Nobody wants to be labeled “judgmental” anymore. When I speak out against social ills or dysfunctional public policy or agencies, I get lectured on my “judgmental” attitude.
One worker commented, “As a minister, you should be ashamed of yourself! After all, doesn’t the Bible say, ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged?’”
As a minister, I’m aware that Jesus defended a prostitute who was about to be stoned to death by some hypocritical Pharisees. But after he saved her from others, he sought to save her from herself by admonishing her, “Go, and sin no more.”
That’s still a judgment. But it’s a great example of judging a behavior while not dismissing the person. But more and more people seem unwilling to judge or hold a definite opinion on anything to do with right and wrong, helpful or harmful.
This aversion to judgment is evident in recent legal and political decisions regarding addiction.
I’ve been told that Health Canada recently supported the establishment of safe drug injection sites – places where addicts can “safely” inject illegal, harmful, and disabling drugs. A legalized and legitimized shooting gallery is a step backwards in the fight against drug addiction. But it’s sold to the taxpayer as harm reduction and a “less judgmental treatment of the addict.”
This week, this growing aversion to judgment was evidenced at meetings on the issue of prostitution in our neighbourhood.
Workers from several agencies lectured attendees that we should change our judgmental language regarding prostitution. They prefer that prostitutes be called “sex trade workers.” Utilizing the same logic, I guess we would re-label pervert johns as “sex trade consumers.”
Using a more innocuous label actually raising the risk of harmful activities. During the lecture on linguistics, I wondered, “Why stop there? Maybe we can rename the crack & meth dealers, ‘chemical entrepreneurs’ or ‘grass-roots pharmacists’. Maybe pedophiles and diddlers should be relabeled as “lovers of children.”
Softening the warning language on Javex bottles doesn’t negate the danger inside. You can’t verbally neutralize physical, mental and social damage.
Also this week, two politicians argued publicly about ways to reduce the harm from prostitution. An MP argued for a red light zone, and an MLA suggested brothels as ways to address street prostitution in our neighbourhood.
When pressed, neither would admit the activity is wrong and bad for people. That would increase their responsibility to stop the activity, not simply contain it in a bawdy house or industrial park. It would make treatment take priority over containment or “harm reduction.”
The MP advised me that most Canadians – with the exception of moralistic men of the cloth – don’t have a great problem with prostitution. He informed me that Ottawa has a committee studying the decriminalization of communication for the purpose of prostitution.
While that angers me, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s the same crew that has effectively decriminalized large chunks of youth crime in the new Youth Justice Act.
In case you’re wondering where we’re headed, consider the shifting arguments regarding pedophilia (child molestation).
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
In previous articles, psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Some have even argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their experience as positive.
It’s a disgusting extension of the old philosophy, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” It’s as if they’ve decided, “If you can’t stop the behavior, placate your responsibility with harm reduction. Better yet, redefine it so it’s no longer as serious a problem.”
“It’s been around forever, Harry! You can’t stop it. Focus on reducing the harm. Ease the strain on the courts and cops. Consider decriminalizing the behavior.”
It’s not kindness to enable, redefine or simply “contain” activities which are causing serious physical, mental and social harm to many people. This can’t be written off as a “moral” or philosophical issue.
Pretending our only options are proliferation or containment is a lie. To suggest that some wars are not worth fighting because they haven’t yet been won is very dangerous.
The fight against prostitution, addiction and pedophilia certainly won’t be won if we can’t all agree they’re wrong. We must focus every energy on eliminating, rather than simply alleviating, the harm intrinsic to the activity.
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca