Dear Editor,
This is a first letter to the Editor for me for some time. I thoroughly enjoy reading NGT and presently I am absorbed by all content regarding elections. I regard myself as non-partisan. In my 75 years I often voted for a candidate based on skills, experiences, capability and demeanor. More often, I voted for a candidate who would represent and support a particular requisite platform for the area and current time.
The ‘letter to the editor’ on September 26th from Mr. Bill Vanveen disturbed me for his dichotomy of expression. Unfortunately, Mr. Vanveen did not support or constructively recommend a well informed, rational evaluation of a candidate He presented a negative put down of one candidate. The dichotomy seen is
1. the letter was an erudite, powerful expression of opinion, albeit based only on his evaluation of her remarks at the meeting. Mr. Vanveen wrote as a well-educated, well informed citizen; however,
2. the letter used a demeaning, perhaps misogynistic, definitely negative commentary and utilized a literary Simile prosecuting one female candidate.
These two behavioural stances of the writer demonstrated an almost hypocritical validation in order to explain his “terrified” take of the comments by Nancy Peckford at the ‘Mayoral Candidate Meeting’. Writer Bill Vanveen sets up his diatribe firstly by dissing Mayor Gordon. Perhaps he self-justified it assuming he was safe attacking one whom he may wish to be a waning politician. More importantly it is telling of the character of the writer who takes this protected method of attacking and disrespecting the service given by a serving mayor. We may be ambivalent about elected members of our current council; however, surely any critique of them deserves some praise for their sacrifices and accomplishments.
Bill Vanveen also characterized Ms Peckford as “like a Kathleen Wynn liberal(sic)…”
What are we to conclude that he wants his reader to interpret from that? I think I know. He is determined to use his canvas to paint the pejorative picture of a “Wynn” politician superimposed with the simile of a ruby-slippered Dorothy from the “Wizard of Oz”.
At that point I realized the author of the letter was neither well-informed, nor learned. He just sounded that way initially. Is he alluding to a defined ‘ilk’ that he believes is anathema to his personal governance values? Is Mr. Vanveen asking us to believe, that Nancy Peckford should be dustbinned by all voters because he heard words that he did not want to hear or not hear from a type of person? Here is where I am confused: Wynn-like politicians, women, liberals, Liberals, or those who traverse yellow-brick roads? What is his intended message other than he felt uncomfortable in considering her? It was a very confusing letter that left out any references to the strengths of candidates other than the one he personally favours.
Graeme Waymark, retired TBS Exec. CPA and a non-partisan opinion writer.
