DYP not stalking

I was deeply disappointed by the July 8 cover photo and story in the Mirror ["Beware the DYP"]. As the director of Youth Protection for Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, I find it irresponsible and unacceptable to imply that the dedicated professionals who work in Youth Protection are "stalking" babies.

Jacquie Charlton's article raises some legitimate concerns, but loses all credibility when she reports that Youth Protection has investigated families because a parent had not "buttered their children's baloney sandwiches." In addition, there are several important inaccuracies; for example, it's not true that poor housekeeping or inept financial management are grounds for reporting.

Last year the department of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres received over 7,000 calls and investigated 2,000 cases. After investigation we concluded that approximately 50 per cent required no involvement. Of the 1,000 cases that did go on to receive service, 63 per cent of the children stayed with their parents and were offered concrete help to keep their families together. In a city the size of Montreal, these figures represent a responsible interpretation of the mandate given to us by the Youth Protection Act. Protecting children is everybody's responsibility. Unfortunately, the Mirror has sensationalized and trivialized an important and noble endeavour.

--Michael Godman
Director of Youth Protection/Provincial
Director of Youth Offenders Services

[Jacquie Charlton responds: The baloney sandwich detail was one of the grounds suggested by a school principal for removing a man's children, according to my source. Moreover, according to the copy of the Youth Protection Act in the Human Rights Commission pamphlet, "Protect our Children," paragraph (d) of section 38 states that grounds for reporting a child's situation include his deprivation "of the material conditions of life appropriate to his needs and to the resources of his parents." The examples given in the pamphlet include poor housekeeping and the parents' inability to administer their own resources.]

Offshore Gravenor

When did the Mirror set up an office in the tax-free haven of Monte Carlo? Is that where Kristian Gravenor wrote "Tax the dead" [July 1]? Is that where he is hanging out with the Menendez brothers?

You see, Kristian, here in Canada, people pay a great deal of tax on all the money that they earn. Income tax, PST, GST and the like are all steady and excruciating bitches. It would really be a shame to have to pay more tax on money that is constantly molested by the government. That is just one of the reasons that your "inheritances should be taxed at 100 per cent" idea is beyond idiotic.

Your article neglected to touch upon how "inheritibles" of sentimental value should be taxed. Also missing is the recognition that some rich people work really hard to be rich. Do you believe in meritocracy?

--Anna-Maria Tam

American pies

Shame! Scandal! Horror! A Kansas City baked-goods conglomerate swallowed up--"just had to buy"--Culinar, and woe is Canada [Insect of the week, July 15]. Truth is, Culinar was a has-been and a better verb would have been "rescued."

The Mirror's weep is: Canada is pillaged, once again, by ugly American industrial pirates and it's practically inevitable that another relentless American imperialist, Aunt Jemima, will "buy up every last maple tree in Quebec." (As if the U.S. would give up synthetic syrup.) Gosh, next thing you know, Disney will buy the Mounties and a Hollywood cartoon will mock Anne Murray and the maple leaf itself.

Get over it, Canada. The Americans didn't come in with tanks to seize your patrimony (though we could have) or decide unilaterally that we would buy you up. Fact is: you sold.

And don't overlook the fact that the Reichmanns own more property in New York City than the Rockefellers do, or that Edgar Bronfman makes more money in the U.S. in one month than Spielberg does in Canada in a year. Hell, we gave Martin Short a Tony Award this year for a show that flopped, and Mike Myers the key to Fort Knox for a movie that should have. In fact, in lots of ways Canadians rule, and you know what? It's really, really starting to annoy us.

--Bob Keefe, New York City

Correction

According to our ongoing investigation, the statues in front of Le Sugar on St-Laurent do not represent any known person, contrary to what was reported last week in Upside/Downside.