Dogwhistles and Dialogue

Reacting to Reactionaries

Earlier this week I was seated next to the aisle on a flight from Toronto to Saskatoon. A hunter from Tennessee was in the middle and a man from Prince Albert was by the window. The two of them were chatting and I was reading my book. Their conversation turned from hunting rifles to crime and the man in the window seat started talking about how in Prince Albert they were surrounded by “Indians.” He recounted sensational stories of crime and inadequate punishment. My blood had already started to boil when he started into the standard tropes about how “Indians get everything for free and they don’t pay any taxes.”

I couldn’t bear to listen any longer. “What you’re saying is bullshit,” I said. “Stop it. It’s not okay to be running down First Nations people that way.” He apologized and we spent the rest of the flight in uncomfortable silence.

While saying something was certainly better than saying nothing, this was a missed opportunity. Instead of reacting angrily – as infuriating as racism and ignorance are – I ought to have offered to correct the misconceptions. That would have been complicated, it’s not easy to engage patiently with someone whose beliefs are offensive and entrenched, but it’s always worth trying. Instead, I spoke up and shut someone up, but no minds were changed.

This exchange reminds me of the wisdom of a friend I admire who says that he believes in “God first and dialogue second.” It is so easy for us to avoid difficult subjects and conversations entirely, to create monsters out of those who disagree with us, or to simply shut down conversation with quick judgment. The problem is, while that might feel good for a moment, it grows the distance between us. We lose the opportunity to learn and grow ourselves and help others to do so as well. Taking the time, and the risk, to engage openly and slowly in a challenging conversation is the only path to reversing the polarization of our short sentence social media age.

---

---

Irreparable Harm

Scott Moe and the Sask Party have recalled the Saskatchewan legislature two weeks early to introduce and pass what they are calling the Parental Inclusion and Consent Policy. An injunction against this policy was granted by a Court of King’s Bench judge in Regina who concluded that the policy as written could cause irreparable harm to Saskatchewan children. In response, Moe says he plans to push the legislation through and use the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ignore the injunction.

The policy in question would establish the requirement that, if a child is questioning their gender identity and asks to go by a different name or use different pronouns at school (sometimes referred to as “social transition), the school must inform their parents. This has been presented as simple and straightforward by both proponents and opponents of the change.

There’s an intuitive call here from parents: if my child is doing something so drastic as changing their name or how they identify, I deserve and need to know. Who better to walk beside a child going through an identity struggle than the people who love them the most and know them the best? England’s National Health Service recently published guidelines that encourage schools to involve parents before pupils socially transition.

We also know that the risk of suicide for LGBTQ youth is four times that of their peers. That suicide risk drops substantially if those youth are accepted. The best place for that love and acceptance, the place where it’s most needed and most valuable, is with their family at home. But the truth is, not every family is ready to provide that love and acceptance; not every home is a safe home. These concerns were raised by Saskatchewan’s Child Advocate, Lisa Broda, who has spoken out in criticism of the new policy.

There is legitimate discussion to be had about how to balance these valid concerns about parental involvement and child safety. Instead of having that discussion, Scott Moe’s government drafted their policy in nine days on the strength of 18 letters praising a similar policy in New Brunswick. That’s all. No consultation with educators, with parent groups, with experts in child psychology. No real thought given to how the policy would be put in place. No consideration of whether there were less directive ways to help teachers guide and support kids. These could include helping identify their level of safety at home and navigating a healthy way to be open with their family. Instead, teachers ­­– already under tremendous stress in an underfunded education system – are being put in the position of running to parents or running afoul of the law. And children at risk have one less resource, one less chance to find a safe haven at a difficult and confusing time. A thoughtful, nuanced approach to the issue is required.

Sadly, this is not really about children, it’s about politics. And today it appears there is no room for nuance in politics. Questions of gender identity are uncomfortable. It’s hard for many parents, however supportive and loving they are, to imagine their children being someone other than the boy or girl they welcomed into the world. For some, the reaction goes beyond discomfort to rejection and hate. This is where conservative politicians like Blaine Higgs, Scott Moe and Doug Ford are playing with fire in order to fuel division. They are trying to import the US culture wars, with its bizarre trans obsession and backlash against LGBTQ rights, into Canada.

Competing demonstrations in Saskatoon, Sept. 20. Photo: Pratyush Dayal, CBC

For Moe and co. to try to take advantage of the heightened rhetoric around the issues is a cynical approach to a complex and challenging issue. The last things these kids need, the last thing trans and queer adults who have been excluded and marginalized need, is to have their existence used as a wedge issue. The premier of the province should be working to ensure everyone, including those who are vulnerable due to their gender and sexual identity, has a chance at a full and healthy life. Instead, he rage-farms to raise money and exploits fear and discomfort for his own perceived political gain.

The court ruling gives an opportunity to change the channel, to start over and have a reasoned conversation. Instead of misusing the Notwithstanding Clause, the premier should use this moment to review the policy, meet with families, school boards and experts, respect the charter rights of children and give them the support they need to thrive.

---

---

Desperation and Decency

A little further East, we have Heather Stefanson and the Manitoba PCs. They are trailing Wab Kinew and the NDP in opinion polls in the lead-up to the Oct. 3rd provincial election and have decided to take the lowest road they can find to try to hold on to power. In the final stretch of the campaign they have taken ads out promising not to search the Prairie Green landfill for the remains of Morgan Harris and Marcedes Myran, two Indigenous women who are believed to have been murdered by a Winnipeg serial killer. Rather than giving a vision of their plans for the future, the PCs have chosen to make their final pitch to voters a commitment to ignore the wishes of the families of murdered Indigenous women. The campaign has taken out newspaper and online ads against the search and Stefanson made it a central part of her leaders’ debate strategy. As embarrassing as it is to see a premier make this her legacy, we can only hope that Manitobans see it for exactly what it is: a desperate dogwhistle in a government’s dying days.

The Manitoba PCs also released Republican-style attack ads on the NDP candidates. Wab Kinew, who has found a path of redemption from a rough past, responded to these attacks by saying: "I'm pleased that the PCs are now attacking me instead of trans kids or women in the landfill. I signed up for this. I knew what I was getting into. Trans kids and the families of the murder victims did not.”

It’s a mic drop moment from a leader who understands what reconciliation really means. Here’s hoping Manitobans are ready to take a different approach and at least one prairie province will move away from reactionary right wing politics and return to its social democratic roots. Here’s hoping for leadership that believes in dialogue, not division.