Two Sides of the Same Issue

It was reported last week that the CBC had cancelled a showing of the BBC documentary Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?. They appear to have done so because there has been a substantial amount of controversy over this film and its discussion of how we, as a society should respond to pre-puberty children who identify themselves as being transgender. To CBC’s credit, this morning they ran two separate opinion pieces -one arguing that CBC was wrong to pull the documentary and the other that it was right. One piece seems to support the view that children have lots of time to make such a decision and therefore should not be encouraged (or perhaps even allowed- I am not sure) to start any process, while the other seems to have evolved from the position that people, including children know their own bodies/minds the best and therefore we need to trust their feelings. One opinion piece argued that the data presented by the documentary was scientifically based and valid, the other argued the exact opposite. In both opinion pieces, part of the problem for me was that both authors wanted to argue the validity of the information presented in the film to a public that had not seen the film or the data. Not the best way to convince me of anything.

I just don’t know who is correct. I don’t know which side to believe. While I fully accept the reality that there are some people who feel as if (and therefore they have) been born into the wrong sex, I am not sure when people/children become aware enough of themselves and others that they can “know” with any degree of certainty. I do not know how one interviews/counsels a young child who has expressed some concern or the absolute conviction that this is true without subtly affecting or shaping their thoughts. I can’t imagine how parents make or help their children make these decisions.

The last thing I would want to do is to deny a person’s perception of themselves or in anyway, shape or form make them feel that those feeling are unnatural or an aberration of society or cultural norms. Any process that does that is quite simply wrong. On the other hand, to assume that there is only one way to look at and respond to the issue, and that any attempt to engage in a dialogue examining any other way is automatically discriminatory, is counter-productive. Worse than that it creates a polarity that make it difficult for people to find solutions.

People like me, and I suspect the vast majority of Canadians, have only a marginal interest in this topic. I accept that it is a reality; that for some people, being able to be who they feel they are is critical to their mental health and in fact their entire well-being. The only required response from me should be - what can I do to make this path easier for you? If someone needs a portion of my tax dollars to pay for supplements or surgery - you have got my vote; if you need to have our laws changed so that you are safe and that it is against the law for you to be discriminated against - where do I sign the petition? But if the general population are to be informed citizens, if we are to participate in this discussion - then someone needs to provide us with more information; information that is as unbiased as possible; information that is both nonjudgmental and non-lecturing in format.

Like so many of the medical and social advances of the last 20-30 years, the leaders, the innovators have charged ahead - leaving many of us far behind in our understanding of their new realities. Policies have been created and public opinion shaped (or at least we have been told what we should believe) without any public conversation. That is not the best way to build a consensus or a caring society.

Getting a Liver Transplant - is it a Right?

In Canada, before someone can be put on the list for a liver transplant, they must demonstrate that they have not used alcohol or illegal drugs for at least six months. The logic behind this policy is obvious. People who have destroyed their livers due to the over consumption of alcohol need to prove that they will not do the same thing again with their new liver. This rule is in part based on the reality that in 2016 while there were  420 (Canadian Institute for Health Information) individuals on the transplant list - there were only 381(ibid) transplants performed. In a 2015 broadcast on CBC, Dr Gary Levy who manages the liver transplant program at University Health Network in Toronto, reported that 100 people had died the previous year because there were not enough livers available.

Livers are clearly in short supply. They need to go to those whose needs are the highest and to those who will benefit the most. It is not that those who have abuse alcohol are less human or less deserving of medical intervention but rather as there is a limited supply - the system needs to manage it in a way that ensures the highest rates of long term success. It may not be fair - in a perfect world everyone would get the transplant when they needed it regardless of their previous experiences. But this is not a perfect world.

In the last few days there has been some media attention placed upon the case of Delilah Sanders who is in a hospital as a result of liver failure. Ms Saunders is the sister of Loretta Saunders, an Inuk woman going to university in Nova Scotia and who was gathering information on the number of murdered and missing indigenous women for her thesis before she was murdered in 2014. The argument being made on behalf of Ms. Delilah Saunders is that it is her right to have a transplant. I understand the frustration and the anxiety of those who are avocating on her behalf. It must feel so terribly wrong to know that there is little that can be done to save her life.

There is also however, a subtext that is of some concern. Throughout the CBC story, Ms. Saunders' Indigenous status and her active engagement in her community is mentioned a number of times or ways. While it is never directly stated, there is the implication that Ms. Saunders is either being treated differently because of her Indigenous status or she should be treated differently because of it. If the former is true (although there is no indication that that is the case) then it would be a clear violation of human rights. If the latter occurred then it would be a clear violation of rights for whom ever was taken off the list to make room for Ms. Saunders.

The fact that Amnesty International has joined the debate, stating that “"We are deeply concerned that the decision to deny Delilah access to a liver transplant is on the basis of a policy which is discriminatory and inconsistent with Canada's international human rights obligations,"(CBC)  will only add fuel to the debate but do nothing to correct the problem - there are not enough people donating their organs when they die. By engaging in such rhetoric, it potentially reinforces the concept that the discrimination is based on her Indigenous status. Canada has a long history of making bad decisions that were based on race and were discriminatory. This is not one of them.

If in fact, the argument is based on the fact that someone is being discriminated against because they are an alcoholic or have abused alcohol in the past - that in all likelihood is true. The system of allocating liver transplants is inherently unfair. It does not treat all people as equal. In recognition of this, next year (too late for Ms. Saunders) the agency that oversees Ontario transplant system “ will make patients with alcoholic liver disease eligible for a transplant — without first having to be sober for six months.”(National Post). While this is great news for some - it will just make the waiting list for a liver transplant longer and other people will die.

It is right and proper that friends and family raise issues in the media so that we can be made aware. But those who do so need to be careful that the language that they use and the issues that they raise are relevant to the issue.

I Told You So

I am sure I am not the only person who, at least secretly, likes being able to say "I told you so". It may not be particularly to tell someone how wrong they were and how right you were (or at least to brag about it), but it does, on occasion feel good. Today I can say to all of those folks on Vancouver Island who so naively believed that the political world had changed when earlier this year the NDP, with the support of the three Green Party members elected from the island became the provincial government - nothing has changed and I told you so! I wish it wasn’t so but it is.

Part of the Green Party’s campaign platform was the absolute cancellation of the Site C dam. While the NDP’s platform on the same issue was less clear, certainly on Vancouver Island (so far removed from the proposed dam site that Islanders’ opinion should have been almost irrelevant) it was understood that Site C was nothing but a Liberal boondoggled to be done away with a soon as possible. Yesterday, John Horgan as the Premier of the province, with the support of the Green Party leader Andrew Weaver announced that the Site C dam would go ahead as planned. In a world where politicians could be counted on to do what they said- the Green Party would have withdrawn their support for the government. In a world where politicians were held to their promises, this decision would be grounds for an immediate election.

While both leaders expressed their discomfort over their decision, they neither apologized to those who had elected them nor explained how they could go back on their words. John Horgan’s words which he perhaps meant as an apology to the First Nations ( “I am not the first person to stand before you and disappoint Indigenous People” (CBC)), strike me as blatant political self-justification and do nothing to encourage any sort of dialogue. If nothing else, both party leaders should apologize to the Liberals for suggesting that they (the Liberals) were rapists of the land who did not care about the future.

I do not know if the Site C dam is needed or if so, if it is in the right location. I cannot imagine the complexity of trying to determine the electrical needs of a growing province ten years from now. I suspect that that type of decision is well beyond the capacity of most British Columbians. It needed to be made without emotion - based purely on economic needs of all British Columbians. However, I think it is fair to assume that in the past six months, there has not been any significant new data added to equation. Therefore, both the NDP and the Green Party could have said what they said yesterday, six months ago. They perhaps would not have got elected, but at least they would have been honest. Right now it appear as if they said some things just to elected - just like all other political parties.

I take no pleasure in being marginally less politically naive than some of my peers. There is no joy in watching people becoming disengaged from politics because it feels as if everyone always lies. It is profoundly discouraging to watch one’s last hope of an environmentally aware political party become as self serving as all of the rest. It will be tempting for those who feel betrayed by the Green Party’s decision to support the building of the Site C dam to vote some other way the next election, or even worse to ignore their failure to keep their promises. The public need to develop comprehensive critical thinking skills so that during the lead-up to the next election we ask questions and demand answers that are not based on emotion but based on facts. Answers based what is good for the province as opposed to what fits a particular personal or political ideology.

Parties that attempt to give me the answer they think I want - will always betray me if for no other reason than they have no real opinions of their own.

Writing is Hard Work

A few weeks ago one or two friends were talking about reading this blog. I am always embarrassed when people tell me that they have read what I have written. While I am secretly delighted to know that people read my writing - I become uncomfortable when I am told that they have. While my proofreading skills are frequently somewhat questionable I, thanks to spell check, am reasonable sure that my spelling is all right; my grammar is slightly better than adequate; my thoughts are usually well informed and I have a reasonable vocabulary. But I am never sure that what I have to say is really worthy of anyone’s time.  

I write because I like the process of shaping the thoughts that are dancing around inside my head into some coherent message. I like the struggle to find the right words, the right phrase, that right descriptor that paints the picture inside my head. I write because of all of those thoughts and words and pictures will continue to bounce around inside my head until I get them out on paper. The fact that someone else might read those words is not always important to me. Like so much of what I do - writing is for me an immensely selfish act. I do it because it gives me pleasure. If however, it gives other people pleasure or challenges their thoughts, I am truly delighted and yes a bit embarrassed. 

For the past couple of years, I have taken a month or two away from my playing with wool to work on a book. I want to assemble some of the stories from my hitchhiking trips back and forth across this country. I think it might be interesting to at least a few people to read about those who have offered me rides and the things that we have seen and talked about together. Most of the stories are already written; they are either scattered throughout this blog or in the four 80-90 page journals written before the blog was started. It should have been easy to create a coherent narrative from the thousands of words I had already written.  Writing the book has been a lot harder than I thought it would be. 

I take a few pages from my writing, find a place where those thoughts and conversations will fit, write some connecting sentences and move onto the the next driver’s stories. The next day I read the same paragraphs over again, realize how poorly they are written and do it all over again. I rewrite a few paragraphs, massage the words into some sort of readable English and think that I am well satisfied. I come back to the same paragraphs and pages a few months later and as I re-read those words that seemed so brilliant, now shine with all of the light of a moonless night. So I edit and edit and edit again.

It seems to be an never ending process, one that perhaps I need some help with.  

There are times however, when I re-read a paragraph and I am pleased with myself. This is one of them: 

“The final reason to hitchhike is to see the country. I have been fortunate to live in four provinces, sleep in ten (plus one territory) and to see bits and pieces of Canada at various times of the year. I have travelled across the country, both in the summer and in the winter a number of times by train and by car. I have seen the Prairies in the depths of a drought with the carcass of a dead pronghorn deer laying on the shoulders of a dried-up slough in Alberta and seen the Fraser River at near full spring flood tearing its way to the Pacific Ocean. I have seen countless springs gushing from the sides of mountains and fields of wheat and barley ready to harvest. I have seen the magical fall colours on hills surrounding Ontario’s highway 11 and watched the cherry blossoms bloom in February on View Street in Victoria. I have watched the mighty tidal bore in Moncton, fished off the shores of Newfoundland and the Gaspe and camped on the beaches of Vancouver Island. I have crossed the Mackenzie River, that iconic Canadian river that flows all the way to the Arctic Ocean, I have used all three southern passes to get through the Rockies, I have hitchhiked in daylight at 11:00 PM and tried to hitchhike with a flashlight.  And every one of those hundreds of hours used to travel the 100,000 plus kilometres has been well spent.”  

If only every paragraph could come out like this……..

The Power of Allegations

I find myself somewhat conflicted when reading the multitude of reports of women who have told their stories of sexual abuse/manipulations suffered at the hands of celebrities (and near celebrities). To be clear - I have no confusion or ambiguousness in terms of the absolute inappropriateness of the abuse. It is always wrong when one person uses their size, their hierarchical position, their power or their status to manipulate or to force someone to do something that they do not want to do. There are no exemptions this rule. One might be able to argue that forty or more years ago the rules were less clearly articulated - but since the mid 1970s, one would have had to live in a cave a hundred feet below the surface, with no access to any media to be able to convincingly argue that  they did not know that forcing a person to be involved in any sexual activity was wrong. But I am conflicted by the harsh condemnation of the men who have been accused and in many cases, the life changing consequences of those allegations.

I realize that it is at times inconvenient to have to wait until people are tried and convicted before they have to face the consequences of their activities. I appreciate the fact, that for the victim it is so much more cathartic to be able to scream out J’accuse! and then have the world immediately respond in a punitive fashion. But that is not the way our world is supposed to work. I have no doubt that 99.9% (there are relatively few false allegations CBC, CBC) of those who report abuse have in fact experienced at the very least, highly inappropriate advances and touching but that fact in itself, is not sufficient to condemn all men who have been accused of being abusers.

The list of men who have been accused of abuse is perhaps surprisingly short considering how often one hears about the “casting couch”.  I have no doubt that an overwhelming number of them are quilty. What causes me some concern is how quickly those men have lost their professional positions. Employers have gone from an attitude of seeing how easily they can cover up/hide the “incident” to immediate dismissal with no appeal in what seems like a period of weeks. For example just over a year ago, the person who was to be elected president of the USA got elected in spite of a number of allegations of sexual touching and famous stars such as Bill Cosby appear to have be able to avoid most of the consequences of their alleged abuses. Now if two or more people alleged that something happens, the alleged perpetrator, if they are of high enough status or position, immediately lose their job and in many cases any likelihood of getting another job in the near future.

In the early 1950s, in the USA, there was the House Un-American Activities Committee chaired by Senator McCarthy. During that time some people were accused of being Communists or at least being sympathetic to that ideology and as a consequence they were blacklisted - made unemployable. That blacklist had no legal weight, the individuals were not found guilty by a court of law, but were held guilty by the guardians of public morals and political correctness. There seemed to be some sort of political hysteria that allowed people to comfortably accuse and find guilt - it was a time when it was impossible for the accused to explain or defend themselves.

The current spate of accusations do not seem to differentiate between degrees of sexual inappropriateness. While it is clearly completely wrong for a person to force themselves on someone either through physical strength or by manipulations based on power or status, I am not convinced that posing for a picture of pretending (but not) touching the breasts of a fully clothed, sleeping woman warrants the same sort of consequence. The former act should end in a criminal conviction and the serving of time, the latter act perhaps only warrants a strong slap on the wrist and the public humiliation of being shown for a fool.

The present public outrage (or people getting on a bandwagon for political reasons) is not a constructive way of dealing with the problem. By lumping together all perpetrators into the same pot, we are not distinguishing between those who are perpetual predators of vulnerable people from those who in a moment of stupidity did something that they should not have done. No amount of education or redress would change the former group of perpetrators, the latter group can (and in many cases have) changed their ways.

We, as a society, decided some time ago that public lynching, whether the individual is guilty or not - is not the way to achieve a just society. It feels as if, in our legitimate rage against those who sexually prey upon others, we are - via the social media - agreeing to and participating in a new form of public lynching.

Bah humbug! 2017 Version

I went food shopping yesterday (November 24). The store was decorated with Christmas stuff, there were lots of electronics for sale at the entrance ( in celebration of Black Friday), Christmas paper displays and Lord help us - there was Christmas music playing - loudly - over the P.A. system.

I understand that it is important (for the store owners) to remind us as often as possible that at this time of the year, we need to go into debt to buy presents for our loved ones (and ourselves). I understand that the current theory of marketing is if the customer is overwhelmed with advertisements, inducements and pleasant, if boring music that they will be seduced into buying stuff early and frequently. That the sooner we start to buy stuff, the more that we will buy. I understand that thousands if not millions of people's lives depend upon how much stuff we collectively buy. Unfortunately most of the people live in China or other off-shore countries. I understand that the owners of Supercentre, Wal-Mart and other major corporations assume that I am a complete idiot who can be and in fact needs to be manipulated into making any decision at all.

I can ignore, with some irritation the Christmas displays that partially block aisles, of the additional "seasonal" food items strategically placed to catch my eye thereby making it harder to find the items that are usually in that spot and the absurdity of having electronic toys and sound systems placed in the entrance of a food store - but I find it very difficult to ignore the music. It is loud, boring and just irritating. For those of us who chose to not celebrate this season in the usual fashion, for those of us who find this time of year particularly challenging or emotionally stressful, for those of us who feel isolated or depressed - the last thing we want to hear for the next month is bloody Christmas music all telling us that it is the most wonderful time of the year.

My personal bet is that those folks who want to celebrate Christmas - know that Christmas is a month away. The vast majority of those people know what they have to do - they do not need to be reminded. Those people who don't want to or can't celebrate the day - don't need to be reminded either.

Turn off the music- please!

Christmas Cactus

There was a time when going to an auction was my young family's main form of entertainment. We went to a lot of auctions. We generally did not buy a lot of stuff but we went often enough that a couple of the local auctioneers knew us by name and would greet us. Sometimes if the bidding was slow, they would call out to us and ask us to bid on something to get the ball rolling. It was a pleasant, low cost way of spending our Saturdays. A few years after we bought our house (at an auction), one of the local auctioneers built an auction barn just down the road from us. Those auctions were usually on Friday evenings. I would frequently just pop down, check what was there and then if there was nothing interesting come home. It was a chance to slow down from the work week, say hi to neighbours, do a bit of complaining about the weather and still be home in good time.

One Friday, during a particularly traumatic period in my life, my daughter, my son and I went down to that auction barn - just to see what was there. I had no intention of buying anything - my life was just far too chaotic to even think about adding anything else to the mix. However one of the first items offered was a Christmas Cactus. No one seemed to want it, so my daughter bid on it and got it. Why? I will never know. I think it was the first thing she ever bought at an auction, she was not known then (or now) for having either a passion for growing things or for that matter a particularly green thumb. But we took it home with us and for the last twenty-five or so years it has been part of every home I have lived in.

The plant has, in fact taken on an unusual and unexplainable significance. Parts of it have travelled three times across the country as I have moved back and forth between B.C. and Ontario, a little clipping has flown with me from Sudbury to Nanaimo (I knew the main plant would freeze when travelling in a moving truck in the middle of winter), it has died and been reborn through clippings or sheer luck more times than I can count as neither my daughter or I are one of those people who have a special relationship with plants. But still it lives - with one plant in Sudbury and another in Duncan. It will always have a special place in my memory - as a symbol of a difficult time that that the kids and I got through together and has a reminder that we all have the capacity to grow, in spite of difficult circumstances - if we can only hang in there just a little bit longer.

But this Christmas Cactus has for me, seldom flowered. It may have only produced blooms for me three or four times in 25 years (my daughter's portion has done a bit better). This year it has flowered and it is quite glorious.

I am happy.