September 5 1983


September 5 1983


Love and respect

Your article The Police at the top of rock (Music, Aug. 15) was greatly appreciated. Canadians and The Police have shared a respectful and loving relationship since day 1, and we are proud of it. Sadly, though, The Police could have made a bundle had they printed Tshirts for the Spectrum date in Montreal, Aug. 2, stating, “I didn’t get to see the Police at le Spectrum,” which would apply to 99.9 per cent of The Police fans. —CLAUDINE LALONDE,

Cornwall, Ont.

I am writing to thank you for your excellent article on The Police in your Aug. 15 issue. It is about time they got some recognition for their great music (,Synchronicity is their best album yet), and in your article you gave it to them (although I think you should have put them on the cover).


New Glasgow, N.S.

I really appreciated your article on The Police in your Aug. 15 issue. It just goes to show that there is such a thing as a rock group that can produce great music without being greedy, violent druggies. Thank you for showing us a rock group that deserves to be highly commended. —KIMBERLY SPEER,

Dunnville, Ont.

IBC: dedicated to its viewers

Your article about the Inuit Broadcasting Corp. was thorough and informative (A living voice of ancient tradition, Television, Aug. 8). However, IBC is not the spokesman-chronicler of the Inuit


Send correspondence to Maclean's, Box 1600, Station A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 2B8

Tapirisat of Canada. IBC is a completely independent public broadcasting network with its own board of governors. IBC is dedicated to fulfilling the needs of its viewers and not those of any one organization. —DEBBIE BRISEBOIS, Executive Assistant, IBC, Ottawa

A bit of finger-wagging

Former premier Alex Campbell of Prince Edward Island has been out of office for five years. Yet his name appears under a picture of current P.E.I. Premier Jim Lee in your article A conference without confrontation (Canada, Aug. 22). Tut tut. -SALLY GOSS,

Truro, N.S.

Untrained artists in high places

I am appalled at John Kenneth Galbraith’s comment that artists are just as entitled as scientists or engineers to speak on economic matters (People, Aug. 8). It is, in fact, this government’s (and country’s) use of improperly trained or blatantly incompetent people that has gotten us into the mess we are in. We do not need more untrained people adding to the cacophony; we need a clear consensus from trained and competent leaders. As for Galbraith’s statement that art drives economic growth, I give a 1970s quote of H.R.H. Prince Philip: “It may be faintly annoying for the culturally gifted to admit that the wealth that makes it possible for them to pursue the arts and scholarship has to be generated by those who work in industry and commerce; but such is the case. To despise the very activities that sustain our whole level of civilization is to starve and maltreat—if not actually to kill—the goose that lays the golden eggs.” —GARY BRUNIO,

Norman Wells, N. W. T.

Resistance to passive smoking

Barbara Amiel’s recent column on defending the civil rights of smokers missed the point (Controlling the HulaHoops, July 4). I wonder if Amiel is aware of the swiftly growing body of evidence pointing out the serious health risks of passive smoking. A nonsmoker exposed to air heavily contaminated with cigarette smoke in one hour inhales as much NDMA (Dimethylnitrosamine—a potent carcinogen) as a smoker does by smoking as many as 35 filter-tipped cigarettes. Most of the noxious substances in tobacco smoke are present in much higher concentrations in the side-stream smoke, rather than in the inhaled (filtered) smoke, including nicotine, carbon monoxide, ammonia and various carcinogens. I believe this is one instance where the individual’s right to breathe clean, safe air justifies some restrictions on his coworker’s smoking. The priorities should be obvious. —STEVEN ROLLHEISER, MD,

Chase, B.C.

Sharing the big boys’ wealth

The irrepressible Allan Fotheringham continues to make total illogic in his columns, including the one of Aug. 8 (Big bucks for the big boys). It is time he and other woolly-headed socialists (I note his hair is growing longer too) began to appreciate that everything that happens in this world is not the exclusive property of the citizenry at large. His first error in logic comes in presuming that because the United States, for some reason, has subjected its corporations to rules that require the disclosure of compensation for its top people, this rule should automatically be applied to Canada. The United States, happily, does not set policy for Canada in many areas. His second error lies in the presumption that everybody is a shareholder. The people who own U.S. and Canadian corporations are the shareholders (not the public, nor the governments, with few exceptions), and they expect the managers of the business to be accountable to them on a wide range of policy areas, only one of which is the compensation paid to management. There is nothing in our society yet, however, that requires every citizen, individual or corporate, to disclose all information about his personal finances and income. One would hope that the time never comes. And Fotheringham has not been too consistent in this column in his lack of disclosure of his own income. Surely the public will now be asking for him to spill his guts about his annual take from various columns, appearances and other noteworthy media events. I, personally, could not care less what his after-tax take-

home pay is, nor do I think that it is anybody else’s business—maybe that is the attitude he should be exhibiting.


Regarding Allan Fotheringham’s Big bucks for the big boys—I agree! Their salaries and benefits should not only be public knowledge in Canada, but the extent of this public corporate rip-off should be halted. During the so-called “restraint period,” we have been inundated with the propaganda that businessmen in Canada cannot make a living. Some living! Just one point for Fotheringham, however. When unemployment is applied “in the ranks of the Liberal government,” does he think his boys in blue—the Tories—will be less “yellow-livered and cowering?”

—NITA M. IRVINE, Middleton, N.S.

One definition of loyalty

I agree wholeheartedly with Birgit Van De Wetering (Census contention, Letters, July 25). I would like to know why those immigrants from other countries came to Canada. Did they not intend to be Canadians? Did they think all of them could turn and be citizens of their former countries? If they did not intend to become Canadians, they should be deported immediately back to the country they came from. As Van De Wetering says, parents can teach their children their language if they wish. No one will try to stop that, but they must learn either French or English if they care to become Canadians. We loyal Canadians resent those immigrants trying to get us to provide money to teach languages other than English or French.

—OWEN J. SPENCE, Welland, Ont.

After reading your pro-French story (The rise of a bilingual Canadian elite, Cover box, July 4)1 do wonder if you will do a story on people who are fed up with pro-French bias. How dare one minority have any more rights than other minorities! If French is legal, then so is Ukrainian. As an apartment building manager, I have English, Polish and Ukrainian signs all over my building. With the right leaders, the state of Alberta will emerge, and we in the West can at last say, “the hell with the French!” — MYROSLAW TOMCHUK,


Sexual symbolism and Sally Ride

Having been given the opportunity to work on the NASA space shuttle program ( on the Canadarm ) and able to meet some of the astronauts, I find Fred Bruning’s column A ticket to a bor-

ing Sally Ride (July 25) rather disturbing. It seems obvious to me that Bruning has a problem accepting the fact that women are no longer confined to the kitchen and bedroom. I find his statement “because she was aboard—a woman in space; think of it! Oh, brave new world ” rather childish and chauvinistic. Throughout his column it seems that Bruning is green with envy to think that a woman could go into space and do just as good a job as a man, especially a woman who can sit and chat with the guys, is married and has a home to clean and dinners to cook, just like any normal person. Not only does she do that, but she is an astrophysicist and has the ability to write and sing. Quite an accomplishment for anyonemale or female. I find it rather refreshing to read about Ride turning down all the publicity and wanting to lead a normal life. Maybe she could, if the press did not make such a big deal out of her being a woman doing “men’s work.” She is doing her job just like anybody else. However, the press insist on making cosmic gods and goddesses out of these people. Maybe Bruning would feel better if Sally thrived on attention and loved to sit and talk about herself all day. I think Sally Ride is in herself an inspiration. She has overcome many obstacles and proved that not only men succeed in the technical world. —TANYA M. WHITE,

Burlington, Ont.

Congratulations! Fred Bruning has proved that behind every successful female lurks at least one male trying to drag her down to his level. “Frailty is what’s missing” from Ride’s personality, says Bruning. It’s okay for the male cartoon character Flash Gordon to be “perfect,” but not Sally Ride. Bruning wants her to be a sex symbol instead—a torch singer in a bar. At best, he would not mind her being a fellow writer like himself, but only of romance novels. Not only does Bruning fear equality between the sexes, but he has the audacity to include a sophisticated Maclean ’s audience in his sexist attitude: of the RideHawley marriage, he asks, “Can you stand it?” Yes, we can. What we cannot stand is Bruning’s blatant male chauvinism. If you have any doubts that your female readers were offended by this column, ask yourself this: would you have printed an article calling black astronaut Guión S. Bluford boring because he didn’t tap dance or eat watermelon? —FAYE SCOTT RIEGER, King City, Ont.

Letters are edited and may be condensed. Writers should supply name, address and telephone number. Mail correspondence to: Letters to the Editor, Maclean ’s magazine, Maclean Hunter Bldg., 777 Bay St., Toronto, Ont. M5W1A7.