Letters - Mar 13/14

Mar 12, 2014

Re: Closure of Piccadilly Hall

In reading Nicki Gowdy's letter I hope council has some answers for its residents. I was very saddened to hear of Bill Synder's passing. He was a man with a special passion and dedication for the betterment of Central Frontenac. He was our rock for our end of the township.

Now the concern in regards to the closing of the Piccadilly Hall is full of many unanswered questions and great disappointment with our mayor and council. I look back over the past five years and shake my head. There has been money spent on this hall to update it. It looks great and serves residents from Central Frontenac and South Frontenac.

Let’s throw more money out the window once again. Fix up the old Hinchinbrooke school to service our community. Yep! The school board closed it because it did not meet standards. How much will it cost us taxpayers to bring it to standard? My hope is that it doesn't meet the same fatal blow our hall did once the money is put into it.

Easy decision for council to make. Pic Hall is at the southern most point of the township. It will never be missed. Wrong! Very wrong.

Sharon Shepherd

Re: Fair Elections Act

Canada is facing a democratic crisis. Preston Manning recently claimed that “The greatest challenge to our electoral system is the steady decline in voter turnout in elections. Let’s strengthen our capacity to address that.” He also says the government should “strengthen and expand, rather than weaken, the role of Elections Canada“

The electoral reform bill that is currently before Parliament does not address either of these issues. In fact, it will do the opposite.

By removing Voter Information Cards as valid identification, this bill will make voting more difficult for thousands of Canada's young voters, elders, and those who must travel to other parts of the country to work.

This so-called “Fair” Elections Act also takes investigative power away from Elections Canada, who is already unable to compel testimony from those under suspicion of voter fraud in the last two elections.

The bill actually forbids Elections Canada from engaging in public information and outreach programs that encourage voting.

These measures undermine voter confidence and engagement. So do things like removing spending limits on fundraising and putting the winning party in charge of polling stations, instead of a mix of neutral citizens.

Throughout your career your writings on record and your statements before the House have shown that you have thought long and hard about fair electoral reform.

As Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform you said: "I would like to see reform to Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system, which allows MPs to sit in the House of Commons when they have won as little as 30% of the vote” and as recently as last November you presented Parliament with a petition to that effect from your constituents.

In your article “The Road to Electoral Reform“ you demonstrated clearly that the only way to get truly fair election reform, untainted by the self-interest of the big parties, would be through a nationwide consultation with voters. You wrote, “I am advocating that Canada should use a preferential referendum whereby voters would place a ‘1’ on the ballot beside their preferred option, a ‘2’ beside the option that they like second-best, and so on.”

Please do not support the bill in its current form, and raise your voice in the House of Commons in support of broad public consultation on any electoral reform. In your heart I believe you know that the interests of Canadians are not served by partisan manipulation of the electoral system.

Steev Morgan

Re: Fair Elections Act

The Harper government’s so-called “Fair Elections Act” is about to pass, disenfranchising thousands of voters in the next federal election, among the elderly, youth, students, the poor and Aboriginals. Is this because they are likely not to vote Conservative? On March 6, Scott Reid, our Member of Parliament, went on and on about the one example of voter fraud that occurred in the 2006 election. So, Scott, does thousands wronged make one right? Yes or no?

Ken Fisher

Re: Marriage and Charter

About Jule Koch’s rant about homosexuality verses heterosexuality in the March 6th paper. I think Jule missed the mark on this one; Jeff Green’s commentary on Quebec’s secularism was spot on! The Quebec government is discriminating against visible sectors of the Canadian society and using religion as the basis for their argument.

Jule’s argument about men and women getting married for the sake of having children is ludicrous. Maybe she got married for the sole purposes to breed and produce children. I on the other hand like some people got married because we fell in love and wanted to spend the rest of our life with someone we could trust and share our life with; whether heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

I was also shocked by the comment concerning; “the state does not want to have to pick up the pieces and support the adults (usually women) and children who are left behind when their primary providers (usually men) move on.”

I have seen the opposite moving on process and men get hurt too! Now this statement is out right sexist! When you as a couple decide to have children; or maybe adopt, why is it the man who is the primary provider? The 1950’s are long gone; Mr. and Mrs. Clever are but a memory. The Bible that I have read and have done research on has one major theme, God, created us all in his/her likeness. We are all his/her children and he/she loves us as a Sheppard cares for his/her flock.

So that being said, I have a question, If we happen to give birth to a child, who over time expresses homosexual behavior, do we as parents or a society cast them out because of his or her love orientated tendencies? God I hope not!

That is not love and freedom of self expression. That, Jule, is discrimination and secularism and does not meet with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ian Whillans