A global scourge

To the editor:

All around the world, organizations and individuals honored Nov. 25 as International Day to End Violence Against Women by pledging to act in their families, communities, and workplaces to protect women from abuse and servitude.

It is especially important that we Mainers mark this day by doing everything possible to stop domestic violence, a shameful statewide criminal and social problem.

Readers may ask, “But what can I, a single individual, do?”

“A great deal” is the answer. Men and boys must be active in cultivating respect for women and showing by word and deed zero tolerance for violence against women. And women can be encouraged to stand up to abuse and to report to authorities when they feel threatened.

Global violence against women costs millions of lives and causes terrible suffering. It takes many forms, including abuse by spouses and partners, rape as a weapon during wartime, trafficking in women, so- called honor killings and forced marriage. Almost one out of three women worldwide has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise mistreated.

The United Nations campaign to stomp out violence against women is underfunded but is making some progress. As Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile, now a UN Undersecretary General, reported recently: “Stopping violations of women’s human rights is a moral imperative. … The impact of such a scourge on society — psychological, physical and economic — cannot be overstated.”

If you wish to assist this effort, you can contribute to the UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women.

Here in Maine, let’s all work hard to reduce and then eliminate domestic violence.

Jack Thompson
United Nations
Association of Maine
Phippsburg

Polling place problems

To the editor:

The inside of the Nov. 8 Brunswick polling site is well organized, and once again I was in and out of there in only a few short moments. However, getting to that point is a real problem.

First, there are no signs to navigate how to get to Brunswick Junior High School, where voting took place, and I spent a great deal of time going up and down all these little side streets trying to find the polling place. It is not my neighborhood nor do I have any reason to know how to get around it. Going to vote after work, when it was dark, did not make it any easier.

Once I found the very dark school and parking area and underlit entrance, I had to drive in, around and out of the parking area several times before I finally ended up parking out on the road and walking back through the dark area.

Once at the building, I had to literally force myself past some rather aggressive candidates and others trying to get the attention of the voters.

Voting in Brunswick should be held in a well- lit, easily accessible location for everyone. The high school would be an easy access, well-lit location.

Once I was done I then had to try to figure out how to get out of this dark neighborhood and ended up totally in a different area than I intended to be.

Let’s make voting as easy on the outside as it is on the inside. I almost didn’t go this time because I was concerned that none of this had been dealt with since the last election held there. And I was right. Nothing has been done to improve lighting, parking or any other concerns.

Deb Hannigan

Brunswick

Way off target

To the editor:

I am writing in response to the Nov. 21 Monday Meter opinion titled “A safer society.”

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, one would hope that a newspaper would, at least, have an informed opinion. In response to a state legislator’s comment on a how an armed society is safer, you stated that there was a flaw in that logic and that “Armed citizens didn’t step forward to stop a gunman who targeted the president’s home.”

The flawed logic is yours and that flaw only proves the Pro- Second Amendment argument. Armed citizens could not step forward to stop the gunman in Washington, D.C., as law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms in the District. It has been proven time and time again that regions with few firearm restrictions are safer.

Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C., are all areas that severely restrict an American’s right to carry a firearm. They are also hotbeds of violent crime.

Your lamenting over the 800- yard range was also hilarious. Any modern hunting rifle (and most old ones) will travel out to 800 yards and beyond with ease. While I do not condone this type of activity, this suspect appears, in my opinion, to have been only launching pot shots at the White House.

Again, your opinion is uninformed.

The recent outrage over the TSA screenings resurrected the phrase, “ Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

You need to apply that phrase to all freedoms and not just the ones you like.

As to your citing the numbers, you would get a more objective commentary from the DailyKos on Republicans than accurate statistics on guns from Brady group.

Michael Frelk

Bath