It seems that at least one person misunderstood the points I was making in my Nov. 6 letter to the editor.
The conclusion that someone came to was, “it’s just a crosswalk.” He also asked the question, “Why must some people become so disturbed, or even enraged, by something as inoffensive as rainbow imagery?” He states, “it seems to be the author’s mistaken notion that the crosswalk represents an advocacy by council of a normative moral principle.”
If it’s just a crosswalk, if it’s merely inoffensive rainbow imagery, if it doesn’t represent any moral principle, then we must conclude that a crosswalk using all white paint will serve the purpose and we need no rainbow colours. However, the whole rainbow crosswalk issue reeks of hypocrisy. At one moment, the crosswalk is meant to be a statement of tolerance, but in the next moment, it is used to attack Christianity (complete with use of words such as mythology; and we haven’t even broached the topic of sex nor have you heard the extremely intolerant cursing left on my voice mail not long after the letter was published). In one moment, the rainbow crosswalk is meant to be a powerful symbol. In the next moment, it is such a vague and harmless item as to be considered invisible and impotent. So which is it?
If the crosswalk is not representing an advocacy by city council of a normative moral principle, then why is it being installed? Surely, our city council isn’t randomly painting coloured crosswalks in Vernon for no reason. Yet, some people try to argue that is indeed the case.
A disturbing argument used in the debate is, “we have no choice.” It really ought to concern a society when a reason why people do things is that they have no choice.
Maybe they just want us to have very open minds and they don’t know that there’s such a thing as too open. I, for one, will not fall for double-standards, empty rhetoric and bombast.
Mark Sladen
Vernon
