Farming onslaught the real risk
A Canterbury farming leader says it could be ‘‘very very dangerous’’ if environmental ‘‘extremists’’ are elected to ECan (July 9). Dangerous, perhaps, but to the continuation of farming’s onslaught against New Zealand’s terrestrial habitats, wetlands and rivers.
Farming interests have for too long used their domination of regional councils to push their developments through with minimal recognition of environmental costs.
Also, they do not appear to take into account the cumulative effect of their activities over time. For example, only 10 per cent of wetlands remain.
If farming group leaders want their members to be regarded as respected custodians of the land then they themselves should first recognise there must be limits to development to protect our groundwater, waterways and remaining wetlands.
Bernie Calder, Southshore
Who’s extremist?
The Federated Farmers spokesperson claimed it could be ‘‘very, very dangerous’’ if environmental ‘‘extremists’’ are elected at the next ECan elections in 2020 (July 9).
At a presentation by Canterbury District Health Board last week at the Ecan Selwyn Waihora Water Zone Committee meeting in Lincoln, the presenter outlined the very real threat of young babies developing Methaemoglobinaemia (blue baby syndrome) from high nitrates in Selwyn drinking water. This is a serious and potentially fatal illness.
This seems like a very, very dangerous situation to me. ECan has stated that 95 per cent of nitrates in Selwyn water originate from agricultural production and that levels are projected to rise by at least 50 per cent in coming years.
In light of this, it seems apparent to me that labelling people advocating for better water quality as extremists is a pretty extremist position itself and very, very dangerous.
Mike Glover, Springston
Charity questions
One of the most significant failures in the new charity accounting reporting standards is not requiring charities to have to explain to the public why they are accumulating funds that donors intended to be applied to charitable purposes, not banked.
We read that the City Mission is to ask Christchurch City Council – in other words the ratepayers of Christchurch – for assistance in funding one of two outreach social workers whose task will be building relationships with rough sleepers and beggars in the city.
The City Mission is part of the Social Service Council of the Anglican Diocese. Since
2012 the council has amassed
$48 million in cash, term deposits and investments, an increase of $22m on its 2012 holdings.
What does the council intend to do with these taxpayer-subsidised funds, and why cannot it afford to fund both of the social workers itself?
Dr Michael Gousmett, Adjunct Fellow, School of Humanities & Creative Arts (History) University of Canterbury
I won’t be silenced
Re the editorial on vaccination (July 9), the words ‘‘zealotry, jerks, intolerably wrong-headed and stupid’’ were all used in this deplorable opinion piece.
The ad hominem scale illustrates that the denigrating and name-calling of those who hold an opposing view is the lowest form of argument.
Well, it won’t silence me. I fully support the right of parents who have taken the trouble to extensively research vaccinations and decide what is best for their children, either way. I also support the right of New Zealanders to have access to a water supply that is free of medication.
Sadly, it appears The Press is no longer a place where readers are free to express their views if they differ from what the current establishment considers to be correct without insult.
I note also that in this paper any letters against the mass medication of the water supply with fluoride are not permitted to see the light of day.
In my view, The Press is no longer a free press. This is a tragedy.
Mary Hobbs, Mt Cook