Pricing of Pork Chop in Poor Taste
Among recent articles in On The Bay, of particular note is Jen McNeely’s “Markdale’s Makeover,” (Fall 2024). As a longtime resident of the area, I have witnessed small towns like Markdale and Flesherton thrive, struggle through challenges, show resilience, and evolve into something different with a changing demographic. It is wonderful to see this evolution happening on so many levels. The article referenced many businesses, including Chapman’s Ice Cream, and individuals, like Jesse McCracken, whose documentaries about the area I have watched. There is also a brief reference to Marilynne Restaurant, “where the pork chop costs $40.”
I halted reading abruptly at the bluntness of this detail, which was in stark contrast to the eloquent prose used to describe other aspects of people and places in the area. As someone who has enjoyed dining at Marilynne since it initially opened in the midst of the pandemic, and who has an appreciation for the farm-to-table philosophy that Chef-owner Brandon Bannon has had since the outset, I am curious why the $40 pork chop was the talking point about the restaurant that the journalist left hanging in the air. I can only imagine the disappointment that Chef Bannon, his staff, and other customers would experience when they happen to read the article or hear about it.
I am writing as a champion of what has become a culinary asset to the community. I believe it deserved better treatment and consideration in the article.
David Lawrence,
Markdale
Old Baldy is Baldly Wrong
Apparently, it’s time to try to correct the record again.
Kimberley’s cliff (pictured and labelled as “Old Baldy” on page 112 of your Fall 2024 issue) is in fact named Kimberley Rock, and there are correctly labelled photographs of it going back
110 years.
When we moved to Kimberley 35 years ago, the canard that it was named Old Baldy was still relatively recent. Village residents were disgusted at the effort to rename their treasured overlook.
The story is that some councillor from Oakville thought she knew better—that Old Baldy was a much more mellifluous name.
There are maybe five actual Old Baldys, but they’re all in America; so at Kimberley, what we have is “The Rock.” This is a much stronger and more authentic name, and we would show our ancestors respect by using the proper identifier. Your magazine is one of the ways we can do this.
It’s a shame that Ontario got sucked in and used the wrong name on its site plaque, but that’s politics, and we can only hope the name will eventually be corrected.
For now, though, remember: it’s Kimberley Rock.
Peter Ferguson,
Kimberley
Thank you for your letter, Peter. I admit, it caught me by surprise. I did not realize that the name of the geological feature was disputed. You’ve opened the door to the discussion as well as some research into the subject. Let’s start with the photo and caption which you referenced in your letter. It’s a wide-angle view of the Escarpment slope, including the entire limestone cliff face. Some of the property in the foreground is likely privately owned; however, the focal point is owned by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA). The entire area, including the cliff face, is part of Old Baldy Conservation Area—Old Baldy being the namesake. Grey County refers to the cliff area as Old Baldy Scenic Lookout. I did however find a reference within the rock climbing community that specifically named a freestanding spire on a section of the cliff face as Kimberley Rock. Perhaps this is what you are referring to? In that case we could have more accurately referred to the area in the photo as Old Baldy Conservation Area.
If this is not to your complete satisfaction, you may want to explore the possibility of officially naming the cliff yourself. The province does have a series of protocols for naming geological features. Interestingly, the right to name a feature like a lake or mountain does not fall solely to the property owner and includes historical references as possibilities. However the Ontario Geographic Names Board often gives priority to those names that have been in “wide, well-established use for at least 20 years.” Names recommended by the board are then approved by the minister of natural resources and entered into the record for all provincial and federal maps, charts, gazetteers and related publications. — Roger Klein, Publisher
Save the Venom for the Bumper Stickers
I am writing to you, the publisher of this fine magazine, to ask why you would allow disinformation/misinformation and falsehoods in your letters to the editor. I am speaking about the letter from Nick Sopinka of Kimberley (“All in for Less Tax,” Fall 2024), which is apparently railing about taxes and specifically makes anti-Trudeau government statements. That may be OK, except for the nonsense last sentence, “Under Trudeau’s policies, a speaker can be fined or imprisoned for expressing a controversial fact that offends others.” This is false in every respect. It should have been edited out unless the writer could substantiate such a blatant lie.
You usually do a good job of adding your own comments after a somewhat contentious letter, or the editor does. This one seems to have missed everyone’s attention.
I want to know, which one of Trudeau’s policies is this letter referring to? I am sure all Canadians have seen, for the past four years, the very offensive flags some yahoos fly that say “F**K TRUDEAU,” and no one has been stopped, fined or imprisoned. Some specific examples are needed to substantiate such a false statement if it is going to be published.
I find this statement very offensive and libelous and not in keeping with the tenor of the magazine. There is no need to spread such lies, and certainly not in On The Bay. There is enough hatred and division in this country, which has definitely come from south of our border, of which Mr. Sopinka obviously is a big fan.
Please put in some sort of retraction/comment addressing this. This falsehood is defamatory and derogatory to our great nation. It is fine to not like Trudeau or anyone else, but not OK to denigrate, disparage and/or lie about those you do not agree with, just because you want to spread your venom. And please, not in On The Bay!
Mirella Taiariol,
The Blue Mountains
Thank you for your letter, Mirella. The editorial team at On The Bay welcomes mail in all of its forms. We especially like the letters that test the issues and ideas that go beyond what we would normally write about. It’s clear that Mr. Sopinka’s letter touched a nerve with you.
Referring to the letter’s final sentence, while Mr. Sopinka’s comments were not specific, I feel his statement is valid in relation to Prime Minister Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act to quell peaceful, public protests during the winter of 2022. At the time, public health measures had already trampled our constitutional rights and freedoms for the sake of the greater good. But Trudeau finished the job by declaring a national emergency on February 14, granting the executive branch of government special powers. It was the first time the Emergencies Act was ever invoked and it was used to arrest the people who protested and spoke out against the government’s COVID-19 measures. Most notably Tamara Lich, who was charged with mischief, denied bail and held behind bars for 49 days—a status normally reserved for the most heinous criminals. Without debating the merits of the charges against Lich, this is a valid example of the lengths that Trudeau will go to to squelch dissenting voices. One hundred other protesters were also arrested. Two years later, the Federal Court found that Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was unjustified. After hearing arguments by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Justice Richard Mosley found that the move was an infringement of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, writing in his decision, “not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.” The court also concluded that the national emergency and the associated regulations that the government enacted violated the Charter right to freedom of expression and the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. — Roger Klein, Publisher
