A LOT of people don’t like Doug Collins. By Timothy Renshaw Maenaging Editor They don’t like the things he says and they don’t like the way he says them. They tell me in heated telephone calls and heated face-to-face con- versations that he is a neander- thal, a dinosaur, a racist, a homogphobe and a misogynist. He is not right for a community newspaper, they say. They want to put him out to pasture; they want him burned at the stake; but most of all they want his face gone from the pages of the North Shore News so that he will offend no more, so that they can eat their supper in peace. A lot of these same readers are willing to go to extremes to achieve that end. They vow to or- ganize boycotts, write petitions and rally their neighbors. They want the Doug Collinses of this world exterminated. Why is he in your newspaper? they want to know. Have you no shame? In short, Doug Collins bugs them. His words bug them. His face bugs thens. His attitude bugs them. But what realiy bugs them is freedom of speech. It bugs them because real freedom of speech means that guys like Doug — uncompromis- ing, bare-knuckled hard-righters ~— get to say things too. Members of the anii-Collins faction usually tell me they under- stand freedom of specch all right. They know that things can be said from the right. But they are just trying to protect other folk who might not be as bright as they are: like minorities oc children, Kids read your paper, they tell me. They’re going to read Doug Collins, they tell me. Then what? Righteous folk are always trying LUMNIS' he trouble with Doug to protect someone else. They know what's good for the less in- formed. Kids, they figure, don't have a whole lot of sense. Kids might read Doug Collins and go on some kind Gf rampage because he uses the word wimp, because he uses the word wimmin, because he uses the word homo. Righteous folk have trouble thinking that other folk are capable of thinking too, that they MAILBOX Issue calls for compassion Dear Editor: A recent commentary by Doug Collins (*‘Oblivion, here we come,” Nov. 20) on the world- wide refugee situation demands a measured response. The issue he has raised is a serious and com- plicated one, but his ‘‘shoot- from-the-lip’’ redneck approach does little to address it. - Governments of most western, industrialized nations are struggl- -ing to define their immigration policies humanely and equitably. If these policies appear, in recent times, to reflect a bias in favor of refugees from Third World (predominantly underdeveloped) countries, this is simply because the plight of refugees is most severe in those areas of the world where years of war, political strife and economic devastation have virtually destroyed the basic means of survival for hundreds of thousands of human beings. The manifest cost of this displacement, in human life, has been colossal. We ignore it at our peril. Canada, a country uniquely blessed with resources and techno- logy, should be doing what it can to assist these countries and their peoples in recovering from such disasters. Some of this assistance will in- evitably take the form of accep- ting displaced persons into a new home in our country, where they can enjoy the basic human rights that we have long taken for granted. Undoubtedly, abuses of ‘he system have taken place and will continue to do so. However, this seems a small price to pay when so many lives can be saved and so my people given a reason to ive. In more thoughtful corners, there are genuine concerns being raised about the changes in the social fabric and value systems of Canada, as well as other western nations, wrought by the new im- migration patterns. In addressing these concerns about immigration policies in general (and I believe this was the hidden agenda of Doug Collins’ article), we must be careful to distinguish the refugee | crisis in the Third World, which is very real and very pressing. Whether we are considering immigration policies in general or the separate but related refugee situation, our response, it seems to me, should be one of tolerance, compassion and common-sense rather than of vituperative rhetoric and xenophobic bigotry. David Watsh North Vancouver Appalled at Collins’ personal invective Dear Editor: Re: Doug Collins, Nov. 27. Sorry, I've had it with the North Shore News. [ enjoy fin- ding out what’s going on in the community; the zardening articles are useful; so are the classified ads. Some of your writers are great. . But each week I dump 90% of the pounds of newsprint into the blue box, unwanted and unread. Apart from the waste issue, there’s Doug Collins. Usually I give him a miss, but I read him this week, (‘‘Copps cops dunce cap’), and I am appalied. At best he is offensive but this time he’s crossed the line. He’s raving! This personal invective must be defamatery. Surely you exercise reason, good taste and _ responsi- bility when balancing our rights to freedom of speech and the press? Listen, if | want to be exposed to fringe views I can buy a maga- zine or paper with a particular bias. Let Mr. Collins privately print, distribute or otherwise ped- dle his wacky views in the mar- ketplace, but please don’t dump his nonsense on my doorstep any longer. Meantime you should see if you can have Doug Collins checked out. Tim Holmes West Vancouver can form their own opinions. Righteous folk have trouble thinking that other fotk will think differently than they do. And that would be bad. Doug Collins thinks differently than me a lot. ft don't always agree with him. Sometimes 5 know his columns are going to bring a rain of fire upon my head. That is uncom- fortable and upsetting. But, contrary to what righteous zealots would have you believe, the North Shore News is not published to help you doze off in front of a fire. The newspaper is 2 chronicle of life on the North Shore; it is a forum for ideas and opinions from all sides of its readership, not just the side that you might agree with. A lot of people don’t like Doug Collins, but just as many do like him. Some say they don't like him but secretly do. Regardless of where they stand on what he says, they read him. The righteous in our community would have the News get rid of Doug Collins so that his style of stepping on toes and bloodying noses would be a thing of the past. They want to narrow the field of discussion in our newspaper because they think the width of that field is upsetting some peo- ple, mostly them. But, while it would make righteous folk happy, narrowing that field would be a toss for everyone, tt would narrow the focus of debate; and it would send the po- Jiticafly-correct rightcous zealots victoriously searching for another target, another way to further narrow the field of discussion so that all would be safe and right with the warld. We need more discussion, not less. Freedom of speech is a damned annoying thing. It allows people to say things that you don’t agree with. Montreal massacre remembered Dear Editor: On Dec. 6, Emily Murphy Transition House remembers the 14 young women gunned down in Montreal two years ago at L"Ecole Polytechnique. We must also remember the over 100 women killed each year by spouses or boyfriends. it is a time to remember, and to mourn their deaths, but it must also be a time to affirm that the violence perpetrated against women and children across the nation must stop! Emily Murphy Transition House North Vancouver THE PROSPECT of Quebec separating from Canada is looming. The North Shore News recently asked 434 readers their views on separation. Have you ever visited or fived in Quebec? Over 37% of respondents had visited or lived in Quebec, while 62.4% had not. Are you in favor of Quebec separating from Canada? The overwhelming response was “no” at 72.1%. And 88% were in favor, while 18.1% did not know or did not care.