Parliamentary privilege
Dear Editors,
Re: “A Parliamentary polemic” (Journal, Jan. 9, 2009)
While I am aware that the Opinions section of your newspaper is designed for such discussion, the deliberate exclusion of the Queen’s Campus Conservatives from the 9 January 2009 “Parliamentary polemic” piece is simply unacceptable. The piece was published without the slightest regard for the opinions of the Queen’s Campus Conservatives Club President or any of its members.
In fairness to all Queen’s University students and perhaps in an effort to maintain an “autonomous newspaper,” the Journal may wish to extend a warm invitation to the Queen’s Campus Conservatives President to write the next ‘Opinions.’
Megan J. Hunse
ArtSci ’10
Dear Editors,
Re: “A Parliamentary polemic” (Journal, Jan. 9, 2009)
It is not only unprofessional but it is unjust for the Journal to print one side of an issue—the possibility of a coalition government—while limiting responses to less half the length of the original story. It is essential that the Journal at least put forward an equal and balancing counter argument in such a large story. I as a Queen’s student do not at all feel well represented by this publication and in this sense I am sure I do not stand alone. The Queen’s community deserves the same full page dedication to an article in opposition to the coalition in order for equality to exist on both fronts.
Carla Crossman
ArtSci ’10
Setting the record straight
Dear Editors,
Re: “Media needs nuanced view” (Journal, Jan. 13, 2009)
In the Editorial in Tuesday’s edition, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is referred to as “a centuries-old conflict.” This is a common misconception in North America. The conflict only began in 1948. Prior to that, Israel did not exist. What’s more, historically, Jews in the Middle East generally had better relations with their Muslim neighbours than they did with their Christian neighbours in Europe. That is a major reason why Israel was established.
Jeff Welsh
SGPS President
PhD ’09
Two sides to the coin
Dear Editors,
Re: “Standing up for Gaza” (Journal, Jan. 13, 2008)
Shame on the Journal for publishing only one side of what is a very two-sided conflict. While civilian suffering in Gaza is tragic, Israel has endured Hamas rocket attacks since it withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, including during the six-month ceasefire (over 3,000 in 2008 alone). These rockets are launched indiscriminately into civilian populations (a war crime), terrorizing Israelis, who don’t know when or where they will land. If few Israelis have died from the rockets, it is because they spend much of their time in shelters, afraid to step foot outside. Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens and it has done so with care and precaution few other nations would exercise. (What other nation would drop leaflets warning of an impending strike?) A peaceful solution to the conflict cannot be attained until Hamas’s rocket attacks are stopped—the sole goal of Operation Cast Lead.
Daniel Stober
ArtSci ’08, MIR ’09
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.