WHITBY FREE-PRESS. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15.1986 PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Military must not discriminate There was yet another debate over the extent of human, or should I say in- dividual rights, over those of the state and one of its agencies in the news last week. Only this time the debate concerned the Canadian Armed Forces reluc- tance to admit homosexuals and women into front-line combat units. An association of serving and retired officers (the exact name of the group escapes me at the moment) has recommended to the federal government that neither homosexuals nor females be allowed to join combat units. This is in direct opposition to the recommendations of at least one all-party committee of the House of Commons and the feelings of many liberal, feminist and gayrights lobby groups. I can understand the military's reluctance to admit these minorities into combat units. And it has nothing to do with the military's conventional and ar- ch-conservative attitudes. It has everything to do with something niuch more important - the moral and fighting capability of a combat unit. It sounds primitive and unenlightened but if you place a gay or a woman in a fighting unit he or she may become a cause of emotional turmoil, something that a combat unit must not suffer. Let's face it, since it's a reality of life, most of us have a negatitive attitude towards homosexuals and women in traditional male roles. A combat unit can't afford that kind of problem. Whether a soldier belongs to a company, platoon, or regiment he has got to believe that every man in that unit is absolutely trustworthy, that every man in that unit will fight to preserve the lives òf every other man in the unit. Because if they don't have that trust and attitude in combat, they simply won't survive. So, from a command point of view, the Canadian Armed Forces' attitude is not an unexpected one. The groups with an opposing view may think the Canadian Defence Staff stuffy and old-fashioned but they really have only one interest: to ensure the defense of Canada by ensuring that all fighting units are capable, emotionally and physically, of carrying out the job. They don't want the troops distracted. They are simply trying to ensure the morale of their command. While I recognize the logic of this command decision, the military has failed to recognize that its attitudes are no longer compatible with the-society it is sworn to protect. But despite the fact that I am a great believer in individual liberty and human rights I have a great deal of difficulty siding with those who oppose the military's view in this case, even though in the final analysis, I must do so. From my perspective, what we're dealing with is the limits placed on the rights of the individual and on the state. The military is not recommending that the state deny to homosexuals the right of sexual preference - although I believe homosexuality is still an offense under the Queen's Regulations and Orders - but that the military is not willing to jeopardize the efficiency of a fighting unit because of an individual or a group of like-minded individuals exercising those rights. Laura Sabian remarked in the press that the military's attitude was so silly that it wasn't even worth commenting on. From a remark like that it is easy to come to the conclusion that she doesn't understand the military viewpoint. However, the military must be criticized for failing to recognize that homosexuals and women can also be patriots and they too, have the right, and privilege to serve their country. After all, wornen have served in many vital areas in our armed forces in this century. They have won honors and decorations worthy of their valor and have even given the supreme sacrifice. I suppose one cari also say the same things of homosexuals although not many came out of the closet before the wild and wonderful days of the 1960s. But the more interesting question evolving out of this issue is when do the rights of the state come before those of the individual? Where, in effect, do we draw the line? For me, the line must never be drawn. The rights of the state must never come before the rights of the individual. So while I can understand and appreciate the position the Canadian Armed Forces takes on this issue, I must reject it because every citizen must have the right to serve, to wear the uniform and to defend their country. To me, it is a fundamental right as that of voting. It must be universal and non-discriminatory. After all, homosexuals, especially, still have problems of acceptance in mainstream society so that should not prove any greater a han- dicap in the service. I know that these observations don't have much to do with life here in Whitby but the issue of human rights and state control over those rights is something that everyone should be interested in. It is a question with which I am becoming increasingly concerned and goes beyond one government agency ignoring and even denying the rights of one group of citizens. It touches other areas such as censorship (which seems to be spreading like the flu), and the Ontario Gover- nment's abuse of our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (I don't care what anyone says RIDE is a flagrant violation of the Constitution). It's a pretty problem and an important issue. We need the Canadian Armed Forces to be the best that it can be. But it must also be made up of Canadians who want to serve and who are willing to serve. For that too, is a fundamental right of the individual. aI i~J~ Go I i - 1* - 1* -~ rrnvrn For years people have been asking for the secret of living with teenagers and surviving. The follow guide will give beginners in the area at least an understanding of the complexities of the problem. Those who have extensive experience in teen antics may also pick up bits of information which could help them retain sanity. One should remember that teenagers are neither little children grown big nor full size adults who need only to mature. Rather, they are a different species. One must treat them with the same deference one would, say, a green creature from Andromeda. They have eyes like ours but see a different world; their ears are shaped like ours yet function unlike those of adults; and their bodies... Let us proceed. Rule 1) Know when to say no. A teenager never asks questions directly. Impor- tant issues are approached obliquely. For example, one would never ask, "May I have the car tonight?" The question invariably appears thus: "Are you doing anything important tonight?" The correct an- swer to this is always "No". (Parents and other adults never do anything important.) Having given the correct answer you have set up a situation which will avoid further arguments. Watch: TEEN: "Are you doing anything important tonight?" ADULT: "No." TEEN: "Good. Then I can have the car since you won't need it." Anyone can see how this whole sequence, short, to the point, neatly avoids the embarrassment of argument. Note the sly and smooth way the adult firmly but kindly said "No" at exactly the right time. Rule 2) Be consistent. Nothing baffles a visitor from another planet more than finding earthlings who alter rules from one day to the next. The teen who owns a pet, who shares a room with it, deserves to know that the world will continue as it has in the past. Both he and the pet need this sense of security. Thus, the adult whrsuggests that the animal be fed, watered and walked daily by his owner barks, ~1 -H-H - I ~ - t - i - EEIZIZLIZI ZEIZIZ)ZLL¶I WITH OUR FEET UP so to speak, up the wrong tree. The teen has owned this pet since he/she was seven. Despite vows at the time, the owner has never walked, fed nor watered the animal once in the past ten years. To suggest that he do so now that he is six foot two and weighs one eighty is insulting, time-consuming and plain inconsistent. Rule 3) A place for everything, and everything in its place. Most adults agree with this axiom but ultimately misinterpret its meaning. The result can cause grave arguments with teens. Most adults, for example, believe that towels, on- ce used, belong either in the hamper or at least on the 'ready' pile on the laundry room floor. The ab- surdity of this notion is apparent immediately to the teen mind. Once you accept that dirty towels belong on the bathroom floor, just in case the shower leaks, you will enjoy great peace of mind. In the same way, the adult who accepts that dirty socks belong in a pile in the middle of the teen's bedroom floor will eliminate many fights. With this understanding should come the knowledge that when a teen runs out of clean socks, three options are open: pick out the cleanest dirty pair and recycle; raid the nearest supply; or kick the whole pile onto the landing, where it belongs, and from which it will mysteriously disappear, only to reap- pear clean and properly paired, within twenty-four hours. (Who says magic has disappeared from the world?) Rule 4) Don't nag. Much of the tension between adults and teens is caused by nagging. Would you like someone harping on you about leaving your coat on the kitchen table, the car keys under your pillow or your snow- covered Greb Kodiaks under the dining room table? Those articles are left where they belong (see rule 3). Anyway, even if an article is left in other than its proper place, nagging will not change the behaviour anyway. Bribing may not even work. Rule 5) Take an interest in the teen's schoolwork. Of course, always remember rule 4. Praise the teen's ability to stay out late every school night and still make it to class before noon; praise the mind that can calculate precisely the minimum grade SEE PG. 23 -1-I - i - + By Bill Swan sw ; 1 , - , 44 il:!:i ý ýý ý'. , i ý. , i+ . i , , ýiý . -ýi 1. ý:-, - ý . ý ý, ý , 1 4 - ' i r 1 , . ý 1 ý!* ý! "q 1 777=77= WEIVE clleEIVAW.4 e#Oý?r 7A E AOVD ZAAIPIAI& -OICF Fur