Letters to the Editor
Send your letters to tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca
or drop them off at 105 University Centre.
Towards a greater UMSU and GSA
I have a passion for progress, friendship, love, peace, unity and development.
These virtues, which are interwoven, are obtainable at the U of M. I thought
I should share my concerns with all lovers of excellence and significance.
I think that the slate system of campaign/democracy presently practised
in our beloved campus politics may be revisited with a view to appraise its
strengths and weaknesses.
In my view, I think it is more mind-relaxing to have an electoral system
where the contesting president and vice-president will be the only people
jointly on opposition sides, while all other contestants will contest on their
individual capacities based on their public relations, intelligence and coordination
skills.
The benefits of these suggestions are as follows:
Ike Isinguzo
HIV in Africa clouded
I was moved to read Tope Oriola’s article in the March 29 issue of the
Manitoban, “Misrepresenting Africa,” which was published as a response
to my March 8 piece “HIV: The new face of Africa.” Oriola puts forward
a passionate plea to fellow African students to “rise to the challenge”
and not allow Africa’s visionless elite to continue their reign. Indeed,
this message should not be ignored.
Oriola rightly points out that the explosion of HIV/AIDS in Africa, as with
Africa’s other “myriad of problems,” is complicated and not
merely a direct result of poverty. Certainly, it was not my intent to imply
that Africa has one problem and one problem only. Why HIV is so prevalent
in Africa, and what might be done to address this growing catastrophe, is
a concern that deserves much more consideration by individuals such as Oriola
himself.
Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that Oriola feels the HIV/AIDS epidemic
in Africa is “exaggerated.” Oriola states that one of the problems
of Western-based HIV/AIDS experts is that they distort the facts. Yet, it
is hard to dispute the fact that the prevalence of HIV in Africa has been
estimated at 36 million, and growing. To put this in perspective, the average
HIV infection rate in Southern Africa (where the disease is most prevalent)
is around 25 per cent. Moreover, it is not the gross prevalence or mortality
rate of HIV/AIDS that is most disturbing — rather, it is the burden that
this disease has and will continue to have on productivity and social structure.
I find it ironic that the example of malaria was used to illustrate the
other issues that HIV/AIDS has dwarfed. Clearly, malaria is a huge problem
in Africa. In fact, the incidence of malaria has been on the increase in the
past 20 years — a phenomenon that has been shown to be at least in part
attributable to the increasing rates of immunologic compromise due to AIDS.
More to the point, Oriola clouds the issue by comparing these two diseases
when writing that, “malaria actually kills more people annually in Sub-Saharan
Africa than HIV/AIDS.” The comparison in this context is by no means
valid: for one thing, malaria is an acute illness that kills relatively quickly,
whereas people can be infected and ill with HIV for many years, and do not
die of HIV itself but of the ensuing susceptibility to infection. Also, the
main thrust of my article was not absolute mortality rate, but the fact that
HIV infections were rapidly on the rise in Africa.
I do hope that there are more people such as Tope Oriola out there. One
thing that is desperately needed for Africa is educated, dedicated individuals
such as him to better define the problems besetting this often-ignored continent.
Regards,
Terry Wuerz
This letter is in response to the movie review for V for Vendetta (E for
emotionless, 29/03/2006). Ryan Hladun clearly must have watched the movie
with his eyes shut if he could not see the power of emotion that Natalie Portman
placed into her character throughout the film. Hladun called the film “preachy,”
which is what Alan Moore was intending to do while writing the book to educate
the reader on what could happen if we don’t try to save our world from
war, censorship and discrimination. Freedom of speech was a big deal in the
book-turned-movie, which is what Mr. Hladun is ignoring.
The writer also stated that the acting was emotionless, where I stand strong,
two feet on the ground, begging to differ. Natalie Portman’s acting was
spectacular on so many different levels. The way she started out as a naive
deer, turned into a tormented soul, into a strong woman blowing up the Parliament
was spectacular, and in no way was she lacking emotion in those stages. Clearly,
Ryan Hladun should start paying more attention to the movies he watches before
he goes bashing them in the Manitoban.
Andrew Hacault G.
I was moved by your article on Yemen (“Beyond the radicals and terrorists,”
29/03/2006). As a Yemeni, I must thank you for what you have done in explaining
the reality in my country.
If all Westerners read your article, I’m sure they will think differently.
From the hate emails that our newspaper gets, to the racist views on anti-Arab
blogs, we have been subject to extreme injustice on the Internet and through
the media.
This step makes us all feel that there are opportunities to build bridges
again and work our way toward more understanding and appreciation of each
of our cultures.
Thanks again to the author, Nick Kennedy. Please visit us again, this time
with more guests.
Walid Al-Saqaf
Occupation in Afghanistan is a worrisome omen
I attended the recent protest in Winnipeg to mark the third anniversary of
the illegal U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. Last week the University
of Manitoba hosted a forum entitled “Canada’s Role in Afghanistan,”
a meeting obviously part of a national propaganda campaign to sell Canada’s
role in the occupation of Afghanistan. I went out to this event also, this
time to express my opposition to my own country’s occupation of another
land, which is not to fight terrorism as we’re told, but to provide security
and protect gas pipelines across Afghanistan.
Today, our government is not only using the Canadian military to suppress
people in other lands, it may also be building the capacity to turn the Canadian
military on the people of this country. Witness the “Operation Charging
Bison” exercise to be held here in Winnipeg from April 30 to May 6, 2006.
Do you think it is farfetched to think the Canadian military will only be
used against other people, not against us here in Winnipeg?
Apart from the fact that it is unacceptable by any standards to sit back
and let other people be put down by our Canadian military, how about the fact
that the Canadian military has also been used against Canadians? Witness Ts’peten,
also known as Gustafsen Lake, B.C.; in 1995, Native demonstrators trying to
protect their land from further encroachment were met with armoured carriers,
.50 calibre machine guns and land mines. In Quebec City in 2001, 1000 soldiers
were deployed against protesters of the Summit of the Americas to stifle dissent
against the government’s push for corporate control of the hemisphere.
It is time to speak up, if ever there was a time, and say enough! Remember
the words of the brave German pacifist and theologian Martin Niemoller: “In
Germany they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because
I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t
speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they
came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Peace
Valerie Gaffray
Winnipeg
Anti war activists are mistaken
I’m afraid the “World People’s Resistance Movement” (WPRM)
cares little for the 30 million in Afghanistan.
Canada is in Afghanistan, joined by dozens of other nations, at the request
of the Afghan government. Their label of “occupation” is incompatible
with a democratically-elected government, unless the WPRM believes that the
Afghanis who make up their own government are somehow “occupiers”
of their own country.
This “occupation” they so resent will result in 2,000 schools
being built in Afghanistan this year. That is because in 2002, only 900,000
Afghan children were in school (roughly 30 per cent of the country’s
children). Of course, women were forbidden from attending school under Taliban
rule, so they made up a mere three per cent of that figure. Now, thanks to
the “occupation” the WPRM apparently wishes to see end, enrollment
of children in school has skyrocketed to five million. Best of all, roughly
40 percent of those five million are girls. An educated populace is critical
to a country’s success, but this is of no concern to the WPRM.
Of course, the Taliban will continue to try to burn the schools down, but
that is apparently none of this righteous group’s concern, either. Neither,
it seems, is the safety or future of the Afghani people, who are overwhelmingly
supportive of our presence. In fact, per a poll conducted around Afghanistan
by Afghanis, almost 8 in 10 (77 per cent) believe the country is “heading
in the right direction,” and almost 9 in 10 (87 per cent) call the overthrow
of the Taliban “a good thing.” Most importantly, 9 in 10 (91 per
cent) prefer the current Afghan government, who the WPRM callously refer to
as “puppets” on their website, to the Taliban regime.
Can they even fathom living in a society where there are no rights at all?
No freedom of expression, no freedom of assembly, and no schools to walk out
of? The Taliban had banned everything from kites to music. Women who wore
nail polish had their fingertips cut off. That is what we were dealing with
in Afghanistan, and that is why it is so important we continue to help that
country heal.
Under Taliban rule, women were being hung from goal posts in soccer stadiums
by the “Ministry of Virtue Protection and Vice Prevention” for the
crime of leaving the house without a male relative present.
There is a reason that roughly three million refugees who fled during the
Taliban years have returned, making it the largest refugee return in modern
history. That reason is a sense of hope for the future, something they never
had prior to the “occupation.”
Jeff Burke
