Friday, May 27, 2005

Angry Rural Residents

Farmers in the Ottawa area are clashing with the city and the province of Ontario more and more frequently. The latest salvo is a city hall move to ban roadside stalls which local farmers currently use to sell their wares. No more going to the local farm to buy corn on the cob for the BBQ!

No wonder there is a "THIS LAND IS OUR LAND – BACK OFF GOVERNMENT” movement!!! Some are even calling for a new province for rural Ontario - like Nunavut (which was carved out of the NWT).

Now we have Alberta, Quebec, and now rural Ontario "separatist" movements! How long are people going to accept the status quo in Canada? Things are not getting better - it's better to change now and be proactive instead of waiting for the roof to cave in!

13 Comments:

At 27/5/05, Blogger Question Period said...

This land is your land? Then it's okay to set up a roadside stall under the terms of the proposed bylaw. It only applies when the land isn't your land. You missed that point.

 
At 27/5/05, Anonymous pale said...

I thought that public land was my land ... I guess you are right - it must belong to the city government.

 
At 27/5/05, Blogger Question Period said...

Then you won't mind me setting up my body rub parlour on public land then. It will save me a few bucks.

 
At 27/5/05, Anonymous pale said...

Yes, kids selling corn is the exact same as your rub parlour - I conceed - your logic overhelms me!

 
At 27/5/05, Blogger Question Period said...

So, it's our land but you get to decide how to use it? How about a car dealership then? Can I put a car dealership on public land? A church? Can I put up my own stand and compete with the farmers?

You might not like my logic -- that's fine. I don't like your lies.

 
At 28/5/05, Anonymous pale said...

That begs the question - why have these criminal farmers been aloud to have roadside stands for the past 100 years?

 
At 28/5/05, Blogger alsocanadian said...

The problem with those farmer roadside rub parlours is that their hands are so rough from labour.
Hey QP, I bet you don't go any further out to the country than the bus takes you.

 
At 29/5/05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A 100 years of unobtrusive community tradition thrown out because massage parlours and car dealerships don't get the same treatment? Sounds a little too socialist to me, but I think the main difference is that you can set up a stall on the side of the road in the country, out of the way, and move it at the end of the day. Next thing QP will want to shut down garage sales and kids selling lemonade because it might fall within the City's strip of land on all of our lawns.

Tom

 
At 29/5/05, Blogger bob said...

A Monty Python sketch offered a perfect encapsulation of some of the dialog above, specifically that offered by QP: "liberal rubbish"
You are now linked on the Wingnut's blogroll, friend.

 
At 30/5/05, Blogger Question Period said...

It's funny that it's the free enterprise business lobby that is driving this issue -- grocers who pay taxes and own property and who feel that giving their competition unequal access to public land amounts to an unfair subsidy -- and you call that socialism.

Your party might have an easier time getting the right to own property entrenched in the Charter if you weren't so busy deciding who can use public property and who can't.

By the way, does getting on the Wingnuts blogroll mean that I have to start blogging now?

 
At 30/5/05, Anonymous pale said...

So your saying that it is o.k. for big-business (National Grocers) to push the small tax paying farmers out of a traditional business they have had for the past 100 years?

I can see why the farmers are upset! Perhaps they should do some fund raising the Liberal party in order to have "more" of a voice!

On the plus side, I now speak for the "party" - where are my minions! I demanded minions!

 
At 30/5/05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look QP, its all about proper representation. I think that the rurals are upset because of our political system, the municipal, provincial, and federal governments that generally need big city votes are no longer properly representing the issues that face these rural residents. Its not about 'public' land per se. This is government land after all and if the rural folks thought that their issues were taken into consideration when someone proposed a new law governing such lands, they would abide by that law. Now, however, they feel that they have no representation and thus resent the urban focused governments from bullying them simply because they do not have enough voting power to influence any change within that level of government. This why they are fighting back and will continue to fight.

Tom

 
At 31/5/05, Blogger alsocanadian said...

Cool Blob Bog! I see I am also a wingnut (and proud!)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home