Does victim status + political power = justice?

The Old Testament law “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has been characterized by some, as barbaric. But in societies where escalating revenge was the norm, where it was essentially two eyes, or two teeth for one, the above law called for justice rather than escalation.  In this context that law is seen to be good and right and proper. It has always been the case than in order to have peace, the victim has to be the bigger, that is the better, person.  It is however my contention,  human nature being what it is, that when victim status is aligned with  political power, justice inevitably goes out the window.  They say, do they not,  that power corrupts?  In this scenario,  everybody suffers, everybody looses, including  in the end,  even those with the said political power.  For example, in terms of the  homosexual issue, the right of gays to self determination is being excluded.

No one should deny, or not abhor, the  grave injustices that have been perpetrated on the gay community, nor that the legitimate rights of gays have been denied. This, together with hate crimes against gays,  as well as indiscriminate prejudice against them,  is wrong,  wrong, wrong.  The need for justice is great, and has needed and still needs to be addressed. The question I want to ask today however is “Is what we are getting justice, even from the point of view of  gays?”

I am thinking particularly of those inside or outside of the gay community who, for whatever reason,  find themselves with unwanted same sex attractions (SSAs).  There are, for example,  strong pressures to classify any speech by those who feel trapped by their SSAs, as hate speech, and to enact legislation declaring it a crime. In addition, in both Canada and the States,  therapists have been dismissed from their jobs for being willing to cater to client self determination in this regard.  Furthermore, there are cases where students of Psychotherapy,  who are unable to parrot the politically correct view on these issues,  are being denied access to training facilities.  On top of this, Professors are being dismissed from their jobs for expressing similar views, or in some cases simply raising questions that might conceivably challenge,  the doctrines of  political correctness.  Perhaps these things do not cause you concern, but in my view they should. These things are raising a lot of questions for me. Let me share some of these questions  with you. After that, I invite you to judge for yourselves,  and to judge with righteous judgement. 

Whose rights shall we uphold, the rights of those who are comfortable with their SSAs,  or the rights of those who are not?  And to whom shall we allow the right of self determination (both inside and outside of counselling) the first group or the second?  And on which side of the issue shall we  insist that councillors have an obligation to respect, and work with,  clients whose choice in their self determination,  goes contrary to the councillor’s  own views? And which  councillors shall we dismiss from their jobs if they don't fulfill that obligation?   Shall we insist that only one side (“them”)  tolerate our views, but not  be required to tolerate theirs?  When did we banish “both” and “none of the above” from our list of options? 

And when did we start confusing disagreement with hate? Certainly these two things can and do coexist, but is it necessarily the case that they do? Should we all be tarred with the same brush? And if it is valid to blur the distinction between disagreement and hate,  should this be applied to one side, but not the other? I  mean who shall we agree to hate, those who are conflicted about their same sex attractions or those who are not, or those who want to help them, or those who refuse to?   I am sadly coming to the conclusion that hate is widespread on both sides of these and many other issues.   But  what if when SSAs are unwanted, it is the “unwanted” part that is irreversible?

And to whom  shall we allow freedom of speech,  those on our side of the divide only, or those on both sides? And which side of the nature verses nurture debate shall we read up on, “our side” or “theirs”? If we read both, and we have ears to hear and eyes to see, it will be abundantly clear that the jury is still very much out on the Science behind these questions.  And is truth and justice advanced by the current stifling of debate, and of the freedom to express contrary views? If so why do we treasure academic freedom so highly?  Let us ponder these questions and ponder them deeply and then, and only then, if we must, take sides. Let us judge with equity, let us  make righteous judgements.