Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Affront to First Peoples
Re Art Shouldn't Bear The Burden Of Reconciliation (Jan. 22): In a province that has a national park named after British General Jeffrey Amherst, I can say that it has been the source of significant controversy here in PEI.
It bears repeating that Amherst had nothing but contempt and hatred for Indigenous communities in the whole of British North America. Indeed, it was Amherst who cancelled the important ceremonial tradition of gift-giving with respect to Indigenous peoples in Canada.
More important, Donald H. Kent, one of the editors of Colonel Henry Bouquet's papers – the military officer with whom Amherst discussed the use of germ warfare – pointed out that "there is direct evidence that an attempt was actually made on the Indians with smallpox" and "that it was an official action."
Very few scholars think that Amherst was incapable of such an atrocity, given his deep enmity toward Indigenous peoples.
Historian Elizabeth Fenn, from the University of Colorado, published a journal piece in 2000, Biological Warfare in Eighteenth Century North America: Beyond Amherst. In it, she argues that Amherst's giving/ordering of infected blankets at Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) may not have been an isolated incident.
It is an affront to First Peoples to honour Amherst in any way, shape or form.
Peter McKenna, chair, Department of Political Science, University of Prince Edward Island
....................................
Davos? Smile. Click.
Re Amid NAFTA Uncertainty, Trudeau Heads To Davos To Champion Canada As An Attractive Place To Invest (front page, Jan. 22): It would be easy to believe that the World Economic Forum in Davos is simply one big celebrity-filled party, rather than a substantial meeting of world leaders. Celebrities have become a necessary backdrop to the many photos the gathering generates.
One would be hard pressed to find hard evidence of any substantial economic benefit that comes out of Davos. Business leaders and world leaders already know the opportunities individual countries offer, without swaning off to Davos. Yet we are to believe they all must appear there every year to make sure no one has forgotten what they already knew from last year's meeting. Perhaps that's the reason for Justin Trudeau's trip, as he wasn't there last year and must remind people Canada is a good place to invest, if you subscribe to the Liberals' progressive agenda.
NAFTA is a trade deal worth pursuing, so is the TPP, so is a trade deal with China, and so is the deal two Canadian governments worked out with the EU. However, my bet is there will be no big trade deals announced from Davos, making it exactly what it is: a celebrity-filled event in a an expensive resort town, where everybody who is anybody gets their picture taken.
Jeff Spooner, Mt. Tremblant, Que.
....................................
What matters more?
Your editorial, In Vino Veritas (Jan. 22), says research suggests provincial government alcohol boards provide public-health benefits but hurt Canadian wine producers. Good point: After all, what is more important to Canadians? Public health or increasing the profits of Canada's wine industry?
Daniel McLeod, Vancouver
....................................
There is no business case for governments to be in the alcohol-distribution business. If they turned distribution over to private enterprise, they could continue to collect taxes and forgo expensive overhead. Leaving distribution to private companies would improve matters for consumers and restaurants, as well as the government's bottom line.
That's win, win, win.
John Martin, Victoria
....................................
Canadians, the Charter
Re Abortion Is A Right. So Is Criticizing It (editorial, Jan. 20); Liberals' Values Oath Is Odious And Kills Jobs (Jan. 19): There is a difference between being a law-abiding citizen who upholds Charter rights, and one who endorses government policies. One can be the first without the second. The federal government risks nothing by allowing those who don't endorse their policies to apply for funding, and conversely risks everything by forcing their will on those who don't.
Lorraine McCallum, Peterborough, Ont.
....................................
Your editorial was much appreciated by those of us who resent what Justin Trudeau's government is doing to its own citizens. However, there are other aspects to this controversy over the summer-jobs program worth noting.
Traditionally pro-life churches, such as the Catholic Church and the many evangelical churches, are opposed to abortion. There is no denying that. However, many of the jobs they offer students in the summer are such things as painting church buildings and landscaping. Many parishes offer food banks and other necessary services for their communities. Nor are the recipients of these services necessarily people of the same faith, or of any faith at all.
Religious people pay taxes like everyone else. Some weird myth exists that all tax revenue has been transformed into secular money. The idea that a government can exclude an entire group of people on their beliefs is odious, and smacks of tyranny.
Charles Lewis, Toronto
....................................
Re Can Justin Trudeau Tolerate Real Diversity? (Jan. 20); Liberals' Values Oath Is Odious And Kills Jobs (Jan. 19): I wonder what columnists Margaret Wente and John Ibbitson would say if an anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish organization were to receive government funding? Or if the federal government were to give a hand-out to the Ku Klux Klan?
This issue is not about the government restricting anyone's rights. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese may promote its pro-life beliefs wherever and however it wishes. What the issue is about is government funding. It seems like a no-brainer that government funding ought to go to organizations that support core Canadian values as they are represented in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Perhaps the issue could be resolved if the words "and the organization's core mandate" were removed from the attestation? Or perhaps we could have a definition of "core mandate"? I am pretty sure there is a difference between the core mandate of New Life Prison Ministries and, let's say … the Aryan Nation.
Mary Burbidge, Coe Hill, Ont.
....................................
So the question is …
Re 'One Of The Greatest Situations In All Of Baseball' (Sports, Jan. 20): Blue Jays president Mark Shapiro had this to say about replacing the Astroturf at the Rogers Centre: "So the question is not whether we can have grass; the question is are you willing to have grass over and above every other thing that you possibly want to do?"
Such as stocking up on utility infielders and middle-of-the road outfielders? If you don't build it, maybe they won't come.
T.M. Dickey, Toronto