Politicization of Pride protest

In the Saturday edition of the Cape Breton Post, a headline on its front page read, “Love is louder” — the implication being that something had opposed the idea of love.

This was quickly confirmed in the subhead, which read, "Drag Story Time met with small group of protesters to kick off Pride week.”

This turn of phrase also had yet another implied meaning. Namely, that the protest to a drag queen storytelling event had necessarily been small as most of our citizens would support, without discussion, drag queen storytelling. To be otherwise would mean being classified as either intolerant, ignorant or even homophobic or transphobic.

Any takers here? Permit me to try.

DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS

The essence of the protest at the drag storytelling event at Sydney’s Wentworth Park was described by protest organizer Darlene LeBlanc in the following terms: “We want children to love books and libraries. We don’t want the libraries to convert children using (drag performers) … this is not age appropriate. There are other ways to introduce gay role models.”

Hardly the stuff of homophobia or malevolent intolerance. Yet, as if to convince the reader that the protest indeed had a sinister force behind it, the article noted that Ms. LeBlanc “co-ordinated and participated in many ‘freedom’ (anti-government mandates) protests.”

Yes, let us make the reader first aware she is one of those anti-vaccination nutters. What would one expect from a person of this sort?

It is a familiar tactic deployed against anyone who presents an opinion at odds with the establishment and its elitist political class allies. Shoot the messenger as part of an effort to censor and quash a message to one preferred by the prevailing commentariat. Then, as if to nail home that message, headline status was accorded the statement of event supporter Erin Thompson that “a few people spreading hate shouldn’t be the focus of the day which is about love and acceptance.”

Dare I ask, what “hate” or what rejection of “love and acceptance,” unless, of course, to merely ask such a question is considered yet further evidence of such hate and rejection?

Ah yes, of course, there’s the rub and with it the implied warning to be quiet unless one is cast among this nest of hate-filled apostates of the new progressive order who alone know what it is to love and practice social acceptance. How grateful we should be, the unknowing and ill-informed, to have such guidance.

FRAGILITY OF FREE SPEECH

Concepts of inclusivity, diversity and tolerance have been appropriated by our political class to occupy a very narrow and segregated classification. Step outside the opinions of this spectrum and expect a torrent of abuse from political, academic and media sources. It is as if this narrow band think it is their mission to protect those that are relegated to group status with each group member sharing identical views on all subjects.

Yet this collective, as enlightened as they may be, is apparently so fragile they are in constant want of protection from their elite benefactors. It is an odd paradox with the entirely regressive effect of denying individual identity, diversity of views and freedom of expression.

It is incredible how the dominant stream of — and please note my use of the defining word dominant and not “main” as an adjective to stream — have taken it upon themselves to suggest that they speak for the majority. Nothing is further from the truth.

Diversity of opinion, as in this instance respecting the appropriateness of drag storytelling, pro and con, is to be respected and analyzed for its content, not derided with personal slights and a lack of proper intellectual and critical inquiry.

Unfortunately, this is the pit into which most subjects have fallen in the public forum. Plug and promote a narrative without regard to fact, analysis, skeptical inquiry, and the confidence to engage in open discussion or debate.

Fear of offending, alienating, or saying the wrong thing, has derailed free speech, replacing it with an insidious censorship masquerading as social justice and the entirely arrogant notion of the political class that they, and they alone, have as their mission both its definition and sponsorship.