Politics

Why an NDP-Liberal merger might NOT be stupid

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

Image by Sonja Kresowaty

Not so long ago, I wrote a post entitled Why I think an NDP-Liberal merger is stupid. It was a post about why I did not feel the interests of Canadians and of both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party would be best served by a merger between the two parties.

This is not a retraction of that post.

However, it has come to my attention through comments on that post, my continued (if somewhat too reliant on Maclean’s Magazine) interest in current affairs, and through conversations with people whose opinion I respect, that despite the fact that I feel I had good reasons to call the idea of an NDP-Liberal merger stupid, it may in fact be necessary (and therefore not stupid). By “necessary”, obviously, I mean necessary to those (including myself) who would like to see a more left-wing party in government (i.e. a government that is NOT the Conservative Party of Canada).

And so, for those readers who were kind enough to engage with me on this issue, I give you the following reasons that despite my stubbornness, an NDP-Liberal merger might NOT be stupid after all:

Reason One: As un-merged parties, the “non-Conservative” vote is being split between the Liberals and the NDP.

[I won’t say the “leftist” vote because technically, as noted in my previous post on this issue, the Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist party.]

In our political system (called first-past-the-post, FYI), the candidate with the most votes wins their riding, and the party who wins the most ridings forms the government. This means that the popular vote (i.e. percentage of votes for a particular party) does not necessarily a government make. This also means that even if the majority of the percentage of voting Canadians did NOT want a Conservative government, the Conservatives could, in fact, still win a majority (as it seems they did).

Let’s say in the fictional riding of Yuppie Town West, the results of a recent federal election are as follows:

Conservative Party wins with 37% of the vote
NDP – 31%
Liberal Party – 22%
Fictional Fringey Fringe Party – 7%
Ballots spoiled by those who used a checkmark instead of an X – 3%

As you can see, in the fictional riding of Yuppie Town West, the Conservative candidate wins the day, even though more people voted for a party that was NOT the Conservatives than actually voted for the Conservatives (even without the help of the Fringey Fringe Party votes). The argument has often been made to me that in a two-party system where there was only the option of Conservative and Not, the Nots would win that seat. Repeat this process enough times and WHAMMO, the Not Conservative Party of Canada forms our new government. Woot.

[Clearly, I have just simplified the hell out of our electoral system AND simplified the complicated minds of Canadian voters in my above example but hopefully you get the gist.]

The fact that the Not Conservative Parties are currently splitting votes between them is, I think, a valid argument on the pro-merge side.

Reason Two: Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Are times really that desperate? The people who have spoken to me or commented on my previous “anti-merge” post think so, and I think so too. With a Conservative majority, the death of Jack Layton, an omnibus crime bill that is predicted to Not Work, our pulling out of Kyoto (and our failure to have any viable carbon-emissions reduction plan on the horizon), the Sun News Network, a proposed oil pipeline to cross beautiful BC, heavy axes suspended just above organizations like the CBC and Planned Parenthood, a Prime Minister who seems to care nothing for due Parliamentary process, an attack on workers’ rights, and an anti-intellectual and anti-environmental culture sweeping North America, the peaceful, accepting Canada I grew up with, where good manners and common sense reigned supreme (at least as part of our psyche), is fast disappearing.

Maybe it’s time for everyone who cares about these things to work together. I do not know if a merger between the NDP and the Liberal Party would work, but the time may soon be ripe to give it a try. We have a common enemy, a common cause to rally around, and maybe that’s enough. This is the stuff revolutions are made of (in our case a parliamentary, non-violent one). Is it enough?

I honestly don’t know the answer to that question, and that is why both of these posts exist.

Your stupid is not as good as my smart (and vice versa).

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’
― Isaac Asimov

I think “stupid” has become a favourite word of mine lately, and not for any good reason except that every time I read a news story or am anywhere near anything to do with a Republican candidate the word “stupid” is usually the first thing that enters my mind. Followed by the word “sad”. Yes indeed my dears, many current events just seem stupid and sad.

Example: the fact that our Conservative government recently pushed through an omnibus crime bill that experts (including experts in Texas who had previously used the same tactics) agreed would not work. STUPID. The fact that this crime bill, if it passes through the Senate, will most likely result in more punishment, less rehabilitation, and a disproportionate criminalization of young people and people with mental disabilities–SAD. Incredibly, incredibly sad.

The fact of the matter is, all of us are guilty of being willfully stupid if it makes things easier for us. Look at the issue of global warming. Once, it was treated by Canada’s politicians (and most schoolchildren) as universally agreed upon fact that the earth was getting warmer due to human actions (pollution, burning fossil fuels, etc.). Now, even though scientists (you know, people who STUDY this stuff ALL THE TIME) still agree that global warming is happening, people have chosen to latch onto the tiniest shadow of a doubt so that they can feel good about driving their cars and drilling for oil and not having to change anything about the way they live their lives. Because who would choose to inconvenience themselves if there’s even a microscopic shred of half-evidence that they don’t have to? Our own Prime Minister who is, by all accounts, supposed to be a smart man (he’s certainly smart at dismantling everything I care about) won’t even state whether or not he even believes in human-created climate change. This is a man who went to university, should therefore understand the rigorous guidelines of academic and scientific research, and, rather scarily, runs our country as if the principles of his own scholarship and education mean nothing.

But gee, it sure is easier for Harper to appease his voting base if they don’t have to care about the environment so…..Kyoto out. Handshakes all around. I’m sure Harper prefers this state of affairs to having to tell Alberta oil sands voters that the government wants to strictly regulate the industry because it could be contributing to the killing of our planet. That wouldn’t be very nice or very fun, would it? So who wants to do that? No one in government, that’s for sure. Al Gore didn’t call his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” for nothing.

Our government thinks we’re stupid. They think they can imagine away uncomfortable issues and facts to make their voters happy and anyone that uses knowledge, expert opinion, education, statistics, or fact to counter them is branded an “intellectual elite”.

Being led by a government that counts on our ignorance, and panders to it, is horribly stupid. And turning anyone who pursues truth, education, and a more accurate understanding of the issues into an enemy is sad. Horribly sad. I am a good person. I love my country and I care about the people in my life. I would like to raise a family in Canada someday, I would like a country that is fair to working class families, I would like a country where anyone who works hard can get ahead. I am educated, and I pursue educated opinion. I am not elite. Being labelled un-Canadian or out of touch, when I pay my taxes and my bills like anyone else, hurts my feelings. But enough about my intellectual elite bleeding heart feelings.

If you don’t believe stupidity has carved out a prominent place for itself in today’s political culture, you may find some evidence swimming around in the pool of Republican candidates south of the border. From declaring that Three Areas need to be cut and listing only two, to rambling about witchcraft, to stating that Palestine never actually existed, it is obvious that none of these candidates are all that concerned with appearing smart. But the anti-intellectual culture of North America today provides plenty of room for these people not only to survive, but to thrive and have the opportunity to run for the most important office in the United Sates Government. Run a country? Represent millions of people? Have nuclear launch codes? That doesn’t take brains, facts, education, or a firm grip on reality, does it? ANSWER: it does, though sadly, stupidity might win out.

Stupidity isn’t a problem unique to North America. My inspiration for writing this post actually came from an opinion article in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Age of the Amateur with reason in retreat” by Erik Jensen. Whether the issue be same-sex marriage, climate change, or immigration, people seem incredibly willing to believe absolutely anything rather than believe a truth that makes them uncomfortable.

THIS IS STUPID. AND SAD. Stupid because the actual truth is happening whether you think it is or not. Sad because a refusal to accept this can only lead to suffering.

Being diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease would be incredibly uncomfortable to think about, but we know the disease wouldn’t stop eating our body just because we decided to believe it wasn’t happening. Well, climate change is hurting our planet. Ignorance is hurting its people. You are not absolved of guilt just because you choose not to believe the facts. Don’t like being made to feel guilty or uncomfortable? Change your lifestyle. Examine your prejudices. Then see if your original opinions still hold water.

I’m not perfect and I’m not elite but if I have taken the time to become educated about something and you have not, if I have referred to experts, academics, articles and case studies to learn about something and you have not, I will feel more right than you. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, and you have a right to let that opinion (rightly or wrongly) affect your life choices. But your stupid is not as good as my smart.

And you know what? It goes both ways. Yes, I try to keep up to speed on current events and social issues but I recognize the bias I have as a young Caucasian woman from a middle-class Canadian, leftist background. There are experiences you may know more about than me because you have lived them. There are areas you may know more about because you work in them or study them intensely. I may have opinions on certain issues based on the media I choose to consume (and I know that my choice of media itself reveals bias), but you might actually know the truth of a certain situation.  And if that is the case, my stupid, my lack of actual knowledge and facts, is not as good as your smart.

And if that is the case, I want to know. I want to know what’s true.

I’m not asking everyone to agree with me. I’m not asking Republican candidates to deny their religious backgrounds or their beliefs about fiscal management. I’m not asking a Conservative government to become a left-wing party. What I would love to see is a joint pursuit, by politicians of all stripes, and by Canadians and voting-eligible citizens in countries all over the world, of truth. Of facts. Of using reason, and common sense, and the wealth of information that educators, scientists, academics, researchers, and reputable experts can share with us to form a real picture of what is actually happening in our world. In the end many of our opinions may not change but maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to work together on things that are really important, like examining our own prejudices to avoid violating the rights of others, or saving our planet from the harm and destruction that experts agree we’ve doomed it to.

Consider it. I’ll cut my bullshit if you will. If we let stupidity win the day, by the time we all realize we were wrong it might be too late for smarts to help us. Because guess what? No Stupid, however comfortable and inviting, is going to deal with the challenges ahead like Smart can.

Why I think an NDP-Liberal merger is stupid

/ Lauren / 10 Comments

Image by Sonja Kresowaty

Let me begin by saying I have no problem with the idea of a coalition between two political parties in government. Coalitions (at least in theory) mean distinct parties, representing different demographics, who view the world from different angles, working together and combining their different experiences, values, and perspectives to solve problems in government. At its best, it would mean working with the “two heads are better than one” philosophy. That sounds civil, and cooperative, and democratic, and very Canadian. If, after some future election, a coalition between the NDP and Liberal parties of Canada seemed like a prudent choice to best serve Canadians, I would be all for that. I’d probably, as the kids say, “lose my shit” with joy.

But the next election is a long ways away. The Conservative Party has a majority government. They can do just about anything they want, and providing a more immediate opportunity for Canadians to potentially choose not to continue with them is probably not among the list of Things the Conservative Party Wants To Do. So instead of picking up whispers of an NDP-Liberal coalition, lately, I’ve been picking up whispers of a merger (usually in Macleans).

And, as you can probably tell from the title of my post, I think this is stupid.

I do understand that many feel Canada’s “divided left” is much to blame for allowing the Conservative Party to become so strong, and I understand that our years of a “divided right” contributed to our being able to go so long without a right-wing government in Canada. I also understand that many people would rather see just about any party in government than the Conservatives, and see a merged NDP-Liberal party as a potentially useful tool that hasn’t yet been tried. But I still think the idea is stupid.

The people crying over a divided left seem to forget that the Liberal party is a centrist party, not a left-wing party (by Canadian standards). Far from unifying Canada’s political left into a strong and solid entity, merging the centrist Liberals and the leftist NDP would scare rightist  Liberals towards the Conservatives (not good), and would potentially send more leftist NDP voters running either towards the Green Party or to another leftist Fringe party that will seem to reflect their views better than a watered down NDP-Liberal party would (also not good). It’s like smushing two things together and having each end fall off. [Of course, I did not come up with this prediction myself. This sentiment has been echoed by several writers and columnists since this merger idea was just a twinkle in Canada’s eye. And it makes sense to me.]

Besides the aforementioned smushing and breaking, there are two more good reasons I think the idea of a merger is stupid.

Reason One: A merger would not be good for either party.

With the exception of the incredibly tragic and unfortunate death of NDP leader Jack Layton (and I agree that is a BIG exception to make), the NDP has never been in a stronger position in the House of Commons. While the Liberal and Bloc parties faltered in the May 2011 election, the NDP grew its ranks. Where Ignatieff waffled and flip-flopped, Layton stood his ground (albeit with his now-iconic cane). While the NDP clearly did not believe that the Conservative Party should form the government, they did not believe that the Liberal Party should either. A large number of Canadians made a choice in May, and they chose the New Democratic Party as the alternative to the Conservative Party. Why the NDP would want to compromise their new-found strength, and let down their voters (not to mention the memory of a leader who refused to compromise his ideals), is a mystery.

And then there is the Liberal Party. They took quite a beating in the last election. They went from being “the natural governing party” to a party that has lost its way. They have been handed a bittersweet but golden opportunity to take some time to find themselves again and define what it really means to be the Liberal Party of Canada. With the Liberals’ long history in Canadian politics, I somehow don’t think the outcome of their soul-searching will be deciding that what it means to be the Liberal Party is to be the NDP.

Reason Two: Uniting the left will essentially result in a two-party system (this is only a good reason to think a merger is stupid if you don’t believe a two-party system would be a good thing, which I don’t).

The NDP and Liberal Party are not the same party. If they were, the NDP would never have been founded in the first place. These two parties address different Canadians, with different needs and values. Not every non-Conservative voter would be content with the leftward shimmy that would be a Liberal government. Not every non-Conservative voter wants to move all the way to the NDP.

When people say it would be more useful to have a two-party system “like the States” I want to ask them if they’re crazy. I haven’t done that yet, so I will now. Are you crazy? Look at the state of US politics! You have one party (the Republicans) that seems, at this moment, like it is going to be led by total wingnuts (though we’ll see, I guess, once they choose a presidential candidate), and a second party that is SUPPOSED to be different, and is a little more palatable to the leftist voter, but is still forced to kowtow to the wingnuts in Congress on important traditional leftist issues like the environment,  reproductive rights, and marriage equality. The current US President is a Democrat, and do you see a many wins for the Stateside left-wing voter right now? I certainly don’t. If I could use only one word to sum up Obama’s presidency so far, I would choose “disappointing”. Given the opportunity to add a second word, I wouldn’t, because I’m too disappointed.  Bogged down by its own system and by a frighteningly vitriolic attitude between the parties, it seems to me the US government is doing nothing, and representing nobody.

Though our parliamentary system here in Canada is far from perfect, the availability of more than two choices ensures that Canadians have a better chance of being able to vote for the candidate and party that best represents them. That’s democracy. Voting for one of only two parties and then having whichever party wins have their hands entirely tied by the inability of the two parties to cooperate with each other, resulting in bills that do practically nothing, or require massive compromises in order to pass, is not democracy. That’s just politics. And let’s not forget that in the event of a merger, half-measures, compromises, and ass-kissing would be occurring between two sides of the new “left” party, before the party could even think of taking on the other. More politics.

There are people all over the world who are willing to fight, and to sacrifice their lives, in the pursuit of democracy for their country. No one ever died so they could have the privilege of politics in their lives.

The inevitable frustrations and disappointments of watching governments produce nothing but hot air is what turns people off politics in the first place. The more people are turned off by politics, the less they will be politically involved. The less people involved in politics, the less democracy can truly represent us. The people who elected Liberal candidates in May believed something different than I did. Despite this, I respect their decision to vote for a party that, while it is not the Conservative Party, does not best represent me or my values. I expect the same respect from Liberal supporters.

This is democracy. I want my voice to be represented, even if my voice doesn’t win. Winning will mean nothing if all I have won is the chance to watch the party I voted for compromise everything I hold dear, everything that made me vote for them in the first place. I want to see a party that cooperates with other parties (when appropriate) and conducts itself civilly, but that will be able to honour the choice I made when I voted. It’s a tall order, but anyone who thinks they belong in the House of Commons should be prepared to face that challenge.

On the flip side, anyone who is comfortable throwing the values I voted for out the window and hopping in bed with another party just to win does not deserve my vote. Because I don’t want to vote for stupid ideas, even if they win and get to form a stupid government.

Remembrance, Action, and Inaction: Thoughts inspired by “Re:Union” at Pacific Theatre

/ Lauren / 3 Comments

Last Friday (which was Remembrance Day in Canada) I had the privilege of waking up in a warm apartment, grabbing a bowl of Cheerios, and cozying up under a blanket on the couch as I settled in to watch the Ottawa Remembrance Day ceremonies on CBC. I say I had the privilege to eat Cheerios like a slob in front of the TV dressed in my PJs because it is days like Friday that remind me that each and every part of my working-to-middle class Canadian life, even the less glamorous parts, are things I am privileged to have.

I am also privileged to live in Vancouver, a city where the theatre community, though comparatively small and green, is still able to produce and share art that plays a role in reminding me not only of the privileges, but also the responsibilities, of living the relatively charmed life I lead. Sean Devine’s “Re:Union”, a co-production presented by Pacific Theatre and Horseshoes and Hand Grenades, which I also had the privilege of watching last Friday, was an excellent example of art’s ability to aid in the process of remembrance.

Many people (myself included) often view remembrance at this time of year as a passive act, a time for tucking a poppy into our lapel, turning on the CBC, and turning our thoughts momentarily to a time when sacrifices and hardship were daily widespread Canadian experiences. We sometimes forget to remember that Canada is currently a country at war, or to remember that we have a place in the history we are constantly creating.

“Re:Union” is inspired by the little-known story of Norman Morrison, an American Quaker who could no longer think passively on the sufferings of others. Feeling he had been called upon by a higher power to act, on November 2, 1965, Norman Morrison drove to the Pentagon with his baby daughter Emily. Norman doused his body in kerosene and set himself alight, a horrifying protest against the horrors of the war in Vietnam. Norman Morrison burned to death that night under the office window of Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense. Devine’s play presents these facts but also takes us 36 years into the future, as Norman’s now-adult daughter Emily confronts McNamara, blames him for his inaction in failing to stop the atrocities of Vietnam, and asks him to bear witness as she plans to protest the policies of the post-9/11 Bush Administration.

The play was beautifully understated. I was given no black, no white, no rousing call to arms. I was given complexity. I was given honest, challenging, and contained performances. I was given questions: Is there a higher power than our own ethics? Is merely trying to reduce and control civilian casualties in our military actions enough? Is inaction an act of compliance with oppressive forces? What about extreme action that costs dearly but ultimately yields no results?

In “Re:Union”, it is Emily I most identify with. I am not a martyr. I am not a high-powered bureaucrat or politician. I am a person who cares about her world and is chafing constantly against her own inability to act. When I am called to remember I remember with my whole heart but in the end, usually, any action I take is perfunctory at best, enough to tide me over until the next news story, the next conversation, the next play, the next November 11.

In Devine’s play, Norman Morrison’s act of protest is prefaced by stillness, rooted in the Quaker belief that if one remains still, one will receive the Divine. Emily Morrison’s ultimate inaction is prefaced by movement: by research, video diaries she makes of herself, confrontation with the ornery McNamara, and the act of remembrance. Neither of these individuals stopped any wars. But they were Davids without a sling, against a Goliath with tanks. To have that expectation of them is to simplify a world we know to be more complex: a world of actions having chain reactions, the consequences of which are not always immediately visible. A world where “all or nothing” competes with “every little bit helps” and those of us who care are constantly stuck in an almost paralyzing negotiation between the two.

Beneath the action that cost too much and the inaction that seemed to cost far more, Re:Union tells the story of a father and a daughter, a legacy of love and remembrance and a responsibility to the world that can be as big as one’s responsibility to their Maker, or as small as their responsibility to the truth about themselves and their own personal history of action and inaction.

If you would like more information about Pacific Theatre’s 2011/2012 season, please visit their website: www.pacifictheatre.org.

Information about Horsehoes and Hand Grenade’s latest projects can be found at: www.horseshoesandhandgrenades.ca.

Why I Support Marriage Equality

/ Lauren / Leave a comment

Photo: Dylan O'Donnell 2010 (http://deography.com) - Public Domain

I first thought about writing this post back in July when I saw these portraits of newlywed same-sex couples in New York State on BuzzFeed.com. The snapshots of happy couples celebrating not only their love, but their right to legally express it, is the only proof I need that New York State did the right thing by recognizing same-sex marriage (although it was too long in coming). Naively, I think part of me thought this was all the proof anyone would ever need that legalizing same-sex marriage is not merely the kind thing to do, it is the right and just thing to do. Maybe I thought that this was all the proof anyone would need that far from destroying the sanctity of marriage, allowing people who have maintained a loving relationship through adversity to legalize this bond through marriage would only add deeper and fuller meaning to the institution.

But of course, and alas, I was wrong. As mind-boggling as it is to me, the idea that two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry regardless of gender is not plain old common sense to many people, including here in Canada (you’ll find you don’t hear too many Conservative Party MPs speaking up in support of marriage equality).

I say mind-boggling not because I want to use some hyperbole today, but because I truly don’t understand. When I first found out what homosexuality was when I was a young, it was described to me as “when a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman.” Because back then I assumed that everyone who fell in love got married, I assumed this meant gay couples, being in love, would be getting married too. Much to my embarrassment, it was not actually until same-sex marriage was legalized in Saskatchewan in 2004 and I heard the hoopla surrounding it in the media that I was even aware that gay and lesbian couples had not previously been allowed to marry.

Having spent my entire youth assuming same-sex couples had the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples and being totally okay with it, not even giving it a second thought whatsoever, the idea that not everyone is okay with this, and that this is ANYONE else’s business besides the couple who wants to get married, was a total shock to me. It made no sense to me back then and it makes no sense to me now.

Last summer, I read US District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8, a voter approved proposition renewing the State of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it violates the rights of same sex couples. In the ruling, Judge Walker notes that,

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

If you wish to read Judge Walker’s entire ruling on Proposition 8, it is available on Scribd.com at the link provided.

Judge Walker’s ruling brought up other key points that I thought were important to address. Firstly, that it is in society’s best interest, both socially and economically, that couples marry, providing emotional, medical, and financial support for one another in family units (these interests do not rely on the couples being of opposite genders). The ruling also pointed out that while the supporters of Proposition 8 (the defendants in this ruling) claimed that the proposition protected children from harm, it had already been deemed unconstitutional for the State of California to refuse adoption to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation and therefore there was no legal precedent set with regards to needing to “protect” children from homosexuality.

I remember being shocked again, and also sickened, when I read the argument presented to the voters in 2008 in support of Prop. 8:

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. * * * While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned,  TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

[This information is to be found on page 7 of the ruling]

This is the part that makes me sick. This is the part that makes me angry. This is the part that means I need to write this post. Because what IS the oh-so-vital difference between “traditional” marriage and same-sex marriage, hm? That it’s a loving bond between two consenting adults? Same in both marriages. That it is a legal bond joining two people who live together and share financial resources? Same in both marriages. That it provides a stable structure in which to raise a family? As proven by the number of same-sex couples that adopt or choose to have biological children, same in both marriages.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the defendants of Proposition 8 want to make sure that children know that heterosexual couples are better. Not for any specific reason, but because they just are. And if heterosexual couples are better, it follows that heterosexual people are better too, right? That homosexual people, despite making up 10% of the population, are abnormal, and inferior.  The sickest part of all is not that these people want to trumpet these values among themselves, but that it is so vital that the most important people to receive these messages of hate, and learn to hate and fear others, for reasons that at their age they wouldn’t even understand, are children.

Who’s harming children now? Certainly not loving couples who just want to get married.

The horrific, and too often fatal harm that this homophobic value has on children was brought home to me last Saturday when I watched the play Leave of Absence by Lucia Frangione, the third piece in an evening of works called “Short and Sweet”, presented by ACTivist Theatre and Amnesty International as part of this year’s Vancouver International Fringe Festival. I was incredibly upset by this piece, and the story of its protagonist Blake, a ninth-grader who falls victim to contempt, ostracism, and vicious brutality because she, and more importantly, her teachers and peers at her Catholic school, are confused by and afraid of her sexuality. The harmful effects that homophobic attitudes have on innocent children is made sickeningly evident in this beautifully written and tightly performed play.

Does Leave of Absence and the story of Blake deal with same-sex marriage? No, it does not. But when children are taught that some people are simply better than others (as they are when they are taught some marriages are better), they are also learning the inverse of this better-ness: that those who are not better, are worse. And that these people who are better are normal, while the others are deficient, deviant, and depraved. The saying “children are cruel” is a cliche because so often it seems true. Being a child is scary. Growing up is scary. Children, especially adolescents, are under intense pressure to live up to the expectations imposed by their parents, their school, the media, their peers, and themselves. They want to feel superior, and when you give them that chance, when you sanction and support the idea that some people are inferior to them, when you specifically point the inferior ones out as this one or that one, this gay boy, that lesbian girl, the intense pressure children are under finds a terrible outlet.

Instead of trying to figure out how such nice children could do such terrible things to each other, instead ask yourself who told these children that it was okay. Because if you have told a child that another person is worse than them, is disgusting and abnormal, you have told them that it is okay to behave in a hateful way towards that person. And the harm done is no one’s fault but your own.

One only needs to look at the impetus for the It Gets Better Project to see the real-life consequences of encouraging homophobia in children. Because of homophobia and homophobic attitudes, children are dead. I would posit that anyone who still believes that these innocent children deserved the treatment that led to their desperate actions is the one who is abnormal, deficient, and lacking a loving heart.

Many of the comments on online articles dealing with Proposition 8, for example, are so nonsensical and disgusting to me I can barely bring myself to read more than a few. The hatred being directed at people who just want to live their lives with the person they love is frankly alarming. Most of the arguments against same-sex marriage seem to take their position from the Bible. Well, guess what? You’re in a western democracy. Your country operates through a separation of church and state. It is not the government’s job to uphold your religious beliefs and force others to live by them. Your beliefs and your lifestyle are not the only way of living. If you don’t like it, find another Mayflower and go live on a deserted island where you can be as prejudiced as you like. If statistics are anything to go by, in a few generations, 10% of the population of your desert island will be gay, whether you allow them to express themselves or not.

Or, you know, you could stay where you are, and mind your own business. Because ultimately, even though I myself feel very strongly about marriage equality, whether or not two people decide to get married is none of my business. And it is none of yours. The love of two consenting adults, no matter their gender, does not diminish the love I have in my life. Should I choose to marry in the future, the marriage of two consenting adults, no matter their gender, will not diminish my marriage.

In fact, the more love and happiness there is in the world, the more respect and equality in society, the better every institution will be, the happier my life, and the safer my future children.

Philanthropy, Attention, and Intention

/ Lauren / 3 Comments

Would you save the world if you couldn’t tell anyone?

Since embarking on this blog adventure and signing up with Twitter in November, I’ve noticed a trend amongst a good chunk of the In Real Life friends, tweeps, and bloggers I follow online. For the most part, they’re philanthropists. Many of my friends’ and tweeps’ bios, statuses, links and tweets are in a significant part philanthropic in nature. Some speak to a concern for social justice. Some to eradicating global hunger/poverty/illiteracy/inequality. Some to political, environmental, health, or educational issues. Some simply say they want to “save the world”.

Most tweet-ups I have been to have had a philanthropic aspect as well as a networking one. Donations are collected for the Vancouver Food Bank, or organizations such as the Loving Spoonful. An obvious example that comes to mind is YVR Twestival 2011, which raised funds for the incredibly deserving Beauty Night Society.

Another common trait of the folk in my online social world is that we like attention. Before you raise your hackles or your eyebrows or your typing hands to protest, think about it. We do. Why else would we blog? Why else would we put our thoughts and opinions and actions on a public forum like Twitter (which is, essentially, a kind of mini-blog) or on a friend network like Facebook?  Whether it’s to promote good causes, meet new people, or stir up controversy, we are people who want to be taken notice of. This is not a judgment. This, I believe, is simply a fact. I am, for one, completely guilty of this (see my post about Internet Fatigue if you want further proof).

Where a drive for philanthropy meets a drive for attention is a murky, not-so-fun-to-look-at area that brings up questions of intention. What is our purpose when we blog or tweet about the philanthropic things we do, about our opinions on recycling, about the gala or launch party for a non-profit group we attended that was complete with a who’s-who of Vancouver’s finest networkers and the flyest DJs? Is our intention about supporting this cause or that one, encouraging others to support this or that cause, or simply wanting other people to know about our cause-supporting ways?

Which brings me to my question for this post: would you, if given the opportunity, save the world, even if the trade-off was that for some reason you could not tell a single soul? When I first posed this question to myself I quickly said “Of course.” But then I thought about it. I thought about what I would be missing if I couldn’t advertise my good deeds. I thought about how trendy it is to be a philanthropist nowadays, especially in Vancouver. We have our very own “problem spot”, the Downtown East Side, and many of us pay lip service to the amazing people who dedicate their time and energy to improving quality of life there, while being able to, for the most part, live and work safely in gentrified areas ourselves.

I also find myself wondering about the intentions behind participation in recent breast and prostate cancer “awareness” campaigns. Recently, breast cancer awareness campaigns have involved saucy internet memes like posting your bra colour as your Facebook status, or the latest, posting a status that makes it sound as though you’re pregnant. To me, these campaigns make breast cancer a “sexy” issue but I do not recall that many of my friends who participated in these memes (or myself) have actually have turned their “awareness-raising” saucy posts into real research-funding donation dollars. Movember, a yearly campaign in which men grow mustaches during the month of November to raise money for men’s health issues, is similarly “sexy”. I remember once getting quite indignant about young men I knew who were planning to visually participate in Movember, i.e. grow the ‘stache, but who had absolutely no intentions of going to the trouble of raising any money. Essentially, there now exists a desire to visibly support a cause without tangibly supporting it with money or effort. The act of “raising awareness” may be a philanthropic act, but the intention behind it is not.

Mustached man by Sonja Kresowaty

Unfortunately, with so many worthy causes in the world, publicity is a necessity for groups hoping for access to the limited public and private donation dollars available. Some campaigns, like Movember, or organizations that hold bitchin’ parties to raise funds, have tapped into the fact that true charity, free of any self-serving intentions, is hard to come by, and have adjusted their fundraising strategies accordingly.

And I say good on them. They’ve realized that even in the world of charity you can’t get something for nothing. This isn’t their fault. It’s ours. We expect to give and take, instead of just to give.

If I want evidence for this I need not look any farther than my  own online actions. If I believe in one cause or other, and especially if I make any tangible efforts in support of this cause, you can bet your boots I’ll tweet about it or mention it on Facebook or in this blog.  A prime example is my blog post about my “Five for Five” Project. I didn’t tell anyone I was going to do it and afterwords I could have kept the experience to myself. But I shared it instead. And the comments and support I received in return buoyed my spirits and made me feel wonderful. I gave, and my intentions were good, but I also gained immensely.

Does my little rant mean I think people should stop telling us about their philanthropy? No. At the end of the day, support for a philanthropic or other world-saving cause is support. Whether this support is financial, effortful, or simply awareness-raising, many worthy causes benefit when people draw attention to the good they’re doing. Maybe all of us tweeting and posting our good deeds is a kind of positive peer pressure– “Hey everyone! All of us cool kids are being good people and giving/volunteering/recycling! You should too!”. Very good things do not always require completely pure intentions. The result is still many people doing good things. And talking about it. And maybe good deserves a little reward: a swanky party, supportive comments, the personal gratification of knowing that the people whose opinions matter to you know that you are trying to be a good person.

But I do hope, now that the internet has given us so many tools to discover causes, talk about them, and support them, that we would continue to do good in our lives and in others’ even if there was no party, no mustache, no saucy meme, no attention. That we would continue to save the world, each in our own way, even if we could never take credit for it.

Our actions, regardless of intent, have the power to do much good for others. But I think our intentions, and our ability to be honest with ourselves about them, do a lot of good for us, and the kind of people we want to be. The more I analyze my own intentions, the more I understand the causes I truly do believe in. These are the ones I would fight for even if no one was looking.

“…And we’ll change the world.” (My tribute to my hero)

/ Lauren / 3 Comments

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

All my very best,

Jack Layton

My plan last night was to write this week’s post about an episode of violence I witnessed in the Downtown East Side, and how witnessing this violence, and observing my reactions to it, changed me. I also wanted to write about a telephone call I received in April, informing me of the senseless death of a childhood friend (I say senseless not because I don’t know exactly what happened, but because I don’t know why) and how this has changed me. I am 25. I have seen violence. I have known a death. And I will never be the same. I wanted to write about that, about how growing up is about these milestones, these little deaths of innocence.

But this morning, my TC broke the news to me that Jack Layton had died. I am glad he told me because otherwise I wouldn’t have known until being told by coworkers or by Twitter. I appreciate that he knew me enough to know that hearing this news would wound me. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend”, and this is a wound that was better received from a friend. Just as I can remember exactly where I was when I heard that Dr. Suess (one of my childhood heroes) had died, I will remember exactly where I was as my TC broke the news of the death of the hero of my young adulthood.

I have been an NDP supporter since I was old enough to think about Canadian politics (about 10 or so). This is not out of line with my upbringing, and even as an adult what I have experienced, read, heard, and learned about the world has not changed my views. Is Jack Layton my hero simply because he was the leader of my favourite political party?

No.

Former NDP leader Alexa McDonough was not my hero. I’m sure she’s a great lady, who cared passionately about the same issues I do, but she was not my hero. When Jack Layton became the leader of the NDP he was not my hero. I thought he looked smarmy and I did not like his mustache (now, of course, I am very fond of the “Trustache” and I wish so badly that I could see that glorious mustache again).

Jack Layton was not a hero I chose to follow blindly. I believed in his party (or rather I believed in their values) but I did not yet believe in the NDP’s ability to effect real change in Canada. Over the years, as the numbers of orange seats in Parliament grew, Jack Layton began to earn my respect. And then he earned my trust. Yes, he represented the party that represented my values. But he also represented the idealistic and civil vision of Parliament I had had when I was younger. For example, I remember once when Jack Layton did allow a few members of the NDP to vote against the rest of the party in a matter that concerned their constituents. Some may call this weak, I would call it an understanding of how the practice of electing a Member of Parliament to represent your constituency is supposed to work. By allowing flexibility within the party, he demonstrated to Canadian voters that their vote did matter, their choice of a particular MP did matter, and that Parliament as an institution is meant to serve constituents, not party lines. I respected him for this.

During the last election, the NDP managed to side-step the Conservative mud-slinging and the go-to Liberal defense-mode. Jack Layton was able to keep his eye on the prize and stay focused on his hopes for the country. Without warning, one day his talk of “When I am Prime Minister” no longer sounded like the pipe-dream of some aging hippie with a 70s mustache, it sounded like an exciting possibility. When few Canadians believed, Jack Layton did. And then I did too. I felt that my vote had mattered. I felt that I was part of something. For the first time, even though frightened of the Conservative majority, I felt that we were heading to something better, that Harper’s majority was the dark before the light, and that one day Canada really would be the country I thought it was when I was a child. In interviews and public events, Jack Layton seemed to demonstrate a genuine warmth and amiability, qualities that eluded Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. I trusted that he meant what he said, and I was not afraid of what he would or would not do for my country.

When I heard that Jack Layton was sick again, my first thought, instead of a concern for his health, was “No, he can’t be. We NEED him.” And this means I had not learned enough. It’s not enough to believe in Jack Layton. Jack unfortunately could not be with us forever. It’s not enough to put your faith and trust in one person and hope they’ll take care of everything. They can’t. Though I do wish with all my heart that Jack Layton was still here, and healthy, I don’t know that I would say at this point that “we need him.” We need us. What Canada needs is for people who think “we need Jack Layton” to realize that what they need is themselves. We need to demand the same level of dedication, passion, and accountability that Jack Layton demonstrated from all of our politicians. We need to demand this by voting, by joining parties, by examining ourselves and deciding what we believe in. We need to stop sitting back and thinking that one amazing man with a mustache and a dream is the answer to our problems. Though Jack Layton was a true leader, and though he was the person in whom I had placed my hopes, what I need now that he is gone is not Jack Layton. What I need, what we need, is to emulate what we admired about Jack Layton, to demand this of ourselves and others.

I’m afraid to post this because this means I will have to be less lazy. This means I will have to move from thinking and speaking (and blogging) to doing. This means maybe I will have to examine myself and my values, and take stock of what I’m willing to sacrifice (time? money? energy?) to help protect and champion these values.

And so here I am. I am 25 years old and I am changed. I realize now that I had a hero only after I discovered he was gone. I realize now that I wasn’t doing enough. I recognize that the world I live in, the world I affect with my actions every day, is the same world that includes violence in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side and the same world that includes the far-too-early death of a childhood friend. This is the world that includes the death of my heroes and the loss of my innocence. This is the same world Jack Layton was fighting for.

Is it too much to hope that if the world was better, I might not have seen what I saw, or lost my friend as soon as I did? Maybe. Maybe it’s ridiculous and idealistic. But then, I once thought that voting NDP was a little ridiculous and idealistic (even though I would do it every time). My hero proved me wrong. I would love to prove him right.

Mourners leave messages for Jack Layton in Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto. Photo: Sonja Kresowaty

Let’s Talk Unions (A Lefty Perspective)

/ Lauren / 2 Comments

On June 27, the Canadian Government legislated the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) to return to work after a rotating strike followed by a lockout by Canada Post. The terms in the legislation were less than the terms Canada Post had last offered the CUPW, which the union had rejected. Though those whose businesses depend on an efficient postal service will be happy, the fact that the government interfered with negotiations between an employer and its employees, and appeared to simply be punishing the CUPW for striking (when in fact it was the employer (Canada Post) and not the postal workers who were responsible for the total cessation of mail delivery) doesn’t sit well with me.

It is this that caused me to join in a lively discussion/argument about the postal strike. Of course, as soon as anyone starts to talk about any given union, all unions are soon thrown into the mix and the recent actions taken by the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation were ripped apart, because “teachers get two months off in the summer.” Being the child of Saskatchewan teachers, and knowing how hard my parents work (good teaching is so much more than just “stand and deliver” repetition of the textbook), I stood my ground for as long as I could (it was mostly a two against one debate and I was the solo party).

The fact is, I don’t have many facts, either about the recent postal strike or about the situation facing the STF. What I do know is that many unionized workers, for example teachers and nurses, care very deeply about those they work for (children and patients, respectively), and that striking is a last resort that weighs heavily on the conscience of the striker.

The argument allowed me a chance to engage with people whose views and experiences are very different from my own. Both of my main “opponents” worked in the oil industry at demanding and dangerous jobs. Both had been seriously injured on the job and both “sucked it up and went back to work”. Too much pride for WCB, apparently. Given the risks involved in their job and their 60-70 hour work weeks, I am not surprised that they expressed a lack of sympathy for workers who appeared to be doing less and asking for more. There was also some hypothesis that if oil workers were unionized and the government was in charge of the industry, we’d all be paying $3/litre for gasoline.

I am familiar with the above positions and though they aren’t my cup of tea they’re nothing I haven’t heard before. While it was actually quite an enjoyable debate with fairly civil “opponents”, I was understandably frustrated and there are a few fallacies within their arguments I would like to address:

  1. That there is some particular virtue to not being part of a union, and to just keeping your head down and doing your job without complaining. – Just because you do not want to demand more from your employer (i.e. you won’t file with the WCB when you’re injured), it does not mean that other people should not have a right to, or that they are weak or wrong to do so. Contrary to being a virtue, the only people you are benefiting by refusing to demand better treatment in your workplace are your employers; you, your loved ones, and your coworkers certainly aren’t any better off for it.
  2. That the position of unions are that their employees deserve good treatment because their employees are “better” than other employees, or work harder. – I have not yet seen this to be true. The position of the STF certainly isn’t that teachers work harder than everyone else, and therefore deserve more. Clearly, teaching isn’t as dangerous or as physically intense as working in the oil industry up in Fort MacMurray. The STF isn’t pretending it is. The point of a union is that employees should be treated well by their employer. This means all employees (regardless of whether they are unionized) deserve job security, vacation, and pensions. The fact that some employees are unionized allows them to demand this better treatment. A demand for better treatment by a union is not a snub to other workers.
  3. That unionizing means putting your business or industry under government control. – While many unionized workers are employed in the public sector, unionized employees and government employees are not one and the same. An example would be auto workers unions, strong labour unions whose members are employed by large corporations like Ford or General Motors, not the government. To the idea brought up of $3/litre gas resulting from unionizing and government control of the oil industry, firstly, unionizing of oil workers would not necessarily result in government control of the industry, and secondly, Tony Clement has recently told media that the Government will be working to lower the lately inflated gas prices (even without ownership of any oil companies). I highly doubt that oil companies currently have any interest at all in keeping prices (and profits) low.

Being a teachers’ daughter, and current member of a CUPE local myself, I do realize that my point of view comes from a very specific place. I do understand that not everyone feels they are in a position to make demands to their employer, especially if doing so could lose them their job (a job they may desperately need to support themselves and their families). What I am saying is that this is a shitty state of affairs. No one should be afraid to speak up about mistreatment in the workplace. Keeping employees in fear and living on a meager salary that does not allow them the freedom to better their position or enjoy their life amounts to servitude, not employment.

Despite this, I do not believe every worker should be part of a union, or that every business needs to be unionized. A business owner or employer who takes good care of their employees, providing decent salaries and benefits, and incentives for their employees to invest in their own retirement, should not need to unionize their employees to ensure this happens. I have seen small businesses that treat their employees like family, giving them flexibility, security, and a level of personal attention not often seen in larger businesses. Sadly, these employers are few and far between, and there are many corporations and industries more interested in their bottom line than in the well-being of the people whose work allows them to maintain a profit (i.e., their employees).

I also cannot say that I have supported every union strike I’ve ever read about in the media. The optics of some of the unions’ demands compared to the realities facing many Canadian families (and my own unemployed status) during the recession, for example, were not very beneficial to the profile of unions in Canada. This does not mean I do not support unions as an employment structure or their right to demand what they believe is fair for their members.

For many, myself included, discussions surrounding labour unions tend to be emotional, rather than intellectual. Those within them defend them fiercely, those who are not unionized disparage them. The difference, as it often is in politics, stems from different ideas of what people see as fair. I have no answers, and so far in my career have not been faced with many tough decisions. I’m just full of piss and vinegar and I do love to sink my teeth into a good argument every once in a while.

If anyone has some cold hard facts for me, from either side of this debate, I’d love to hear from you. In the meantime, I guess I’ll just try to be pleased that I’ll be getting mail again (yay!), despite the actions that brought it about.

Election 2011: A small high five and a lot of nausea

/ Lauren / 2 Comments

On May 2, 2011, Canada voted. I was nervous, I was hopeful, I was trying to be optimistic about the outcome, and I was not prepared for the results.

As the kids say, “I’m so so stoked right now” that the NDP is the official Opposition. Canada has never seen what the NDP can do when given both the power and responsibility to be the main (not fringe) voice of dissent and contrary opinion in Parliament. A party that has often largely been ignored in the past has been granted an opportunity to define itself.

I am stoked for Elizabeth May and the Green Party too. History will be made when Parliament resumes and the Green Party has a representative in the House of Commons for the first time. May will have her work on Parliament Hill cut out for her. It’s work she’s been chasing for years and I say good for her for finally getting a crack at it.

In a weird way, I am a little bit stoked that the Liberals took such a drubbing. As a person, Michael Ignatieff is intelligent and educated and I believe he truly does care for Canada. I didn’t mind the Liberals the last time they governed either (though I was a teenager then so I’m not sure that says much). But after three years of reading my Maclean’s cover to cover and following Canadian politics online, I still had no idea what the Liberal Party, under Iggy, really stood for. Unless Maclean’s simply sucks at their Canadian politics coverage (which I will never believe), it seems to me that the Liberal party did not have a cohesive and consistent message that was memorable or vital to Canadians. A few good ideas? Yes. But a few good ideas do not a political platform make. You can blame many things for the situation the Liberals now find themselves in–the Conservative’s ceaseless character assassination of Ignatieff, a split leftist vote between the NDP and Liberal candidates that paved the way for a Conservative win, voter apathy–but at the end of the day the party just seemed lost to me. Not at all the “natural governing party” the Liberals claimed to be. Obviously they need a few years to get their poop in a pile and now they’ve got it.

I am also giving myself a little high five because the candidate I voted for won and will be representing me and my riding in Ottawa. Congratulations to me.

Now for the nausea.

For the next four and a half years, Canada will be governed by a Conservative majority. Since I align my personal beliefs more towards the political left, the policies of this government will no doubt grate against my socialist sensibilities. Even with an NDP Opposition, a majority gives the Conservatives carte blanche to pass pretty much any bill they like and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

But that’s democracy. Canada voted (well, 60% of us) and apparently the will of Canadians is a Conservative majority. Democracy means you don’t always get your way. Of course, democracy is more fun for me when I get my way, and people I disagree with don’t get theirs, but that’s not how it worked out this time. If I wanted my own way all the time I would need to become Queen of my own tiny isle, and I’m not prepared to do that right now. What really sticks in my craw about this election outcome is that the first government ever to be found in contempt of Parliament is rewarded with a majority. Clearly Canadians are not paying attention. Policy schmolicy. No matter where your beliefs fall on the political spectrum, you deserve a government that will not lie to Canada’s elected representatives.

Unless, of course, you vote for a party knowing full well they were found to be in contempt of Parliament and you just don’t care. Or, if you don’t vote at all. Then, I guess, you get the government you deserve.

I’m disappointed. Being an artist and a woman and a young single person (no middle class family benefits for me right now) who cares about social justice, I don’t think there’s anything in that blue bag for me. I love Canada and I love what it has traditionally stood for. I don’t want these things to disappear.

I am trying to be optimistic. Perhaps Harper’s Conservatives have merely been suffering from an inferiority complex and now that they have the majority they claimed they needed to govern effectively they will, in fact, govern effectively. I can only hope that now that the threat of a snap election is no longer looming they will consider the needs of all Canadians, even artsy fartsy bleeding hearts like me, and not just their traditional demographic.

Or perhaps things will get so incredibly terrible that by 2015 the 40% of eligible Canadian voters who didn’t vote this year will be prompted to finally get off their asses and participate in their country’s democracy. Or maybe I’ll move to my own tiny isle.

At any rate, Layton’s looking spunky these days, I’m sure Harper isn’t actually an evil robot, and hope springs eternal. We might be okay after all. We’ll see.

“Making art for free” – I’m opening that can of worms

/ Lauren / 5 Comments

An interesting gentleman I recently met at a party leaned over a kitchen counter at me and slurred something to the effect of, “Every artist is exploited for their passions.” He continued on after this point but as he was drunk and getting a little incoherent I don’t recall the rest. The gist of his argument seemed to be that because everyone knows that artists love to do what we do (be that music, theatre, dance, visual art, photography, etc.), we are expected to do this for little or nothing.

I couldn’t agree with him more. All of the theatre I have been involved in since finishing my BFA has involved little, but more often non-existent, compensation.  I entered into the work fully aware that nobody was being paid. I did it because I respect and enjoy the people I work with, and because if I didn’t take the time to be an artist sometimes, my soul would start to die.

There is a very prevalent though very misguided attitude surrounding the idea of payment in the arts community. People seem to believe that because artists enjoy their craft, they don’t require the same kind of compensation they would if they were doing a job they hated. I would like to make something very clear:

Enjoyment DOES NOT EQUAL easy. Enjoyment DOES NOT EQUAL lack of time or skill. Any good piece of art involves time (during a theatre production, for example, usually 20-50 hours a week on top of a full or part time job) and skill (most of the artists I know have either a university degree and/or extensive studio training, which they supplement with workshops). In a regular working environment, this time, training, and skill would be compensated.

Making art also requires an emotional and often physical investment not found in other jobs. Making art is not an activity in which you can “coast” (i.e. writing that report for your boss while you flick through photos of last weekend on Facebook or watch a funny cat video). Coasting results in shallow, if not plain old shitty, art. An artist is required to be emotionally, mentally, and physically present in their work. I enjoy everything I do involving the theatre but maintaining this focus isn’t easy. Sometimes I’m ill but I have to be on my feet for a two-hour run before I can sit down again. I’m exhausted sometimes but I’m staying at rehearsal late into the night, knowing I am going to be waking up at 6:30 to go to work and THEN I’ll be going to rehearsal all over again. Sometimes the work scares me or makes me so angry that I hate it and hate everyone involved and hate myself but we get through it and we make some art.

And then I am told by the prevalent public opinion that I don’t need to be paid because I’m having so much fun!

What can be done? I’m not sure. The other night I met some (relatively) new theatre friends for drinks in the Backstage Lounge (the lovely bar behind the Arts Club’s Granville Island Stage). The conversation, while passionate and animated, was rather disheartening at times. No, we (and I mean “we” in a broader sense than just those present) shouldn’t all be doing what we’re doing for little or no money. Yes, anyone working this hard should be appropriately compensated.

But I’m going to let you in on the not-so-secret dirty little secret of the art world. There’s. No. Money. Not for me, not for you, not for the many and varied brilliant performers, musicians, visual artists, writers, dancers, stage managers, designers, composers, producers, dramaturgs, and wandering minstrels in this city, this province, or this country. Working in the arts is a Catch-22 of survival:

1. I cannot survive without money. I need to eat, I need a home, I need to be able to clothe myself and have a telephone. Without money I am starving and I am cold.

2. I cannot survive without creating art. I need passion, I need ambition, I need goals to work towards, I need my inner fires to be fueled and my inner children to be nurtured. Without creating art my spirit is starving and my heart is cold.

If I use my time to work at a job that pays I have money, but no art. If I use my time to create art, I have art, but no money. I get by by straddling these two worlds. Monday to Friday, I work a job I like that pays me well. When I’m involved in a project, I spend my evenings and weekends on it. My system is working for me right now and I feel fortunate to be able to do this.

This is not sustainable, however. The older I get the more demands there will be on my time. This is not a system that can work for me if I ever have a family, if I am ever less healthy than I am now, or if a loved one is ever in need of my care. I also might simply burn out.

In fact, most of us are in danger of burning out, simply because there just isn’t enough money out there for all of us to get work in the arts that pays, and there’s only so long many of us can keep going without any hope of eventually being paid to do this.

I am aware that by agreeing to work for free, I add to the problem. As long as there are artists willing to work for free, there will be artists working for free. There will also be people who expect artists to work for free.

I hope that this situation will not last forever. I hope that the time and hard work put in by artists everywhere will eventually receive respect and provide them with the means to earn a living. Achieving this utopia would be complicated and take time. Government, artists, and audiences would need to be involved in supporting arts and culture and those who sacrifice so much for them.

In the meantime, I think it is up to every artist to decide what they can and cannot do. My system works for me. Other artists have theirs. I am engaged in an ongoing struggle with myself and I am always reassessing my relationship with work, money, and art and hoping I will find a way to reconcile them.