And another thing about the NDP
(Re: “A whole lot more of the same,” 29 November 2001.)
Due to the necessary editing of my article in the last issue, I feel the overall message was diluted and would like to add the following points to make my point quite clear: 1) On re-election, McDonough claimed “100 per cent of delegates” had voted for change. Nice spin. To my mind, 60 per cent voted for the status quo (by voting against NPI and for the “renewal” process). 2) While the election of Giambrone provides a sense of hope, I fear he will be quickly reined in by the party establishment and rendered impotent. I sincerely hope this fear is unfounded, but time will tell. 3) “Renewal” means nothing if it isn’t implemented.
If real change is not fast and furious in coming, the NDP, now in the throes, will die.
Ryan Pritchard
The real issue behind women’s hours is male attitudes. Let’s fix it.
(Re: “AC’s women only hours to continue despite protest,” 26 November 2001.)
U of T statistics show that the student body is 50 per cent female. After last week’s article on women’s hour, I wouldn’t be surprised if this means half of the school now hates my guts. But allow me, please, one last chance to speak, because I think you might have it pegged all wrong.
The main reason the school has women’s hours (as was communicated to me at the Nov.12 Council of Athletics and Recreation meeting) is to help women deal with the culture of the SCC.
The culture of the Strength Conditioning Centre (SCC) is as follows: Macho, sweaty, loud, intimidating, etc… ring a bell? Sadly, and more seriously though, some incidents in the weight room even border on chauvinist and downright insulting sexist behaviour.
Indeed, changes are in order for the SCC to improve these conditions. But is building even more social barriers the right solution? My real argument is this.
Yes, women can be intimidated by this behaviour, but so can a lot of others. Instead of punishing all the males, could the school please spend some time figuring out how to punish the individuals that are perpetrating this horrible behaviour? If they’re rude to women in the SCC, what’s to keep them from being rude to women all over campus?
This is the problem as I see it. Building barriers is not the solution.
I certainly detest the above-mentioned behaviour and would like to see it stopped as well. But I also think that if the school is unwilling to do anything about the culture itself, these hours be used for all kinds of beginners, not just the ladies.
That’s where the discrimination comes in.
If beginners’ hours are necessary, fine. But if the culture of the SCC is not changed, the entire effort is seriously undermined, not just for women but for everyone who is intimidated, and innocent males are being punished for the actions of a few of their less enlightened counterparts.
Joseph Edwards
You blame capitalism for greed!
(Re: “Attack on freedom: don’t make excuses for hypocrisy,” 22 November 2001.)
After reading Andy Canivet’s article, I decided I had to write in. I have to say I pity the writer. Not because he’s not aware of what he proposes, but because he is aware.
This mainly concerns his remarks about us “giving up capitalism as a society” because, according to him, it stands in the way of “individual freedom.”
First off, what do you propose as an alternative? Let me guess… well, for now it’ll remain nameless.
You see, what Andy is not aware of is that the oppression that results from this alternative is far worse than anything we see today. No, our society is not perfect. No one’s is.
Capitalism allows for every citizen that wealth that Andy claimed to be the source of freedom here in the West. The fact is there will always be a ruling power, even in a democracy, but what capitalism and the West allow is for anybody to achieve this power, regardless of culture or gender.
It’s not perfect, but the communist alternative strips us of all the freedoms to prosper and grow as a society in pursuit of what you call the “common good.”
The result of no capitalism is a world where, as Orwell put it, all pigs are created equal, some are just more equal than others. But by taking away capitalism, you strip man of some of those freedoms that you want to—or claim to want to—preserve.
You seem to blame capitalism for a blemish (greed) in man’s nature, yet dissolving capitalism doesn’t wash away the problems in our society, just replaces them with harsher ones.
These freedoms I find are worth fighting for, even if we don’t always experience them fully.
I won’t even go into all the economic benefits that capitalism and competition provide us.
Andrew Rytel
Landmine ban anniversary
December 3rd, 2001 marks the 4th anniversary of the signing of the Ottawa Convention banning antipersonnel landmines. We should celebrate this anniversary, but also pause and remember the suffering of the innocent victims.
According to the Landmine Monitor Report 2001, there were approximately 20 000 mine victims in the year 2000. Unfortunately, we may see higher numbers of landmine-related casualties next year, because of significant movement of population within mine-affected countries such as Afghanistan. After 20 years of war, Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. Last year, there were between 150 and 300 landmine victims every month, half of them women and children. Today, over 70 percent of the world’s countries have signed, ratified or acceded to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on their Destruction. This unique document also provides for survivors of landmines by making it an obligation for each state party in a position to do so to “provide assistance for the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims.”
Canadian leadership in matters of assisting survivors of landmines is something we can all be proud of. The initiative to ban landmines arose from ordinary Canadians showing their support for this issue in a number of ways, not only during the signing of the Convention, but many years before and after this historical event in 1997. Canadians should continue expressing their concern over the issue to encourage their government to support mine action programs around the world.
Eve-Lyne Lacouture
Someone organize a rally or something
(Re: “Exclusive: Dr. David Healy interview,” 26 November 2001.)
This reader is frankly disgusted with Dr. Healy’s treatment by the University of Toronto. I must agree, however, with Dr. Healy’s sentiments that “students have tremendous power.”
We should do something as students of this university, to show our support for Dr. Healy and what he stands for—our unfaltering belief in academic freedom. After all, if this could happen to as renowned a scientist as Dr. Healy, this speaks volumes of what could happen to the average researcher at this university.
What’s next?
What happens when we as the youth of this country begin to research in our own respective fields?
Will we not want full academic freedom for the unbiased development of our research? Somebody organize a rally or something. I know I’d be there. You should be too.
For the first time ever, I am ashamed to be a student at this fine university.
Stephen M. Miniotis
