‘Debate will continue’

Dear Editor:

RE: Court dismisses request  for judicial review of Swastika Trail decisions, June 27.

A judicial review ruled that Puslinch council didn’t do anything illegal procedurally in voting to keep the name of the street.

The Ministry of Transportation will not allow a license plate bearing the word “swastika”, deeming the word to be “human rights discrimination.”

If it’s discrimination on a license plate, it’s discrimination on my passport, my driver’s license, and anything else that bears my address. What’s the difference?

To those who say it doesn’t bother them: What does it say about you if you don’t care about others who are targets of the swastika’s association with anti-semitism, bigotry and neo-Naziism? If it’s not controversial, why is my address a frequent topic of debate with total strangers?

For those who harp back to the origins of the swastika, its positive associations refer to the ancient Sanskrit word, “suasti”, not to the English word “swastika” which was introduced as recently as the late 1800s.

Council didn’t act unlawfully, but they shirked their responsibility by making a cowardly decision based on a poor rationale. There were no good reasons to keep the name and many good reasons to change it.

This debate will continue.

Jennifer Horton, Puslinch