By now,if you read this column on a regular basis,you've no doubt detected a certain political bias.That's perfectly all right with me,it's even intended.So let me thank you for your patronage.
A long time ago you were not really allowed to think for yourself.The masses of us were told by The Church of the day what was orthodox ,and therefor required of every creature that lived within it's long shadow.The Church also held great sway over the otherwise legitimate civil rulers of the day too,such that they were often hamstrung in administering their realms.The only real authority of the day was The Church,and you couldn't challenge them. You see,most laymen could not read,while most clergy could and therefor "Scripture" could not be questioned.It was what The Church said it was.Not to say that religion was all bad,but there was a great monolithic entity,a malevolent deity if you will, deceiving us and inventing it's own reality.All because of the absence of liberals and liberalism.
But then we discovered that the world was not flat because nobody dropped off of it's edge,that it revolved around the sun and that neither priest nor king was infallible,and that men had certain inherent freedoms.This all happened because men invented a thing called the light switch.Well,actually that was a bit later,but,in this sense I'm referring to light as being the ability to reason,challenge and endeavor to improve upon the world as we find it.
Zoe Slusar,the former Vice President of Student Life at Mount Royal University and I disagree. I've never met Zoe,but I'd venture we disagree on a lot of things.Most fundamentally we disagree about what it means to be a liberal,which is what I'm assuming Zoe Slusar calls herself,based on behavior from a video that can be viewed either on Facebook or Youtube.
In the above mentioned video,Ms.Slusar is seen asking,really more like demanding,that a man,Matt Linder remove a cap he is wearing.The cap in question says "Let's Make America Great Again." A Donald Trump Campaign hat.Ms.Slusar insists that the hat is offensive because the only thing "Making America Great Again." can mean is making it all white,with no room for different races or sexual orientations.For her,there can be no other meaning,thus,she feels unsafe and insists that others feel unsafe as well. Mr.Linder must therefor be forced to remove his cap.
I will grant that Donald Trump seems to stand for some outlandish things.In fact,I'd rather vote for a horse than accept what he is bent on trying to sell the American public.Over the past few months I've been one of his harshest critics.A world which offers the potential to make him the most powerful man in the world disturbs me.But there is a missing link here so far as Zoe Slusar is concerned.That would be reason,and it's fundamental to a liberal world view.
Reason is also,or should be what going to university is all about.I'm fairly certain that's escaped Zoe Slusar though,as she reaches for the switch in a misguided effort to extinguish enlightenment.There was a time,not that long ago when a high quality of debate was what moved the political world.What happened? What happened,in part was the emergence of people like Zoe Slugar,and,ironically enough Donald Trump,who seem dedicated far more than anything else to their own dogma and entitlement.
So the rule of the day here seems to be stifling dissent,whether for Trump,or Slusar. If you disagree with someones ideology,shut him up.Don't bother debating him.Force the utter removal of the offending opinion.
Again,and I stress,I find Trumps views intolerant on a number of levels and thus intolerable.But the way to deal with the intolerable is to debate it fully and continually without ceasing,Fight the good fight and realize that that battle goes on and on,requiring the greatest intellectual rectitude possible.People like Bernie Sanders get that.People like Slusar do not.That is simply because they lack the ability or the inclination to debate,seeking instead to outlaw thought that they find disagreeable.Well,that's not how liberalism was intended to work.Intellect and inquiry is central to liberal thought.Trump seems to find that offensive,and that concerns me.But the attitudes of someone like Slusar I find vastly more disturbing.In fact,I wonder if her thoughts proceed directly out of having lived in a repressive culture and being innately conditioned to proceed to the most dramatic and drastic means possible to address grievances and disagreement.Clearly this makes her a waste of a potentially perfectly good liberal.
blyndpapaya
Tuesday, 20 September 2016
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Banks and marijuana.
Lately,here in Canada,the banks,at least two of them are trying to distance themselves from the marijuana business,That business is currently legal with respect to the production and sale of marijuana for medical use.And we are told that legislation will be introduced within a year to legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use.The present cancellation of accounts by Scotia Bank and Royal Bank though,apply not only to those producing and handling the plants,but to those selling secondary products,such as pipes and bongs,and other,fully legal products associated with marijuana.
A lot is being left to the imagination as to why major banks would take such a stand in regards to an industry which is in some sense legal,and which is being further legalized as a statement of public policy under our current government.One possible reason,and it seems a good one, involves banking south of our borders,where it is still illegal to hold funds taken from the sale of marijuana.Obviously banking in Canada,as in the rest of the world, is highly interconnected with American banking and thus,I can see how this might pose a problem for Canadian banks.Banks,as a rule and wherever they are located tend to be among the most conservative,cautious institutions in the world.They are intensely concerned with reputation and,so far as we know given to taking great pains to comply with the law.So then,is this simply a matter of the banks in question having done their due diligence in terms of identifying and avoiding possible legal exposure?Or is there something more afoot here?
We really need to take a look at the presence of banking in our lives.Normally it's something we don't give a lot of thought to.We are conditioned to taking banks, with all of their attendant conveniences and evils,for granted.Being able to undertake banking is a fundamental necessity,especially for those operating their own businesses.But the current position of some Canadian banks with respect to marijuana production and distribution raises some important questions as to just how much intrusion a bank can or should have into the lives of it's customers.
First,let me say that it's wholly reasonable for a bank to undertake,as a matter of policy and practice to avoid breaking specific laws,including those that apply to the marijuana trade.But we have to wonder why the banks are waiting until now to take a very strait laced moral high road in a debate which is ongoing and controversial.It makes me wonder what other activities,including legal activities might be frowned upon in the towers of Bay Street,and what potential consequences they might hold to bank customers.
The thing is though,banks are not government,and they are certainly not police.Accordingly,they do not,or at least should not have unbridled power over the lives of people who seek the privilege of engaging in the economy in a more or less legal way.We all have privacy rights,allegedly.So does the bank have the right to ask that I disclose detailed descriptions of what my business does,who it does business with and who I as a bank customer choose associate with? They may have some limited rights in this area if they hold a note on a particular business,but what if they do not? Will I be faced with the possibility of having a routine savings account canceled because I indulged in legal marijuana ten minutes before entering the bank? Will mortgages or loans be called in if a bank knows a customer indulges in marijuana use? Will the day come that I will have to prove that I'm drug free to partake of ordinary banking transactions?
Banks have a lot of power over businesses and individuals.Apparently they have the power to exclude some customers from ordinary,legal participation in the economy.And I would like to know what limits are placed on these powers.Are they totally arbitrary,completely at the discretion of the bank.That would mean,in theory,though perhaps not in practice that banks could dictate outright the ability of a person,persons or organization to participate in the economy.So then,with that in mind,who else,aside from marijuana dealers are they policing? The KKK,perhaps?How about the John Birch Society,or the local abortion clinic? I don't recall this being an issue in years past when abortion was the burning issue,but maybe times and morals have changed.And they will continue to change.So will banks continue to have their current latitude when it comes to deciding what is sufficiently controversial to warrant limiting or curtailing banking privileges?
It should be noted,in this current controversy that banks,in the effort to keep their hands scrupulously clean,are in fact contributing to some social problems that could otherwise be mitigated.By excluding persons involved in the marijuana trade from banking,I suspect much of that trade is cash only in nature.Moreover,at least here in Toronto,pot shops tend to be located in relatively busy,and in many cases high crime neighborhoods.The presence of large sums of cash in such places poses a risk to the public,and requires additional policing and security,with the additional expense that involves.Further,it tends to extend the current stigmatization of those businesses,even though the trend is towards greater legalization of marijuana and it's complimentary products and services.
We are told,or at least left to speculate that increased legitimacy of the marijuana industry will eventually result in banks accepting marijuana producers as customers.Once banks can draw sufficient profit from the enterprise that is.Well.does anyone really think banks don't currently participate in questionable industries.Such as tobacco companies,for instance,or companies that produce and sell weapons? Or maybe the producers of dirty oil,genetically modified organisms,or mining companies that remove whole mountains,destroying eco systems in the process In that event,we must wonder why the moral opinions of banks are taken to out weigh those of the rest of society.Especially in a debate far less consequential than many.
blyndpapaya
A lot is being left to the imagination as to why major banks would take such a stand in regards to an industry which is in some sense legal,and which is being further legalized as a statement of public policy under our current government.One possible reason,and it seems a good one, involves banking south of our borders,where it is still illegal to hold funds taken from the sale of marijuana.Obviously banking in Canada,as in the rest of the world, is highly interconnected with American banking and thus,I can see how this might pose a problem for Canadian banks.Banks,as a rule and wherever they are located tend to be among the most conservative,cautious institutions in the world.They are intensely concerned with reputation and,so far as we know given to taking great pains to comply with the law.So then,is this simply a matter of the banks in question having done their due diligence in terms of identifying and avoiding possible legal exposure?Or is there something more afoot here?
We really need to take a look at the presence of banking in our lives.Normally it's something we don't give a lot of thought to.We are conditioned to taking banks, with all of their attendant conveniences and evils,for granted.Being able to undertake banking is a fundamental necessity,especially for those operating their own businesses.But the current position of some Canadian banks with respect to marijuana production and distribution raises some important questions as to just how much intrusion a bank can or should have into the lives of it's customers.
First,let me say that it's wholly reasonable for a bank to undertake,as a matter of policy and practice to avoid breaking specific laws,including those that apply to the marijuana trade.But we have to wonder why the banks are waiting until now to take a very strait laced moral high road in a debate which is ongoing and controversial.It makes me wonder what other activities,including legal activities might be frowned upon in the towers of Bay Street,and what potential consequences they might hold to bank customers.
The thing is though,banks are not government,and they are certainly not police.Accordingly,they do not,or at least should not have unbridled power over the lives of people who seek the privilege of engaging in the economy in a more or less legal way.We all have privacy rights,allegedly.So does the bank have the right to ask that I disclose detailed descriptions of what my business does,who it does business with and who I as a bank customer choose associate with? They may have some limited rights in this area if they hold a note on a particular business,but what if they do not? Will I be faced with the possibility of having a routine savings account canceled because I indulged in legal marijuana ten minutes before entering the bank? Will mortgages or loans be called in if a bank knows a customer indulges in marijuana use? Will the day come that I will have to prove that I'm drug free to partake of ordinary banking transactions?
Banks have a lot of power over businesses and individuals.Apparently they have the power to exclude some customers from ordinary,legal participation in the economy.And I would like to know what limits are placed on these powers.Are they totally arbitrary,completely at the discretion of the bank.That would mean,in theory,though perhaps not in practice that banks could dictate outright the ability of a person,persons or organization to participate in the economy.So then,with that in mind,who else,aside from marijuana dealers are they policing? The KKK,perhaps?How about the John Birch Society,or the local abortion clinic? I don't recall this being an issue in years past when abortion was the burning issue,but maybe times and morals have changed.And they will continue to change.So will banks continue to have their current latitude when it comes to deciding what is sufficiently controversial to warrant limiting or curtailing banking privileges?
It should be noted,in this current controversy that banks,in the effort to keep their hands scrupulously clean,are in fact contributing to some social problems that could otherwise be mitigated.By excluding persons involved in the marijuana trade from banking,I suspect much of that trade is cash only in nature.Moreover,at least here in Toronto,pot shops tend to be located in relatively busy,and in many cases high crime neighborhoods.The presence of large sums of cash in such places poses a risk to the public,and requires additional policing and security,with the additional expense that involves.Further,it tends to extend the current stigmatization of those businesses,even though the trend is towards greater legalization of marijuana and it's complimentary products and services.
We are told,or at least left to speculate that increased legitimacy of the marijuana industry will eventually result in banks accepting marijuana producers as customers.Once banks can draw sufficient profit from the enterprise that is.Well.does anyone really think banks don't currently participate in questionable industries.Such as tobacco companies,for instance,or companies that produce and sell weapons? Or maybe the producers of dirty oil,genetically modified organisms,or mining companies that remove whole mountains,destroying eco systems in the process In that event,we must wonder why the moral opinions of banks are taken to out weigh those of the rest of society.Especially in a debate far less consequential than many.
blyndpapaya
Saturday, 10 September 2016
Silent sky
The day looked undecided and hardly aware of itself.Sky trying to be gold,defused with grey and streaked with darker colors.Wind.Warm?Or Cold? The creaking sound of hinges on a bashed in dumpster,an arm rising above it's rim,tossing out some of it's contents,a white mass of something.Squirrel passing along the wire above.First one of the day maybe,moving west,looking desperate to hold his footing.Yellow,blushing crab apples lying on the cracked alley pavement,so sour even the squirrels ignore them,treaded underfoot turning to mash and reeking,an accent to the mash from the distillery carried on wind with the dust from the mill that always fouls the air.
It happened slowly at first.Gathering up the breakfast dishes and listening to the radio.Not listening really,but it's on.Always.Traffic,commercials,I can't remember them now.And a plane has fallen,out of the sky where no plane should be.They always fly out over Harlem,don't they? Well,it must have been a small plane hopelessly lost.Rinse off grease spots from a plate.Toss a grapefruit rind into the trash.Do I need to take it to the dumpster?No,not yet.Open up the window a bit.Wind is cool.It could rain.But by evening the apartment will be a hellbox because my window faced south.Bottle pickers shuffling down the alley.Nasty blue shirt with half the collar torn away.The day looked undecided.
And then another,and we knew.The first though:it's my nephews birthday today.There's a fly on the wall.Make the bed?No,stay and listen instead.Save the few minutes and hear the radio.Magpies squabbling outside.Is the window cracked too far.They will fly up onto it's sill,then inside to shit on the floor.Radio is in chaos now,no more commercials,nobody cares about traffic.Announcer takes us to New York.But details are still sketchy.Out the door and off to work.The day seems different,though not enough minutes have passed.Quiet.Stony silent inside the train as it moves out southbound.The day looked undecided,and all the people knew it.Sunshine or storm?And what would it be like if today was your birthday?
Working in the dim heat of a depot,sorting bottles.There's a television in the lunchroom and I catch a quick glimpse in the minute or two before my shift begins,pulling on thick rubber gloves,so as to not injure my hands and have them covered in blood.No need to linger.These images will take up forever,and the world is different now.Boss is a Sikh man and he laments,"The world will blame us.Because we wear turbans. " There's a turbaned man on the television set,a dark looking,foreboding man,he looks more like a shadow.
Clink of bottles,stench of sour beer,rattle of coins,pickers cart.Broken glass and paper under foot.Some spoiled liquor stuck to the floor,sticking to my feet,trying to draw my shoes away,off of my feet.And the television drones.You can hear it now from anywhere in the shop,because someone has turned it up.We started the day talking of other things,co-workers,customers,like any other day,but it changed.No other conversation,just the one thing,and there is a fear in every voice now.You can't escape it,it cannot be hidden.
I used the planes to tell me where I am in the city.I knew their glide slopes better than the streets.But there are no planes in the sky.And that's what I remember most.And I turned my mind to a verse about signs and wonders in the heavens.I didn't know it's exact wording,I'd have too look it up.
And I was dumping garbage outside,into a dumpster.Broken bottles.Lock the back gate because even here the bottle pickers would break in and scatter the contents looking for a single can or bottle.Or maybe a place to sleep.They might even come in through the back door,looking for a windfall.The dumpster reeked like a vomit factory and a handful of wasps and hornets hovered about ever malevolent sucking in the tiny drops of spoiled liquor.Kahlua and Coors and Jaggermiester and some thick dark wine.Peaches.And an apple core fallen onto the pavement,bitten once or twice.And the ants seetheed over it,hornets swarmed to devour it.A City On The Hill.
And going home.A boy hawks extra editions of the paper at the train station.It's the first time I've ever seen an extra edition in any place except film noir gangster movies.I was forty,and just found that single day of my time,our generation,the will live in infamy.What would it be like if today were your birthday?Undecided.Just another day maybe,or something tainted and ruined? Undecided.
The sky was silent and vacant.The only things there were the things that really belonged there and it was such a foreign thought.From the window of the train I watched a hawk circle,on the hunt for small creeping things.A crow on the fence post,taking flight.Sparrows gathered on the platform looking for crumbs.Jays and magpies waiting to chase off the sparrows.Flies and gnats and a butterfly.And the sky was so quiet,because no man ventured there.There were no wonders in the heavens and the silence was a great unmeasured weight.I'd never known a day without planes.
I though of The Tower Of Babel,that night,like I'd never thought about it before,in that Ancient land that you knew was going to be laid to ruin,once the silence passed and the days were not so undecided.And The City On The Hill was my first waking thought the day after.Because man was at root so disobedient and uncaring.Even the good ones,even the best sometimes longed for the destruction of others,even those building upon higher ideals.And I though a thought of fallen towers,and of an endless sea of black bodies chained together and of That Great Lady in the harbor,in smoky air.America has an unpaid debt,I thought,and it's coming due.
blyndpapaya
GOD BLESS AMERICA...IN MEMORY,9/11
It happened slowly at first.Gathering up the breakfast dishes and listening to the radio.Not listening really,but it's on.Always.Traffic,commercials,I can't remember them now.And a plane has fallen,out of the sky where no plane should be.They always fly out over Harlem,don't they? Well,it must have been a small plane hopelessly lost.Rinse off grease spots from a plate.Toss a grapefruit rind into the trash.Do I need to take it to the dumpster?No,not yet.Open up the window a bit.Wind is cool.It could rain.But by evening the apartment will be a hellbox because my window faced south.Bottle pickers shuffling down the alley.Nasty blue shirt with half the collar torn away.The day looked undecided.
And then another,and we knew.The first though:it's my nephews birthday today.There's a fly on the wall.Make the bed?No,stay and listen instead.Save the few minutes and hear the radio.Magpies squabbling outside.Is the window cracked too far.They will fly up onto it's sill,then inside to shit on the floor.Radio is in chaos now,no more commercials,nobody cares about traffic.Announcer takes us to New York.But details are still sketchy.Out the door and off to work.The day seems different,though not enough minutes have passed.Quiet.Stony silent inside the train as it moves out southbound.The day looked undecided,and all the people knew it.Sunshine or storm?And what would it be like if today was your birthday?
Working in the dim heat of a depot,sorting bottles.There's a television in the lunchroom and I catch a quick glimpse in the minute or two before my shift begins,pulling on thick rubber gloves,so as to not injure my hands and have them covered in blood.No need to linger.These images will take up forever,and the world is different now.Boss is a Sikh man and he laments,"The world will blame us.Because we wear turbans. " There's a turbaned man on the television set,a dark looking,foreboding man,he looks more like a shadow.
Clink of bottles,stench of sour beer,rattle of coins,pickers cart.Broken glass and paper under foot.Some spoiled liquor stuck to the floor,sticking to my feet,trying to draw my shoes away,off of my feet.And the television drones.You can hear it now from anywhere in the shop,because someone has turned it up.We started the day talking of other things,co-workers,customers,like any other day,but it changed.No other conversation,just the one thing,and there is a fear in every voice now.You can't escape it,it cannot be hidden.
I used the planes to tell me where I am in the city.I knew their glide slopes better than the streets.But there are no planes in the sky.And that's what I remember most.And I turned my mind to a verse about signs and wonders in the heavens.I didn't know it's exact wording,I'd have too look it up.
And I was dumping garbage outside,into a dumpster.Broken bottles.Lock the back gate because even here the bottle pickers would break in and scatter the contents looking for a single can or bottle.Or maybe a place to sleep.They might even come in through the back door,looking for a windfall.The dumpster reeked like a vomit factory and a handful of wasps and hornets hovered about ever malevolent sucking in the tiny drops of spoiled liquor.Kahlua and Coors and Jaggermiester and some thick dark wine.Peaches.And an apple core fallen onto the pavement,bitten once or twice.And the ants seetheed over it,hornets swarmed to devour it.A City On The Hill.
And going home.A boy hawks extra editions of the paper at the train station.It's the first time I've ever seen an extra edition in any place except film noir gangster movies.I was forty,and just found that single day of my time,our generation,the will live in infamy.What would it be like if today were your birthday?Undecided.Just another day maybe,or something tainted and ruined? Undecided.
The sky was silent and vacant.The only things there were the things that really belonged there and it was such a foreign thought.From the window of the train I watched a hawk circle,on the hunt for small creeping things.A crow on the fence post,taking flight.Sparrows gathered on the platform looking for crumbs.Jays and magpies waiting to chase off the sparrows.Flies and gnats and a butterfly.And the sky was so quiet,because no man ventured there.There were no wonders in the heavens and the silence was a great unmeasured weight.I'd never known a day without planes.
I though of The Tower Of Babel,that night,like I'd never thought about it before,in that Ancient land that you knew was going to be laid to ruin,once the silence passed and the days were not so undecided.And The City On The Hill was my first waking thought the day after.Because man was at root so disobedient and uncaring.Even the good ones,even the best sometimes longed for the destruction of others,even those building upon higher ideals.And I though a thought of fallen towers,and of an endless sea of black bodies chained together and of That Great Lady in the harbor,in smoky air.America has an unpaid debt,I thought,and it's coming due.
blyndpapaya
GOD BLESS AMERICA...IN MEMORY,9/11
Thursday, 8 September 2016
Teacher conduct 2.0
Once again The York Regional District School Board is coming under fire for remarks allegedly posted on one of it's teachers Facebook pages.That's two times in as many days.
This time around the concern is about remarks which are alleged to be Islamophobic. Just a few short minutes ago I tried to view the page in question,to read the full account of those statements.However,they were nowhere in evidence on that particular page.Accordingly,I have no choice to reserve judgement on whether I share the concerns of others regarding teacher conduct in this incident.
Again,the school board in question is promising a full investigation,according to the protocols they have in place,and which you would expect any responsible school board to have in place.For the time being we have to put our trust in that process. What exactly was said will very much come into play here.Perhaps the comments made were truly racist.Or it may be that they indicate a real and legitimate concern about immigration policy from a public safety point of view.Only time will tell,but,assuming the later is true,I'm going to come down on the side of this teacher to speak her mind while still insisting that what teachers do both publicly and privately should be open to public scrutiny.
There is,I believe a real danger here in reacting to hastily to remarks that were made by this teacher,whatever those remarks may have been.That danger has to do with drawing proper distinctions between Islam,the religion and Islamicism,the political,terrorist movement.We are,to the best of my understanding still at war with terrorists.We are not,and never have been at war in any legitimate sense with Islam.
Air strikes,embargoes and hand to hand fighting,indeed military or political sanctions of any sort alone are never going to win this war.A vital strategy in this regard will be encouraging debate with and among Muslims here and abroad,particularly liberal Muslims.So,I'm hesitant to shut this teachers opinions down simply because they may be controversial,as she would seem the be the voice of liberal Islam.She seems to be identifying herself as a Muslim who wishes to live in peace,but at the same time be vigilant to the possibility of terrorist threat.And there is nothing wrong with trying to strike that particular balance.
What would be wrong is to single any particular group out for hatred or differential treatment based on any of the excluded categories in current civil rights legislation.And again,to be clear,we are not yet certain that this is what has happened here.What is imperative is that we know what was said,and that it be held to a sufficiently high standard of academic discourse,and be presented in the appropriate arena for debate.If that's what has happened,I will commend this teacher for being an effective agent in the War on Terror.
Without hesitation,though,I will call on the York Regional District School Board to get it's house in order.This is the second incident involving teacher conduct in less than a week,so it's time to set some standards regarding professional conduct for it's staff.There may well already be standards in place,but I think it would be helpful to be much more public and transparent as to what those standards are.It would also help the board staff comply with expected standards of behavior regarding private statements.Because it would seem,at this moment that there may be a corporate culture that encourages misunderstanding of expected behavior among teaching professionals.
I reiterate what I said in my last column.Some professions need to be held to higher standards than others.It goes with being role models.We may have particular expectations,for example of construction workers,when a female passes by the construction site.Those expectations are,however totally incongruous with many other professions including teaching.Once we know definitively what those standards are,we can decide what particular actions must be condemned,and which can and should be supported
blyndpapaya
This time around the concern is about remarks which are alleged to be Islamophobic. Just a few short minutes ago I tried to view the page in question,to read the full account of those statements.However,they were nowhere in evidence on that particular page.Accordingly,I have no choice to reserve judgement on whether I share the concerns of others regarding teacher conduct in this incident.
Again,the school board in question is promising a full investigation,according to the protocols they have in place,and which you would expect any responsible school board to have in place.For the time being we have to put our trust in that process. What exactly was said will very much come into play here.Perhaps the comments made were truly racist.Or it may be that they indicate a real and legitimate concern about immigration policy from a public safety point of view.Only time will tell,but,assuming the later is true,I'm going to come down on the side of this teacher to speak her mind while still insisting that what teachers do both publicly and privately should be open to public scrutiny.
There is,I believe a real danger here in reacting to hastily to remarks that were made by this teacher,whatever those remarks may have been.That danger has to do with drawing proper distinctions between Islam,the religion and Islamicism,the political,terrorist movement.We are,to the best of my understanding still at war with terrorists.We are not,and never have been at war in any legitimate sense with Islam.
Air strikes,embargoes and hand to hand fighting,indeed military or political sanctions of any sort alone are never going to win this war.A vital strategy in this regard will be encouraging debate with and among Muslims here and abroad,particularly liberal Muslims.So,I'm hesitant to shut this teachers opinions down simply because they may be controversial,as she would seem the be the voice of liberal Islam.She seems to be identifying herself as a Muslim who wishes to live in peace,but at the same time be vigilant to the possibility of terrorist threat.And there is nothing wrong with trying to strike that particular balance.
What would be wrong is to single any particular group out for hatred or differential treatment based on any of the excluded categories in current civil rights legislation.And again,to be clear,we are not yet certain that this is what has happened here.What is imperative is that we know what was said,and that it be held to a sufficiently high standard of academic discourse,and be presented in the appropriate arena for debate.If that's what has happened,I will commend this teacher for being an effective agent in the War on Terror.
Without hesitation,though,I will call on the York Regional District School Board to get it's house in order.This is the second incident involving teacher conduct in less than a week,so it's time to set some standards regarding professional conduct for it's staff.There may well already be standards in place,but I think it would be helpful to be much more public and transparent as to what those standards are.It would also help the board staff comply with expected standards of behavior regarding private statements.Because it would seem,at this moment that there may be a corporate culture that encourages misunderstanding of expected behavior among teaching professionals.
I reiterate what I said in my last column.Some professions need to be held to higher standards than others.It goes with being role models.We may have particular expectations,for example of construction workers,when a female passes by the construction site.Those expectations are,however totally incongruous with many other professions including teaching.Once we know definitively what those standards are,we can decide what particular actions must be condemned,and which can and should be supported
blyndpapaya
Tuesday, 6 September 2016
Some thoughts on teacher conduct.
A rather old story is just coming to light today,the first day of school for most students here in the Greater Toronto Area.It's old in the sense that the events causing the controversy happened more than a year ago.But it raises some issues with respect to teacher conduct,both in general,and in reference to this particular incident.
It seems that a group of teachers from Markham,Ontario,a northern suburb of Toronto were out enjoying themselves one evening,more than a year ago.Let's be clear about this.It was on their own time.They were involved in a recreational ax throwing contest,at the conclusion of which they pose for a picture which shows them prominently displaying extended middle fingers.Apparently this is a tradition in ax throwing.Who would have guessed? And that may be an esoteric fact,or just an excuse,or perhaps both.
Now,it seems,a group of parents are concerned about the behavior.And I would suggest that it's not without some justification,though I'm uncertain just how many would agree with me in this day and time.However nostalgic it may seem,in my school years,teachers were expected to teach professionally and to maintain a dignified presence in their community at all times.Let me be the first to suggest that a dignified presence really does matter.
Children spend a significant amount of time in the presence of teachers during their formative years.Next to perhaps parents and siblings,few have greater influence in a child's life.So,they are role models,whether they want to be or not.They must conduct themselves accordingly at all times.Simply,they must ask the question:would I recommend that one of my students engage in the behavior I'm undertaking? If the answer is no,then why are you doing it.Now surely the answer,respecting the display of ones middle finger,tradition aside,is no.Would such behavior be encouraged or even tolerated in a school hallway or playground.Perhaps things have changed since I've graced the school grounds.If so,too bad.That's everyone's loss.The middle finger gesture is universally understood,as far as it's literal meaning is concerned.It is also a last resort of the chronically rude,the ignorant and the inarticulate.All concepts best not associated with either teaching or role modeling.
Of further concern in this matter is how the incident came to light,and how long it took.To finally bring this incident to public attention required the filing of a freedom of information request.It is said,however that the picture in question was taken by a student,and therein lies an additional level of concern.If these activities were being conducted on teachers own time,and no one seems to be disputing that,how did a student come to have,or take the picture in question.This would seem to be a matter of keeping an appropriate professional distance between students and teachers.In our day that doesn't seem to be as clear cut an issue as it was in years past.However,I expect that the school board in question has developed and articulates guidelines in this regard.I would be interested in knowing if those guidelines are ,in fact in place and if they were complied with in this incident.
The fact that it took so long for this incident to come to public attention would tend to make me think that some of the participants saw some wrong,or at least some possibility for embarrassment in their actions.In that event,I ask again:why are you doing it then? Further,what efforts,if any were exerted to discourage or prevent the student involved from coming forward sooner.This,in my estimation is the more serious concern regarding this incident,and it should be fully investigated.It would seem that this student was in the presence of these teachers,and perhaps some higher up administrators as well for some time after the incident.And to be clear,I am merely indicating concern,not pointing out wrong doing.But the questions here are many.Did the student come under any sort of duress as the result of this incident? Was there any question in the students mind that any adverse possibilities existed regarding academic standing as a result of his having taken the picture in question? Was the student subjected to any kind of ridicule?Any kind of coercion? Were the expressed parental/family values of the student respected or violated? Were it not for the incident,these questions would not now be in everyone's mind.Even though the conduct may not have been wrong,it is still questionable.
Again,I may be a relic of some by-gone age,but I believe that some professions,including teaching require a higher level of discretion and decorum.That derives directly out of a teachers power to influence children through their own behavior.Yes,there is a difference between public and private conduct.There are places where no one should be allowed to inquire,and it's fairly obvious in most cases what that entails.But some behavior becomes public because those participating in have chosen to make it so.And,if you've chosen to publicize your behavior,in the manner of these teachers,inquiry then becomes a matter of fair play.The concerns of parents and the wider public also become a matter of legitimate concern and comment.
It seems that a group of teachers from Markham,Ontario,a northern suburb of Toronto were out enjoying themselves one evening,more than a year ago.Let's be clear about this.It was on their own time.They were involved in a recreational ax throwing contest,at the conclusion of which they pose for a picture which shows them prominently displaying extended middle fingers.Apparently this is a tradition in ax throwing.Who would have guessed? And that may be an esoteric fact,or just an excuse,or perhaps both.
Now,it seems,a group of parents are concerned about the behavior.And I would suggest that it's not without some justification,though I'm uncertain just how many would agree with me in this day and time.However nostalgic it may seem,in my school years,teachers were expected to teach professionally and to maintain a dignified presence in their community at all times.Let me be the first to suggest that a dignified presence really does matter.
Children spend a significant amount of time in the presence of teachers during their formative years.Next to perhaps parents and siblings,few have greater influence in a child's life.So,they are role models,whether they want to be or not.They must conduct themselves accordingly at all times.Simply,they must ask the question:would I recommend that one of my students engage in the behavior I'm undertaking? If the answer is no,then why are you doing it.Now surely the answer,respecting the display of ones middle finger,tradition aside,is no.Would such behavior be encouraged or even tolerated in a school hallway or playground.Perhaps things have changed since I've graced the school grounds.If so,too bad.That's everyone's loss.The middle finger gesture is universally understood,as far as it's literal meaning is concerned.It is also a last resort of the chronically rude,the ignorant and the inarticulate.All concepts best not associated with either teaching or role modeling.
Of further concern in this matter is how the incident came to light,and how long it took.To finally bring this incident to public attention required the filing of a freedom of information request.It is said,however that the picture in question was taken by a student,and therein lies an additional level of concern.If these activities were being conducted on teachers own time,and no one seems to be disputing that,how did a student come to have,or take the picture in question.This would seem to be a matter of keeping an appropriate professional distance between students and teachers.In our day that doesn't seem to be as clear cut an issue as it was in years past.However,I expect that the school board in question has developed and articulates guidelines in this regard.I would be interested in knowing if those guidelines are ,in fact in place and if they were complied with in this incident.
The fact that it took so long for this incident to come to public attention would tend to make me think that some of the participants saw some wrong,or at least some possibility for embarrassment in their actions.In that event,I ask again:why are you doing it then? Further,what efforts,if any were exerted to discourage or prevent the student involved from coming forward sooner.This,in my estimation is the more serious concern regarding this incident,and it should be fully investigated.It would seem that this student was in the presence of these teachers,and perhaps some higher up administrators as well for some time after the incident.And to be clear,I am merely indicating concern,not pointing out wrong doing.But the questions here are many.Did the student come under any sort of duress as the result of this incident? Was there any question in the students mind that any adverse possibilities existed regarding academic standing as a result of his having taken the picture in question? Was the student subjected to any kind of ridicule?Any kind of coercion? Were the expressed parental/family values of the student respected or violated? Were it not for the incident,these questions would not now be in everyone's mind.Even though the conduct may not have been wrong,it is still questionable.
Again,I may be a relic of some by-gone age,but I believe that some professions,including teaching require a higher level of discretion and decorum.That derives directly out of a teachers power to influence children through their own behavior.Yes,there is a difference between public and private conduct.There are places where no one should be allowed to inquire,and it's fairly obvious in most cases what that entails.But some behavior becomes public because those participating in have chosen to make it so.And,if you've chosen to publicize your behavior,in the manner of these teachers,inquiry then becomes a matter of fair play.The concerns of parents and the wider public also become a matter of legitimate concern and comment.
Friday, 2 September 2016
The rhetoric of Kellie Leitch
Kellie Leitch became a sitting member of Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2011.She served as Minister of Labour and Minister of The Status Of Women.In 2015,the Progressive Conservative Party was defeated in the general election.Kellie Leitch,however retained her seat in Parliament.On April 6th she declared her intentions to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives.
It would be hard to argue that Kellie Leitch lacks the qualifications of someone seeking Canada's highest office.She is a doctor and a professor and has been involved in the Conservative Party from a young age,in addition to her experience as an elected Member Of Parliament.Indeed,some nations would do well to emulate Canada in their choice of leadership hopefuls,in terms of quality that is.
But we need to pay some attention to some of the rhetoric currently issuing from Kellie Leitch's corner.Specifically,she's asking if we should be screening immigrants for"anti-Canadian values".A politically fashionable,if not altogether politically correct question.And one that in 2016 is likely to gain a lot of political traction.
The problem with this question is that it's really pandering to populist views in a rather simplistic manner.Conservatives will ultimately be the ones to decide what constitutes policy in regards to this question.And perhaps they have a better understanding of the issue,being as they are more politically active and astute than the average Canadian.It's up to them to decide how to answer this question in a way that allows them to be as politically relevant to voters at large as they can be.The goal,after all is to get elected,whether led by Kellie Leitch or someone else.
But how will Conservatives define "Anti-Canadian values" in today's world? Most likely by looking to the south.Most likely by identifying populations who are predominately Muslim,as has been the fashion since 9/11.,as those most likely to offend our sense of values.
What exactly are Canadian values.Democracy?Liberalism? Multi-culturalism? Those would be some of the ones that most readily come to my mind,but there are others as well.The problem is that Canada is a very large country,and even those expressed values don't take the same form in every region,relative to every other region.That is no more true than in the realm of politics.For instance,the Province Of Alberta is culturally,and politically until just recently,very conservative.The Province Of Ontario is not.So,I tend to get a bit uncomfortable about the idea of conservatives defining "Canadian values" And I'm certain that conservatives feel likewise about liberals.Moreover,the bulk of the population of Canada resides in Ontario and Quebec and,consequently so does the voting power.There could thus be a regional bias in determining normal values.And,it should be noted,the regions farthest from those two provinces tend to be the regions most diverse in the values they hold.That is to mention nothing of the fact that we have over thirty million people living here,none of whom are going to see Canadian values in exactly the same way,even assuming a general sort of agreement on those values in a macro sense.
We really have no means to define Canadian values.Thus we have no truly definitive way of identifying "Anti-Canadian" values and applying them to immigrants.Is the ideal immigrant Christian? Surely not,at least in terms of necessity.Does the ideal immigrant hold secular views,to the exclusion of religious beliefs of any sort? Does modesty sufficiently offend Canadian values as to disqualify a would be immigrant? That question seems downright silly to me,but one only has to look at what's been going on in France of late.Should immigrants be liberal or conservative? I'm sure Kellie Leitch has her own way of answering that question,in a very broad sense,but should that answer ever impose a restriction on public policy to the point of denying some persons immigration status,while denying others the same? And of course that coin has two sides.How often have we heard that Liberal policy in this regard being criticized as vote stacking?
As far as immigrants are concerned we should be concerned that they are willing to be fully participating members of Canadian society,given that our society functions with a lot of division between us at times.That is not only implied by the term "Democracy",but it is also implied as being alright and even necessary to a well functioning democracy. Further,we should be concerned that would be immigrants will follow Rule Of Law in the Canadian sense.This may have to be explained to new Canadians,but I see no need to define certain values on immigrants apart from already existing laws.
In proposing this question,Kellie Leitch doesn't seem to be proposing particular values.But we can speculate that she is asking for permission to follow the lead of conservatives in other places regarding policy.And it should be pointed out,this pandering is taking place with very little risk to any given candidate.After all,there will be plenty of time for conservatives here to watch what has at times been a dog and pony show with respect to immigration going on south of our border,and to improve on that process.
I would much rather Kellie Leitch involve herself in a meaningful debate as to what exactly Canadian values are,or should be,than proposing restrictions on immigration based on conformity to ideals that we can presently only guess at,and will likely change in relation to their perceived value in terms of forming the next government.
blyndpapaya
It would be hard to argue that Kellie Leitch lacks the qualifications of someone seeking Canada's highest office.She is a doctor and a professor and has been involved in the Conservative Party from a young age,in addition to her experience as an elected Member Of Parliament.Indeed,some nations would do well to emulate Canada in their choice of leadership hopefuls,in terms of quality that is.
But we need to pay some attention to some of the rhetoric currently issuing from Kellie Leitch's corner.Specifically,she's asking if we should be screening immigrants for"anti-Canadian values".A politically fashionable,if not altogether politically correct question.And one that in 2016 is likely to gain a lot of political traction.
The problem with this question is that it's really pandering to populist views in a rather simplistic manner.Conservatives will ultimately be the ones to decide what constitutes policy in regards to this question.And perhaps they have a better understanding of the issue,being as they are more politically active and astute than the average Canadian.It's up to them to decide how to answer this question in a way that allows them to be as politically relevant to voters at large as they can be.The goal,after all is to get elected,whether led by Kellie Leitch or someone else.
But how will Conservatives define "Anti-Canadian values" in today's world? Most likely by looking to the south.Most likely by identifying populations who are predominately Muslim,as has been the fashion since 9/11.,as those most likely to offend our sense of values.
What exactly are Canadian values.Democracy?Liberalism? Multi-culturalism? Those would be some of the ones that most readily come to my mind,but there are others as well.The problem is that Canada is a very large country,and even those expressed values don't take the same form in every region,relative to every other region.That is no more true than in the realm of politics.For instance,the Province Of Alberta is culturally,and politically until just recently,very conservative.The Province Of Ontario is not.So,I tend to get a bit uncomfortable about the idea of conservatives defining "Canadian values" And I'm certain that conservatives feel likewise about liberals.Moreover,the bulk of the population of Canada resides in Ontario and Quebec and,consequently so does the voting power.There could thus be a regional bias in determining normal values.And,it should be noted,the regions farthest from those two provinces tend to be the regions most diverse in the values they hold.That is to mention nothing of the fact that we have over thirty million people living here,none of whom are going to see Canadian values in exactly the same way,even assuming a general sort of agreement on those values in a macro sense.
We really have no means to define Canadian values.Thus we have no truly definitive way of identifying "Anti-Canadian" values and applying them to immigrants.Is the ideal immigrant Christian? Surely not,at least in terms of necessity.Does the ideal immigrant hold secular views,to the exclusion of religious beliefs of any sort? Does modesty sufficiently offend Canadian values as to disqualify a would be immigrant? That question seems downright silly to me,but one only has to look at what's been going on in France of late.Should immigrants be liberal or conservative? I'm sure Kellie Leitch has her own way of answering that question,in a very broad sense,but should that answer ever impose a restriction on public policy to the point of denying some persons immigration status,while denying others the same? And of course that coin has two sides.How often have we heard that Liberal policy in this regard being criticized as vote stacking?
As far as immigrants are concerned we should be concerned that they are willing to be fully participating members of Canadian society,given that our society functions with a lot of division between us at times.That is not only implied by the term "Democracy",but it is also implied as being alright and even necessary to a well functioning democracy. Further,we should be concerned that would be immigrants will follow Rule Of Law in the Canadian sense.This may have to be explained to new Canadians,but I see no need to define certain values on immigrants apart from already existing laws.
In proposing this question,Kellie Leitch doesn't seem to be proposing particular values.But we can speculate that she is asking for permission to follow the lead of conservatives in other places regarding policy.And it should be pointed out,this pandering is taking place with very little risk to any given candidate.After all,there will be plenty of time for conservatives here to watch what has at times been a dog and pony show with respect to immigration going on south of our border,and to improve on that process.
I would much rather Kellie Leitch involve herself in a meaningful debate as to what exactly Canadian values are,or should be,than proposing restrictions on immigration based on conformity to ideals that we can presently only guess at,and will likely change in relation to their perceived value in terms of forming the next government.
blyndpapaya
Thursday, 1 September 2016
Are you ready for some football?
Speaking of fall,are you ready for some football?I sure am. Cornhuskers on Saturday.Packers on Sunday.
But there is an ongoing outrage in the NFL,and it's time it was resolved once and for all.It involves the team in Washington D.C.that I refuse to call by the name that owner Dan Snyder insists on using despite pressure to mend his ways.It's time the NFL either brings Snyder into line,or relives him of his franchise and manages it on his behalf. Neither tradition nor just plain stubbornness on the owner's,or fan's part is sufficient reason to continue with this racist name.
Washington is perhaps not the only team that should change it's team name.There are teams out there called The Black Hawks,The Seminoles,The Ragin' Cajuns,The Mohawks,The Utes,The Aztecs,The Fighting Irish and The Chippawas,among others.A few years back I was living in Calgary, Alberta.Western High School changed their long standing name,The Redmen,in favor of doing the right thing.I commended them then and I continue to hold them up as an example today.It's a shame one of the more storied franchises has to be beaten to the punch by a high school team in Western Canada,but,when you have a neanderthal for an owner...It's time to lay down the ego.
Most of the comments I've heard on this long running issue tend to focus on team names like The Braves,The Chiefs,or,of course The...oops,I said I wouldn't honor that name with a mention,so I won't.I have never heard much complaint about the Seminoles,for instance.That may be that I'm not a local of Florida and am not really up on the issue,or it may be that there is nothing as offensive about using that name as opposed to the one used in Washington,which is clearly a racial slur,and,as a word,has never existed to any other purpose.So,I wonder,would it be acceptable if Washington were to name their team after a particular tribe of the region,who could be portrayed in an honorable and historically significant way? That does seem slightly exploitative to my thinking,but perhaps it would be acceptable if some means of improving the lot of that particular tribe could be tied to team revenues.
All of that aside,however,the R word needs to go.In fact,notwithstanding the great wrong done to Americans of African decent,it's a worse word that the more famously offensive N word.Don't misquote me here,I'm not suggesting you should use the N word.Certainly were it up to me I would gladly cause it to cease to exist.I do note however,that the N word has,at different points in history,and in different contexts existed with a less offensive meaning than it currently does.For instance,some Africans have undertaken efforts to take ownership of,and re-define the use of that particular word. Nothing of a similar nature can be said of Mr.Snyder's R word-it is and always has been derogatory,a means of inciting fear and hatred,and has never in the history of it's usage been anything other that racist.Except,it is argued by some in the context of it's usage as the team name in Washington.But,if you could not,and should not name a team,The N-----S,you likewise cannot rightly continue to use any other purely racist name.
There really is no such thing as practicing racism,or indeed any other form of discrimination solely against one race.Discrimination can really only be an affront to all of humanity.It is just simply discrimination,always wrong,always requiring correction.In fact,it dehumanizes it's practitioners as well as those against whom it is being undertaken.
Every year I take a good look at every NFL team,as many true fans do.In the past I've looked at the team in Washington and thought they really should do better than they usually seem to.Having once been involved in coaching football,in a rather minor capacity,I often suspect a problem of organizational culture when a team continues to under perform year after year despite having decent talent.And I wonder if that is not what has been happening in Washington.The attitude starts at the top,or,at least accountability for the attitude should.It rolls downhill like you know full well what else does until everyone from the coaches,to the star players to the maintenance staff really don't want to be there,and consequently don't put in the effort anymore. Nobody usually says much when this is happening,but it can become the malignant reality just the same.
A few days ago,Colin Kaepernick decided to protest by sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem.I wonder if the ongoing atrocity in Washington figures in even some small way to the stand he took.And to be clear,I would not have pursued similar action to Kaepernick.However I continue to commend him for taking an unpopular stand.But it's time some others did likewise.So,if Dan Snyder is determined to be the next Marg Schotz,the NFL needs to step up and follow MLB's lead in that respect.Somebody stand up and right this wrong,because it continues to cheapen a game that many of us hold dear
blyndpapaya.
But there is an ongoing outrage in the NFL,and it's time it was resolved once and for all.It involves the team in Washington D.C.that I refuse to call by the name that owner Dan Snyder insists on using despite pressure to mend his ways.It's time the NFL either brings Snyder into line,or relives him of his franchise and manages it on his behalf. Neither tradition nor just plain stubbornness on the owner's,or fan's part is sufficient reason to continue with this racist name.
Washington is perhaps not the only team that should change it's team name.There are teams out there called The Black Hawks,The Seminoles,The Ragin' Cajuns,The Mohawks,The Utes,The Aztecs,The Fighting Irish and The Chippawas,among others.A few years back I was living in Calgary, Alberta.Western High School changed their long standing name,The Redmen,in favor of doing the right thing.I commended them then and I continue to hold them up as an example today.It's a shame one of the more storied franchises has to be beaten to the punch by a high school team in Western Canada,but,when you have a neanderthal for an owner...It's time to lay down the ego.
Most of the comments I've heard on this long running issue tend to focus on team names like The Braves,The Chiefs,or,of course The...oops,I said I wouldn't honor that name with a mention,so I won't.I have never heard much complaint about the Seminoles,for instance.That may be that I'm not a local of Florida and am not really up on the issue,or it may be that there is nothing as offensive about using that name as opposed to the one used in Washington,which is clearly a racial slur,and,as a word,has never existed to any other purpose.So,I wonder,would it be acceptable if Washington were to name their team after a particular tribe of the region,who could be portrayed in an honorable and historically significant way? That does seem slightly exploitative to my thinking,but perhaps it would be acceptable if some means of improving the lot of that particular tribe could be tied to team revenues.
All of that aside,however,the R word needs to go.In fact,notwithstanding the great wrong done to Americans of African decent,it's a worse word that the more famously offensive N word.Don't misquote me here,I'm not suggesting you should use the N word.Certainly were it up to me I would gladly cause it to cease to exist.I do note however,that the N word has,at different points in history,and in different contexts existed with a less offensive meaning than it currently does.For instance,some Africans have undertaken efforts to take ownership of,and re-define the use of that particular word. Nothing of a similar nature can be said of Mr.Snyder's R word-it is and always has been derogatory,a means of inciting fear and hatred,and has never in the history of it's usage been anything other that racist.Except,it is argued by some in the context of it's usage as the team name in Washington.But,if you could not,and should not name a team,The N-----S,you likewise cannot rightly continue to use any other purely racist name.
There really is no such thing as practicing racism,or indeed any other form of discrimination solely against one race.Discrimination can really only be an affront to all of humanity.It is just simply discrimination,always wrong,always requiring correction.In fact,it dehumanizes it's practitioners as well as those against whom it is being undertaken.
Every year I take a good look at every NFL team,as many true fans do.In the past I've looked at the team in Washington and thought they really should do better than they usually seem to.Having once been involved in coaching football,in a rather minor capacity,I often suspect a problem of organizational culture when a team continues to under perform year after year despite having decent talent.And I wonder if that is not what has been happening in Washington.The attitude starts at the top,or,at least accountability for the attitude should.It rolls downhill like you know full well what else does until everyone from the coaches,to the star players to the maintenance staff really don't want to be there,and consequently don't put in the effort anymore. Nobody usually says much when this is happening,but it can become the malignant reality just the same.
A few days ago,Colin Kaepernick decided to protest by sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem.I wonder if the ongoing atrocity in Washington figures in even some small way to the stand he took.And to be clear,I would not have pursued similar action to Kaepernick.However I continue to commend him for taking an unpopular stand.But it's time some others did likewise.So,if Dan Snyder is determined to be the next Marg Schotz,the NFL needs to step up and follow MLB's lead in that respect.Somebody stand up and right this wrong,because it continues to cheapen a game that many of us hold dear
blyndpapaya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)