Law Society of Ontario vs reality

The Law Society of Upper Canada, soon to self-resurrect as the Law Society of Ontario, is the trade association of Ontario's 50,000 lawyers and 8,000 para-legals.

The Society's latest gambit is to require its members (officially licencees) "to adopt and to abide by a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public. And they must do so annually.

That's serious adopting and abiding, and beyond the Society's regulatory authority.

The Society's president explains that it's all about countering racism within the profession and towards the general public.

The hornet's nest has been disturbed. Some licencees claim the statement is compelled speech and that infringes on constitutional rights. A member of the Society's board is advocating exemption for conscientious objectors. Another licencee objects to being forced to adopt and promote someone else's "political ideology" as indeed it is.

The naiveté in this feel-good measure is the belief that law can stop racism. At best it may limit its overt expression. Partial solution rests with education. Even then. racism will continue to exist in one form or another.

Too White to Woo

Letter published in the Toronto Star, January 13, 2015 

To claim that the House of Commons is too white, old and male smacks of racism, ageism and sexism.(Parliament too white, old and male, study says, Jan 3). Parliamentarians are elected for the sole purpose of representing our political views as ultimately expressed in the laws they enact. 

I do not care if my federal, provincial and municipal representatives are freckled, polka-dot Luggnaggians, so long we envision our Canada, our province, our city more or less in the same way. If they fail in that, I do my best to see them replaced by someone who does.

Let us never forget the ringing words of Martin Luther King Jr. who dreamed that one day his children would "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character." 

Name-Calling is not Argumentation

Bravo Richard Gwyn (Sir John A. wasn't a racist, Toronto Star, Feb 7). The term "racism" must be limited to the true ideologue whom Gwyn defines. He speaks out against an overly-developed sense of righteousness and political correctness. 

A comment or disagreement too often results in one being labelled  a racist, homophobe, bigot, prejudiced etc. Such compartmentalized thinking stifles free expression. It ignores the possibility that the other person may have a valid point, however disagreeable. Name-calling is not argumentation.

Democracy demands the right to disagree even to the point of offence and insult. Only the Criminal Code can set the standard when expression becomes harmful.

Unwarranted Apologies

Letter in the Toronto Star, January 21, 2014

By declaring John A. MacDonald as "racist," the writers of an op ed have fallen into the error of "presentism" -- judging the past by today's standards. Some today may consider the actions of Sir John A. racist. We do not know if that was the case 150 years ago.

In her book, The Uses and Abuses of History, historian Margaret MacMillan asks, "Is it healthy for societies to apologize for things that were done in different centuries and under different sets of belief?"

She cautions, "It is all too easy to rummage through the past and find nothing but a list of grievances."

Sir John was a person of his time. Judge him only by the standards of that time.

* * *

"One should not demand that past epochs conform to current prejudices, and thus commit the sin of excessive 'present-mindedness,' distorting the past by forcing it into a mould of recent construction."
     Roland N. Stromberg
     European Intellectual History since 1789

* * *

Was it necessary 2007 for a tribe in Papua New Guinea to apologize for eating missionaries in the 19th century?

The "R" Word

What is the appeal in the words racism and racist?

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, in its own ungrammatical way, describes Islamophobia as " a contemporary and emerging form of racism".

The U.K. report of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia presents the case "for seeing Islamophobia as a form of racism".

In explaining Belgium's banning the burqa, a member of parliament claimed, "We are not a racism kind of country".

In a legal dispute over Muslim women wearing veils, a lawyer "raised the spectre of racism".

Airport security screening of turbans called "elements of racial profiling".

A letter to the Toronto Star of June 18, 2014, dealt with our failings towards our aboriginal people. The writer avoided the word racist. The headline writer editorialized this complaint into "our racist history."

Not one of these examples involves race, other than in the minds of the accusers. (In the case of the Toronto Star, in the mind of the editorializer.) Such words trip off the tongue more readily than intolerance or bigotry or racial discrimination. Is it the snake-like sibilance hissing through clenched teeth that appeals? Or because it's but a short linguistic step from fascism and fascist? Or because the perpetrator is linguistically challenged?