Anti-Angel

I want to address your Angel, “Peaceable Israeli Soldiers” [Jan. 31]. While I am always heartened when I hear of soldiers putting down their arms for the sake of peace and normally would commend your recognition of them, in this case, I could not disagree more. In fact, I find it completely irresponsible of your paper to take such a small and one-sided stance on such a large and complex issue that is the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
By casually (carelessly?) labelling the Israeli action as an “occupation” that is “brutal,” passing along your opinions as if they were fact, you unfairly paint the Israelis as aggressors. You do not comment on the other side of the story, that there is a long-standing rejection of the right of Israel to exist, and that suicide bombers are causing mass casualties in the streets of Israel. In the process, your own journalistic integrity is sacrificed.
When commenting on such an important issue, a newspaper must be able to analyze the issue clearly, without prejudice and in an in-depth manner. Your paper failed all three counts!

—Patrick Moss

Pro-Angel

On behalf of Palestinian-Jewish Unity (PAJU), I would like to congratulate you on your choice of your Jan. 31 Angel. Over the past year, PAJU has worked closely with a number of Israeli groups, among them Yesh Gvul and New Profile, who support Israeli Conscientious Objectors, or “refuseniks.” Last August, 62 young Israelis approaching draft age published an open letter to Israeli PM Ariel Sharon announcing that “we will obey our conscience and refuse to take part in acts of oppression against the Palestinian people, acts that should properly be called terrorist actions. We call upon persons our age, conscripts, soldiers in the standing army, and reserve service soldiers to do the same.”
We see the emergence of these men and women of conscience as a positive and hopeful sign. Unfortunately, though perhaps not unexpectedly, many objectors are accused of being cowards and traitors, and are ostracized by family and friends. All political refuseniks face imprisonment. Though many Israeli men and women who choose not to serve (40 per cent of eligible men do not serve in the IDF) prefer to take the easy, legal route of declaring themselves “incompatible” with the army, there are those who have the courage to make their political views public and disobey call-up orders. The IDF prefers not to draw attention to the phenomenon of refusal or selective refusal (refusal to serve in the Occupied Territories) by avoiding court martials and sentencing refuseniks to short disciplinary sentences.

However, the phenomenon of conscientious objection in Israel is not marginal. It dates back to Israel’s disastrous invasion and nearly 20-year occupation of Lebanon (initiated by then defence minister Ariel Sharon), and was even more significant during the first Intifada of 1987. According to Yesh Gvul, over 200 men have refused to serve in the Occupied Territories since the current Intifada began. Many Israelis are deeply concerned by the increasing militarization of Israeli society and the consequences of maintaining a brutal, cancerous military occupation that is entering its 35th year. Thank you for recognizing these brave men and women who provide some much needed hope for the future.

—Christopher Hazou,
PAJU Montreal Member

Hot dogs to horsies

To be a hot dog for sale on the street or not [“To vend or not to vend?” Jan. 31]? Forsooth! Aren’t there more important issues than whether ground-up slaughtered mammals should be sold on the streets to gratify taste buds on human tongues?
Rather than seeking new ways to enhance the meat industry, shouldn’t we focus on eliminating the most exploitative situation on our streets: forcing horses to pull calèches? Why must this kind of moneymaking slavery continue? It’s incredible that we allow some dudes to force fellow creatures into hard labour. This servitude is based on the notion that tourists will find it oh-so quaint and “Old World” to be driven through Old Montreal in a horse-drawn calèche. Must we stand helpless against this kind of oppression?
You, who are on the new Montreal city council should ban this monstrous abuse, and soon. Then send these poor horses to animal sanctuaries, where they can be finally free from slavery, rather than to the meat industry, as is their usual reward for years of hard labour.

—Shloime Perel

Wieners of woe

While the various polls make cogent arguments for the ban on street food vendors (mostly protecting one of the more common city businesses and restaurants), not one mentioned an obvious reason. Hot dogs are already the cesspool of the factory farm/slaughterhouse system. No better than most dog food, these so-called tasty treats have been shown to promote leukemia in children. Do parents buy smokes for their kids? No, but they buy murdered animals filled with nitrates, and proudly feed their hungry young. So, while I don’t really care about all the people who make their bread from blood (the whole animal abuse industry), why add to the crime?
Better yet, let’s have free vegetable food for all who are hungry, and we will be promoting peaceful co-existence with our fellow beings, and high nutrition for all at a negligible price. Yes, vegetables are abused too, but there’s only so far anyone’s willing to go for compassion.
A profound administration would end Montreal’s sordid history as a meat city, with all the suffering that entails (entrails). Too few people understand how bad food is a source of crime and a feeling of general malaise in our society.

—J.M. Wolowitz

Demeaning
the disabled?

I would like to express my deepest and most sincere disappointment in the terminology used in Matthew Hays’ I am Sam film review [Jan. 24].
While I have not yet seen the movie (but intend to), I cannot form an opinion on the review itself. However, the fact you use the word “retarded” (or any related term) repeatedly throughout your article leaves me, and I should think many others, highly disturbed.
“Retarded” is now viewed as a derogatory term for people who are less advanced mentally than you or me. In today’s age, such people who have learning, mental or physical difficulties are referred to as challenged, or disabled. Terms such as handicapped, retarded, slow, dumb etc., are highly frowned upon, as they are insulting and classless. Such words were used in the ’70s and even into the ’80s. Today, I should hope that people—particularly journalists—are much more educated and savvy to use such inappropriate language and archaic, demeaning references. Calling someone a retard is as mean and crude as calling an Italian a “wap” [sic] or a Chinese person a “chink,” or any other such prejudicial insults.

I feel you owe the entire mentally and physically challenged (or disabled) community a sincere apology. These people are no different from you or me, aside from an obstacle that they strive to overcome on a daily basis. While they may have their limitations in that regard, they are so blessed and gifted in other ways, we are privileged to know them and share company with them.

I should hope you strive next time to better check your language and etiquette before publishing material. “Retards are people, too,” you write. Yes indeed, and that should entitle them to equal treatment—not painful taunts and insults in a movie review.

—Matt Charbonneau

Dangerous times

Though MADD’s objective to push for better laws against drunk driving is admirable, I think that their focus on the legal drinking limit misses the point [“Slowing down MADD,” Jan. 24]. Do studies show that people driving at a blood alcohol count between 0.01 and 0.07 are just as dangerous as those driving at 0.08? Will decreasing the limit stop drunks on the road? I doubt it. Cars are dangerous and people are dangerous on the road, with or without alcohol in their system. As a matter of fact, a lady just totalled my car because she “had sun in her eyes.”
I don’t think the problem resides in the legal drinking limit. It resides in the carelessness of Quebec drivers in general, and in the difficulties in catching the individuals who drink at any given time of day. I make it my duty to call the police every time I suspect someone is drunk on the road. I also have the occasional beer in the afternoon and later go out to the grocery store to get missing items for my dinner.
The law doesn’t and shouldn’t target me. I’m not a criminal, I don’t put my life or the lives of others in danger. But the fact is, I don’t know what the alcohol level is in my blood a few hours after that one beer.
If I got caught for a routine check, would I get hauled into the police station, charged with driving under the influence, lose my license, get fined, and lose my job? Would I suffer the social stigma of these consequences, simply for drinking a beer?
Pressure groups make the laws advance and it is because of MADD’s care that issues as important as this get talked about. Kudos to you, MADD: keep up the good work. But don’t get too emotional—in this case, you’re missing the point!

—Tania Hernandez