SDSS students rebut "dangerous" characterization
To the Editor,
This letter to parents and students of future Grade 7 and 8 students was shared with the Shoreline Beacon We are Grade 12 students at Saugeen District Secondary School (SDSS), as well as members of our Student Council.
After attending the information session at SDSS Nov. 5, it was unfortunately obvious that some parents have a very skewed view of our school. We are writing this letter to both acknowledge these concerns and to rebut them. Students at SDSS are academically driven, very involved, and passionate. The students strive for success in many different aspects of school, and do so with maturity and respect to all. At SDSS we have a broad range of programs and clubs specifically directed towards inclusivity, allowing all students to find their place.
As members of Student Council, we have committed our year to increasing school spirit, with much success. We have started to create an environment where students of all ages and backgrounds are able to work together, allowing a strong sense of family to emerge in our school. Welcoming the Grade 7 and 8 students in the same positive spirit is our full intention.
SDSS staff and students are open to the arrival of additional students, and have frequently accepted similar newcomers with open arms and a strong sense of respect. Over the years, we have successfully welcomed students from Chesley District, new community members, as well as dozens of exchange students each year. The addition of each of these groups of students has enriched our school and made our Royal family even better.
Within any community, any high school, and any elementary school, there will be a presence of peer pressure. However, this presence is often relatively small.
At the information meeting, high school students were unfairly portrayed as bad examples and even potentially dangerous towards their Grade 7- 8 peers who will join them next September. As leaders of the school, it is clear to us that our fellow students are in fact the complete opposite. Parents of Grade 7 and 8 students can in fact expect their child’s secondary peers to be positive influences and valuable mentors.
As this transition came without considerable warning, some students are hesitant, and many students have valid questions and concerns.
Even with hesitance towards the situation, the high school students will no doubt be respectful and accommodating to the changes this transition will bring.
As parents we hope you are able to trust that the older students have the ability to be ideal role models for your children. We, as student leaders, care about the well being of ALL students at SDSS. High school students are interested in maintaining the specialized spaces at our school, not only for us, but also for the students to come. As SDSS students, we wish to ensure that these positive aspects of our school are maintained to allow future generations to enjoy the same incredible opportunities we currently have.
We understand that change is necessary to accommodate the growing population. Despite not currently having all of the details and answers we’d like, we both look forward to working closely with the transition teams to be a proactive voice for all students. We hope that parents, staff and fellow students will join us in working together to make this transition as favourable as possible.
Quite frankly, students at SDSS were appalled by this characterization of our school and our students, and are looking forward to the opportunity to demonstrate what positive leaders we can be for the younger students.
Sarah Sollors, SAC Co-President
Emma Schuster, Student Trustee
Port Elgin, ON
The issue of the proposed Southampton location for a Bruce Power/Bruce County Nuclear Innovation Centre continues to spark widespread interest and opinions,.
Congratulations to Janet Dawson on her petition. However, it is horrifying to know that Canada has uncountable Hwy 21 and Bruce 20 sites.
They exist, in spite of the main requirements of all levels of Canadian governments and in fact all of us are to protect each other. Obeying the Constitution and the Charter of Rights is every Government and Citizen’s fundamental requirement in law.
The Charter of Rights Section 7 says:
“Everyone has the right to life and security of the person and the right not to be derived thereof.”
This statement must surely include protecting us from harm and death on our highways. Yet our governments have totally failed, broken the law, and broken it again by adding to the problems with its Marijuana law.
I kid you not. Check it out. In the two decades of the 21st Century, Canadians have killed 60,000 fellow Canadians in automobile accidents. This is a number equal to everyone in Bruce County being killed. Approximately 2,000,000 Canadians have been injured and even disabled. That is equal to every person in Ottawa-Gatineau suffering distress.
Believe me; human beings are quite able to have accidents on our roads and highways without the help of alcohol and marijuana.
Yet our Federal Government, in spite of being legally responsible to stop accidents and protect us from marijuana has broken the law.
It stated, “We cannot fulfill our responsibility of catching the crooks and stop it. Therefore, we will provide the marijuana so the criminals will lose their incomes (Stupidity). They chose the foolishness of people ingesting poison over the death of Canadians. Sue the government and marijuana sellers as abettors of crime if you have been injured.
Our governments have made it a cinch for marijuana to get a hitch hike in our vehicles.
Almost half of the drivers causing these killing disabling and people suffering were inebriated with alcohol and/or marijuana.
Stupidity, madness, outrageousness; If we care, let us call a meeting of key interests and ordinary people. including government reps, CAW, MAAD, police, nuclear plant and unions, hospital, etc.
With new technologies we cannot be that stupid that we cannot create a cheaper, faster, and totally safe transport system. Imagine the effect of your family in an accident caused by some dope.
Let Bruce show the world. it is our responsibility to “Please stop the carnage.”
Norm Gurr
Southampton, ON
**
My reasons for opposing this installation are as follows:
I do not believe that the modern design fits with the spirit of the town.
It appears to be too large and will certainly need to be expanded at some point.
Would it not better be built where there is more land available?
In addition, the need for 40 parking spots would serve to take the space away from the regular museum clientele. It is my opinion that the available land and century home should be used for the archives and a native cultural centre.
Heather Wallace
Southampton, ON
***
fully agree that the Nuclear Innovation Institute would be a great addition to this community. Bruce Power would prefer it to be located in Southampton apparently adjoining the Museum & Cultural Centre.
The Institute web site, www.nuclearinnovationinstitute.com, identifies several focus areas of the institute that will be located in this facility. Having a technical background, I fail to see where any of these focus areas are enhanced by being attached physically to the Museum & Cultural Centre or vice versa.
I find it difficult to visualize where the 50 personnel associated with this facility will park. I also find it hard to believe that a 30,000 sq. ft. area in this facility will only house 50 people, permanent & visiting scientists. This after all of the focus groups are established. I find it a bit of a joke that Bruce Power would use a two-day study taken in the fall.
I am sure that there were no bowlers out at that time or families with young children visiting Fairy Lake feeding the ducks, Recently I cycled past the museum, there were 80 cars parked on both sides of the street in front of the museum.
I checked the museum web site, there were no activities shown for that day. I was later informed that the museum has meeting rooms that are rented out to the public
The majority of new residential surveys in Southampton are all to the south west and south east of the museum and planned to expand further in that direction, for most, a car ride away. This report makes no mention of the increasing residential development in Port Elgin, all of which is a car ride away from the museum.
The population of Saugeen Shores is growing. In a statement about the proposed location, Bruce Power/Bruce County said the decision was based on:
1/ A desire to preserve Southampton’s heritage, principally the existing house on the property. 2/ The existing house will need to be removed. 3/ The opportunity to incorporate features from the house into the new build. 4/ Our goal is to work towards a ” complete street” as defined in the Grey-Bruce Public Health.
Within the past year Saugeen Shores Council supported the suggestion, to identify and protect structures in town that could be classified as historical. I do not know if this 125-year-old church mansion made the list. Either way, when Bruce Power said that the house had to come down, Saugeen Shores Council said, ” Go for it.” In the selected location, not only the house comes down, but also up to about a dozen trees due to the excavation required. With the approach taken by the town it will be difficult to protect any other historical buildings.
The design of the new structure looks nice, probably structural steel framing, cladding and glass, appropriate for a commercial development in a suitable location. I suggest the 150 acres at the south end of Port Elgin recently purchased by Saugeen Shores, closer to the location of other related industries already drawn to the area by Bruce Power.
Allan Murray
Southampton, ON
Comments
Post a Comment