ALEX MACPHERSON
Opinions Writer

When I was a child, my elementary school held, every year in mid-December, a Christmas Concert. It was, in spite of its religious connotations, an entirely unceremonious affair: kids in ridiculous costumes, plenty of songs and a general air of fun and goodwill.

Now, however, the harmless production has become the newest victim of political correctness; rampant secularization and the unquestionably sinister notion of cultural levelism have effectively killed this benign, decidedly nontoxic tradition.

The most recent edict of the politically correct asserts that Christmas has to be cancelled in the interests of inclusion. More specifically, the league of sycophants to whom the government listens has suggested that Christmas — in an overwhelmingly Christian state — must be hidden away so as not to exclude anybody. And while I passionately support widening the chasm between church and state, I cannot help but perceive this newest incursion of politically correct behaviour into our society as disingenuous.

My complaint stems not from any desire to fuse religion and education, but from my distaste for those who insist upon sterilizing the nation’s public spaces. In short, if religion is to be excised from education, it is crucial to ensure that it is removed for the right reasons.

Although the general goal of this process of modernization is essentially good — inoffensiveness is, in most cases, a virtue — it is clear that censoring public spaces does little to encourage independent thought, criticism and reasoned discrimination. These are values that are anathema to the propagators of “zero tolerance” which, in actual fact, is synonymous with “zero thought.”

To neutralize anything that could be interpreted as human (and therefore unpredictable) is a stock response aimed at avoiding exclusion in a multicultural society. It is also a conspicuous infringement of our inalienable right to judge, accept, reject and otherwise discriminate. Moreover, to institutionalize and bureaucratize our country’s public realm is to dismantle our primary bastion of free speech and expression.

And while it is probably true that publicly funded institutions ought to avoid promoting one religion at the expense of others, eliminating such differences entirely is an affront to our nation’s greatest asset. Indeed, all manner of Canadian propaganda seeks to differentiate us from those wicked Americans through the use of a (admittedly tired) comparison between the divine mosaic and the culturally backwards melting pot. Simplistic and unabashedly clichéd as it may be, there is nevertheless a kernel of truth here. It’s puzzling, then, that the legions of politically correct politicians and bureaucrats — those who truly know what’s best for us — seem determined to quash any expression of said mosaic.

So long as cultural practices are legitimate and acceptable in Western society (female circumcision, for instance, or the marriage of young girls to desiccated old men clearly fall outside this boundary), it is imperative that they be experienced.

To fully accept the existence of different and often curious practices as anything other than an aberration, a departure from normal, sufficient exposure is critical; without it, we become rooted in an arbitrary definition of normalcy and content with intolerance.

Racism, intolerance and prejudicial beliefs are antithetical to the liberal democratic society we cherish;  free and open public spaces must be allowed to flourish independently of government control or bureaucratic oversight. Difference is only positive insofar as we allow it to be.

If the public sphere is closed, or simply open only to certain beliefs and practices, diversity is meaningless. The use of legislation to minimize human difference and destroy diversity in the name of tolerance is counterintuitive, misguided and offensive. To presume that members of our society — and, yes, even our children — cannot cope with a vast array of religions, beliefs and values is preposterous; replacing experience and interaction with insipid textbook readings is equally absurd. How else but through encounters and intimacy can tolerant, rational and liberal attitudes be developed?

The asinine paper-pushers and intolerant parents cannot control the nation’s public spaces. Their assumption that sterility and legislated inoffensiveness will result in a more tolerant population is laughable. Yes, predominantly homogenous societies will always be exclusionary, but further suppression will only drive communities apart. Instead, the emphasis should be placed on interaction, insight and acceptance.

And while I don’t believe that religion has any place in a secular education system, the reasons used to justify its expulsion from public institutions are ludicrous. Levelism for the sake of inoffensiveness is a preposterous doctrine. The right reasons are paramount, and diversity is to be welcomed so long as it is tempered with openness.

– –