LETTERS

LETTERS

April 4 1988
LETTERS

LETTERS

April 4 1988

Difficult questions

LETTERS

Abhorrence of terrorism and its perpetrators is a universal dictum, and exceptions of sympathy for those involved, such as Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, are almost without precedent (“A terrorist’s hidden past,” Canada, Feb. 29). The dictionary defines a terrorist as one who uses violent and intimidating methods to secure political ends. Canadian journalist and policymaker Gerald Caplan in a recent article asks: “Would former terrorist. . . Menachem Begin be refused entry? Or former freedom fighter President Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Or Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan, all of whom have been responsible for massive state terrorism against innocent civilians in tiny countries, and who have blatantly and repeatedly lied about it?” Indeed, questions difficult to answer. —BERT SNELGROVE,

Barrie, Ont.

Olympic commercialism

How astute Mr. Fotheringham is in pointing out the commercialism of today’s Olympic Games (“For the glory of ABC and Skippy,” Column, Feb. 22). I cannot help but wonder if he ever stopped to ponder the feasibility of the Games without such corporate sponsorship. I think he would find that most people put up with commercial idiosyncrasies and demands in order to watch or take part in the greatest amateur sporting event in the world. — F.E. AGRO,

Hamilton, Ont.

Being the subject of Allan Fotheringham’s sarcastic penmanship, as regular

0 LJ2 efl~ F - F C L-'-C~ •~ 1f~4 C - © LJ~ z z

readers of his column we know what fine company we keep. Then, to have it reported that our volunteer clothing was “designed in New York by ABC” is the ultimate compliment. For the 10 local volunteers who designed the clothing and picked the colors, to be confused with a design house in New York is praise indeed. We chose the “weird colors” for just the reasons mentioned—they add to the pageantry and look terrific on TV. Thanks for noticing! —DONALD MANNING,

Volunteer Chairman, Clothing OCO, Calgary

According to the editorial in the Feb. 22 issue (“On with the show,” From the Editor’s Desk), Maclean's had 15 people covering that week’s report on the Olympic Games. Wrong! You had 16: Allan Fotheringham’s piece said it all.

-JEAN-PAUL PROVOST, Montreal

Principles of law

Congratulations on your excellent and timely editorial “The supreme authority” (From the Editor’s Desk, Feb. 8). You have clearly identified the danger involved in grafting U.S. constitutional features onto our Canadian system without also employing the safeguards inherent in the U.S. system. We know that the law is just what the Supreme Court says it is and not necessarily what the legislators thought they were enacting. To have the law interpreted in the light of personal opinion rather than on the sound basis of recognized principles of law must be a matter of serious concern to all thinking Canadians. -ROBERT MCCOY,

_Nepean, 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.