Regarding Jesse Popowicz's most recent letter (St. Albert Gazette, June 19), we should take note of the way in which goalposts are being moved around in this discussion. Initially, Popowicz put forth the argument that certain topics were "facts" and "rights", presumably beyond discussion. Now, duly corrected on these erroneous assumptions, Popowicz has shifted to decrying the spreading of hate, and then conflating this with arguing about abortion or homosexuality.
Now, it may be that Popowicz holds to the view that there is only one acceptable opinion to hold on e.g. the abortion issue, and that any opinions which deviate from it are, by definition, hateful utterances. Certainly, one is free to hold this view, in no small part because that is a key and fundamental right all human beings share. And, importantly, one need not be correct in the opinion one holds to in order to enjoy or exercise the freedom to hold it, as Popowicz ably demonstrates.
Like as not, discussing these deep and profound social and moral issues to the fullest does not detract from the rights of any person, whether or not they are party to the discussion. And contra Popowicz' narrow framing of both what is being debated in regards to abortion or homosexuality ("revoking a woman's bodily autonomy or barring gay customers from businesses"), the reason these discussions are important to have is because there are more people impacted by these issues than just those which Popowicz sees. In the case of abortion, for example, there is a very young human being – a distinct being from her mother, note – whose life is being held in balance against a host of other considerations.
Our society is not a perfect one, nor can it be. We will always encounter these tensions where rights and privileges conflict with other rights and privileges. And it is important to discuss, very thoroughly, such conflicts to the fullest possible extent, with the goal of working out a compromise which is acceptable to all parties. Simply tossing aside opinions and deeming debate shut down/beyond the pale/hateful because one is unwilling to consider any opinion other than one's own is not a recipe for a free society that respects the rights of all. Plainly, it is a recipe for tyranny.
Ray Sanborn, St. Albert
