Summer Letters

Notably, Fetherling misrepresents Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson’s view that “most think tanks are a waste of time” by failing to quote his further point: “The Institute for Research on Public Policy . . . and a couple of other smaller shops offer good value. They ask a question, conduct research, and reach a conclusion.” We do not advocate answers to policy questions; we let our research results speak for themselves. Fetherling may be right that advocacy groups disguised as think tanks muddle Canadian democracy, but the irpp only strengthens it.

Mel Cappe
Institute for Research on Public Policy
Montreal, QC

In his article on think tanks, George Fetherling takes a shot at the Conference of Defence Associations by quoting from Amir Attaran’s February 21 Globe and Mail article: “[The cda] got $500,000 from dnd last year. That money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash.” In response, it should first be noted that $500,000 is the total grant we will receive from the Department of National Defence over a five-year period, provided a number of requirements are met, and subject to yearly Treasury Board approval.

More important, however, the cda makes no apologies for receiving that funding. Originally formulated under the previous Liberal leadership, the conditions for the annual grant are meant to keep the cda at arm’s length from dnd. Since its founding back in 1932, the cda has both agreed and disagreed with the government, always taking a non-partisan and independent stance. For instance, in the 1990s we criticized the Liberal government for not doing enough for the Canadian Forces; we now applaud the Conservative government for wanting to address the neglect of previous decades. That our opinions occasionally dovetail with government policies does not imply that we are their mouthpiece.

Alain Pellerin, Colonel (Retired)
Conference of Defence Associations
Ottawa, ON

Gloves Off
Jan Dutkiewicz and Jeremy Keehn’s “Grounds to Pound” report on mixed martial arts (May) is one of the most depressing articles I have read in a very long time. Most discouraging is its lack of serious analysis. The rise of mma marks a significant change in Western society, which banned most blood sports during the nineteenth century, in the name of Enlightenment values and an aversion to pandering to the worst of human instincts. What has changed in our society that makes violence increasingly acceptable? Or, more to the point, what has made it almost impossible for those who oppose the legitimization of competitive violence to mount a credible campaign against it?

We need to take a critical look not just at the sport, but at its two sets of actors: the fighters and the spectators. When a person engages in behaviour he knows will hurt him and could possibly even kill him, should we not suspect him of suffering from some psychopathology? What about someone who seeks to inflict pain? And yet mixed martial arts fighters are considered sane, even heroic, and paid for their efforts.