SHAME ON HIM
Jordan Peterson’s unsolicited pronouncement about plus-size model Yumi Nu is absolutely of concern for the College of Psychologists of Ontario (“No shrinking violet,” Brian Lilley, Jan. 5). Many young women (and men) seek therapy for body image issues, and to have a CPO representative publicly body-shaming any individual is not only unprofessional but counter to the goal of mental health. If Peterson wants to continue to represent and receive backing from the CPO, perhaps he should drop the political crusade and stay in his lane.
John O’Brien Barrie
(Peterson has a right to free speech and opinion. Just like you’ve expressed your opinion here)
HEAD SCRATCHER
In my opinion, it is disgusting that I feel the need to compose this letter in our supposedly free Canada concerning the attempt to shame and strip Jordan Peterson of the right to practise psychology in Ontario. The only persons requiring retraining are the woke left-wing members of the offending panel. Freedom of speech and freedom to engage with patients without political inference is an inalienable right in Canada, or at least it used to be.
Bill Wagstff Mississauga
(The CPO needs to give its head a shake)
FEELING BLUE
Re “Thicken the thin blue line” (Antonella Artuso, Jan. 4): Why is it that when the police, or other security groups, rise to the point of not being able to do their jobs effectively we give them more resources to be ineffective on a larger scale?
P. Jones Mississauga
(Police don’t have enough resources to begin with)
COPS AND ROBBERS
So, Mayor John Tory wants to add another 200 police officers to the Toronto force (“Thicken the thin blue line,” Antonella Artuso, Jan. 4). Well, that should stop crime in its tracks, since most would-be criminals will find that to be totally unacceptable!
Roger Lewis Brampton
(It won’t deter criminals, but may land more of them behind bars)
GOVERNING OR ADMINISTRATING?
Your editorial Jan. 5 “Government accountability? There’s an app for that” addresses a malaise that has been with us since the concept of representative government was implemented. It seems that as soon as candidates are sworn in, they forget for whom they work and why they were elected. My take is that the problem lies with the inappropriate name of the institution to which they were elected, i.e., “government.” We are not electing representatives to “govern,” but to “administer” and manage the running of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, it may only require a new name, “administration.” Any such electees would now be charged with the duty of administering the affairs of the various departments and, as such, would be subject to public oversight and scrutiny. Rather than “governing,” which by implication offers an uncomfortable level of control over us — the constituents — the function of “administering” suggests a more subordinate role. Maybe our representatives just need a new and more realistic perspective.
Paul Barry Simcoe
(Maybe consider doing both effectively)
Post a Comment