Pig poo
errors

I am writing in response to Ken Hechtman’s story on the pig farm issue in the Chateauguay Valley [“Pig poo pollution panic,” Dec 12]. I was interviewed for this column and was frankly not impressed with the level of reporting.

Hechtman quotes me as saying the local town whose water supply comes from the Chateauguay river is Hemmingford when it is Huntingdon, which I must have mentioned a number of times. He also states that the city of Elgin (which is actually a small town of 400, a fact I stated clearly) has no intention of enforcing its nuisance bylaw on solid pig manure. I never stated that fact. The town council, of which I am a member, will make that decision at the appropriate time.

It seems like Hechtman had an axe to grind, and that for him the most important hook for this story was the legal controversy. I told him that what we need out here in rural Quebec is for the city people to realize where their food comes from. People in the city should be very concerned about the direction agriculture is taking. If you want cheap pork you will pay hidden costs, like a degraded environment. Don’t forget Montreal draws its water from the St. Lawrence River, which is downstream from all these proposed projects.

Ken Hechtman did a disservice to our cause by focusing on what he felt was the most sensational aspect of this story, and by getting some basic facts wrong.

» David Drummond,
Elgin Councillor

Knocking Vice
off soapbox

I care little for political correctness, but I find it disgusting that you provided a soapbox for the ravings of this Gavin McInnes [“Vice propaganda,” Dec. 5]. What kind of idiot uses the expression “retards.” And what kind of idiots print this?

Next time you write about gay people, make sure you call them bum buddies or shirtwaisters. Try calling the Jews sheenies, and those in wheelchairs gimps. Equal opportunity for ignorance, for all.

» Jeremy Wallace

See me, hear me,
feel me!

I’m writing to you in defence of my recent production of the Who’s Tommy. As the director of this “seemingly amateur” production, as last week’s letter “Tommy Thumbs Down” put it, I wanted to respond to Mr. Touritsou Xiu’s ill-informed and poorly researched review [E-mail, Dec. 5].

First of all, this wasn’t a “seemingly amateur” production, it was an overtly amateur one. The cast and creative team consisted entirely of students and recent graduates from faculties ranging from physics, to music, to economics. Most of the students involved in Tommy are not seeking careers in show business. They were involved because they love the craft. There were no paycheques handed out, no union contracts signed and I don’t think any patrons entered Moyse Hall expecting a professional production.

Secondly, Mr. Xiu graciously informed readers that, “For those of you who don’t know Tommy, the Who’s Pete Townshend’s overall intention was that of love rather than homosexual depiction.” I find it foolishly brave of Mr. Xiu to relay Townshend’s message with such assuredness when it is clear that he has not done his homework. What does this poorly articulated statement refer to? Townshend’s overall intention, regarding what exactly, is love? If he means that Tommy is about love he is sorely mistaken. There is very little “love” in the play, and I feel the need to educate Mr. Xiu.

Tommy is about the journey from depravity to enlightenment. The idea was born out of the song “Amazing Journey,” which Townshend wrote after studying the Buddhist teachings of Meher Baba. What Tommy teaches us is that the socially constructed institutions we turn to for help (religion, medicine, sex, fame and fortune) are futile in the search for enlightenment. Throughout the show, Tommy’s subconscious screams, “See me feel me,” to no avail. Even when he regains his senses his journey is far from complete. It is only when his fame is gone and he stands alone and looks at his reflection that he reaches his summit. It is at that point that his mantra changes from a selfish need to be heard to actually listening. “See me, feel me” becomes “Listening to you.” There is no love in Tommy, there is coming to terms with yourself by listening to yourself and by having no expectations from others.

As for Townshend’s intention not being a homosexual depiction, I must say that I read this with a great deal of unease. I’m shocked that the Mirror would print something with such clear homophobic undertones. Would Mr. Xiu have written this letter saying that Townshend’s intention was that of love rather than heterosexual depiction had Tommy been played by a straight actor? Doubtful. Tommy has no sexuality. His trauma began as a child before it could develop. Part of the rejection Tommy’s fans express comes from him not giving Sally what she deserved, be it of a tender or sexual nature. Sexuality never entered the equation from casting, to rehearsal, to curtain. For Xiu to say that Blanshay’s sexuality made the show seemingly amateur shows that Xiu clearly missed the point.

Furthermore, Xiu says that Blanshay wasn’t able to separate his own identity from that of the character. Part of the reason I cast Blanshay as Tommy was because his sensitive nature, coupled with the trauma the character endured, expressed what I thought Tommy should.

Also, any confusion aroused from his sexual identity brought more to the role. It makes the audience member wonder if Tommy has grown up yet. Does he know what he wants? The plot of the show says no. Blanshay was able to portray that with full confidence and force.

Inadvertently, how does Mr. Xiu so confidently discuss Blanshay’s personal identity? Does he know him? How does the short, unqualified comment about his “voice not being up to par” fit in with the rest of the letter? Not up to what par? If you ask me, Blanshay is a talent to watch out for. The passion, presence, and volume with which he performs is phenomenal. All this negative Blanshay bashing leads me to believe that this letter to the editor is nothing but slander and some sort of attempt at hurting the actor.

Please don’t get me wrong. I think reviews are a great resource for growth and learning. But those reviews must be qualified. I hope the Mirror takes more time to review its letters. Stimulating discussion is one thing, but printing homophobic slander is entirely something else.

» Raymond Zilberberg,
Artistic Director,
One Foot Productions

Theatre critic Amy Barratt did not write a review of Tommy. She wrote a great article praising musical theatre in Montreal by two amateur groups - works of dedication, commitment and yes, love of theatre.

Letter writer Touritsou Xiu is a homophobe who knows nothing of Pete Townshend’s “overall intention.” It was not about “love,” as this poor, misguided soul seems to think; it was all about the senses we have but don’t necessarily use well enough. I think Xiu has some personal problems with Zilberberg, Blanshay, or both, and used your letter’s section to hurl whining insult and homophobic fears.

Bravo to the whole troupe of talented players who would have made Pete proud and delighted. Good directing, tons of energy and Blanshay was a great Tommy, voice and all. It’s unfair to single him out. Everyone gave it their all, to sold-out, appreciative audiences. Xiu needs counselling, or at least an Imodium for the mouth.

» Nuri Katz

Defining
terrorism

This is in response to Barry Merson’s letter [E-mail, Dec. 5]. Firstly, I would like Mr. Merson to know that I do not believe in any “Jews controlling mass media” conspiracy theories. I am not anti-Semitic; I am simply opposed to a particular government and their actions. Israel is a different country and being Jewish doesn’t mean that you have to support these actions. I was just stating a fact.

The Asper family owns Southam Press, which owns The Gazette (among many other prominent Canadian publications), which need I remind, is the only English newspaper in Montreal. The Asper family is also adamantly against the state of Palestine. I am against religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or whatever you want to call it. And yes, I view any religious fundamentalist group that controls a media outlet as a threat to my personal beliefs.

Secondly, the U.S. defines “terrorism” as the use of coercive force aimed at civilians in an effort to achieve political, religious or other aims (paraphrased from the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984). This definition makes a lot of people “terrorists”: the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Americans, the British and so on. In fact, it even defines the founding fathers of the United States as “terrorists.” During World War II the Germans referred to the French resistance as “terrorist.” My fear is that the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is going to mean that any time an oppressed people are trying to free themselves, the ruling power could just site them as “terrorists” and wipe them out. Obviously there are guilty parties on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but - and you must always look at the root of all problems - the Palestinian liberation movement didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

» Roger White

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

letters@mtl-mirror.com

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.