Divergent Opinions

Should Be Tolerated

To the Editor:

I was dismayed by the events of this past week. A vitriolic anonymous flyer concerning my daughter was distributed in town. It contained a false and cowardly attack. This was followed by a second flyer, also anonymous and inaccurate, but nonetheless, scurrilous. The second had a petition attached and was distributed to local businesses. When inquiries were made concerning the source of these flyers, NBLA was named.

All this appears to be in response to her negative vote at a P&Z meeting on a poorly worded amendment regarding a small number of horse farms. She subsequently volunteered to be on a subcommittee to gather information on farming and horse regulations.

As an alternate on P&Z, she can only present the subcommittee findings. No, she cannot send all horses out of Newtown, nor can she enact any legislation. She is not against farming, horses, or open space.

Why is the horse community so threatened by one P&Z alternate? Can we only tolerate opinions identical to ours? Does not the democratic process demand a divergence of opinions in order to find common ground? Should not all perspectives be presented? Freedom of speech, however, is not license to libel!

I must applaud The Bee for requiring the statement of ownership of the quarter-page ad and for editing the calumny out in at least one letter. Unfortunately, the mean-spirited misinformation effectively shut down any discussion of this issue for the present.

There have been many controversies in Newtown since 1968 when our family moved here. It seems that, until now, most dealt with the issues. This is the first time I have seen such a bitter personal attack. We all know Newtown is changing rapidly, but I can only hope that this is not symptomatic of the direction our town will take in the future.

Sincerely,

Nancy B. Kennedy

139 Boggs Hill Road, Newtown                                   August 20, 2001