And now a word from the protest organizer

Vivian Unger's letter ["Westmount debate dumb," (e)Mail, July 10] is yet another in a long line of letters indicating that few onlookers understood the march on poverty in early June in Westmount.

The obvious question's ("what was the march supposed to accomplish?") answer is this: to draw attention to the fact that, despite the UN's statements that Canada is among the wealthiest of nations, 61 per cent of the population earns less than $25,000 per year. As in most wealthy countries, a small portion of the population (1.4 per cent in Canada) earns over $100,000 per annum.

Silent finger-pointing was not the aim of the march, as Ms. Unger would have realized had she been present. We were hardly silent. Not all who live in Westmount are to blame, but those who control our political, banking and economic systems are responsible for the poverty of the people on whose backs this country was built.

To say that the march in Westmount was to "harass[...] those more fortunate (or perhaps just more resourceful) than yourselves" is hurtful and displays utter ignorance of how temporary wealth can be. The middle classes are dropping like flies, and poverty is swelling up in our society like a dead beast with a belly full of maggots.

Fran Sendbuehler

Gay T.O. nationalism

The Toronto Gay Pride parade was a smashing success. Our local Montreal bar, La Track, was one of the very few Quebec establishments to participate. I assumed gay pride was about 'gay-positive' issues; alas, narrow-minded Quebec politics prevailed.

An internal La Track team squabble about "flying the Canadian flag" disgusted me. Apparently, it almost didn't fly because they were French and the Maple Leaf was English. Can you imagine if this news had leaked out prior to descending Yonge Street?

One French-Canadian friend of mine walked away in disgust over the squabble and never did walk with La Track, although the troops were finally convinced to be hospitable outside their "country." I suggest that La Track and any other Québécois with similar mindsets stay home next year.

Douglas Wagar

Another armchair theologian sounds off

This letter is in response to Bradley MacDonald's attempt at apologia ["Sasha: no theologian," (e)Mail, July 3]. If you think the road to religion is a rational one, you need a crash course on reason, cause and effect, and empirical observation. Given the data (i.e. the world), one cannot logically come to the conclusion that any god does or does not exist. To reach any of these conclusions, a "leap of faith" is required, be it in favour of theism or atheism. To fall back upon scripture for support, one must make a similar leap to choose whether or not such literature is a man-made phenomenon or the word of god. In this light, atheism is a "religious" decision like any other, and an agnostic is someone who consciously takes no such leap in any direction.

Of course, there are stupid people who call themselves atheists to radicalize their self-perception or to piss off their parents, but this should not exemplify atheism any more than stupid Christians should be the subject of anti-Christian rhetoric. Calling atheists stupid because they disagree with you is rather small-minded.

And why is the imparting of evil to an inanimate object any less plausible than original sin? Some people really hate apples.

Mike Ianuzielo

American fights back

Though I am thankful that Nicholas Langelier tried to "clue me in" on what is going on in Canada ["American clueless," (e)Mail, July 3], I'm afraid that he has not been of much help to me. You see, I really do not understand why "17th- and 18th-century Canada, the Conquest" etc. should lead one to believe in a "distinct society clause." Yes, the English beat the French then, but the number of francophones in the federal civil service and the number of Québécois Prime Ministers show that the Québécois are no longer the defeated. Why then the need for such a clause?

I am fully aware that Quebec will not sign the constitution without this clause. Rather, I wonder why so many people here believe such a clause to be necessary. I also wonder why Mr. Langelier, in his "reality check," does not mention that the Reform Party's official opposition status shows that the west will veto any distinct society clause and that getting that clause into the constitution is therefore no more than a pipe dream. I also wonder whether federalists here, by dreaming this impossible dream, are not really aiding their separatist opponents. The separatists can always charge that federalists are little more than dreamers. And they will be correct.

Robert Feinstein