Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Brussels Post, 1978-03-15, Page 2errAFAMIIMIO Brussels Post MUSSELS ONTARIO WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1978 Serving. Brussels and the surrounding community. Published each Wednesday afternoon at Brussels, Ontario by McLean Bros.Publishers Limited. Evelyn Kennedy - Editor Dave Robb Advertising Member Canadian Community Newspaper Association ' and Ontario Weekly Newspaper Association fe CNA,' ' Subscriptions (in advance) Canada $9.00 a Year. Others $17.00 a Year. Single Copies 20 cents each. Sewers when? Snow patterns Behind the scenes By Keith Roulston Few absolutes Will Brussels get sewers this year or not? That's the $64;000. question. Brussels citizens can be excused for being angry at /hat looks like stalling on a project that's crucial ,to the future of this village. Home construction plans are affected by the uncertainty. No one wants to invest $2,000. in a septic tank system that'll be obsolete as soon as the village is sewered. Much needed road work in Brussels is held off because no council wants to pave roads that'll soon be torn up with sewer construction. It could even be argued that industrial and commercial development in the village is stymied because the sewer situation is so uncertain. Until last week's council meeting; nothing had - • been heard from the Ministry of the Environment to indicate that sewer construction would not begin April 1 of this year, the most recent starting date used by the Ministry. There had been no sign though of tenders being called or contractors being signed. Last week Brussels council learned the..reason for the lack of action. The province has no money, Reeve Krauter was told. by local MPP Murray Gaunt, for sewers for Brussels. Council is going to protest strongly to the Ministry, stressing the need for sewers here. That's a good idea, especially since it was the Ministry's own staff that was so concerned that the village get sewers at the OMB hearings on the subject here a few years ago. But councirs protest may not have much effect on the province. One of the notable things about sewer projects subsidized 75 percent by the province, is how little say municipalities have over them. It's perhaps understandable that in a time of economic restraint, the province would postpone sewer construction, here. But if that's the case, we ask them where's the urgency that was so great a couple of years ago when Brussels was practically divided in two over whether to sewer or not. If the province can't give us a straight answer on when we can expect sewers, council's next step perhaps should be to tell the Ministry to forget the whole, thing. BruSsels'll stick to septic tanks, they could say. At least :then, we can go ahead with our business and build our houses and repair our roads. To the editor: Hockey mom says thanks Thanks for a great weekend. I would like to take this opportunity through your newspaper to say "Thank You" to the people of Brussels for an enjoyable Iveekend of hockey and a good time on Mi-rch 4 ,and 5. A special thankIstto the people who were kind enough to billett our boys. They all enjoyed themselves, and for many it was a ` whole new experience. We found the people of Brussels very friendly and so we really felt as though we were among friends. Our hats go off to you for the beautiful job you have done building your arena and Community Centre. Good luck to you all in the future. On behalf of the team, coaches and parents, we all say "Thank You Brussels". A Hockey Mom, 10 Carroll St. Mrs. Shirley Accursi Welland, Ont. There are few absolutes in modern life and. morality doesn't appear to be one of them: The recent national convention of the Liberal party for,instance, passed a resolution calling for the decriminalization of marijuana use. The convention didn't go so far is to say that the use of the drug should become legal, but it did say, the penalty for use should be reduced. As few as five years ago that would have been unthinkable for a major Canadian political party to take such a stand. Some will see the move as healthy. Some will think it didn't go far enough. Some experts argue that marijuana is no more dangerous than regular cigarettes or alcohol and these are not only legal but a major source of government income. Frankly I don't know much about the issue and I don't care much one way or another what is done about it. There's one aspect of the decision, however, that is troubling. The Liberal party's resolution on marijuana seems to show once again that we have no definition of what is right or wrong other than the majority's wisheS on any particular subject. Five years ago; • use of drugs, such as marijuana was • considered a major moral. problem. The main argument for changing the law seems to be not" so much that we've found out that marijuana is not as strong a drug as we thought, but that so many people are now using it. It seemed to be quite all right to have harsh treatment of those caught using the drug as long as it was only a relatively small number of long-haired creeps. But today more respectable people like lawyers and professors are also using it so we need to soften the law. We saw the same kind of thing with the • changing of abortion laws in Canada. Abortion didn't become legal because suddenly we came up with a more safe way to. perform the operation. It didn't come' about because of a drastic need (ironically abortion became legal at a time when for the first time in 'history there' were fool-proof contraceptive methods). The change in the abortion law came about because a large proportion of the population came to the point of wanting to make use of abortion. There was no real decision of right or wrong, simply a political decision of how many, Were for and how many against. Now you may agree or disagree with these law changes but the prospect of morality by . majority mule remains a very dangerous one. We are drawing ever closer to the issue of euthanasia in North America. It seems , fantastic to us now, but whatif the niajority. of people felt it was better to end the lives of people once they had passed their "productive" age? What if, instead of getting a gold watch on retirement, you got a cyanide pill? Under our present manner of deciding the morality of society, it could one day come true. We are, after all, reaching a point where the number of people older than the retirement age will become so large that it will put a heavy economic burden on society. The young generation today that is deciding the pot is fine and abortion is all right will some day be in a position when they will be a burden on younger members of society. They might well find themselves in a position of finding that the new majority, the people still "productive" think it quite all right that Grandma and Grandpa be snuffed out, (oh quite humanely of course, perhaps while they slept.) Yes it seems preposterous but then 20 years ago it seemed impossible that abortion would ever become legal and 10 years ago few would have seen a major political party taking a. softer stand 'on marijuana. If majority rule is acceptable for moral issues it seems quite possible that if the majority of people felt it was all right to murder your neighbour than the law would be rewritten. There's one large counter-measure to the present trend however. All polls show that if there was a plebiscite on capital punishment the majority of people would be for it. Yet our legislators continue to rote against the issue whenever a decision must be made in the Parliament. What this seems to show is that it's not so much what the majority feels on moral issues but what the majority of the elite group that makes up our legislators feel. Members of Parliament have a remarkably similar background. The majority are lawyers and nearly all come from relatively wealthy, .middle-class backgrounds. The morality of this group then. .can often decide the morality of the nation, at least as far as legal laws mean morality. Thus marijuana became more acceptable 'when the middle-class professionals accepted it. Thus abortion became legal when middle class professionals accepted it. Lord help us if the lawyers decide that it's quite all right for people to be beaten to within an inch of their lives for non-payment of laW fees,