Shooting while blindfolded

by Brandon Mayer

Last week, a local resident got in touch with me to express a concern that a particular topic which has appeared in the Times is one he worries cannot safely be open to healthy debate. This gentleman had thoughts on the issue, but was afraid to express his views for fear of not only rebuke, but possibly even threats directed at him, his wife, and his children. He therefore suggested that the topic should not appear in the Times at all, since both sides could not be presented.

I don’t want to leave readers with a curiosity itch, so let me scratch it for you – the topic the gentleman was referring to is gender identity. There is no need to get into the issue itself, since that is not the point. I disagreed with the resident’s suggestion that the content should not appear, and this disagreement was based on two things. Firstly, the Times is a different kind of newspaper, in that it is meant to act as the “voice of the community” – contributions, and answers to those contributions, are always welcome, so long as they are not obscene or slanderous. Secondly, rather than argue that someone else’s views should not appear in the Times, it was my view that the concerned gentleman should simply write his opposing views in the form of an op-ed or Letter to the Editor.

We abandoned the tedious email exchanges, which were prone to miscommunication, and the resident and I had a phone call. A gentleman indeed, he politely and privately expressed his views to me. It was a civil discussion which ended with a follow-up email in which

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor, he urged me to pass along words of support to the person on the “other side” of the debate. What was troubling, however, was that he also expressed why he felt he couldn’t share his views in the Times. With a topic so polarizing, and people often ruthless and unforgiving, he fears that simply providing his opinion could threaten the safety of his family. Even worse is that I agree.

There is a small but important feature of our community that warrants recognition. That is the fact that several local businesses allow and even encourage dogs to enter their premises with their owners. My dog loves going to stores and other businesses. The first obvious benefit is that owners don’t have to leave dogs in vehicles in hot or cold weather. They should not do so anyway, but this way they can take pooch along for a trip. The greatest benefit is that it provides an important opportunity to socialise dogs, get them used to being in public, and used to different noises and smells. I frequently take my dog to stores to walk around the aisles so he can practice healing (walking) on a loose leash and stay beside me through turns. I also take him to get used to being around other people and behaving appropriately.

When did people become so detached from level-headed common sense and human decency? When did death threats become an automatic “no big deal” response to a difference of opinion? Are we forgetting how to empathize with other people and think about perspectives other than our own? It’s okay to be a social justice warrior, but it’s not okay to threaten others with death. Having to actually say that is simply absurd.

Everyone has loved ones. Every single person has at least one other person they care deeply about, if not many. These loved ones are people whose deaths would devastate us – our children, our spouses, our parents, our siblings, our friends. It is perfectly normal to get a rush of adrenaline and a commitment to protect these loved ones at all costs when they are threatened. If this is something we all experience, then why can’t we extrapolate these feelings, and realize that it’s wrong to put someone else through it? “It’s wrong to tell someone I am going to kill their children just because I disagree with their ideas” – why is this such a hard concept for people? Kindergartners can tell you that it’s best to treat people how you want to be treated, so why can fewer and fewer adults manage it lately?

Words are a powerful tool. There is no doubt of that. However, all powerful tools can be misused. A knife can be used to prepare a delicious meal, or to end a life. A gun can be used to hunt sustainably for food, or to end a life. And words can be used to engage in intelligent debate, or to threaten to end a life. Threatening death in response to a disagreement of ideas is so very unreasonable. It is akin to shooting a gun while blindfolded. It is reckless, senseless, overreactive, and shows total disregard for others. Not to mention that, because threats can scare people into silence, the result is a stifled exchange of ideas, which never makes the world a better place.

Some of the most tragic events in our history have been fueled by fear. We know that a large proportion of Ger- man soldiers in World War II fought for Hitler only because of threats toward them and their families. How a person like Hitler even rose to power in a democratic country can be attributed to the gradual stifling of competing ideas.

How often do we hear in news stories that a person has “received death threats” after doing or saying something controversial? One time is too many. It needs to stop. The fact that I can’t honestly provide

The walking often results in me buying something I hadn’t planned on! It is good for business and customer satisfaction. Some folks may not like dogs being present. The dog owners must be responsible for controlling the dog. In four years of doing this frequently, I have never had a negative experience with anyone in a store or business. If you are someone who doesn’t like it, I hope you will be tolerant and realise the wider benefit. There are many dog owners in our area, so many people appreciate this benefit. I had suggested a few years ago that the North Grenville Times do a story on this, but I guess it was deemed unworthy. I had hoped you would look into it so we would have a fuller list of those businesses that follow this wonderful practice. I can highlight those I have experienced, but I am sure there will be others I am unaware of and I am sorry for those that I miss. I have taken my dog to: Canadian Tire, Kemptville Building Centre (KBCBMR), Peavey Mart, Perkins Lumber, CIBC, Aquarius Pools, Pet Valu, Healthy Pets, Quist & Humphreys, and Spirit Leaf (I was buying CBD!). The cashiers at Canadian Tire, Peavey Mart and KBC almost always have treats for the dogs and love to see them. Family and friends from out of town are amazed that we can take our dogs into so many businesses. This is something that sets us apart. I want to thank all the business owners and managers that allow us to take our dogs into their businesses. I am sure I am not alone in being greatly appreciative of this privilege.

William Vanveen, Kemptville

Dear Editor,

Most residents of NG do appreciate their council BUT as we have lived through some councils prior to this group we know that they could be worse but we also know they can be better. Just a word to North Dundas 2 elections ago North Grenville residents were not happy with the status quo and they threw out the previous council. They can do the same. The voters of NG are not really concerned with the councils in neighbouring municipalities but they are concerned with our council and I have found them lacking during this term and on certain issues last term.

I attended a talk by the Deputy Mayor where he listed the council’s accomplishments and one he was very proud of was the Strategic Plan (SP) that provided a roadmap to guide how NG would grow in the coming years. This is a real accomplishment if it is followed. I asked him about the KPS housing development and how the council had politely listened to the concerns of residents of the neighbourhood only to take a short 'in camera' session and when they returned acted as if the complaints had not been raised in the first place. They proceeded to pass exemptions to get past the height restrictions of the SP and another to change the affordable housing requirements of the SP. I asked about this and was told that the units were filling quickly so he guessed they were in fact affordable. I was embarrassed for the Deputy Mayor that he could say such a thing. Affordable housing is not determined by the fact that people rent/ purchase them, it is meant to imply that the housing is affordable to those that are on fixed incomes and not able to afford the higher rents that I have been told these units are going for. It seems that the goal of the last election of more “af- fordable housing” has been subtly changed to “housing”. Chasing the more affluent voter I guess. He also said much like during the Federal leader’s debate some years ago when John Turner being questioned by Brian Mulroney said "I had no choice" in what he had done and he was told "You always have a choice". If we do not let the developer build higher with fewer affordable units the development will not be cost effective. If this is the council's position that they do not have a choice but to accept whatever developers offer then what good is the Strategic Plan and who is looking out for the residents that voted these people onto council to represent them in situations like this? I think this council needs to remember that they always have a choice between what is good for the community and what is good for the developer.

David Herman