Racism - Using our Words Correctly

The school board in Prince George, B.C. has decided to change the name of their new school from a simple name that appears to reflect the street that it is on, to an Indigenous name. I suspect that the decision was made in the spirit of reconciliation (more on that in the next blog). Some people are, of course, pleased with the name change. Other people are less than pleased. While I have not read any of the comments that have been posted - the media and public leaders have labelled some of those comments as racist. To be clear - there can never, ever be any occasion when making a racist statement is okay.  In our society, we should not be having this conversation. We should all know in our bones that racist comments are hurtful, unfair and just plain wrong. We should also learn to use the English language correctly.

A  person just stating the belief that they do not want a name to be changed because the present name has some significance to them or that it reflects who they are and their experiences ( their culture) - is not a racist statement. Racism is defined as "having the belief that some races of people are better than others; showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races"  (https://www.oxford learnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/racist_1?q=racist). Saying "I like the old name because I went to that school and my kids now go to that school and therefore the name means something to me" is not a racist statement.

An individual is allowed to express an opinion about what is important to them. That in itself does not make the opinion right - it is just an opinion. Sometimes those opinions are different than someone else's. We need to be able to express our thoughts, not in terms of saying someone else's thoughts are wrong because of who or what they are, but because that is how we feel. When we feel that people are open to how we feel, we are encouraged to be open to their feelings. However, when we characterize other people's comments with such inflammatory labels as racist or sexist - we stop the debate. The person is either shamed into silence or gets angry, but there is no defence to such a label. One cannot prove a negative.

I have no doubt that some, perhaps even many of the comments being made in Prince George are racist. We should all be embarrassed and ashamed of those people - and angry at them. But I also am sure that there are many people in Prince George who liked the old name for that school and felt pride in it. By denying them the right to articulate that pride - we deny them the right to participate in any discussion of how to right the wrongs of the past. Unfortunately, I think when we also push people away from a reasonable dialogue, all too often inappropriate labelling can polarize people, pushing down pathways they could never have found on their own.

We are all responsible for ensuring that we use our words correctly We need to start being aware of the dangers of using polarizing words that will separate people from each other. If those who talk about correcting the wrongs of the past are sincere -we need to be so very careful that we do not leave people behind in that process. If we are ever going to achieve any sort of reconciliation then we need to include everyone in the process.

  

Shaming someone is never an invitation to belong.

Who Owns, Controls, Pays for the Airways?

For the past nine days, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has held hearings to gather information before it decides whether or not it should force the prime providers of cell phone services to sell to smaller companies access to their networks. If the smaller companies could gain access to those networks, they suggest that they could provide more cellular coverage at a potentially lower cost to the consumer. On the surface, such a policy would make sense. After all - who doesn't like the thought of more competition if it means that our costs will decrease? Except, why is our government thinking about sticking its nose into this particular business?

I am not a fan of the capitalistic system. I believe it is a destructive force that feeds off of the labour of those under it. The capitalist urge to make more and more money, to control more and more people and resources can only bring the world to the verge of collapse. It is not a sustainable system. But for the foreseeable future, it is the economic system we are stuck with. The question is - should governments manipulate that system to give some companies advantages over others, or should they just let the system be until it sinks under its own weight?

The smaller providers of cell phone services argue that the large companies (i.e. Telus, Rogers, Bell) have an unfair advantage because Telus, Rogers, Bell get to use the cell towers that they built. The smaller companies want access to those towers without investing capital in the construction of such a network. It is not surprising that they can charge less for access - they have not paid for the cost of creating the infrastructure. Telus, Rogers, Bell in various ways have suggested to the CRTC that if their investors cannot get back their "deserved" profits from their money - future investments (i.e. jobs) in the infrastructure may not be as forthcoming.

The "need' for everyone to have affordable and effective cell phone coverage is a need that was created by the capitalist. Many Canadians survived quite nicely for most of their lives without needing to carry a phone in their pockets. It is only within the last 10-15 years that we have discovered that humankind cannot exist without these devices. It should be noted that cell phone coverage is reasonably cheap - it is our constant need to Google everything, to post the most mundane of thoughts on social media and our compulsion to text everything to everyone that is costing us so much money.

It would seem to me that if everyone has the right to have a cell phone and have good coverage - perhaps the Canadian government should nationalize the whole thing and make it available at a far more reasonable cost. Either that, or we stop being so habituated to using the silly things. In the meantime, the Canadian government needs to decide whether or not it wants to control the economy or let the capitalist do it.

Train Travel - can it be Safe and Efficient?

I like travelling by train. I have probably travelled by train more than most Canadians. My dad worked for the CNR and before I turned 12 and we got our first car, my family went from Montreal to Old Orchard Beach in Maine by train for the family vacation.   When I went to the University of New Brunswick - I travelled back and forth from Montreal to Fredericton by train.  In the past ten years, I have made a couple of trips from Sudbury to Vancouver and back again as well as a number of trips from Sudbury to Winnipeg to start my hitchhiking trips.

The train has always been a bit of an adventure. Certainly, the trips to UNB were always interesting - the cars were crowded, noisy, full of interesting fellow students and especially when we more than once got stuck in a snowstorm - romantic. Ten years ago, when I re-discovered the joys of train travel - I remarked more than once that travelling by train was relaxing. One had no control over the journey and that whether or not the train was late or on time - it was all beyond my control. It was a delightful way to travel where one could either visit with fellow travellers or read, listen to music, nap and then repeat the sequence as often as desired. The attendants were attentive, their relaxed attitude and friendly banter added to the sense that we were all on the journey together. More often than not, I had both seats to myself so there was lots of room to be comfortable.

But then things started to change. I think Via Rail cut out one train a week making the trains a bit more crowded. The food got worse with economy passengers no longer having access to the dining car for at least breakfast. More importantly, the train was chronically late. Sometimes by as much as 12-14 hours. Passengers were more cramped for longer hours with few options about food. The attendants were more rushed, finding room for everyone was harder and more disruptive, and being late cut into their days off. Everything felt less fun.

The reason for being late was obvious. Much of the rail system is single track - if a train is going west and another train is heading east - one of them has to get out of the way. The freight trains that have priority, were getting longer and longer. They could not fit onto the sidings and therefore the passenger trains frequently sat on a siding for an hour or more. Many of those long trains were comprised of oil tankers. In a day, I would see hundreds and hundreds of those tanker cars go by.

There have two derailments in the past few months - both times the cars have leaked oil causing real damage to the environment. It is not surprising that the Canadian government has reduced the speed allowed - in the hopes that if trains go slower, there will be less chance of the trains derailing, there will be less risk to humans and less environmental damage. It makes sense to me.

Except that it means that the Trans-Canada train will be even slower than it was last year. Three nights on the train was fun. Four days or perhaps even more, stops being fun and starts to become painful.

I think - and I say this with sadness - I may have taken my last train trip.

Wet'suwet'en Nation and the Pipeline - A Solution to the Protest/Conflict

The protests that are occurring in scattered parts of the country cannot, within themselves solve the problem. I think the protesters are demanding that the Canadian Government do something - but the government cannot. Even if the government withdrew its permission to build the pipeline - I suspect that the Coastal GasLink would sue the government for billions of dollars and win. I would really prefer it if my tax dollars did not go directly into a private company's coffers. I am not sure if all of those who are protesting would be prepared to pay any additional taxes to make up for the shortfall in the federal budget.

It may be somewhat paradoxical, but if we agree that the courts have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of Indigenous claims, then we must accept that that same court system has the right to impose limitations on those claims.

However, I wondered if there could be some way for the federal government to "encourage" Coastal GasLink (including giving them some money) to take a three-month hiatus from building its pipeline. This break would hopefully reduce tensions and allow time for the Wet'suwet'en Nation to resolve their internal conflicts as to who gets to make which decisions. Then, after the three months - regardless of the collective decision that is made -we all accept it and move on. If the pipeline does not get built - then the company and the nation that has rejected them can work something out.

It is none of my business - not is it any business of any protesters in central Canada - regardless of their ethnic roots, or the BC Teacher's Federation, or any other white-dominated group as to what happens within that territory. We do not get a say. In fact, outsiders trying to be supportive may, in the long run, only make harder for that community to find a consensus.

So rather than protesting for some nebulous outcome - perhaps we should be demanding that our government create the space needed for a community to address its concerns - without us sticking our noses into that process.

Wet’suwet’en - the Right to Protest

I believe it is a given in Canada that anyone has the right to protest a government action that is wrong. In fact, it could be argued that it is our obligation to stand up to defend what is important to us. I think, however, that there are some basic principles of protesting that are not always understood by those who decide to block traffic or engage in other forms of protest.

The first rule is that the right to express yourself in public by breaking the law i.e. blocking access to a port or standing on railroad tracks does not exempt that person from being arrested and charged with a crime. Protesting would be far less effective if there were no real consequences to the act. People know they are breaking the law - they should not complain when they are arrested. To suggest that they do not recognize the right of the police to lay charges is absurd. If one decides to break the law to attract attention to a specific issue, one needs to realize that the people whose attention is attracted - i.e. commuters - are going to be bloody pissed off.

Secondly, I think it is important that the issue that is being protested is clear. In the case of protesters in various centres in Canada declaring their support for the Wet’suwet’en elders - I am not sure anyone is clear as to what is being demanded.  On the face of it, it appears as if the hereditary chiefs are just saying no to any pipeline - or do they have other demands? If the elder's main agenda is to hold the land sacred, preventing any development - I can understand that. 

It would also be useful to know whether or not, within the Wet’suwet’en territory if others agreed with them. Protesters need to know they are supporting the right side of the debate. While there is relatively little information coming from the elders or anyone else, there have been reports that those who support the pipeline are being publically shamed and accused of being a colonializer (https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/ coastal-gaslink-pipeline-lng-canada-1.5436837). A more open dialogue would be more productive.

And finally, as a corollary to the above - protesters should know what the expected outcome is. I do not know what is being demanded. If I am going to stand on railroad tracks in Ontario, in the middle of February blocking trains - I would want to know what needs to happen before I can get off of those tracks. Is there ever going to be an end to this protest?

There is only so much energy to become engaged in someone else's issues- our attention spans are, unfortunately, far too short. Protesters, rather than being swept up in the emotion of the times and the feel-good nature of supporting a righteous cause, need to be sure that the battle they have picked is one that they understand.