Anti-A16

Allow me to respond to Phil Ilijevski's contention that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are "not building a world that's good for everybody, they're just building a world that's good for the rich" ["On track for A16," April 6].

First of all, what does Mr. Ilijevski think that "a world good for everybody" would look like? Given the number of different countries, peoples and interests in this world, I somehow have a difficult time believing that this can ever be achieved.

Secondly, had Mr. Ilijevski taken the time to visit the World Bank's Web site, he might have seen that its main objective is to alleviate world poverty altogether.

These intergovernmental institutions are filled with development experts, economists and project managers who, in my view, really take the world poverty cause to heart. To say that they don't is both condescending and insulting.

After Seattle and the WTO, "activists" are now going to try to shut down the IMF and the World Bank in Washington D.C. All the while, the people who are really suffering around the world will be asking themselves why all of this is happening and why they must wait even longer while we in the "West" try to sort out what is good and not so good for them.

If they're lucky, they can perhaps wait long enough for Mr. Ilijevski and his fellow crusaders to earn PhDs in economics and International Development and come up with their own brand new, empirically- and time-tested solutions. The level of economic illiteracy in this country never ceases to amaze.

--Maxime Vanier

Angel, no strings

I am writing concerning your March 30th "Angel of the Week" Judith LaPierre. You wrote that LaPierre "showed she had the right stuff" by deciding to re-enter a mock spaceship where she lived with seven men, one of whom had sexually assaulted her. She made this decision despite the refusal of the assaulter or the coordinators of the program to recognize his behaviour as harassment, or ensure it would not continue.

LaPierre is very courageous for surviving what was undoubtedly a frightening situation and choosing to place herself in that situation again for ideals that she believes are important. However, your article implies that she made the only "right" choice and that quitting the program would have been weak, selfish and uncourageous. This is simply not true. No matter what choice LaPierre made, even if she had decided to "call it quits," she has still proven her strength by surviving this assault.

In the face of criticism, doubt, and the possible termination of her career, LaPierre had the courage to publicize her experience and identify this man's behaviour as wrong. That is what truly shows she has the right stuff. In fact, the only people with the wrong stuff in this scenario are the men who chose to sexually harass LaPierre, and the officials who decreed she had no right to complain. And you, Mirror, for implying that people who are harassed have somehow failed if they choose to remove themselves from a poison environment instead of toughing it out.

--Sarah Curry, External Coordinator, Sexual Assault Centre of McGill Students' Society

Macumba not Voodoo

Regarding Adam Gollner's piece on Virginia Rodrigues ["Two scoops of samba," March 30]. How disrespectful and ignorant does one have to be to have even written such trash? Ms. Rodrigues says: "I believe in the Macumba gods." The very next sentence, penned by the supervenient Mr. Gollner reads: "Invoking ancient voodoo spirits." Of course Mr. Gollner, being an all-knowing cool guy, believes Macumba and Voodoo are the same--this is why he must correct this ignorant black woman. Also, "favela shanties"? It's like saying "slum slums."

All the best.

--Dr. C.F. McNicolls

Correction

The artist whose exhibit The Diver is on now at Landau Fine Art is named Laura Santini, not Sabatini ["Reckless Diving," April 6]. We apologize for the error.