Editorial response

 Hi…

About your view of John Rustad’ s October 3 Legislature speech:

I really don’t think you need to be cynical to suggest that Rustad was making the point that if some expressions are not permissible in the Legislature, then they should not be permitted in an elementary school setting either. This is not cynicism; this is stating a truth, albeit a truth that may or may not be universally accepted. Rusted’s point may or may not be valid: true.

What, to me, is more to the point, is that in the rest of your article you seem to suggest that since kids are exposed to far more suggestive and explicit concepts and language outside the school setting (mainly through the Internet)—which is undeniably the case—, then we should not be critical of schools for doing the same, even if in milder doses. This argument seems to be based on the lesser of two evils principle. The principle is certainly fair when we have to choose between two evils, in which case most of us would agree that choosing the lesser one is morally the better choice. But in this case we are hardly faced with two evils. We are faced with the Internet, which by its very nature contains much that is of questionable value; and with schools, which, if they contain questionable matters, they contain them only because teachers and administrators allow this to happen. 

So the two evils principle doesn’t apply in this case. This means, really, that the Internet has little to do with this whole question. What is at the heart of it is whether or not schools should be involved at all with issues such as sexual orientation, with all that that implies. Without taking a position on this issue, I do wonder where parents generally stand.

No, please

 Letter to Squamish Mayor and Van Sun

Dear Mayor and Council.
I feel for the Squamish nation—as I feel for indigenous people everywhere—for the many ways in which they were harmed in the past at the hands of the colonial powers. I think I also undestand the hurt they must feel at being confronted in today’s environment by names of streets and towns and rivers and mountains that unavoidably remind them of those unpleasant historical events.
But historical events they are, and no amount of name changing is going to erase them. Sure, remove the names and many of us, indigenous or non-indigenous, will in time forget that these events ever happened. But is that a good thing? Do we really want future generations to go through life ignorant of the past—of what in effect made us what we are? (And, let’s face it, the list of—for some—undesirable names is long, and includes Vancouver, Fraser River, Juan de Fuca, Victoria, Prince George and many others, including, of course, Mt. Garibaldi as well as British Columbia itself, all of which in a very real sense define our province.)
Having said this, I personally, would welcome seeing existing names accompanying indigenous names. That would actually enrich our sense of history. So by all means, dear Mayor and Council members, go for it. Just—please!—don’t cancel the names we have all lived with for as long as we have been in this province. And as for Mt. Garibaldi, by getting rid of it you would simply make an awful lot Garibaldi hikers unhappy, which would really not be in keeping with the spirit of reconciliation, nor would it be a nice thing to do to those who see in Garibaldi a very interesting and positive historical figure.
Yours truly,
Ermes Culos