Dear Editor:

A couple of points: first, I entirely agree with the individual who noted that Quebec is known for its xenophobia. I am also Canadian and have followed questions of Quebec nationalism for many years. It may be true that within Montreal - a genuinely cosmopolitan city - xenophobia is relatively low.(And Montreal has, in fact, been the site of some of the recent controversies in Quebec over how to accommodate religious minorities) Outside of Montreal, however, white Francophone Quebecers have long wrestled with the question of how to relate to the strangers in their midst. Quebec nationalism, as a concept, has struggled with this question: is it an ethnic nationalism, rooted in the white-skinned Francophones who have a long history in the province, or is it an civic nationalism, which requires that its adherents speak French, but is otherwise open to all races, ethnicities and creeds? There has been no satifactory resolution to these questions.

I should also point out that I am originally from Alberta and there is not much reason to believe that Alberta is any more intolerant of racial and ethnic differences than any other part of Canada. Canada is a fairly tolerant country - bearing in mind that racism and bigotry is a human quality found in all societies. Moreover, as in Quebec, there is a real split in rural and urban attitudes. Still, Canada has, so far, been able to adapt to many different groups with relatively little social disruption, particularly in comparison to Europe. Whether or not this situation will continue remains unclear - the debate about the limits and nature of accommodation is one that all modern societies have to have.

As a side note, a recent article in the Globe and Mail on this controversy quotes a young Muslim woman who wears a niqab as saying that she has no problem in revealing her face to authorities for security purposes - she has done so for driver's license photos, passports, etc. She did indicate she would rather unveil to a woman than a man, but this preference would not prevent her from complying with authority. Thus, in many ways, it looks like this story is a non-issue. The Muslim women themselves were quite happy to do what was required of them in order to vote.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Glenn,

Another excellent post. I agree with everything that you have said, with one important caveat: I would argue that a healthy skepticism about government claims was required long before the present Bush Administration. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? For decades, people like Noam Chomsky have argued that the mainstream Western media are basically an arm of the government. What makes the present situation really different is that this reality has now become absolutely obvious. The Bush Administration has lied so much and been caught in so many lies that it is impossible for any reasonable person to ignore. At the same time, the fact that the mainstream media has largely facilitated this process of deception has also become impossible to overlook. The mutually-reinforcing relationship of the media and the government has become part of the awareness of any moderately-informed person.

Re: the issue of Britain and Iran: I actually suspect that there are many elements in the British press that have printed the Iranian side of the story and are regarding their government's statements with a sufficiently critical eye. The British media embodies a considerable range of political opinion and a genuine commitment to journalistic ethics - qualities that are sorely lacking in the US and, sad to say, increasingly hard to find in Canada, too.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

Another excellent article by Gary Kamiya. Many people have known for a long time that AIPAC and the policies it espouses have dangerously distorted American foreign policy in the Middle East. This has been going on for a long time - the current Bush Administration is just the worst in that it has been populated by people who did not need to be convinced by the AIPAC line. The big difference today, as Mr. Kamiya points out, is that the distortion of US policy in the Middle East is having fundamentally important consequences for the US now, and threatens to have even greater ramifications if the US ends up attacking Iran. If that does happen, I suspect that Zbigniew Brezinski is correct - it will spell the end of American dominance in the world and engage the US in a decades-long war across much of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine