Freedom Flyer 4

Sir: If there was one thing clearly illustrated by Del Bell in his column of Dec. 11, Time for London to go big league, it was the contempt with which he regards the London taxpayer.

Claiming that "it is always easier, particularly in this town, to organize the can't-do, won't-fly, anti-everything crowd," Bell saw London's tax-financed bid to host Pan-Am 1991 as a "challenge" to "the parochial mindset of a town that can but won't." To add insult to injury, he applauds Mayor Al Gleeson "for trying to drag this city kicking and screaming into the big leagues..."

If Bell can publicly support London's Pan-Am bid while admitting that the city has to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the venture, then he's telling us that despite the fact Londoners oppose the idea, he knows what's best for them and where their priorities should lie.

By attempting to dismiss the strength and validity of our documented opposition to the city's bid (i.e. by trying to deny the reality of the situation), and in the clear ansence of any objectively documented evidence to support his view, Bell predictably found himself resorting to mysticism - in this case, his "axion of human nature," that "opponents respond, proponents yawn."

I'd like to see Bell apply his ridiculous "axiom" to other political issues. Since most people remain silent and inactive on the issue of abortion, does that make them "pro" or "anti"? How would he know? And what about those who didn't vote in the last election? Do we just assume that they "yawned" in support of the NDP, the political party with the least amount of documented evidence (i.e. votes) for support?

Naturally, Bell's "axiom" is merely a ruse to disguise a cleverly-orchestrated attempt to get at the taxpayer's pocket, an attempt whose success virtually depends on the average citizen having his guard down. Let him try to deny that those "intangibles like spirit and pride and a sense of accomplishment" require our very tangible dollars. Let him try to deny that the Pan-Am "bid" is, in reality, a "bid" for the involuntary expropriation of those dollars from our pockets.

The "axiom" to which Bell should have referred is really an axiom of politics, not one of human nature: namely, that all political issues are eventually determined by minorities - those minorities who choose to participate in the political process. I cannot imagine how, in this age of big government, lobby groups and special interests, Bell possibly arrived at his conclusion that "proponents yawn." Nonsense! Everybody who's politically active is a "proponent" of something; the differences between various "proponents" lies not in whether they're "for" or "against" something, but in what they're "for" or "against", and in the methods they advocate to achieve their goals.

Let it be clearly understood that our group makes no claim to anyone's support who hasn't voluntarily and explicitly offered it to us and, as a consequence, we have no choice but to reject any claims of "support" based on any other criteria or imaginary "axioms" that always seem to suit the interests of those who promote them. As to the negative "anti-everything" image with which Bell would smear us, I can only respond that both myself and those associated with me through the Freedom party of Ontario have for quite some time been earning a local reputation as "proponents," thank-you-very-much, of individual rights, responsibility and freedom. If Bell finds our opposition to the tax-financed Pan-Am games to be inconsistent with these principles, I invite his challenge.