Unsettling this Settler (a prologue)

3925A couple of weeks ago, I read Paulette Regan’s Unsettling the Settler Within for a class I am taking on the nature of forgiveness and apologies. Dr. Regan is a scholar, a Canadian “settler” (i.e. like me, and probably most of my readership, she is not First Nations), and acted as the Director of Research for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. This book was written prior to the start of the TRC’s mandate and deals with the legacy of Canada’s Indian Residential Schools and, in a broader sense, the disastrous effects that Canada’s colonization has had on the Indigenous people who have lived here for thousands and thousands of years–long before the first British flag was planted on this so-called “empty” land. More to the point, she emphasizes the urgent need, not for First Nations people to reconcile themselves to their present situation, but for settler Canadians to reconcile themselves to Canada’s violent, intentionally racist, colonial history, and to recognize the ways in which these colonial structures and systems are still very much active in present-day Canada.

Unlike many of my fellow white Canadians, I did not grow up completely ignorant of residential schools or of violent policies like the “Sixties Scoop” (in which First Nations children were forcibly removed from their families and adopted out to white parents, in many cases actually sold to American families as if they were livestock). Since I didn’t learn about any of these events in school I can only assume I knew of their existence because my parents bothered to tell me (thanks Mom and Dad!). Beyond this starting point, though, my path as a settler who calls Canada home and wants to be part of a nation I can be truly proud of (a country that keeps its promises and actively upholds EVERYONE’S human rights) is not clear.

There is a step (or rather a long series of steps) beyond being simply “aware” of the history. What we do with this step is important. Regan cautions that well-meaning Canadian settlers are all to quick to pity Indigenous people, and the discomfort this pity arouses causes us to try to find quick fixes for “their problems”–in other words, to continue to disenfranchise and ignore the agency of First Nations people themselves. So if I’m not supposed to “fix” things, what can I do?

I sense this is a question (or rather a long series of questions) that I will need to ask myself as I move through my life, but for starters, I can let go. I can let go of cherished ideas based on lies. I can let go of the convenience of the status quo.

For me, today, this means two things:

  1. Acknowledging that what Indigenous people experienced at the hands of the colonial (and later, the Canadian) government was genocide. First Nations people were forcibly removed from their homes and lands, killed, starved, forbidden from participating in cultural traditions like the potlatch and the sun dance, and removed from their families and taken to Residential Schools where they were abused (physically, sexually, and psychologically), underfed, inadequately cared for, and prohibited from speaking their own languages. Until relatively recently in our history, Indigenous people in Canada were unable to vote, become professionals, or, in the case of women, marry a non-Indigenous person without losing their native status. For more than a hundred years, the government of this country enacted policies and programs with the specific intent of attempting to wipe out “the Indian problem” and make First Nations people and culture disappear in Canada. This is genocide, as defined by the United Nations. The fact that First Nations people are still here and that parts of their cultures have survived is a testament to their resilience, not our benevolence.
  2. Supporting BC First Nations if they want to change the name of the province of British Columbia. West of the Rockies, colonial agents stopped bothering to make any treaties with Indigenous tribes (not that the government honoured the ones they had made farther east but that’s another issue) and simply took the land they wanted. BC is unceded First Nations territory, and as such, to call the land of this province either “British” (i.e. belonging to the British) or “Columbia” (after the  “Columbian” district of this part of North American, which surely takes its name from genocidal rapist Christopher Columbus) is inaccurate and insulting. The name of our province was chosen by Queen Victoria (a monarch who never set foot here), but the land was never hers, or ours, to name. We did not buy it. We did not pay for it, trade for it, or treat for it. We have no right to insist on a status quo based on theft. Obviously, if BC’s First Nations ultimately decide that they’re fine with the province’s name as-is, that’s cool with me, but I don’t believe settlers’ wishes should be prioritized in the matter.

I called this blog post a “prologue” because these thoughts, these considerations, are just the very very start of what will presumably be a life-long project of identifying and acknowledging my colonial biases, the benefits my status as a settler has brought me, and trying, ultimately, to do something about it in a way that is respectful and effective. My own humanity is implicated in the ways I choose to respect or ignore the humanity of others. I’ve a long road ahead and I’m just getting started.

Womens’ Problems (can’t be fixed by a party)

wine-meme-1

If you’ve been a  social-media-using lady on the internet during the past month or so, you’ve probably come across Kristi Coulter’s provocative opinion piece, Giving up alcohol opened my eyes to the infuriating truth about why women drink. In a nutshell, Coulter believes that systemic factors like good-old-fashioned sexism (e.g. mansplaining at work), combined with societal expectations and a culture that claims that “women can have it all” (i.e. the career and the kids, the house and the travel, the husband and the party friends) set women up to fail, creating a perpetual sense of disappointment, frustration, and anger that women both choose to, and are encouraged to, numb with alcohol.

Of course, not everyone is on board with Coulter’s version of events. Some women will argue that they just like to party. Some men still don’t believe the patriarchy is real (or that it’s harmful). And others rightly point out that North American men, in general, also consume large quantities of alcohol, and wonder if perhaps it’s not sexism per se, but the pressures and stress of living in a neo-liberal capitalist society (in which the rich get richer and the rest of us have to work ever harder only to end up worse off than our parents were) that has us reaching for the bottle. Valid points (except that one about the patriarchy–systemic and cultural patriarchy is real and it hurts both women and men; that’s just a fact).

Still, something about Coulter’s article rang true. Alcohol has always been a part of many (if not most) of my evening and weekend social activities as an adult, but it wasn’t until recently that my Facebook and Twitter feeds started filling up with memes celebrating day-drinking, drinking alone, drinking to excess, and drinking to escape the frustrations of parenting. All jokes, right? Because we women deserve a laugh, right? Because it’s wine o’clock, ammirite??? Around the same time that I first encountered Coulter’s article, there were so many pro-wine memes in my feed, I started to wonder if I’d missed something–Really? Is EVERYONE getting day-drunk secretly at work? Did all my friends become alcoholics and I didn’t notice? Is this REALLY the only way we know how to achieve a sense of equilibrium in our lives?

It’s kind of, well..it’s sad. Not sad that women like to party, or that they like to drink with their friends or even pour themselves a glass of wine and watch Netflix alone in their PJs once in a while. There really isn’t anything wrong with this. But sad, because underneath the glee of cavalierly celebrating constant intoxication and irresponsibility, a lot of the women in my life must be pretty stressed. They must be pretty frustrated. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t smiling–Look! Wine! Fun! Party party party!

cd857b3b0dd4edaf68cae3105525580e

Obviously, it’s unhealthy to normalize getting wasted as a solution for life’s problems. But what I find even more problematic about these memes is the normalization of misery. LOL, say the memes, kids are assholes, ammirite? And your husband’s USELESS around the house; just a glorified babysitter, ammirite? And your job is not rewarding, never will be, you slave all day and no one appreciates you and you’re STILL poor! You’ll NEVER measure up! Ha ha ha! WINE!

7a77a1ba4d3c9101bc22f3a00ae1e381

Recent films like Bad Moms and Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck have been celebrated as “feminist” by some for demonstrating that women can indeed get smashed and misbehave (just like the boys!). They even spend a little time paying lip service to the idea that modern women’s lives aren’t all they’re cracked up to be (the same “women can have it all” lie that Coulter takes issue with). But as Broadly’s Liza Batkin points out, the message (assuming there is one, somewhere) is lost in the mayhem:

Bad Moms, like Sisters, exaggerates a common fantasy: Just one wild night, with the right people, music, and substances, can help us not only forget, but actually resolve, all of our biggest problems. On the other end of the hangover lies romance for the lonely, money for the financially unstable, and empowerment for women the world over. While this is a small improvement on the makeover regime on offer in many chick flicks, Sisters and Bad Moms suggest that their characters’ problems—poverty, unemployment, and a sexist distribution of domestic responsibility—will disappear practically overnight, just as soon as the afflicted women adjust their attitudes by way of vodka and junk food.

Women aren’t idiots. We know, deep down, when our lives are not satisfying. But dealing with the root causes of our anger or frustration requires self-awareness, honesty, and potentially, confrontation. In short, hard work. It’s so much easier to make jokes about how your home life is driving you up the wall than it is to have a frank discussion with your partner about whether or not the distribution of home and childcare duties is really fair, or to talk about whether or not you can afford to bring in some outside help. It’s so much easier to have a drink and complain to your girlfriends about how that (male) professor shot down your point in class, but when a male classmate made the same point ten minutes later, it was not only accepted as valid, but as a totally new idea. Should you talk to the professor, mention that this kind of action belittled you? Maybe. But you have to see him every week all term, and that would be awkward.

And it’s SO much easier, much much easier, when you have been hurt, harassed, insulted, ignored for that promotion, disbelieved when you try to advocate for yourself, or picked apart by the other women at work or the PAC or your kids’ dance class, or when you hate the way you look and think and are and everything you do feels like failure…to just suck it up, have a drink, and laugh it off.

Because, hey, everyone’s miserable, ammirite? Bottom’s up!

images

P.S. Another common feature of the “women-drinking” meme culture that I find disturbing is one that often appears with food as well–the notion that when we drink/eat, we “deserve” it for good behaviour, or that we are “indulging” or “treating” ourselves, or “cheating”, giving in to a “guilty pleasure”. As if we don’t naturally, by virtue of being human beings, have the right to put whatever the hell we want into our bodies without needing the permission of society at large. But maybe that’s a post for another time.

Don’t Be A Rapist: A Common-Sense Introduction to Sex & Consent on Campus

Dear post-secondary students: welcome back! It’s time for a new fall term, a fresh academic start, and a fresh chance to indulge in time-honoured campus traditions: all-nighters, shitty food, beer pong, capers and hijinks, dorm sex, too much booze (SO MUCH BOOZE), parties, clubbing, money troubles, and occasionally (if not frequently) questioning your life choices, identity, and place in this mad, mad world.

While my list of college-level fun is by no means exhaustive, there is one alarmingly common campus activity that I have firmly, and intentionally, omitted: raping people. Do not rape people. Not genitally, not digitally, not with foreign objects. Do not rape people.

It may be surprising that I need to spell it out like this, but unfortunately there still seems to be quite a lot of confusion on post-secondary campuses about what constitutes rape, and the people experiencing the most confusion seem disproportionately to be young, college-aged males, university administrators, and trial judges. Generally speaking, everyone seems to agree that sexual assault is bad, but many people seem very reluctant to identify and acknowledge it when it has occurred.

According to UBC’s AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre,*

Sexual Assault is any unwanted contact of a sexual nature, including unwanted kissing, touching, or sexual intercourse. Anyone can be a perpetrator. People from all walks of life, all ages, and genders can experience sexual assault.

This concept seems very simple but somehow, many college and university students have failed to grasp it. There is often hue and cry about “grey areas”, “blurred lines”, “the dangers of drugs and alcohol” (as if being drunk gives you an excuse to rape someone), and attempts made to characterize sexually assaulting another person as some kind of booby trap in a byzantine labyrinth set up to trick you, regrettable perhaps, but impossible for the rapist to have avoided. So how can you make sure that YOU don’t become a sexual assailant, i.e. a rapist? The key, of course, is consent.

607891_orig

Consent is mandatory for sex to occur.

If you don’t have the other person’s consent, you are not having sex, you are raping them.

Consent is enthusiastic and freely given.

If you have pressured, coerced, physically dominated, or made use of a position of authority in order to have sex (or participate in any other kind of sexual activity) with the other person, you do not have consent. Therefore, you are not having sex. You are raping someone.

Consent is ongoing.

If you are engaging in sexual activity with someone, and they tell you either verbally or with their body (i.e. pushing you away, pulling their body away from you, or even falling asleep) that they are no longer interested, you must stop. Even if they said they wanted to before, even if they did it with you last time, once they want to stop, everything stops.

If you continue the sexual contact after the other person has withdrawn their consent, you are no longer having sex. You are raping someone.

Consent is a YES–it is not merely an absence of “no”.

If you are having sex with someone who is unconscious or too drunk/high to actually make a decision about and communicate whether or not they want to have sex with you, you are not having sex. You are raping someone.

Human beings are not like $5 bills left on the sidewalk. Just because you “find” someone lying around, doesn’t mean you are allowed to do whatever you want with their bodies. If you do come across a person who is unconscious or otherwise seriously out of it, maybe ask them if they’re okay, or call them a cab (or, if necessary, an ambulance).

It’s also important to remember that cuddling, kissing, and other kinds of physical intimacy are not necessarily invitations for sexual activity. Within friend groups and in college dorms, it’s not uncommon for people to be “cuddle buddies” or the like–leaning on each other while watching movies, spooning, giving back rubs, or even sleeping next to each other–without actually sharing the kind of chemistry that would prompt the participating cuddlers to pursue romance. Sometimes people miss their high school boyfriends/girlfriends. Sometimes people just want a cuddle, or some (safe) physical touch that stays well within everyone’s boundaries. Sometimes friends pass out together after a night of partying or even share the odd sloppy kiss. It’s all good.

What’s not good is assuming that the person lying in your bed has given you carte blanche to touch or use their body sexually. You need consent buddy. Be a friend, not a rapist.

Some folks have complained that non-verbal consent (or the lack thereof) can be hard to read, and if you aren’t adept at social cues and body language my advice to you is simple: take the mystery out of the equation and ask. To those that complain that stopping mid-action to give and receive verbal consent kills the mood, I say this: if you believe the other person’s desire to have sex with you is so tenuous, so fragile, that they would say “No” if you actually asked them, you DEFINITELY need to ask. Because if that’s the vibe you’re getting from your potential partner, they probably don’t want to have sex with you and you need to stop now.

To sum up: obtain enthusiastic and freely-given consent before making sexual contact. And when in doubt, just STOP. There will be other opportunities for awkward university sex. In ten years, you won’t regret not hooking up with that random girl or guy at that party that time. But you might really regret violating another person’s humanity and dignity, and burdening them with a trauma they may carry the rest of their lives.

*Note: I chose to quote the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre (which is run by student union groups) because the University of British Columbia is the largest and most well-known post-secondary institution in my province. I have neither attended nor ever been employed at UBC. Additionally, while the AMS SASC website looks great, it’s worth noting that, as a larger institution, the UBC administration has had plenty of bad press in recent years for turning a rather tolerant eye to sexual assault on campus. UBC has recently announced that they are extending campus-community consultations as they craft their new (provincially-mandated) sexual assault policy.

**Second note: sex is a two-way street. YOUR consent is also required. Your consent must be freely-given and ongoing, and can be withdrawn at any time.

Women in France should wear what they want (and that includes “burkinis”)

Women in France, listen up: if you plan to visit the beach in the country of “liberté” and “egalité,” you must be prepared to show some skin.

That’s right–although France’s very secular laws do permit the wearing of headscarves in public, if Muslim women choose to visit the beach in a headscarf while also covering their arms and legs, in many districts they will be issued a fine and ordered to leave the beach, and possibly even be forced to strip off (technically, the bans are specifically directed at the “burkini”–a swimsuit with sleeves and pants with a built-in head covering–but law enforcement officials seem happy to interpret that as applying to any modestly-dressed Muslim woman on the beach).

648x415_capture-ecran-tweet-daily-mail

I have written about the issue of policing Muslim women’s clothing before (in a post entitled Women in Canada can wear what they want [and that includes niqabs]), but I have to say I find this ban on modest dress at the beach even more racist, and even more alarmingly sexist. We’re not talking about forcing a woman to show her face in a public place (which is already law in France and which I personally do not agree with), we are talking about forcing women to show their BODIES. Essentially, if you’re a Muslim woman who doesn’t wish to make her body (or hair) available to the public gaze, you can f*ck right off the beach.

Ostensibly, these new laws see clothing like the burkini as a religious display and a direct provocation of French citizens and their values of secularization (never mind that many of the Muslim women being harassed under these rules ARE French citizens, or that nuns in habits or other Catholic women dressed modestly or wearing crucifixes are not being punished for their displays of Christian faith). I cannot imagine how frightened and angry the people of France must be after recent terror attacks in the country (including in Nice, where a man driving a truck intentionally plowed into a crowd of festival goers and killed 86 people). I can only assume that they see signifiers of the Muslim faith (like headscarves and full-coverage swimming attire) as an affront to the painful losses they have experienced and the threat of terrorism they continue to face.

But there is simply no logical basis for a ban on the burkini: firstly, Muslims (including Muslim women in traditional dress) were also among the victims in Nice. Secondly, the “religious symbols” deemed most offensive to the French public seem to be disproportionately those which are worn by Muslim women, specifically (it’s still totally okay for men to wear full-body wetsuits in the water). Thirdly, to the best of my knowledge, a burkini has NEVER yet been implicated in any terror attack in France or any other country. This is not about safety. This is not about secularism. This is about white people who are afraid and angry being given permission by their local governments to humiliate and ostracize their fellow citizens. And the targets of this hatred are the people who are the easiest to spot and the easiest to scapegoat–Muslim women.

So much for “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. I know that the people of France are hurting, but a democracy that abandons its principles in the face of adversity and new challenges is no democracy at all.

Politics Is Not About Being “Deserving”

GTY_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_split_jt_150912_16x9_992

There comes a time, every four years or so, when I do the unthinkable: I actually wish I were an American citizen. I wish I were an American so that I could vote in the U.S. presidential elections. After all, the United States is still arguably the most powerful country in the world, and much of the rest of the planet is watching with an incredulity now turning into grave concern as we grapple with the very real possibility that come November, Americans (in their anger and arrogance) will elect the most under-qualified, uneducated, and dangerous candidate either party has ever fielded (there may possibly have been more hateful presidential candidates or leaders in the past but those guys didn’t have access to nuclear weapons).

I speak, of course, of Donald Trump: reality-TV star, real estate tycoon, absentee father, fear mongerer, braggard, and, inconceivably, Republican presidential nominee. He can barely string a thought together (leading to suspicions he may actually be mentally unwell), and has never served in the military or demonstrably cared about Christian values,  the working poor, or the lower middle class prior to deciding he wanted to be president, but somehow he has become the champion of the disenfranchised white Christian, those Americans who feel the “good old days” have slipped away from them (due, somehow, to non-Christians and non-white people) and that they need Trump to “make America great again”.

This year’s Democratic candidate is arguably one of the most qualified candidates ever to run–Hillary Clinton has been both a U.S. Senator and a Secretary of State (in addition to being a lawyer and sitting on several corporate boards). Prior to her own political career she was heavily involved in husband Bill’s presidency as an active First Lady (too active, many felt). She has lived with the job of leading the United States, both in a professional and personal capacity, for years. She knows first-hand how hard it is, how much is at stake. Granted, she is not perfect–she is a spinner of half-truths and a deep-pocketed friend of Wall Street as much as any other high-ranking politician, but if Hillary Clinton were to become the President of the United States she would not blame any one race or religion for America’s problems, she would not close its borders to trade (as Trump suggests he would do despite the fact that his own brand manufacturers its products outside the U.S.), and she can be trusted not to use, or threaten to use, the United States’ nuclear forces cavalierly. And if she loses, she can be trusted not to suggest that violent or deadly action be taken against Trump, as Trump has suggested about her.

And yet. People just don’t think Hillary deserves to be president. Sure, she’s really qualified and sure, she graduated from Yale Law School and sure, she’s dedicated most of her life to public service (albeit much of it while making a shit-ton of money with her husband on the side), and sure, it’s about time the U.S. had a female president, and sure, Donald Trump would most likely blow up the entire earth because someone insulted the size of his hands or his genitals. But people just don’t like her, okay? They just don’t like her and they don’t want to reward her ambitions by letting her be president because she just doesn’t deserve it, okay? (Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face).

Here’s the thing: OF COURSE  Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president. There is not one single human being on this earth who is deserving of the incredible and deadly amount of power that the President of the United States wields: power to create or destroy, to better this world or to decimate it. No one could ever be so intelligent, so prescient, so impartial, so ethical, and so morally perfect as to actually deserve this job–and anyone who was would never want it.

Which means that American voters, like most voters in modern democracies, must choose their leader based not on who deserves the job, because that is impossible, but on who would be best at it. And right now that person, for all her unlikable qualities, for all her machinations and manipulations and mistakes,  is Hillary Clinton. There is no viable “third candidate”.

And the alternative is simply unthinkable.

Pipelines and Spills: When Your “Best” Isn’t Good Enough

A Husky pipeline has spilled approximately 250 000 litres of oil and diluent into the North Saskatchewan River. Despite clean-up efforts and the placing of booms on the river, the spill has contaminated the water source of the small Saskatchewan cities of North Battleford and Prince Albert, forcing the affected communities to find alternate sources of drinking water for approximately 70 000 people. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall (longtime vocal supporter of oil pipelines and the fossil fuel industry in general) has called the spill and resulting water contamination “a terrible situation,” and says the provincial government wants to see a “complete restoration” of the North Saskatchewan’s ecology.

There have been several questions, fueled by discrepancies in the timeline reports filed by Husky Energy, about whether the company knew about the leak in its pipeline fourteen hours before it turned off the pressure or informed the provincial government. Husky has since claimed that though an “anomaly” was detected on the evening of Wednesday, July 20, and a crew was dispatched to investigate, a leak was not discovered until Thursday morning. Husky may be telling the truth, or they may be covering their asses, but either way, it seems that there certainly has been some failure to properly investigate and respond in a timely manner, especially when the pipeline in question runs beneath a major waterway and source of drinking water.

We also know that pipeline companies are well aware that spills are a “when”, not an “if”, scenario, as evidenced by the oil industry’s lobbying of the Harper government. An example of this is a letter sent in December 2011 to then-Minister of Environment Peter Kent and then-Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver, and signed by the presidents of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, and the Canadian Gas Association [the letter was obtained by Greenpeace through a request filed under the Access to Information Act]. This letter is essentially a wish-list from the fossil fuel industry, requesting that the Canadian government relax environmental regulations and streamline approval of oil and gas projects (many of these requests later appeared in various pieces of omnibus legislation tabled by the Harper government). The letter minimizes the importance of avoiding environmentally harmful events, preferring to focus instead on “responsible outcomes”. The letter states:

“We believe that the basic approach embodied in existing legislation is out-dated. At the heart of most existing legislation is a philosophy of prohibiting harm; ‘environmental’ legislation is almost entirely focused on preventing bad things from happening rather than enabling responsible outcomes.”

Underlying these ten-dollar words is the basic premise that oil companies know that asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission, and that promising to clean up any spills that happen is more realistic than promising (and actually REALLY trying) to prevent “bad things” from occurring in the first place. And if a pipeline spills and the company doesn’t clean it up, well, shucks, they’ll try harder next time. The important thing is, the pipeline’s already there, and they’ve already won.

But let’s put all that aside for a moment. Let’s give Husky Energy the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that Husky monitored their pipeline as best they could and investigated the pressure anomaly thoroughly (though unfortunately, by their own admission, they missed the leak). Let’s assume that the pipe itself was top-of-the-line and well-maintained. Let’s assume that the booms Husky initially used to contain the spill (and which ultimately failed) are the best tools the industry has at its disposal when dealing with events such as this. Let’s assume that Husky’s promise to pay for the entirety of the clean-up is sincere. Let’s assume that Husky has done, and is doing, absolutely EVERYTHING RIGHT to achieve the “responsible outcome” that the co-signees of that Energy Frameworks Initiative letter were promoting.

The leak happened anyway. Containment didn’t work. Clean-up processes will likely be more difficult and lengthy than first thought . And in the heat of the summer, the main source of drinking water for 70 000 Saskatchewan residents (many of whom actually do support pipeline projects and the fossil fuel sector in general), has been contaminated.

fp0727_sask_oil_spill_c_mf

#BlackLivesMatter and there’s no good reason not to agree

blacklivesmatter

For what it’s worth, this very white blogger (and her very white blog) believe that Black Lives Matter.

This is to say that the lives of black people (for example, the black people currently being fatally shot by police officers in staggering numbers south of the border) matter. They have worth. Extra-judicial killings of young black men by police officers (who come to police attention for matters as small as a broken taillight or “fitting a description”) are murder, and the reason these killings are indefensibly wrong is because black people are human beings, and their lives are worth EXACTLY the same as mine.

But wait a minute, many people are saying, don’t ALL lives matter? Don’t police officers’ lives matter? What about LGBTQ lives? Don’t Syrian refugee lives matter? Don’t children’s lives matter, and the lives of veterans or people with cancer or people living on the streets?

Of course they do. And I encourage you to promote the cause(s) of any lives that are important to you (and to get your OWN slogan instead of appropriating this one). Black Lives Matter isn’t about all lives, it is about specifically black lives, because this is a movement started specifically by black people, to deal with an issue that is specifically affecting black people.

What I don’t understand is why so many white people (generally good people who one would assume understand that killing innocent black people is wrong) aren’t okay with the idea that Black Lives Matter and instead insist on undermining this important and urgent movement by obstinately protesting that “All Lives Matter”.

Why so reactionary? Why so either/or, as if human worth is in finite supply, and granting it to black people takes it away from someone else?

We seem to be so uncomfortable with the idea that black lives might pull focus, just for a moment, that it’s like we aren’t even reading the English language properly anymore. Where in the sentence “Black lives matter” does it suggest that other lives don’t matter? Where does it suggest that if black lives matter, then police officers’ lives don’t? Where does it say, “Black lives matter MORE” or that “ONLY black lives matter”? It doesn’t. It doesn’t. Literally, the only thing that the statement “Black lives matter” says is that black lives matter. That’s it. If you aren’t okay with black people, who are literally DYING, asserting that their own lives matter, then you have a serious problem, and you need to ask yourself why you are against the idea that the value of a black person’s life is the same as the value of yours.

There are quite a few analogies going around on social media, and I don’t mean to trivialize the issue in any way, but they can be very helpful in illustrating this point.

For example, “Bob Deserves Food”:

12930835_1027548793986082_1541238374_n

I’ve seen other people compare All Lives Matter to, for example, protesting a breast cancer fundraiser because “ALL Cancers Matter”, or crashing someone’s funeral to chastise their grieving family for prioritizing the recognition of their loved one (“ALL Dead People Matter!”) You can pretty much take your pick of analogies, but at the end of the day, we need to acknowledge that there are countless situations where one group of people or one set of issues takes momentary focus, and when these movements aren’t aimed at a specifically non-white or non-heteronormative population, no one would ever dream of being offended by them. No one scolded Terry Fox–“Hey dude, ALL diseases matter.” No one chastises seniors advocacy groups for being “ageist”, no one goes after churches for not teaching the beliefs of all the other religions too. That would clearly be ridiculous, right?

And as for those folks who don’t believe we still have a race problem in (North) American society, I have this question (posed in the video below by activist and educator Jane Elliot) to ask you: would you like to be treated the way society treats black people?

I have thought a lot about whether or not I should be blogging about this movement, and I ultimately decided to use my white voice to talk to other white people about something tragically and vitally important. I am white. Black lives matter. There is nothing incongruous about this for me, nor should there be. If we are willing, dignity and justice are in infinite supply. Acknowledging that black people deserve these things as much as I do takes absolutely nothing from me.

P.S. Black Lives Matter has an excellent website. If you want to find out more about what the movement is and what it isn’t, what it says and what it doesn’t, what it means and what it doesn’t mean, please visit blacklivesmatter.com and let the learning start!

Haters Gonna Hate

I’ve been hoping (and occasionally saying) for months now that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Tea Party and the Trump supporters and the MRAs and the old racist Brexit-ers who sold their children’s economic future up the river for the chance to not have to interact with Polish people at the chip shop anymore are just symptoms of Hate’s last bitter gasp before it loses its grip on the public and political realm, and that the collateral damage these hate-fuelled groups are inflicting on immigrants and people of colour and LGBTQ people and women and the working poor (to name just a few common targets) are just Hate’s attempt to take as many people as it can down with it.

But I’m not so sure. For one thing, even if all Western democracies could finally give all of the hate-based politicians, pundits, policies, and systems operating within their borders the old heave-ho (a BIG ‘if’), our foreign policies and military actions tend to contribute to hate-based terrorism and violence abroad. Not having to see it anymore wouldn’t make hate, or its devastating consequences, disappear from the face of the earth.

68113f3c424052671d24f24b797f887bSecondly, hate is part of all of us, and believing yourself to be on the side of the Righteous doesn’t make the hate you feel something less, well, hateful. As much many people rail against Donald Trump for promoting fear and hatred, and using hate as a campaign tool, there were many Bernie Sanders supporters who were quite open about how much they “hate” Hillary Clinton. Even among the most civil mild-mannered Canadians, there are locals who hate tourists, kayakers who hate power-boaters, nudists who hate “textiles”, vegans who hate meat-eaters, etc. etc.

In big or small ways, always or sometimes, publicly or privately, generally or specifically, violently or verbally or perhaps just internally, we’re all haters, and we’re all going to hate. There are always going to be people, situations, places, or things that fill our mouths with bile just to think of them and which we detest to the point of obsession. That’s just how it goes. Perhaps there are a few saintly folks out there who really and truly never let hate enter their hearts, even for a moment, but I doubt there are many. Even the loveliest people I have ever met surely indulge in a little hatred for SOMETHING every once in a while. I’d be shocked if they didn’t.

I do want, very much, to be on the path to removing hate (words, actions, and laws based on racism, misogyny, and homophobia/trans*phobia, for example) from our governments, institutions, and communities. I believe the creation of a public sphere where any human being can expect to be safe and to be treated with dignity and respect is one of the most worthy goals we can aspire to (another being the saving of our planet’s ability to support human life, i.e. the fight against climate change). Hate is a universal emotion, maybe even more common than love, but it has no place in shaping the rules that govern our society.

But hate is a part of human nature. To deny it is to deny a part of our human experience and to lack an awareness of our true selves and our true motivations. Hate and fear are powerful motivators, and sometimes (as in the case of Resistance fighters rising up against the Nazis) they can be forces for good.

Where we need to be careful is in where we choose to place our hatred, and why. To hate blindly, without critical reflection, without reason or self-awareness, is simply to transfer your pain to an easy target, feeding it and multiplying it until violence becomes the only logical end. It’s important to remember that your hatred, in itself, is not justification, and it does not absolve you of your responsibility to be a good person. We’re all haters sometimes, but there’s no need for us to be monsters.

 

Dear Orlando, I don’t know what to say

I very very much believe that there is nothing I could say that would not sound trite in the wake of the massacre at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando this past weekend.

Offer my prayers? I am not religious.

Offer my thoughts? I think about a thousand things a day, so many of these thoughts are hopes for a better world and I’m frankly not sure my thoughts do a damn thing.

Offer my words? As I said already, trite. I’m a straight white cis Canadian who has no idea, and I mean NO IDEA how it feels to be LGBT, never mind how it must feel to be LGBT when, in this day and age and in this part of the world, someone can just walk into a gay nightclub (one of those few places where LGBT people are supposed to be able to feel totally free and safe to be themselves) and murder people by the dozen. I don’t know what that feels like.

I don’t know what it feels like to be in danger because of the way I love, speak, move, dress, or act. I don’t know what it feels like to have to choose between being myself or being accepted by my family, my faith, or my community. I don’t know what it feels like to have to second-guess every move I make in public because it might not be safe–can I kiss my partner? Can I hold their hand? Can I wear these clothes or get this haircut? Will this person say hateful things to me? Will that person punch me in the street? Will this employer give me a job? Will that social worker think I’m a pervert? Will this business serve me? Will that person beat me to death? Will that person shoot me? Will anyone protect me?

Hatred and violence don’t just spring up from nowhere. They are encouraged by politicians, by religious leaders, by cultural norms that squeeze masculinity and femininity into narrow and outdated categories and severely punish anyone who doesn’t fit in. When we laugh at a homophobic joke or just ignore it when yet another trans* woman of colour is found murdered or tut-tut when another gay teen commits suicide without DOING anything to stop it, when we ban trans* people from bathrooms and imply that they are rapists or pedophiles, when we try to prevent children from learning about LGBT people as if making children aware of the existence of 10% of our population is akin to forcing kids to learn about some kind of lewd sex act, we contribute to this hate. We might not shout the slur, throw the punch, or pull the trigger, but we don’t do a hell of a lot to discourage those who do.

So there’s nothing I can say to my LGBT friends, or to the victims of Orlando, except that I have no f*cking clue what you’re going through. And I don’t want to know, and I have the privilege of not having to. It’s all so absurdly unfair and to say that I’m sorry that it happened and that it never never never should have happened doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Meme from bustle.com

Meme from bustle.com

Environment: Time for Justin Trudeau to Pick a Side

There’s an old adage that says when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. I imagine sayings like these are on Justin Trudeau’s mind as he coifs his hair each morning and wonders where his “sunny ways” went wrong. Or maybe he’s not concerned, because he’s too busy doing one-armed push-ups and taking selfies and trying to insist that the “middle ground” is actually a fertile place from which to grow our future.

I don’t mind that Justin Trudeau is part of a political “dynasty”. I don’t mind that he and his wife are young and good-looking. I don’t mind that they are from Quebec. I don’t mind that Trudeau used to be a drama teacher before his political career (teachers and artists are often exceptionally selfless and intelligent people and I think many of them would make great leaders). I don’t mind that he smoked pot. I don’t care that part of Trudeau’s household budget is being spent on nannies (Mulroney’s household did the same). I don’t mind that he wants to take selfies with people and seem “accessible” to Canadians (actually, I do mind the photos a little because I’d rather see Canada known for policy, not personality). I don’t care that he’s a bit of a ham and I don’t even care that he’s a Liberal.

What I DO mind is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is trying to please everyone–is trying to claim a “middle ground” in several either/or situations and is, simultaneously, pissing off just about everybody on both sides of the issue. Nowhere is this more obvious to me than in his government’s position on the environment.

At the moment, folks on the “right-wing” or “conservative” side of the political environmental debate are pissed at Trudeau because he does things like sign Paris climate deals, spout a lot of hot air about Canada being “back”, and because, when the country’s reliance on the oil industry resulted in a lot of lost jobs and financial uncertainty as oil prices plummeted, he was tone-deaf enough to say that those communities left out of the federal government’s EI benefits “should be pleased that they are not hit as hard as other parts of the country and indeed the province have been”. Cold comfort when you’re trying to keep food on your family’s table and shoes on your kids.

At the same time, folks on the “left-wing”, or rather (since the environment we live in affects both right and left), the “green” side of the issue, are pissed at Trudeau because he signs Paris climate deals, spouts a lot of hot air about Canada being “back” as an ally in the fight against global climate catastrophe, and then goes ahead and lets undemocratic, ethically suspect, Harper-appointed bodies like the National Energy Board (NEB) go ahead and approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion (which will, incidentally, have a profoundly negative impact on the communities in which I live and work). A lot of people (including me) have called Trudeau a dummy in the past, but surely not even he actually believes that supporting crude oil pipelines (i.e. increasing the amount of oil sands bitumen that will be extracted, transported, and burned as fuel) will somehow lead to a “greener” future for this country.

Spectacularly, that is exactly the claim that Trudeau is trying to make, and a claim SFU professor of sustainable energy Mark Jaccard had no qualms about eviscerating when interviewed by Maclean’s. When it comes to Trudeau’s wishy-washy statements on pipelines being used to fund a green transition:

Jaccard can only shake his head and chuckle. “What we’re beginning to hear from the federal government now—‘We’re going to fund green infrastructure and innovation’—those are faking-it policies. You’ve got to either regulate or price.” Asked specifically about Trudeau’s vision of a “transitional period”—an era when new pipelines would be built and oil sands production encouraged, apparently all to pay for the advent of the post-carbon economy—Jaccard forgets to laugh. “It’s bunk, total bunk,” he says, “and please quote me.”

No problem, professor. I’m quoting you with relish. “Total bunk,” says an expert on the subject, YOU HEAR THAT, JUSTIN, YOU LILY-LIVERED BUFFOON?!

I despised Stephen Harper as much as I can despise any person who didn’t actually murder or maim someone, but at least he had the conviction to just come right out and say (I’m paraphrasing) that he didn’t give a shit about the environment and that he didn’t think climate change was a problem. It takes guts to stand up in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus and the devastating effects of human-caused climate change (like last year’s typhoon in the Philippines which killed 20 000 people) and just be like, “Nah, I don’t care. Kyoto’s for losers.” What pisses me off so much about Trudeau is that he not only pretends to care about climate change, he actually goes on the international stage and takes credit for caring, and then turns around and gives crude oil pipelines the ol’ thumbs up, as if we aren’t watching. But we are, and we’re disappointed.

Oil companies don’t give a shit about Canadians. But our government should. Oil companies don’t think about the long-term interests of the nation they’re digging up and traversing, but our government really should. It’s time for Trudeau to stop leaving it up to unelected morally bereft bodies like the NEB and foreign corporations and actually take a stance based on what he believes is  the best way forward.

So what’s it gonna be, Prime Minister: is Canada truly “back”, or just back to the same old oily tricks?

Let's hope he meant it!

Let’s hope he meant it!

[Note: leadnow.ca has a petition circulating to ask Trudeau to reject the NEB’s approval of the Kinder Morgan expansion. Please consider signing here.]