Photo: This woman was seen standing in Flag Park in Huntsville today, holding a sign which read “Standing on guard for freedom,” but what does ‘freedom’ really mean?
Most people would agree, I would hope, that the pace of change has accelerated in our society in recent years, quite likely expedited by the restrictions and inconveniences felt by many during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some instances, at least, the need for public policy parameters to protect the common good has taken a back seat to a demand for more individual rights.
In this age of populism, there is a great deal of talk about individual freedom, the need for fewer restrictions on our lives, and the ability to plot our own course without interference. Much of that is good, but there is a dichotomy here that in my view warrants serious attention.
While we talk about and promote freedom and individual rights, there is also a growing tendency toward defining what we can or cannot talk about, read about or hear about. We seem to be leaning toward a ‘my way or the highway’ public discourse in our society which restricts the ability of people to speak their minds and express their honest opinions without fear or retribution. That does not speak of more freedom or individual rights to me.
We are, in my view, less inclined to listen to those whose opinions are different than ours and indeed, much less tolerant of their right to have them. There are issues that are taboo to talk about unless you are fully toeing the ‘politically correct’ line.
I am going to discuss just two examples of this and have thought a great deal about the consequences of raising them. But, I believe it is an important discussion to have, so full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!
Since June is Pride Month, let’s start there.
No human being, in my view, should be discriminated against because of who they are, how they see their identity, or whom they love. Pride Month is a good time to reflect on that, and on the importance of inclusiveness in community life and indeed, on the significance of why every life matters. That does not mean, however, that everyone has to agree with every aspect of gay life or participate in every public Pride event.
For example, there are a number of folks, including some in the gay community, who believe strongly that life-altering changes in children should not take place until they are of the legal age of consent. There are others who have concerns about uni-sex washrooms in schools and still others who believe it is totally unfair for someone who is born as a male but identifies as a female to compete athletically with girls or women in sporting events.
These are legitimate public policy questions that deserve widespread consideration, debate, and resolution. In this day and age, can we talk about them without being labelled homophobic? I don’t think so.
In Huntsville recently, Council discussed painting a crosswalk on Main Street in rainbow or Pride colours. Some people believe it is the right thing to do and others believe it would be going too far. There has been concern expressed about this from both sides of this issue, but little public conversation because people are afraid of the consequences. That should not be. Why can’t we have a full and respectful conversation about it without being labelled or discredited?
Something else we are not supposed to talk about is the history of Indigenous Residential Schools unless, of course, you want to trash them. Former Anglican Primate, Archbishop Fred Hiltz once said that there is simply nothing good one can say about Residential Schools. He is, in my respectful opinion, wrong.
In spite of the very real tragedies that existed with Residential Schools that should never be forgotten, there are some good things that can be said about them, and to deny that is not only a revision of the truth but also an erasure of the work of many good people, priests and lay men and women combined, who dedicated much of their lives to serving Indigenous people. It also denies the reality that many Indigenous students benefitted from Residential Schools, including one who became the Premier of a Canadian Territory.
That is part of the history of Residential Schools but we are not allowed to talk about it and are labelled racists if we do.
In my view, revisionism like tearing down statues and erasing names of previous leaders as if they never existed and never contributed to Canada has become part of a cancel culture movement that has replaced any meaningful form of dialogue and consensus among Canadians on national issues that define us. I guess we can’t talk about that either.
It is high time, in my opinion, that we learn to talk to each other again, really talk to each other. It is equally important that we learn to listen. We do not always have to agree and sometimes we shouldn’t, but entrenchment seldom produces good results and effective communication and consultation often does.
And so, I say, in this age of populism, let’s at least dilute, if we cannot erase, political correctness that makes so many of us hesitant to say what we really think. Surely, that produces more freedom and not less.
We should not marginalize people who have different views from us, and we should not revile them. Intolerance does not bode well in effective conversations. If we just talked, we might actually learn something.
Why can’t we do that?
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Jeff Jones: Thank you for this info.
“ When Douglass was finally able to tell his story and philosophy in full in his own words, it offered perhaps the most compelling counterweight yet to the 1840 census and the positive good theory. In June 1845, Garrison’s printing office published The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. In five months, 4,500 copies were sold, and in the next five years, 30,000. The gripping best seller garnered Douglass international prestige and forced thousands of readers to come to grips with the brutality of slavery and the human desire of Black people to be free. No other piece of antislavery literature had such a profound effect. Douglass’s Narrative opened the door to a series of slave narratives. For anyone who had the courage to look, they showed the absolute falsity of the notion that enslavement was good for Black people.”
I just finished reading this passage from “Stamped From the Beginning, The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America” by Ibram X. Kendi. Made me think about the “good” of residential schools and how most Canadians could benefit by hearing more about the histories and first hand experiences of people who went to these schools. Maybe more listening and learning would be better before discussion and dialogue.
Hugh, I find it unfathomable that there were some Indigenous people who were prisoners of residential schools who “benefited” from them, irrespective of whether they were or were not victims of abuse. You can be certain that they saw their friends, siblings, and/ or classmates view unspeakable torture. At the least, they knew about it and as such, probably are adversely affected. Trauma runs deep and across generations. That a premier of a Canadian territory was in a residential school and “benefited” from it is perhaps twisting the truth (please provide evidence contrary to my opinion if you have it, did they/he/she say so?). Or maybe he/she wasn’t scooped and entrenched in White Ways? Did he/she voluntarily enrol in a residential school to be away from their family and community?
Yes, White Privileged Canadians – particularly White Canadian MALES, do need to listen and listen and question, and examine their belief system. Can we be vulnerable and brave enough to admit to our stereotypical beliefs? In my opinion, and from what I’ve gleaned via books, online info sessions, and social media is that The Residential Schools were an attempt to maintain the status quo at a huge detrimental cost to Indigenous peoples. Maintaining the Status Quo as the ‘ Right Way’ fittingly applies to other minority communities. There are a number of excellent online, free info sessions re (e.g.Indigenous peoples, LGBTQ2S+ community ) that are facilitated by minority communities (not facilitated by White Privileged). I encourage readers to source these.
Respectful, open-minded conversations need to happen. Again. And again. And again. Town Councils and the like need to seek feedback from minority groups. They know far better than the Status Quo what needs to be done.
Hugh, I concur with your opinion. We don’t always have to agree. And, if we do respectfully disagree, we shouldn’t be viewed as racist, bigoted, and so on. 7
However, I do believe that we need to see everyone as a human being. We are, after all, in the minority of species; that’s a fact. Can we look into anyone’s or everyone’s eyes and truly see their humanness? We love who we love, we worship who we worship, our skin tones vary, the slant of our eyes differ and so on. But in the end, we all want to be loved. We all want to be respected. We all want to be happy. We are interdependent as a species; let us not lose sight of that. It is reality.
“Do better.” You can.
Seguin Sailors: You put “slavery” and “Caucasians” in the sentence as though Caucasians might have been the only people to have ever benefited from the slavery. Hope you don’t think that. Man has enslaved other men since one found he was stronger in some way, and therefore could. Slavery, indentured servitude, call it what you may, it is part of all human cultures.
The average Egyptian worked alongside Nubians to build the pyramids. The Nubians where captured and sold by Buja tribes men. I’m sure neither, press-gang Egyptian or Nubian slave had an option once the Pharaoh spoke and the lash cracked.
A song handed down in the Makah culture (a west coast indigenous people) as a warning to any who would threaten them states:
“Do not think for a moment that you can defeat us, for we own slaves from all other tribes, even from the coast tribes to the north.” I believe you can find this recorded by Young Doctor, 1851 to 1934.
The piece infers quite plainly that ‘you mess with us and you’ll work for us’.
Eunuchs, both white and colored, were common in some societies, some of them attaining positions of authority and sometimes, notoriety. Refer to the history of the Ottomans and the eunuch Beshir Agha.
(I’d read about him but couldn’t remember the name ’til I looked it up.) But I bet he never chose to be a eunuch. Likely none of them chose to be eunuchs!!
Castrati were created (?), sometimes just because the young man had a lovely voice and someone else wanted them to keep it. Maybe they volunteered? Maybe not. But likely a victim.
We read of press gangs in navies, legionnaires, plantation slaves, people sold into prostitution. Slavery by any name is just a stronger individual forcing another to do the work.
And there is no let up in the practice today. In various disguises, it is still with us. We just don’t talk about, or acknowledge it. ‘Slavery’ is an inconvenient subject.
That is ‘daft’. And that is damnable.
We cannot have conversations anymore, especially when you play down the horrors that residential school survivors, and those who didn’t survive, went through.
This is like stating that slavery wasn’t bad because Caucasians benefited from free labour. You have to be daft to wonder why people won’t have a conversation with you.
Do better.
Ya gotta say, if someone did well in life and were also victims (and i mean it, thos kids were victims in EVERY sense of the word) of residential schools id say that person did well DESPITE residential school and NOT becaus of it!
It was WRONG, end of story….regardless of how well intentioned SOME of thos involved were (and most were not well intentioned at all but meant to do harm), it was wrong for anyone to forcibly remove children from loving homes only becaus the church and govt saw thm as animals.
Those kids belonged at home with their families and communities NOT locked up in massive dormatories, fed jst enough to keep thm alive, taught only the most rudimentary skills so they cld be labourers to serve white society, severely punished jst for being who they were, sexually/verbally/psychologically abused by strangers and in almst all cases shown ZERO love in a cold place with no way of knowing wht happened to their parents or grandparents.
Parents also were kept in the dark as their kids were moved without consent or who died (these parents loved their kids and walked miles and miles to try to see thm and wanted to take thm home), many left empty handed with no explanation.
Forced sterilization took place in these “schools” and children were routinely exposed to disease in the hopes tht they wld become infected and die (and it wrked and there is documention frm doctors at the time who did ths work for the church and govt).
Thos parents who were able to take their precious children home for a coupl mnths were met with kids who had been transformed buy extreme fear/trauma and abuse……but hey, they learned to read so thats a bonus?!!
Sorry, sickened whn i hear white people talk like this…..these were NOT “schools” they were torture chambers and prisons for littl kids and ovr hlf of thm never made it out alive!
Shame on u Hugh, giv yer head a shake, theres no excuse to not know the horrors of thes institutions now.
Kids cldv been taught to read and still stay in their communities with their parents and siblings….but they were taken so they cld be broken, abused and wiped out….its called genocide for a reason and theres NO good that comes from such hate!
Mr. Pease; if one’s purpose is just to “express” one’s opinion and not have it challenged, then write in a diary or go on a street corner with a sign or write a song or film a documentary or paint a picture, etc., etc.
If one’s purpose is to understand or to learn about an issue, then one has to be prepared to listen to the voices and opinion of others.
You choose your level of engagement.
Somehow we now think that if we disagree with someone about THEIR reality, something is being taken away from US/OURS. That’s the lie..we lose nothing in disagreeing with someone. We will lose their respect, however, if we are unkind, uncivil and disrespectful. Since we are using quotes in the comments I say, “the less said, the better”. More acts of empathy with less vocalization seems the best course. For instance, I disagree (somewhat strongly)with many of Hugh’s points but I appreciate and respect the person. We really can’t control another person’s reality (life) when it’s not ours and could never be.(ie. I will never be Indigenous). There is also nothing wrong with keeping our opinions to ourselves (I’m finally learning this!) ; we don’t NEED to talk about everything. We seriously need to pull together and get it together!
And additionally to anyone who needs more perspective on Residential schools – I urge you to watch the film “We Were Children” for free: https://gem.cbc.ca/we-were-children
The answer to your own questions are in the title of your Series.
*Listen up.*
As a cis gendered white man from a time where buying a home, making your way forward was as simple as pulling up your boot straps, this world was designed for your thriving. As we move forward as a society – we learn, grow and do better. We can be better.
How do we do that? We listen. We listen to the experts with lived experience.
Are you an expert on 2SLGBTQIA+ rights? Are you a survivor of residential schools?
Now, I hear your question about having dialogue. But dialogue is sometimes just listening first. Asking questions in spaces that aren’t harmful.
Your examples are the most harmfully debated ones.
In referencing gender affirming care for trans youth – I venture to say you don’t have experience navigating this. Have you talked to any families who are faced with this very REAL reality in their everyday lives, when gender affirming care is life saving suicide prevention?
When I got to your words about Residential schools I was gobsmacked. We are literally still finding the graves of children that never made it home, and you want to highlight the good that came from them?
Most of all, please listen if you are granted the privilege of the labour of someone from an LGBTQ+ or Indigenous person telling you WHY this article is problematic. They don’t owe you anything and reading this article was likely very harmful and triggering.
Sometimes people simply have poor conversation skills; they have not learned how to disagree in a civil manner.
Other times I think something else is up. The old phrase says “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose” . The idea there is that we are free to express ourselves all different ways, but physical violence is not permitted. Society would not permit physical violence, and if you tried to commit some, society would step in and use its power to forcibly stop you. That’s the kind of power society has.
I don’t think any human has ever loved having someone disagree with them. It’s never pleasant to hear someone else’s “bad speech.”. But as another old saying goes, the answer to bad speech is good speech. We counter bad ideas by promoting good ideas. We take the time to have the discussion, to have the conversation, and do the hard work of persuading someone to our point of view.
But all that discussing and persuading – that’s all a lot of work! We don’t like doing that work, we are tempted and think ” wouldn’t it be easier if we could just force this person to agree with us?”. And then we start plotting: how can we force them to agree with us? How can we make them believe what we want them to believe?
And that’s when we remember the power that society has to forcibly control people. That power was reserved for people committing violence, so our strategy is simple: we claim that the other person is committing violence simply by expressing their bad ideas. We say that their words are so bad, so wrong, that simply saying them out loud is an act of violence. An act of hate.
And as soon as we make that small change – that subtle shift in the definition of violence – suddenly we have all the power of the state in our hands to stop the person we disagree with and force them to believe what we want them to.
Thus wittness the most recent example of this: the proposal to make “residential school denialism” a hate crime. So now we’ll sic the police on people who think the wrong things about residential schools? Can people really not see the problem with that? Fascism is great, when the power of the state is being used against the people you don’t like, but you’ll quickly change your tune on the day they come for you.
Instead of all that, we should do as the columnist suggests: we should have real, honest, even disagreeable conversations with people. Trying to use power to control other people’s beliefs is wrong, and also useless: as a final old saying goes, a man convinced against his will is a man of the same opinion still.
I proudly served for 26 years in the Canadian military and it is my belief that I did so partly to protect not only our country but it’s rights and freedoms as well. To this end I also believe it is our individual right to express our opinions. Whether deemed right or wrong by “special interest groups” it is our personal opinion. I am tired of having to justify my opinions to the politically correct who seem to think that if I do not agree wholeheartedly with their view that that somehow makes me anti whatever there opinion is. Lets just all realize that we all have different views on some things and accept each other as fellow human beings who are all flawed in some way. Can’t we just all learn to be a bit more tolerent of each other?? Of course this is just my humble opinion.
Hugh,
I’ve written you before, to show appreciation of your writing, and your common sense viewpoints.
I’m glad that I receive Muskoka Doppler, especially having access to your articles. With that in mind, I can’t help but wish more people heard your words.
I would like to recommend that you publish volumes of your articles, in book form, and online, in a world wide format; at least in North America.
I’ve served on a few committees and 8yrs on Innisfil Council, which only allows me to appreciate your many accomplishments! I hope I meet you some day, till then,
Respectfully,
Rod Boynton
I agree conversation is important. I really do. However conversation between individuals willing to learn and grow is different than individuals who don’t care about the other point of view and use violence and threats when engaging. There are going to be times for discussion and there are going to be times to understand that a marginalized group should not have to explain their rationale to their oppressors. That first we need to do our own work of understanding our roles/biases/responsibility in the situation and let the people fighting for their rights know that we don’t know anything unless we are directly impacted by the situation. That because we may have been oppressed in other ways does not mean we have a right to an opinion and to recognize that we also have been accorded privilege’s based on our race, gender, and class.
Secondly I don’t think we can ever say that there were “good” outcomes of a situation that was done by force with zero consent of the communities impacted. Yes not everyone had the same outcomes but the bottom line is that children were removed by force from their families, culture and stripped of their identities. That a select number of individuals did okay does not erase the the fact that they were given no choice. Their homes, communities and families did not do okay and it will take generations for them to recover.
I just received an email with quotes that were interesting and one said this:
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
I agree with this quote.
As well, my granny used to say that” it’s an ill wind that blows no good”. To take a child away from their parents without the loving parents consent is always bad, but fortunately some managed to survive without their parents’ love and found good for themselves in the process. (Doesn’t mean it was right in the first place, it was not! – only that some managed to find something good even in the worst circumstances)
Great article . It’s very sad we can’t have real discussions anymore.
Some of the comments prove just how true that is.
Keep up the good work
Thank you
Yes like Anna Lise says, listening and understanding another person, not just expressing one’s opinion is a conversation, not just talking. Yes, especially if there is disagreement. But there is also Truth, as well as Respect. For more than one hundred years Canada has found it beneficial to degrade indigenous people and their culture and ignore their human rights. The purpose of Residential Schools was an attempt to end the “Indian Problem” by erasure: call it cultural genocide. We are no longer burying this racist policy with children in unmarked graves. No matter how heavy the weight of guilt for these things done on so called Canada’s behalf, it cannot be pretended that Indian Residential Schools were recognizable as schools. We must hear the Truth.
Glen Carroll; Yours’ could hardly be a better example, in part, of what the man is talking about. Could there have been no one who was helped or learned?
It might be difficult for an individual who attended one of those schools to say they, personally, never suffered the hardships and indignities others did. Peer pressure can be a bitch. Better to just be silent.
We are told that some went through hell, and saying “Well some didn’t” will be construed as soul self serving. But not all suffered or learned the same. Life simply isn’t like that. We feel for those who were harmed. The rest we hope will have a good life.
Conversations should start with “listening”. People want to be heard, seen, and many wish to be understood and respected. Populism which plays on the emotions (anger, fear) can motivate or enslave, in my view.
Can we force people to be respectful? Yes and No.
Yes: Hate-filled expressions, language targeting perceived “enemies”, especially those inciting/leading to violence are to be governed when the person(s) are unable to self-regulate their emotions (when they themselves or others around them are put in danger).
No: True/deep respect requires an inward change of mind/heart and an outward self-regulation of behaviour. In this instance, respectfulness is individual.
We are also an impatient species, thinking everyone should “get over” previous harm/trauma according to our calculation of recovery, grief. People do not fit into time periods of dealing with trauma. One only has to consider the war veteran, the war refugee to imagine a resulting lifetime change in behaviour for self or family.
Finally, our conversation may do well to consider scale: personal-one-on-one interaction as different from a larger sociological perspective. It may be well to figure out which scope one speaks from when engaging in debate (racism is just such a topical example).
Its not your place to say whether residential schools were good or not. Do you think those kids wouldve rather been there learning or at home with their families?