I was reading an article the other day that said that Americans only listened to news from “their” side – that is, right-wing people listen to right-wing newscasts and read right-wing papers. Left-wingers do the opposite.
I recognized myself in this immediately. Though not an American I am a (small-l) liberal, and I generally watch the CBC and read the Toronto Star. So today, when someone was handing out free copies of the radically right-wing National Post on the way to work, I accepted one.
At lunch, I read the Star first. I agreed with the way a lot of the stories were presented, as usual. The main story on the front page was entitled “’Moment of truth’ for unions”.
Then I picked up the Post. To be honest, I never made it past the front page.
The title of the lead story was “Would a caveman send a Facebook friend request?”
I have decided I will stick with my preferred news sources.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Indian Act
It has come up again – the rights of the Canadian Indians, and the responsibilities the rest of us have toward them. And every time it does, I get irritated. So this time I am going to try to put my feelings in words.
A long time ago, a bunch of foreigners came to this land from Europe and signed treaties with the people who were born here – the “natives” – to allow them use of the land in return for certain payments.
Whether those treaties were fair or not doesn’t really concern me here. What happened in the past is done and can’t be changed.
So today, Indians do not pay taxes. When their houses fall down or their plumbing leaks they call on the government (my taxes) to pay for it. They get payments from oil and minerals found on the land, and can trade across the U.S. - Canada border without customs charges. They can run casinos, and do a number of things forbidden to other Canadians.
All of this, they say, because they are native to this land.
And that is where I feel the irritation start to boil up. Yes, no question, they are native to this land. But so am I. I have white skin, but I was born in Canada, and it is as much my country as it is that of any Indian. All people born in this country should have the same rights – and the same responsibilities – no matter their skin colour or the number of generations their ancestors lived here.
So get rid of the Indian Act, Prime Minister Harper. Throw it out. It is out-dated and racist. It is time to treat all Canadians as citizens of this country.
A long time ago, a bunch of foreigners came to this land from Europe and signed treaties with the people who were born here – the “natives” – to allow them use of the land in return for certain payments.
Whether those treaties were fair or not doesn’t really concern me here. What happened in the past is done and can’t be changed.
So today, Indians do not pay taxes. When their houses fall down or their plumbing leaks they call on the government (my taxes) to pay for it. They get payments from oil and minerals found on the land, and can trade across the U.S. - Canada border without customs charges. They can run casinos, and do a number of things forbidden to other Canadians.
All of this, they say, because they are native to this land.
And that is where I feel the irritation start to boil up. Yes, no question, they are native to this land. But so am I. I have white skin, but I was born in Canada, and it is as much my country as it is that of any Indian. All people born in this country should have the same rights – and the same responsibilities – no matter their skin colour or the number of generations their ancestors lived here.
So get rid of the Indian Act, Prime Minister Harper. Throw it out. It is out-dated and racist. It is time to treat all Canadians as citizens of this country.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11 - What If?
Like many others, I am having "what if" thoughts on September 11. 2011, the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing. But not "what if it hadn't happened?" The Americans had no control over that. No, I am thinking "What if they had had a president other than Bush, who wasn't a war-monger?"
This is what I imagine: the bombing has happened, the buildings have fallen. The country is in shock and the president takes to the airwaves. This is what he says:
"My fellow Americans, we have suffered a horrible tragedy today. A terrible crime. Please believe me that all of our police forces, including the FBI and the CIA, will work together on solving this, and will not rest until any surviving perpetrators are captured and brought to trial.
In the meantime, all of us, as citizens, also have a job to do. We have to let these criminals know that they have not succeeded in their ultimate goal of terrorizing our country. We need to return, as much as humanly possible, to life as normal. We will not fear these disgusting criminals, or let them dictate how we live our lives. Thank you."
Just imagine: no constant wars, with thousands more innocents killed. No "Homeland Security". No arrest without cause and holding people without trial. No torture. No spying on citizens without warrants. Paying passengers on planes would not be treated like criminals. "Customs and Border Security" would still be "Customs and Immigration". No culture of fear.
Would they have captured all of the "bad guys" by now? Possibly not. Last I heard, they hadn't done that this way, either, but they have made a lot more enemies and lost a lot of friends.
One attack could have been just that. Horrible, awful, but confined. If only George W. Bush had kept it that way.
This is what I imagine: the bombing has happened, the buildings have fallen. The country is in shock and the president takes to the airwaves. This is what he says:
"My fellow Americans, we have suffered a horrible tragedy today. A terrible crime. Please believe me that all of our police forces, including the FBI and the CIA, will work together on solving this, and will not rest until any surviving perpetrators are captured and brought to trial.
In the meantime, all of us, as citizens, also have a job to do. We have to let these criminals know that they have not succeeded in their ultimate goal of terrorizing our country. We need to return, as much as humanly possible, to life as normal. We will not fear these disgusting criminals, or let them dictate how we live our lives. Thank you."
Just imagine: no constant wars, with thousands more innocents killed. No "Homeland Security". No arrest without cause and holding people without trial. No torture. No spying on citizens without warrants. Paying passengers on planes would not be treated like criminals. "Customs and Border Security" would still be "Customs and Immigration". No culture of fear.
Would they have captured all of the "bad guys" by now? Possibly not. Last I heard, they hadn't done that this way, either, but they have made a lot more enemies and lost a lot of friends.
One attack could have been just that. Horrible, awful, but confined. If only George W. Bush had kept it that way.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
What Would Jack Do?
In the days since the untimely death of Jack Layton, watching thousands of people come out to honour the man and what he has done for our country, I keep thinking about the long-term effects of his death: will Canada get back on the right track, as we have been promising in the past few days, or will Stephen Harper, robbed of an effective oppostion, use this opportunity to take us even further away from where we used to be, and where most of us apparently want to be?
If we want to avoid the second option, this is the time to start. We need to decide what we want, and we need to work for it. So, in the spirit of the moment, I think it is a good time to consider WWJD – What Would Jack Do?
First, let us get Canada out of other people’s wars. Canada had a proud tradition for many years as a peace-keeping country. We need to return to it. Our soldiers are not defending Canada in Afghanistan and Libya – they are invading and occupying foreign countries. Bring them home. Now.
Second, and even more important in the long term, we need to do our part to keep this planet livable for Jack’s grand-daughter Beatrice, and all of the other children growing up. That means ending our dependence on oil and gas, and moving to energy sources that do not warm the planet. Even if that causes us some short-term discomfort (though that is actually not likely).
Next, we need to take care of the people we are keeping alive. That means reasonable salaries for everyone, improved health care services, and increased benefits for those who require them. A smaller difference between the richest and the poorest, and fewer in either category. Countries that fit these parameters show the healthiest and happiest populations.
So how do we do all this? We currently have a majority Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. He is not going to implement any of this on his own. All of it is anathema to him and his corporate supporters.
But, powerful as he is, Stephen Harper is only one man, one Minister. 61% of Canadians voted against him. And it is time for us to demand that he follow the will of the Canadian people. Write to him. Write to your Member of Parliament. Copy the press. Tell them what you want, and that you will not accept anything less. It his time for Harper to start running the country for the people, and for us – and Jack - to be proud of Canada again.
Contact Your Government:
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Libby Davies and Israel
I really do not understand the attacks on NDP MP Libby Davies. She stated that the Israeli occupation of Palestine began in 1948. This is clearly supported by history.
The slogan used by Zionists at the time to encourage European Jews to immigrate was "A land with no people is for a people with no land". Except that it was not a land with no people. Israel was built on an existing, populated, country. As early as 1918 David Ben-Gurion said "Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."1 We all know how well that worked out.
This is 2010. Israel now exists, and Davies was not calling for it to be eliminated. We need to deal with the situation as it stands today, and give the Palestinians as well as the Israelis peace, freedom, and enough to eat.
However, anyone who denies that Palestine was occupied in 1948 is ignoring reality. Israel was built on someone else's land, after throwing out the people who were already there. For some reason it is considered at best impolite, and at worst anti-Semitic, to mention this.
Libby Davies should not lose her job for stating a fact, no matter how much Stephen Harper dislikes it.
1 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html
The slogan used by Zionists at the time to encourage European Jews to immigrate was "A land with no people is for a people with no land". Except that it was not a land with no people. Israel was built on an existing, populated, country. As early as 1918 David Ben-Gurion said "Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."1 We all know how well that worked out.
This is 2010. Israel now exists, and Davies was not calling for it to be eliminated. We need to deal with the situation as it stands today, and give the Palestinians as well as the Israelis peace, freedom, and enough to eat.
However, anyone who denies that Palestine was occupied in 1948 is ignoring reality. Israel was built on someone else's land, after throwing out the people who were already there. For some reason it is considered at best impolite, and at worst anti-Semitic, to mention this.
Libby Davies should not lose her job for stating a fact, no matter how much Stephen Harper dislikes it.
1 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
America: Walk a mile in my shoes
Hillary Clinton has been in Canada for a few days. So far she has told us that we should include abortion in health care we provide for women in poor countries, we should keep our armed forces in Afghanistan past our official 2011 pull-out date, and we didn’t invite the right people to a conference on the Arctic.
I tend to agree with the first opinion, disagree with the second, and don’t have any strong feelings on the third. That isn’t the point. The point is that I happen to dislike a foreigner coming into my country and telling me, unasked, what to do.
If this was a one-time thing, or even rare, I would let it go, but what is it with Americans? They seem to have a national inability to understand how other people feel. I can only assume it is massive egotism that makes them incapable of walking in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel if a foreign politician came to their country and told them that they needed to improve their education system, or their health care, or to get out of Iraq?
And that is far from the worst of it. Americans complain about “having” to be the world’s policemen, without bothering to ask whether that is what the world wants.
What would their response be, I wonder, if a foreign country decided (either now or during the previous presidency, take your pick) that the United States needed a “regime change”, and went in with guns blazing to provide it, murdering their president and thousands of innocent civilians. Would they be greeted with open arms? You decide.
Americans seem to truly not understand (many of them, not all) that other people are, indeed, people, with the same hopes, dreams, and patriotic feelings that they have. People who get defensive when they and their country are attacked, verbally or otherwise.
So the next time, Mrs. Clinton, before you use your visit to my country to tell me what is wrong with it, ask yourself one question: “How would I feel if someone said this to me?”
I tend to agree with the first opinion, disagree with the second, and don’t have any strong feelings on the third. That isn’t the point. The point is that I happen to dislike a foreigner coming into my country and telling me, unasked, what to do.
If this was a one-time thing, or even rare, I would let it go, but what is it with Americans? They seem to have a national inability to understand how other people feel. I can only assume it is massive egotism that makes them incapable of walking in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel if a foreign politician came to their country and told them that they needed to improve their education system, or their health care, or to get out of Iraq?
And that is far from the worst of it. Americans complain about “having” to be the world’s policemen, without bothering to ask whether that is what the world wants.
What would their response be, I wonder, if a foreign country decided (either now or during the previous presidency, take your pick) that the United States needed a “regime change”, and went in with guns blazing to provide it, murdering their president and thousands of innocent civilians. Would they be greeted with open arms? You decide.
Americans seem to truly not understand (many of them, not all) that other people are, indeed, people, with the same hopes, dreams, and patriotic feelings that they have. People who get defensive when they and their country are attacked, verbally or otherwise.
So the next time, Mrs. Clinton, before you use your visit to my country to tell me what is wrong with it, ask yourself one question: “How would I feel if someone said this to me?”
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Why I won't be going to the U.S.
I have an invitation to visit friends in the United States this February. It sounds very tempting: trading in the cold and snow of Toronto for the sun and warmth of southern California. I have declined, however. The reason is U.S. “security”.
No, I do not fear a terrorist attack. According to this report I am 225,409 times more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport, and I am not afraid of that, either.
I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to be treated like a criminal.
I had accepted – reluctantly – taking miniature liquids in a plastic bag, taking my shoes off, walking through a metal detector and having my luggage screened and sometimes searched. The price of flying in the modern world, we tell ourselves.
Now, however, I could not bring my computer, because we are not allowed carry-on bags, and I certainly won’t trust it to the baggage handlers. And I would have to pray they don’t lose my luggage, because I would be left without so much as toothpaste and clean underwear.
If they decide I look suspicious, I get a choice: a virtual strip search or a very invasive pat-down.
Once I am on the plane, I cannot have a blanket if I am cold, and I cannot go to the bathroom if I have a full bladder or an upset stomach in the last hour of the flight.
I am not a terrorist, or a criminal being moved from one prison to another. I am a vacationer paying for this trip.
I have a choice, and I choose not to accept this treatment. If this is what is required to travel to the United States, they will have one less tourist. Maybe they won’t care. Or maybe, if they lose enough of us, they will return to treating travellers like human beings again.
No, I do not fear a terrorist attack. According to this report I am 225,409 times more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport, and I am not afraid of that, either.
I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to be treated like a criminal.
I had accepted – reluctantly – taking miniature liquids in a plastic bag, taking my shoes off, walking through a metal detector and having my luggage screened and sometimes searched. The price of flying in the modern world, we tell ourselves.
Now, however, I could not bring my computer, because we are not allowed carry-on bags, and I certainly won’t trust it to the baggage handlers. And I would have to pray they don’t lose my luggage, because I would be left without so much as toothpaste and clean underwear.
If they decide I look suspicious, I get a choice: a virtual strip search or a very invasive pat-down.
Once I am on the plane, I cannot have a blanket if I am cold, and I cannot go to the bathroom if I have a full bladder or an upset stomach in the last hour of the flight.
I am not a terrorist, or a criminal being moved from one prison to another. I am a vacationer paying for this trip.
I have a choice, and I choose not to accept this treatment. If this is what is required to travel to the United States, they will have one less tourist. Maybe they won’t care. Or maybe, if they lose enough of us, they will return to treating travellers like human beings again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
