BigCityLib noticed that one of the advertisers whose ads was linked with McVety’s during break time was Uncle Ben’s rice:

When I first emailed, I was told that it was difficult to predict where and when Uncle Ben’s ads would turn up on Sun TV, but if you compare the video below to the earlier link I sent it is fairly clear they are running the gay bashing ad, plus a commercial from Alarm Force, plus your commercial, as a package.

Now, it isn’t as though I would ever stop eating Uncle Ben’s products over something like this. My wife and I had a package of your brown rice with braised ribs and asparagus tonight, and it was quite wonderful. I would only suggest that Sun TV is not an appropriate venue for your rice products. In addition to inapprorpriately postioning your brand, they have interviewed any number of convicted racists and Neo-Nazis, and have attracted a number of product petitions as a result (see link below). I hope you will reconsider advertising with these people.

I don’t know which convicted racists and Neo-Nazis BigCityLib is referring to, but I do know that SunTV has been increasingly giving time to people like Marc Lemire, Kathy (“gay men don’t build bombs“) Shaidle and Pam Gellar.  I’m still waiting for Ezra Levant to invite Orly Taitz on to talk about birth certificates.

Well, as it turns out, Uncle Ben’s parent company MARS Canada — which makes several high-profile brands of foods besides Uncle Ben’s, plus chocolate products and pet food — has decided that they aren’t interested in being associated with McVety’s brand of homophobia and transphobia:

Based on feedback from consumers such as yourself, UNCLE BEN’S will not be advertising on Sun TV in 2012.

We thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns and for your loyalty towards the UNCLE BEN’S brand.

Which is probably just as well, given SunTV’s dismal ratings.

This isn’t sitting well with Canadian speechies, who claim that MARS Canada’s right to say what they want their money supporting or not supporting is “censorship” (and also evidently don’t understand that there’s such a thing as age-appropriate LGBT-positive education):

Rather than simply removing its advertising from Sun TV without comment, by taking this action in concert with the public statement, Mars Canada has effectively taken a position against the free exchange of ideas and links itself with advocates for a sexualized classroom agenda.

Of course, they’re welcome to boycott MARS products if they’d rather ally with the wingnuttery of Charles McVety.  On the other hand, if you’re a consumer like me who shops with her feet, it probably won’t hurt to thank the company for taking a principled stand, and maybe their subsidiary too.  And if buying M&Ms just became a little more guilt-free, well that’s an added bonus.

“Mr. Miltenberger walked up to us, looked at me directly, and said ‘You have to leave’,” said Landrie. “And I said, ‘oh?’, and he said ‘You spooked the governor general so you have to leave’.”

… “The amount of anger… you could basically almost taste it,” said Landrie.

When she was finished her work in the computer lab, Landrie did leave, going out of her way to avoid the Governor General and Finance Minister.

The Governor General’s Office has admitted that Johnston’s exit route was changed during his visit, but says that it was a timing issue and had nothing to do with Landrie.  CBC is reporting that Miltenberger — who was considered a contender for Premier and is considered a potential future leader for the Territory — declined to comment, pending a hearing by the NWT Human Rights Commission.

Human rights commissions have increasingly come under fire from right-wing media, who have taken to exploiting Canadians’ unease with hate speech laws and conflate that issue with other instances of discrimination in order to dismissively portray human rights complaints overall as being about “hurt feelings.”  At least one SunTV pundit, Ezra Levant, has openly declared that he wants to see the commissions completely abolished.

If Landrie’s story ignites in the Canadian press, it’s likely that ‘hurt feelings” would inevitably be the response from these corners.  It’s important to remember that there’s far more at stake than feelings, and when a separate standard is used to restrict the freedoms of people sharing a characteristic to access facilities, services and public spaces, there’s far more than “hurt feelings” at work.

It is not clear if the requests were made at Miltenberger’s own initiative, at the request of Aurora College, or at the request of the Governor General, who is the ceremonial representative of the Queen in Canada.

Gender identity is an explicitly protected grounds of discrimination in NWT human rights law and policy.

Miltenberger, who has been an MLA since 1995, does not represent a political party in the Legislature, as the NWT does not use a party system.

img src

Some of the quotes will be difficult for some, so the discussion will follow after the fold — save it for when you’re prepared to delve into some incredibly disheartening attitudes.  Consider this your trigger warning.

“I was watching this Tyra Banks video about transsexual children, and I just want to say…”

An online person who uses the moniker TheBistro360 at YouTube posted a group page on Facebook (which was at this link but has since been taken down) and a YouTube video (which at the time of writing was still online, but has been flagged for ToS violations) [Update: this has also now been taken down] which attempted to rally widespread support for a “Transsexual Registration Act.” In his words, this legislation would require that trans people and people of trans history “register their birth name, city/state of residence, date of surgery, date of birth, and any other vital information the government need.”

One cringes at what such a registry could or would be used for, but this person’s concern seems to be particularly fixated on ensuring that heterosexual males can avoid dating someone who is or ever was transsexual.  TheBistro360 says in his video that this hasn’t happened to him, but that he was inspired to post all of this after seeing a discussion about trans kids.

Here are the memes that inspired him, and the conclusions his fear and revulsion lead him to, feels they’re perfectly acceptable.

Biology as Destiny

“… If you are male born with a penis, but you have a burning desire to be a woman you are considered transgender? No if you are born a man, You ARE MALE!! Period….”

We’ve heard more than enough of the argument that “you can’t change your chromosomes,” or whatever other excuse people use to deny who we are, to refuse outright to acknowledge us as the women and men we need to be — to excuse treating us in whatever manner they wish.

Usually, those who are saying it are completely closed to even listening to any of the emergent study and research that has been revealing sex and gender to not be neatly and clearly divided between two polarized options. Chromosomes?  Genitals?  Socialized role and conduct?  Hormones?  There isn’t even a single benchmark that people who take this stance can agree on and still yield identical results.  At some point, this chant becomes so mindless that it loses meaning, and it’s no longer about who a person is, but who is entitled to define the question in the first place.

This is about “Real.”  And “not real.”  And who gets do define which is which, and decide “what to do” about the non-reals.  The underlying assumption, of course, is that The Other is evil and something needs to be done about them, in the first place — if only to protect the reals.  History tells us that that’s how it starts: regulation of The Other.  Then later, those doing the regulating start to wonder why they should even tolerate The Other, anyway.  On a systemic level, it can potentially lead to genocide.  On an personal level, it can potentially lead to vigilante-style eradication.

Godwin’s Law states that the longer any discussion continues, the more likely it will inevitably lead to some comparison to Nazi Germany. There’s an extension to that adage that the moment this happens, the discussion has lost all meaning and reality.  On the contrary, I’m not all that convinced that humanity is ever more than five steps from repeating genocide, and this progression involving the failure of empathy, othering, entitlement, regulation and then impatience.  As long as society insists on structuring humanity into us-es and thems, the capacity for this to happen will persist.

“… Not as nasty and disgusting as you mutilated, faked body transsexuals lol.. At least everything on my body is real… I don’t need to cut off my penis or take any hormones to know who the fuck I am lol…”

It’s about framing life in a way that makes one superior according to one or another criteria.

The Deception Meme

“… If this is put into action alot of heterosexual people wouldn’t have to worry about dating a tranny accidently…..”

TheBistro360′s primary (though not only) fear is of possibly dating a woman, only to discover that she is or was transsexual.

We’ve discussed issues about dating and disclosure before, with strongly divergent viewpoints on if and / or when a person should have to disclose trans history. I have to wonder if there is ever a moment when it would be safe to disclose trans history to TheBistro360, and (assuming safety) whether anyone doing so could ever expect any anonymity and / or respect in their mutual circles ever again.

But regardless of that, there remains an undercurrent argument that alleges that choosing not to disclose is deliberate deception.  Personally, I’d think that if there was a possibility or likelihood of sex while one’s genitals are not what their partner would likely expect, disclosure would probably be wise — though I admit that there may be circumstances when it isn’t.  But TheBistro360 isn’t only talking only about anatomy:

“… And for those who are already transsexuals, and those who are already pre-op or post-op, they will have to sign this paperwork too….”

So at this point, we return to sex and gender essentialism, and the assumption about an entitlement to define.  But this goes an additional step toward justifying special, othering treatment.  Because this person probably doesn’t feel that there needs to be a special registry to alert potential dates about their medical history (which transition actually is), dating history, political affiliation, all possible racial heritages, family medical concerns, criminal records, sexual interests or religion.  Some of them do come up during dating, and some that don’t can be points of contention or concern later in a relationship — but of these, it seems only transsexuality or trans history (regardless of existing genitals) that this person feels is deception if undisclosed… to a level that it requires legislation of some kind.

Of course, the assumption that any male should be entitled to establish characteristics that automatically disqualify women from consideration as their romantic and / or sexual partner is also misogynistic at its core, but it sort of gets into territory that men and women both regularly go, gets into the politics of desire and is a whole other discussion.

Transsexual Children

“It has gotten to the point where we have transsexual children and teens attending elementary, middle school, and high school UNNOTICED!”

The fear that we might pass unnoticed returns to the deception meme again, but a significant portion of TheBistro360′s panic has to do with his discovery of the existence of trans kids.  The fact that society allows kids to transition repulses him.  As it does the religious and non-religious far-right.

Of course, much of this results from a failure or refusal to dig deeper to discover that those few kids who do transition often do so after exhibiting severe gender dysphoria and unhappiness, sometimes to the point of self-harm or tracked in that direction — or else a failure of empathy on that point.  No parent sets out to change their child’s gender.  And speaking as a leftie trans activist, too, I wouldn’t wish being trans on any kid, if it were a matter of choice.  But those parents who discover that transition causes their individual child to do a complete 180-degree turn from depression and negative trajectories to happiness and self-esteem will inevitably embrace the process.

Transitioning as a kid is difficult, and the portrayal of that life-changing decision as whimsical delusion is grossly uninformed.  But this person seems not only uninterested in digging to see the reality, he also feels that transsexuality should be a scarlet letter that stays with a person for the rest of their life.

“… It’s actually… it’s actually getting to the point where they got children going to elementary, um, teenagers going to high school, middle school and shit like that and they’re fucking transsexuals before they’re even the age of 18.  Something is wrong there.  Now, we’re going to have to put a stop to it.  Or we’re going to have to let them let us know who they are….”

The assumptions don’t stop there.

How Erasure and Invisibility Don’t Help

At this point, I want to pre-emptively say that racial generalizations and strike-backs are inappropriate and not welcome in comments.  One individual’s targeting of a characteristic group is not justification for targeting another characteristic group.

TheBistro360 also assumes that transsexuality is a white characteristic, saying that this is “not in any other place in Africa, but just in South Africa, right now.”  He jumps to this conclusion twice in his YouTube video.

“… White people — I mean, honestly, how may white people do you see on that show?  I think a lot of them were white, or probably biracial.  You know, as a mix or something…”

I’m not the most suited person to speak to this, but it speaks to how erasure and invisibility can result in totally inaccurate conclusions.  It also speaks to how the intersections of prejudices such as trans + race tends to silence and terrorize trans people of colour more, and how that invisibility can be further used to cast aspersions.  I don’t want to imply that all trans people of colour should be out, because those intersections of prejudice add risk, and that’s for each individual to decide.  But I do think it’s a valid issue to put out there, and then invite those who experience more trans + racial prejudice than I to speak about what visibility and invisibility mean.

The God Connection

There’s no indication from the pages or video whether TheBistro360 is religious in any way.  For all we know, he may not be.  And yet, there are a couple points where God is used to justify trannsphobia:

“… They are, they were not born that way.  First of all, if they were, they were supposed to be a girl, then they were going to be born a girl. They wasn’t going to be born with a penis and then later on say, God would say, “hey, your brain was not built for the man’s body, it was built for a woman’s body,” and then BOOM….”

I recently wrote about the danger of conflating far-right Christianity’s hatred of LGBT people with the position of all of Christianity.  It is a far-right viewpoint that pushes the idea that God hates trans people.  But it is silence that allows it to remain the perceptively definitive viewpoint.  And as long as this is so, God will continue to be used as justification.

Conflation Junction

“… I would like to start a transsexual registration act.  It’s no different from those who are pedophiles: they have to register their name and all that stuff and then they go into the system where you can look ‘em up to see if they’re a pedophile and what not.  This’d be no different.  But instead of being in the pedophile system, they’d be in the transsexual system….”

TheBistro360 never actually equates trans women with pedophiles or allege predatory behaviour of any kind.  He does, however, see it as entirely acceptable to treat transsexual women the same way that society treats pedophiles, so there is some level of equation happening.  And in fact, there are places on Earth where being trans can result in being put on a sex offender registry, such as taking cyproterone acetate (Androcur) as a testosterone blocker in Australia, a circumstance that trans women share with intersex persons there.

In fact, when you consider some regulations in even the Western world — such as Sweden’s requirement that trans people undergo sterilization in order to transition — the “Transsexual Registry Act” idea doesn’t really sound that fringe.  One thing that Fox News and other right-wing entities have succeeded at is pushing the overall social conversation so far to the right that welfare and minimum wage regulations sound like communism.  They accomplished this by broadcasting all manner of wild spin and allegation, demonizations and strategies to deal with non-existent problems.  The genius was to repeat insanity until it sounded possible, then reasonable, then necessary, then inevitable.  Our failure was to think that that insanity didn’t need to be countered.  Better to face down something like this now when it’s naked bigotry than to wait for National Organization for Marriage to spin a stealthy, rationalized way to force it onto the ballot as a referendum.

But TheBistro360 doesn’t simply conflate transsexuals with pedophiles.  Because of assumptions and sex essentialism and his belief in the deception meme, he also conflates transsexuality with homosexuality — a reminder that whether we like it or not, society does not parse language and identity the same way that we do.

“… and then they find out they was fucking men all the time — that’s going to make a person go bonkers….”

And in so doing, he starts to go a dangerous direction: rationalizing the regulation of an entire class of peoples’ lives and justifying whatever they may experience as a consequence.

The Squick

Something else that the pages and video raise is the instantaneous, often knee-jerk reaction that happens when a person assumes that the fact that something bothers them and makes them uneasy means that the something is automatically wrong for everybody.  “Gross,” “sick” and the language of deviance comes up often.  It’s a language that translates to the discrimination that all sexual minorities experience, and to a lesser degree, some other characteristic classes as well.

“It’s sick.  America is starting to become a sick place.”

This will be something to write about another time, but again, it stems from entitlement, framing life to assert superiority, and in this case, is also fueled by rigid attitudes governing sex.  But this impulsive squick reaction further fuels his rationalization, and brings it to a point where it begins to reduce people to non-personhood.

Things

“… and in certain cases some of them still date the thing.”

At a few different points, transsexuals become “things.”  This is a dangerous path to take, and objectification of this magnitude is recognized widely as a classic step toward serial murder.  This person may not take that path, but his words offer a chilling window into this trajectory.

“… transgender motherfuckers, those things that they call themselves women when they’re really was a boy before, and those things that they’re called men, and they were really a freaking girl before….”

Because when a person becomes a thing, it becomes less consequential if something happens to them.

Understandable Murder and the Acceptability of Disposable People

In an earlier quote, TheBistro360 talks about what he perceives as deception and the implication that someone might be gay if he has sex with a transsexual woman leading someone to “go bonkers.”  That’s direction of blame.  That’s a rationalization set-up that implies whatever follows can’t be helped, and is just a natural progression of being a heterosexual man:

“… I don’t… I’m tired of seeing these stories about men, dating these transsexuals, transsexual women, and they end up killing these motherfuckers.  Them straight men are like, “I don’t, you know, I don’t do gay shit and blah blah” and then they find out they was fucking men all the time — that’s going to make a person go bonkers.  And I’m just glad that shit ain’t ever happened to me, but look at the growing rate….”

So it cease’s being the responsibility of the murderer for committing murder, and becomes our responsibility for existing.  If this sounds unreflective of the mainstream, remember the groundswell of excuse-making that existed for Allen Ray Andrade after murdering Angie Zapata.  And the fact that the one point of hate crimes laws is that in the absence of regulation that makes it imperative to take crimes that target characteristic groups seriously at all, these crimes are often rationalized in a way that actually does leave them without consequence.

So once it becomes easier to empathize with the murderers of transsexuals than with the transsexuals themselves, TheBistro360 decides to possibly benevolently spare us this fate by regulating our existence.  Totally reasonable, huh?

“Maintaining these people”

As TheBistro360 says, “And that’s why I came up with a solution to our problem.”  Because reducing us to the level of Thing wasn’t enough, and now we’re seen as society’s problem.  Requiring his solution, of course.

“… Now, do I have anything against homosexual people? No.  One thing I do have a thing against is how we are not doing anything about maintaining these people.  To make sure our chil… our people… that people that haven’t came out about their sexuality… will be… will help the heterosexuals avoid them….”

It’s amazing that requiring that society respect trans people and treat them as equals is regularly seen as an unreasonable burden, yet invading our privacy, exposing us to potential hatred and marginalization and justifying our exclusion seems a totally acceptable alternative.

“… You’d actually be able to know that they are transgendered.  And it’d be on the application as well.  And if they do not… and if they choose not to… they choose not to agree with this, then they would either be jailed and forced to do it in prison, or before… if not… if they’re thinking about actually going to the doctor’s office and they want to get a transition, they will be denied because they don’t want to take that chance.  And for those who are already transsexuals, and those who are already pre-op or post-op, they will have to sign this paperwork too.  Or they will be jailed and forced to do it regardless of how they went.  And then they will be [indecipherable] of their reluctance…”

Never more than five steps, for as long as we are willing to separate ourselves into us-es and thems in order to absolve ourselves of any need to feel empathy and to bother to learn.

The Power of Denial

“All you idiots can hate all you want, and this is not a discrimination page, we are just simply looking out for our heterosexual men and women… We have the right to know who the fuck we are messing with, so whine and moan all you want…”

And the clincher is that through it all, the bigoted remain blind to their bigotry.

“… Am I strongly against homosexuals?  No.  Whatever they do on their own [that part is mumbled, and could also be "whatever they do on the low," possibly meaning "down-low"], they do on their own.  But what I do not like is that we got a lot of transsexuals running around here, and we’ve got to watch out for them.  Because you’ll never know who has… who is a woman or a man….”

But we need not be blind to it.

On the surface, TheBistro360′s brand of hatred seems fringe.  It doesn’t repeat the talking points of the usual far-right speakers and leaders, although there are shades of flavours of those attitudes underneath, and their prevalence was enough to make this person feel confident enough to formulate and publicize a plan to “maintain” people.  It’s hard to know how many people share this kind of perspective but are afraid to say so out loud.  Certainly, this person thought that his idea was something general society could get behind, but also knew that it could be unpopular enough that he sported a hood to communicate his message.

But in the end, this is still a flavour of hate that is out there, and important to be aware of.  It also offers a chilling look at how hate can progress.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

Yup, you heard that right.  If you’ve read my other writings about Canada under Harper, you might think it impossible.  It’s not, and it happened.  Give credit where it’s due.  The Harper Conservatives and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird are taking the lead on this.  Without a major political outcry prompting them.

And for that, I’ll thank them.

Nigeria has introduced the Same Gender Marriage Bill which calls for a 14-year jail sentence for anyone who enters into a same sex marriage contract or civil union.  It also calls for a 10-year sentence for anyone who participates in, witnesses or fails to report such a wedding, and for anyone who advocates or attempts to organize in support of LGBT people.  Many news sources are missing that the bill is a redundancy, and fail to note (possibly at the lead of some faux news sources) that homosexuality is already punishable by death in 12 Nigerian states and up to 14 years imprisonment everywhere else in the country.

Baird is calling for Nigeria to ensure basic equal rights for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.  I’m not certain if gender identity or expression were brought up — in African nations, however, they tend to be conflated all as one with sexual orientation.

“Through the Commonwealth and other forums, Canada will continue to make this point in the most forceful of terms.”

The Nigerian press and lawmakers have called Baird’s and the Commonwealth’s advocacy on the issue as “attempts to violate Nigeria’s value system” and have remained defiant.

So far, there hasn’t been a response from Canadian Evangelicals, who might be more inclined to support the “rogue” religious leaders who inspired these kinds of bills from Nigeria and Uganda.  Some MPs also participated in an “It Gets Better” video, getting lukewarm responses from the social left and social right alike.  The Nigerian stance has received a better response.  It remains to be seen whether this climate change could also turn into support for including transsexual and transgender Canadians in human rights legislation (the upcoming Bill C-279 that you’re contacting your MP about, right?).  But in the meantime, the Conservatives have taken up an important fight, I respect them for that, and hope they will continue.

Recently, leaders of Commonwealth nations met to discuss pressing international issues, and leaders from the U.K., Canada and others pressed for human rights reforms for LGBT people.  British Prime Minister David Cameron went so far as to threaten to cut off aid to member nations that still criminalize homosexuality — something that was met with accusations of “bullying.”  Nigeria responded by redoubling efforts to symbolically pass a bill to ban same-sex marriage (even though homosexuality is already illegal there), including witnessing, participating in and “abetting” a same-sex marriage (it’s unclear from the text of this bill if this is limited to marriages performed in Nigeria) which had been simmering for a few months.

Anti-abortion “news” websites Human Life International (HLI) World Watch and Canada’s LifeSiteNews (LSN) have taken encouragement from this, and co-published an article cheering Nigeria on, calling the bill something that “pro-life and pro-family supporters” should rally behind.  The two often partner, and at least one of the organizations is engaged in ongoing work against LGBT people in Nigeria:

“Human Life International Nigeria is joining forces with other pro-life organizations and well-meaning Nigerians in mobilizing support for the defense of this bill,” said Chizoba Nnagboh, Human Life International (HLI) country director in Nigeria.

… Last week, HLI Nigeria sent a letter in support of the bill to outlaw same-sex “marriage” to the Nigerian Senate ahead of a public hearing on the bill on October 31, 2011.

Did I happen to mention that in Nigeria, homosexuality is already punishable by death in 12 states and up to 14 years imprisonment everywhere else?

Neither do Human Life International or LifeSiteNews.

Given that both websites claim to be reputable news organizations — and that real journalists investigating potential changes to laws affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in Nigeria would typically make a point of knowing what the existing laws are – this can only be seen as either a serious journalistic failure, or else a deliberate obfuscation of the facts to encourage anti-abortion donors to keep giving, without realizing what it is that they’re supporting.

The latter is more likely in the case of HLI, which has admitted to being directly involved in Nigerian politics.  LifeSiteNews, which didn’t author the article, has nevertheless had their own writers do this before.  LSN attacked a recent U.N. resolution about human rights for including LGBT people — initially not mentioning that the statement was a condemnation of execution and genocide (the LSN article now appears to have a faint mention, added since they’d been called on it).  LSN has also previously cheered on the nation of Uganda for not bowing to international pressure, while omitting that said pressure was to drop its Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which included severe punitive sentences or death for LGBT people — although after the bill had gained international notoriety, LSN backtracked slightly and publicized calls for lighter sentences (the criminalization itself is still largely not in question).  I’ve also previously written about other far-right groups and Canadian tabloid media using deliberate omission to further a perspective, so it’s not like doing so is anything new.

Human Life International has had a colourful history, after founder Paul Marx made several remarks that were characterized as anti-Semitic.  Successor Thomas Euteneuer then led the organization for ten years, only to step down after sexual improprieties with a woman he met through a ministry in which he performed exorcisms.

LifeSiteNews is a media project of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), led by Jim Hughes, who is also the Vice President of the International Right to Life Federation.  LSN recently faced a lawsuit from Catholic priest and former Member of Parliament Raymond Gravel after articles on LSN caused him to lose is position as a cathechist.  They were also banned from the bishops’ annual plenary assembly because of relentlessly dogged campaigns against Development and Peace, the Catholic Church’s official international development arm in Canada — causing some to speculate that either Hughes is trying to assert authority over D&P or that CLC is making a play for control of the amply-funded organization.

Africa is significant to international aid organizations because of the amount of cash being allocated toward financial assistance, combating the spread of HIV and other relief efforts.  George W. Bush reduced or eliminated the barriers between foreign assistance and proselytization, making this a boon to faith groups, something that Canada’s Prime Minister is poised to follow with his Orwellian-sounding proposed Office of Religious Freedom.  Meanwhile, targeting LGBT people has provided a convenient scapegoat and distraction from the failures of some of these governments, as well as making it possible to disqualify some of the neediest or highest risk groups from competing for this financial assistance.

Together, HLI, CLC et al form a significant portion of the anti-abortion industrial complex — which does not yet have a comparatively high stake in Africa, but has influence that is evidently growing.  Both groups support radical personhood legislation, making their indifference toward executions in Nigeria all the more stunning.

But if they’re willing to tacitly condone genocide and excessive punishment by looking the other way — and erasing the true horrors of those nations’ policies while trumpeting the nations that practice them — the conclusion one inevitably comes to is that even if Human Life International, Campaign Life Coalition and LifeSiteNews seek life for fertilized eggs, the lives of LGBT people must not have nearly as much value to them.

(previously posted at The Bilerico Project)

I’ve made this distinction in my blog before and also in comment threads, but it keeps coming up and requires a post of its own.

When I decry some of the radical and unhinged rhetoric that comes from some people who use the Bible as their justification — or to talk about some of the ways that growing up with a radical Christian ideology had hurt me and my family — I try to be clear that that these harms shouldn’t be attributed to all Christians.  I need to talk about these things — how faith is being used to justify discriminatory actions today, and how deeply those attitudes have cut me.  I don’t need that all turned into a message that all Christians are evil.  I do have my own concerns about belief systems and what they can sometimes drive people to, but at the end of the day I choose to respect those who live respectfully.  This also applies to affirming people of other faiths.

The one thing I am “anti” is oppression.  This is regardless of whether the basis is race or sex or sexual orientation or age or belief or gender identity or gender expression or any other characteristic.  And regardless of whether it is some Christians doing it, people inspired by some other ideology or us doing it to each other.  So when people talk about classifying the Bible as hate literature (to be fair, that post was nuanced and not wholly serious) or jumping all over an affirming person of faith who is trying to express how she sometimes feels under attack from both sides, you can count me out.  I don’t subscribe to any particular faith, nor do I condemn anyone else for theirs.

If we are to be truly anti-oppression, then we need to be vigilant that we don’t visit it on anyone else.

And no, I’m not talking about the “oppression” of not being able to ban abortion or the “persecution” of not being able to fire someone because they’re gay or trans.  I plan to write about this shortly, but equating one person’s need for equal access to things that are vital to their life or to participate in society with another person’s right to deny them that access for whatever ideological reason is a false equivalence.  For a select group of people, even neutrality with regard to government is atheism, and atheism is a competitor religion that they feel government has shown favour to. This is why that select group of people will always feel persecuted by not being able to dictate what law and social policy will be.  And those are things even the mainstream has lost sight of when it frames conflicts as “gay rights versus religious freedom.”

I’m talking about respectful co-existence, regardless of our differences, and ceasing judgments based solely on one’s characteristics instead of their individual merits or faults.  I’m talking about not conflating these extreme perspectives with people of faith who do not subscribe to them.

We cannot and should not attribute all our pain to Christianity or all Christians — although when scripture is used to support it, I admit it’s sometimes hard to make that distinction.  But not all Christians are radical enough to call for racial segregation, either — the fact that some still do should not be interpreted as characteristic of the whole.

Because affirming people of faith have some challenges as well, and it’s likely only to intensify, as far right Christian Nationalists (that smaller group who have a hardline worldview that they would like to see used for governance) seeks to assert what they call “true Christianity” with rhetoric like this:

This is beyond mere incoherence. It is moral and theological nonsense. More than that, it is a massive statement of ministerial malpractice…. You cannot celebrate what you say you know to be sin. You cannot honestly say that same-sex marriage defies the law of God, and then join in the celebration of that ceremony.

There is a rising tide to push LGBT and allied Christians out of Christianity.  Many of the same people who assail our right to exist also try to challenge affirming and LGBT people of faith… perhaps including the people who penned this:

… We find no rational biblical or theological basis to condemn or deny the rights of any person based on sexual orientation. Silence by many has allowed political and religious rhetoric to monopolize public perception, creating the impression that there is only one Christian perspective on this issue. Yet we recognize and celebrate that we are far from alone, as Christians, in affirming that LGBT persons are distinctive, holy, and precious gifts to all who struggle to become the family of God.

In repentance and obedience to the Holy Spirit, we stand in solidarity as those who are committed to work and pray for full acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in our churches and in our world. We lament that LGBT persons are condemned and excluded by individuals and institutions, political and religious, who claim to be speaking the truth of Christian teaching. This leads directly and indirectly to intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and even death. The Holy Spirit compels us:

• to affirm that the essence of Christian life is not focused on sexual orientation, but how one lives by grace in relationship with God, with compassion toward humanity;
• to embrace the full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in all areas of church life, including leadership;
• to declare that the violence must stop. Christ’s love moves us to work for the healing of wounded souls who are victims of abuse often propagated in the name of Christ;
• to celebrate the prophetic witness of all people who have refused to let the voice of intolerance and violence speak for Christianity, especially LGBT persons, who have met hatred with love;

Therefore we call for an end to all religious and civil discrimination against any person based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. All laws must include and protect the freedoms, rights, and equal legal standing of all persons, in and outside the church.

Granted, if people are to stop seeing Christianity and LGBT identity as inevitable nemeses, more affirming people of faith need to speak — and louder — to clearly demonstrate that Christianity doesn’t only offer one opinion on the subject.

And to do that, it would probably help if they knew that we weren’t going to stab them in the back, in turn.

From my standpoint, I will still need to talk about the hurts I experienced from a radical Pentecostal upbringing.  I will still need to call out the statements of far-right speakers who identify their perspective as “Christian” in basis.  But that is not meant to be an opportunity to foist atheism as the new One True Way or belittle someone for their beliefs.    Not in a way that I will be party to, anyway.  If you believe faith is hokum, well, good for you, just don’t beat everyone over the head with it.

In the very first couple of weeks of my transition, as word got around the apartment complex I lived in about what I was doing (and before I received the magic bonus rent-doubling increase that no one else in the building did), I experienced some hostile reactions, both within the building, and the violent attack I’ve related elsewhere on my blog, just outside the building.

Directly downstairs from me, there was a traditional Muslim family, the kind that when they’d moved in, she wore the niqab and burqa, but over the years that relaxed until she was able to wear more Western-style clothing and travel on her own.  Even so, they were visibly devout, and he seemed more than a little imposing, with his bodybuilder’s build and all.

One afternoon, I answered a knock on the door, and there was the mother of the family, who made a point of coming upstairs to tell me that although they didn’t completely understand why I was transitioning, they respected me for it, were supportive, and wanted me to know that if I had any trouble in the building, I could count on them for help.  I don’t think I fully grasped until later how truly significant it was that she was the one who came upstairs to tell me this.

Never presume.

By the time this post goes live, some readers will be tired of this speech already, but a portion of Hilary Clinton’s address to the U.N. seems appropriate here:

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

We all have a role to play in securing equality.  I, for one, appreciate the role affirming Christians are playing and will play.  The least we could do is to say, “I’ve got your back.”

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

And then it passed.

Oh, Bill C-389 — championed by the now-retired NDP MP Bill Siksay — had its challenges.  It narrowly passed Second Reading in June of 2010, and again at Third Reading in February, 2011.  Had an election call not killed the bill while awaiting discussion in the Senate, it could have reached Royal Assent… instead of having to start over.

Randall Garrison and Hedy Fry have re-introduced legislation to include gender identity and gender expression among the protected classes in the Canada Human Rights Act, as well as those in the hate crimes clause of the Criminal Code of Canada.

“It’ll never pass,” I often hear.  “Not with a Harper majority.  They’d never support human rights inclusion for transsexual and transgender people.”

No doubt, the challenges are bigger.  It would be tougher to pass this bill. It will take more effort, and the additional vocal support of trans-positive allies is absolutely crucial.  But it’s not impossible.

Here is a quick summary of the process the bill faces. It has been read into Parliament for First Reading, which is a formality. The order in which Private Members have their bills discussed by Parliament is determined by a kind of lottery, and Garrison’s bill, C-279, could come up for Second Reading in as soon as five months from now. At that point, it will face its first hour of discussion and a vote; if it passes, it will be sent to committee — probably to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where it was referred last time. Then the committee would need to discuss the bill and decide whether to hear statements from interested parties, make modifications or pass it forward. At that point, a vote on “report stage” would take place in the house, allowing it to proceed to Third Reading, probably six to twelve months later. Third Reading is comprised of a second hour of debate and a final vote, and if it passes that, then proceeds to the same three readings in the Senate.

It sounds like a long, complicated and daunting process, impossible with a hard-right or hard-right -influenced government.  But it passed under a Conservative minority, can could pass again.  Here’s how:

If You’re Transsexual or Transgender

Trans people need to contact their Members of Parliament.  I believe it will be all the more crucial to make an appointment to visit them personally.  If you’re a constituent, they shouldn’t refuse — but if they do or give you extensive runaround, find out when they’re in their constituency office and drop by.

Transphobia persists because we are usually technically invisible, allowing people to make wild assumptions and form distorted pictures of us.  Our legislators need to see who we really are, and hear about how we have been obstructed in our jobs or met with harm for being trans.  They need to see why inclusion is necessary.  This means if your MP is Conservative, and / or voted “no” previously, then it is especially important that you meet with them.

Be civil, be professional, and if they disagree, do so courteously.  Conflict will not help.  And finally, keep heart.  We can — and do — have Conservative supporters (several supported the bill last time, including some Cabinet ministers), and those who don’t can sometimes change when they meet us and see past the myths.

If You’re a Parent, Significant Other, Sibling, Child or Friend of Someone Who Is Trans

Parents and loved ones of trans people also need to contact their Members of Parliament.  Again, I recommend an appointment and civil discussion.  Human rights inclusion affects far more than ourselves, and it helps to see real Canadians who are touched by our lives and want or need us to be enfranchised in society.

If You’re an Ally

Allies also need to contact their Members of Parliament.  If allies don’t have experience on trans issues and feel at a loss to help in that way, then at least write to your MP and voice your support.  Don’t be discouraged.

I will include a few links below for some resources so you can educate yourself on the issues and the bill in question.

Follow up

The process is long.  See your MP now, then contact them before the Second Reading vote and the vote at the report stage.  If there’s a Third Reading vote, then contact them again to remind them of your visit and your support.  A letter is just a letter: diligent persistence (but not to a level of harassment) shows importance.  If you have spoken to your MP and have a commitment of support or see an “iffy” possibility of support, also send a short note to Mr. Garrison’s constituency office to let them know.  He may also be able to follow up, and has a better picture of where things stand, this way.

Media: Be Visible if You Can

Media will make a lot of difference.  Last time around, there was a lot of media interest in hearing from Charles McVety and other anti-trans people, but sometimes few if any interviews from actual trans people.  Many of us were willing to talk.  Do so again.  But don’t stop there.  Find media avenues to talk about the challenges you face as a trans person.  Blog.  Write to smaller magazines, community publications and weeklies.  If larger media outlets are uninterested, and if Second Reading, report stage or Third Reading are approaching, hold a rally.  Or better yet, hold a rally anyway.

Procedural Questions

A free vote is needed.  And if Prime Minister Stephen Harper chooses to enforce a “no” vote among Conservatives on a piece of human rights legislation, then it would need to be called out, and loudly.  I doubt, though, that there would be that kind of visible obstruction of the bill.  I expect that a free vote or at least partial free vote will happen, and Private Member’s Bills are traditionally all free votes.

If our representatives pledge their support, then it’s crucial that they be present for all three votes: Second Reading, report stage and Third Reading.

If the bill proceeds to committee stage, we need to send trans and trans-inclusive groups to the Standing Committee to speak on the bill.  Some of those groups are underfunded, so may need allies to assist getting them there.

If Support is Not An Option, At Least Don’t Stand in the Way

And finally, if your Member of Parliament is positive toward you, and perhaps wants to support trans human rights but feels pressured to vote against, there is a third option: abstain.

It is practically impossible to determine if a failure to vote is because of deliberate abstention, or of not being present for the vote (many MPs do not stay to vote on Private Members matters anyway).

Support is far preferable.  But if there are fears about how a voting group or party members may react, then abstention will allow a Member of Parliament to not obstruct the chances for transsexual and transgender people to obtain human rights.  If your Member of Parliament seems strained, uncomfortable or perhaps under pressure, then encourage them to consider doing so.

On October 20th, several Conservative Members of Parliament responded to the suicide of gay teen Jamie Hubley by making an “It Gets Better” video.  They were roundly criticized for doing so while supporting a government which has often opposed legislation what would protect or benefit lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans (LGBT) people.  I won’t, because when it comes right down to it, I’m willing to bet that on an individual level, they probably are genuinely concerned for LGBT kids.  And as long as that is true, then there is some will to make it better… or at least willingness to not support making it worse.  Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are different things, but that will can translate.

In late September, Mr. Garrison estimated that he needed 15 more votes from across the aisle to pass the bill.   Canada, we can do this.

Make it Better: Don’t Stand in the Way of Human Rights for Trans People

Resources

Find your Member of Parliament using your postal code, to send them a letter or contact their office for an appointment.

During the last session, the arguments against extending human rights protections focused mostly on fears about washrooms and claims that explicit inclusion was unnecessary.  Ironically, the washroom fears and myths proved the necessity.

I will eventually update and repost it, but I’d compiled a Quick Facts article regarding C-389. There was also a PDF trifold brochure version.

It addresses the washroom argument, but if you want to dig deeper and learn about the history of the washroom argument as a tactic to oppose human rights for LGBT people, Flushing the Fear picks it apart further.

The text has not changed, but the bill number has.  It’s now Bill C-279.  Here’s the full text of the bill.

Most people know what transsexualism is (“gender identity”), but what does “gender expression” refer to?  Here’s an answer.

Permission is granted to distribute this article and the Quick Facts article (non-commercially) to educate people on the issue and encourage them to become involved.  (Crossposted to rabble.ca and The Bilerico Project)

That’s probably the least-noticed aspect of the provincial court’s judgment regarding polygamy and polyamory in Canada, and it makes it weirdly ironic that faith-based news websites are cheering this as a victory… although they have to deliberately omit (which wouldn’t be the first time) the judge’s discussion of freedom of religion, in the process. It’s amazing how quickly some can be willing to abandon the cause of “religious freedom” when it’s someone else’s religion in question.

But given that the same folks are seeking ways to reopen the debate about same-sex marriage in Canada, there has been anticipation of this ruling providing ways and language to do so.  And indeed, in this decision, there’s something for everyone — but I’ll have to discuss the likely coming epidemic of Canadian-driven “medical studies” to do things like allege connections between lesbianism and cervical cancer, gay parents with bullying (etc.) at a later date.  For now, this ruling speaks specifically to polygamy and polyamory.

Religious and Charter Freedoms can be Limited in Canada if the Court Perceives Harm.

In his 335-page decision, Bauman agreed that banning polygamy infringed on religious freedom, but wrote, “In my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious. The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

Winston Blackmore and James Oler were charged with polygamy in 2009, but after a judge stayed the charges, the province referred the case to the B.C. Supreme Court.  Blackmore (who was said to have 19 wives or more) and Oler (who was said to have three) were at the centre of the polygamous Mormon community in Bountiful, B.C. and the abuses and exploitation of women and children that were said to occur there were seen as significant enough harm to limit the Mormon sect’s religious freedom.

And certainly, spousal abuse, coercion, exploitation of minors, human trafficking (stemming from cross-border bride exchange that was happening between polygamous families) all certainly need to be addressed in law.  And they are. Polygamy laws provide a mechanism to intervene in instances where abuse and exploitation is suspected, but that’s the only thing it provides that other legislation currently doesn’t.

“Important tenets of the polyamory movement are that it is sex positive and all relationships are consensual…”

Because of the way Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada is worded, Canada’s polygamy law does not simply ban polygamous marriages, but polyamorous repationships, as well.  Wednesday’s ruling sets out some guidelines on how the law should be applied, and Bauman’s conclusion that banning ethical polyamory is an unreasonable infringement on freedom creates a comfort zone for poly relationships.  Which is important, because more of us have the capacity for polyamory than we realize.

The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association was largely happy about the decision, saying that Bauman read the law in a way that “does not apply to unformalized polyamorous relationships,” although it prevents non-exploitative poly and ethically non-monogamous families from ceremonially formalizing their commitments.

Opinion:

That’s where I tend to differ, personally (and my opinion here likely does not reflect that of some of the places this article will be posted).  To pre-emptively address speculation, I am not in a poly relationship, and don’t identify that way, and consider it very unlikely (though not inconceivable) that that might change at some point in the future.  So I don’t speak for poly people — only as an ally of those I’ve known, and to the limit of my understanding of poly issues.

But although I can understand the sense of relief that poly people in Canada experience with this ruling, I do feel that this ruling institutionalizes an obstacle that will become a serious issue later. And that this result pushes the question far enough into the closet that I’m not sure it will be appropriately addressed in our lifetimes.

I’m not convinced that coercion, abuse, child exploitation, human trafficking and the other things that we associate with polygamy are necessarily intrinsic to poly relationships, and so the status quo of conflating the two in law (despite the acknowledgment of responsibly polyamory) and society remains relatively unchanged.  I do concede that the existing laws to address those things don’t currently adequately enable intervention — that absolutely needs to change. And it won’t, because the Canadian government will rest easy on this verdict (barring a different ruling at a higher level), and see the inadequacies of those laws as not having to be addressed.

But I don’t see why people in non-exploitive polyamorous and ethical non-monogamous relationships should be prevented from making a formal and legal commitment to each other, complete with financial benefits that recognize the differences and challenges poly families face.  (I do, however, recognize that there are many different types of poly families, so when/if we get to that, it too will be a one-size-does-not-fit-all situation, and not for me to define.)  But the bottom line is that non-harmful polygamous families can and do exist, and in the eyes of our society, they remain conflated with harm that is more intrinsic to a particular belief system than to poly formation of families.

Limits on Belief

And so we return to the heart of the ruling: that polygamy is a part of the defendants’ religious freedom, but that law and judiciary have the right to limit that freedom.

Some very bad ideas have been perpetrated in the name of faith — honour killings, the Crusades, residential schools, female genital mutilation — and just about any faith you can think of has shown a capacity for cruelty and self-interest.  Belief can also be a healthy, healing, community-building thing as well, so I’m not assailing all faith nor all believers. But I have come to the conclusion that the more essentialist or fundamentalist a faith becomes, the more capable it is of adopting a hierarchy of “moral” which can excuse abuse and cruelty in the name of what is thought to be a higher cause.  So from that standpoint, this ruling is more or less positive — even though I’m never very particular of any entity being given the ability to overrule Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But something else this conflict has illuminated is that to many among the religious right, polygamy is actually somewhat acceptable — especially if compared to same-sex marriage.  Many founders of the Jewish and Christian faiths were polygamists, and in scriptures like 2 Samuel 12:8, it’s even said (through a prophet) that God himself blessed King David with many wives… and would send more if that wasn’t enough.  And elsewhere it says that the only limit is that there should not be too many (which was apparently Solomon’s undoing, having 700 and also concubines) and that after marrying the second, he shouldn’t deprive the first.  Jesus himself stated that his teachings did not supersede that law when he addressed divorce in Matthew 19:3-6 but failed to discuss scenarios with more than one wife.  If far-right people of faith try to define polygamy out of “traditional marriage,” then their own scripture undermines them.  And some realize it.  It’s curious to read the occasional comment at LifeSiteNews as recently as July of 2011, saying that they find polygamy more “tolerable” (although it’s not a majority opinion).

With all of this said, I’m not convinced that marriage is an unassailably ideal choice or that it should be the preferable choice for building families — and even the “traditional marriage” pushed by the far right as the only acceptable option has an unhealthy focus on “headship of the husband” that can easily be prone to several potential abuses.  But the choice to marry should be available equally, and from the standpoint of consistency and social justice, I still think that the outcome of Wednesday’s ruling — which many believe will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada — should still concern us.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

Sign at the October 15th rally at Bankers Hall, Calgary

“Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”

Until the last couple days, that had been the mood in Calgary, as the Occupy Wall Street (#ows) movement seemed far from many peoples’ minds.  Sure, by now, everyone’s seen the graphs coming out about American inequality that show 1% of that population controlling an exponentially widening wealth gap that — no matter how one graphs it — makes a pretty clear case that a miniature black hole has sucked the lion’s share of money right out of the U.S. economy altogether.  All this, while the so-called “job creators” continue to lay off rising numbers and are rewarded with record bonuses for record profits.  It’s clearly not sustainable.  But that’s there, right?  The Federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, reassures us that Canada is far better off, having a “very progressive tax system.”

“Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”  So why are people tenting in downtown Calgary and refusing to leave?

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell

City residents’ first impulse was to write the Occupy Calgary participants off as “lazy,” “loony” or “looking for a free ride…” because in a relatively productive and flourishing Alberta, the worries seem far away.  Well, except that they don’t really seem THAT far away, given that extended health insurance has jumped, mortgages and rents have skyroketed, quality jobs are harder to find, and the wages (which haven’t changed much) don’t go as far as they used to.  News reports are talking about grain prices driving the cost of food up yet again, and there’s talk that gas could go over $2 per litre in six months.  But it’s not that bad.  Not that bad….

“Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”

They must be all students, the reasoning goes — tuition keeps skyrocketing, after all.  And homeless people.  And activists. And the unemployed.  And disabled people.  And Aboriginal people.  The photos and footage sure seems to bear that out.

The first general assembly, Olympic Plaza, October 15th, 2011

Which would make sense, because students, the homeless, the unemployed, the disabled and activists who assist disenfranchised people regularly have felt the economic disparity for longer, and with more intensity than many.  And for the First Nations, the disparity has been felt the longest by far, being a nation that is still literally colonized by another nation in ways that the public has grown so used to that it’s become blind to it.  Of course, they’d be the first.  But inequality hasn’t stopped there… and so the collection of people gathering at Occupy Calgary hasn’t stopped there, either.

The Raging Grannies sing at the original rally

Challenges

The temperatures have been dropping.  It’s a matter of weeks (or, if we’re unlucky even days) before we plunge into the -30 degree C temperatures that will inevitably have to send everyone for shelter and warmth.  Yet as the temperatures have been dropping, the number of tents has been rising.  After the October 15th rally, just under 20 tents were set up in Olympic Plaza.  Today, it’s closer to 50.  Which seems small until you realize that because of an early planning and communication problem, there are two camps.

A park in St. Patrick’s Island is home to the second encampment.  It had been set up before the General Assembly had come to any kind of consensus, and the city is trying to present it as the “real” encampment.  Still, much of the attention and organizing and activity happens at Olympic Plaza, from participants who find the St. Pats camp too distant from downtown, too invisible, and too easily cut off from the city or arbitrarily shut down with little recourse.  Which is not to say either camp is more “right,” but it’s divided the energy.  But in the end, the point may be moot.  The temperatures have been dropping.

During the day, the plaza is quiet.  During the day, the numbers are fewer, some of the campers still having to work.  From those who are gathered there, there’s a sense of optimism: a sense that whatever else may happen, the Occupy movement is destined to change things for the better.  And folks appear to be doing their best to keep the park clean, respect the surroundings — contrary to the reports of “$40,000 damage” (more on that in a moment) — and occupy peacefully.

But you have to look past “Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here” mantra in order to realize that if there’s this sense of determination among folks, in the face of media ridicule and dropping temperatures, then there must be something to see, after all.

The camp grows, despite the growing cold.

Calgarians Still Hold Hope of Being the 1%

Perhaps weirdly, the Calgary Sun’s Rick Bell had a point that part of the challenge that Occupy Calgary faces is that many of the corporate 1% have offices here, that Calgary has the highest income per capita in Canada, and that for the remaining 99%, there is still a strong temptation for middle-class people to think that they, too, could someday be better off than they are.  Or that there is “Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”  The elusive myth.

Murray Dobbin points out that although Canadians see bank bailouts as an American phenomenon, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation bought out uncertain mortgages to the tune of $70 billion — a tenth of the bailout amount in the U.S., but we also have a tenth of the population.

“Secondly, the Harper government established a fund of $200 billion to backstop the banks — money they could borrow if they needed it. The government had to borrow billions — mostly from the banks! — to do it. It’s euphemistically called the Emergency Financing Framework…”

From the centre of the October 15th rally. A similar number of people were behind us when we took this photo. Newspapers say only 400 people attended.

Why They Won’t Be.

Occupy participants have also not overlooked the fact that among the Harper Conservatives’ top priorities have been corporate tax cuts, market deregulations similar to those that triggered the American crisis, targeting of union funding and spending in the name of transparency (even though unions are not government institutions, and the Harper Conservatives certainly haven’t had the best record on that, themselves), and eliminating a per-vote subsidy that supported political parties based on their percentage of popular vote, rather than leaving parties dependent on mostly corporate funding.  This reflects Harper’s history as president of the National Citizens Coalition, when he took a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada in an effort to strike down spending limits for corporations in Canadian elections.  He lost Stephen Harper v. Canada in 2004, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently in 2009′s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission –a ruling which in a few short years has transformed that political landscape into one almost entirely favouring corporate welfare.  If unbridled corporate influence, paired with reducing the electorate’s influence, is the agenda of the man who shapes our laws, then there is certainly a need for Canadians to speak up now — before the unnerving struggle felt now becomes “the good old days.”

Sanctuary in the shadow of the towers.

I don’t know how you fix the amount of economic disparity that exists in America.  But in Canada, we can start by averting our path.  Immediately.

In a speech to the Council for National Policy, the future Prime Minister said, “Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it,” which was seen as a challenge to Canada’s social and economic equalization programs.  And indeed, everything that has facilitated economic disparity — from Ronald Reagan to today — is being echoed in the current government’s positions and policies.

Linda McQuaig at the Toronto Star points out that:

Adding a new marginal tax rate of 60 per cent to those earning over $500,000 a year, and a 70 per cent rate to those earning over $2.5 million a year — rates that would simply restore the progressivity that existed during Canada’s booming postwar decades — would raise almost $8 billion a year, according to Osgoode Hall tax professor Neil Brooks.

Yet this $8 billion interests Flaherty so little that he can’t be bothered to collect it.

“Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”  Except that the value of our dollar and our influence over the government that is supposed to represent us are dropping.  The Occupy Wall Street movement is as much an opposition to oligarchy — even if not in name — as it is to economic disparity.

The banner of the Occupy Calgary rally, first day of occupation.

Not An Easy Pill To Swallow

Some of the Calgary establishment hasn’t been too happy to hear this, either.  The periodic pilgrimages of black limousines past Olympic Plaza on the way to Teatro Ristorante, the nervous glances from the affluent passengers who climb out… there is definitely an unease in the air and a contingent that wishes Occupy Calgary would just go away. Supporters along Macleod Trail seem almost clandestine, afraid, with tiny, careful taps of the horn as they pass by.  Patrons at the Centre for the Performing Arts have an unnerving view of the camp.  If an Occupy action is necessary, then perhaps it is especially so in Calgary.

City officials have been mixed and at times supportive.  For all the experiences of police brutality elsewhere, it’s apparent here that at least some of the Calgary Police Service have noted the cuts being forced on public and emergency personnel in the U.S.  And Occupy participants, conversely, have been as agreeable as possible on every point except for surrendering Olympic Plaza, even moving aside for a previously scheduled ICNA Muslim Heritage Day event — and ICNA, in respect for that the campers stand for, offered Occupy Calgary a table in return.  The City and its diverse inhabitants have never been the “enemy,” and both sides (at this point) seem happy to keep it that way.

The infamous Obama-mask guy. "Rothschilds" is a reference to lore about an alleged Jewish banker conspiracy, although most attendees were unfamiliar with the reference and oppose the implicit and possibly unintended racism.

But the media hasn’t been so kind.  I wrote recently about how media can spin things to be unflattering toward Occupy movements, when I’d compared Ezra Levant’s “17 clips” of Occupy Toronto and claims of “cult mentality” to other footage of his visit and an understanding of the human microphone.  Occupy Calgary has been facing some of the strongest media opposition, from both major papers and some stations.  After EMS did an inspection of first aid kits and missing items were put on a wants list, the request for condoms was trumpeted to mean that the camp had become some kind of public orgy.  Claims were made about public obscenities on signs, and a mention of “Rothschilds” (which most probably didn’t understand the meaning of) on a sign brandished by someone in an Obama mask at the initial rally on October 15th was used to claim that participants were anti-semites.  Early Friday morning, the Calgary Fire Department converged on Olympic Plaza after someone reported seeing candles (open flame is prohibited in the park).

The Nebulous $40,000 “and Rising”

And then, there is the $40,000 damage being reported nationwide.  Except that everybody who has been going to the square has been completely confused as to where the damage is.  Photos of City crews draining the pool and hosing down the concrete for routine pre-winter preparation have been juxtaposed with the articles to create the impression that some major reconstruction is underway.  City crewmen, meanwhile, have been among those scratching their heads over talk about damage to the washrooms, which is also barely visible and some attribute to non-camping passers-by.

Photos of routine maintenance juxtaposed with allegations of damage

So far, the “damage” that has been publicly trumpeted is with regard to the sod.  It’s said that the sod wasn’t made for camping, and that tent coverage is killing it.  Which might be true if the ground were frozen.  But in current weather conditions, the warmth and retention of moisture and electrolytes are actually a benefit — which is why golf courses tarp their greens.  There is in fact one section of sod that isn’t faring as well, on strips too narrow for tents and largely not used by Occupy people — a section that was also not faring well back when we visited the Plaza in preparation for Calgary Pride, in early September.  It’s a heavy-traffic downtown square with regular events, after all.  Some of the photos here were taken when the rally began, and some after the reports of “damage” became national headlines.  You decide.

The mystery of the "$40,000 damage"

Maybe reporters should be asking deeper questions, rather than looking for participants’ flaws while taking tent-counts with “only 30 minutes on the meter.”  On Friday, Calgary social workers came out to rally and show their support.  Whether or not the media notes (or even sees) it, the movement is growing.

Calgary Sun columnist Rick Bell counts the tents, looks for new signs, and misses a solidarity rally by a little over an hour.

“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.” — Nicholas Klein, 1918 (a similar quote, attributed to Gandhi, is apparently disputed)

No one is looking for monuments, only reasonable balance.  People are starting to ask questions.  Should there be a maximum wage?  Should a nation’s largest corporation really be able to get away without paying any tax at all?  Even if their jobs are complex, are CEOs really worth 343 times as much as the median average of all a company’s employees?  Or reap bonuses that are many times over what the average employee makes in a year?

Until now, such questions have been dismissed as fringe poor peoples’ sense of “entitlement” — even as the same corporate and banking entities have taken handouts and are looking to strip union bargaining power.  In America, Republicans are using anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation as a preoccupation to keep jobs bills from passing, while demanding that Medicare and Social Security be sacrificed to pay the deficits generated by a legacy of corporate and top-level tax cuts.

In Canada, the national average salary as of 2010 was $42,000 per year.  Canada’s top CEO earned that amount in four days.  Canada has the fourth largest level of inequality among its peers already, and that has been rising faster than it has in the U.S.  That gap is largest in Alberta.

Irrationally exuberant... because the world is starting to listen.

Is this the Canada we want?  Is this the Calgary we want?  Or are you simply prepared to accept that New Normal?

Are you among the 99%?

Now is the time to change it.  And now is the opportunity to speak and be heard.

(Some of these photos are mine, but most were taken by talented partner, for which I am grateful.  Crossposted to rabble.ca)

It’s not hard to find this info — it’s in the Urban Dictionary, on Wikipedia, #ows participants and commentators are discussing it and give lessons throughout their coverage, and reports back have noted it.

So now, you know more than crackerjack columnists at SunTV about #ows and the Occupy movement.

I tried to let Ezra Levant know.  Really, I did. Multiple times, in an avenue he’s regularly replied to me before.  John Robson, too.

Okay, I was snarky.  But even so I can only assume that he consciously chooses to leave his viewers uninformed when he continues to rant about how attendees of Occupy Toronto will “just repeat everything anyone says,” on his program on SunTV.  Since my tweets, he’s continued to spin Toronto’s use of the human microphone as evidence of cult mentality.  He’s had an American quack therapist (perhaps Canadian standards make it more difficult for a television station to hire a Keith Ablow) on since then to take this and run with it, talking about mind control and saying that people at the rally are both victims of and perpetuating left-wing “psychological warfare.”  Charles Adler and other Sun Media commentators have since followed his lead on this.

My personal favorite is when he talks about the crowd having a hive mind in almost the same breath that he uses to criticize the movement for not having a singular message.

Any “Spin 101″ lesson would need to look at how deliberate omission can be used to manipulate an audience.  He did this with the “Occupy Calgary is asking for condoms” meme, as well.  What he was referring to was a “wants list” that was generated after the Calgary camp was given a list of items they needed for their first aid kits.  It was actually a friend of ours who added it to the list, after being instructed to by EMS.  But instead of asking questions, it’s more convenient to just spin it.   Omissions are everything.

This also explains the footage Levant has been showing of his trip to Occupy Toronto, and the “17 clips” he selected:

YouTube user thehhammer provides us with the footage Ezra didn’t show, through the magic of video editing, so we can compare and contrast:

The Canadian Journalism Project and J-Source note:

That culminating incident came after Levant asked one man, who… had already told Levant he was cleaning the public outhouses and who was clearly wearing plastic gloves (though the Sun camera cut this part of the frame off), whether he thought he was too good to work at McDonald’s…The Sun’s clip didn’t include the crowd asking Levant if he’d work at McDonald’s, or the man asking him if he’d like to do a McDonald’s job and help him clean the overflowing outhouses — all of which lead to the chant, which he suggested came out of nowhere.…

The magic of video editing, and of showing viewers only the things you can portray as loony.