Philosophically Correct and Politically Naive?

A lifetime ago, when I was first embarking on my career in social services I, because of a philosophical disagreement with my bosses over how people should be treated, quit my job. Quitting that job eventually meant that to get another job, my family and I had to relocate to a city two hours south leaving the community that the children were born in, the house that we had built and in the process losing contact with a number of good friends. In hindsight, my decision may have been a bit precipitous but the only people hurt were my family and perhaps my reputation in that one community. There were no consequences for either the organization or the people that were served by that organization.

I have always admired people who have the integrity to put moral principles above a paycheck or mindless loyalty. I, therefore have in at least principle, some admiration for Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. They too resigned their position as a point of principle. And for that act - they deserve to be praised. But to be clear - while they did lose $80,000 annually off of their salaries (as ministers) - they are not exactly penniless as they are still elected MPs making $167,000 annually plus all of the other benefits including a housing allowance. As far as I can see, until this week their reputations only were enhanced by their decision.

Unlike me, however, their decision does have long term consequences for the organization that got them elected. By their very public acts of disclosing information that would have normally remained private including sharing their thoughts via traditional media outlets, they have potentially affected all of their Liberal colleagues especially if the two women continue to provide political fodder to the opposition. If in October the Conservatives win the election - Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott must take responsibility for that result.

If there is a change of government, their decision to denounce the activities of the Prime Minister and his staff, will have profound effect on millions of Canadians especially in terms of action on climate change and reducing/outlawing the kinds of racial trivial being sprouted by some individuals who have shared a stage with the Conservative leader. While I in no way am a fan of the Liberal government, I would be far less excited by having a Conservative government in power who see no reason to encourage a reduction in carbon emissions, who are openly in favour of big business have access to our natural resources and have not for two decades demonstrate any understanding of the profound inequalities in our society.

It seems to me that people in a position of power not only have a responsibility to do the right thing, they must also be aware of the consequences of their acts. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpot may have done the right thing by leaving. They were at best incredibly naive to believe that their actions did not have profound consequences for the country. If they were not naive - then they were intentionally destructive and are willing to place their values above everyone else's. Neither attribute is useful in a politician.

Xenophobia - Alive and Well in Canada

I think a lot of us read or hear about a particular news item and just ignore what is being planned as it seems to impossible to conceive of. We think to ourselves - no Canadian politician would ever consider pursuing that particular ideological dream or the electorate would never, ever allow things to go that far or common sense will prevail and that silly self-serving notion will just go away and failing all of that, there are laws against a government in Canada from doing that. In terms of Quebec's xenophobic proposed law banning anyone, in any type of government funded authority position from wearing anything that demonstrates their personal faith - we were wrong to think that no politician would attempt it, that the electorate would dismiss it or that our common sense would make it all go away.

It is inconceivable to me that in 2019 somewhere in Canada, a provincial government would be proposing a law that bans the wearing of a kippah or yarmulke, a turban, a niqab, a hijab or a burka. To argue that they are doing it because religion and the state must be kept separate is patently absurd. While there would be perhaps some validity for concern if a provincial judge wore a full veil covering her face, it is hard to imagine how the wearing of a turban or a yarmulke or a hijab can affect how a teacher does their job or how the students interact with them. From what teachers tell me - all too frequently teachers are not seen as any sort of authority figures at all. Being concerned with teachers wearing some sort of head covering, if nothing else, certainly negates all of the experiences of Quebecers my age who were taught by nuns wearing a habit including the wimple.

Quebec has been banging the drum as to how important it is - to them - to protect their identity from being distorted or changed by anyone who was not born there or at the very least speaks French ever since the 1960s. I get that Quebecers are concerned about losing their special identity. Welcome to the club. We are all having to face that problem. Some of us embrace the concept - others withdraw into themselves while sprouting racist comments about how this continent was destined for the "white" man. But regardless of how I personally feel about the changes our world is facing, regardless of how uncomfortable I may be with people who look and act differently from me or my family - it is time that I accepted it.

For the Quebec government and its citizens to pretend that they are not being xenophobic by passing a law preventing anyone who dresses according to their religious beliefs from working at a job serving the public is disingenuous at best. Far more likely they are lying if not to us then certainly to themselves. There is no other way to put it - they are wrong to even attempt to pass a law such as this. They are wrong to encourage this sort of thinking. They are wrong to not put in place programs to help Quebecers adjust to the reality of living in 2019. History will show that they are wrong - but in the meantime, people's lives will potentially be negatively affected. It is extraordinary to think that in Quebec, children will learn that if you are Christian then you can get a certain type of jobs, but if you are a devout Muslim, Sikh or a Jew you won't.

And if that is not discrimination - I do not know what is.

What Justice?

The truck driver who plead guilty to causing the horrendous accident involving the Humboldt hockey team was given a sentence of eight years. On top of that, it is highly likely that he will be deported when his sentence is over. No sentence that he could have received that would have brought back any of the young men killed or for that matter allow some closure to occur for the families Eight years, therefore, seems reasonable - especially as it was an accident and he had not intentionally done anything to cause the accident (e.g. drinking alcohol). I would think the consequence of not being allowed to live in Canada would, for many people, seem like a very harsh sentence.

On the other hand, his boss who did nothing to ensure that his driver followed the law, that he was properly trained or prepared for the job was only fined $5,000.00. In fact, the owner of the trucking company systematically broke the laws - the very ones designed to monitor how long truckers drive and how much rest they get. It would seem to me that while clearly, the driver has responsibility for losing concentration and not being fully aware of his surroundings - surely the owner must bear some of the responsibility as well.

It is not clear to me why all of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the truckers - especially truckers who at best have received the minimum amount of training and who may lack sufficient language skills to even ask other truckers for advice. It would seem to me that it is the boss who took advantage of the trucker, who used him and now gets off with a minimal slap on the wrist.

As I have stated elsewhere, the judge when choosing the appropriate sentence for any crime must consider a number of things, one of which is - will the sentence act as a deterrent, a warning to others to not make the same mistake? In many cases, I think it is foolish to assume that a criminal will consider how serious the consequence are before they commit a crime. In this case, however, if the fine had been substantial then perhaps other owners of small trucking companies would think twice before not following the rules.

As it is - owners can continue to flaunt the law and pay the minimal penalty. As so often the bosses get off easy and the worker pays the price.

Privilege

I am part of the elite. I am tall, male and white. That privilege was further enhanced because I grew up in Quebec in the 50s and 60s and spoke English. I never felt as if I was part of the elite. My family were at best working class, with constant reminders of how poor our parents had been as children and even more frequently, reminders of how close we were to still being very poor. We did not have a car until the summer I turned 12, I always seemed to be wearing pants that were too short for me but we could afford to buy new ones and while there was always lots of food to eat, my mother frequently reminded us about how difficult it was to make ends meet. I went to a poor school with at least some of the teachers being completely unqualified to teach. A school that had almost no library and the one lab did double duty as both a biology and a chemistry lab. The school system streamed the students into very specific program areas including assuming that 25% of the students would leave school by grade ten. The concept of providing anything stimulating outside of the classroom was a concept foreign to my parents, my teachers and the community as a whole. There were people better off than my family. We all knew who they were. I did not hang around with them.

If someone had asked me in 1966 if I was privileged - I would have answered no. Privilege then would have meant really rich people living in Westmount or the Town of Mount Royal or perhaps the queen. Certainly, it did not mean people like me who were raised believing they were poor, believing that opportunities were restricted.

I thought I was lucky. I caught the baby boomer wave and got into university (woefully unprepared and unable to get past my second year before I was asked to leave) and then had access to community college programs and then a number of community-based grants designed to hire all of the wandering around baby boomers. I built a career, had a family and did some interesting things. I am still doing interesting things and have within some limits - choices as to how I live my life. I now understand that those choices came to me because of privilege.

To be clear - I have worked my butt off. I have been cautious (frugal) about spending money, I have never taken a holiday where I flew to some resort. We lived in houses that were frequently substandard as we struggled to build or renovate houses and only once have I had a new car. There were times when I felt as if I had no choice but to continue to struggle. For month after month we didn't have enough money to pay our bills - certainly never enough to save anything. In hindsight, it feels as if there were years where I knew that we would never get ahead, that we would never be in full control of our lives or able to provide everything we wanted to our children. It never felt easy. It never felt as if I got something for free.

But in spite of that - we were privileged. I was working in a career of my choice, doing what I thought was important. If I occasionally felt stuck - it was a consequence of my choices. And almost always, there were other choices. There were even a few occasions when I quit a job because of a philosophical difference with my boss(es). The choices that seemed to just float my way happened in part because I worked hard, usually far more hours than I got paid for and I was good at what I did. But people noticed me, gave me the little bit extra room to shine, or to do something a little bit different - just because I said it might work - because I was tall, male and white. I earned every single dime I was paid, I worked hard to earn the trust of those who hired me but I was able to do get in the front door, to attract their attention because I was tall, male and white

There is no apology here. I never consciously used my sex, race or height to gain an advantage. But I need to acknowledge that it has been a presence in my life and that I have benefited from it. I also need to acknowledge it because only then can I realize how much more difficult it is for people who do not have such advantages and how much harder I need to work to ensure that the playing field is made level.

It is not that I got something I did not deserve or earn but rather other people without such privilege worked just as hard as I and still did not have the same opportunities. And that is wrong.

Really Children ..... Please Grow Up!

This week the Finance Minister of Canada presented the federal budget. The Opposition heckled, yelled and banged their desks so loudly for the entire speech that people could not hear what he was saying. The next day, the Conservatives presented 257 motions that they insisted be voted on. Because the 257 motions put forward by the Conservatives were all related to the budget and because all budget-related motions are seen as votes of confidence, if any one of those motions had been won by the Conservatives, the government would have fallen. Therefore all of the Liberal members needed to be there all of the time. It needs to be noted that because the Conservatives knew that they would lose on each motion - they had no need to ensure that all members were there for each vote. The sight of cots lining the halls of parliament so that members could take a nap would look bizarre if not such a sad commentary on our politicians.

I can understand that the federal Conservative smell fresh blood and want to make as much hay as possible while the sun is shining (sorry for the mix metaphors). I understand that for political parties such as the Conservatives and the NDP who both appear to lack any capacity for making some contributions to the running of the country, that the temptation to fixate on one topic where the government appears to be vulnerable may be almost overwhelming. I can understand that doing the hard work of looking for solutions to our problems is a lot less fun than heckling anyone who is speaking. But it is rude and far more importantly the Conservative strategy was counter-productive.

The House sat for 30 straight hours. Listening to speeches and then voting on each motion. 30 hours to vote on motions that the Liberals were guaranteed to win seems like a colossal waste of time and energy. While it may be that there is something in the allegations about how the Prime Minister and his office deal with SNC-Lavalin matter, it is not the only issue facing Canada. If the Conservatives want to demonstrate that they could run a county perhaps they need to start showing some maturity.

As useless as I think most federal (or for that matter provincial) politicians are most of the time - engaging in silly actions just ensures that they do even less. In fact, committee meetings were cancelled the day after the Conservatives' gambit to attract attention because everyone was too tired. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would see the Conservatives in a positive light after watching them demonstrating with childish glee their silly faked irritation. What employee in any company would be allowed to show such disrespect for their bosses - the electorate?

If the Liberals get tired of all of this stuff - they could do what the former Prime Minister did and just prorogue Parliament. In the meantime - it would be nice if everyone could attempt to act in an adult fashion and at least pretend to treat each other with a modicum of respect. If not the six months between now and the next election are going to be a waste of time in terms of anybody doing anything in Ottawa.

What is the Worth of a Human

Just over a year ago two local residents were charged with failing to provide the necessities of life for their dog. Since then, the dog has died and has become a symbol for the need to have stricter laws dealing with animal cruelty. Concerned citizens have protested at the courthouse and elsewhere demanding serious consequences for the two individuals. While I have not read any of the comments on social media, according to officials some of the comments have been racist, calling for violence and physical retribution against the accused (1). Protesters are demanding the maximum penalty which could be up to five years in prison(2).

I don't understand people who have an animal and then do not take care of it. In the above case, it was more than just a little bit of neglect - the animal had been seriously hurt, probably by its owner and then willfully ignored. It died a horrible death. I understand why people are concerned. I agree that people need to face consequences for their behaviour. BUT.......

It would seem to me that we need to keep perspective on what is important and where we need to spend our resources. On Vancouver Island, there are a host of issues that would benefit from more active public involvement. There is a lack of emergency shelters for people who are homeless, there are residents in the Valley who do not have access to enough food, there is, like almost everywhere else in Canada, far too many people dying because of a drug overdose - the list of things that need fixing is almost endless. All too frequently the only people who speak out about these issues are the ones saying - "don't let that those kinds of people into my neighbourhood". Outside of a small handful of people, no one is particularly concerned about what happens to folks who are struggling. There are not regular rallies demanding that something is done to ensure food security for all or that there be sufficient shelter for those who have been abused.

No one should ever suggest that the dog's painful existence and eventual death should go unremarked or unpunished, but if there are limited human resources to effect change - where should we spend those resources?

At the same time, Cyclone Idai has swept through Southern Africa killing perhaps hundreds of people. Plan International (3) has suggested that there may be thousands of children at risk. Countries such as Mozambique lack almost any of the resources required to help its citizens. While various world health organizations will ask for and receive millions of dollars from concerned citizens, no one will insist that policies that encourage global warming or that allow for the destruction of forests or the mining of fragile environments to get rare minerals that power our cell phones should be changed. And certainly, no one will demand that those who perpetrate these destructive acts (or benefit from them) be punished.

It is difficult to compare the two tragedies - one dog horrendously abused and then dying versus hundreds if not thousands of people dying. It is easier and more rewarding to express outrage at an identifiable face than it is to demand that the world's priorities change. I suspect that some of the local protesters are protesting because it feels as if they can have some influence on something, that their presence will perhaps have some sort of impact on the outcome of the trial. In a world where things seem to be shaped by inaccessible politicians and the executives of multi-national corporations, people need to feel as if they can control something, anything.

We all need to feel as if we have some control over our lives - how we achieve that sense of control may be critical to the survival of our species.


(1) https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/defence-lawyer-out-in-duncan-animal-abuse-trial-1.4337744
(2) https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/rally-held-in-duncan-to-condemn-acts-of-racism-amid-dog-abuse-trial-1.4334235
(3) https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/africa/cyclone-idai-mozambique-zimbabwe-intl/index.html

How Dumb Can they Be?

It appears, according to CBC and other media outlets, that during the 2017 campaign to elect a leader for the newly formed Albertan United Conservative Party, that there was some collusion amongst some of the candidates to ensure that Brian Jean lost to Jason Kenny. Quite simply the Kenny campaign team provided another candidate, Jeff Callaway, with resources that included " strategic political direction, media and debate talking points, speeches, videos, and attack advertisements" (1) all of which were designed to reduce votes for Brian Jean. Callaway had every intention of dropping out and indorsing Kenny. The RCMP have been asked by the office of Alberta's election commissioner to investigate further.

I, of course, am not an Albertan. Even if I was, who got elected to lead a provincial conservative party is perhaps none of my business, But I think how someone gets elected is everyone's business. If I had lived in Alberta and had participated in that leadership race by supporting Jeff Callaway, I would be bloody pissed off that he had not been serious about leading but rather only about ruining someone else's chance to lead. Whether or not it was illegal will debated by lawyers and pundits for some time. It is clear to me, however, that regardless of what is allowed by the United Conservative Party - that Kenny or at least his team's actions were just on the other side of being morally wrong. It was a gross manipulation of the public's perception done so that the crown prince of Canadian conservatives could be welcomed back to the Albertan political arena.

There is another issue that concerns me almost as much. That is - how stupid or arrogant are those who work in the backrooms of political parties? It seems to me that workers from the entire political spectrum send too many emails. Within those electronic exchanges, they share all kinds of information that while it may have seemed to be pertinent at the moment, and it may have been expedient to communicate via email - they have to know that someone, at some time, might examine their correspondence. They must realize - unless they are so arrogant to assume that they have the unfettered right to do whatever they want - that someone might see what they were doing was, at the very least, a little bit shady.

There may have been a time when people accepted that within the old boys club there were some strange bed partners. Partners who exchanged favours so that they could lead the assumed blind and ignorant public in whatever direction they (the politicians) wanted them to go. While that sort of thing clearly still happens, the public is hopefully less blind than it use to be. It is so much easier to find a record of potential wrongdoing. Part of me is quite delighted that they seem to be so full of themselves that they never think about the possibilities of having their emails flitting around the ether being read by unwelcome eyes- it makes it so much easier to watch them. It concerns me, however, because if those workers are the people who are doing the backroom manipulations and in fact creating the political environment and agenda are so unaware of how things work - how bright can they be? I think we need to have smarter people involved.

Side Point: the cynic in me wonders if it is an accident that this potentially damaging information about Jason Kenny is made public just months before the Alberta provincial election.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kenney-callaway-campaigns-collaborated-against-brian-jean-1.5059899