Skip to main content
letters
Open this photo in gallery:

Myanmar's State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi i seen during the World Economic Forum on ASEAN in Hanoi on Sept. 13, 2018.KHAM/Reuters

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

..................................................................................................................................

Repugnant association

In response to Myanmar’s genocide, rape, torture and dislocation of 700,000 Rohingya Muslims, Aung San Suu Kyi states that “we have to be fair to all sides” and that the “situation could have been handled better” (Suu Kyi Says Rakhine State Crackdown ‘Could’ve Been Handled Better’ – Sept. 13).

One can only hope that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is paying attention and that Ms. Suu Kyi is soon a former honourary citizen of Canada. Her association with Canada is repugnant.

Marty Cutler, Toronto

‘I do care deeply’

As a resident of Vancouver, I don’t care about the size of Toronto’s city council, but I do care deeply that Ontario Premier Doug Ford is so cavalierly invoking the notwithstanding clause. For those Canadians who value the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this action clearly undermines it.

The problem with conventions and accepted norms is that they work as long as they are respected by political leaders. And then along comes Donald Trump and now Doug Ford.

I don’t have a vote in Ontario but this action is going to taint conservative parties all across Canada.

Geoff Holter, Vancouver

.................................................

Canada’s judges have become eager enforcers of “progressive” opinion and the interests of the chattering classes under the guise of the Charter.

Plaudits then to Ontario Premier Doug Ford for reining them in. Would that the politicians in Ottawa showed such resolve to support the democratic process.

David J. Allen, Edmonton

.................................................

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is trying to carve the beating heart out of our Constitution by using the notwithstanding clause to serve his own petty agenda. If it can happen in Ontario, it can happen anywhere in Canada. And the best the Prime Minister can manage is that it is “disappointing”?

“Disappointing” doesn’t begin to describe how I feel about Mr. Trudeau’s failure to protect the national interest in this matter.

Meaghan Anderson Smith, Halifax

.................................................

The Globe and Mail’s suggestion that Doug Ford’s “opponents” should “concede that the Premier has won the day” amounts to appeasement at best, capitulation at worst (For The Voter – editorial, Sept. 13).

Anti-democratic bullies need to be resisted, not accommodated. Refusal to submit to “arbitrary measures” as trumpeted from your masthead is a bulwark of Western, liberal constitutional democracies, and should be encouraged by a (still) free press.

When both The Globe and Mail and Ontario Attorney-General Caroline Mulroney fail to step up for the integrity of our legal system, we are all, indeed, in trouble.

And, yes, I would be just fine with the federal government stepping in, pursuant to its disallowance power in the Constitution, to set aside the Premier’s folly.

Julian Heller, Toronto

.................................................

Doug Ford is overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to cut municipal representation in Toronto by half. Perhaps it is time for a revolt: half taxation for half representation.

Katherine Peel, Toronto

.................................................

We know about Doug Ford; we’ve always known about Doug Ford. But citizens of Ontario should also note the names of Conservative MPPs who supported the use of Section 33. Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba mentioned crickets. Don’t think he said anything about sheep.

Dale Churchward, Toronto

Sent from our phones

As a former English teacher now working in the private sector, I’m dismayed by the reactionary response by many in my former profession to the presence of cellphones in classrooms (It’s Time To Ban Cellphones In The Classroom – Sept. 7).

If I were still teaching, I’d structure much classroom activity around constructive use of the devices. My eldest daughter opened a restaurant a little over a year ago and runs much of the business directly from her cellphone.

If schools are to prepare students for the modern world, they need to embrace technology and its usage, not shy away from it.

Simon Ruddell, Delta, B.C.

(Sent from my iPhone)

.................................................

Mobile devices in the classroom are hardly the greatest distraction facing my generation; stress, anxiety, peer pressure, bullying and home life can be more distracting. The challenges presented by cellphones are overshadowed by their extraordinary ability to enrich learning.

For example, forgetful students can set reminders on their phones about homework or upcoming tests. The reminders can be set to vibrate at any time without disrupting other students. Dyslexic students can express themselves through dictation software or have assignments read to them. Phones can be placed out of sight in desks or put on airplane mode, which will prevent them from receiving texts.

In response to Gary Mason’s question, “When did we decide to let kids and their parents run the classroom,” kids should have a say and should be listened to: After all, it’s our education.

Phones and other devices can help students realize our full potential. Blanket banning is not the way to go.

Aidan Wilson, Grade 8 student, Ottawa

.................................................

A letter writer, commenting on Gary Mason’s advice that education administrators should develop some spine and ban cellphone use in schools, suggests “it’s just too late in the game to turn things around” (Hit Disconnect – Sept. 10). He ends with the depressing conclusion that we didn’t decide to let kids and their parents run the classroom, “Technology decided for us.” Really? So we have no control over technology?

This pervasive, defeatist argument is a perfect example of why I’m so pessimistic about the future. It’s an argument that extends to much more serious issues such as gun control – “nothing we can do to stop gun violence; the NRA controls the politicians; mustn’t upset responsible gun owners.” Or the environment – “nothing we can do to stop global warming; the petroleum industry controls the politicians; any effective action will hurt our economy.”

As a species, we seem to have the collective intelligence to develop all manner of technological advances, but not the collective intelligence to control the disastrous side effects some are having on the long-term welfare (and, indeed, ultimate survival) of humanity.

Sorry for the rant. Had to get it off my chest.

Ken Dixon, Toronto

.................................................

Re Apple Goes Big In Release Of iPhone X Follow-Up (Report on Business, Sept. 13): Apple has unveiled a watch that can detect heart problems – which were probably caused when people heard the price of the latest iPhone. There seems to be no great change in the new phone to drive demand, except for the fact that it is the newest version. Ahh, for the days when all phones came with a cable attached. It went into the wall …

Dennis Fitzgerald, Melbourne, Australia

Interact with The Globe