Niagara-on-the-Lake Local received the following letter to the editor from reader Jackie Bonic.
I remember when there were regular police raids on bath houses because of homosexual practices. I remember when we used to freely circulate homosexual jokes, like we did blond female jokes and racial jokes. Later on it was still ok, even funny, to be "politically incorrect". Judgments were made by a society that decided what was acceptable and what wasn't. This was called the societal norm.
That was when North America and Europe were predominately a white male bastion. What changed everything was the increased immigration of non-whites, the women's, LGBTQ & people with disabilities movements which forced us to look at things from another perspective.
Once we started sensing that there was traditionally quite a bit of unfairness happening and that our point of view was, perhaps, not the only one, many of us started re-examining our conclusions and realized the hurt that they inflicted on people who did not conform to our white, male, heterosexual standards.
During this time women gained a bit more status and recognition instead of being seen as just nurturers and sex objects by society. Anti-discrimination laws towards all parties mentioned above were enshrined in the constitution.
For centuries, these people had no hope but now the push for change and inclusiveness is accelerating because hope stimulates action which changes the societal norm. Which brings me to the backlash and the subsequent question - Is society moving in one direction or is it caught up in a swinging pendulum of opinion over the long term?
White male, heterosexual domination has been with us for centuries. Do the traditionalists want to go back to those traditional values that our society grew up with so they can continue to discriminate and make fun of everyone not like them or do they want to pick and choose whom they wish to discriminate against?
If, as they state, they do not believe in discrimination, if they do actually believe that everyone should be able to be themselves as long as they don't hurt others then what exactly is the problem? What do they see as the traditional values that are not discriminatory? Surely they do not want to encourage the transfer of parent to child values that do not conform to our Charter of Rights?
Freedom of speech and the right to express an opposing view is also enshrined in the constitution and it is, of course, imperative in a democracy but freedom to disseminate hate is not permitted in Canada. The courts decide the difference between the two.
There is no law against lying. Freedom of speech allows lying. People have to decide for themselves what they want to believe.
Other laws try to penalize those who lie for profit. There is no law against teaching your kids to steal as there is no law against teaching your kids to hate but if one gets caught actually doing it or expressing it they will be prosecuted.
Why would parents want to impart either of these values to their children and thus put them at risk? Public schools try to impart values that support the Charter of Rights to minimize this happening. Parents that object to these programs object for what reason?
The law against the dissemination of hate trumps freedom of speech. The protection of freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to hurt others through speech so the content should be considered carefully.
So assuming that traditionalists would not want to discriminate, would not want to impart discriminatory values to their kids and would not want to teach their kids values that ultimately hurt others and that could ultimately hurt them, what other non-related traditional values do they want to return to?
I would be curious to know what they are and how they are not related in any way to discrimination.
Jackie Bonic
