"We won't be intimidated"

The tragic events of October 22 at the Parliament in Ottawa have caused many reactions. The government has jumped on it as an opportunity to crack down on potential persons who might see it fit to hurt people in the name of a certain cause they believe in. The general population has become more patriotic, as though that will protect them from such persons. The members of parliament seem to have become quieted. Their responses to having been locked down for the day of the shooting seems to have intimidated them into submission. I'm speaking particularly of the opposition members whose duty it is is to ask hard questions in order to keep the ruling party in check. I haven't seen this happen so far, although a call for a reasonable response has been made.
This is where I'm making the leap from men's violence against women to this incident. Violence works. At least in the short term. It keeps the recipient of violence afraid enough to keep quiet in order to avoid possible further injuries. My guess is that the same phenomena is occurring with our MP's in Ottawa and in our nation's capitals.
Having worked for 18 years with men who were violent to their wives I got a good sense of how this happens. While working with them I had to learn to overcome my natural fear of their possible behaviours towards me as well.
Too often we judge women for not simply leaving their husbands after being violated, or at least speaking out. So, perhaps I'm being too harsh on our opposition members for not speaking out and setting an example as to how to overcome these natural fears and to address their own needs for comfort and reassurance.
Let's put it this way. If we paid as much attention to stopping the violent behaviours of men towards their partners as we appear to be towards potential violators of the public in the name of whatever, we'd stop up to 100 deaths and many injuries a year in Canada alone. Interesting priorities we have. One's accepted as "normal", as in "common", while the other is treated as an anomaly that's worth spending billions of dollars to stomp out. So, I'm naturally asking myself why this seems so important. Is it normal to cause violence against one's partner, but not against one's citizens or soldiers? Both are violent. Both are intimidating. Both cause irreparable harm.
Why not view all violence as unacceptable and come up with help-based solutions rather than with more violence?
Our PM made the statement that we will not be intimidated by this horrible act. What did he mean? What if women weren't intimidated after being abused by their husbands? What would be the appropriate response? Fight back? Fight fire with fire? Kill or be killed? That seems to be the answer to most violence. Why isn't that the answer for women? I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is that violence may work for a while but if both parties participate in the violence it follows that each party will have to up the ante until mutual destruction is inevitable. Violence does not stop violence. If it did we'd be over it by now. Right?
Why can't "we won't be intimidated" mean instead that we won't be tempted to lock down the country and take away citizen's rights in order to attempt to end this kind of violence? Why can't it mean that we'll put our resources into caring for our people by making sure they have their basic needs met? Why doesn't it mean that we'll make democracy a real word instead of a euphemism for what ought to be? What if we ran our country based on what will be best for the overall good, rather than what will increase the GDP?
If we have the ability to know that we can be otherwise we can choose to do so. What's stopping us?

Remembrance Day 2013

During my early morning walk a few days ago I saw a poppy and pin on the walkway. I picked it up, put it together, and stuck it on the fence that straddles the walkway. When I looked at it I envisioned the shape of a cross and took a photo to try to show that image. When I processed it afterwards, some conflicting thoughts ran through my head. While I value the fact that young men were willing to risk their lives fighting on behalf of their country, I also decry the need for war. My father was a drill sergeant during WWII. When I was young he would talk about the futility of war and how horrible it was. Later in his life his attitude changed and he took some pride in having served in the army. I'm not sure why.
So what is Remembrance Day supposed to signify? Is it to honor those who risked life and limb or to keep the public conscious of war in order to have conscription available at a moment's notice? Are we remembering war as a last resort, or as a moment of pride and honor? Perhaps we risk losing potential soldiers if we don't make heroes out of those that have fought and died during the conflict. If war were to become a distant memory we may just decide not to bother if a war were to be declared. As long as war is glorified we can count on vulnerable young people to join up with relative ease.
While I can imagine times where taking up arms becomes necessary, I'd rather we spent our time and energy learning how to resolve conflict instead of learning how to kill efficiently. I don't know of any video games that teach conflict resolution but I've seen lots of examples of games using extreme violence. Once violence is commonly accepted, it becomes an easy first choice.
So, I struggle with how to approach Remembrance Day every year. The photo I'm posting hopefully will illustrate it better than my words.

My response to our local paper's editorial today

I was upset enough after reading today's editorial in the Nanaimo News Bulletin, that I wrote a letter to the paper. Here it is (in case it doesn't get published):


Re your Editorial: "Voters clear on the future": 
In your editorial dated May 18, 2013 you state that, among other things, "In light of the results Tuesday, there are some clear facts the people of B.C. should strongly consider accepting, if they have not already: A clear majority of British Columbians -- even more in the Parksville-Qualicum riding -- believe in a free enterprise model of governance."
I happen to live in this riding and wish to challenge your assumptions, stated as "facts", on a number of counts. Firstly, an editorial is not a statement of "fact". It is an opinion piece by the editors or contributors to the newspaper. Secondly, making a blanket statement about the voting preferences of voters is verging on delusional, as even the so-called pollsters couldn't predict the voters' intentions. And, thirdly, assuming with confidence that the voters chose free enterprise rather than the other choices (not stated in the editorial), is presumptuous and highly pretentious. 
Are you, by default, stating that the rest of the Nanaimo voters chose to reject "free enterprise" and therefore have some sort of death-wish? Are they therefore less knowledgeable, somehow, than are your "facts"?
It has been stated that the preferred electorate is an ill-informed one. Perhaps your policy is the same. That way the voters can be manipulated to vote the way of the "ruling" class. 
You have shown your true colors by treating your readers as in need of your "facts". This, in my opinion, reflects very well the position of our "ruling" class. As a result, I certainly won't be looking to your paper for some balanced thought, especially not in your editorial column.

Oftentimes, when I respond, in writing, to a paper I find I'm not the only one with the same opinion. But, I do think that it's important that the average citizen, such as myself, state their responses to any public pieces and hold them accountable in that sense. It may not change their minds, but it may add support to others who thought the same but didn't have the time or inclination to say so.

Mud-slinging 101

With the BC provincial elections on the horizon the incumbent Liberal Party is ramping up it's  US-style attack ads on the opposition leader, Adrian Dix. The NDParty is caught in a quandary--do we attack back and show them we're as tough as they are, or do we rise above the fray and show the public a kinder, gentler approach to running for office?
With a two-party system it's too easy to set up a false dichotomy that paints the other as the Evil Force that will destroy the province if elected.
It's sad that we have to depict each other as different in order to distinguish ourselves from the other when in reality there's little real difference between people, especially once they take a seat in the legislature.
If the only way we can persuade people to vote for someone is to put down the other person we are no better than the schoolyard bully who attains superiority by beating others into submission.
That's not the kind of people I want running our province, or country, for that matter. I want people there who have the time and energy to look after the general population's needs and not there only to hang on to power at all costs. What a waste of time and energy!
To break this sick pattern of "may the best man win", we must be willing to break the mold and campaign on a positive note, outlining the vision of the Party and its members, and then once in power, being willing to be open and accountable to the public for its decisions and actions.
Until and unless that happens we're just a step away from a "dictatorship" mentality where the public be damned--the only difference being a brief time before the next elections where the politicians feign interest in the citizen's needs simply in order to retain or gain power.
Just exactly what does "democracy" mean again?

Crossing the line in Ottawa

What is happening in the House of Commons when a member of parliament can walk across the floor and stand over the opposition party member, wave his finger at him and scold him as though he were the parent of a misbehaving child? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a member of parliament uses profanity while addressing the floor, he or she is asked to apologize and often is sent from the chambers until this occurs. To me it's a much more grievous behaviour to actually cross over to the opposition benches and act and speak in an intimidating manner. Why no censure? Why was the member not cast from the chamber and punished in an appropriate manner? Why hasn't the Prime Minister spoken out against such behaviour? His silence on the matter appears to be condoning the behaviour, or even worse, speaks to his ineffectiveness in setting a good example. If this behaviour is tolerated anything goes and soon we'll have a free-for-all happening. Okay, so it is already, but until now it was limited to verbal jabs and jeering. Even that is intolerable when we consider that these are elected representatives of the people of Canada who are supposed to looking after our best interests.
The speaker of the house needs to take charge when this occurs and assess "damages", so to speak. Otherwise, why bother having a Speaker.
If this isn't taken seriously by the House of Commons we will no longer be able to depend on a reliable, trustworthy system to take care of the needs of the nation. This is the thin edge of the wedge. It must be addressed seriously and not allowed to reoccur. If it isn't treated as a serious contravention of parliamentary protocol, the "Commons Bullies" will rule the roost and all hell will break loose.
Very sad and very frightening!

Gaza strip saga

I'm saddened by the frightening situation that's happening between Israel and the Gaza strip.  From what I've been reading, it seems that Israel attacks Gaza every four years just after the US presidential elections, which happens to occur just before the Israeli elections. A vote-getter, perhaps? A way to show the world that Israel dictates to the US what to do and to say, perhaps?
Why, oh why, do the US and Canadian political leaders say that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack, but not that the Palestinians ought to be ticked off that their leader, Ahmed Jabari, was assassinated by the Israeli's? And, why are the disproportionate casualties caused by this so-called defense not seen as a crime against humanity?
I'm not an expert on these things. But, I do know when it seems grossly unfair and unnecessary in the larger scheme of things. Bullies don't want peace. They want control and power and nothing will stop them, other than force greater than theirs. How very sad!
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a strip of land confined by a military giant and limited more and more as the giant's family slowly, but surely, moves in and takes it over.
I'm afraid to imagine it too long or I won't sleep at all tonight.

Pink Politics

I happened to watch a CFL game on the weekend and noticed that the players and coaches were wearing a lot of pink on their uniforms. I didn't catch the beginning of the game so I wasn't sure why they were adding pink to their attire. It probably was announced at the beginning of the broadcast, but I never heard any reference to it during the parts of the game that I watched. My guess was that it was in support of breast cancer research. To find out I just now googled it and found out that indeed, it was to show support for this research. Here's the article if you're interested in reading the whole thing. The first sentence of the article states: "The CFL will again look pretty in pink". Okay, so pink is considered to be pretty. I get it. But, further in the article it talks about it being league policy that all dress this way, and that Reebok will donate a portion of the sales of pink paraphernalia to cancer research.
Just as I suspected. This is a corporate-sponsored attempt at raising money for Reebok, and to justify it, some money will be directed towards cancer research.
I'm sure some of the players have had some direct experience in losing a loved one to breast cancer, but simply donning the correct colour to raise awareness and promote sales for Reebok is taking it too far, in my humble opinion.
The players also don ads for other corporate sponsors such as Rona, etc. So, now Reebok, under the guise of doing good, gets to out-advertise the others? I wonder how much they paid the CFL to do this? I'd like to know. Would it not have been better to pay this amount directly to breast cancer research and if they wanted, tell the CFL audience that they did so and how much they gave?
I might be able to stomach this kind of corporate-grab-for-good if every once in a while a player or coach were interviewed during the game to ask them what wearing pink means to them. The player might speak about how his mother survived cancer, and so on. You get the picture.
Simply dressing in a certain colour just doesn't do it for me. It cheapens it. It makes it common. It loses its significance.
As has been said many times, the personal is political. Once corporations claim the "personal", it's still political, but it's no longer personal. 
There are many causes out there looking for funding. Is this the only way people will give? Or, are we making it so commonplace that the public will no longer be influenced by just another two-minute ad dressed in pink?