability and transparency. As I read somewhere once long ago: if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. Yet somehow, privileged members of 49 per cent of the population who will never face such a decision still feel they should have a say in what a woman does with her body and life. It’s long past time everyone gathered their energies and resources to reduce abortions through education and affordable access to contraceptives. Paramount, however, is a women’s right to choose. On another election note — though one less emotionally charged — is the vote Tuesday on whether to legalize marijuana for adult use in Washington, Oregon and Colorado. A similar proposition was put forward in California two years ago and was narrowly defeated. It has been claimed that those who were against legalizing pot were the marijuana growers themselves — particularly in the “Emerald Triangle” of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties — who helped bankroll the No campaign. It makes sense. Why would they want to see their huge tax free profits disappear? In an interview about Proposition 19 and Tuesday’s vote, Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), told Mint Press News the “sellers of marijuana have joined with narks, pee testers and beer testers.” Will the “gangapreneurs” have an influence on the 2012 votes in Washington, Oregon and Colorado? We’ll have to wait and see. If the vote is in favour in legalization, will it signal a change north of the 49th parallel and end the futile war on drugs? fhughes@vancourier.com twitter.com/hughesfiona
FIONA HUGHES
BIBLE IN SCHOOLS NOT RIGHT
To the editor: Re: “Holy texts, free stuff and lessons in critical thinking,” Oct. 31. With regard to the brouhaha about Bibles in Chilliwack schools and your useful suggestions for additional readings of books by freethinkers such as Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and company, one crucial piece of information appears to have been overlooked by all concerned, namely, the School Act (1996) of British Columbia. Section 76 of that Act clearly states: (1) All schools and Provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and nonsectarian principles. (2) The highest morality must be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed is to be taught in a school or Provincial school. For background material on how this Section came about, “google” Joan Russow on Wikipedia, which states: “Russow first gained attention in the ‘Lord’s Prayer Case’ which resulted in the banning of school prayer in public schools in British Columbia in 1989”).
Glenn M. Hardie, Vancouver ••• To the editor
I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your column. I am a Christian (and one that is OK with respectful proselytizing). Yet I cannot help but agree with your stance, as well as Mr. Ajabu’s in this matter. It is not fair to privilege the access of one religious group above others, even in Chilliwack. Perhaps there could be a yearly fair or group of speakers representing a spectrum of faiths (including atheists and agnostics, who also require faith to maintain their beliefs. That way, we can move toward a more equitable system. Of course I have strong
convictions about the benefits of my own faith. However, the same could be said for anyone else, regardless of their beliefs. We all come to our beliefs for good reason. Sean St. Jean, Port Moody
WELFARE TESTERS WASTED THEIR TIME
To the editor: Re: “Welfare Food Challenge participants hungry and stressed,” Oct. 26 The progressive, compassionate advocates for those languishing on the current, absurdly low welfare rate unfortunately are likely wasting their time and effort. I read somewhere that, when informed and then questioned, “many” B.C.ers were “shocked” at the incredible hardships of those people subsisting on welfare’s extremely meager pittance. Furthermore, very high and low income folk were found to have one notable ideological commonality: They’re sick and tired of any of their tax dollars going towards a social safety net that can be, and likely often is, shamefully abused. And while some of these folk are quite vocal about their non-charitable sentiments, I believe that the majority of them are silent — except at the ballot box.
Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White Rock
CITY MUST CONSULT ON CAR SHARE SPOTS To the editor:
Re: False Creek resident smarting over lost parking, Oct. 24. The car-share vehicles can also tie up parking for an unlimited time in Permit Parking Only (PPO) zones where people like myself pay city hall for a permit to park in front of their homes.
However, if you rent a vehicle from Budget, for example, you have to buy an additional permit from the city to park in front of your own home. We only have enough PPO for three vehicles and it’s commonplace that it’s tied up by car-share vehicles, staff/students/suppliers/ contractors to VCC- King Edward Campus. I have a neuromuscular disease, cannot walk far and the next closest PPO is over a block away. When I raised the issue with the city, they didn’t care and the car-share companies I contacted basically told me to screw myself as the city gave them the right to park anywhere for as long as they wanted. The last number I heard was 873 car-share vehicles in Vancouver with more coming and there has never been any public consultation. George Brissette, Vancouver
IF SHARK FINS OK, ARE PANDA TESTICLES NEXT? To the editor:
Re: “Shark fin ban dictatorial and autocratic,” Letters, Oct. 31. Stephen Chiu should weep not for democracy nor feel bad about the “inhumane treatment of the sharks in the process of obtaining their fins.” The ban of shark fin soup is merely a small step in trying to save certain species of one of the earliest complex life forms on this planet from total extinction. Sure, we have a democratic right to eat whatever we want no matter how gross or gelatinous it is, but a simple respect for wrong and right would draw line at people and endangered life. What’s next on the list of delicacies to defend — panda balls? Cal Koat, Vancouver
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters may be edited by the Courier for reasons of legality, taste, brevity and clarity. To be considered for publication, they must be typed, signed and include the writer’s full name (no initials), home address, and telephone number (neither of which will be published), so authorship may be verified. Send to: 1574 West Sixth Ave., Vancouver V6J 1R2 or email editor@vancourier.com
A11
vancourier.com
BLOGS
12TH & CAMBIE
All the civic affairs news that’s fit to blog
KUDOS & KVETCHES
Because you shouldn’t have to wait twice a week to be offended
PAGE THREE
Your guide to the Courier on the web
CENTRAL PARK Digging up the dirt on park board and community