Consequences for Speaking "a Truth"

Senator Lynn Beyak has made the news again. She is the senator from Ontario who allowed statements to be posted on her social media pages about Indigenous Canadians that were hurtful and racist. She has defended those statements. The Senate last year suspended her without pay until she apologized, took the statements off of her pages and participated in a course to help her better understand the consequences of the Residential School System. It appears as if that while she has taken down the offensive statement from her social media pages, her apology was insufficient and she was kicked out of the course due to her unwillingness to listen or learn. She may be suspended again.

There is no doubt that Ms. Beyak holds opinions that are historically inaccurate, offensive and racist. But on the assumption that she actually believes the absurdities that come out of her mouth, part of me almost wants to admire someone who is prepared to risk public shaming for stating her beliefs. I would agree that people should not be paid out of the public purse when they clearly hold views that are just plain wrong. However, if that was the standard to which all elected and non-elected members of Parliament were held - I suspect that there are a number of folks in Ottawa who should be suspended until they apologized for their comments and took a course or two to understand how hurtful their comments have been.

For example - all of those politicians who think that abortion is wrong but that we don't need to adequately support single-parent families need to be suspended. Similarly, politicians who suggest that sexual orientation is a choice and that it can be "corrected" need to have their pay stopped until they agree to and demonstrate the capacity to be more accepting of other people. And all of those members of the Quebec Legislature who voted in favour of the ban on any civil servant wearing a head covering need to have their pay stopped immediately.  In fact, the list of people who disagree with me (and numerous other people) may be almost endless. If I am not the right person to decide who gets to speak their version of the truth - who is?

Ms. Beyak is wrong. She needs to be held accountable for her opinions and her willingness to state them in public. But should she be censured and deprived of her income because she holds different views that what is acceptable? We do not fire other people who say harmful things - perhaps we should but we don't. I accept that making racist comments about Indigenous peoples is particularly inappropriate, but there needs to be a consistent approach. To only consequence some people for their public opinions and not others is wrong and dangerous.

There is a risk that it will appear as if Ms. Beyak is being consequenced not because of her opinions but because she refused to back down. That could make her a hero - which she is most certainly not.