Politics in CSANews

Fall 2011 CSANews Issue 80  |  Posted date : Sep 02, 2011.Back to list

Dear Bird Talk,

We really look forward to our copy of CSANews, and fully understand Ross Quigley's point in the summer 2011 issue. A large part of the purpose of CSA is to put political pressure in the most appropriate area in order to benefit Canadian snowbirds. And you need to report on your successes (and failures, if any). So, in reporting these efforts, politics in relation to snowbirds is going to be part of the magazine content.

And we have to say that we find the articles informative, useful and well-written. We are already discussing with our auto insurer any consequences of our annual five months out of Ontario, something which we had not previously considered.

However, we can see no rational reason whatsoever for a blatant religious piece such as that by Michael Coren in this issue. Perhaps you can explain to us what this has to do with Canadian snowbirding. Whether we are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhists or agnostics is totally irrelevant to our enjoyment of winters in the sunshine.

We were really tempted to cancel our subscription, but decided to first ask you why the item was even considered for inclusion. Also, we expect that, on balance, the benefit gained from membership exceeds the aggravation from such irrelevant articles. We can, after all, simply turn the page.
But we would much prefer that you do not include such irrelevant items in future issues. We are getting too old to be stressed out like this.

John and Gillian Mann
Ottawa, ON


Response:
Ed: The last thing we would ever want is to create stress for anyone. My apologies if we did so. I read the article and was of two minds on its inclusion. My first reaction was just like yours - what does this article have to do with us? Basically nothing!

My second reaction was that this was really a book review, by the author nonetheless, so somewhat biased, too. Coren, love him or hate him, is our columnist and we value the time and effort he spends on our behalf. I concluded that no harm would be done by including the article and some people would certainly have an interest in the book itself. My mistake was not putting it where it belonged – in the Book Review section. I will turn the page, too.

Another reader, Abe Zemel, was also unhappy with the column. He suggested that we print exactly what we wanted as various subjects. This is a great idea! Please tell us what YOU would like to see.