POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I.

POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I. NO GREAT DISTINCTION must be made between events here at home and those from faraway places that have the capacity to touch our lives. Some issues are so large as to create contradictory opinions on matters of morality, separating us into different factions within our communities, our families, and among those we trust the most. We live in an age where one must decide – willingly or not – where one stands in a society increasingly divided in all things. While it is reasonable to entertain different opinions upon subjects that affect entire countries alike, such as, for instance, the recent assassination of a social and political activist south of the border, it isn’t long before a feeling of moral oppression takes hold. There are unsupportable evils that become the foundation for cross debate, where individuals can exercise a degree of callousness that is all too often hard to reconcile. Locally, we can expect elected members of local councils to ultimately share their thoughts on the killing of Charlie Kirk, the activist to whom I refer, and what that means for the future of public debate within City Hall or on social media. Not unrelated to this is the recent drive towards the “Elect Respect” campaign, which sees our democracy as being under great pressure due to rising public distrust with seemingly unrelenting personal attacks in political spaces. Clarington Council voted recently in favour of a motion to hold their members to the tenets of the Elect Respect mandate, which includes rejecting and calling out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks while focusing their debates on policies rather than personalities. At issue is the need to build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold elected office. Expect all municipalities to eventually jump on board in a similar fashion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Another potentially divisive issue has taken root within the corridors of power over at Regional Council, as seen in their recently released report entitled “Diversity Equity and Inclusion Strategy 2025 – 2029”. Before any of my readers come to an immediate conclusion on this topic, consider the following aspects of the report. The introductory statement tells us the Region’s DEI strategy offers “…a stronger, more unified path forward: one that not only connects the important work now underway, but also sets goals, a shared vision and a long-term commitment to meaningful change.” It goes on to say, “This document is more than a plan; it is a framework for transformative action…” There’s a great deal one could unpack from that text, however; my focus for now is directed towards the report’s “Glossary of Key Terms”. ALLYSHIP, which is basically the active support for the rights of a minority or marginalized group without being a member of it. Sounds reasonable – but a look at the description reveals the following: “An active and consistent practice in which a person in a position of privilege…seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group”. EQUITY, a principle based on advocating ‘fairness’ for all individuals. The Glossary offers this interpretation: “Achieving equality does not necessarily mean treating individuals or groups in the same way, but may require the use of specific measures…” EQUITY DESERVING GROUPS, being those who are seen as having faced barriers to receiving equal opportunities. The Glossary offers a very aggressive interpretation of the term, “Communities that…actively seek social justice and reparations.” HATE ACTIVITY, which includes an assessment of the comments and actions by one individual towards another. Among the interpretations offered on this aspect, the report states, “Examples are: hate crime, hate propaganda, advocating genocide…” There are far too many aspects of the DEI report to analyze within this column, however, it is clear the Region’s views on the equitable treatment of individuals within the community go much further than employment policies and the delivery of social services. The report is nothing less than a political manifesto designed to cast aspersions on Canada and a particular demographic that has lived here for generations – as though they themselves had just disembarked from a sailing ship onto North American soil. This columnist has never been in a position of privilege, and my country is not a so-called colony, but rather a proud nation – Canada. The assertion by the report’s authors that it is somehow wrong to treat all citizens of this country in an equal manner is quite frankly, monstrous, and it demonstrates a repugnance towards what should be seen as true equity – based on universal freedoms, opportunities and merit. In addition, the word “genocide” has become a modern-day political weapon based on one of those unsupportable evils that are now used as the foundation for debate among the more radical in our society. Finally, it is not and never has been the mandate of staff or councillors at the Region of Durham to include references to social justice and most of all, reparations among groups or individuals. The massive bureaucracy that is Regional government bears the responsibility to provide efficient and equitable services to its residents, and only that. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To close out this week’s column, I’d like to comment on the issue of automated speed cameras, which have been in the news lately. During an event in Toronto, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked about speed cameras in Toronto that have been repeatedly vandalized or cut down, and he responded by saying there are other ways to slow drivers down. "If you want to slow down traffic at a school, you put the big signs, big flashing lights at a crossing area, and people will slow down," he said. "I've driven by speed traps that aren't even close to school areas. It's nothing but a tax grab." The Premier is absolutely correct in his assertion, which comes at a time when many municipalities have become reliant on the cash windfall that has resulted in what many see as automated ATM installations on roads designed for a certain traffic flow. I wrote a previous column on the issue of speed cameras and the fact there is no data whatsoever to support their proliferation – and yet, there are those among us who still line up like sheep to advocate for more and increasingly invasive monitoring by Big Government. Among this week’s topics, that last aspect is probably the saddest.