Nigel Hannaford: Hacktacular!

What few reservations I had about Nigel Hannaford having become less of a journalist and more of a puppet for the hardline right wing in Canada have just evaporated.

His Saturday tirade is one of the most illogical pieces of reasoning to come forth from him.

In a classic bit of "conservative" reasoning, he tries to tie David Suzuki's statements about climate change to the case of Chris Kempling as a "freedom of speech" issue. A classic "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of argument that twists the unreasonable by tying it to something that almost seems rational.

I think Suzuki's statements are laughable, but Hannaford's recount of the Kempling case is utterly brain damaged, and linking the two topics together is simply bad logic.

There's a difference between Suzuki's comments and Kempling - and it's significant. Suzuki is talking about what consequences he feels should apply to politicians who choose to sit on their thumbs with respect to his pet issues.

Kempling is a whole different matter. Among other things, Kempling was in a position of trust with respect to youth, and he was peddling reparative therapy, which is potentially very, very damaging to the client's well-being:

The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

*** In short, you are unlike to succeed in making people something that they aren't

Hannaford's oversight in failing to understand that Kempling's public positions towards the GLBT community placed him in conflict with the very role that he was contracted to do as a teacher and school counsellor. Kempling may well firmly believe that as a "Christian" he was doing the right thing, but in fact his overall demeanor would have left any GLBT student seeking guidance from him in a truly perilous place indeed.

Instead, Hannaford chooses to connect the two matters as though they are comparable, after all, he claims, Kempling was merely on the "wrong side of an argument". Nothing could be farther from reality. Kempling made it very public, and very clear that he was outright hostile to GLBT people, and worse was willing to profit from trying to "cure" their conditions.

That's a far cry from the kind of silliness that Suzuki may have been advocating, but Suzuki's in no position to cause anyone to be imprisoned. (and I would argue that were such a law to be tabled in the House of Commons that it should not even pass first reading)

Freedom of speech is no luxury, but it is also not unfettered. We all bear a responsibility towards our fellow human beings of civility.