Check It Out: Hatred doesn’t solve problems

By Joan Janzen

This story struck my funny bone; I hope you enjoy it. A group of middle-school girls were so excited about wearing lipstick that they would make lip prints on the school’s bathroom mirror. Their teacher had the girls meet with the janitor, who demonstrated how difficult it was to clean their lipstick prints off the mirror. The janitor took the girls to the bathroom, brought out his long-handled squeegee, dipped it in the toilet and cleaned the mirror.

The janitor’s simple tactic successfully changed the girls’ behaviour. But it’s much more difficult to change harmful government legislation.

One such legislation is the decriminalization of hard drugs. A recent memo from the federal government published by Blacklock’s revealed plans for national decriminalization of hard drugs.

The secretive memo prepared for the Minister of Addictions, Ya’ara Saks, noted that the federal government is willing to use all tools at its disposal, including national decriminalization. The memo also claimed the government’s commitment to working in partnership with any jurisdictions that have a comprehensive plan for decriminalizing possession of small amounts of substances for personal use.

This memo was released despite the evidence in British Columbia showing the negative outcomes resulting from decriminalization. The province has seen a 400 percent increase in drug overdose deaths, with 2500 Canadians dying in the first year.

However, there are voices offering helpful recommendations to the government. One of those is Grady Munro, a policy analyst at the Fraser Institute who has suggested recommendations to reduce Canada’s deficit while still reducing income taxes for most Canadians.

Munro suggested that the government should cut its spending by 2.3 percent over the next two years, reducing it by $11 billion annually. He relayed his suggestions to a reporter from True North.

He recommended reducing corporate welfare, as it does little to promote economic growth and “prevents resources from being allocated to their most productive use.” Munro suggested that government sector employees’ wages could be another source of spending cuts.

The final suggestion was limiting annual government spending to the inflation rate and population increases. According to Munro, this would enable Canada to maintain a balanced budget.

“By addressing tax rates, we could help kickstart economic growth by addressing our competitiveness problem,” he said. He suggested income over $246,000 be taxed at 29%, while everything else could be taxed at 15%, allowing lower marginal tax rates for most Canadians.

Sounds like a plan, right? But will the powers that be listen? Considering the government’s recent purchase of a $9 million condo in New York, it seems doubtful. According to True North, the condo is for Canadian diplomat Tom Clark. The 3600 sq ft apartment located on Billionaire Row comes complete with a wet bar, stone floors, gold quartzite countertops and backsplash.

The government could have anticipated some backlash from their extravagant purchase made during an affordable housing crisis. Disagreeing with such decisions is acceptable, but personal threats are not.

Bridge City News reported two individuals had posted death threats to the Prime Minister and NDP leader. It’s evidence of the increasing division we’ve seen play out before our eyes during the past four years.

Division has caused a tendency for people to feel justified in demeaning and resenting those on the opposite side of the aisle. Revenge and retribution is never a winning strategy.

A poster I saw offered some good advice. It said: “Discussions are always better than arguments. An argument is to find out who is right, and a discussion is to find out what is right.”

As 2020 rolled in, we witnessed an era unfolding when fear and offence were unleashed all over the world. It was everywhere. You could see it on the Internet, in people’s posts. You could hear it in everyday conversations.

Fear and offence combine to build hatred. The definition of hatred is intense hostility and aversion derived from fear, anger or a sense of injury.

However, we can intervene by choosing not to participate in hatred against people, even though we may disagree with their decisions. Hatred produces arguments and makes discussion impossible. We can also intervene against that strategy in prayer.

Trying to solve problems using hatred is much like dipping a squeegee in the toilet and using it to clean up a mess. It’s a helpful reminder when we’re tempted to utilize hatred to try and solve problems. It doesn’t work.