Anti-Chavez?

[Re: “Photo of the week,” Dec. 6] It is quite amazing to see the brief photo report that The Mirror printed about the manifestation in front of the Venezuelan Consulate on Dec. 2, concerning the constitutional reform in Venezuela.

Despite the fact that there were actually more than 30 supporters of the reform showing up from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m., braving the cold, the Mirror decided to print the pictures of the opposition although there were only three of them who showed up.

Why did the Mirror decide to publish the pictures of the opponents when there was a more vibrant manifestation of the supporters of Chavez and his reforms?

The only sober conclusion that a sane person could make is that the Mirror has a certain political inclination toward opposing the constitutional reform. This is very true for all major mainstream media and the Mirror is no different from the rest.

>> Hariyanto Darmawan

Ed’s reply: The photo, taken on Sunday, Dec. 2, the day of the Venezuelan referendum, was chosen because it reflected the opposite sides in the debate. A sign saying Vive Chavez is clearly visible. We did not support either side, but rather chose to portray the divergent views.

Men and women’s rights

[Re: “Risking women’s rights,” Letters, Dec. 6] I suspect that Ms. Tandel, a self-described feminist and a women’s studies student at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, is probably in the early stages of her studies. For how else can her statement that “the racist assumption that Muslim women who ‘decide’ to wear the niqab or hijab are oppressed and ‘brain-washed’ encourages racist stereotype of non-white women” be taken seriously?

Perhaps later in her studies, Ms. Tandel will learn that the rules and laws of the Muslim religion, as well as the rules and laws of all major religions, were written by men. Does she really think that any reasonably sane woman would have “decided” that wearing shapeless black clothes from head to toe would enhance and make her life more comfortable and pleasant?

What woman in her right mind would have “decided” that the penalty for adultery (real or imagined) merits the punishment of public stoning? Or perhaps that, in cases of rape, the perpetrator could be found guilty only if three male witnesses would testify on her behalf? Which begs the question: why would three able-bodied men witnessing a brutal rape stand idly by? Or how did women “decide” that they could be divorced by their husbands by simply having the men repeat three times: “I divorce you!  I divorce you!  I divorce you!” No, Ms. Tandel, most definitely, women did not “decide” that.

However, Ms. Tandel might find a modicum of consolation and satisfaction in the fact that today’s western white, sexist, racist, genocidal men had the tables turned against them. The ancient unfair and one-sided custom of divorcing one’s spouse by repeating three times “I divorce you!” has been replaced by the liberated law-savvy Western women who respond by repeating three times: “I take the house, the car, and the bank account!” 

So cheer up! Things are a-changing.

>> Ed Binder

Ed’s reply: Ms. Tandel is in her third year of studies at Concordia University.

Get your war on

[Re: “Angel,” Dec. 6] Angel opens with “U.S. President George Bush may still be trying to find a war he can actually win ...”

But winning is not a paramount goal—the real goal is a mandate to get the vast military machinery in motion. The era of the good war with dedication and determination is long passé. Conventional warfare has yielded to the dangers of instant annihilation.

Back in 1961, President Eisenhower—one of America’s great underrated presidents—issued his famous “farewell” speech, where he warned of an impending “military-industrial complex” shaping global policy. But the Pentagon and the defence industry would not hear of this, especially in view of Sputnik and other Soviet space achievements. Meanwhile, Vietnam lay just on the horizon.

By virtually declaring Vietnam an “enemy,” the U.S. invaded this nation with military “advisers,” and in subsequent years with a military arsenal never before witnessed in history. Introduced sophisticated bombing with their “surgical strikes” and the land-mining of the Ho Chi Minh trail, air and ground electronic weaponry and the dumping of that dreaded Agent Orange on plant, animal and human life. World outrage made the U.S. pack up and leave and we thus “lost the war.”

Contrary to your stated “not winning,” this so-called war in Iraq with its commitment to armament research and deployment has been successful. The U.S. defence industry has learned much of the “electronic battlefield” and have thus invigorated further studies on yet more sophisticated weaponry. The industry’s machinery is thus kept well oiled.

>> Edward Abramic

CORRECTION: An image printed in the Nov. 29 Artsweek page was mistakenly titled “Alvaro Nightmare.” The correct title is “Nightmare #47.”

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!