Letters: Lowering the volume makes sense, and not just to appease the neighbours

Montreal Gazette

a day ago

Neighbours of loud establishments are justifiably unhappy about the noise emanating from these venues. But what about the customers and employees inside?
Prolonged exposure to excess noise levels is a well-known cause of hearing damage. Reducing sound to a safe level would benefit them, too. And there's no reason why they wouldn't enjoy the environment just as much.
Tim Skene, Montreal
Lift language barriers, too
Quebec has introduced Bill 112, designed to ease some interprovincial trade barriers.
However, I don't find it terribly encouraging to know that a tradesperson from another province can come to Quebec and start working immediately — yet much-needed family physicians from other provinces generally have to pass a French-language proficiency test before being permitted to start the practice of saving lives.
This seems like another case of misplaced logic on the part of the CAQ.
Let's encourage everyone to come to work in Quebec by eliminating language barriers.
Allen Rubin, Westmount
$61-billion dome helps us how?
Re: ' Golden Dome? No, thanks; we don't want it ' (Opinion, June 10)
So here's the deal on Donald Trump's Golden Dome as I see it:
First scenario: North America gets attacked by nuclear weapons from whomever. The Americans, to save their cities, try to destroy the missiles over Canada before they reach the U.S. border.
Result: All the fallout falls on Canadian cities.
Second scenario: We have the Golden Dome covering the U.S. and Canada. The missiles start flying and, once again, the Americans try to destroy them over Canada before they obliterate some U.S. cities.
Result: All the fallout lands on us again, with no assurance that any U.S. anti-missiles are targeting hostile missiles heading for Canadian cities.
Third scenario: We invest $61 billion into our own defence and learn to take care of ourselves.
Jerry Trudeau, N.D.G.
What qualifies as rebellion in the U.S.
In dispatching the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell federal immigration policy protests, President Donald Trump relied upon a legal provision allowing him to do so when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government.
I assume then that the infamous Jan. 6 rioting at the Capitol in Washington did not qualify.
Ian Copnick, Côte-St-Luc
Submitting a letter to the editor
Letters should be sent by email to [e-mail]
We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette.
If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one.
Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication.
Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation.
We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer's argument.
Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or 'open letters' addressed to third parties.
Letters are published with the author's full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published.
We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.