Letters, June 26

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/06/2023 (1174 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Keep dialogue open

Re: Combating denialism (June 23)

Who needs to ban books that promote certain ideas when you can ban the ideas themselves? Once ideas are outlawed, there can be no writing books or newspaper articles, giving public talks, or even saying such things to the neighbours without dire consequences. The hypocrisy of decrying book bans and outlawing speech would be laughable in a so-called “free” press were it not so terribly damaging.

For Canada, selective suppression of speech can only worsen the already fragmented state of our collective identity. Religious Canadians, for example, will rightly wonder why they must tolerate what they see as hateful discourse from secularists like myself while other groups are protected from offensive speech. And such laws invite questions about what are they hiding, ironically strengthening belief in the outlawed ideas and distrust of our institutions.

The harm of rejecting free speech here is even greater on the world stage. A Canadian ban on offensive speech legitimizes countries that ban speech contrary to traditional beliefs about inequality of the sexes, same-sex relationships, societal hierarchies, and innumerable other practices that merit open discussion in the press and wider society. Imagine a Canada stuck in the beliefs and values of bygone generations because they evaded discussion.

Less obvious but perhaps most important is the fact that such laws harm the individuals they are designed to protect. Without being exposed to aversive claims, people never learn to rebut them, to shrug them off as empty or ignorant, and to otherwise develop the resilience required to thrive in an imperfect world. Laws can never insulate people from ugly speech and society does a disservice pretending that they can.

Canada can rightly take pride in its many forms of diversity, but that same diversity provides numerous fault lines that can fracture without a great deal of tolerance of one another and our distinct beliefs. Such tolerance depends on open dialogue, that is, free speech.

Jim Clark

Winnipeg

Motives questioned

Re: Nothing independent about Stefanson’s task force (June 22, 2023)

While Tom Brodbeck is correct in pointing out the task force’s flawed wait-time data reporting and extra layer of health care administration, it’s unfair to question Dr. Peter MacDonald’s motives in offering to help patients obtain timely medical procedures.

If Manitoba Health, Shared Health and the WRHA were truly responsive to patients needs, I’m sure Dr. MacDonald would rather spend his time looking after patients and leading his orthopedic department, which he has ably done during both NDP and Conservative provincial governments.

Wayne Manishen, MD

Winnipeg

Bread for the homeless

Should Canada Bread ever end up paying the $50 million fine for price gouging, I would recommend the federal government apply all the monies to housing for the homeless across Canada.

The Canadians living on the streets and scrambling every day to feed themselves, have been the ones most affected by the increased food prices.

For shame, Canada Bread.

Tannis Webster

Winnipeg

Elected, not appointed

Several articles of late in the Free Press have noted differences between the citizens of the area around Vivian, Manitoba and the proposed silica sand project. The most recent discussion in the June 22 Free Press had the headline “Municipal board forces project approval”.

This appears to be part of a pattern where provincial boards are created to overcome the people involved. While it may alleviate immediate problems, it drastically attacks true democracy.

An issue that must be addressed before the October 3 election is that of democracy versus economic development. Democracy demands that local people ought to decide when resource development is in their interest. Removing this decision making choice from local people is anti-democratic. Centralized officials often focus on maximizing the economic returns from development, while people usually focus on availability of more essential needs like water and human well-being. If democracy and development clash, we ought to choose democracy.

Voters must choose between the preservation of life over the centralization of decision making and resource extraction for profit. Because one is elected does not mean we have a democracy, as some in the U.S. learned with the election of Donald Trump and we are perhaps leaning here in Manitoba.

Barry Hammond

Winnipeg

Vitriol has to end

I am outraged by the group of people who made anti-LGBTTQ+ comments and demanded answers about a Louis Riel School Division trustees’ recent suspension on Tuesday. I am sorry the trustees had to face this type of vitriol.

There are more than one million LGTTBQ+ in Canada. That’s less than three per cent of the population. Over 60 per cent of Canadians identify as Christians. Only 18 per cent say they are “religiously committed.”

The small fundamental groups are using so much time funneling hate rather than “love their neighbour” toward the LGTTBQ+ community. Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice but the religiously committed should not feel free to impose their beliefs on the communities and governments!

No wonder Canadians consider certain religions damaging to society.

I’m beginning to wonder if these groups are so frustrated because they can no longer undermine women’s control over their bodies (still trying in the U.S.) and unable to force their interpretation of the Bible on the rest of us.

So they are now trying to force the LGTTBQ+ community back into the closet.

Not a chance that they have my support (retired teacher and principal). I’m relieved that they do not have the trustees’ support either.

Erika Kreis

Winnipeg

As a former teacher and vice-principal in the Louis Riel School Division (LRSD), and parent of two children in the public school system, I was disgusted by the events that transpired at a recent board meeting, where individuals protesting the suspension of representative Francine Champagne resorted to bullying behaviour, including intimidation and threats aimed at members of the board, to advance their anti-LGBTTQ+ agenda.

LRSD should be commended as being among the first school divisions in Manitoba to institute human diversity policies, working diligently on a daily basis to ensure safe and caring environments in schools for all children.

To those who are against inclusion and safe spaces for all kids in our public schools, you are free to choose homeschooling your children, or an independent school that more closely reflects your personal values.

Joel Ruest

Winnipeg

Re: “School division leaders apologize after ‘unsafe’ board meeting” June 23

It is time the acronym “DARVO” became well known in the lexicon of Canadians.

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

The recent volatile Louis Riel School Division (LSRD) meeting was an example of DARVO in action.

On one hand, you had angry, aggressive and insulting supporters of Francine Champagne show up at the LRSD meeting, where they attempted to intimidate and harass LRSD board members. And then you had one of their supporters stating that “what we saw was a board full of hate for different opinions and scared of dialogue.”

Let’s be clear here: the LRSD board in their desire to create an inclusive atmosphere in their schools are not offenders; they are the victims of a deranged few who promote hate and intolerance and use DARVO to further their cause.

Mac Horsburgh

Winnipeg