Day: June 22, 2009

Apparently John Stirrup, having sabotaged any opportunity for citizens to have 500 acres of parkland at no cost to the taxpayer, is now up to more shenanigans at Silver Lake!

Someone please tell him that this isn’t about politics, it’s about parkland. All we want is the assurance that someone’s not going to come along in two years or five years and put in a Splashdown Water Park or light up the night sky at Silver Lake or ???

Deed restrictions will guarantee that what we’ve been told is what will happen at Silver Lake. And the problem is ???

People have been commenting for nearly three years now, saying they want passive uses and horseback riding at Silver Lake. Stirrup’s 6/21/09 newsletter says he wants trails, bank fishing, picnicking and other passive recreation at Silver Lake.

Everything seems to match, so what’s the problem? Why is Stirrup opposed to deed restrictions? Could it be that he has other plans?

Deed restrictions would also help open Silver Lake sooner rather than later. Since the Park Authority has already agreed to restrict recreation uses at Silver Lake, there’s no need to re-start at the beginning. Deed restrictions will make sure that doesn’t happen. They will speed up the process and move us one step in the right direction. And Stirrup is opposed to this because ???

Stirrup’s newsletter tells us that, after Supervisors deadlocked on the outcome of Silver Lake in April 2008, he told county staff to negotiate a solution and asked to include the Nokesville Horse Society in the meetings. The newsletter suggests that negotiations failed because “all suggestions were unacceptable to the BRMC.”

Why was the Nokesville Horse Society invited but all other organizations were excluded? And I can tell you, the statement “all suggestions were unacceptable to the BRMC” is just not accurate. In fact, according the 10/21/08 press release issued by BRMC:

“Mr. Stirrup and his planning commissioner Martha Hendley were not supportive in BRMC’s original negotiation with the developer to proffer the entire 230 acres for parks, open space and recreation, and have remained unsupportive ever since.”

You can’t have things both ways. The deed restrictions proposed by May and Nohe support everything Stirrup says he wants at Silver Lake. So what’s the problem????

By putting their proposal forward in advance, May and Nohe gave Supervisors time to consider the issues, consult the County Attorney and be ready to vote at tomorrow’s meeting. After nearly three years of discussion, there’s no need for more delays.

VERSAILLES, France (AFP) — President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that the burka was not welcome in secular France, condemning the head-to-toe cover as a symbol of subjugation rather than the Muslim faith.

“We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” he said. “That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.”

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience,” he told lawmakers in a major policy speech. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

The speech came just two weeks after Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama diverged on whether states should legislate on religious clothing, an issue which has sparked controversy in Europe.

Now here’s a slippery slope if ever there was one. France has more Muslims than any other country in Europe, in excess of 5 million. Several years ago, a muslim woman was denied french citizenship because she wore a burka and was subjugated to her husband. I guess she didn’t know the French way of doing things. Several thousand women in France wear the burka.

Somehow a burka is just not the same as a head scarf. A burka is a clothing prison. President Obama defended the head scarf and took a departure from Sarkozy’s point of view. Maybe this is one time Obama needs to butt out and let the French people decide this one for themselves.

How do contributors feel about Sarkozy’s views? Should he attempt to get the French legislature to pass them into law? Do his views, if passed in to law, intefer with religious freedom?

Full story at Google.