Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 109 Editor's Choice: 20
-
a complete non-issue
[Read the article: Veiled women allowed to vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
As an earlier reader pointed out (Canuckistan Bob, I believe) this is a non-issue. Muslim women have not asked for this "special consideration" and veiled Muslim women are used to unveiling to prove their identity to officials, to get passport photos taken, etc. Moreover, as Mayrand pointed out, voters who cast their ballots by mail never have to show picture ID. One can question if the existing system is secure enough, but that is a different issue that has nothing to do with veiled, Muslim women.
The more interesting question is why this is such an emotional issue to so many "ordinary" Canadians. The unfortunate answer, I think, is that it is outright bigotry at work. Many Canadians are simply afraid of Muslims and the values/ideas that they imagine the veil to represent. These same people are often resentful of "political correctness" and their inability to verbalize their fears and prejudices without being called on the carpet. So, this manufactured non-issue has become a convenient way to get those feelings out in the open as part of a mob and with the figleaf of a certain kind of respectability. After all, it's about fighting against unreasonable, special treatment, right? Except, of course, that it's not.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
excellent commentary
[Read the article: The real lessons of 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Gary,
Excellent commentary. I think that you are right on the mark. However, I would point out that many people, particularly outside the US, recognized the racism at work in the American invasion of Iraq. As you point out, the demonization of Arabs and Muslims, for whatever reason, has been a critical part of US foreign policy for a long time. Much of this is related to the US relationship with Israel, of course, though I suspect that there is more at work.
On the latter point, the critical role that ethnic identification plays in US policy towards Israel can be seen in William Grimes' New York Times review of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's new book, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". Mr. Grimes basically comes right out and says that the US will support Israel because Israel is like "us". What is striking is that Grimes makes no mention of issues of justice or merit - it is just that Israel shares some undefined quality (the dominant skin color? Shared values via the Bible? A large Jewish population?) with the US and that is enough to justify and explain the destructive support that the US has given to it. To me, it was striking that Grimes could write this and, apparently, not be called to explain precisely what he is getting at or to critically examine what his words are supposed to mean.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
comment on "Juno"
[Read the article: Toronto Film Festival]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Stephanie,
I'm a bit puzzled by your concern about the movie "Juno" causing Sunday papers to publish articles that might promote a "right to life" agenda. Perhaps your comment is reflective of the culture wars in the US and the extent to which these issues evoke deep and hostile feelings, but it strikes me as odd - and maybe even a deficiency - that a movie about a young woman deciding to keep her fetus would not address the reason why she decides to make such a choice. "Sometimes," you say, " a choice is just a choice." But what does that mean? That the character in this movie, without any reflection, simply does something because it strikes her fancy? Is there no reasoning behind her action? Surely something as life-altering as having a child is an important decision that requires consideration? And if a woman decides to carry a fetus to term because she believes that terminating the pregnancy is, indeed, murder - well, isn't she entitled to that belief? Isn't that what having the right to make a choice is about -i.e., to act on the basis of one's personal values?
I am solidly pro-choice in my beliefs on this issue, but that does not mean that I can't respect that people have different views on the question of abortion. I find dogmatism on either side of this debate, however, to be very unproductive and distasteful.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
britney and the vma
[Read the article: Hit her, baby, one more time]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Rebecca,
I don't watch MTV, and I have no intention of watching Britney Spears humiliate herself. Quite honestly, I hate watching people be humiliated in public - whether they deserve it or not - which is one of the reasons I don't watch those reality/competition shows (especially the ones where people are set up to fail). Ms. Spears is, no doubt, cooperating in her own destruction but, as Craig Ferguson has pointed out, kicking someone when they are down is just bad form. Sarah Silverman should be ashamed of herself, though I expect that Ms. Silverman is not well-acquainted with the idea of shame.
All of this being said, I find very unsettling the attacks on Ms. Spears' physique. As you point out, she looked fine. Her body is certainly still fit, if not whipped into the ridiculous level of musculature that passes as "desirable" in today's North American culture. Given that America is the most obese country in the world, I suspect that there is a lot of self-hatred coming out of some of the people attacking Spears on this issue. We are presenting young women in Western society with a ludicrous and grossly unhealthy model of what constitutes "beauty" in our society. The odd thing about this is that I don't know many men who find rail-thin models to be attractive. I'm not sure who or what is shaping these expectations of beauty. I think that the efforts to get the fashion industry to use healthier, more realistic models needs another shot in the arm.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine