Letter to Editor

I was not familiar with the story James J Read of Huntly was referring to in his outburst to the Times. The writer comes across as emotionally manipulative. By saying they’re sure the readers, will have every sympathy with the families, especially the children; it’s like they’re saying the readers should have every sympathy. Every sympathy…just how many are there? The reader reads as if they have put their full body behind their words, emotionally loaded words at that. By adding especially the children as an additive, strengthens the concern that reads off the page.

It was their ‘fervent’ (keen, fanatical, burning) hope that ‘good may come out of misery …’ well can any good actually come out of misery? In this situation where a store is held up by armed burglars, young kids are scared for their lives…how could good come from that? Are they supposed to say well there’s a lesson to be learnt here…or thank goodness they chose our store to brandish a gun in? It seems odd to me that a matter of being held up could have some merit. However it is when the writer refers to ‘all Asians’ and classes them ‘among our fellow citizens’ he comes across as benignly racial. Is he being racist though? He doesn’t say all Chinese or all Japanese, he doesn’t single out a country but could he be seen as offensive by classing the mentioned as all Asians? The 45 percent Asians …this reads as having the potential to be offensive depending on what you deem as racism. This is a statistic that hasn’t been backed up, he doesn’t mention where this percentage was found and what starts out as a letter of concern about the ‘traumatic events surrounding the robbery’ ends with the rallying of basically those voters he classes as Asian and yet to be enrolled. It also seems that the writer is influencing the readers with their own political views on aggravated robbery. He tells them to call on those who make it into parliament to increase the penalties of armed robbery. Which implies that the writer believes this will make a difference to the common occurrence of shops being held up.
It has me questioning the purpose of the letter really, just what social constraints are in place here. Why is he targeting (as he put it the ‘Asian) community?

The other letter to the editor I looked at was concerned with an over-population issue. Frank Bailey of Hamilton ranted about a world over-population to be exact. He speaks of the world having to put a ‘nuclear holocaust’ behind us. Meaning what exactly? A nuclear holocaust, it’s not clear what he is referring to here. Perhaps he is digressing briefly on the potential for society to create our own disasters? That we bring it on ourselves? To go on and say that we know have to face an emerging global warming problem is false. The problem is not emerging; awareness of the problem is emerging. The global warming as they call it has been present it’s only now that the majority are sitting up and noticing. So to say that an exploding population can only ‘exacerbate’ that, presents the writer’s understanding of the issue is flawed. Would an increase in population really act as a catalyst to something beyond our control? What’s another few million going to do to the world? To say that for too long the number of children has been largely a matter of personal choice, is to contradict his self. As he goes on to say that this often depended on the parent’s religious persuasion…says who? What evidence is there of this? None, he’s merely speculating that a certain religion influences large families. In the writer’s eyes a woman having seven children under the age of 12 ‘encapsulates’ over-population. The writer seems tense and uptight about this issue. He refers to the woman’s children as seven offspring and questions their ability to have seven kids each itself in 30 years time. . Again too long, but this time too long the West has talked about Asia’s “teeming millions”. When has the whole West done that? The writer tends to generalize views to prove a point. Stating that it is important to know the population of China is half of the U.K. Again there is the lack of source acknowledgement, just where did he get this ‘fact’ from?

He appears dismissive of China’s human right’s approach by referring to it as their questionable ‘record’, and applauding their one child policy. ‘To say the least…’ is really to say it all. He not once has just mildly stated something, in saying it is the least important of his argument is a lie as the letter finishes at a controversial and insensitive angle. ‘...whatever contrary views the vocal anti-abortion lobby may have.’ There is a lot to say about this finishing sentence. 'Contrary views’? Vocal lobby? His choice of words discard the implications of abortion, what it entails as he is making out over-population is the bigger picture. How about global abstinence?! Wouldn’t that better the over-population situation? What he is suggesting is to keep procreating but to kill the embryo as we don’t want anymore people thank you. Has he forgotten that we eventually die? Who does he think will be left if we minimize our family life to one or at the most two children? What will this mean for those who can’t have children, who have to have IVF treatments and incidentally end up with triplets or more?