To the Editor:
I’ve noticed that the majority of letters to the editor/opinions that have been published in the Journal seem to be very pro-Conservative and now anti-NDP. I would like to comment on a few points in the letter to the editor published on June 28 titled “New Democrat wonderland unsustainable.” I suppose I could be considered one of the “youth” that the writer referred to as having been attracted to left-wing politics that “concerns” him.
1) The writer commented on “Mr. Layton’s flat refusal to cut the party’s ties to organized labour” and that we now know where his “allegiance truly lies.” Yes, and we now know that Mr. Harper’s allegiance lies with corporations, and not with the workers in this country.
He set a dangerous precedent when he not only legislated Canada Post workers back to work after the corporation called a needless lockout but also legislated their wages lower than what the corporation had offered. Perhaps Mr. Harper should instead have capped the executives’ salaries (and hefty bonuses).
2) The writer also said that the NDP keeps people from doing what they should do for themselves. What the writer is perhaps forgetting is that there are lots of Canadians that can’t do for themselves. Look at all the homeless in Toronto. Do you really think that if they wanted to, they could provide for themselves? A lot of these people have mental disabilities for which they’re unable to afford help.
3) While the writer says that he believes that post-secondary education is getting more expensive, he also says that it’s a privilege and not a right, and that the government shouldn’t interfere with the cost. He also stated that people can work without going to college or university and still be successful. I agree with that, depending on where in the country you live.
Also, you need to keep in mind that if you don’t allow post-secondary education to be more accessible, there’s always going to be a huge division between the rich in this country that can afford the higher education (and thus continue to get the high paying jobs, and continue to be rich) and the poor that can’t afford to send their kids to school (and thus their families continue the cycle of struggling to make ends meet, or not making ends meet at all if there aren’t any social programs to help them out).
4) The writer sees nothing wrong with having Canadians pay for at least some medical services, and that the NDP is dreaming when they think things like healthcare should be “paid for by someone else.”
There seems to be a misconception that if the NDP were to be in power, they would just keep spending us deeper and deeper into an even bigger deficit. That doesn’t have to be the case just because they believe in doing the right thing and helping those in need. They could, for example, spend less on unnecessary fighter jets, big useless prisons, and the misguided drug war.
5) Finally, the writer finishes by saying the electorate is split “between those who value and defend the principles of freedom, individual responsibility and self-reliance, and those who seem to staunchly defend that the world somehow owes them a living, and that the government exists to solve their problems.”
That’s not how I would define the split. I would say it’s between those who value individual responsibility and self-reliance, keeping the status quo, and not helping others in need versus those who value progressive values, helping people in need, and allowing people to remain proud Canadians.
Not everyone have the means to improve the quality of their life, and I think by being so against NDP values, we risk leaving millions of Canadians behind without ever having a way to survive or thrive.
Shauna Cox
St. Paul
