Mirror rains on parade

[Re: “C’est quoi avec le nez stupide? Photo of the week, May 28] I’m not a separatist nor a Quebec nationalist. I believe that the whole comprised of Quebec and the rest of Canada is significantly better than the sum of those two parts of our great nation. More than anything else I am a proud Montrealer who sometimes likes to think of himself as “un maudite de bon Anglo.” That being said, I was somewhat taken aback by your dismissive, disrespectful, and even somewhat mocking minimalist “coverage” of last Sunday’s “Grande marche vers l’indépendence du Québec.”

I went to Parc Lafontaine to photograph and video this event and was favourably impressed by the fairly large turn-out and the typically Québécois peaceful and even pacifist democratic tone of this parade promoting Quebec independence. There was minimal anti-anglo or anti-Canada sentiment expressed from what I could see, and I saw and recorded plenty.

I believe that there may have been well over 500 participants, possibly as many as 1,000 or more at its peak. The peaceful and generally festive and celebratory parade stretched the length of two or three city blocks along Mont-Royal. Former Quebec Premier Bernard Landry was at its head with his wife and other prominent Quebec indépendantistes. All things considered it was a respectable event but it quite evidently got no respect from the Mirror.

The dismissive and disrespectful belittling attitude of the Mirror‘s caption to Will Lew’s photo does nothing to promote good will and good relations between Montreal anglos and Québécois nationalists and may even exacerbate them. Why did the Mirror cynically rain on the indépendantistes’ parade, which took place under sunny blue skies and bright white clouds that nicely complemented the numerous Quebec flags waving in the breeze?

Vive le Quebec libre dans un Canada fort et libre!

>> Robin Edgar

Framing the debate?

[Re: “The anti-Semite card?” Letters, May 21] Once again, Shirley Groves uses her simplistic arguments that those who support Israel are single-minded and refuse to acknowledge the other side of the debate, the rights of the Palestinians, and then she goes on to compare her opponents to Holocaust deniers and accuse Canwest of a perverted ideological bent. She seems to believe that it is up to the news service and not the reader to find a balance in the news. Has she not heard of reading multiple sources, different sides of the story? While arguments about media conglomerates might have worked up until very recently, the fact is, the Internet now contains so many agglomerate news sites and blogs that there is no excuse for someone who engages in debate to not widen their perspective.

Keep in mind I say engage in debate, because there are plenty of people who only get their news from Canwest or whatever it is that Shirley Groves reads (because you know she doesn’t read or watch anything owned by Canwest, she has to protect her worldview), but they don’t write letters or argue much, they just go about with their opinions and only defend them when instigated.

The difference here is that Ms. Groves, who seems to have a similar method for learning about the world (read one source and disagree with anything that doesn’t follow her worldview) actively engages in political discourse by writing to the Mirror constantly, which means that she must be able to back up her opinion as well as acknowledge that there are other valid points of view out there. She underestimates the readers of the Mirror, just as she accuses her opponents of, by actually thinking that we are going to simply agree with her bullshit without actually thinking about it. 

As for the Mirror, come on. You guys frame the Israel debate as one that has an outcome other than a two-state solution. Yes, it’s obvious the current Israeli government is not helping and has very little motivation to help, although they will soon feel the pressure from the USA with their non-idiot president. But why must people argue against the legitimacy of the state of Israel? Do activists truly think that by bitching about whether Israel should exist at all they will get anywhere? All this does is give those wackos in the Knesset (if you don’t know what that is please don’t write any more letters to the Mirror) more legitimacy to defend themselves any way they see fit, because the debate is centred on whether Israel should exist not how it should.

Maybe we should concentrate our arguing not on proving each other wrong but on creating a public discourse that will be constructive and help resolve these differences.

>> Rodney Johnson

Heartfelt thanks

[Ed’s note: The following letter was written in blue and black ink on a small piece of white paper that came in an envelope with brown lettering. Attached was a clipping of the Best of Montreal results for Graffiti Artists/Crew] Yea yea! Bling bling bling. I’m so cool. Bling Bling Bling. You’re a fool. Tanks fo makin us leegit!! You fuckin idiots.

>>The Graffiti Conspiracy

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!