In Saturday’s Montreal Gazette Letters to the Editor section, Scholastica Rajaratnam condemns those who oppose breastfeeding in public by claiming that they “believe an infant should be hidden before he’s allowed to eat.” Really? It seems that their argument is more about what they consider to be inappropriate public nudity.
In talking about the kirpan-wearing Sikhs who were denied entrance to the National Assembly, Elizabeth Irving-Waddleton claims that “all were turned away because they were “different.”” No, they were turned away because they insisted on entering a building with what security deemed to be a potential weapon, despite being offered the option of checking their kirpans.
It is one thing to exaggerate the meaning of something to attempt to prove a point. I just hope that these letter writers (and subsequently, readers) don’t actually believe that the above creative interpretations reflect what actually happened in these stories.
Let us raise the level of discourse by talking about the actual issues surrounding controversial decisions, not by sensationalizing them with emotional rhetoric.