Friends don’t let friends use Platitudes

I like Wikipedia’s definition of a platitude: “A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, generally directed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease. The word derives from plat, French word for “flat.” Platitudes are geared towards presenting a shallow, unifying wisdom over a difficult topic. However, they are too overused and general to be anything more than undirected statements with ultimately little meaningful contribution towards a solution.”

That pretty much sums it up. They’re really shorthand for telling a person, “I don’t have the time or sensitivity to consider your problem, or to make sense of a situation, so here’s something useless I heard that will make me feel better.” Or, “I’m not very bright but check out what I memorized.” There are any number of platitudes that drive me up the wall, but I thought I’d make a list of my top ten, in no particular order.

1.) “If you don’t like me, that’s your problem, not mine.” Wrong. It’s not my problem. The fact that you think you are universally likable, and that anyone who doesn’t recognize this is obviously daft, is a problem. Universally likable: found treasure, unicorns, functioning organs. Not universally likable: everything else.

2.) “If God brought you to it, He’ll bring you through it.” You self-righteous prick. Would you say this to a rape victim, or to someone who just stuck a needle in their arm? No? Because maybe deep down you know that suggesting God is a sadistic chess player is nonsense? Then cut it out.

3.) “Time heals all wounds.” Sigh. Time passes- it’s not actively involved in anything. Moron.

4.) “It was meant to be.” Well, I suppose if that holds true- everything is technically “meant to be”. Like you gaining 50 pounds, or your partner banging your best friend. It’s no one’s fault really- it was meant to be.

5.) Any statement that involves the word “karma”. Do you not know any successful psychopaths? No one who has gotten away with really bad shit? Or entirely good people who had terrible things happen to them? Trite.

6.) “God doesn’t give you any more than you can handle.” What kind of sociopath do you worship?

7.) “Anything that doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” Unless you lost a leg, or a child, or have PTSD. In which case- sorry.

8.) “Everything happens for a reason.” Oi vey. Usually said to someone who has suffered some tremendous loss or tragedy. Probably not topping anyone’s “list of comforting things I’d like to hear from a friend.” Like it was meant to be, difficult to disprove, but entirely useless at best and extremely hurtful at worst.

9.) “Living well is the best revenge.” No- stabbing a person in the head is the best revenge. Or sleeping with their wife. Or setting their car on fire. Or pissing in their kombucha. Living well is great– but it’s not revenge.

10.) “You should have an attitude of gratitude.” Wow. Did you just seriously tell your friend to shut the fuck up, with a smile? Well played! But don’t kid yourself- you just told your friend to shut the fuck up. Smug son-of-a-bitch.

What’s the take-away from this list? The next time you’re faced with an uncomfortable situation and really don’t know what to say, try, “that sucks” or “oh shit- that really sucks” or “can I buy you a piece of pie?” or even “man, wow- um, I really don’t know what to say” all of which imply that you listened but feel you really don’t have an adequate reply. And I guarantee- you will not sound any less wise than rattling off something you read on a t-shirt.

Three Dirty Little Words

There are three dirty little words that I hardly ever hear any more. Every now and then someone dares to utter the phrase, but it’s almost always scandalous. I still thrill at the sound of it (oh baby- say it again) but naturally it would be in bad taste to admit so I generally don’t say anything at all, as is often the case when I can foretell the bad reaction my words will garner. I’ve bitten my tongue so many times over my lifetime that it’s a good quarter inch shorter than when I started. All the same, I find the words escape my own lips with more frequency than should be admitted in polite company. The truth of the matter is that sometimes the only phrase that fits is, “I don’t know”.

For all of the time I spend reading, researching, and listening to news and documentary programming, the fact is that I will never know everything there is to know at a given time. As such- brace yourself- I don’t have an opinion on everything either. I can’t form an opinion on something when I don’t feel that I have all of the information. Which is not to say that I can’t mistakenly believe that I do have all of the information and form an opinion on that basis- but I’m hesitant to state all too much in absolute terms because the fact is that I’m old enough to know that I’ve had very strong opinions earlier in life only to flip 180 degrees and hold an equally strong opinion on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I don’t feel that I’m living in a more educated world today, so it bothers me how conclusive people are in their opinions, which these days generally mean you are on one side of an issue or “the other”- regardless of how complex. Sometimes it’s not even that deep- it’s a matter of picking a side and then agreeing with everything that side presents. That’s often the case with politics, and arguably most topics fall into the political realm these days. You’re on the right or the left, for the environment or for resource exploitation, anti-guns altogether or for arming the world and all it’s little children, for this or against that- but absolutely, unequivocally unmovable. To admit any less would bring shame. Or would it?

Might it engender reasonable conversation if we admitted to not knowing everything? If instead of balking when someone suggested a modification to a long-held belief, or a consideration of broader facts, we actually engaged with each other- wouldn’t we be able to make more informed decisions? If we admitted to not knowing, might we do some further research? Could we break down some of those “us” and “them” barriers if we simply opened our minds to the possibility that we’re not experts on all things at any point in time?

Admittedly, we all have sacred cows. There are certain things that we believe so strongly (if only when we are saying them) that any rebuke feels like a personal attack. We may feel that we’ve given a subject sufficient consideration and come down on the side of “right” so fiercely that an opposing viewpoint can sound like fighting words. Or rather than a call to war, we may simply dismiss our opponent as ignorant- typical of those people (conservatives, liberals, tree huggers, religious nut jobs, fill-in-the-blank). Either way, there is an immediate reaction to shut down the argument. In fact, there is no argument- so and so obviously doesn’t like you, or is an idiot. Times like these you can almost hear the vacuum sealing the mind shut to further discourse.

But how is that progressive, or helpful for that matter? If an argument is solid, it will hold up to scrutiny. And if there are holes to fill, conversation is one way to fill those gaps, or further research is required- and if that doesn’t work perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue altogether. If we are all standing on one side or the other of an issue like some giant Red Rover game the point becomes much more about holding on as tightly as possible than it is about progress or serious contemplation. Brute strength (or in this case obstinance) is the name of the game- so it’s no wonder that yelling matches have taken the place of debate in today’s political realm.

I think we’d all gain a lot from bringing back those three little words and admitting “I don’t know” when it fits. And instead of belittling politicians for the occasional slip up (gasp! he forgot to stick to his talking points!), demanding that more of them engage honestly- which would involve a lot more acknowledgment that they don’t have all the answers. Similarly with each other, and maybe most importantly- expecting it from ourselves. The fact is- you don’t know all there is to know, nor do I, and neither does he, or she.

 

Did Oilsands Proponents Make Neil Young’s Case Better Than He Did?

My initial reaction to the announcement that Neil Young would be performing a special Canadian tour to raise funds for the legal defense fund for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was, “right on!” I posted links to the tour dates everywhere that I could. My second reaction to the tour, having heard Neil Young in an interview with Jian Gomeshi was, “oh shit”. Admittedly Neil Young is before my time and I’ve never paid a great deal of attention to him and didn’t know what to expect, but from a public relations standpoint I thought the interview was a huge fail. If the issue was Treaty rights (a very critical, oft underrepresented issue in Canadian media) and the legal defense required to protect those rights it did not feature largely enough in the interview.

 

I often question things in terms of marketing and public relations, no matter my relation to the actual issue. It helps me to understand what is happening, or where something is bound to go, on a deeper level if I can determine how a subject is being framed. And while I may disagree vehemently with a person or body, I am generally impressed by the skill that goes into a good propaganda campaign, or ‘spin’.

 

Take “the oilsands”: the “oilsands” is an industry-generated term used to describe what used to be commonly known as the tarsands by everyone, including industry. At some point, some savvy person(s) must have determined that “tar” has a dirty sound to it, negative connotations all around, but “oil”- well oil sounds like jobs, like energy, like revenues, like an investment. The fact is that neither term is accurate, though tarsands better reflects the look and feel of the stuff. The most accurate term would be bitumen sands. But accuracy doesn’t matter in public relations: oilsands has become the accepted term in most circles, and if you slip up and use the old term (think back to Thomas Mulcair) it must be because you’re anti-energy, anti-revenue, anti-industry, anti-the-free-world. Granted many environmentalists prefer tarsands and use it purposely, but let’s be real- they are bitumen sands. Never mind though- I do appreciate the quality of this particular campaign, as industry has managed to shape language, and that my friends is impressive.

 

But back to Neil… I understand his concern about the bitumen sands development. (For those of you Conservative defenders who refuse to even entertain that side of the argument, do you remember Peter Lougheed? Even he was concerned by the rate of development. It’s not un-Conservative to be pragmatic.) But I felt the interview focused entirely too much on that part of the argument, and on Neil’s own musical and activist history, and entirely too little on Treaty rights and the fact that the First Nations peoples of Canada are having to mount legal defenses that they can hardly afford because our Canadian government is favouring corporate interests over human rights. Treaty rights are a critical issue in Canada. The world has recognized it (it frequently comes up at the UN) but we here at home do not.

 

Neil Young had an excellent opportunity and platform to really drill this point home (excuse the pun) and he missed it, in my opinion. Had he had a handler, she’d have been shaking her head in the hallway. (“Stick to the issue, Neil, don’t make it about you.”) Of course anyone concerned about the environment can understand and relate to the very deep frustration that people just aren’t getting it, and the desire to try one more time to engage the public, and the very real fact that bitumen sands development is directly related to this particular legal challenge facing the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. But the opportunity to really draw attention to the abuse of Treaty rights in Canada was undermined by the hot rhetoric about environmental degradation and in particular the bitumen sands.

 

Afterwards I said to my husband, “I wouldn’t want Neil Young representing me on any issue.” I expected Neil to generate a decent amount of cash for the ACFN, and appreciated that, but I felt the issue of Treaty rights would largely be ignored and forgotten (again) in short order. And then the proponents of the oil and gas industry came out in droves… And so did a great many of the Albertans whose livelihoods depend on that industry, or at least believe that they do (see above and how easily we came to accept the term “oilsands”). Facebook was loaded with anti-Neil and pro-“oilsands” rhetoric, and the arguments were sophomoric at best.

 

“Look at those tour buses” (equivalent to “you do it too- nani nani poo poo”), “records/CDs are petroleum products” (see previous argument), “has-been rocker” (“pooh-head!”), “un-Canadian” (a charge borrowed from American politics, to quash protest by suggesting a person has no right to speak, or is unpatriotic if they take a certain stance on an issue), “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” (in lieu of an actual argument). And on and on it went. I see it’s still going strong this morning with new posts, many linking to the same article about how Neil Young’s entourage buses were left running outside a Calgary news conference.

 

I truly (truly, deeply, sincerely) feel that we would benefit as a society by offering Critical Thinking at the elementary and secondary school level, rather than offering it as an elective in university- but that’s best left for another discussion. What amazed me is that the oil and gas industry and its proponents, or ‘dependents’, is that they generated far more attention for Neil Young, the benefit concerts, and the issues of bitumen sands development and First Nations treaty rights than Neil Young could ever have done on his own, regardless of his rock legend status. It’s been in the news every day, and all over social media, and being talked about amongst friends- it’s everywhere.

 

I still feel that the issue of Treaty rights deserved a lot more attention than it got. But the tour generated much more discussion than I expected, and it delivered on the goods- exceeding fund raising goals. Where Neil Young may have failed to stay on topic, and is not the eloquent speaker one might hope for in a spokesperson, his adversaries spoke volumes for him and kept the conversation going and in the news longer than Neil and all of his supporters could ever have managed on their own. Hopefully, some people will even look further into the issues both of bitumen sands development and Treaty rights.

 

And maybe, just maybe, this bit of an unintended social experiment will lead people to consider their own reactions to criticism of bitumen sands development, and how this relates to Treaty rights. Chances are, if you were among the anti-Neil crowd, you also live in a neighbourhood in which you expect access to clean water, clean air (at least insofar as you don’t have to wear a mask to go outdoors), uncontaminated soil in which to grow your flowers and vegetables and for your children to play in, maybe you even expect to have some say as to what will be built in your area. Perhaps you don’t like the idea of recent parolees living in a halfway house down the street from where you’re raising your family, or you don’t want a homeless shelter one neighbourhood over because “crime may go up”. You’ll probably have a say in that. Alberta has already restricted pesticide use that might harm your health- and that’s a good thing.

 

But if you were Native and living on traditional Native land, you wouldn’t have the same luxury of deciding what is acceptable or not. Not if it interfered with corporate interests. And that’s worth looking at, isn’t it? Because I don’t think that any of us (read: non-Native peoples) would consider that fair. As a matter of fact, it’s not even legal. But it’s happening. And you’re a part of it. Every time that you defend your “way of life” as having more importance, more weight, than our Native brothers and sisters you contribute to the social license this government feels it has to trample on the rights of Native peoples to equality. (And “ignoring” the Treaty rights aspect of the discussion does not make a person less guilty.)

 

Any time that an issue causes us to become immediately defensive, it’s worth examining. I get worrying that your lifestyle may be impacted. I get it. It makes sense. But by the same token, I don’t think that I have the right to demand someone else sacrifice their health, or ability to provide for their family, or their personal safety in order to preserve my lifestyle. That would imply that I somehow feel of greater importance, or deserving of “extra” rights. If my lifestyle impacts yours, or yours impacts mine, I think we need to have a very real discussion. And that’s what First Nations peoples across this country are asking for- a discussion, a say in their future. I believe they’re entitled to that. How can we ever move towards reconciliation if we refuse to reconcile our ways? There will come a time when the First Nations peoples of Canada do not have to mount a legal defense in order to engage in a meaningful discussion. How long do we intend to prolong that day, and to what end?

Canada Provides Arms to Repressive Regime

(AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)

Were you aware that our (Canadian) Foreign Minister John Baird visited Bahrain not once but twice this year? And that we are selling arms and ammunition to Bahrain? I don’t exactly have my head in the sand. I listen to a lot of newscasts, but this came as a surprise to me when (oh-so-briefly) mentioned on CBC’s Power and Politics at the end of 2013. I did a bit of follow-up research and the story has been reported on but apparently it’s just not headline material.

While 2013 figures are not publicly available, we went from zero sales in 2011 (good) to $250,000 in 2012 (entering WTF territory). While Baird is very fond of trotting out the, “we won’t go along to get along” line when it suits his needs it is apparently completely untrue when economic and/or political ties are at issue. Not only notably silent on this issue on his April visit, but most recently at the Manama dialogue in December when he did remember to criticize Iran for its human rights record, but was entirely silent about Bahrain’s repressive regime.

The Canadian government’s own site states: While Canada’s commercial relationship with Bahrain is modest, there are opportunities for growth. Canada concluded negotiations on Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPA) with Bahrain in January 2010. Bahrain is also part of the Gulf Cooperation Council area, which is considered a priority market for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (Note: the site has not been updated to include more recent activity, including arms sales.) Under it’s travel advisories, it does note that while there is no travel advisory in place for Bahrain “exercise a high degree of caution”… “due to protests, demonstrations and the threat of terrorist attacks”. So they’re aware that ‘something’ is going on.

In an interview on December 16, 2013, questioned about the Canadian military exports to Bahrain given its human rights record Baird answered, in part, “I’m not sure there’s a lot of Canadians that are concerned about it.” Really now? For readers who are not entirely familiar with Bahrain’s human rights record:

On September 19, 2013 Ms. Pilay, UN High Commissioner, noted that, “the deep polarization of society and the harsh clampdown on human rights defenders and peaceful protesters remain a serious concern. She reiterated her calls on authorities to fully comply with its international human rights commitments, including respect for the rights to freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association”. She “also urged greater cooperation with the Government, which cancelled a scheduled visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, stalled on an OHCHR follow-up mission to the country, and has yet to implement recommendations made by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry.”

On the same day that Baird casually dismissed concerns, and claimed Canadians don’t really care, Amnesty International accused the Bahraini regime of “systematically torturing children: Scores of children arrested on suspicion of participating in anti-government protests – including some as young as 13 – were blindfolded, beaten and tortured in detention over the past two years the organization said. Others were threatened with rape in order to extract forced confessions.”

“At a side event of the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva,” in September 2013, “speakers from Turkey, Bahrain, and Pakistan were among those describing attacks on health care workers for treating politically unpopular groups, or for witnessing human rights violations. Other recent attacks have targeted vaccination teams and ambulances. The attacks often receive little attention and no one is held accountable.”

“It is really strange timing that Canada would be increasing a sale of arms or military equipment, let’s say, at this moment when Bahrain has been involved in violently repressing its own peaceful democracy demonstrators,” said Roland Paris, director of the Centre of International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa. Also interesting- on the issue of timing- is that on the final day of the Manama dialogue, the Crown Prince met with his cabinet not to loosen restrictions or address human rights violations but to “tighten penalties on those who offend His Majesty the King.”

Walter Dorn, the chair of international affairs studies at the Canadian Forces College, puts forth, “”It would be shocking if Canada supplied arms to suppress a democratic movement. The Industry Canada data table doesn’t list the types of weapons that are sold. It doesn’t give any details so we are left to wonder what the weapons are,” and, “whether weapons from Canada may have found their way into the hands of rights abusers, be they despotic governments, rebels or criminals.” Both Dorn and Angela Kane, the UN’s high representative for disarmament affairs, urge the Canadian government to stop delaying and sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Contrary to Baird’s spurious claims that it might affect Canadian gun owners at home (the United States signed on for goodness sake) what it might very well affect is the sales of arms to repressive regimes.

Please (please) join me in writing to Foreign Minister Baird and your MP to tell them that you do care, contrary to Baird’s claims, about the sale of Canadian arms to Bahrain. Cc the official opposition, the Liberals, and Elizabeth May so that all of our representatives are clear on where you stand. We all have busy lives, arguably too busy to address every dirty thing that our government makes the time to do, but if it were you, if it were your children surely you’d have the time to plead with a foreign government not to supply the Bahraini government with more means of repression and killing. 

John Baird
2249 Carling Ave Suite 418
Ottawa, Ontario
K2B 7E9
bairdj@parl.gc.ca

List of Canadian MPs:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx

John Pilger: “We Have Been Misled”

John Pilger, on the state of media, culture and censorship.

 

Say What?

I’m taking a course on Cyber Security and Human Rights, which has so far necessitated a great deal of research on human rights (naturally) as defined by the UN Charter, the signatories, violations, the International Criminal Court, the Security Council, as well as a host of issues around privacy and other rights as they pertain to cyber space. Here are some (fairly well known) facts that I thought that were worth passing along anyway, for those who don’t already know:

The UN has six principle organs: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice (ICC), and a Secretariat.

Of these organs, only the Security Council has the authority to make decisions that member states are obligated to implement (under the Charter). The five permanent members of the Security Council are the United States, China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and France. (There are an additional ten non-permanent seats that rotate, by election, on two year terms.)

The International Criminal Court deals with only the most heinous crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression (i.e. invasion, occupation, etc) as defined by the Rome Statute. The ICC has a very limited scope but there is (as would be expected) widespread agreement that these are crimes are of great international concern- 122 state parties are signatories.

The mandate of the Security Council is to “maintain peace and security“. And yet three of the five permanent members- the United States, Russia, and China– are not signatories to the Rome Statute, and so are not subject to prosecution by the ICC for the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression.

That’s all. I don’t have anything to say about it. The joke kind of tells itself, doesn’t it?

Security Council Meeting -UN photo # 564526

You Are Not Alone

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Have you ever witnessed a school fight? The kind where the school bully or tough guy picks a kid they figure they have a good chance of beating and a crowd of kids gather round yelling, “fight, fight, fight!” and then watch one guy (or girl) pummel the other. The kind where afterwards, loser still on the ground, the crowd starts to break up, some of them following the winner, laughing and slapping each other on the back, and a few maybe step forward when the coast is clear to hand the loser their knapsack and help her/him to his feet.

The beating is pretty serious stuff, and I don’t deny the physical aspect of it, but I’ve always felt that even worse than that are all of the onlookers who either cheer it on or stand back for fear of taking a beating themselves, or fear of being ostracized for being on the losing side. That feeling of being surrounded by people and yet completely alone, abandoned… I’ve never been able to shake the feeling that has to be worse than the physical assault. I got involved in a lot of fights, on and off the playground, because I couldn’t fathom the thought that someone would feel that utterly alone if there was anything that I could do about it. I won’t deny there were a couple that I steered clear of, but the feelings afterward- of having contributed to that person’s feeling of complete abandonment- were enough to ensure it didn’t happen more than those couple of times. Getting punched in the skull was much easier to recover from.

I have been like that for as long as I remember. I have lived by the motto that you will not be alone so long as I am here long before I understood what a motto was. My feelings on that have never changed. I don’t care whether we have anything in common, whether we know each other, whether I even necessarily ever want to see a person again- if a person is being made to feel alone, I will step up and stand beside them.

As I grew up the need to get into a physical altercation to defend a person lessened, but the pack mentality that I witnessed as a child remains unchanged as far as I can tell. That need to be on the winning (or ‘popular’) side seems to stay with a lot of us, as does the need for acceptance seem to outweigh the importance of empathy, or even the ability to empathize I suppose, though I’ve noticed the whole ‘empathy movement’ enjoys some popularity amongst many who choose simply to theorize about it, or post ‘empathy memes’.

This may seem unrelated at first, but over the years I have tried to avoid some of the behaviours that I abhor. Notice that nothing about this statement indicates complete success. As you might imagine, I retained some of my childhood scrappiness and carried that forward in some unfortunate ways for a while- meeting bad behaviour with worse behaviour. But as I matured I learned a few things. I don’t need to engage every time someone attempts to engage me. I can choose what is important. I can meet intolerance with tolerance. I am more persuasive if I don’t say exactly what I’m thinking, and instead couch it in more comfortable language. And if I start a sentence with, “asshole”, that asshole is probably going to tune out everything else that I say.

I don’t deny the value in the lessons I’ve learned over the years but recently I’ve come to believe that I’ve taken some of it too far. In an attempt to practice tolerance, acceptance, and patience, I’ve compromised on one of the values that remains critically important to me. That you will not be alone so long as I am here. I have not engaged with certain issues because I felt there was no way to do so “politely” or “without hurting a person’s feelings” or offending their values. I have stood by the “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” defense even when the remarks or actions are indefensible. And my spirit has suffered as a result of that.

I have never grown out of, or been able to shake (though I’ve tried at times) that instant connection that I have with the bullied, or the oppressed, or those otherwise on the “outside”. I have my reasons, however childish, for hiding my tears and crying alone about the suffering that I not only see but somehow manage to take into myself but the fact is- it still hurts me deeply enough to reduce me to tears. And I think, however good the intentions, this attempt at ‘growth’ through being polite, or kind, or political has actually put me in the uncomfortable position of being complicit. I’m not saying that I don’t see the value in not walking around spouting every obnoxious thing that comes to mind, or fighting every battle without evaluation- but I think one can take “being above” a situation too far.

There are any number of MLK Jr. quotes that would easily fit here but, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter,” comes to mind. Too many times I have been silent when words mattered. Too many times I have tried to politely reason with adult versions of those same bullies who wanted nothing more than to crush their targets. Too many times I have thought that a movement, or speech, or person was so obviously obtuse that I needn’t say or do anything, assuming that it/they would never gain ground, only to watch their popularity rise and rise and gain ground. And too many times there must have been people who felt that no one cared, because I- and others- said nothing.

The outpouring of support for notorious bigot Phil Roberston, of Duck Dynasty, might have been something I let pass without much more than a comment- but for the fact that I personally know people who came out in support of him. And for the fact that we share many of the same friends, some of whom are gay, or are persons of color. And I will try to find a positive here- thank you, for your appalling lack of sensitivity to entire communities of people, to your own friends (and possibly family), because it helped finalize the decision for me that I will not be silent again.

You didn’t stop to think how it feels, to be ostracized for who you are, to be diminished, to be hated. You didn’t consider how it must feel to belong to the LGBT community where youth suicide rates are at 28%, compared to 4% of heterosexual youth in Canada. You probably didn’t think how it must feel to have family members who have been jailed, beaten, or killed for the color of their skin. You didn’t think of a lot of things but perhaps most hurtful of all- you didn’t think what it must feel like to have your own friends come out in support of a celebrity who hates you and everyone like you. Because it isn’t difficult enough to live in a society that tells you that you are not of equal value.

I did think about all of those things. I thought about all of those things and was overwhelmed by the sheer ignorance of it all. And from behind the veneer of the careful adult I’ve become emerged the girl who never let fear stop her from jumping into a fight. So to those who would try to warn me that I might offend, and to those who thought they might have an impact playing the victim now- I’m already in. I am not afraid, and if you thought this was going to be easy- think again. And to my brothers and sisters here and around the world- I am by your side and will fight until there is no more fighting to do. You are not alone.

A Place of Privilege

I either have the good fortune of always imaging the world just a little bit better than it really is, or the bad luck of a very short memory. I can’t quite determine what it is that is wrong with me, that I am continually shocked by the deep-seated bigotry and self-interest that is so prevalent in society. But I am- I am well and truly shocked every time a new event arises in which people rise up, waving their flags of self-righteous narrow-minded ignorance. And though I’m used to Christmas being a difficult time of the year for me, as it seems to bring out the worst in many radical Christians, I was surprised that this holiday season it came on the heels of a “Duck Dynasty” controversy.

Now I could easily begin this series of articles by criticizing Phil Robertson, the Religious Right, and the ignorance of those “Christians” who blindly supported Papa Duck, probably without having bothered to read the original article because who needs facts to jump up on a soapbox after all? But I would rather speak to those I believe have access to a modicum of reason to begin with. I will get to the bigots later on.

What struck me about the whole Duck controversy was how quickly people on both sides embraced the issue as one of Free Speech. Well, okay, it did not surprise me at all that the Christian Right howled “Free Speech” and “protected under the constitution” because that is what they always yell when they fear their right to spread hatred and ignorance might be curtailed (which it never has been). But it took me aback how many secular, educated, liberal-minded people jumped on this bandwagon. Lest we forget, the reason Mr. Dynasty was in trouble in the first place was due to comments he made in GQ- a publication with a wide readership.

He was not censored in any way. He has not been prosecuted, thrown in jail, shot, or shut out of public conversation- as the First Amendment was no doubt conceived to ensure. But no reading of the First Amendment suggests that, “thou shall not lose thy lucrative contract with A&E”. Seriously folks? Who among us works for such an entity that we can say anything and fear no repercussion? If I call a client a dickhead, even if they are a dickhead, the King of Dickheads in fact- chances are that I will lose my job. Or if you tell your boss, who so happens to be a lesbian, that you think carpet munchers are all going to hell- you can be pretty sure you won’t have a job come morning. Or, if I tell my Christian boss that I happen to believe as much in unicorns as I do in his “God”, life will become increasingly difficult for me in a hurry. Knowing that is kind of common sense. Right?

Quite apart from the fact that I was dumbfounded that this was lost on so many people, I was disappointed in the lack of empathy and recognition of the real issues with Papa Duck’s interview. It speaks to the fact that so many of us come from a place of privilege that we can rush so quickly to the defense of “Free Speech” (even when it is a non-issue) instead of considering how that speech impacts our society as a whole, and more specifically- those persons singled out in Phil’s ridiculous diatribe. Sure, many of those who supported the “Free Speech” claim began with “although I find his comments distasteful” or “I don’t agree with him but”… In other words, “I’m not a dirty bigot but…” Fine. I support Free Speech too. But the persons I immediately thought of were the African American community, and the LGBT community. Not a rich, white bigot who lost an entertainment contract- he did not make my list of concerns.

Just for a moment- put yourself in the shoes of an African American hearing that Black people didn’t have it so bad during the Jim Crow days, “no one was singing the blues”. In fact, according to Papa Duck, they were downright happy. He “never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once.” “They’re singing and happy.” Well, by George! I never knew. And I bet a lot of them would be surprised to hear that too.

Phil’s recollection of the good ol’ days is revisionist at best, dangerous at worst. People of color in the United States continue to face hardships not shared by their Caucasian counterparts and are largely marginalized in a highly racialized society. They are still fighting for equal treatment, still discriminated against, still hated and/or looked down upon by virtue of their skin color, still more likely to be incarcerated, still less likely to be treated fairly by the educational system, by employers, by authorities… And even if that were not all true- and it is- it is deeply hurtful and offensive to refer to such a terribly sinister period of American history as “happy”. It does not help to have this sort of backwoods mythology propagated in a society that has not yet healed or fully changed.

Likewise the comments about homosexuals. How many among us thought about the discrepancy in suicide rates between the heterosexual and homosexual communities, before we rushed to Phil’s defense? How it must feel to be told from the time that you discover your sexuality that there is something inherently wrong with you, something that even “God” can’t forgive- unless you change? How it feels to be afraid, that you might one night be beaten to death by a marauding crowd of drunken buffoons- because of who you are? It remains a very dangerous thing, to be gay.

The gay community continues to fight for equal treatment, including the very basic privilege of being allowed to marry the person they love. They continue to face pressure from society to change who they are, or at least have the courtesy to pretend to be someone else. They are often ostracized from family and friends, and society at large. If that were your reality, how would you have felt about Phil’s statement? A bit more hurt perhaps? Outraged? Afraid? Ostracized? What would you feel? Fearful of the number of people who came out to support these statements? If you don’t think this emboldened a segment of the population that shares these views, take Glenn Beck’s job offer: “May I suggest: Make your stand. You will never have a better chance. And quite honestly, you’re our best shot as people.”

I have the luxury of being both White and heterosexual; I have not been persecuted or discriminated against for my skin color or sexuality. But when I hear statements like those of the Duck patriarch, and other similar-minded asshats, it does hurt. It hurts my spirit deeply that there is still such ignorance and bigotry in the world and that fellow human beings are being impacted by that hatred. That someone will hear that and, rather than simple outrage, feel badly about his or her self, feel less than, feel separate. That this might be the statement that allows hopelessness to sink in, after a lifetime of fighting it off. That other jackasses will hear this as a rallying cry. I am hurt and I am angry- at all of those people who would justify hatred in the name of religion.

And I am disappointed in the very limited attention spans and lack of true empathy and solidarity of all those who jumped on the “Free Speech” bandwagon before considering the bigger picture, or the fact that Free Speech never was the issue. I get it though- because for so many of us racism and judgment of our sexuality aren’t something that we have to worry about, and Free Speech is. The only reason that “some” of us were able to get lost in the argument of Free Speech so quickly is that we have become accustomed to our elevated thrones of privilege and are removed from the immediacy and urgency of the very real issue of hatred. Would that we were all so privileged.

The Religious Right and the Myth of Religious Tolerance

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone, means you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise to be compassionate.”(Phil Robertson) Er, but you do have to be compassionate to be compassionate, n’est-ce pas? But that didn’t get in the way of people posting this quote and others on their social media pages, all intended to show a different side, a more loving side, of Phil Robertson.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” The compassion is astounding really. Papa Duck is so compassionate, that he practically knows what it was like to be African American in the Jim Crow days. It was a happy time. Clearly. Let me ask you Papa Duck- how many of your people, “white trash” people, were beaten for their skin color, spit upon, lynched?

You may not have to agree to be compassionate, but you do require the ability to empathize with others, even wish to help them. Apart from Mr. Robertson’s misguided identification with what it was like to be Black back in tha day, how exactly does he propose that spouting this clearly revisionist history might help African Americans who continue to struggle against racism in the United States? Just for the hell of it, and to see if perhaps Christians define “compassion” differently, I looked it up on Bible Study Tools.

It purports, “That (human) disposition that fuels Acts of kindness and mercy. Compassion, a form of love, is aroused within us when we are confronted with those who suffer or are vulnerable. Compassion often produces action to alleviate the suffering, but sometimes geographical distances or lack of means prevent people from acting upon their compassionate feelings. Compassion is not a uniquely Christian response to suffering (cf. Exod 2:6 ; Luke 10:33 ), even though Christians have unique reasons for nurturing their compassionate dispositions.”

So let’s examine another of Phil’s statements, in response to the question, “What, in your mind, is sinful?” “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” I’m still not feeling it. Compassion isn’t usually that cringe-worthy. Is it?

Now, in fairness to the Christian Right who were so offended that people singled out homosexuality being compared to bestiality, let’s take another example. It’s like being a whore. Or a liar. Or a thief. It could be because I’m not Christian, but I’m still not seeing how ignoring the bestiality comment makes the statement as a whole more palatable. Is being a whore (finally) a good thing? Thank God. Praise Jesus! But wait just a goddarn minute…

The fact is that there is nothing compassionate or tolerant about Phil Robertson or the Christian Right. You can’t repeat words like a rallying call and have them become true. The Christian Right are among the least “tolerant” people that you will ever meet. But they have an amazing scapegoat- GOD. I envy them that. “It’s not me judging you, it’s God.” “I don’t want you to burn in hell, God does.” “I don’t think your existence is an abomination, the most loving and powerful Creator of all things does.” You know what? If you profess to adhere to a faith in which your God hates certain groups of people so much that He is willing to submit them to an eternity in hell, to burn forever more- guess what? You hate those people too. Come on now.

And in case the GQ interview wasn’t enough, “perhaps he misspoke, or was misinterpreted”, here’s another little gem from a speech Papa Duck gave a few years back in Pottstown, PA, “Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” On what planet does that sound like compassion and respect? He then moves seamlessly into doing duck calls, like a true crazy person. No seriously, you have to check this guy out- he is truly off his rocker.

I tolerate a lot of what I consider nonsense, but harmless. What I will not tolerate is bigotry or hatred, because that would make me complicit. And I will not practice ‘tolerance’ simply because a person tries to hide behind their religion. That makes you a bigot and a coward in my books. I studied Christianity as a child, not because I hit a bad stretch and needed saving mid-life, and I’ll tell you this much- the Jesus I studied never preached such hateful ways. In fact I’m pretty sure the things that Mr. Robertson and his ilk preach would be considered blasphemous.

But the Christian Right has never concerned itself with being overly educated about anything, least of all Christianity, as evidenced by Phil’s assertion that, “All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.” Hate to break it to you buddy, but Muslims do believe in Jesus. And three guesses who said this, “This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of religious belief.” Not sure? Here’s another one, “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for justice and truth.” If you guessed Hitler, bing-bing-bing- you got it! And don’t get me started on the history of Christian justification for war and murder- but then your reference to the Crusades (“ we let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”) implies you know something about that. Um, you did know that expression originated with the Crusades, to justify the indiscriminate killing that included many innocent- among them, Christians– right? What am I saying? As a man of God, I’m sure that you did.

Papa Duck may be entitled to his arrogant and hateful ideas. I will grant that. But I will not support ‘tolerance’ of his glaring intolerance. I only hope that those Christians who chose to support him in haste and lack of understanding, and perhaps fear that it was their religion under attack and not a bigoted radical movement, will have the good sense to stand against him and this force that threatens to undermine not only our society but their own beloved religion.

The Christian Right is Wrong

Firstly, I would like to make clear that while I am not Christian, I am not making a statement against Christianity, or Christians in general. How I choose to govern my life is based largely on values I learned through the Christian faith in early childhood. I would like to believe that I would have developed those values anyway, but who is to know for certain? The fact is that I cannot separate myself out from my experiences and Christianity played a role in my early development. I was attracted not only to the spectacle that one might expect from a child- the stained glass windows, the glorious architecture of the churches, the Latin segments of mass- but to the overlying themes of peace, love, charity, inclusion, oneness. I didn’t have any of the horrific experiences that you sometimes hear about from people who have left the church, and I carried forward no ill will, nothing but the sweetest memories of my early experience.

I do not recognize the Christian Right as anything remotely resembling Christianity. While some glom onto their more righteous claims of family values (and you’re intended to note this: their propaganda machine is constantly hard at work), what is more noticeable is their aggression, their lack of inclusion, their deep hatred of “the other”, their political ideologies and goals.

We, Western culture, have been quick to recognize and separate out religious radicals within Islam as dangerous and wrong-headed, as opposed to their more (so-called) “moderate” cousins. (I agree with the separation if not the use of the term “moderate”, which supposes a lighter reading of Muslim faith, which it is not. If anything, it is a more true reading of, and connection with, their religion.) But we have not reached the logical conclusion that the Christian Right is the same dangerous offshoot of Christianity. Perhaps because there is so little of Christianity left in the Christian Right, but I suspect because we do not recognize them as the radical, politically based movement that they are.

While Christ would have been radical in his time, it would have been for his tremendous love and inclusivity in a time of violence and division. He was love incarnate. The version of him as represented by the Christian Right- as Warrior, Avenger- is largely unrecognizable. Which should not come as a surprise to any literate person, who can quickly discern the political goals of the movement as more critical than the religion they hide behind. Which is un-Christian in and of itself, from my understanding, which sought to separate itself from politics, though we could discuss all day where threads of this became unraveled through the ages.

The new Christians are constantly under attack, by their version of events. Though you very rarely hear from them when they are not on the attack, they claim a defensive game. And sadly, in this time of ever dwindling intellectual capacity, a growing number of people believe them; including secularists who are quick to rush to their defense, having bought into the “poor, persecuted me” line. I count myself among these defenders, as I have been a quick defender of religious freedom, even though this has increasingly meant to be read as “Christian” domination. It is not religious freedom that the Christian Right seeks- it does not include freedom for “the other” by any stretch. For proof of this one need look no further than any of the numerous blogs or articles authored by the Christian Right and peruse the comments section, which in the same breath as “defending religious freedom” label those not in agreement as “fuckin’ Islamists”, “Diaper-head”, “Camel fucker”, “Ahabs”, “Jihadist”, and “Bin Laden”.

And it’s easy to dismiss people who use terms like “Ahabs”, or spout nonsense such as what falls from Sarah Palin’s mouth on a regular basis as buffoons. That’s where the Liberal minded and secularists- never mind the “moderate” Christians- among us have failed to recognize the clear and present danger represented by this radical movement. Though we couch it in nicer terms, what we are really saying is, “let the idiots spout their drivel- no one is listening.” But people are listening. And the fact that Sarah Palin was able to get onto a Vice Presidential ticket, and continues to have a remarkably large following, is proof of that. Fox network is proof of that. The Duck Dynasty following and massive public defense is proof of that. The number of zealots who currently hold office in both the Senate and Congress (and in Canadian Parliament to a lesser degree, so far) is proof of that.

This is a dangerous and powerful movement, gaining power all the time. And they will not be satisfied until their version of what is right is fulfilled. As Chris Hedges (a devout Christian) notes in his article, “The Christian Right and The Rise of American Fascism”: This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote “positive” Christian values, the federal government is gutted, war becomes our primary form of communication with the rest of the world and recalcitrant non-believers see their flesh eviscerated at the sound of the Messiah’s voice.  It is ironic that these radicals get loudest on issues of Free Speech and religious tolerance, or freedom of religion, because the movement itself abhors these principles for anyone but themselves. Tolerance and compassion are abided only for members of their own limited belief system.

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the Almighty Creator,” might have been uttered by Phil Robertson, or said loudly while thumping his chest and blowing on his duck call. But it happened to have been said by Hitler. And though Papa Duck wrongly remembers that it was a lack of Christian faith that led to the violence and destruction and hatred in Nazi Germany, his own faith largely mirrors the narrow-minded, hate-filled intolerance that actually did beget the atrocities under Hitler’s rule. In his 1967 article, “Education After Auschwitz”, Theodor Adorno feared, “This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without reflecting about it, is utterly wrong. The idea that virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns itself all too easily with sadism.” As Hedges reflects in his book, “Empire of Illusion”, Adorno “feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish masculinity”.  A culture that banishes the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraces a childish masculinity- isn’t that what we’re talking about here?

There must have been people who thought that Hitler and his ilk were quacks, however charismatic. There must have been some feeling that it would never get to the point that it did. Surely logic, surely humanity would prevail. No one today would hold Hitler up as a good Christian. Not with his message of hatred, of intolerance, of the superior versus the inferior, of cleansing the human race. Well, they might if he was blowing on a duck call and preaching family values. He did understand after all that, “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those it seeks to reach.” It would seem the Christian Right understands this quite well.