Tenacity: keeping a firm hold (Oxford Concise English Dictionary)

Dear Mr. Peiris,

From: Jim Pankiw
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 1:46 PM
To: 'Peiris, Sarath (The StarPhoenix)'
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor

In follow-up to my most recent email (February 21, 2012), I insist that you reply to my invitation for a public debate.  If your apprehension derives from a fear of public speaking, then I assure you that I am completely amenable to debating a designate of your choice.

Open public discourse about this issue is long overdue.

Sincerely,

Jim Pankiw 

From: Jim Pankiw
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:51 AM
To: 'Peiris, Sarath (The StarPhoenix)'
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor

Dear Mr. Peiris,

Thank you for your email of Feb. 13, 2012.

Your reference to “…informed discourse…” vis-à-vis special race-based privileges for Indians is confusing because I think that factual rebuttal of a misleading front-page story certainly advances informed discourse.

To advocate a “…two-way treaty relationship…” and distinguish “…rights of aboriginal peoples.” As special and distinct from people of other racial ancestry is misguided*; however, your reference to “…moral and legal imperatives…” is apropos-because it sets the table for a frank debate about what (as a society) our moral and legal imperatives should correctly be.

*My suggestion is that we host a luncheon which will feature a debate about the solution to the problem of Canadian citizens who are of Indian ancestry (I’m sure that we can come to a mutual agreement as to the format); and that we each designate a cause to which we wish the proceeds of the luncheon to go: to be individually chosen by each patron upon conclusion of the debate.

I invite you to embrace the opportunity to defend/debate your moral and legal imperatives to benefit the cause of your choice.     

I eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

Jim Pankiw

From: Peiris, Sarath (The StarPhoenix) [mailto:SPeiris@thestarphoenix.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:33 AM
To: Jim Pankiw
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor

Mr. Pankiw,

To publish or not publish any submitted  letter always has remained the prerogative of the editor.

We consider that you have shared your opinion on this subject frequently and at length over the years, and your letter doesn’t advance the informed discourse in this area. From the courts to the political leaders such as the prime minister to society in general have move on to greater understanding of the two-way treaty relationship between Canada’s First Peoples and the Crown. To continue to portray the discussion  as a race-predicated one instead of one involving moral and legal imperatives is to ignore the advancements being made globally  in recognizing the rights of aboriginal peoples.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Sarath Peiris         

From: Jim Pankiw
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 8:43 AM
To: Peiris, Sarath (The StarPhoenix)
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor

Mr. Peiris,

Thank you for your response, but I respectfully request an explanation as to why you will not publish a ‘letter to the editor’ that quite clearly contradicts and accurately corrects the misinformation contained in the front page article of the Star Phoenix on Jan 27, 2012 with the headline ‘Urban reserves gaining acceptance’.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Jim Pankiw

From: Peiris, Sarath (The StarPhoenix) [mailto:SPeiris@thestarphoenix.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Jim Pankiw
Subject: Letter to the editor

Dear Mr. Pankiw,

In response to your query, we will not be publishing your letter. Thank you for your thoughts.