To the Editor:
I commend Andrew Packham on his eloquent defence of Gordon Hoglund and disappointment at the perceived bias of the 100 Mile House Free Press (May 9 letters to the editor).
Although I don’t agree with him, I nonetheless appreciate good writing.
As an attendee of that meeting, I can attest that Taseko’s presentation was an effort to detail the positives of their project.
Did Mr. Packham expect them to shoot themselves in the foot?
As for freezing Mr. Hoglund off the podium, his transgression was in his manners rather than in his message.
Taseko planned the meeting, arranged and paid for advertising and refreshments, rented the venue and incurred the expense of staff attendance. Those efforts automatically entitled Taseko to set the format and agenda.
It was their party, and Mr. Packham is absolutely correct in stating that Mr. Hoglund’s attempts to disrupt it were not well received.
Most of the others in attendance were there out of a genuine interest in Taseko’s plans for the Prosperity Mine, and allowing Mr. Hoglund to take the floor would have imposed an unwelcome element of hostility that all in attendance would have been (and were) subjected to.
In continuing, Mr. Hoglund would have disrespected not only the Taseko staff, but also the majority of those present.
After the presentation, Taseko spokesman Brian Battison invited all present to speak with him and other representatives from the company in informal cocktail-party-style groupings.
The very first person to whom Mr. Battison extended the invitation to express his views was Mr. Hoglund.
Elsa Benin
Forest Grove
