Dear Editor:
RE: Axe pride, prevent hate? (June 29).
I was surprised at Mr. Brunsveld’s suggestion that the best way to prevent attacks on the LGBTQ2S+ community would be to axe Pride. He and I have disagreed in the past and that’s fair. As he says, we have freedom of expression. I would suggest he rethink his argument. I’m guessing he has not thought his all the way through.
If the logic is that we prevent violence by removing the target of the violence then it could easily be extended. In June and July of 2021, 68 Christian churches were vandalized or burned (after the discovery of unmarked graves on the sites of Residential Schools). Surely if we just axed visible churches these attacks would stop? Sound ridiculous? Now you know how I felt when I read his suggestion.
Pride is about affirming the rights of LGBTQ2S people. It is about the broader community saying love who you want to love, be who you are, live how you want to live. It is about teaching acceptance and tolerance. What happened to teaching “love thy neighbour as thyself?” What happened to (paraphrased) “let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
It seems to me that rather than axing Pride, we need to more emphatically teach tolerance, acceptance, empathy, and (gasp) even love. Mr. Brunsveld’s response reinforces the need for Pride. Rather than axing Pride to reduce violence, how about we reduce violence to reduce the need for things like Pride?
I struggle to understand how Pride, gay marriage, or other hard won rights, infringe on Mr. Brunsveld’s freedom of religion, his freedom of expression, or his parental rights. He clearly has the right to speak against Pride – I am responding explicitly to his expression. We have not infringed on his freedom of religion. He can worship as he pleases and believe what he chooses to believe.
If simply the existence of rainbow crosswalks, Pride flags, and government proclamations about Pride infringes on his freedom of religion, how do we deal with Christmas and Easter holidays for people of other faiths? His freedom does not allow him to infringe on freedoms of others. The parental rights argument is also fraught. No one is limiting his right to teach his children what he wants. He can take his kids to church. He can choose a private religious education for his children. He cannot, however, decide what all children learn in a public education system. We’re not teaching people to be gay here.
While I don’t expect that I will change Mr. Brunsveld’s mind, I felt it important to express mine. If we don’t stand up for our LGBTQ2S friends, associates and family members, who will?
Michael von Massow,
Elora