Editor's note: The author writes in response to Letter: In defence of 'woke' and 'socialist' school board chair.
To the editor:
I'm writing this letter in reply to the April 18th letter from Scott Robertson, in which he expressed his views concerning my opinions regarding the Near North District School Board and the potential renaming of Chippewa.
Towards the beginning of my original letter, I mentioned that our society has evolved into two factions, each of which is trying to move us in a different direction. In fact, not just different directions, but in opposite directions. With that being the case, it becomes virtually impossible to call someone's opinion "right" or "wrong." We just want different things. We want to achieve different goals. By definition, then, we will never agree.
For the most part, Mr. Robertson's letter was a respectful and reasoned response to an opinion with which he fundamentally disagrees. He is speaking out in defence of [NNDSB Board Chair] Erika Lougheed, which is his right. Both Mr. Robertson and Ms. Lougheed share the distinction of having run and lost political races under the banner of the New Democrats, so their shared political viewpoints are evident.
It needs to be clear, though, that when someone steps into the realm of an elected public office, criticism of that person's views and actions comes with the territory. That said, those comments should not be ad hominem attacks but remain focused on the issues. And for the most part, I think that most of the responses have not been personal.
Mr. Robertson opines that those of us on one side of the political spectrum are "threatened" by someone "who challenges existing power structures from the left side of the political spectrum." Well, I object to the word "threatened," but yes, I would agree. You want to go in one direction, and we want to go in another. We'll just have to agree to disagree!
One final comment. In my first letter, I wanted to make it clear that I no longer lived in the North Bay area, and as such I would refrain from any remarks about members of the board who had not gone public on the record. In his reply, Mr. Robertson seemed to imply that a viewpoint is somehow less credible because of one's residency. My initial interest in this matter arose from the possibility of changing the name of my high school. Notwithstanding, in this connected world, the expression of views on points of principle should not be geographically precluded.
Ian Saunders
