The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."Growing up in the mini-United Nations that is Nova Scotia its not hard to believe this. From my first year in Sydney Mines in grade two, I met Capers - my first introduction to the different view point even at that age. Moving to the Annapolis Valley I knew Bapists Planters and knew they were more conservative than us; I knew my pal Grant who trapped and did because he was Mi'kmaq; I knew the air force kids who moved every two years who told us about Baden-Baden and who knew what Cold Lake meant; I knew the Acadian kids who spoke French; I knew the poor poor kids from the South Mountain, the sort of families the poet Alden Nowlan came from. Later, in Truro high school and Halifax University I met confident Lunenburgers who still swore in their German; Pictou County Presbyterian Scots who hid the beer in the barn; I met Scotians, which is what some members of the black community called themselves, and got to work with a past black panther who later appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada; and when I worked at a playhouse I met some of the gay men my age who congregated in the big city in large part for safety but also for community.
Once during all that time, men came to the back door of the manse, looking for someone we knew in large part because he was gay. Usually knocks at the back door at that time of night were the old man hobos passing through Truro, still on the rails 40 years after the depression, still marking manses with the sign of the soft spot for a sandwich. Now, I get to see that man they were looking for on the TV from time to time in all the news about these marriages as he is a leader in that cause. But I don't get to see some of the young men who came around my mother's flower shop twenty years ago because they were killed, in part or in whole because of who they were. And I don't get to see another who never felt accepted and in his distress from that and other things put an end to it.
I shake my head at the people and places where they think we are all the same with the same needs but that is another sort of minority community. It's a big country in a big world. Bigger than me with people I will never met and never know how they choose to live out their freedom. I presume their needs differ from mine. I am glad when the law does, too.
Comments
SayNay? - June 29, 2005 10:18 am
Two points which again will demonstrate my general unpopularity with the Gen X 40 "gang":
1. As I have stated before, if Martin truly believes he is absoutely correct in this statement, that this whole process is about the protection of "minority rights", I do not see how, as public official and Prime Minister, for that matter, he can continue to belong to, and support, a religious organization that preaches denial of that right, and decries the personal conduct which forms the basis of the relationship which is now "protected" as a right?
2. Al, you have made the allegation in this and previous posts about "gay killings" in post-1985 Nova Scotia (" they were killed, in part or in whole because of who they were"). Now, I know that you truly believe this, because you have stated this a least three times that I can remember in past posts. But are there any facts to support this statement? It would appear to be a serious indictment of the people of Nova Scotia if these gay murders where simply "covered up".
Alan - June 29, 2005 10:42 am
1. Many people of faith in a modern democractic society can act in personal and private lives and deal with the differences. Martin is not unique at all. It is called tolerence. If you cannot tolerate the civil rights of others you pretty much give up your claim to tolerence of your own civil rights. Any civic officer has to come to terms with that and if they can't they should step down. Personally, I think your views are should not be perpetuated but I tolerate your right to do so not as a Christian but as a person in a civil democratic egalitarian society. I think you have some explaining to do to the Lord but that is your business and as such not something I would even discuss except as illustration of the nature of tolerence in a civil society.<p>
2. Yup, of course there are facts but I would not engage in bothering with their review as some sort of debate topic. These guys died and were likely not noted as any big thing back then. But if you think gay bashing was or is limited to Nova Scotia or the 1980s you are dreaming. The indictment is a little less comforting than you might wish.
SayNay? - June 29, 2005 1:51 pm
Some might see you response to 1 as mere lip service to "tolerance".
These people would argue that we're on to Round 2 in the attack on "freedom of religion" - with a movement afoot to eliminate charitable status for religions that practice "discrimination", Human Rights Commission complaints, hate crime charges, "secular loyalty oaths" or public repudiations of their faith by public officials etc. It all has an Orwellian/Soviet feel about it.
I guess we are going to see how far your brand of "tolerance" protects others in the future with whom you don't agree - and see if you (and your confrères) are prepared to stand up for their "right of religious freedom". I, personally, am not holding my breath.
I know that I am repeating myself, but the concern expressed by these deeply religious people is that how can they rely upon you to protect their right to be a public official AND practice religion that in your view promotes discrimination? Think about it: should practicing Catholic Judges be disqualified from hearing cases involving gays or lesbians, if that gay peron states he is "uncomfortable" have a Catholic for a Judge? The Judge belongs to a religion that continues to advocate "discrimination" against this "protected" group apparently, so, the arguement goes, how could that Judge be expected to act fairly towards that person? Same with juries, JPs, the clerk at the MTO etc.
It is a concern of these religious individuals, that you and others will find some semantic reason or pretzel logic to support the punishment of those who continue to be members of a faith that has a view on this issue which is contrary to yours and now, the "law". Membership alone in these faiths (with nothing more) will mean disqualification.
This punishment(ie. their disqualification from public life) will be of course for their own good and the good of the country. Maybe they can be re-educated, and if not, simply marginalized....
Lay the small font on me, Al!!
Alan - June 29, 2005 3:13 pm
No, you are fine. <p>My meaning of tolerance is based on "tolerate" as opposed to "accept" or "respect" or whatever. We as a civil society do not require groups hugs but we do reuiqre that people be left alone to be free in their own way. Use of the law by one group to act otherwise for whatever reason - religion or political belief or lack of understanding of the disabled - will be held unconstitutional.<p>I really do not get your point on the handling of the double obligation of the personal faith and the public life but I know you are hung up on it so I do not mind you seeking to work it out. <p>I know a few things about the faith as explained to me. I know, from the Gospels, I am not to judge another person and I know, from Job, that I am not to expect to understand creation. I import those principles into my life. I still know others do things in good faith that I disagree with. I can tolerate that unless a third person is impeded from doing their things in good faith that I disagree with. From the perspective of faith, if it is all sorted out differently at the heavenly gates than I would have done or expected. But from the perspective of civil society, we do not wait for that good day.<p>So, if an official were to display a judgment not in accordance with tolerance, I would expect - like Judge Bartlett in Truro NS - that he will lose his job. I do not expect, however, that that will happen based on having faith but only on applying faith intolerantly and in violation of the duties of the office in question.
Julia - June 29, 2005 9:58 pm
I was completely heartened by the news today. It's good to know some political officials, albeit in a different country, understand the basic rights that should be afforded to people.
On a non-related note, Alan I had no idea you briefly lived in Sydney Mines! My grandmother was born there and lived there for a short time, and my cousin, Edgar Lyle, and his family still live there. It's such a small town, made to appear even smaller now that all the mining apparatus was torn down from its main spot.
Alan - June 29, 2005 10:50 pm
Well said, Julia.<p>Sydney Mines for me? It was a Minister's Dad's first placement for us and so I lived there in 1971 for one year in grade two. Hard old town with packs of dogs in winter we elementary school kids had to avoid between home and school. I remember I had to take a bath twice a day from the coal soot and got a rare disease from the water. Me old mum had a good cry every once in a while I bet. Hope its nicer without the old ways gone.