Re: Three articles in March 9 issue
Shawn Katz wrote one of the most important and informative pieces, "Canadian democracy in danger," summing up the anti-democratic actions of our current prime minister. He should have dwelt more on the first aspect of this dossier which is Stephen Harper's refusal to hand documents over as demanded by Parliament. This is as serious a violation of democratic principles as can be imagined and strengthens a now growing belief that he is sheltering certain individuals including himself from war crimes. Where Katz's argument breaks down is his look to the current Liberal leader for salvation. The reason Harper has been able to get away with these shenanigans is precisely because of tremendous weakness in the opposition. That there is not one member of the Senate that is protected from elections, or one member of the House of Commons to severely and unequivocally denounce Harper is extremely bad for the upholding of our liberty.
The Editorial "The language of hypocrisy" attempts to be so broad-minded and even-handed that it fails to expose the problem of hate speech on which there can be no compromise. Israel, like many nations on this globe, has many aspects to its political behaviour that can be condemned - apartheid is not one of them. To tar the only democracy in the Middle East with the label of another country that no longer practices that legal system is more than the big lie envisioned by master propagandists; it is hate speech.
On a much more positive note, the article "Dating in the Digital Age" by Philip Fry may point to a small but significant way we can ameliorate the human condition. The Internet is bringing humanity together and with the most important research on the psychology of evil by Professor Emeritus Philip Zimbardo and past research on obedience by Stanley Milgram and morality by Laurence Kohlberg, the solutions to solve the above problems of hate, violence and war are painstakingly being worked out by social scientists. And in this year of tribute to the genius of Charles Darwin, there is reason to be hopeful and optimistic that the great minds at work on the problem of human relations will solve our predicament.
David S. Rovins
Independent Student
Re: Letter, March 2
Dear Concordian,
While I thank you for actually printing my letter in your paper, I wish you hadn’t printed two editorial notes in the middle of the letter I wrote two weeks ago. It seemed disrespectful not to let me say my share about a legitimate issue I had with your work. If you print something nominal and particular to me that’s incorrect, I have full rights to tell you. Sorry guys, but I’m allowed to call myself what I want: when I state that I am not a campaign manager, it is not up to Colby [Briggs], or to you to state otherwise.
This seems like basic journalism etiquette. Also, the fee levy that we pay you is supposed to be contributing to every student’s right for a voice in this paper. You are essentially student space. Though this isn’t the first time the Concordian has endowed a notus interruptus into my letter, this will probably be the last letter interrupted - I’m graduating! I’m so close to the end, I’m not even gonna write you a CFS-scorning diatribe! Oh, also, though, while I’m talking to you guys, I think you should change your policy where you only accept letters that refer specifically to an article in your paper. Readers should be able to write you any letter they’d like, as long as it isn’t hurtful to other readers.
Yours,
Beisan Zubi
VP Internal
Political Science Students Association
1 comments