Commenters Russ Campbell and 'Dollops' call me to task for the following phrase in "A conversation about Canadian values":
"If she’s sincere in not understanding this, and not simply trying to froth up a corrosive populist rage for personal political gain…"They are, of course, correct. This phrasing falls far short of the standard I do my best to hold myself to in debate. Nobody likes to eat crow, but sometimes it has to be done. The original phrasing, now in strikethrough, links to this post and its apology. It was indulgent to use such language, no matter how troubled I am by the topic.
That needs to be said. But then Dollops continues:
"Discrimination, Ms Bufton, is good; it is how we common folk separate wholesome change from unwanted adventures."Dollops is correct again - discrimination is important. And discriminating is what I was doing in my post.
The mindset that says only a nebulous, elite group could disagree with your position and the idea that your ideas alone should be institutionalised as soon as that elite group can be overthrown is dangerous to the values that underpin a liberal democratic society like Canada's. Discrimination against unwholesome adventures departing from Canada's foundational values of free inquiry and democratic discussion need to be levelled at populist ideas for this very reason. It is incumbent upon us to take part in it.
Too many conservatives to whom the idea of 'values-screening' is appealing seem ill-prepared for the idea that their values seem as dangerous to a large part - not a small elite - of the Canadian polity when assessed by someone like me as my ideas appear to someone like them.
My sincere thanks to you both for the comments.