Editor:
Re: The last stand for smart-meter deniers, Jan. 22.
It is disturbing to see columnist Tom Fletcher violating the common in civilized-world ethical norms and general journalistic code of conduct.
He uses epithets, with no quotations, with ridiculous wordings directly insulting people who have beliefs different from his. He uses humiliating language, openly expressing his personal despise to those deniers.
Fletcher needs to be reminded he should present facts equally balanced, considering and respecting both sides of the story. Instead, he uses language filled with open insults, mockery and stories with no factual backup.
Calling smart-meters deniers “tinfoil-hat opposition,” he insults not only thousands living in B.C. but also negates the studies of hundreds medical doctors and field specialists. Expressing his one-sided opinion, he shows his tunnel vision view on this global issue. The same epithets he would likely give to all scientists who signed Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations, and Freiburger Appeal, which are now an action plan for the entire European Union.
Based on Fletcher logic, all Europeans wear tinfoil hats.
Fletcher is watering down the issue as if it doesn’t exist at all. Regretfully, none of his articles show that BC Hydro, a Crown corporation, used only a language of imperatives – mandates created and used against the public. Just to compare, in Sweden, people suffering from electromagnetic sensitivity officially get medical treatment and utility companies are open for dialogue, making adjustments based on individual concerns.
It is hard to be told that you have to like your new meters or leave the province, or that you have to have a new meter or live off the grid, and this is the message coming from our leaders who were entrusted to care for the province.
We all have only two ways to live: either collapsing into Orwell’s Animal Farm, or thriving with respect, love and care. B.C. leaders’ deeds show their choice with every step they do.
It will not be a hard task to identify who stands behind one-sided Fletcher. Yet, being in a comfort zone of protective power behind him, he still could present his – or others’ – opinion in respectful civilized shape as professional journalists are supposed to.
Our right to express our thoughts should not be deluded with imbalanced despise and mockery.
Michael Volyansky, Surrey