Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm also not sure why Cliff is appealing to universalism. Are we supposed to pretend as though these people do not currently have different lived experiences based on their identities, and regardless of what the law states? Are you saying that the disproportionate harm these folks experience is acceptable collateral damage, lest we stray from the ideals of liberal universalism?
|
I’m not saying it’s acceptable. I’m questioning how we talk about equality. It’s one of those terms that’s used so indiscriminately that it has become almost meaningless. It’s like championing freedom. Sounds great. What does it actually mean?
Our institutions can craft laws and policies that treat people the same. That’s equality in the formal sense. If you’re talking about harm being done to people - violence and hate speech - we have that in the books. Beating up or threatening to beat up a gay person in 2023 carries legal consequences, just as targeting a straight person does. If there’s an incident where it doesn’t, then we need to investigate that and find out why.
None of that can change how people feel about others. Or how they speak about them, short of hate speech. That has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with fear and bigotry. You can’t mandate that people feel the same about everyone else.
Anti-Semitism in Canada has a long history. Is it because Jews in Canada today aren’t equal with gentiles? No. It’s because some people have ugly beliefs.
We should call out bigotry of all kinds when we see it. What more beyond that do you think we should be doing that we aren’t doing now?