Letters to the Editor

You don't want to be one of those people.
The people who write essays that they blind-CC to every publication in the country.
If you're going to write something, you have to pick your battles.

It's been a while since I've written any such letters and yet I found myself writing two to the same publication, The Toronto Star, this very week.

The first was in reference to this review of the play, Hair. Richard Ozounian, who wrote it, is probably the city's biggest theatre critic, for what that's worth. He has developed the habit of writing reviews of PREVIEWS which isn't quite kosher - but it allows you to go to press before the other guys. A Preview, if you don't know, is somewhere between a dress rehearsal and the finished show. If you NEED to review it, you really should let your readers know you aren't reviewing the final show...Anyway, that's the link to the review, here is my letter:

I would like to say that I am impressed with Richard Ozounian's impeccable timing and his ability to be the first in the city to file reviews of major productions. Unfortunately, what is increasingly clear is that he is doing so by reviewing works-in-progress and not informing his readers.

Every theatregoer and critic knows that previews are not to be regarded as final productions and that if one, by necessity, must review a preview, that it should be clearly stated. Mr. Ozounian may be patting himself on the back forhaving his LORD OF THE RINGS review online at 10 p.m.on opening night but since the show was ongoing at the time, why did he not explicitly state that it was not that show he had attended and/or reviewed?

Similarly, today's review of HAIR only references, in a throwaway bracket in the final sentence, that he only saw a preview. In a brand new production, like LORD OF THE RINGS,previews can differ significantly from the final product. Even if Mr. Ozounian attended multiple previews of that show and HAIR, and even if every criticism he made was equally true of the opening night shows, the Star's readers deserve to know that, in the interests of being the first-out-of-the-gate,he has chosen NOT to review the show itself.

For the record - I saw Hair last night and while it's a bit disjointed and has other flaws, it was still a fun night out. The rousing standing ovation at the end speaks either to how high above as all Ozounian is or how out of touch and ineffectual he is. I'm not sure which.

Secondly, is this article from the Star's editor emeritus, Haroon Siddiqui. It may shock some people but I can have a quite a liberal streak. But this guy's heart is bleeding so much, no blood is getting to the brain. He writes the most simpleminded articles about the Mid East which basically amount to the fact that the Palestinians are weak and everyone should give them what they want and stop the big, bad Israelis. No matter what is going on in the world, it is everyone else's fault than the Palestinians there is no peace. He wrote such an article earlier this week and now another one today. The gist of this one, which really got my goat, is that Hamas ain't so bad and, really, we should help em out since the big, bad Israelis won't listen to reason.

In it he makes what I think is the worst, most undermining fallacy a liberal arugment can make: X is powerful, Y is weak, therefore I should support Y.
It's all fine and good to root for the underdog and in many cases - maybe most cases - "The Weak" are being unfairly oppressed. But it is not a universal model and does not apply at all in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

And, here is my letter.

Haroon Siddiqui, as usual, has made a passionate but illogical case for Canada to blindly support the Palestinians no matter what they do.

He touts Canada's "traditional neutrality" apparently unaware that despite having proudly invented peacekeeping, no such thing exists. We have never been Switzerland and have a proud history of taking sides in conflicts, from World War I on. Declaring that we will not negotiate with, nor support terrorists, is nothing new. We will, though Mr. Siddiqui failed to mention it, continue to fund other social programs that directly help the Palestinian population.

He says that we now "stand on guard for the powerful against the weak" as if, by defintion, the "weak" are right or honourable. Nevermind that the "weak" are, in fact, a 300-million strong Arab nation with more than 20 states while the "strong" comprise four million Jews backed into a sliver of land the size of New Jersey.

Siddiqui then complains that Pres. Bush and PM Harper advocate democracy for Arabs, but don't want to deal with its results, apparently failing to understand what democracy is. Democracy, sir, is not an election. Rather elections one tool of a society which has a free press, a free society and other inherent qualities which do not yet exist in the Palestinian Territories. I probably do stand by Mr. Siddiqui in saying that hopefully one day they will.

In the meantime, despite his touting their cease-fires and proud tradition of social programs, Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization that is very specific in both its rejection of Israeli existence and its desire to use violence to rectify that "problem." At such time as they change these two basic beliefs, it would be incumbent on nations like Canada to reconsider their position.

Mr. Siddiqui should write articles urging Hamas to change its policies and truly embrace democracy, or urging Palestinians to become a society that chooses not to elect homicidal political parties. That would be a refreshing change from yet another article about why Canada (and the USA, and Israel...) is the problem. Hamas have already ignored the moral reasons for laying down their suicide bombs - perhaps our financial incentive will do the trick.