Comment
Unmute
If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself. – George Orwell, 1984
Who decides our story? Who shall speak for history? Which voices ought to be elevated? Which ones silenced? That we are even pausing to consider such questions, suggests we may have already ventured too far into Orwell’s bleak landscape in which social cohesion is maintained by managing thought and deleting those with incorrect ideas.
There is a debate ongoing in our community about the future of Holding Court—a sculpture of Sir John. A. Macdonald that resides in front of the Picton Library. The statue depicts Canada’s first prime minister as a young man, making his case before the Picton court.
For some, Macdonald is a symbol of oppression and violence against Indigenous people and he ought not be celebrated in this way. The statue is, for some, an offensive reminder of a less glorious version of this nation’s story, with echoes of repression that continue to marginalize folks to this day.
For others, the sculpture is a recognition of our shared story. Of a nation. And its connection to this community. Whether for good or ill, there is no Canada without Macdonald. Such public displays are a means by which we might understand where we come from, what binds us together, and the work we yet need to do to fortify these bonds and include those who don’t share this connection.
It was against this backdrop last fall that council charged its Prince Edward Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC) to consider the future of the sculpture. Should it remain where it is? Should some words accompany the statue to offer some nuance to Macdonald’s legacy? Or should it be taken out of public view, put in a museum or warehouse? The committee is expected to produce a recommendation this fall.
So far, so good. A reasonable, sensible response to a worthy debate in our community.
Except that there is, now, a concerted effort afoot, albeit limited so far, to silence at least one of the voices on the PEHAC.
Peter Lockyer has spent much of his life telling stories. County stories. Most readers will have encountered Peter’s work at the Regent Theatre before a movie, in series called History Lives Here. He writes and speaks regularly about County stories—stories of industry, culture and the people who shaped this place. He has promoted County history through writing, films, tours, and such. He has earned a modest income marketing and promoting County stories.
This—Peter’s financial interest in history— it turns out, is the most compelling reason Peter should be barred from participating in the fate of Holding Court. At least according to a nine-page deputation submitted earlier this month to the PEHAC by Paul Allen.
It is a fulsome document veering between the legalistic and academic, that seeks to undermine Peter’s credibility, his motivations, his role on the committee—and ultimately delete his voice in this decision.
The submission contends that Peter’s professional activities represent a conflict of interest in deciding the fate of the Sir John A. Macdonald statue. Since Peter generates revenue from the County’s history—the argument goes—he has a financial interest in the work staying put.
It is, at its core, a flimsily contrived argument, reflecting a poor understanding of the context in which the sculpture was commissioned, funded, and ultimately unveiled in our community just five years ago. But stripped bare, Mr. Allen’s deputation is a hit piece aimed at undermining Peter’s character and motivation, balled up in a 3,900-word tract adorned with dozens of citations and footnotes to make an otherwise personal attack seem serious. Mr. Allen is free to hold and express his views, as wrong as they are. But the purpose of his deputation goes beyond the ventilation of a set of views. Rather it seeks to bulldoze other members of the PEHAC, and indeed members of council, into silencing a voice in our community. Deleting an opinion with which he disagrees.
A better use of Mr. Allen’s rhetorical verbosity might have been to submit an argument based on the merits of his position. But that isn’t done these days. It is more effective to silence those with whom you disagree—either directly or by example. It is much easier to cancel people and de-platform them than to mount a persuasive argument and present it in good faith. Better to cancel them before their ideas and viewpoints find oxygen.
It is absurd to the point of fantasy, that Peter’s passion and track record for listening to, and telling, County stories would disqualify him as an effective arbiter of the future of this sculpture. Further, I expect Mr. Allen’s hollow attempt to silence him, will be rejected as such by the committee, council, and most other conscious beings in our community.
Still, there is a lingering worry that once unsheathed as a weapon, cancelling voices, will become a more broadly used tactic in the County conversation, wielded to stifle opposing views. That others who might raise their hand, or volunteer to build something, will retreat to silence. To inaction.
Mr. Allen is entitled to his opinion; he cannot be permitted to silence others.
Comments (0)