Celebrating Aboriginal Day, Conservative style

Canada under its new Conservative leadership is making mischief on the world stage again, standing up this time in bold opposition to indigenous rights. Along with three other settler states--New Zealand, Australia and the U.S.--Canada is celebrating National Aboriginal Day by announcing its intention to scuttle a UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that has been twenty years in the making. This will be our first official act as a member nation of the new United Nations Human Rights Council.

Hard on the heels of the shelving of the Kelowna Accord, Indian Agent Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, who did not provide details to justify his astounding claims, has announced that the wording of the draft Declaration will contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, and, perhaps more to the point, "It's quite inconsistent with land-claims policies under which Canada negotiates claims."

We shall have to wait for the flesh to be put on these bones, but in the meantime it would be permissible, I think, to speculate. In Canada, Aboriginal rights have to be negotiated. Just ask the Lubicon how the process can work. The proposed UN Declaration might get in the way:

Article 7: Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.

Article 10: Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

So much for negotiation. Our First Nations would simply have their rights. What a concept!

The passage of this Declaration might, for example, be welcome not only to the Lubicon but also to the Inuit of Nunavut. Their original land claims agreement envisaged a transition to Inuit control of their own territory. Take, for example, Article 23 of the Agreement:

Article 23.2.1: The objective of this article is to increase Inuit participation in government employment in the Nunavut Settlement Area to a representative level.

That was in 1993. Today, 45% of the Nunavut public service is Inuit, a number achieved early on, Inuit filling primarily the low-level positions. Inuit are 85% of the population. The language of government is--English.

No wonder the Cons are up in arms. One can imagine how, if it were taken seriously, the passage of the UN Declaration might kick quite a hole in the Indian Affairs department. (Not to mention causing a light sweat to break out on the brows of some of our favourite anti-Aboriginal blogagandists.) The Liberals, whose record is every bit as dismal on Aboriginal issues as that of the party in power, supported the Declaration in a parliamentary committee earlier this month. But--forgive my cynicism--this may not be the issue that takes us back to the polls.

Not much strategic sense, these Harper folks. Why not just do what we (and other countries I could name) have always done--sign on and ignore it? How many divisions does the UN have?

Happy Aboriginal Day, everyone. O Canada, our home on native land.

Stuff you won't see in the MSM on the starboard side of the blogosphere

George W. Bush and his spouse Laura have separated. She's taken a room in a hotel because she's fed up with Dubya doing the nasty with Condi. (Who says that Bush "doesn't care about Black people?" Kanye, eat your words.) An ex-CIA agent broke this story on June 1, and since when does the CIA ever get things wrong?

Ms. Rice, according to an unimpeachable authority, has "sexual problems" (read: lesbian). But was this before or after the White House Stud-Muffin introduced her to the horizontal Texas Two-Step? Move over, Bill Clinton, and for goodness sake take that cigar with you. There's a real man in the Oval Office now, and everybody who counts has nothing but praise for him and his senior staff.

(But it gets even juicier, possums. Bush, it seems, has a lavender skeleton in his closet, where he's currently spending his time. Yup, this tireless opponent of same-sex marriage and peerless defender of "traditional family values" took a bit of a walk on the wild side back in 1984. See you on Pride Day, Georgie--but leave the cut-out leathers at home this year, OK?)

Just don't expect to see any mention of this huge story over at Small Dead Animals, Relapsed Catholic or Angry's place. Forget The Shotgun and Andrew Coyne. Nothing at Celestial Junk. Not a word from Mark Steyn. Two weeks the George-Laura split has been in the news, and not a peep out of any of them.

It's a cover-up, nothing less. We are reliably informed (June 2) that two mainstream media sources have already confirmed the matter. And I read all about it in the Globe. Come on, Woodward and Bernstein wannabes! Come on, Helen Thomas! Only the MSM has the courage, it seems, to tell the truth--the truth that right-wing bloggers stubbornly refuse to reveal.

h/t Newshounds, Wonkette

Honours for homophobe confirmed

As noted in an earlier post, Carleton University is planning to honour a local homophobe, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, with an honorary doctorate on June 13.

Protests have been pouring in, with this result:

Further to your recent e-mail, I wish to advise that at its meeting of June 1, 2006, the Senate of the University considered the recommendation that Rabbi Bulka receive an Honorary degree from Carleton University. After a careful and thorough examination of the issue, it determined that the University will confer the degree upon Rabbi Bulka at its spring Convocation to recognize his outstanding career as a community leader and scholar.

All universities welcome debate and respect diverging opinions. Carleton has always demonstrated tolerance for such discourse and as such respects the views of those who might not agree with some of Dr. Bulka's positions and statements. We strongly believe that tolerance and diversity is applicable to all groups who might have conflicting views on a single issue.

David W. Atkinson
President and Vice-Chancellor

Dr. Atkinson's sinuous and mendacious reasoning, not to mention the reaffirmation of the award by the Carleton University Senate in the full knowledge of what it was doing, will tarnish the reputation of a university hitherto well-known for its openness and diversity. The notion that homophobia is itself to be accommodated under the rubric of diversity represents a perversion of the very notion of diversity. The same argument could be advanced to award degrees to racists: after all, we should be tolerant, says Dr. Atkinson, of "all groups who might have conflicting views on a single issue."

Now, I don't happen to like the word "tolerance" very much--it sounds too much like "putting up with." However, I will defend a notion of inclusiveness that doesn't self-destruct by being made to include those who hate the very notion of inclusiveness and who are activists in that respect. People like Rabbi Bulka, who thinks that homosexuality is a disease to be cured, and who sits on the so-called "Scientific Advisory Committee" of a wingnut organization that's going around peddling such views.

Those who share my outrage at the patent rationalizations presented here by Dr. Atkinson to excuse the actions of the Carleton Senate should drop him a line: david_atkinson@carleton.ca

UPDATE: (June 13) A decorous and very Canadian protest took place outside the convocation hall at Carleton today. A leaflet, rolled up to look like a diploma, was handed to attendees by a small handful of us. My partner had the privilege of giving one to Dr. Bulka himself. (One person in his entourage took a look at the rainbow scarf of a leafletter and said, "No, I don't think so." The rest, however, seeing him accept one, took them as well.)

Here are some excerpts from the leaflet. Note that the award of this degree directly contravenes Carleton University policy.

Part IV.3 of the Carleton University Statement on Conduct and Human Rights is the Sexual Orientation Equality Policy. It advocates that:

The University recognizes that a harmonious climate in relation to sexual orientation is essential to the academic, professional and personal development of all of its members.

It also says that:

The University does not tolerate or condone heterosexism or negative stereotyping on the basis of sexual orientation.

Recognizing that awarding this honorary degree compromises the maintenance of a "harmonious climate in relation to sexual orientation" for many students and that NARTH is a heterosexist and institutionally homophobic organization, the CUSA [Carleton University Students' Association] GBLTQ Centre has launched this information campaign.

This campaign is not against Rabbi Bulka; he is entitled to freedom of expression and association, as are all Canadians. This campaign is in response to the decision of the University Senate to confer an honorary degree to an individual who has membership in an organization that is heterosexist and institutionally homophobic. The GLBTQ Centre advocates that membership in organizations that violate our University's Human Rights Policies should not be overlooked in the process of considering a nominee for an honorary degree, regardless of who the individual may be....

We are therefore lobbying for the following:

1. That all nominees undergo a thorough background check of their credentials, experience, qualifications and qualities
2. That no nominee may proceed if they are in violation of any of the clauses of the Carleton University Human Rights Policy and Procedures
3. That a list of nominees be posted publicly so that all faculty, staff and students may submit any objections
4. That all award nominees are presented with the Human Rights policy and sign an agreement that states that they agree with all of its policies

...[W]e also suggest writing a letter of support for the campaign to the Senate via its clerk, Brian Mortimer at senate@carleton.ca and to the GLBTQ Centre at glbt@cusaonline.com....

I have to congratulate these students on their strategic savvy: rather than simply protesting a done deal, they are looking to the future and trying to improve the process that led to this travesty. Transparency in government? Then transparency in the Carleton University Senate.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention one unfortunate incident earlier in the week. Ottawa's well-known vulgarian, Lowell Green, decided to go after the students on his radio talk show. He referred to them as "fascists." One woman who phoned in told me she had been called a "superior c--t," the last word bleeped on the show itself. (Did he kiss his mother with that mouth?) I was informed that he also threatened a male student who telephoned, stating, "We know how to take care of you." So much for trying to uphold minimal standards of human rights, not to mention their own institution's stated policies.

Bravo, in any case, to the kids, for running a decent, strategic protest campaign. Apparently they have some faculty support. Will the Carleton Univerity administration, which disgraced itself on this occasion, engage in a little sober second thought?

Regulatory hormonization

I am writing this in honour of my friend, the late Richard Lloyd. He was an adventurer and environmental activist who died a few years back, after he had waged, largely from behind the scenes, what he thought was a successful war against Bovine Growth Hormone.

To re-cap, the huge international agricultural biotech company, Monsanto, developed a synthetic hormone (recombinant bovine somatotropin) that substantially increases milk production in cattle. This genetic tinkering, however, is not without its risks: serious threats to both human and animal health have been reported. But Monsanto has a lot of weight to throw around, and it is not hesitant in doing so.

In the US, the matter approached comic-opera status when two reporters (Steve Wilson and Jane Akre) were fired by a Fox News affiliate for refusing to bow to Monsanto's pressure and lie about the dangers of BGH. Their firing was upheld by a higher court, which ruled that the two did not enjoy legal whistleblower protection, and that, besides, there was no law that prevented the station from compelling its reporters to lie. Faux News, indeed.

Here at home, senior Health Canada bureaucrats happily went to bat on Monsanto's behalf as well, gagging and disciplining their own scientists who dared to resist pressure to approve the controversial homone. The public outcry was such, however, that it was finally banned in 1999--as a danger to the health of cattle.

But these stories have a way of generating sequels. Buried in a back-page article in today's Ottawa Citizen, we discover the following:

Canada banned using growth hormones in dairy cows in 1999...but we have harmonized our regulations with those of the United States, allowing U.S. milk into Canada. And American dairy farmers can use growth hormones.

According to Samuel Epstein, a medical professor at the University of Illinois who specializes in environmental and occupational medicine,

Such hormone treatments may allow some of the drug itself to enter the milk....But it also tends to cause ill effects in the cattle, which then need more antibiotics--drugs that can also enter the milk. "Apart from all the other crap in milk, you'll find opus [sic, and yuck] cells and antibiotics," he said.

He said the combination raises the risk of colon, breast and prostate cancers.

It ain't over till it's over, indeed. Another victory for trade liberalization, although a quieter one than the successful corporate lawsuit by Ethyl Corp. against the Canadian government, which forced the recension of a ban on a dangerous additive in gasoline.

Ah, the continuing joys of deep integration.

Jeffrey Baldwin's right to life

The sadistic low-life killers of little Jeffrey Baldwin have now received their sentences: it's 20 years for Norman Kidman and 22 years for Elva Bottineau before they are eligible for parole.

These two didn't merely kill a child. They starved him to death over several years, until he died, at the age of six, weighing all of 21 pounds--less than he did when he was one. They kept him, and his sister, locked in an unheated room, forced him to drink from the toilet, and to find scraps of food in the garbage. The kids were a great source of government money, which was the only reason the two grandparents took them in.

How, we might ask, did these two monsters acquire this child?

Ask the Catholic Children's Aid Society, as a public inquiry will shortly be doing. That was the agency that sent the kid to his death. An agency whose duty is was to protect children. An agency that stubbornly refused to cooperate with the homicide investigation, as reported by CTV:

Homicide investigator Mike Davis expressed frustration with the CCAS outside the courthouse Friday. He said the agency provided "little - if any - cooperation" during the investigation of Jeffrey's death.

Davis said there are "policies and procedures" for organizations such as police and the CCAS, "and at no time did I see any cooperation whatsoever with the Catholic Children's Aid Society."

"This is something that only a public inquiry can look into and look into the systemic issues that are underlying with [sic] the Catholic Children's Aid Society," Davis said.

---

After last month's guilty verdict, Ontario's chief coroner announced an inquest will be held, which will look into how the system failed to protect Jeffrey and the involvement of the CCAS.

It is alleged the CCAS did not do a background check on the grandparents prior to the placement. Each of them has previous child abuse convictions.

The matter of the background check is more, in fact, than an allegation. The information about the grandparents' prior record of child abuse was in the CCAS files all along, but somehow no one connected the dots, and so the kids were sent off to their own hell on earth.

Various so-called "pro-life" organizations have been vocal over the past few years on the matter of the right to life. So I thought I'd look for what was certain to be their outraged comments over the slow torturing to death of a little boy. I was wrong.

I checked Lifesite.ca.

103,000 hits on "abortion." 0 for "Jeffrey Baldwin."

The Catholic Civil Rights League?

20 results for "abortion"; 0 for "Jeffrey Baldwin."

REAL Women of Canada?

111 results for "abortion." 0 for "Jeffrey Baldwin."

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops?

26 hits on "abortion." 0 for "Jeffrey Baldwin."

And so I find myself asking, and others should, too: precisely what "life" are these people "pro?" Why does life suddenly become so much less important after birth? Where is the outrage, the moral concern, the thundering of bishops?

The public inquiry into the workings of CCAS is long overdue. But, in the meantime, it would be nice if the "pro-life" crowd were to break their unaccountable silence.

Mr. Ahenakew and Dr. Bulka

I've written about David Ahenakew before, but given the reversal on appeal of his conviction for hate speech, it seems timely to compare his fate with that of homophobe and soon-to-be Carleton University laureate Dr. Reuven Bulka.

Let me put all of my cards on the table. I am obviously not in sympathy either with Ahenakew's words or with his evident opinions. His spasm of anger caused him to say vile and hateful things. And those words led, in turn, to his abject humiliation before his own people and Canadians as a whole, as well as to his conviction as a common criminal. But as none other than Ed Morgan, President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, generously puts it, "Sometimes one overspeaks. I can understand that. You react to a reporter and you might overspeak."

I wonder how many of us, at one time or another, fuelled by alcohol or anger or piss-poor judgement, have said vile and hateful things that have not been reported in the media, caused us the loss of our standing in the community, or put us before the courts.

In any case, the man lost it, paid dearly for it, and the lengthy process continues. I wish he'd chosen a sweeter-smelling lawyer than Doug Christie, that noted mouthpiece for hate-mongers and Holocaust-deniers. But good judgement, as we all know, is not one of Ahenakew's virtues.

Now let us turn to the strange case of Dr. Reuven Bulka. The Ottawa Citizen has a lengthy article about this today, hidden unfortunately behind a subscriber wall. Confronted with his association with NARTH, a wingy anti-gay "therapy" outfit, you could feel the man squirm. He confirmed that he was indeed a NARTH member, but "very inactive," and he attended only two of its conventions, over ten years ago. He remains, nonetheless, on that organization's "Scientific Advisory Committee."

Sure, NARTH says (and Bulka agrees) that homosexuality is not a "healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality." This is proven, he goes on to say, by the fact that many gays want to be heterosexual. "But that is no more bigoted a statement," he says, "than a man saying he wished he were a woman." Transgender politics aside, this is an odd comment from someone who thinks that homosexuality is a disorder to be cured by "reparative therapy."

Bulka's book, One Man, One Woman, One Lifetime, was also raised in the article. He there described homosexuality as "abnormal." Now, he says, he would write the book differently.

The President of Carleton, Dr. David Atkinson, was impressed by the secret Carleton Senate meeting that took place on June 1, confirming the honarary degree for Dr. Bulka. "People were really wrestling with fundamental issues of what universities are about...I came away from it feeling very good about the university and what we stood for."

What, precisely, Carleton now stands for is less clear by the minute. I posted earlier about the President's flabby and mendacious reasoning in an email to those who are appalled by the University's actions, in which he effectively claimed that homophobia should be accommodated inside the big tent of diversity.

But let us set that all aside for a moment.

Here we have two individuals, both of whom had legitimately earned standing and prestige in their respective communities. One, David Ahenakew, blurted out some bigoted words in what both an appeal judge and the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress seem to agree was the heat of the moment. He has been publicly pilloried, his honours stripped, and has been humiliated before his own community and the wider public. The other, Reuven Bulka, has written a book about the "abnormality" of gays and lesbians, and continues to sit on an advisory committee of an organization that, in Canada, would likely fall afoul of current hate legislation. No heat of the moment there. He is lauded as a scholar and a pillar of his community, and is about to be awarded an honorary doctorate.

What is wrong with this picture?

Hysteria

Good grief, here we go.

I'm not going to minimize the seriousness of what appears to be a feckless group of alienated individuals setting out on a murderous mission right here in Canada--a mission which, though, it seems was effectively nipped in the bud two years ago through heavy undercover infiltration. The details of precisely how close this group (largely native-born Canadians) was to achieving its aims remains unclear. But, in the meantime, the right-wing ranters are roaring, their febrile imaginations occupying those spaces as yet uncluttered by facts.

Just listen to this stuff:

All I could say about the recent anti-terror operations in Canada is that these terror suspects are fruits and rotten results of multi-culturalism (read Tribalism) in Canada!

And this:

We continue to talk in abstract terms about a “War on Terror”, when it is in fact a “War on Us” being carried out by Muslims. And finally, we suppress that wee small voice inside, that diminutive primitive germ of an instinct, that is trying to scream aloud and warn us that mortal danger is just over the next hill.

And this:

And, yes, many innocent people will be called in for questioning, have their phones tapped, their internet usage watched. While I would hope this was done as gently as possible getting results before the ammonia nitrate goes off is of greater importance than a touching concern for the civil rights of individuals in Canada on sufferance.

Third, it may be time to say good bye to the Muslim world as a source of immigrants for a few years.

And this:

I know there will be an outcry from the anti-war crowd, the NDP, CAIR, and all the other usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is we need to gut the center of this. We need to destroy the camps and mosques and imams where this poison is coming from before we have a hope of cleaing up our own back yards. And that means Afghanistan. Iraq. Iran. Maybe Indonesia and Pakistan. Line 'em up, we'll knock 'em down. We need to.

And, for God's sake, this:

The thugs are poised to attack, folks. They are here, now....

Re-examine the last traces you may have of all the multi-culti "immigration built this country" pieties you were force fed during your long Trudeaupian education, in the schools, the media, in university, at work. All the charming restaurants and colourful ethnic festivals (that "help the economy") and funky world music on earth are not worth the life of one baby mangled in a subway bombing.

Regardless of whether or not immigration built this country, it may now destroy it.

If you persist in believing all your "Heritage Moment" pieties you are a delusional coward. Female fetuses are being selectively aborted, buildings are targeted for destruction, elected officials are harrassed by "refugee rights" activists, innocent bystanders are being shot by gangs because we refuse to acknowledge that all cultures are not created equal and not everyone can be allowed into our country....

Liberal guilt and decades of brainwashing has blinded even the best of us. And it will cost you the very culture you so cherish. Dear "socially liberal" conservatives: There will be no "gay marriage" under sharia. All those "cute" exotic cafes will be riddled with bullets. Your daughters will wear burquas. Secular humanism will not save you -- it is in fact the very cause of our problem.

Seeping through every crack in the foundation of our polity is the presumption of guilt, unfettered paranoia, vengefulness, opportunist attacks on more-accessible-than-ever targets of the far Right, and a pure unadulterated hateful raving that beggars description. Add to this unsavoury ooze a call for the return of capital punishment, and bizarre pre-emptive attacks on the defenders of an open society, and we have it all wrapped up in a ball. It's Them versus Us. Darkness versus Light. Pure Evil versus All That We Hold Dear.

Such binary thinking, of course, excludes any middle ground, but middle ground just gets in the way. The helpful thing about what might be called the doctrine of Pure Evil is that it allows us to avoid any kind of practical analysis; in fact, any analysis worthy of the name at all. People who ask questions are dismissed as "root cause theorists." Their motives are automatically suspect. Better the metaphysical than the maddeningly historical. Things are so much simpler that way. Ours is not to reason why. Let's just kill the bastards before they kill us.

The apparent ordinariness of these (alleged) "home-grown" terrorists has been emphasized over and over, fanning the flames of suspicion. There's plenty of surprise, shock, fear and anger, not to mention less-than-closeted racism, but not much curiosity. Few seem very keen on figuring out the etiology of the suspects' allegiance to violence and fundamentalism. Would that raise uncomfortable questions that could slow the rush to judgement?

Oddly enough, the Right's current anti-icon, Pierre Trudeau, overreacted in much the same way during the October Crisis in 1970, dealing with a couple of small armed gangs as though the entire country was under threat, putting Canada under martial law, throwing hundreds into jail, sneering at "bleeding hearts" who didn't like seeing soldiers in the streets, and strutting around as though he'd been a World War Two front-line hero. But even in those crazy days, no one with any credibility was advancing the notion that French Canadians were all suspects, demanding that their leaders denounce terrorism, claiming that, by God, Charles Lawrence had the right idea, and so on.

No, the current hoarse shouting reminds me more of the first edition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, that allegory of the McCarthyist anti-Communist witch-hunts in which everyone was a suspect until proven otherwise. Even the most ordinary-seeming people could have pods in their basements; could be cold-hearted aliens, unable to feel human emotions like compassion and love.

They are among us now. They are evil. No wonder we have to stay involved in wars half a planet away, help out Dubya when we can, and fight terrorism for the next millennium or two.

And so the Fear begins.














UPDATE (June 7): Thomas Walkom cuts the nightmare down to size.

Reading Dawg on that CUPE thing

(I thought I would spare the usual suspects the chore of deconstructing this piece on CUPE Ontario's recent resolution on the Middle East by providing my own handy decoding and rebuttal in square brackets. --DD)

***************************************

Predictably, assorted growling and snarling attack dogs are piling on to CUPE after its Ontario division recently passed a resolution that (gasp) is critical of Israel.

["critical of Israel" is just code for "anti-Semitism." Other examples include such things as suggesting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Just ask Warren Kinsella, who has linked the Toronto Star's prima bloggista Antonia Zerbisias with neo-Nazi David Duke for daring to say such a thing. Those sneaky anti-Semites lurk in the most unlikely places.]

Here, first of all, is CUPE Ontario's resolution, which passed according to some "unanimously" and by others "by an overwhelming majority."

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices

2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refigees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

BECAUSE:

The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law. Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid. CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.

Predictably once more, the anti-labour crowd is demanding to know why CUPE is dealing with international issues at all, but that's a stale old discussion, and I'd like to bypass it. Let's cut to the chase, and examine the two most contentious issues raised by the wording of this resolution. First, the word "apartheid," which some of the critics are claiming is a false moral equivalence.

So why not ask an expert on apartheid?

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what [Israel] did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about....

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

[Dawg is grasping at straws here. Desmond Tutu is likely just another anti-Semite-- certainly he's no Martin Luther King.]

Here's another individual who seems to know what he's talking about. Israel's plan for Palestine certainly does look like a duck and quack like a duck.

[The man's an obvious self-hater. There are many such. Anyway, what do Nobel laureates and nominees know? They're just the academic version of Hollywood stars.]

Now, secondly, we have that pesky "right of return," which international law dictates, not CUPE. This, of course, is not to be confused with the Law of Return. Let's not have any of those false moral equivalences, now. "This land is our land," as the old song goes. If they let all those people come back, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state.

But you know, there are alternatives less stark. The Palestinians don't all want to move to Tel Aviv, after all. This matter would certainly be the basis of negotiation: an honourable settlement (no pun intended) would not require a mass migration of Palestinians into Israel. But the inconvenient fact remains that, according to international law and numerous conventions, CUPE has a point.

[Well, sure, as a labour activist Dawg will stick up for anything a union does or says. What does Israel owe to these so-called "Palestinians," anyway? Israel won the damned war, and to the victor belongs the spoils.]

The wording of the resolution, then, that some might find inflammatory, conveys a reality, the one that Palestinians today are continuing to live. They are a dispossessed people, their civilian casualty rate in the on-going skirmishes have been far higher than those of Israel, the West Bank settlers in their midst are gulping 80% of the available water, and their participation in democratic elections has resulted in a financial squeeze that threatens to gut their state before it even really begins.

Some people give a damn. Like CUPE. Good on them.

Let's turn now to that smelly red herring, the dark suggestion that the resolution was deliberately brought forward on a Saturday (the Jewish sabbath) to screen out Jews. I for one find that to be a simply outrageous assertion. One wonders how many observant Jews (as opposed to secular or Reform Jews) were actually in the delegation, knowing the dates of the Convention beforehand--and whether their numbers would have turned the tide. That being said, though, it might have been reasonable, in retrospect, for the emergency resolution to come to the floor earlier in the week. If there were other voices to be heard, opportunities should have been accorded them. After all, CUPE has successfully negotiated religious observance provisions in its own collective agreements.

[Aha! Dawg is backpedaling here, leaving alive the suggestion of deliberate planning by the Convention organizers. The rest is just weak rationalization by an anti-Israel fanatic. In fact, his entire article seeks to excuse the inexcusable. CUPE has no business meddling in complex Middle East issues. Human rights only get raised when people want to make Israel a target. What about the suicide bombers? What about Hamas? What about Islamism? What about...]

In alta tende

Over at Small Dead Animals, I found myself involved in a discussion that sprang from an attempted smear of Tommy Douglas as a Hitler-style eugenicist. The combox thread mutated, as they often do, in this case into a demand that I "define" socialism, a fairly Herculean task in my view, and one that others might be better suited to attempt. For my part, I made an equivalent demand: "define" conservatism.

Well, I needn't wait any longer: the definition has been handed to us by a recent incident on Mount Everest.

David Sharp was what modern-day conservatives call a "loser." Briefly, he died of exposure and lack of oxygen as he attempted to reach the summit. More than forty other climbers passed him by on their way to success, including a double amputee. (Anyone can make it if you provide the opportunities. No special treatment, no special rights, no handouts. See? The system works.)

Everest pioneer Sir Edmund Hillary was not impressed with the excuse-making afterwards. "People have completely lost sight of what is important," he said. "In our expedition, there was never any likelihood whatsoever if one member of the party was incapacitated that we would just leave him to die." But what does that stodgy old liberal know about Real Life?

"There is no such thing as society," Augusto Pinochet's close friend, Margaret Thatcher, once intoned in her plummiest la-di-dah accent. And certainly the Iron Lady did her best to ensure that society was abolished (except high society, of course) in Britain, leaving her own mountain of social wreckage behind to prove it. As Prime Minister, she brutally imposed her personal version of the bourgeois conservative meme. You're either a lion or a gazelle, and no matter which you are, you'd better keep running if you want to survive. The person who comes second is only the first of the losers. At last--a nation of individuals pursuing individual interests, no nanny-state, no entitlements (unless you have a title, of course), every man for himself, and dog doesn't really taste that bad once you get used to it. No pain, no gain.

We on the Left can ramble on boringly for hours about the egoism, competition, waste and social atomization that the spirit of capitalism engenders. But the whole thing is summed up perfectly in one image, an image that has achieved instant metaphorical status, and serves as the quintessential definition of conservatism in practice: forty or more climbers in a hurry to reach the heights, passing one of their own, and leaving him to die.

A diversion from class struggle: Boston Legal

Time out from politics for a moment. It's too hot in Ottawa, and I mean that literally.

I once switched on the box several years ago and caught an episode of The Singing Detective. As I watched the dense and richly-textured plot unfold, I thought to myself, This is what television could be. The medium really does have enormous potential. Slings and Arrows is another rare illustration of this, made right here in Canada, too. Despite the critics' snotty commentaries, Paul Gross did the best Hamlet I've ever seen a few years ago at Stratford, and his considerable talents are uniquely suited to this backstage comedy.

For all sorts of reasons, though (mainly the exigencies of capitalism), TV is a living example of the race to the bottom, a desert of game shows, talk shows, assorted "judge" shows, "reality TV" shows, and random snippets and gobbets of this and that, intended for an audience weaned on Sesame Street who have, consequently, the attention-span of a gnat. That doesn't mean, though, that I don't watch a lot of it myself, and while drinking beer, not latte. My partner likes reno-porn, as a friend of ours calls the house-and-garden shows, and I've built up a healthy respect for Mike Holmes.

But in our case there must be some sort of cosmic re-balancing going on, because our favorite programs have been the Law and Order and CSI series. Fresh from the battlefields of protest and opposition, we cheer on the cops and the district attorneys, those "two separate but equally important groups" who, respectively, investigate crime and (presumption of innocence be damned) "prosecute the offenders." Aggressive defence lawyers, defending indefensible clients on hallucinatory grounds, drive us nuts, not to mention the bleeding-heart judges who waggle their fingers at Jack McCoy for some infinitesimal technical transgression and let sadistic murderers back on the street. We wait for the guilty verdicts with pleasurable anticipation, drinking in the stunned looks of the offenders as they're carted off to Rikers. They'll do hard time. Serves them right.

And, as a long-time critic of positivism, I am all awe and admiration for the hi-tech science and the meticulous evidence-based methodology of the criminalists in Las Vegas, Miami and New York. It's entered the domestic lexicon: "Did you take that last piece of pizza?" "What, did I leave some epithelials?"

But these urban morality plays, which effortlessly seduce us into a point of view that can be found more consistently over at places like Dust My Broom and Small Dead Animals, do not entirely rule the roost. Programs featuring defence attorneys are not as common--it's the Zeitgeist, stupid--but a few of them have shown staying power, like LA Law and The Practice. The spin-off from the latter, however, Boston Legal, transcends the pack of 'em, as well as the cop-and-prosecutor efforts that, in our saner moments, we realize consist of nothing more than hegemonic state propaganda.

A few years ago in New York City, we bought scalper's tickets and went to the theatre to see The Tempest. Who strode magnificently onto the stage as Prospero? Why, Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise. Patrick Stewart was first-rate, another Shakesperian, like Paul Gross and indeed William Shatner, who made the real money somewhere else. But I cannot imagine Captain James Kirk doing a proper job of Shakespeare. Shatner was a ham, his acting in the early Star Trek series abominable. He was wooden, self-conscious and frankly silly most of the time.

So what happened? Somehow the man has finally found his métier. Shatner is just playing himself, laughing at himself and making it work, because his character is, well, wooden, self-conscious and frankly silly. Denny Crane has amazing presence as an early-onset Alzheimer's victim, an unabashed Republican and gun nut, who still wins cases, merely by pompously stating his name. "Denny Crane." I love it when he does that.

But one actor alone is not responsible for making this series sing. James Spader and Candace Bergen are indispensible. The three of them play off each other like a trio version of the Beatles. And Boston Legal is simply brilliantly scripted. Watching it is like entering a parallel universe where everyone is just slightly...off. The characters talk English, but one is tempted to search the place for pods. The only person who seems to be from planet Earth is Paul Lewiston (Rene Auberjonois), whom Trekkies will remember as Odo, the bucket man.

The storyline is complex, a mixture of discourses, largely parodic, swirling around themes of human passion and morality in both personal and legal settings. Watching Denny and Alan Shore (James Spader) have their manly Scotch and cigars in the evening, exchanging odd comments in perfect communion, two good friends, is worth the price of admission.

I don't know how the team, actors and writers, maintains such consistency. I haven't heard a false note yet. This is one of those series one watches in fear as well as admiration, wondering when it will come to an end--when that ecstatic jamming will falter, and the regular accordionist lurches once again onto the stage.

On to the next season. I can't wait.

From an alternate universe...

(Small Dead Animals and Celestial Junk were two of the many conservative blogs that mocked the reaction of the Parliamentary Press Gallery to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s demand that his office decide which reporters would be permitted to ask Himself a question. The following was retrieved from a pod that entered this universe through a tear in the space-time continuum. --DD)

PM: And now Comrade Kate McMillan may ask her question.

DT: Many thanks, Comrade Prime Minister. My question, as you know, has to do with freedom of the press. Recognizing that the press, largely composed of members and sympathizers of the disgraced ancien régime, frequently do not offer the respect that the Comrade Prime Minister is due, and do not speak for the broad masses of the workers and peasants, what steps will you take to ensure that the people are properly informed in the future? Thank you, Comrade.

PM: Thank you for your question, Comrade. If more reporters were like you, we would cease to have a problem with them. But for the most part they do not accept the will of the people, and continue to raise questions where none is warranted.

With my Party, I am planning an initiative to ensure that the people receive the information to which they are entitled. We shall be instituting a program of licensing journalists, which is not that radical a departure from the current practice of issuing press credentials. From now on, those credentials will simply have to be earned. As in the case of doctors, lawyers and accountants, certain minimal standards must be met.

Journalists who wish to practise their profession will shortly require a period of training in the basic rules and ethics of the profession. Once this training is complete--Comrade Levant will be the new Commissioner for Journalism, and will oversee the training--an oath of loyalty to Canada will be administered. We expect our first class to graduate sometime in 2007.

Until then, we shall keep the people informed with a regular series of press releases. Anyone with questions will be able to reach us at an email address or a toll-free number --1-800-GET-FACT. An operator will be standing by. Please stay on the line to retain your calling priority. (Laughter)

Journalists already in the profession will be permitted to practise--until they get it right. (Laughter and applause) But we are free not to talk to them--this is, after all, a free country. (Applause) Of course, they all have the option of going back to school.(Laughter)

Once again, Comrade, thank you for your question. (Prolonged and stormy applause)

Fleshing the press

The unseemly delight with which right-wing bloggers are celebrating Harper's on-going attack on freedom of the press speaks volumes about their hidden agenda. Remember that? It's not so hidden any more: this is a command-and-control government, led by a man with clearly authoritarian tendencies, and cheered on by all those erstwhile champions of freedom and transparency who have revealed themselves to be something else entirely. Indeed, as an Italian friend of mine said today, Harper is more and more coming to resemble the strutting and paranoid Silvio Berlusconi. As for his followers, the barking of trained seals is almost deafening.

What Harper and his supporters fail to understand, in the final analysis, is how journalism works. Jeffrey Simpson, not a man I tend to admire, writes a commonsense column in today's Globe & Mail that's worth a read. Journalists ask hard questions to get public figures on the record and to elicit information. Simpson points out that various Canadian prime ministers of both Conservative and Liberal persuasion have considered the press biased against them. They are in fact engaging in an attempt at deflection, one that won't stand up to scrutiny.

Here's an extract from Simpson's piece:

He should ask Paul Martin or John Turner. Or Jean Chrétien, whose government was rocked by endless media coverage of scandals, real or imagined. Did not Mr. Harper's party in opposition feast on that same media coverage month after month? Was it not The Globe and Mail that broke and pursued the sponsorship affair long before the Auditor-General sank her fangs into it?

Not to mention endorsing Harper for Prime Minister back in January! Four months is obviously an eternity in politics.

And here's Harper himself:

Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government and they don't ask questions at my press conferences now.

The PM's view of journalists, from this extract, seems to be that they ought to behave like Conservative flaks. Penetrating, probing queries annoy those who like to operate in the shadows, uttering imperial pronouncements from time to time that it would be treason to question.

But journalism isn't about showing deference. It's about eliciting information. When a fiercely partisan Conservative was proposed to head up a new commission on public appointments, supposedly put in place to ensure non-partisanship, a parliamentary committee had the effrontery to challenge the choice. Mr. Gwyn Morgan was grilled about his publicly-expressed views on immigration, and was pretty well accused of being a bigot. When CTV's Jane Taber got him on-air, her first question was, "Are you a bigot?" The howls of outrage from the right half of the blogosphere were something to hear. Yet her question was simply good journalism. It offered Morgan the opportunity to rebut, and to enlarge on his views.

Taber was blasted for a recent interview with Rona Ambrose on Kyoto, too: in spite of her questions, some commenters smugly noted, Ambrose came out of the interview looking calm, cool and well-briefed. In spite of her questions? More like because of them. Who allowed Ambrose to shine from coast to coast to coast? Why, the evil "MSM," that's who.

Let me pause for a moment, though, to engage in a little self-criticism. Once upon a time, when I held senior office in a large public service union, I dealt with the media, national and local, on a fairly frequent basis. At first I reacted to pointed questions as though we were having an on-air argument. It took some growing on my part to realize that I was being given an opportunity to get the message out, and to counter assumptions that many held about unions and our position on issues of the day. Nor did it matter if my questioners--many of whom were members of the Canadian Media Guild--were "really" antagonistic to unions or not. The questions themselves were a jumping-off point.

That's not, of course, how Harper sees it. He wants to pick and choose the journalists he will deign to respond to. He has muzzled his own caucus. If the Parliamentary Press Gallery resists becoming in effect his personal PR outfit, well, he just won't talk to them, then.

The peevish and petulant little man who heads our government is demonstrating frankly dangerous tendencies. When he doesn't get his way, he tends to lash out like a spoiled child. It's becoming clear what he and his blindly-partisan supporters want: unconditional obedience and shows of respect, a lot of kow-towing and curtseying, a tame media and a tame electorate.

I am, for some reason, put in mind of W.H. Auden's poem, "Epitaph on a Tyrant":

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.

A reporter once took on another imperial-minded prime minister some time ago. Here is the partial exchange:

At what cost? How far would you go? To what extent?

Well, just watch me.

Just watch Stephen Harper. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Carleton U. to honour homophobe

One of Ottawa's most prominent gay-baiters, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, is set to receive an honorary doctorate from Carleton University on June 13. Author of "One Man, One Woman, One Lifetime - An Argument for Moral Tradition," Bulka is well-known on the "pro-life" speaking circuit, and has has spoken out publicly against same-sex marriage in Canada.

His views on homosexuality can only be characterized as extreme. Bulka sits on the so-called "Scientific Advisory Committee" of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a fringy far-right outfit in the United States that believes homosexuality is a disease that can be "cured."

Carleton University is well-known in Canada for its progressive values--it has long prided itself on its diversity and inclusiveness. Its decision to honour Bulka flies in the face of these values. Anyone interested in questioning this eminently questionable decision should get in touch with the President of Carleton University, Dr. David Atkinson, at david_atkinson@carleton.ca. And why not drop a line to Dr. Marc Garneau, Carleton's Chancellor, while you're at it? He can be reached through the Departmental Administrator of the Carleton Board of Governors, Ms. Barbara Steele, at barbara_steele@carleton.ca.

UPDATE: (May 25) The Carleton University GLBTQ Centre for Sexual and Gender Diversity is now busy moblilizing against the award. There will be an article in the student newspaper, a letter-writing campaign and a protest at convocation if the university presses forward. Meetings are planned with Dr. Atkinson and with groups such as EGALE. Stay tuned for more.

Chickenhawks

Parliament has agreed, by a slim margin, that we should continue our military adventure in Afghanistan until 2009--and who knows how much longer after that. Bush's "war on terror" is, by definition, endless, like the great wars in Orwell's 1984:

Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war....But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

Now Canada is further enmeshed in the international policy and narrow interests of the US, which, as history reminds us, has engaged itself in wars, proxy wars and invasions almost since it declared independence.

The vote was won with the assistance of people like Michael Ignatieff, an outspoken defender of the American imperial mission, described in the press rather confusingly today as a "senior Liberal." (I'm out of the labour movement, where seniority actually means something.)

So, folks, what are we fighting for? (Cue Country Joe and the Fish).

Some facts:

Afghanistan was ruled until recently by one of the most brutal regimes in the world: the Taliban. Women suffered grievously under their rule. The weekend entertainment was to trek down to the local stadium to watch the public amputations. On perhaps a relatively lighter note, men went to jail for trimming their beards and kite-flying was prohibited. It was a country ruled by a cult of religious insanity.

Where did the Taliban spring from? That's where things get interesting. Afghanistan had a USSR-backed government, later overthrown. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in their own version of quagmire. The US and other interests backed the armed opposition, some of whose fragments coalesced into the Taliban. They call this sort of thing "blow-back."

Needless to say, this nutbar republic attracted the interest of figures such as Osama bin Laden. The rest is recent history. After 9/11, George W. Bush discovered, for the first time, that women were being mistreated by the Taliban, and had his wife wax eloquent about it, just as his regime was making things tougher for women at home.

Strictly speaking, the US did not invade Afghanistan: they provided air support and materiel for the Northern Alliance, which eventually triumphed over the Taliban and took power. Elections were then held. The US and its partners are now trying to shape the new government into a mirror-image of themselves. They've had to rap the knuckles of the new President, Hamadi Karzai, over the threatened execution of a Christian convert. Bad optics, however you look at it; maintaining cosmetic freedom eventually trumped separation of powers, but Karzai has now appointed a religious fundamentalist to head up the new Supreme Court. Perhaps the executions can begin after what Henry Kissinger once called a "decent interval."

My point is this: we're now involved in a civil war between rival gangs of hard men in a failed state. These things tend to go on forever. And the more we extend our mission, the more difficult it will be to extricate ourselves.

I notice that one Warren Kinsella (who shall get no link from me) has applauded the Parliamentary vote, claiming that it's "the right thing to do" because it's only a matter of time before terrorists blow up one of our subways. I'm a little unclear on the logic of that, because it could be argued that the latter might well happen as a result of us merrily pacing the US in its mid-East and Far East romps. Massive civilian casualties tend to make people crazy. The survivors are not likely to make neat distinctions between Canadians and Americans when they embark on suicide missions, distinctions that, in any case, Stephen Harper is hell-bent on erasing.

Make no mistake: if I could have wished away Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein I would have had no hesitation in doing so. Their dismal records speak loudly for themselves. But that does not, or should not, lead inexorably to the notion that the US has some sort of global manifest destiny to invade countries at will to get rid of stinkers. On closer examination, we find that those stinkers have usually arrived at their positions of power because of the US, and that other stinkers are ignored on the world stage altogether because they are allies of the US. The last century of Latin American history provides more than enough examples to make this point.

The other point is that invasions and wars of attrition do not bring out the best in subject populations, their state institutions or their leaders. Afghanistan is just such a case. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that the US behaves altruistically when it ventures forth periodically to conduct regime change (an assumption I shall refrain from making), the results of these interventions have tended to be nothing short of disastrous in human terms.

So what do we do about corrupt and cruel leaders around the world? Perhaps stop installing them, for one. Stop propping them up when it's convenient, and overthrowing them when it isn't, for another.

In the meantime, here we are, well and truly implicated in a war without end against "terrorism," that empty signifier. A war that is, in fact, for the purpose of furthering US imperial domination around the globe. We're just one of the privileged nations joining in for reasons of ideology and Realpolitik, and we're making ourselves a target for the damned of the earth.

Is there still time to ask why?

"For the love of God, Montresor!"

President George W. Bush has secured his southern perimeter, stationing troops and Border Patrol agents about 200 or so metres apart, but critics claim this is far too little. Now there is talk of doing something similar to shore up his northern flank.

I have a suggestion. Why not build a wall?

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that this encompass huge swathes of Canadian and Mexican territory; the Israeli example leaves something to be desired. No, I'm suggesting that we think outside the box, and do our best to help our American friends feel secure.

The wall would of course extend the entire length of both Canadian and Mexican borders, but why stop there? There are the Eastern and Western seaboards to worry about as well. Make the entire continental USA a gated community, I say. Well, why not? Hawaii and Alaska can fend for themselves. They weren't part of the original forty-eight, now, were they?

But we need to be comprehensive here. Air space is also a problem. The solution? A huge kevlar geodesic dome that would cover the entire continental area, of course. (Gentlemen, we have the technology--at least in embryo.) Back it up by all means with missiles and armed satellites. Pull back the flap to let the pollution out from time to time, while going on red alert.

The last concern is tunnelling. Possibly a thick "floor" of steel-reinforced concrete could be laid across the US. Basements would be a thing of the past, but perhaps just as well.

When this teraproject is completed, our armed forces can pitch in by continuing to patrol the northern border to forestall any attempted breaches. The Mexicans can do the same. Perhaps the UN could patrol the coastal regions. The borders must remain secure!

Then, only then, will Americans feel safe. Not to mention the rest of us.

EnMasse is up and running

I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I don't give a damn.

I'm one of those "Babble refugees" some of you have heard about--frequenters of a discussion board over at Rabble until their aptly-named Management Committee started acting like Simon Legree. Well, no, let's not exaggerate--more like V.I. Lenin:

We are not utopians, we do not “dream” of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and 'foremen and accountants'.

The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat.

Briefly, because the story has been well-told elsewhere, a well-liked moderator, Audra Williams, was fired during a series of life-crises, by email. The Management Committee that did the firing took a hard-nosed stance, stated that the matter was not up for negotiation, and withdrew into haughty silence. A lot of veteran Babblers picked up and left to create their own site, which recently received its official name: EnMasse. No subordination and control for them.

I'm not really in their number, having lurked but not posted much at Babble--I prefer the blogosphere to Usenet-type groups, as a rule. But I'm old-fashioned enough to take the slogan "An Injury To One Is An Injury To All" to heart. I made a bit of noise in a few Babble forums, and signed up as an EnMasser to show a little solidarity.

What choice did I have? Here was Rabble, behaving like a Type X manager in a non-union shop. No sense of shame. No principled self-criticism. No transparency. No accountability. And leaving its soft underbelly fully exposed for the Right to rip and tear in its inimitable fashion. To use this mess as an excuse to indulge in personal attacks against thoughtful Left stalwarts like Judy Rebick, who was only one of the players involved in any case.

Some people are continuing on over at Babble as though nothing had happened. La desaparecida isn't talked about very much any more. Best to keep your head down, or explain it all away, or make excuses, or pretend it didn't happen.

I've probably already lost a couple of good, longstanding friends over this. One sent me an email that pretty well said just that, after I had the temerity to tell her that this action was out of character. But I'm a trade unionist at heart, and what happened to Williams--and the way it happened--was a damned disgrace. If this had happened on my turf, I could have won the grievance in a deep sleep. Fired for failure to hand in a form. That's what the email said. Good grief.

So anyone interested in some good back and forth that isn't trapped in somebody's combox ought to head over to EnMasse. Some there have a foot in both camps. Others have simply--moved on. Check it out. There's a lot of fresh air over there.

Table manners

I'm just back (briefly) from the PSAC Triennial Convention in Toronto, and I'm still collecting my thoughts. But I couldn't resist a few comments in the meantime about little Luc Cagadoc.

Luc is the seven-year-old Filipino-Canadian kid in Montreal who was accused of "eating like a pig" and disciplined ten times for using a spoon and a fork at the same time in his school cafeteria. It seems fitting, somehow, that I post these few hurried remarks before heading to that city myself for a meeting of the Canadian Anthropology Society.

Reading the news reports on this has been a Rashomonic experience. One report has a teacher, serving as lunchroom monitor, calling him a pig; another attributes the word to both his teacher and his school principal, and another (from the Philippines) included this interview with the parents where the question of intelligence was raised:

She said she confronted Bergeron about the incidents. The principal, however, lectured her that Luc should learn how to eat like the Canadians using only a fork. [Note: another report has the principal insisting on both a knife and fork. –D.D.]

She said she got more angry when the principal of the 387-student Roxboro school told her: "If your son eats like a pig he has to go to another table because this is the way we do it and how we’re going to do it every time."

"I told him have you seen him eat like a pig? How can you tell me that he is eating like a pig. At that time I was furious, I was enraged. I was really mad," she told ABS-CBN.

Even Luc's father, Aldrin, was incensed after talking with one of the school officials. "He said that if you eat aside from this method, it’s not intelligent. I told him, 'You mean if you eat with chopsticks, it’s not intelligent?'" he said.

Little Luc is apparently an A+ student in math.

Perhaps the word "cochon" (pig) is thrown around freely at the school in question. In my day, though, when I lived in Quebec, the c-word was considered one of the gravest of insults: using it on a seven-year-old kid would have been unthinkable. In any case, the school board has its own spin on events: "What was questioned was the way he was eating that day," their spokesperson Brigitte Gauvreau said. She claimed that students could eat with chopsticks, or any other utensils they need. She went on to state:

This child has attended the Lalande primary school since preschool and has thus had those cultural practices since then and it has never been a problem....

What happened on April 12 had to do with the way he was ingesting his food that day and not with the utensils he was eating with, nor how he was using them. It was an educational intervention and in no way had any intercultural dimension.

And--quelle surprise--the parents have been threatened with legal action for speaking out. The issue has been taken up by the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations, an advocacy group, and the mother is expected to file a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission on Monday.

The matter has generated international attention, and the Filipino ambassador in Ottawa, Jose Brillantes, describing it as an affront to Filipino culture, has called upon Canada to live up to its multicultural self-description. Demonstrators have shown up outside our embassy in Manila with large spoon and fork cutouts strapped to their bodies. And there matters lie for now.

I am assuming that a more complete story will emerge once the Quebec Human Rights Commission has done its investigation. I'm aware from personal memory that kids aren't always graceful at the table. Being lectured on table manners is not one of my happier childhood memories. They seemed to me to comprise a huge collection of completely arbitrary rules that took all the fun out of filling one's face.

But there does seem a bit more to this than correcting a bright little boy who may well have a mischievous side. There is at least a strong hint here that cultural differences are at the root of l'affaire cuillère et fourchette, not just kids' table behaviour. If even a fraction of the parents' account of what they were told by school officials is true, a kind of cultural indoctrination seems to have been going on, not untinged by the kind of ethnocentric attitude that would permit school officials to talk to parents in such a fashion about their child.

In any event the simple, unreflective act of eating has become hypostasized. Spoon-and-fork dining is now the Filipino way, the very essence of Filipino-ness; giant spoons and forks parade before our embassy, as noted; and indignant Quebec school officials insist for their part that the proper companion of a fork is a knife (preferably, however, not worn upon the person). If multiculturalism in Canada is, to a large extent, a collection of fetishes, so too is the reaction to it.

An article in the Philippines Times refracts some of this in a way that maybe lets us see things a little more clearly. Here are some of the highlights of "The boy who ate with a spoon," with some comments of my own:

[A] school in Quebec has cast collective contempt on a population of 85 million Filipinos and eight million more who live overseas.

Whereas the Montreal Gazette calls the whole matter a mere "flap."

---

The Chinese and the Japanese have their chopsticks, their staple being sticky rice that can be formed into a ball and picked up easily by clicking sticks. As a matter of fact, some Chinese families dispense with the serving spoon and dip their chopsticks into a common bowl of chow mien [sic]. Some of us would probably flinch, "eeew, serving spoon, anyone?" but culture no matter how strange is something to be studied, understood, and respected, not narrow-mindedly interpreted.

This paragraph sums up the complexities and ambiguities of "Othering" admirably. This is a liberal, not a conservative, take on the "strange," their "clicking sticks," their supposed distasteful habits (Chinese in fact reverse their chopsticks when taking food from a common bowl), so that, instead of discipline, we should "understand" and even "respect" such behaviour, no doubt at a suitable distance.

Theresa said she has been flooded with messages of support not only from Filipinos but also from Canadians and other foreigners.

I do like the "foreigners" part.

A letter writer to the Chronicle said the "arrogant and ignorant" actions of the school monitor and principal make him ashamed to be Canadian.

"That kind of 'superior' attitude belongs to the ugly past of the British Empire...[!] If the child is misbehaving, address that problem but do not insult the boy's culture and an entire nation," he said.

But I repeat all this not to mock, but to illustrate. The writing, a little foreign in its texture, smacks of Otherness to a Canadian reader. The oddnesses and errors in it bring to our consciousness attitudes which, if we would only step back, can be found right here at home, in the words of the schoolteacher and principal of the Ecole Lalande, in the institutional responses when the matter became public, and in the whole sad, hokey spectacle of identity politics known as Canadian multiculturalism.

I am sorry that a child has become the latest surface of emergence for these essentialist cultural battles. His vulnerabilities are many in this affair, and I hope he grows up to be a social activist and not a serial killer. For now, just let the kid eat his damn lunch, for crying out loud.