Dear Editor,
Mr. Mcgilvery’s letter (Feb. 4) makes some interesting points but misses the important point that society is composed of disparate individuals with disparate likes and dislikes.
The law of Canada dictates how we are allowed to act in our dealings with others. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex or religious belief, to name a few things.
But the law cannot compel us to hold these as personal beliefs. The Charter actually tolerates free speech as long as it is not infringing upon other people’s rights.
So, Mr. Spence did not care for the race of the father of his grandchild. There is nothing new about this even if I personally find it repugnant.
I don’t know what events in Mr. Spence’s past provoked this response, but I am sure there are many people, all over the world, who could empathize. He does not break any law by disapproving of his daughter’s choice of mate.
Mr. Spence expressed his disapproval in terms that I personally find repugnant, but it is not enough to overturn the will.
We do not know what the relationship was between Mr. Spence and his daughter prior to this relationship, but that is not really relevant. Mr. Spence is entitled to dispose of his estate as he wishes, unless a chosen beneficiary is set on undermining our society.
Contrary, to Mr. Mcgilvery’s assertion, Canadians are not obliged to leave their assets to independent children. A reference from the Financial Post explains it. Google “Financial Post kids don’t have to get it all” to find the story.
Eliminating intolerance is one of the goals of Canadian society. It requires education and patience. In the meantime, Mr. Spence’s racist comment ought not prejudice the validity of his will.
I imagine this case is going to a higher court.
