So we made it through this controversial Pride Week. The absence of police in Toronto didn't seem to dampen things too much - the PM made his usual appearance anyway, which some people didn't like. Though this was another one of those cases where the people who were really angry about it wouldn't have voted for him anyway, and the people who did vote for him probably won't be offended enough to not vote for him.
But I read a couple of things that are interesting relating to the police ban. One is from this Minister who talks about removing symbols of ministry when visiting first nations communities. And she feels this is a reasonable allowance, acknowledging the churches mistakes in the past and the reasonableness of fears of them. I can understand that, and it makes me wonder if there is some sense to the police uniform ban.
On the other hand, there was this incident in Chicago where Jewish members of the LGBT community waved rainbow Star of David flags. They were then took to go home, because that was considered offensive to some.
Just to clarify, they were offended by the presence of the Star of David as a symbol of Israel. I initially assumed that Jews or Israelis were offended by repurposing the flag, as I had recently seen similar complaints about Canadian rainbow flags. And also to clarify, this wasn't the main parade, but the Dyke March, which is the day before the main event, and supposedly more inclusive.
That incident is quite illustrative of the problem I had with excluding police. You've crossed the line from criticizing the actions of a group to eliminating aspects of the group itself. I've disliked many of the actions of Israel as much as the next guy, just as I've been critical of police actions. But in both cases, it's unreasonable and unfair to blame the entire group for the actions of a few. In this case it's a bit more obvious, since it's a more sympathetic group being targetted, and a group that has more often been victim of broad anger.
So how can I square these two points in favour of and against the police ban? First of all, we have to acknowledge that it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, since there is a big difference between voluntarily giving up symbols of your group vs. being told to give them up. I don't think anyone would have thought poorly of a police officer who chose to remove the uniform for the parade to improve community acceptance. And much as I understand why a minster might want to downplay the symbols of her church in a community hurt by it, it would be wrong for that community to ban the religion or symbols of it.
So that's why I'd stick with my original opinion. As the Chicago incident shows, you can't ban the symbols of a group without it being interpretted as an attack on the group itself. And unless you're going to say that the group is inherently bad, then their right to exist has to trump another group's discomfort.
No comments:
Post a Comment