The May issue of The Walrus contained this article by Daniel Stoffman. An illustrative quote:

Because they are amateurs, homegrown terrorists prefer soft, undefended targets — a restaurant rather than a military installation, a bus rather than a hydro dam. And because they are part of the community, they are hard to detect. “We have cases of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants converting to the most radical forms of Islam…"

The author perhaps hopes you will supply your own, "…because we all know white Anglo-Saxons could never be terrorists." The paragraph also opens with one of many misleading or patently false assertions about terrorism and terrorists.

Stoffman seems to be an author of xenophobic books, a troll and doubtless enjoys spitting in people's soup—so be it. I would still read his writing, and gladly, if it were at all constructive. What distresses me most is that The Walrus has chosen to waste ink on the cheap sensationalism, fearmongering and demagoguery of publications I deliberately choose to avoid supporting. Instead, strive for forward-looking, intelligent, creative discussion. Publish the controversial, by all means, but don't publish the merely bad.

If you like, read more of my disappointed logorrhea on The Walrus' website.


comments powered by Disqus