Press Feed
Pages Menu

Letters to the Editor

Letter from the Ambassador of Azerbaijan

Dear Editor, I am writing to you regarding the interview with Ambassador Yeganian of Armenia that was published on the pages of “The Prince Arthur Herald” on May 2, 2014. The interview aims at distorting the reality by willfully spreading false information about the nature of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Quite contrary to what the Armenian Ambassador attempted to portray, this conflict is all about groundless territorial claims and aggression of Armenia against its neighbour Azerbaijan. Four UN Security Council Resolutions adopted in 1993 leave no doubts as to the nature of the conflict. These resolutions demanded the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and reconfirmed the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. Armenia, under the cover of human rights and self-determination, has been pursuing an irredentist policy aimed at recreating “the Greater Armenia”, and the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, along with seven adjacent regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan is part of this policy. An act of aggression against Azerbaijan has also been accompanied by ethnic cleansing and appalling war crimes, including the massacre in Khojaly committed by the Armenian armed forces. Regretfully, the principled Security Council demands have still not been implemented, and the mediation efforts conducted for more than 20 years within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have yet to yield results. Last but not least, Ambassador Yeganian’s claims about Nagorno-Karabakh’s underdevelopment is far from reality, as in fact, economic and social development of the Nagorno-Karabakh region had been much better in comparison with those of the other parts of Azerbaijan which are attested by the official statistical data of Soviet authorities. I do hope that for the sake of the key journalist principles such as… Read More

LETTER: When Transparency Can Hurt Democracy

Samuel Mosonyi’s attempt to rationalize the Justice Department’s allegedly illegal actions (When Transparency Can Hurt Democracy, February 27) is absurd beyond words. He argues that any signal that a new bill may violate the Charter would ‘kill it’ and thus bureaucrats (Justice Department lawyers) would be determining what laws are passed – rather than our democratically elected representatives.Well actually, no. It's the other way round. By signalling that a new bill may violate the Charter, the Justice Department would not only be fulfilling its duty under the law, it would also be facilitating a healthy debate by our elected representatives, including the seeking of other legal opinions. This is how lawmaking is supposed to take place in our democracy.It is perverse to argue that draconian laws that violate the Charter should be simply foisted on unsuspecting Canadians, that such laws should remain in force – possibly for decades – until challenged, and that citizens should be forced to find the resources out of their own pockets – typically hundreds of thousands of dollars – in order to mount such a legal challenge.Please, no more pleading that contempt for the law within the Justice Department is somehow good for our democracy.-David HuttonDavid Hutton is the executive director of FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform), a Canadian charity whose mission is to protect whistleblowers who protect the public interest.Have any comments about the articles you see in the Prince Arthur Herald? Send your letters to Read More

August 17: Letters to the editor

Re: Our bias towards power—how to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union (August 9)Vincent Geloso’s article is riddled with errors, which malign the validity of his argument. Primarily, Geloso seeks to brand the decline in criticism of Dr. Robert Conquest as evidence that intellectuals have discredited communism as a whole. Instead, it’s likely that much of the criticism aimed at the book when it was originally published dealt with the validity of the facts put across in the book. We owe posterity correct statistics, regardless of the possible ideological usages for them. Geloso claims that once further evidence of the “30 million” figure emerged, the attacks stopped (they haven’t), as most had been convinced of the death toll. This does not mean though that most had been convinced of the supposed “evil” nature of communism.Subsequently, while using the death toll in the duration of the Soviet Union to discredit the Soviet Union may be credible, using it to discredit communism certainly is not. This is due to the simple fact that the Soviet Union was not a representation of communism. Communism is a stateless, classless, society. The Soviet Union did not meet this description, and in its latter stages was far closer to state capitalism than communism, or even socialism.Geloso goes on to claim that we “know very little about the extent of the evils committed in the Soviet Union particularly and by communism in general.” Although evils wrapped in a red flag have been committed throughout the world, they were not committed by communism. Evils can be committed in the name of an ideology, but not by the actual ideology itself. For example, Anders Behring Breivik carried out his massacre in the name of a perverted right-wing ideology. While right-wing scholars and commentators influenced… Read More

Letters to the Editor: Herman Cain

To the Editor:Thank you for your thoughtful piece on Herman Cain. Reading it, I could imagine the typical and easy reaction liberals would have in reading it, and the comment section did not disappoint in this regard - when confronted with reality, liberals will use quite a number of tricks to avoid reaching conclusions which are at odds with their own prejudice.  Such is the life of a conservative, and I trust that you are willing and capable of enduring the onslaught of abuse you will receive for speaking the truth.I would like to add a point to your article, a point which dawned on me recently after discussing Herman Cain with a friend of mine - this friend is black and it is impossible to understate her devotion to Obama.She called Herman Cain a 'turncoat'.  As I was formulating an argument against what I considered to be a ridiculous statement, I realized the full impact of what she meant.  Cain was a 'turncoat' against blacks.  He was in effect a race traitor, a notion which must be accompanied by the notion of race loyalty.It is needless to point out how notions of race loyalty are harmful and disgusting for those on the outside, but in the context of a minority group, it is perhaps more important to show how these fundamentally racist ideas are harmful for those on the inside as well.I have never been required to believe in one set of principles over another because I am white.  I have been able to form my opinions and my beliefs based on my values and the education I received.  Like many others before me, I went from being a naive anti-american liberal as a young university student, to a small-government, pro-free-market conservative as I grew older and wiser.This freedom… Read More

Letters to the Editor: Herald staff speak

In the last few days, a very surprising article surfaced on the Herald’s website. This article denounced the ability of homosexuals to correctly parent children. There were many negative reactions to this article. Not only did readers (and for that matter columnists and editors, some of whom resigned) denounce it, but they also attacked the Prince Arthur Herald for having published it.First, as most readers are aware, this article was one-sided. No need to go into details because we are all aware of the flaws in the work, and, given that the author works for the Institute for Marital Healing, an organization whose goals are to “strengthen Catholic marriages and families by educating,” he probably has his own selection biases when it comes to resource choices and research outcomes.But the more pressing issue here is not about the quality of the article in question; it is about the response to it. Many demanded censorship of such a strong, ignorant view, yet the Herald chose not to censure, and I strongly agree with this choice.This decision was correct and is justified for the sake of freedom of expression. When it is not a matter of hate crimes, we have a duty to share all opinions even if we do not agree with them. I refer to a famous case before the Supreme Court of Canada, R v. Keegstra , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 and the vehement dissent by La Forest, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. The dissent expressed disdain over the majority’s willingness to restrain Keegstra’s freedom of speech when it came to publicly denying the Holocaust and preaching this to his own students.Some readers will criticize me for analyzing a dissent in a hate law case (this article did not constitute a hate crime). But I think it is insightful and… Read More
Page 1 of 212