Balancing Trump and Islam
Your headline Trump launches war on Islam (3 February) may be correct, but perhaps encourages the ego of the POTUS by investing in him the authority of personally generating a war. Perhaps it would be a better way to avoid war by stating US launches war on Islam or Republican Party declares war on Islam. The Guardian could employ this in any description of US policy. This will put pressure on power-brokers from both parties in Washington, and millions of voters in the US, to take ownership of the POTUS’s decisions, and if they disagree with them, to act, rather than simply blame one man and stand by.
Matthew Serventy
Geneva, Switzerland
• The front-page article in the 3 February issue, while largely fact-free, included enough data to enable readers to conclude that the travel ban applied to a small minority of the worldwide Muslim population, probably less than 10%.
Since when does a 90-day travel ban on 10% of Muslims constitute a “war on Islam”? I don’t believe degrading the language serves your interests or those of your readers.
Robert B Martin
Sedona, Arizona, US
• Your headline Trump launches war on Islam is not true. Trump is against Islamic terrorism – he is not against Islam. Moreover, the headline is dangerous, as it can be quoted by Islamic terrorists as proof that America is at war against Islam.
Under your headline is a sub-headline: Fears rhetoric will play into the hands of terrorists. Ironically this is true of your own headline.
Roy Clarke
Huddinge, Sweden
• Although I agree with the message of your editorial, Trump’s anti-Muslim orders: not in our name, (3 February), I take exception to your rewriting of Pastor Niemöller’s famous quote. He never said “First they came for the socialists”. What he said was “First they came for the communists”. There is a significant difference. By watering down the original quote, you water down your own message.
Christopher Powell
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
• There is nothing exceptional about the loser of a case condemning the judge’s competence. Prisons are full of them.
Adrian Betham
London, UK
Both sides of Brexit
Here in Australia, Brexit is only one of many international unfathomable events. Naturally, it is mostly crowded out by Trump and China, but for me Polly Toynbee’s article about Ken Clarke’s speech (10 February) was so very sad. It seemed to capture the agony of those with a well-found fear for the future of the British economy.
One can only admire the members who voted against their party, in particular those few from the industrial constituencies. The leadership of the Labour party should be ashamed of itself.
Steve Thomas
Yarralumla, ACT, Australia
• I have no idea what prompted Will Hutton’s rant (3 February). However, the last sentence of this article is telling. Millions of UK citizens, myself included, have witnessed the (seemingly irreversible) decline of the UK for (at least) the last 40 years. Mr Hutton, like many others, would seem to be blissfully unaware of this decline – which may or may not have been partially caused by our membership of the EU. When the real economy has not been working for so long, then change is certainly better than doing nothing, and the EU referendum was (maybe still is) an opportunity for change.
When there is nothing else left to lose, the status quo is not an option.
Geoff Smith
Stanley Village, Staffordshire, UK
Vanuatu shows the way
At last! A group of islands that have shown the way (10 February): to sustain local agriculture; to reduce or prevent obesity; to keep a population healthy and thus cut the cost of health services. I would also add that this builds community, involves children in the process of growing and using food they have seen grow from seeds, and thus create an understanding of the natural world and the place of humans in it more than any school subject can.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this glimmer of hope in a disturbed world. And thank you to Torba province, in Vanuatu, and the remarkable Father Luc Dini. Would we had such common sense here.
Patricia A Bryden
Edinburgh, Scotland
How protest can help
I could not have agreed more with Suzanne Moore (27 January) regarding the necessity of protest in today’s increasingly bewildering world. Critics may well argue that showing your opposition while marching with placards in the street is pointless and confused, but no struggles were ever won while sitting on the couch watching TV.
I couldn’t help but feel that Moore's article and the sports article preceding it – regarding women's football and the profile on the American striker Alex Morgan – were related. I felt as if Morgan’s conclusion that the fight for women’s equality on the pitch will never be over and that “we will always have to fight for our rights” could refer to women’s position in the world in general.
The great tragedy is that today, many women don’t understand this, and think that there is no battle.
Susan Cormack
Cáceres, Spain
Briefly
• The Guardian rightly criticises President Trump for, among other things, offending American values. But in your 3 February edition you fall into the same error you criticise. Steve Bell’s cartoon featuring Donald Trump and Theresa May needlessly offends public standards of decency.
Michael Payne
High Wycombe, UK
• Certainly a robot could never replace the nurturing mother breast feeding her child (10 February). However, a robot could replace the man who, disturbed from his sleep, rolls over and drifts back to sleep, ruminating on how robots could never replace the nurturing mother.
David Walker
Bicton, WA, Australia
• Why all the fuss about gay weddings? Couples stay together through love despite what church and state decree.
Edward Black
Church Point, NSW, Australia
• An article (3 February) says that “in 1538, 18 Charterhouse monks voted not to recognise Henry VIII as the head of the church and were hung, drawn and quartered”. I'm sure the author intended to say they were hanged, drawn and quartered.
John Bottomley
Annapolis Royal, NS, Canada
• I learned many things from GW, but the most surprising was that Super Bowl has nothing to do with lawn bowls or even 10-pin bowling.
Ted Webber
Buderim, Queensland, Australia
• The article by Robin McKie (27 January) reports a study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluding that “… eating less meat could reduce global mortality by 6-10%”. Amazing. I would think that global mortality, for whatever species, has been and will be … 100%.
Paul Scotti
Auckland, New Zealand
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com – please include issue dates and headlines for articles referenced in your letter
