Gender had nothing to do with Cooper exhange
Rather disappointed in the article by Jennifer Hamilton in the March 16 Gazette regarding the exchange between MP Michael Cooper and Minister Melanie Joly. I feel my perceived bias in Hamilton’s article reflected poor journalism at best, and perhaps a flawed attempt to cast dispersions on a sitting MP at worst. I am not a member of any party, and rather apolitical by choice. Lately much of the mainstream media's bias against the Conservative party, and accompanying strong pro Liberal tone is quite noticeable and distasteful. It makes me wonder if much of what is reported can be trusted to be reportage and not political propaganda.
Michael Cooper did not raise the matter of Minister Joly looking deeply into the eyes of her Chinese counterpart — she did. Read the transcript of that committee meeting. If Cooper then uses that very self-stated action which Minister Joly cites demonstrates her firm and decisive action to let the Chinese official know that the Canadian government would not tolerate foreign interference in Canadian politics/elections, then Cooper's sarcastic suggestion that this must have intimidated her Chinese counterpart is both appropriate and rather far more gentle that perhaps it should have been.
This is our foreign affairs minister letting another country know we do not approve of their meddling in our internal democratic affairs. Joly is the one who chose to cite her 'looking deeply into his eyes' as part of her strong response to express our outrage at what was done. Hamilton mentions none of that earlier exchange. I guess then I too question the minister’s ability to effectively carry out the duties of her office if looking deeply into the eyes of a counterpart is supposes to have any meaning or significance.
I do not accept that gender bias or sexism has anything to do with this exchange. The hue and cry of some other MP's that is was a sexist action by Cooper points out just how silly and irrelevant much of what happens in federal politics has become. Political parties of all stripes and flavours need to work at being appropriately transparent, forthcoming with relevant and concise answers to questions and situation and not offer the deflective, repetitive and usually irrelevant verbal assault on sharing meaningful information with each other and especially with the citizens. To me, it only adds more fuel to the fire of the convoluted and misleading gibberish that is presented by the political parties as good governance and accountability when the media allows itself to be used to further the silliness that has become all too acceptable, or even worse perhaps chooses to further a bias or position that it wants to promote. To quote Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet fame, ‘Just the facts.’ Opinions, biases and interpretive positions can certainly be included, but they do need to be identified as such. After all, I want to trust what is reported as accurate, fair and unbiased.
Walter Hambrock, St. Albert
Article on Cooper coverage was more positive than negative
I write about Mr. Walter Hambrock’s letter of Mar. 23 criticizing your reporter Jennifer Hamilton’s coverage of MP Michael Cooper’s controversial comments on an exchange between him and Federal Minister Melanie Joly.
Ostensibly it’s a letter by a self-described “apolitical” commentator. His main points are: the mainstream media is anti-Conservative and pro-Liberal and so can’t be trusted; Minister Joly used the phrase “looking deeply into her Chinese counterpart’s eyes” to highlight her resolve in discussing matters with them; MP Cooper used the Minister’s words only sarcastically to reference their Parliamentary Committee exchange; and, MP Cooper didn’t display gender-bias or sexism when he mocked Minister Joly about her choice of words to describe her meeting with the Chinese.
Mr. Hambrock criticized Ms. Hamilton’s article about the Cooper controversy as showing anti-Conservative and pro-Liberal bias. He doesn’t mention her other article in the same edition, one twice as long and full of “facts” concerning Cooper’s commentary on the need for a public inquiry into election interference. Overall I think Ms. Hamilton gave MP Cooper more positive than negative coverage in that edition of the paper.
Minister Joly described staring down the Chinese using a phrase often linked to romantic descriptions - “… staring deeply into his eyes …”. Another speaker might have said “...stared him or her down ….”. MP Cooper used this link to her words to belittle Ms. Joly in a clearly sexist way.
Mr. Hambrock wrote a clever letter. He hid behind supposed political neutrality and said that in his opinion any reported outrage over MP Cooper’s comments is unwarranted due to the overuse by all parties of political bafflegab, rather than just using facts and figures regarding issues. He even quotes the TV show ‘Dragnet’ … exhorting politicians to use “Just the facts”.
He wrote that “…Cooper’s sarcastic suggestion that this (i.e. “looking deeply”) must have intimidated her Chinese counterpart is both appropriate and perhaps far more gentle than it should have been”. He also wrote “Joly is the one who chose to cite her ‘looking deeply into his eyes’ as part of her strong response to express our outrage at what was done.” He then complains Ms. Hamilton didn’t mention this.
I think Mr. Hambrock’s statements reflect the often-used excuses of many men who rant and rail against women – that “She deserved it”, or “She asked for it”.
It’s unsurprising that he wrote to The Gazette to, firstly, complain about a female staff writer and, secondly, to defend Cooper’s sexist remarks. In my opinion his letter clearly proves that both Mr. Walter Hambrock and MP Michael Cooper are cut from the same cloth.
David Merritt, St. Albert
Cooper would have had the same response for a man
Mr. David Merritt would like to think tough cross examining of a member of parliament is somehow sexist. Mr. Cooper would have displayed the exact same response to a man. Several times during question period Minister Melanie Joly has refused to answer questions in relation to Chinese interference. Any obfuscation from a member of parliament or government official should be consider an act of secrecy and likely some level of corruption. Obfuscation in a board room in the private sector will get you out the door awfully quick. It's a shame dialectic discussion is taking a back seat to long standing beliefs. Other areas of society and public discourse have put more focus on consensus rather than scientific method.
Marc Racine, St. Albert
Politicians need thicker skins
Jennifer Hamilton's story regarding "sexist" comments by MP Michael Cooper are completely inaccurate and shows Minister Natalie Joly's insecurities when put to the task of telling Canadians the truth.
For the comment(s) to be sexist there has to be a direct reference to gender, none was ever infected.
Minister Joly is blatantly hiding behind these false accusations to deflect the public's focus and MP Cooper's direct questioning of her abilities, that which is Cooper's right, as a representative of his constituents. I stand and applaud Mr. Cooper for being direct and stern in his questioning.
Furthermore, for MP Rachel Blaney to recite an account of her being asked if she was " tough enough" for the job, that is also not sexist, but a fair question of a person's ability to preserve.
My Grandma always said " if you can't handle the heat. Get out of the kitchen!"
Maybe we need politicians to grow thicker skins.
R. Girardin, St. Albert
