Today’s letters: Sorry the word ‘occupation’ offends you, convoy lawyer

Article content

‘Occupation’ was the right description

Re: Zexi Li, convoy protest lawyers spar at organizers’ criminal trial, Oct. 16.

Article content

So the trucker convoy’s lawyer thinks Zexi Li’s repeated use of the word “occupation” to describe the convoy invasion is “irritating” to her ears? I’m surprised, given that she is deaf to irony.

How does she think three weeks of trucks’ air horns sounded to the beleaguered citizens of Ottawa? It wasn’t “easy listening,” trust me.

Article content

And if the convoy leaders’  lawyer doesn’t like the word “occupation” to describe what took place, I would happily settle for another term, such as “pestilence” or “plague.”

Whatever it was, it certainly was not a friendly visit, nor even a peaceful protest, to judge by the attitudes and slogans (“F**k Trudeau”, etc.) prominently displayed by the truckers and their more rabid supporters. No wonder local citizens were not just disturbed and intimidated, but angry.

But I suppose the convoy lawyers’ objections are reasonable, from their point of view. If you are going to defend the indefensible, you have to rearrange the language a bit.

Jack Pyl, Ottawa

A mere ‘protest’ would have been fine

How ironic that the lawyer for Chris Barber objected to Zexi’s Li’s continuous use of the word “occupation” as “very irritating to my ears.” I wonder how irritated Barber would have been if he’d actually lived through the non-stop honking until that brave young woman stepped up to challenge the truckers on our behalf. And the judge saying she would have preferred Li to use “protest” or “demonstration” to describe what she was experiencing. Well, wouldn’t we all have preferred to be witnessing a protest or demonstration instead of that awful occupation.

Article content

Barbara Coyle, Ottawa

Deachman overlooks Lansdowne problems

Re: At the Lansdowne 2.0 forum, one voice stood out — in favour of the proposal, Oct. 12.

Bruce Deachman fails to note some central concerns.

The public forum on Lansdowne was well advertised and open to anyone who wanted to attend. The fact that there were very few, if any, attendees from outside the city core is a comment itself about the importance of the Lansdowne debate outside the central city.

Yes, there is a major affordable housing emergency in Ottawa. Anyone who believes that $6 million to $8 million out of $419 million will make a dent in that crisis is deluding themselves. And what does affordable really mean in a sea of the high prices Lansdowne now offers?

Increased population density with already inadequate public transportation is an obvious trap. Anyone who has driven on Bank Street during rush hour, or when there is an event at Lansdowne knows Bank Street cannot carry the traffic density it already has. No amount of juggling lanes is going to solve that problem. There is just nowhere for the traffic to go.

This is the third time the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group has asked for more money to patch a ship that is going to sink anyway, no matter how much money you stuff into the holes.

Len Burnstein, Ottawa

Article content