Royal bank
bang-on
I compliment the Mirror on its open-mindedness with regards to Chris Barry’s story [“Watch your politics, please, we’re bankers,” Sept. 12]. It’s commendable that a paper with such liberal views as yours would cover this type of a story, not to mention fairly.

I’d also like to congratulate the Royal Bank for not giving that closed-minded fanatic hypocritical organization the financial means to express itself. I know that the bank didn’t do so for moral reasons—clearly no bank has any morality to speak of—but perhaps just once we can overlook the means and just admire the ends.

In refusing to back Mr. Cormier’s crusade to repress homosexuals, RBC has shown that they hear the public backlash of the liberal-minded populace more than that of the conservative homophobes. This is a matter of image and some bank manager clearly sent this issue to the PR office of the institution before granting the loan. Even if the barred loan was motivated by fear and calculated politics, we should all rejoice in the fear that bigotry of any kind obviously inspires in larger institutions. One of the only advantages of capitalism in a democratic country is that that means of production is bound by certain democratic parameters. Just as you might refuse to buy Gap clothes because it exploits children, your consumer power sends a message to everyone, even Canada’s largest bank. The position that the RBC took in the matter clearly shows their awareness of that.

As for Mr. Cormier, good luck! The CHRC won’t touch that file with a 10-metre cattle prod, though maybe someone should give Cormier that experience. The CHRC is there to protect minorities and last time I checked, homosexuals were still a minority next to the idiot population. The bank has accurately interpreted the laws of our fair nation that limit the expression of certain groups deemed as hateful. Any fool who tries to stop another person from living their life the way they want without affecting others is overstepping his rights and bounds. They shouldn’t find support anywhere, not even from heartless capitalists.
—Georges Gauthier

Gas gripes

Regarding your story on activists’ opinions on Kyoto [“The big Kyoto buts,” Sept. 12], the world doesn’t need another environmentalist who can sell us the Kyoto Protocol, but instead visionary entrepreneurs who know how to re-invent the petroleum industry. Where are the corporate insiders with brains enough to convert the resource of fossil fuel into new products? Jobs need not be lost—at least not drastically—if the industry can be put to better use, forsaking the sale of gasoline.

Saving the planet doesn’t necessarily mean killing the economic livelihood of any particular state or province. It means figuring out healthier ways of making money as quickly as possible.
—L.S. Cattarini

Kissing prissy
critics goodbye

Regarding that awful letter by “Adam” [“Hays ’n’ Ebert,” Letters, Sept. 12] what does a Palestinian child have to do with Matthew Hays heckling Mr. Ebert? He called Hays elitist for not bowing down to the ‘crème de la crème’ of American TV personalities in one breath, while denigrating innocent children at war for being “uneducated” and hateful in the next. It shows whose mouth is without couth and perspective. As if a prissy critic’s feelings merit more weight somehow than the bloody world of international conflict!

Though “Go back to America!” didn’t sound particularly well-worded, it captures a gut feeling. Mr. Ebert et al. thought just because they are celebrity critics, they deserve optimum service at film fests, when it was first-serve basis. Aren’t paid junkets perk enough?

I also want to give Matthew Hays compliments for defending a festival volunteer, being a seasoned one myself. This unpaid tertiary service sometimes parallels retail work when self-important clients think it’s their right to mistreat the lowly worker as if you are their man-servant and a non-human being. Volunteerism means you want to be there as an enthusiastic cinephile.
—Mirella Bontempo