Re: “The valedictorian’s speech” and “Vic Toews does not deserve to be honou

In response to The valedictorian’s speech, published October, 21, 2010.

People are unhappy with Toews not because he spoke his mind on issues he is concerned about, but because he compared gay rights to the destruction of our society – because he advocates putting 10-year-olds in jail. The criticism is because he exercises his position in government to enact legislation based on faulty information about human beings.

People are unhappy with Larson because she spoke her mind on issues she is concerned about and didn’t make everyone feel cozy. She voiced opposition to honouring someone who stands against allowing all residents of Canada to participate in society.

Critique her position against Toews if you disagree, but why are you upset when the valediction critiques the status quo? It’s tense and embarrassing and makes the event less happy, but the same goes for saying that gay marriage is going to destroy our society.

I don’t like everything Larson said, but she advocated for people Toews discriminates against (and celebrated the graduation).

Would everyone be happy giving him an honourary doctorate if he advocated that Filipino people can’t get married? 

Toews might be a compassionate and hard-working member of the government who cares about the university, but he bases some of his activities as a high-ranking official on clearly erroneous information, and that needs to be criticized.

Also, really, is it ever good to be quiet in the face of injustice?

Sincerely,

Lukas Thiessen
UW alumnus

– Lukas Thiessen

Published in Volume 65, Number 9 of The Uniter (October 28, 2010)