“Our civil rights are being stripped away,” says the +2SLGBTQ spokesperson, in the face of the recent 1 Million March 4 Children. “Unless we fight for them now we may never get them back.”
Oh, wait. Nevermind. That’s the anti-Covid protester. Many of whom were in attendance at the Million March.
And I gotta admit, I’m having a tough time trying to understand this.
Y’see, it was only a couple years back that they were telling the government to mind their own darn business, and that they could do what they pleased. In fact, I’m sure that somewhere around here I have a copy of that “Hands off our kids” paper here somewhere. Let’s see. Oh, yes.
“Those who embrace freedom will have a long-term advantage. Those who give in to fear and demand expanded government power will be left behind.”
That’s from the November 2021 issues of the Druthers. You may not have seen the paper because, despite a note on every paper saying “Please do not leave Druthers inside the newspaper boxes of other newspapers,” dozens of copies kept winding up in the Tumbler Ridgeline’s box, which meant it kept winding up in my fire starter pile. (All’s fair and all that rot. Admit it; you just want this paper so you can start a fire. I bet you’re not even reading this right now. Go ahead. Prove it. I’ve got (he says, casting about his office) … um, a half roll of paper towel? No. A Community Futures pen for one lucky person who sends me an email at publisher@tumblerridgelines.com with the subject line “I want my free pen!” (No, Lisa, you can’t enter if you’re the one proofreading the paper.))
Where was I? Oh, yes. Loss of freedom. Loss of civil rights. Demanding expanded government power.
I mean, stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that everything that the million marchers are *asking* for? “Dear government, take away their civil rights (but give us ours)?”
We believe in equality and freedom from persecution based on colour creed or religion, but on sexual orientation? That’s a bridge too far.
But that’s part of the package deal. Freedom is as freedom does.
Here’s where things really break down for me. Because my right to freedom needs to be balanced with my responsibility as a card-carrying member of the human race.
This means that what we do needs to be considered in terms of everyone around us.
I could, for instance, get blisteringly drunk and drive at 200 km through a parade. But as a society we have established laws against this sort of behaviour because other people might be injured or killed or at least have to jump out of the way and maybe damage their tuba.
At one end, we have laws that help us navigate social interactions. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal… We also have other social norms that aren’t coded in law, but are taboo. These are things that might get us ostracized from society. Walking around naked? Is illegal in Canada. Showing up to a job interview in your speedos? That’s not illegal, but it’s considered a no-no.
Showing up to that same meeting in hot pink tight pants may not be taboo, but it violates cultural norms. You wouldn’t get kicked out of the meeting, but you probably won’t get the job.
Let’s go back a couple years ago, during peak pandemic. And the government asked us pretty please to do what we could to not transmit Covid. They didn’t care if you got Covid, personally, but they didn’t want you in the hospital (because it was affecting how people without Covid were getting treatment), and they didn’t want you transmitting the disease to others.
So you were perfectly within your rights to not get the vaccine, to not wear a mask.
As long as you stayed at home, or at least, away from other people. But as soon as you started interacting with other people, those choices had consequences. Your actions had the possibility of affecting others.
Skip ahead to Sept 20. And the issue is now “we don’t like the fact that schools are a safe space for people who identify as something that we’re not.
And again, what they’re doing is something that violates these normative practices. And again, the actions that are being taken stand the risk of impacting other people. In this case, ironically, by denying freedom to kids, the very thing that is central to their cause.
Are you seeing the trouble here? The argument appears to be “freedom for me, but not for thee.”
Here’s the trouble for me. On some level, I agree with both sides. “I am troubled by the persons with the signs,” sings Ty Tabor, “but I feel the need to make my own.”
I can’t help but think of Corrie ten Boom, who, when she asked her father what sex was, he responded by asking the young Corrie to carry his work bag for him.
“‘It’s too heavy,’ I said.
“‘Yes,’ he said, ‘and it would be a pretty poor father who would ask his little girl to carry such a load. It’s the same way, Corrie, with knowledge. Some knowledge is too heavy for children. When you are older and stronger, you can bear it. For now you must trust me to carry it for you.’”
We are asking kids to carry a load that might be too heavy for them.
But at the same time, if we create an environment where we try and hide parts of the world, we run the risk of othering people who have the same right to be respected and accepted and participate in society. We’d go back to the days when gays were stuck in the closet, when women’s place was in the kitchen where blacks were stuck in the field or where Christians were fed to the lions.
We’ve been there. We should understand and offer sympathy, and work to find a way to balance acceptance with overburdening.
It’s messy, doubly so because people on both sides are retreating into their own socio-political corners and throwing rotten fruit at the other group. “You’re promoting hate,” says one. “I know you are, but what am I?” replies the other.
And instead of being able to have hard conversations about difficult things, we just yell at each other, not listening to what the other is actually trying to say.
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
