Why Marianne Alto + Rose Henry should not be supported. PLEASE VOTE “NO” IN VICTORIA REFERENDUM 2010

 

 

 

QUESTIONABLE POLICIES OF THESE TWO CANDIDATES ARE SHOCKING 

 

Out of eleven candidates seeking the now vacant Victoria City Council seat, only three are women: Marianne Alto, Rose Henry and Susan Woods.

While it is commendable that these citizens, all of whom have sought the office before, have returned to try again, two of them, Marianne Alto and Rose Henry, would be unsuitable as a Councillor, and therefor neither of these two ladies should be supported by Victoria voters on November 20.

Marianne Alto

ALTO: WANTS TO TEAR DOWN THE BRIDGE

Marianne Alto was identified as the only candidate in favour of tearing down and replacing the Johnson Street Bridge in a recent article by Bill Cleverley in the Victoria Times Colonist.

While that information has subsequently been proved to be incorrect, because Candidate Rimas Tumasonis also supports Marianne Alto in upholding that ridiculous position, Marianne Alto’s support for the YES side automatically disqualifies her as unsuitable to serve as a Victoria City Councillor.

Marianne Alto’s bookmark propaganda, found by this writer on a table in the narthex of the Metropolitan United Church last week, has the legend ‘CUPE 2081’ at the bottom, betraying an allegiance to a special interest group, organized socialist international Big Labour.

That suggests that every time contract negociations come up with the City of Victoria, Marianne Alto would vote to give her fellow CUPE-NDP-VCE travellers in socialism a raise.

While that might be great for the rank and file in that union (and that would include my own cousin who works for the City), it would not be good for the vast majority of Victorians, who are already burdened in this recession by tax increases that defy economic reality.

 

ROSE HENRY: Barely literate… 

[Ingmar Lee photo from First Nations website]

Rose Henry is barely functionally literate, having just recently learned to read and write, but is apparently not yet proficient enough in the English language to write her own propaganda material.

She has a four page pamphlet that is written by others, thus we don’t really have a good sense of what she thinks in her own voice.

Even when she does talk in public in her own manner, her thoughts are often disjointed, rambling, and frankly, off-topic.

It is a mystery to this writer what voters who have never seen or heard her in action see to support in this candidate.

A vote for Rose will be a vote for social justice and an effective way to challenge the barriers of race, class and gender privilege that typically prevail in political decision-making,’ says a letter from the Rose Henry Campaign Team.

If people vote for Rose Henry because she is a poor unemployed Aboriginal woman, they are voting for all the wrong reasons.

Should voters be expected to vote for a candidate who makes a big deal about her race, her socio-economic status and her sex?

That would not be any more appropriate than if I was to ask you to vote for me next time because I am a well-off Caucasian male.

It must also be noted that New Democratic Party leader Carole James has handwritten a letter, reproduced on Rose Henry’s pamphlet, that appears to give her some encouragement, which surely must rankle Marianne Alto!

 

– Gregory Paul Michael Hartnell, 

CONCERNED CITIZENS’ COALITION

Victoria November 12, 2010

CCC

Susan Woods is the Publisher of the Moss Rock Review, and has a six panel pamphlet with endorsements from a half dozen prominent people, including former Victoria City Councillor Martin Segger, Linda Foubister, Past President, Rockland Community Association, Bernard von Schulmann, Land Use Consultant, Stewart Johnston, Lawyer, Kevin Smith, Maple Leaf Tall Ship Adventures owner, John Sanderson, Past President, Victoria Esquimalt Harbour Society .

While Mr. Segger’s endorsement of Susan Woods is significant and impressive, it should be noted that Susan Woods was somewhat ambiguous on the Johnson Street Bridge issue, at least as far as I understood it, expressed in her pamphlet.

Before it was corrected for better clarity, Susan Woods’  first campaign pamphlet stated: ‘Susan is opposed to borrowing $49.2 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge.

[GPMH EDITOR’S NOTE, NOVEMBER 18: THIS QUOTE ABOVE IS QUITE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, BUT THE NEXT ONE WAS THE PROBLEM, WHICH HAS NOW EFFECTIVELY BEEN RECTIFIED. – GREGORY HARTNELL, EDITOR.]

‘She believes that a less costly alternative needs to be found for the repair or ultimate replacement of the Bridge, and other important infrastructure projects must be addressed.’

It is that very important phrase ‘or ultimate replacement of the Bridge‘ that voters should pay attention to.

It suggested to this reader that Susan Woods WAS not quite so convinced of the need to save the heritage bascule bridge as other candidates such as Barry Hobbis, Hugh Kruzel or George Sirk are.

The other night at the Metropolitan Church, when asked whether she would seek alternative sources of revenue to replace the Johnson Street Bridge, in the happy event of a NO victory, she said she would not.

This apparent contradiction made me wonder at what point would she start considering that ‘alternative,’ because her pamphlet clearly stated that one of two options she would consider is ‘a less costly alternative… for the ultimate replacement of the Bridge’  is what she believes ‘needs to be found.’

There seemed to be a radical disconnect between what Susan Woods first pamphlet said and what she later said at the Church on Wednesday night, and I thought when I noticed these things that she owed the good voter-citizens of Victoria an explanation.

[Nov. 4 Editor’s note: Susan Woods has effectively acknowledged these problems in comments below where she now clarifies for the historical record that she is in favour of repair, and has revised her pamphlet and website to clarify this. – Gregory Hartnell, CCC BLOG Editor]

She supports ‘food sustainability’ and using the E&N Railway to import ‘farm products from around the Island’ to Victoria.

These issues, which are interesting, are not priorities, and are not top of mind for many people.

They would be better left pursued by private interest groups, and are not matters for public policy.

Shockingly, she says nothing about homelessness or poverty issues.

To their credit, both Marianne Alto and Rose Henry (or those who wrote her pamphlet) put those issues high on their priority lists.

Lest readers think that I am somehow prejudiced against women candidates generally, I counter with this: women have only themselves to blame if there are not enough quality female candidates in Canadian elections.

The ultimate goal of our society should be a complete parity of numbers in terms of sexual representation, but this goal should not be mandated, nor should it be pursued merely in terms of quantities of  female candidates, but rather their quality should also be improved.

Only qualified Canadian women themselves can do this.

 

Gregory Paul Michael Hartnell, President

Concerned Citizens’ Coalition

CCC

 

VOTE


 

[For links to the candidates’ websites, please refer to the Comments section below.]

Advertisements

8 Responses to Why Marianne Alto + Rose Henry should not be supported. PLEASE VOTE “NO” IN VICTORIA REFERENDUM 2010

  1. goyodelarosa says:

    MARIANNE ALTO:

    http://mariannealto.ca/

  2. Susan Woods says:

    Thank you for the coverage. I also wish to clarify my position on the bridge. I want to see it repaired absolutely. My comment about ‘ultimate replacement’ was made in the context of there being a “yes” vote returned in the Nov 20th referendum. In that case, I would lobby for a less costly design to save money, resources and the rail.

    My position (if there is a “no” vote which is what I hope for) is for a full review of all REPAIR options and to explore how refurbishment could be achieved while ensuring access across the bridge at all times to ensure the viability of commerce. My concerns about borrowing 49 million is the lack of financial support from surrounding municipalities – the new design excludes rail, which would be imperative in the future to link commuter rail to downtown transit – and the Blue Bridge is an important heritage asset.

    I have now updated my webste to better clarify my position on this important issue – and my brochure has also been updated. (electsusanwoods.com)
    Thanks! Sue

  3. Susan Woods says:

    PS – And I do have a position on homelessness, of course. I just deliberately choose to talk about other things. Because someone does not always mention homelessness does not mean they don’t care, or have opinions, or good solutions. Indeed, I have very personal experiences and insights into the issues – but best shared in person rather then a few sentences in a brochure. Meanwhile, I’m happy to answer any questions about my postion on transportation, affordable rental housing, amalgamation, the cultural health of our city, downtown safety, how to keep taxes under control, and I’ll be a strong advocate for a value-for-money audit at City Hall. I am not burying my head in the sand about social issues – and look forward to one day being in a poistion to have an affect on public policy in this regard. Cheers Sue

  4. goyodelarosa says:

    Hi Susan:

    Thanks for taking the time to clarify these things. I will format your comments into a new posting so that they do not get lost to the readers’ attention.

    Very sincerely,

    Gregory Hartnell

  5. befuddled says:

    Really? I went to high school with Rose and she could read and write then…

  6. Ruth says:

    If Rose Henry is, as you claim, ‘barely literate’ why does that make her a poor choice for election to Council? She is a poor person – and poverty can be a barrier to full literacy. I would suggest that her poverty and (if true) inadequate literacy would place Rose Henry a lot closer to those people she would like to serve on city council.
    Her views you can certainly criticize if you don’t agree with them. The ‘barely literate’ comment is a label, on the same level as a bully’s cruel schoolyard taunt meant to shake the confidence of a weaker kid. I hope that you are better than that.

  7. goyodelarosa says:

    Thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: