Old Dogs - Old Tricks

It has often be said that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I am not too sure if that is true. It is far more likely that us "old dogs" sometimes are unconvinced that the new tricks really are new or that they are really useful. However my problem is that I am forgetting the old tricks I once knew. Let me give you two examples.

Weaving: I have been weaving throw rugs for a number of years. The rugs are in fact one of my big money makers at the market. I can, I thought, make them in my sleep. 18 or so months ago I made a few rugs and they did not feel right - they felt too thin and flimsy. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. Last year I made a few more (I had a large stockpile so I didn't need to do too many), and they too, were too thin. I spun the wool thicker, I spun it thinner, I made it three ply as opposed to two ply, I changed the size of my reed - nothing seemed to work. The only solution was to beat the wool really hard after every pass. Weaving this way was noisy (which is a problem in an apartment) and my loom was moving all over the floor.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to try again. I made one little change in how I put the warp on the loom and the rugs are great! They feel thicker and just more substantial although I have not used that much more wool. It was such an obvious solution but it took 18 months of thinking about it before I figured out where I had gone off track. I had forgotten what I use to do. I didn't need a new trick - just needed to remember the old one.

Writing: Writing is hard for me - it always has been. I have a hard time organizing my thoughts, my spelling is atrocious, my typing is worse and I am far too inclined to wander down garden paths that are only interesting to me. The last two months have been a challenge for me. It has felt as if I have been spending far too much time writing. I write a paragraph, then delete it and far too often I end up just throwing it away and starting over. While I do not ever expect writing to be easy, it was getting just too frustrating.

Then I realized that I was composing only on the typewriter. That is not how I write. I need to jot down partially formed thoughts and concepts on paper before they are gone, organize them and then type. I just don't type fast enough to keep up with my thoughts. Scribbling down those loose thoughts as they drift through my brain allows me to keep the ones that I like and to scratch out the ones that I don't. And that allows me to stay on track. I wrote all of my university papers including my thesis out by hand. Not every word but the organization and structure was shaped on yellow lined paper. I love using the computer but I had forgotten that for me, processing complex thoughts is a two step process.

 So while it may look  as if this old dog is resistant to learning new tricks - the truth of the matter is that I am just desperately trying to hang on to the old ones.

#dresscodePM,

It will surprise no one who knows me that I do not have a Twitter account - in fact I can count on one hand the number of times that I have even texted someone. It is not that I am a near Luddite, I just can not figure out how using Twitter will enhance the quality of my life. As well, as a number of my former students are aware - I remain unconvinced that social media is all that it is cracked up to be especially if one is trying to create some form of social change.  However there is no doubt that there are times when such forums as Twitter can be a fun way to protest.

Take for example #dresscodePM. Twitter users are using it to mock Mr. Harper's desire to control what Muslim women wear during the citizenship ceremony.  Asking Mr. Harper if their attire is appropriate for work, to legislate that kids need to wear raincoats or whether they look Canadian enough is a humorous way for some Canadians to express their belief that their Prime Minister has (once again) over-stepped his bounds and proven how out of touch he is with the values of some many Canadians. It is the sort of thing that not only will make it to the figurative front page of various news sites in Canada but it will probably reach the media in other countries as well.

Such spontaneous activities do, in my mind, two things. One it reminds us that there are thousands and thousands of relatively young people out there who accept that not everyone looks, acts or dresses like them and that is the way it is suppose to be. The second thing such activities do is to remind people that they are allowed to criticize their leaders. In fact mocking leaders is a time honoured tradition. How what such activities do not do is generalize into any action.

There is no guarantee that just because primarily young people (PEW) take the time to send a sardonic or witty 140 character response to an issue that catches their attention, that they will vote in the next election. It is equally as unpredictable that even if they did vote, that they would vote for a political party other than the Conservatives. Sending a Twitter is a fun thing to do and it certainly has the potential of raising awareness of a particular issue, but the real question is how to take those concerns and translate them into action.

Those who are enthusiastic about social media will argue that without social media such social movements as the Arab Spring, Idle No More, Occupy Now or more recently the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong would never have got off the ground. And they are probably right. At least some of the thousands and thousands of people who gathered in town squares or marched down the various thoroughfares of the world, may never have known about those demonstrations without social media. But none of those brief lived social media generated events effected either long term change or even created any sort of organization that would have some sort of ongoing impact upon the society that generated them. Certainly in the Middle East - all of those countries that demanded change have reverted back to the autocratic, authoritarian style governments of the past. Some might even argue that some of the countries are worse off now than they were before the magical Arab Spring. In North America - the rich are continuing to get richer and at least in Canada, the poorest of the poor are embarrassing over represented in our First Nations communities.

I think social media is great fun and provides for its users an easy way to both stay in touch and to distribute knowledge. I think it is great that people are "talking" about important issues. But until someone figures out a way of taking that interest and shaping into a social movement that will do something other talk, change will not occur.  Francesca Polletta's, a sociologist who has studied social movements and intentional communities, wrote a book titled Freedom Is an Endless Meeting. She perhaps should have titled  her book - Democracy is Bloody Hard Work and the Work Never Stops. Getting people out to participate in a march down Main Street is the easy part, getting them out for the second or third march is a bit harder. It becomes even harder in most of Canada where only a fool would think about occupying a park in Mid January.  But the really hard part is getting people to sit down and have conversations again and again until viable solutions are created.

Saying the world sucks and making sure that lots of people know it is a good first step  - but it is the steps after that one that will lead to change.

What is a Terrorist?

In yesterday's morning's Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail) posed the question as to whether or not people who suggest that individuals such as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau or John Nuttall and Amanda Korody  are not really terrorist, are in denial of the truth. She wondered whether or not in our overwhelming desire to distance ourselves from Mr. Harper (that is not quite how she put it), that we are avoiding reality.

It is a valid question.

I spend much of my day listening to music and playing with wool. "Playing" is perhaps not quite an accurate description as anyone who has spent a straight four or five hours carding, spinning or weaving will tell you. But I do spend a lot of time in an activity that does not take much intellectual thought. In fact things like spinning are really more about relying on muscle memory. One, after the skill has been somewhat mastered, only needs to keep part of the brain focused on the work. That leaves a lot of brain available to do other things. So I think. It is possible that, on occasion, my political and social justice bias convolute my thoughts so as to produce a false conclusion. Possible, but I don't think so. But the question of whether or not I am denying reality is sufficiently important to explore it further.

Yesterday afternoon as I worked, I spent some time thinking about the question. Later just before and then after supper I spent a hour or so trying to write out what I thought. I did a bit of research and came up with a number of definitions as to what the UN, the EU or what some Middle Eastern organizations defined as terrorism. It was interesting but it took what I thought I wanted to say in the wrong direction. I ended up writing about what other people thought - not what I thought.  I then spent some time researching all kinds of people and organizations who have been called freedom fighters or terrorists depending on who was doing the labelling and who won (who won is important - As Winston Churchill is reputed to have said "history is written by the victors"). The mythical Robin Hood, Nelson Mandela, the leaders of the rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and countless thousands of others have all worn both labels. But this line of thought also led me down some convoluted pathways that got me lost in a morass of meaningless words.

I don't argue with Ms. Wente in that there are people in this world and perhaps even in Canada who because of a long standing ideology are prepared to engage in acts of extreme violence. I suspect that we agree that these individuals will commit these acts for the single purpose of trying to demonstrate/prove that their religious or moral beliefs are not only right, but that everyone else should follow them, and that they will hurt people and damage property to prove their point. I agree that we need to do something to address that issue.

I think however, where we disagree is on when is a terrorist a terrorist and when are they just some misguided, disenfranchised person who will jump on any bandwagon that slows down long enough for them to jump on. Doing a fifty second video full of standardized catchphrases does not make them a terrorists.  I think where we disagree is that I would argue that the latter person needs to be treated differently both long before they think about committing violent criminal acts and during any criminal proceedings than the former does.  I do not  think that there is a profound difference between the acts of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau or John Nuttall and Amanda Korody and proposed St. Valentines' Day shooting in Halifax. I am unclear as to why some of the above list get called terrorists and others are according to Peter MaKay   are just "murderous misfits". All of those people were struggling to fit in. All of them were failing in that struggle. It is not surprising that they latched on to a philosophical point of view point that legitimized their failures, that validated that it was not their fault and that provided them a purpose, no matter how misguided, to follow.

The Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" (Oxford). If Ms. Wente and could agree that the above definition is a good place to start from, my first question to her would be - do you really believe that  Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, John Nuttall or Amanda Korody had the capacity to articulate or understand the political aims in a meaningful way or that they really believed that they could achieve them? I don't think so. I think they were only parroting without true comprehension what they had heard.

I am not, in some desperate attempt to distance myself from all thing Conservative hiding my head in the sand pretending that there are no terrorist.  I am not denying that there is a serious problem in Canada and that there is a very real risk of a number of young people being seduced by the possibility of a world where they will have value - even if that means that they might lose their life. I agree that that risk is increasing ( as noted in a story from the Globe and Mail discussing immigrant gangs in Canada) and that it is well past time to do something about it. I would even agree that we need to have a national debate about it. But the debate would not be about terrorism. Terrorism and the radicalism of our youth is not the problem - it is just the inevitable conclusion if we don't learn how to support Canadians who find life a struggle.

"Life Means Life" Part 3

As I have stated in the past two blogs I have some grave concerns as to the Conservative government's proposal to extend the definition of "life imprisonment" from 25 to 35 years for certain types of homicides. But not only is that proposal solving an problem that does not exist, it is fundamentally changing how justice is administered in Canada.

Presently the Parole Board, upon a prisoner making an application for parole, reviews all of the information on the incarcerated individual and their crime, the reports that staff write as to their behaviour etc. and listens to concerned citizens. They then decide if the person will be allowed what kind of release. Parole hearings are all open to the public. While the members must be certainly aware of what some members of the public think, they make, at least ideally, their decisions based on the information presented - not because of public pressure or fear of losing their jobs.

There are almost a hundred individuals who have been appointed by the government to sit on the Parole Board as either a full or part time member(PBC).  The qualifications required for this paid position ($600-$700 per day for part time (PBC)) are surprising onerous. They included: "a degree from a recognized university in one of the disciplines comprising the human sciences (law, criminology, social work, psychology, sociology, etc.) or an acceptable combination of relevant education, job-related training and/or experience, a minimum of 5 years experience in a decision-making environment and/or in the interpretation or application of legislation, government policies or directives and knowledge of the criminal justice system; knowledge of the societal issues impacting on the criminal justice environment including gender, Aboriginal and visible minority issues; and knowledge of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Records Act and their interpretation and application related to conditional release and pardons is considered an asset" (PBC). There is also an appeal process.

The Prime Minister has proposed that the decision as to whether the individual gets any type of parole after 35 years should be made by a cabinet member. Ministers of the Crown do not need to have any specialized knowledge or experience (just look at who has been appointed to cabinet posts in the past 10-15 years). The decision will be done behind closed doors. The minister will not need to make the information public and Lord knows politicians are always vulnerable to public pressure. Instead of a group of well qualified and experienced individuals representing a broad spectrum of Canadian society, there will be one individual who politics reflect a single party who makes this decision.

To be clear - Mr. Harper has, in all likelihood, made this proposal because it is most likely that the Supreme Court of Canada will rule that to incarcerate someone for the rest of their life with no possibility of getting out of jail is cruel and unusual punishment. The proposal has not been cleared by cabinet, it will not make it through all of the stages of Parliamentary approval before the election. Even if it did, it would not be retroactive. That is it would not come into effect until sometime in 2016. If it passed into law, if a homicide did occur that fit Mr. Harper's limitations, the decision about a release would come in 2051!

Are there not more important things for the prime minister to be doing other than to stir up people's anxieties and fears? Is there not some other way of informing the public that they are safe? Perhaps he could pay as much attention to the fine work the criminal justice system does as opposed to focusing on all of the mythical bogy men. But then he would have to praise the judges - not something he does easily or frequently. He would also lose the vote (and support) of those who believe that the way to power is to create situations that scare people and then act as our saviours.

"Life Means Life" Part 2

 As noted previously, I think that the Canadian governments proposed amendment to the Criminal Code so that some murderers would spend longer in jail without the possibility of parole is at best misguided. Not only am I concerned as to whether there is any justification to raising this issue six months before an election (except for the obvious reasoning of a government that has little to show for the past four years), but I am also curious as to why they have created a two tier system in terms of offenses and punishment. It is proposed that only murderers who sexually abusing or kidnap their victim, those who engage in terrorist activities, those who are particularly brutal (how does one define that?) or those who kill a police or corrections officer will receive the 35 year sentence without the possibility of parole (CBC).

Statistics Canada, doing what it does better than any other comparable agency, has, on the same page mentioned in my previous post, listed what professions are most at risk of being killed on the job. In 2013 (the last year a report is available) out of the 505 homicides that occurred in Canada, only one was a police officer(this number feels too low, but even in the USA which generally has a much higher homicide rate and ten times the population only lost 103 officers to homicide in 2013 (New York Times)). Other professions are at a much greater risk, most notably those who were involved in illicit activities (Stats Canada).  But it may be that we don't see them as victims that need special mention or perhaps it is that they do not have family members who vote.

I appreciate that being a police officer is a difficult, demanding and potentially an emotionally exhausting job. I understand that the majority of officers on a daily basis have no way of knowing whether or not they will be placed in a dangerous situation that day and that they still willingly go to work. I had the opportunity of working with a number of police officers throughout my career and the majority were decent, competent human beings. But I am unconvinced that their lives were more special or more valuable than someone who gets killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example I am not at all sure that the life and family of a clerk at the corner milk store who gets shot and killed as a by-product of the store being robbed is worthy of less consideration than a police officer's life and family. In fact the clerk may deserve more. Unlike the police officer, the clerk is probably getting minimum wage, has no benefit package, no union and very little choice about doing the job. They must know, especially in some parts of our cities that they are at a significant risk of being hurt. Similarly a nurse chooses to work at an abortion clinic is at some risk of being hurt. Should her life and family been seen through a different set of lenses in terms of how the murderer is punished.

While I appreciate that the government is trying to appear that they are supportive of the police and their special relationship with the public, their time would be better served looking at the other classifications of homicide victims. What can we do to stop them from being victims in the first place. Why are sex workers in the highest risk group (Stats Canada) to be murdered? Why is there such an over-representation of First Nations women being killed each year as compared to the percentage of the population? Is it significant that there is a slight increase in the number of youths committing murder? Or that more young people committed suicide in Canada in 2009 than were murdered in 2013 (Stats Canada).

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Threatening to punish a handful of people more harshly strikes me as a bit of misdirection.

*Thanks to my son who many years ago pointed out to me the inherent wrongness in valuing a police officer's life over another's life.