Old Port whiners

This is in response to Noemi Lopinto’s article on locked-out workers in the Old Port ["Old Port’s new deal," July 17]. Unfortunately, Ms. Lopinto didn’t get her information right. It is the provincial government that has invested over $200-million in the Palais des Congrès and $170-million in the Cité du Multimédia. Not the SVPM (Société du Vieux- Port de Montréal). The Old Port of Montreal Corporation could not invest such amounts, as it doesn’t have anywhere near that high a budget.

As for part-time worker Caroline Russel, I have no pity. My tax money is paying for your salary, your uniform and your days off at the Old Port. And your salary is excellent. Go work at Admission Network or at McDonald’s, then you’ll see what real people make for a living. It’s nothing compared to what you make, and they don’t have anything near the same easy conditions.

So stop complaining - instead of picketing and making $10 per hour, go out and get that second job and be like the rest of us Canadians who are trying to make ends meet.

» KARINE-ISEULT IPPERSIEL

Separatist creation lies

This is concerning Kristian Gravenor’s last column, "Separatist creation myths," [Kristian Perspective, July 10]. Just because the Liberals are back in power in Quebec, it doesn’t mean that we have the right to make up ignorant lies.

It’s time that we start thinking properly - Gravenor’s column is enough to make me go again with the Parti Québécois. And I voted for the PQ three times because I’m really fed up with seeing the anglophones making stupidities out of this. We are two cultures in one and you know what, we are a greater culture than anywhere else in Canada.

It’s time to start respecting being a Quebecer and a Canadian. This type of crap shouldn’t be allowed anywhere.

» MELIZA DE CHANTAL

Sad kids thesis

Never has any journalistic piece outraged me more than Kristian Gravenor’s "Army of sad kids" [Kristian Perspective, July 19]. Not only are Gravenor’s opinions highly questionable, but he fails to offer any valid arguments or evidence on which to base them. Frankly, the comments in the Rant Line™ are more coherent and acceptable.

Gravenor rightly points out that our divorce rate has continued to soar since the late 1960s. This, indeed, is a symptom of contemporary Western society. This does not mean to say, however, that we take marriage or parenthood less seriously. Can you honestly say you know of anyone who would marry in the knowledge that break-up was imminent or probable, simply because divorce is more socially acceptable?

Our society today has instant gratification as its crux. As a recent graduate, my only concern is that I have too many options. I can see 20 countries in six months, I can feasibly attain any career goals I may set myself and I have the right to accept nothing less than true love. In short, I have been brought up to believe that the only thing I cannot do is "settle." In this way, if I were to embark upon a relationship that was to prove to be unhappy, under no circumstances would I stay in it. And under no circumstances would I fear being past it or left on the shelf.

Things were different for my parents’ generation and even more so for the generation before them. Social values have changed fundamentally - this is a point that your subject matter does not allow you to omit. Unfortunately, you refer to this fleetingly, half-heartedly and inaccurately.

My mother stayed in an unhappy marriage "for the sake of the children." Yet the psychological consequences of that unhappy partnership were infinitely more severe and long lasting than those inflicted when the inevitable separation finally occurred. Your nonchalant comment referring to the benefits of having both parents there "when the words and frying pans stop flying" is utterly ridiculous. I wholeheartedly concede that children need both parents; the negative effects of separation are irrefutable. But children are like sponges, indiscriminately absorbing their environment. Growing up surrounded by verbal or physical violence, depression or infidelity, can in no way be deemed better than growing up with one happy parent.

Furthermore, divorce does not necessarily imply that good times are "replaced by solitary hours of TV watching." These melodramatic anecdotes need to be substantiated and cannot be applied universally. Having said that, your infrequent and tenuous attempts at backing up your oh-so politically incorrect ranting are also highly questionable. Children may at times "report that they would have preferred it if one of their parents had died rather than left." Teenage children also tell their parents they hate them and they wish they would die. If the parents don’t take this seriously, why do you?

The reason some young may say this is clear: the death of a parent involves no feelings of rejection - a feeling common to confused children who cannot understand that divorce is not their fault. In dying, the parent involuntarily leaves his child. But this is the simplistic and irrational (if altogether natural) logic of a child.

As for women who are supposedly tempted to adorn "a Murphy Brown issue single-mama halo," I am young, free and single, and yet can readily empathize with the Sisyphean struggle that single mothers have to endure. The journey into single parenthood is never a casual, hedonistic one. Divorcees are not necessarily anti-child. This turn of phrase would be highly offensive if anyone were to take it remotely seriously.

I’ll stop citing examples now, else I’ll most probably write a thesis. Your column, aside from its galling content, lacks structure and basis. You fail to distinguish between amicable divorce, where the child has regular contact with both parents, and acrimonious divorce, where one parent tries to prevent access to the other, or worse still, when a parent abandons his child and has no contact. Psychological injuries vary in intensity accordingly.

We can diagnose high divorce rates and high crime rate (to name but two) as being symptomatic of Western society in the 21st century. But in labelling these tragic symptoms, we as diagnosticians are not resolving the problem. Divorce cannot be phased out, as you so flippantly imply - it is in no way comparable to the latest trend. For things to improve we need to instil hope in our youth. Society as a whole would have to change, and not the "misguided souls" who happen to have unsuccessful marriages.

With journalists like yourself acting as the voice of the people and dooming children from broken marriages to "a world of lonely despair," this society certainly has a very long way to go.

» REBECCA WHITE

De-car Duluth

Add me to the list of 170 citizens who would like to make Duluth a pedestrian-only walkway ["Push for traffic-free Duluth," The Front, July 3].

Drive down Rachel if you want to go east or west. Hell, plow over the hordes of tourists squished around their plastic tables on Prince- Arthur if you want. No, wait a sec - leave ’em alone so they don’t move up to Duluth along with the rest of the chi-chi money crowd and general dobadders creeping northward up the Main like the plague.

In contrast to a fake, tourist-oriented street such as Prince Arthur, I picture a mellower scene on a carfree Duluth: a continuation of Parc Jeanne-Mance all the way to Parc Lafontaine, an area that reflects the neighbourhood that it runs through and a place people can go to with their families, eat and relax. Those who oppose the idea for fear of extra noise are nuts because music and people talking is much more pleasant than car mufflers and squeaking brakes. And without cars the air and streets would be cleaner.

After blows like the one brought on by Pharmaprix, making Duluth car-free could really give a lift to the area, keeping the true character of the Plateau alive.

» LEONARD WALKER

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.