The Hub would love to hear from you. Email your letters, articles, photos, drawings, cartoons, YouTube or Vimeo links to [email protected].
Editor, The Hub
Linda Myles Gallinger, Chair of the Tom Thomson Gallery Board is quoted as saying in the SunTimes, May 20 that the Tom Thomson Gallery Board will have to undertake a complete rethink of their plans for needed expansion of the facility. This is good.
We speak as 45 year members of the Tom Thomson Gallery, and as active participants in the life of the gallery over that time. We both have been members of the Board, Judy has been Chair of the Board twice and Ken has been City Council appointee. We continue to be seriously engaged and interested in gallery plans, especially the gallery’s future.
We make the following three points with respect to the much-needed review:
Editor:
The Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW) National office has just released its analysis of the recent federal budget. CFUW, Owen Sound and Area Club's response is the following edited and abridged version of that three-page analysis.
BUDGET 2015 WHAT'S IN IT FOR WOMEN?
This year's budget is heavy on tax benefits, as well as additional support for women
entrepreneurs and women in the corporate sector.
WOMEN'S ECONOMIC SECURITY
There are no specific initiatives to promote job creation for women or enhance their
economic security. There is little investment for low-income women.
EDUCATION
CFUW points out the need for the federal government to increase its investment in
post-secondary education to 0.56% of GDP, and specifically earmark those funds to
transfer payments to provinces and territories. This action will help defray university
operating costs and help universities reduce tuition fees.
Editor,
Owen Sound Hub:
Irony: Council agrees to stop praying before meetings, because that would be an exclusive practice, and refuses to even consider an amendment to the Flag Policy, which would make the City more inclusive.
I was extremely disappointed in the behaviour of most Owen Sound city councillors at the meeting of May 11. A request was made to consider the current Flag Flying policy of 2006, and add an amendment to allow any local community group to have their flag on the standard which is affixed by the front doors of City Hall, as long as that group is one that abides by and honours the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By a vote of 4:3, it was decided that Council would not even agree to reconsider the outdated policy. In the light of recent anti-Semitic, racist, and homophobic events, one would think it's time for the City to take a more inclusionary stand. In addition, does Council not realize that the policy has already been breached at least twice, and for that reason alone, needs to be reconsidered? Thanks to Councillors Richard Thomas, Marion Koepke, and Peter Lemon. The rest of you: I expect better.Sincerely,
Joan Beecroft
Owen Sound,ON
To the Editor:
I would like to express my disappointment at Owen Sound Council's May 11 decision to avoid discussion regarding the use of a second flag in front of City Hall.
As Maryann Thomas said in her excellent deputation, using the small flag standard affixed to the building by the front doors, to fly the flags of any community group that honours the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,would be a great opportunity for Council to demonstrate a welcoming attitude to residents, visitors, newcomers, and diverse community groups. This would further support the motto: "The Place You Want to Live".
Unfortunately, Council voted against even discussing the pros and cons of this issue, What a missed opportunity....
Terri Hope
Owen Sound
by David McLaren
This letter is not to disagree with Kimberley Love's recent letter advocating a strategy to deal with mental illness, including the kind of alienation that can lead to radicalization. A police response is certainly required after shots are fired, but something more than even Bill C-51 is needed to prevent disaffected young men from picking up a weapon in the first place.
This is something students at Walkerton's Sacred Heart High School taught me when I visited there a little while ago. And it's just one of the many reasons the NDP voted against Bill C-51. Here I must clear the record made murky by Ms Love's letter, that "Both the Liberals and the NDP have grudgingly accepted that the Bill should be amended – not revoked."
The NDP vigorously opposed the seriously flawed Bill C-51 and offered amendments—as one does in a democracy. None were accepted, so the NDP voted against it. The Liberals voted for Bill C-51 saying they will amend it if they are elected.
That position earned Mr Trudeau this rebuke from a UBC student: "Sir, I must say that supporting the Bill that you know is dangerous while promising to reform it when you've been elected to government is tantamount to putting our rights hostage, and our vote is our ransom."
The government's amendments notwithstanding, Bill C-51 will do more to curtail our rights and freedoms than ISIS has done. That is why New Democrat MPs are vowing to revoke, not just amend, the legislation should they be elected to government.
I would invite Ms Love to check the NDP Twitter feeds and Lead Now's facebook page at Leadnow.ca - À l'Action (postings dated May 7).
CopyRight ©2015, ©2016, ©2017 of Hub Content
is held by content creators
