Dear Editor,
I read The Reminder’s column suggesting that the overturning of Mr. Spence’s will was an unfortunate event and treads on his posthumous rights to assign his estate (A misguided ruling, Feb. 2).
It is true that we want to think we have absolute control over how our estate will be split up. Wills have been a weapon of choice for revenge for centuries. Tiger Dunlop’s will in 1848 become a literary piece by reason of its vitriol and humour.
However, any lawyer will tell you that there are laws surrounding wills that limit the freedom we have to gain revenge through our estate. It is illegal to cut a child out of a will, or a wife (even an ex-wife if the divorce isn’t final). However, that is beside the point.
My question is whether racism and abuse is ever justifiable as a right. Editor Jonathon Naylor’s suggestion that the courts have trod on Mr. Spence’s rights implies that his racism and abuse is justifiable because it was his estate.
I would argue that in our modern society, we have a responsibility to improve our community that is a higher good than an individual’s right to hold views we find odious.
Our society has leaned so far over to grant individuals rights that we talk very little about our responsibilities and what is good for the community. The community has a responsibility to correct injustice perpetrated in the name of racism and hate.
Mr. Spence’s views are not as important as our need to state emphatically that racism will not be tolerated in any form. This responsibility is even clearer in the light of the recent publicity around Winnipeg being “Canada’s most racist city.”
The only way to fight that is by setting a firm example of the alternatives to racist actions and policy. This court case is a start.
