With an election facing us very closely on the horizon and all kinds of political rhetoric facing us day by day in the papers, on television ads and arriving in our mail boxes, this is a time when I wonder about belief systems that we, as a society, allege to live by. Our statements of social beliefs tend to show Canadians as a very accepting culture that respects and cherishes certain values of our fellow human beings. I often hear people stand on these values as they criticize other societies for their lack of compassion for others who don't follow beliefs that are those held by the majority of their citizens. The place I most often hear these types of comments is when I hear someone talk about Americans with very negative connotations about them.
We Canadians often hold that we are ahead or above some other societies in our acceptance of one another and our differences in traditions and beliefs. That is all until an election rolls around and all of a sudden we take on a very gang-like attitude where many gather ourselves into groups of rigid beliefs as immovable as the rock of Gibraltar. At these times, there are those among us who berate our fellow man for the fact that his beliefs are slightly different from ours, and in some cases call them names that infringe closely on the verge of defamation of character. The lines are drawn so tightly that it would not matter how good a proposal was, these groups would tear it apart just because the other group said it first (even though six months later the second group would adjust its policy to include the proposal once it felt that most peoples had forgotten who said it first). Partisan politics becomes so entrenched that those who adhere tightly to one belief are no different than the gangs that terrorize some of our cities and I don't doubt that they would contravene some of the anti-hate laws that we prosecuted former Nazis with. For some, an election is almost like the famous elixir that turned Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde.
A good example of this change in regular people was shown in a relative of mine whose home is in southern Saskatchewan. For many years this man was the local party president for the C.C.F and then the New Democratic Party. One of his neighbours held the same position for the Liberals and another neighbour presided over the local Conservative organization. These chaps were good neighbours to one another throughout the years, always there to help one another in good and bad times. They would borrow and lend to one another, assist with harvest and any other need that showed. But, come election time, the recycled hay would hit the fan. None of them would have a good thing to say about the other's beliefs. They could never admit that anything the other party would say or suggest would, or could, have any merit and would berate the other party for even having the audacity to suggest something so utterly stupid. Yet, if we look at history, it has not been uncommon for one party to eventually put forward ideas that originated in the opposition camps. And these men would often, in non-election times, greatly respect each other's views.
This gave me a type of entertainment that was very lively and really cheap. I would wait until these guys were together, when an election was on the horizon, and throw some comment out that was sensitive in nature about the prevailing political environment. I would then end up being treated to a lengthy debate that most of the time carried on for hours, being able to just sit back and observe. These gentlemen (or that's what they were the rest of the time) reverted to a more animalistic level of relationship that showed no level of respect that would suggest that they were part of what we consider to be of a higher step of intelligence.
Yes, the Jekyll and Hyde scenario is not a myth. I have seen it in these situations and if you don't believe me just tune into the news footage from our legislative or parliamentary houses and see for yourself how seemingly intelligent human beings can drop down to levels that should not exist in those we would like to consider as cultured beings. I hear some folks ask how any thinking person could consider being part of a gang and the mentality that exists there, yet it is often so prevalent in those who are supposed to be leading our country and in the advertising that they condone for political purposes.
This past week in Meota, the Girls' club held its wind up party. The theme chosen for the get together was "Happy Birthday" and they celebrated the giving that this suggests by each bringing a nonperishable item for the Turtle River Food Bank. Thanks go out to Sue, Vi, Lynn, Jane, Maureen, Gail, Christine and Angela for the help they gave and the sense of fun that they shared. On the nineteenth, the girls' club went out to help clean up the village by picking up all the garbage that had built up over the winter along their adopted street and were blessed with good weather to do it in.
In contract bridge play, April 14, first place went to Terrence DaSilva with Frank Antoine taking second. Then, April 19, in duplicate bridge action, first place went to the duo of Ray and Marnie Davie with Robert Iverson and Joyce Antoine coming in second.
When the Canasta players gathered April 15, the winners were Gwen Lacerte and Rita Peterson.
The Kaiser players came out April 14, with Ken Tucker placing first, Adele Feschuk tagging second, Herman Hoogland finishing third and Jean Gansauge following in fourth spot.
Quote. "Can we really consider ourselves to be a civilized race when we are so willing to treat others in such an uncivilized manner?" Harry Truman.
