Outside the Budget

Re: The Operating Budget (News, December 10). I was struck by this sentence: “But perhaps the biggest line item removed from the budget outside of County Road 1, was a $954k for a drinking water booster station for the Pineridge Subdivision.”

While we understand the fiscal responsibility of keeping tax increases to an acceptable level, the recent decision to eliminate the sorely needed water booster station for the Pineridge residential development comes as a huge disappointment.

Since 2018, residents of Pineridge have been paying inordinately high water bills, linked to the lack of even reasonable water pressure in our homes. Measured at the incoming municipal water supply, we live with a meagre 28 PSI. Typical water supply in Ontario homes measures between 50 – 80 PSI. 

The results for Pineridge mean running taps much longer to generate hot water, or  replacing the over-worked pressure pumps installed in each home to supplement the inadequate water pressure, as two examples.

In a more responsible municipality, this water booster station would have been included as part of the approved development plans, not somehow excused from the developer’s responsibilities.

I wonder if we had the clout of Base31’s housing development plans, would it make any difference?

Doug Anderson, Picton  

There was no Debate 

Re: True Discussion Recognizes Multiple Perspectives (Letters, December 3). As one of the organizers and the MC of the September 20 educational presentation at the Picton Library, “Is Canada Complicit in a Genocide?” I am writing to clarify some misinformation in Dr. Pierre LeBrun’s recent letter to the editor.

The event was not a debate but a public educational presentation and discussion. Framing the issue as a debate diminishes the seriousness of the offences Israel has committed and implies that well-established international law is subject to debate when considering military attacks on civilians and crimes against humanity. It also implies that a “debate” in Picton, Ontario is somehow determinative in concluding that a genocide is being committed. That is a job for the ICJ, which has found a plausible cause for genocide, and 38 nations have identified Israel’s actions as genocide. 

Unfortunately, the ICJ has been hampered in conducting its important work by Israel’s disregard of its jurisdiction and Israel’s non-compliance with its orders.

Dr. LeBrun says the use of the word “genocide” is inaccurate. However, a review of international law as interpreted by the UN, international legal experts, genocide scholars (including Israeli ones), and globally respected humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières concur: what is unfolding in Gaza meets the definition of genocide under the Geneva Conventions.

Dr. LeBrun complains that the event did not provide a forum for those supporting Israel to express their point of view. The discussion portion of the event was moderated, which is standard practice for an educational event. While it’s true that the Q&A portion was not a free-for-all, the substantive contents of all the questions submitted in writing were put to the speakers (some in aggregate due to duplication). This included questions from Zionists in attendance, challenging the speakers on certain points. All of those questions were answered fully, factually, and respectfully. Not liking the answers provided to their questions is one thing. But to claim that there was no chance to ask questions or to challenge points from the presentations, and therefore that what unfolded was one-sided, is inaccurate and misleading. I should also note that anyone was welcome to attend our event, and we did not bar entry to those who did not agree with our perspective.  To call this “not a discussion at all” ignores what actually happened in the room.

Dr. LeBrun claims the speakers’ backgrounds are problematic and were presented without context. The speakers were all introduced openly with their affiliations and viewpoints. They were invited precisely because they hold informed, engaged perspectives on the topics of Palestinian rights, human rights law and lived experience. The speakers were Palestinian, Lebanese and Jewish. Resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of engaging with the evidence presented is a distraction from what was discussed. Audience members were free to challenge the speakers, and some did.

The biggest flaw in Dr. LeBrun’s letter is that he claims to defend “honest, balanced conversation” while delivering a highly selective and unbalanced account of the event.

Doug Appledoorn, Bloomfield