Magic Teeth by Gareth Gaudin

Letters - June 4

Talking solutions

Re: “A Pointed Debate,” May 28-June 3

People are talking these days about things no one usually talks about and they are doing it very publicly. Thank heavens! Philippe Lucas, for one, told fellow Victoria city councillors recently that they should fund the distribution of crack pipes to those who take crack cocaine by inhalation. And, for some time, many voices have demanded VIHA reinstate the fixed-site needle exchange they so irresponsibly shut down one year ago. These are not conversations we may want to hear when the weather is nice, but we ignore such discussion at our peril.

If we discussed drug use, we could learn about the global research that overwhelmingly supports harm reduction measures such as fixed-site syringe exchanges and crack pipe distribution. We would find what we might long have suspected; namely, that enforcement has never been a solution and advising abstinence in matters of drugs (and sex) is a ludicrous waste of time. Prevention and harm reduction are the productive avenues of discourse; refuse those discussions for the most marginalized people in our communities and there will be other later conversations commanding our attention.

When police cannot enforce the problem away, when health services hemorrhage money to patch up ruined bodies, when corporate agendas subtract more workers’ rights to maximize profits and create more homeless and addicted, then we will have to talk. Let’s do it now—even if the kids are listening.

Derek Peach, Saanich

Voting on hot air

Re: “Climate of Confusion,” May 21 -27

Jason Youmans may want to rethink his post-vote analysis. The 2009 provincial election may have been “fraught with confusion for enviro-minded voters,” but the outcome cannot be attributed to the presence or absence of a primary concern for the province’s environmental future. In fact, numerically, the environment was a non-issue for most voters. If we do the math, less than 8 percent of eligible voters—those who voted for the Green Party, because it is assumed the party places the environment first—voted out of environmental concern.

Despite the concerns of Andrew Weaver and a handful of self-obsessed environmentalists, political and ideological differences do not account for the outcome of the election. From an Earth-first environmental perspective, there is no real difference between the Liberals and the NDP. It is more than likely that observed results are closely tied to democratic decay than any desire to tackle environmental issues, including climate change.

Those who are trying to understand Canada’s democracy deficit and dwindling voter turnout have hinted that, increasingly, the bulk of voters—in this case, approximately 47 percent of those that voted, or less than 25 percent of the eligible electorate—vote to maintain the status quo and avoid change, because they have the most to lose; meanwhile, the financially less fortunate and less able to prosper under the status quo (in this case, more than 50 percent of the eligible electorate) shun the polls.

Ken Dwernychuk, Saanich

Good taste

Re: “Uncultured Foodies,” May 21-27

Thanks for featuring local food bloggers here in Victoria. While I love food and have my favorite sites that I check, it’s still strangely difficult to find local blogs; it does indeed seem like random chance. Thanks for making it a little easier.

Melody Wey, via mondaymag.com

Trustee only

Re: “Failing Grade,” May 28-June 1

I am writing with regard to the above-noted article and the reference to Mr. John A. Young’s title. While Mr. Young is indeed a trustee on the Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria), he is not the president. The board consists of nine elected trustees, which include a chairman and vice-chairman. There is not a president.

Tom Ferris, Chairman ,

Board of Education, School District 61

It’s our party

Re: “Greens get mean,” May 21-27

The Green Party has respect and tolerance for democracy in that voters can vote for whichever party earns their vote. We believe in free speech and the right to support any political party. However, it is inappropriate behaviour for uninvited guests to cheer for other political parties at a private party event on election night. Imagine having Liberal supporters “cheering” in the background during Carole James’ election night speech.

In this particular instance, it was deemed necessary to explain to Mr. Arbess that his behaviour was inappropriate and he was asked to refrain from making such comments. Mr. Arbess was not asked to leave until he began to make personally offensive comments and became unreasonable with me and another party official. Further, insinuating that I and other party officials were physical with Mr. Arbess is untrue. Mr. Arbess walked to the door on his own with myself and another official closely behind.

If Mr. Arbess believes in merging parties, then crashing a televised election-night event and being offensive with its hosts is not the way to achieve that goal. As stated in the original article, Mr. Arbess has a goal of defeating the Campbell Liberals, which begs the question as to why he was at a Green Party event; perhaps he should join the NDP.

As Greens, we believe in voting for something, not against.

Rob Hines, Organizer B.C. & North

Green Party of Canada

X@$*! marks the spot

Re: “Death of Electoral Reform,” May 21-27

People who feel their votes don’t count should still show up. Spoiling your ballot is a much more effective form of protest than staying away from the polls.

Marvin Manley, via mondaymag.com