The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

Acceptance

Hello my friends,

I know, it's been a long time.  I've been busy; sort of.  Anyhoo, I hope all is well in your worlds.

So I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news regarding the new 'anti-gay law' which has been enacted in Russia.  If you have any questions about the specifics, you could read this AP story which spells things out in a little more detail.  If you don't want to bother reading these, the essentials are that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993; however this new law criminalizes public expression of support for 'non-traditional' relationships.  Basically, it allows the authorities to fine anyone found to be promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relations to children (people under 18).  It uses the word propaganda, and a couple of the articles I read defined 'non-traditional' as 'those not related to procreation'.

I could not find any mention of incarceration, however, it seems that the government has the right to throw you out of the country if you're not a citizen and you're found propagandizing.  This is not surprising:  any country has the right to throw you out if you're not a citizen and they don't want you there.

The fact that this law was enacted is offensive enough despite not actually criminalizing homosexuality.  If you do a looser search you'll find many stories/articles which claim that 'anti-gay' sentiment in Russia runs very high:  last August Moscow banned gay pride parades for 100 years despite being fined in 2010 by the European court for not allowing them earlier (2006).  You'll also find stories that claim that non-traditional relationships are an affront to 'traditional' Russian values and the Russian Orthodox Church (they never say how, just that they are).  They can wrap it up however they like, it's still discrimination:  it always has been and it is now legal in Russia.

When you hear about this law in the news you also hear about the potential impact it will have on the athletes participating in the 2014 winter Olympics that are being hosted by Russia.  There has been much ado over this.  A couple of well-known celebrities have called for boycotts, and some have even suggested that the games be moved to a different city and country altogether (George Takei suggested Vancouver).  The reasons behind this movement is not just the law itself though:  apparently, the anti-gay sentiment has led to a lot of violence against LGBT people in Russia.  From the Advocate:

"Additionally, a well-known group of Russian neo-Nazis has been luring gay teens in the country with personal ads on gay dating websites, then beating them, humiliating them, and forcing them to come out on video.  

Russian authorities have either ignored or condoned the antigay violence."

So is boycotting the right thing to do?  Of course it is.  Will it happen?  Unfortunately not.  Why  not?  For the same reasons that any type of discrimination still exists:  because we accept it.

Sexism still exists because we accept it.  Racism still exists because we allow it to.  Obviously I don't mean on an individual level:  I don't accept discrimination and it's gotten me into hot water more than once.  But I'm okay with that.  Most of my friends don't accept discrimination either.  What I mean about accepting it is on a societal level.  As a society, we allow discrimination by letting it happen; by not stopping it if it's not happening to us.  All sorts of bad things happen in the world and we shake our heads and say out loud how horrible and unjust life can be, and privately thank whatever powers may be that these things didn't happen to us and we go about our business.

We accept that bad things happen to good people.  We accept that people are going to be mean to other people and hurt other people.  We accept things like rape and murder.  People possessing illicit drugs, and bank robbers get longer sentences in most American states than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter (that's a generalization obviously and it doesn't apply to the one percent).  And we accept discrimination because it's not happening to the majority of us.  Obviously.  When the brave young woman in Stuebenville went to the police after being raped by members of the local high school football team the state attorney general said that, unfortunately, this was just another Friday night and that the culture had to change (don't quote me on that, I can't find a reference but that was the gist).  Without getting too far into one type of discrimination over another, the essence is that these things happen because we let them.  And they're systemic.

So people are going to complain about the human rights violations in Russia, but the countries are still going to go because the people who make the decisions (the people who count the money) are okay with human rights violations (as long as they aren't affected individually).  And if your team is going and you've been training for at least the past four years, you don't want to miss the games if everyone else in your field will be there and the games are still on.  Everyone went to Beijing despite the protests about human rights violations there.

Discrimination is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  What is happening in Russia is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  Is any other country going to actually do anything about it?  No.  Nobody wants to stand up and be counted.  No one is going to make those unpopular decisions:  at least not at that level.  Not where and when it counts.

I can't imagine this will make anyone feel any better, but I'll boycott watching the Olympics on principal.  It's a small thing, but it's what I can do.  If anyone else has an idea, please let me know.

Until next time peeps, drive safe!

GSAs Part Deux

Hello my peeps!

In the interest of closure, I thought I should write a little post letting everyone know that the Ontario Catholic school trustees have changed their collective mind - a little - and decided to allow clubs in Catholic schools (not gay-straight alliances) which are focused on helping students who are bullied because they are gay. Here is the Toronto Star's article on the story.

Yay! It may seem like a small victory, but it's still nice to celebrate.

Peace out peeps, and don't forget to vote on Monday!

Mobbing the Vote

Happy Easter Everybody!

I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.

There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).

If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.

Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.

It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.

Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.

So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!

Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).

I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)

Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.

Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!

Catholic Schools Ban GSAs? That's a Shocker!

Greetings my Friends,

I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.

Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.

If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.

PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.

So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.

I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.

Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.

There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:

Growing up gay in suburban Toronto during the nineties was not easy. Feeling different from a young age, and hitting puberty with an attraction to the same-sex, I realized very quickly my environment was not friendly towards such feelings.

My attempts to suppress my attraction, and fit in, led to a major depression in my early teens, with self-destructive behaviours that were all-consuming.

The only support groups for gay teens were in downtown Toronto at the time, and accessing these supports was difficult for a north of Steeles Avenue teenager on a school-night. It involved making up stories about where I disappeared to every Tuesday night, and feeling there was no space for gay teenagers in the suburbs.

I was lucky enough to meet other gay, lesbian and bisexual students in my Thornhill public high school, and together we started York Region’s first LGBTQ support group in Richmond Hill , open to all youth living in York Region. With the support of the York Region Public Health Department, we secured a space, and were happy to see large numbers of youth attend these meetings, finding a place to grow their self-esteem and realize they were not alone. This group became very meaningful for me, and for many other youth who were struggling with isolation.

Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.

Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.

That's all I've got for now peeps!

Peace out,

International Women's Day 2011

Good Day Peeps,

Happy Fat Tuesday! I hope you are all well on this sunny March Tuesday. I've been surfing around the web today checking on the status of women (as I am wont to do on this day every year) and I've come across a few differing opinions regarding our status. One that's trending on Twitter right now is by Margaret Wente about how the war is over and life is rosy now: we're equals! Yay! Right.

There are few other people who might disagree with Ms. Wente, including 007. I'm inclinded to agree with him and Q.

I'm not disagreeing with Ms. Wente regarding the basic facts that women in the west are now legally entitled to own property, vote and get an education. On paper, sure, affirmative action has made inroads: but anyone who actually has a good liberal arts education (i.e. has learned how to think beyond the stats) knows that equality isn't just about numbers. It certainly isn't just about the ability to get an education and get a job. It isn't about people in unions getting paid the same amount of money for doing the same work. Equality is much more complex and will take much more than affirmative action to become pervasive.

Ask anyone who is not a straight white man whether or not he or she feels that equality is a reality and the answer will probably be unequivocally no.

I am an eternal optimist (if you've ever read this blog before you probably know that) and I do think we're headed in the right direction, but to sit back and rest on the laurels of the women who made what we have possible and pretend that we've won would be a grave error. We will not be equal until we don't have to live in fear any longer. We will not be equal until we can all live our lives as we choose.

All people deserve the right to self-determination: not just those of us who are educated, affluent and are lucky enough to be born in the west.

Peace out peeps,

Judge Blames Victim in Sexual Assault Case? In Canada!

Hey Peeps!

Hope all is well with everyone.

A friend of mine posted a link to this article on Facebook.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at first. The I clicked on a few more stories (here's CBC's) and it seems to be true. A judge actually let a convicted rapist go free without jail time because the woman the rapist assaulted was dressed provocatively.

I'm in a little bit of shock right now. I know that there are still men in the world (and even this country) who probably believe that women 'deserve' to be raped, or 'are asking for it' when they're dressed in short skirts and tight tops and are wearing make-up, but I used to think that the men we trusted in our judicial system were more enlightened. I used to think that women who were brave enough to face their rapists would at least find some justice in the system and would be able to feel safe for a little while whilst their attackers were thinking about their actions in jail. I used to think that our justice system was moving forward, not backwards.

It seems that I was mistaken. This makes me sad. Decisions like this reinforce the idea that we really are not even close to being equals. Every now and then I get a little bit too optimistic, and I believe that we're moving towards equality in a slow, but steady manner; then something like this happens and I'm reminded that we're really only half a step above the state we were at when we weren't even allowed to own property.

I have nothing more to say about this right now.

Drive safe peeps,

Corrective Rape???

Good day my friends! I know it's been a while; I hope you've all been well.

The following was forwarded to me in an email and while it includes a plea to sign a petition, I'm not asking you to do so: you can follow your own conscience there.

The reason I'm copying it here is because I had never even heard the term 'corrective rape' before and I'm fairly up-to-date on current events. Or so I thought. The story is not pretty (rape stories never are), but the statistics included in the email are abysmal. I am aware that you can't believe everything you read, but I did a little checking and found that while I couldn't get all of these stats verified exactly, the numbers are supported elsewhere on the net (at least to some degree).

The stories at the ends of a couple of the links made me want to cry. Just warning you.

Anyway, that's enough from me because it's a bit of a long-ish post on its own, so without further ado:

Millicent Gaika was bound, strangled, tortured and raped for five hours by a man who crowed that he was ‘curing’ her of her lesbianism.

She barely survived, but she is not alone -- this vicious crime is recurrent in South Africa , where lesbians live in terror of attack. But no one has ever been convicted of 'corrective rape'.

Amazingly, from a tiny Cape Town safehouse a few brave activists are risking their lives to ensure that Millicent’s case sparks change. Their appeal to the Minister of Justice has exploded to over 140,000 signatures, forcing him to respond on national television. But the Minister has not yet answered their demands for action.

Let's shine a light on this horror from all corners of the world -- if enough of us join in to amplify and escalate this campaign, we can reach President Zuma, who is ultimately responsible to uphold constitutional rights. Let’s call on Zuma and the Minister of Justice to publicly condemn ‘corrective rape’, criminalise hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public education and protection for survivors. Sign the petition now and share it with everyone -- we’ll deliver it to the South African government with our partners in Cape Town :

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

South Africa , often called the Rainbow Nation, is revered globally for its post-apartheid efforts to protect against discrimination. It was the first country to constitutionally protect citizens from discrimination based on sexuality. But in Cape Town alone, the local organization Luleki Sizwe has recorded more than one 'corrective rape' per day, and impunity reigns.

'Corrective rape' is based on the outrageous and utterly false notion that a lesbian woman can be raped to 'make her straight', but this heinous act is not even classified as a hate crime in South Africa . The victims are often black, poor, lesbian women, and profoundly marginalised. But even the 2008 gang rape and murder of Eudy Simelane, the national hero and former star of the South Africa women's national football team, did not turn the tide. And just last week Minister Radebe insisted that motive is irrelevant in crimes like 'corrective rape.'

South Africa is the rape capital of the world. A South African girl born today is more likely to be raped than she is to learn to read. Astoundingly, one quarter of South African girls are raped before turning 16. This has many roots: masculine entitlement (62 per cent of boys over 11 believe that forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence), poverty, crammed settlements, unemployed and disenfranchised men, community acceptance -- and, for the few cases that are courageously reported to authorities, a dismal police response and lax sentencing.

This is a human catastrophe. But Luleki Sizwe and partners at Change.org have opened a small window of hope in the fight against it. If the whole world weighs in now, we could get justice for Millicent and national action to end 'corrective rape':

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

This is ultimately a battle with poverty, patriarchy, and homophobia. Ending the tide of rape will require bold leadership and concerted action to spearhead transformative change in South Africa and across the continent. President Zuma is a a Zulu traditionalist, who has himself stood trial for rape. But he condemned the arrest of a gay couple in Malawi last year, and, after massive national and international civic pressure, South Africa finally approved a UN resolution opposing extra-judicial killing in relation to sexual orientation.

If enough of us join this global call for action, we could push Zuma to speak out, drive much-needed government action, and begin a national conversation that could fundamentally shift public attitudes toward rape and homophobia in South Africa . Sign on now and spread the word:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

A case like Millicent’s makes it easy to lose hope. But when citizens come together with one voice, we can succeed in shifting fundamentally unjust, but deeply ingrained practices and norms. Last year, in Uganda , we succeeded in building such a massive wave of public pressure that the government was forced to shelve legislation that would have sentenced gay Ugandans to death. And it was global pressure in support of bold national activists that pushed South African leaders to address the AIDS crisis that was engulfing their country. Let’s join together now and speak out for a world where each and every human being can live without fear of abuse.

With hope and determination,

Alice, Ricken, Maria Paz, David and the rest of the Avaaz team

SOURCES:

Blog of Luleki Sizwe, South African organization leading the call to their government to stop 'corrective rape', and provides support to victims
http://lulekisizwe.wordpress.com

Minister of Justice Radebe’s nationally televised interview (South African Broadcasting Corporation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx-PYqHM0U

Protest against ‘corrective rape’ (The Sowetan)
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/01/06/protest-against-corrective-rape


Petition launched on Change.org by activists from Luleki Sizwe
http://humanrights.change.org/petitions/view/south_africa_declare_corrective_rape_a_hate-crime

" South Africa 's shame: the rise of child rape" (The Independent)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africas-shame-the-rise-of-child-rape-1974578.html

"Exploring homophobic victimisation in Gauteng , South Africa : issues, impacts, and responses" (Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa )
http://www.avaaz.org/out_ucap_gauteng_study

"We have a major problem in South Africa " (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/18/south-africa-murder-rape

" South Africa : Rape Facts" (Channel 4)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/south-africa-rape-facts

"Understanding men’s health and use of violence: interface of rape and HIV in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/file/view/MRC+SA+men+and+rape+ex+summary+june2009.pdf

"Preventing Rape and Violence in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://www.mrc.ac.za/gender/prev_rapedd041209.pdf

Drive safe peeps,

Peace out

Mad Woman?

Hello all,

I hope you are all well as summer begins to wind down. Our summer here in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has been HOT HOT HOT. I don't remember the last time we had one this hot. No complaints from me, but my electricity bill was a lot higher for this summer than last, and I imagine mine was not the only one.

Anyhoo, on to my post, which I'm sure you're all eager to read! ;)

I've been talking to people lately about the tv show 'Mad Men' and why I don't like it. The people I've been talking to have all been men. They all like the show. In case any of you, my faithful readers, don't know what the show is about:

Set in 1960s New York, the sexy, stylized and provocative AMC drama Mad Men follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of Madison Avenue advertising, an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell.

That quote is from the AMC (the show's producer) website.

So what's up with me? It's an award-winning show. People seem to love it. It's character driven, it's got snappy dialogue and fabulous wardrobe; and I'm seriously into clothing as those of you who know me know. For years I've been lamenting the fact that people don't know how to dress for work anymore. But I digress.

One of the men I talked to said he thought guys liked the show because it allowed them to revel in a time when men could be men and not have to apologize for their behaviour. My response: Excuse me? Answer: You know, we didn't have to worry about being politically correct and stuff. This conversation can be summed up thusly: He suggested that men enjoyed the show because it was set in a time when men could be as sexist, racist and bigoted as they were naturally inclined to be and didn't have to worry about the repercussions. After a little discussion (read grilling, and I admit that my discussions on topics like this may seem a little like grilling when speaking with someone with this kind of belief) he protested that this was not his opinion, just what he imagined others' opinions are. Right.

Okay, this I get: if you're sexist, racist and/or bigoted, and still wish that white men were as dominant and oppressive as they were fifty years ago, I can completely understand why you would enjoy this show.

Another guy I spoke with told me I was reading too much into it. It's just a show. He doesn't think about it at all and I shouldn't worry about. I shouldn't worry about the rampant misogyny? Nope. It's just a show. Get over it. Move on. This conversation isn't worth having. Okay then. I'll move on.

The last guy I talked to about this show is someone I consider to be not only very liberated but also an entertainment connoisseur. When he asked why I dislike the show I told him I was uncomfortable with how misogynistic it is. During our conversation he pointed out that the show took place during a time when that was the norm and that the show's protagonists were not depicted as heroes, rather they were shown as anti-heroes and that the misogyny was not glamourized but highlighted as something negative. He enjoys the show for the story lines, characters, etc. not for the wistful harkening back to 'better times'. He also pointed out that I sounded a little harsh when talking about it. Okay, maybe I am a little; or maybe a lot. He asked why I was so upset about this particular show when almost anything historical would contain some form of oppression. This is true.

So I've been thinking about this and I've decided I just can't stomach it. Perhaps this show is worst because it's so good; because it's so believable. Perhaps it's because I don't have to suspend any disbelief: I believe in these scenarios; these things could have happened. It's similar to why I don't find slasher movies scary but Silence of the Lambs scared the heck out of me: slasher movies are completely fabricated, but serial killers with anti-social personalities exist.

So I admit it it's me. I don't enjoy watching it. I prefer my entertainment to be fun, or intellectual or something that doesn't make me feel bad. Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that I'm a 'bury my head in the sand and forget about what women have had to go through to get where we are today type of person'. I'm just saying that when I watch t.v. it's because I don't want to think, I just want to enjoy myself and I can't enjoy myself if I'm feeling bad. I'm glad society has changed and I don't really have to deal with treatment like that on a regular basis. Obviously, we're still not equals and sexism still exists. Racism and bigotry of all kinds still exist too, but I think society is moving forward and I am happy that some people are watching what they say and do. Not enough mind you, but at least people are trying and I give them kudos for that.

I look forward to a time when people don't have to worry about political correctness anymore because they won't even be thinking that way. People will have come to the realization that people are people and while different, equal. I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen someday. Maybe then people will watch something like 'Mad Men' and marvel at how pre-historic the people in the twentieth century were.

Until then, be good and drive safe peeps!

Abortion? Again???

Why People Why????

Have they nothing better to do with their time? Seriously? Are there not more important issues concerning their constituents that they should be worried about? I think yes. Child poverty, health care, education, the military action in Afghanistan: these are but a few of the issues that are current, urgent and far more real than what some of our MPs seem to be spending their time and our money on.

According to a story in The Toronto Star today, some people are under the misapprehension that there is still such a thing as an 'abortion debate' in Canada. Are they not aware of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? According to section 7:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As far as I'm concerned, this means I'm allowed to do whatever is necessary to secure my life as it is and I have the right not to be deprived of that right. Of course, I also must not be depriving any other person who also has a life and is entitled to the same rights.

Further, according to section 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This means that I cannot be discriminated against because I am a woman. Since only women can have abortions, then it follows (granted in a somewhat odd fashion) that preventing women from having abortions is discriminating against them.

Women have just as much right to self-determination as men do. Period. When are these people going to catch up? The so-called abortion debate is sooo twenty years ago. Or maybe they just can't come up with solutions to real problems so since they feel a need to be in the news, they figure they'll push our buttons about this.

Hmpf!

Peace out peeps,
Lesle

Ordinary People Don't Like the Arts?

You just had to know that I would respond to that one! However, before I finished my response, Margaret Atwood responded even more eloquently in the Globe and Mail last week:

MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an "estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined)."

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called "ordinary people" didn't care about something called "the arts." His idea of "the arts" is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an "ordinary person." Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. "Ordinary people" pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for "the arts" in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. "The arts" are not a "niche interest." They are part of being human.

Moreover, "ordinary people" are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. "Ordinary people" have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and "ordinary people" will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is "ordinary." It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of "ordinary people." He's the "niche interest." Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is "ideologically motivated." Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

I don't think I need to add anything to that. Thanks for reading, and please remember to vote peeps!

To Vote or Not to Vote

Hello friends,

A friend of mine forwarded this to me recently and I felt impelled to post it. The original author of the message is from the US, but the message is pretty universal.

Women friends and family please read this to the end as it is important and a part of our struggle for equality!

Let's honour these brave and daring women by voting and acknowledging them for our freedoms. Thank you for taking the time.

Remember, the vote for women was a massive struggle. See the movie, Iron Jawed Angels. It will inspire you to vote!

WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE




This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.

Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.

(In Canada full enfranchisement was not to come until 1918, when the Dominion (federal) parliament passed an act giving women the vote. The remaining provinces quickly followed suit, except for Quebec, which did not do so until 1940. Agnes Macphail became the first woman elected to the Dominion Parliament in 1921.)



These women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.

And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'



(Lucy Burns)

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.



(Dora Lewis)

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.



(Alice Paul)

When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, there was a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. We need the reminder.

Voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The
right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco [sic] night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know.
We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote liberal, conservative, green, new democratic, democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.

Please remember to vote on October 14th friends! I don't feel that we're entitled to complain unless we are willing to participate in our social contract. Like the author of this piece, I won't presume to tell you how to vote (your conscience should guide you in that regard), I just want you to vote.

Thanks for reading & drive safe peeps,

Highway of Heroes

Good evening my friends,

I hope you are all well and ready for another exciting election season! ;)

Before I start in on our wonderful political landscape, I wanted to write about our 'Highway of Heroes'. I'm not sure how familiar anyone is with that name so I'll explain: sometime last year it was decided that a stretch of the 401 (or, more formally, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway) should be sub-named in honour of our deceased soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The stretch from Trenton to Toronto was chosen because the soldiers' bodies are flown to Trenton then transported via the freeway to Toronto.

I'm not writing this post about war, or about whether or not our soldiers should be there. It's not up to them where they go; they are brave enough to join our military and they are heroes regardless of what happens. This post is about us. The people who stay here. The people for whom the soldiers fight. The people who do not even think about those soldiers most of the time. I have a tendency to be somewhat cynical about us. Sometimes it seems as though we are heading quickly into hell in a hand-basket without any signs of slowing down. However, every now and then something happens and I feel as though there may be hope.

The highway of heroes gives me hope. If you haven't been on it or around it when soldiers have been coming home then you're missing something. Sorry. Twice in the past week I've been on the 401 when soldiers were coming home (which is probably why I'm writing this now). It makes me sad to think that twice in the past week we've lost Canadian soldiers, but it gives me hope to see all of the people who turn up to show their respect just by standing on an overpass and waving a flag. The first time I experienced it I didn't know what was going on because there were only police vehicles and personnel, firetrucks and fighters and other emergency personnel. The vehicles' lights were all flashing. We only found out later (from a firefighter) that they were showing their solidarity and respect in the best way they could think of.

The emergency personnel still come and flash their lights, but the overpasses are all crowded with ordinary citizens now from end to end. They hang the maple leaf flags overhead and they stand in silent vigil. It reminded me this past week that society is not wholly lost. There are still good citizens who care about what happens to others and about the good deeds done by those who have given their lives to protect ours (however remote that may seem).

I may not drink beer or play hockey, but I am Canadian and I am proud to be so.

Thanks for coming out, and drive safe peeps,

Dr. Morgantaler, I presume?

Greetings loyal friends and readers.

Happy summer to you all! Well at least to those of you living in the northern hemisphere. To those who do not, I wish a jolly cozy winter!

Enough with the niceties though. I've been thinking a fair amount recently about the appointment of Dr. Henry Morgantaler to the Order of Canada.

As you may expect, I think that this was an appropriate decision. If you know anything about his history, you don't need me to explain why, or if you read the story in the link, you also don't need me to explain why. I will simply state here that Dr. Morgantaler was perhaps the single most important figure in Canada's road to legalizing abortion.

What I've been thinking about though isn't really about what Dr. Morgantaler has done, or why I feel he is so worthy of one of our country's greatest honours. I was thinking about the other members of the Order, a former lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, Gilbert Finn, a B.C. Priest, and a charity organization whose founder received the award posthumously, the Madonna House, who have either returned their awards or have stated publicly that they are going to because the Order has been 'degraded', 'devalued' and 'tarnished' by Morgantaler's membership.

Why am I focussed on this you ask? Predominantly because Canadians are, in general, polite, and the actions mentioned above are not at all polite. Why were they doing this? What was their motivation? Clearly this was a good opportunity for at least one or two of these people to get another fifteen minutes of fame. I'm torn on how to feel about the Madonna House people's motivation. The award wasn't really theirs. Who are they to give it back? Regardless, it struck me that people have become so entirely self-centred and self-serving that it doesn't seem to matter that they are insulting our country. They have been granted one of the highest distinctions available in our country and they are publicly throwing it back in our faces and spitting on it. Figuratively of course. Who would even do that with a gift you didn't really want? Did no one teach them manners? It's as though they were invited to a party and arrived and found out that someone they don't like was also invited so they make a big fuss about not staying, but they're probably going to take their loot bags with them.

It's one thing for anti-abortion activists to protest in front of Rideau Hall. People are always protesting something (they clearly have known no real hardship in their lives and thus need some excitement) and they will continue to do so until they get what they want (which will never happen). It is a whole other thing for someone who has done good works and has been recognized by the government as such to publicly protest the government's decisions in such a gross and childish manner.

If they felt this strongly about abortion then why did they accept the awards in the first place? Abortion was legalized by the government, not by Dr. Morgantaler. If it's abortion they abhor, they should be protesting at abortion clinics or at the legislative buildings in Ottawa. That's where abortion became legal. Instead, they're simply discriminating against one man who was brave enough to stand up for what he believed in to the point of incarceration, death threats and attempts on his life.

As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue is closed. Any person should have the right to self-determination. That is a basic human right in Canada. Abortion became legal in 1988. Twenty years ago it was decided that a woman should not have to ask a committee for permission. It took a long time to get to that point. Dr. Morgantaler was instrumental in that process. He was a key figure and a leader in his field. He deserves the Order of Canada just as much as Wayne Gretzky.

Thanks for stopping by!

Drive safe peeps,

The New 'V' Word?

Good Morning,

I hope you are all well, and again, thanks for reading!

I was rifling through my paper (the Toronto Star, Canada's most read newspaper) this morning to find the Sudoku puzzle, which happened to be in the Living section, when I saw the headline above on the front page of that section. The picture accompanying the story took up most of the space on the page and even went below the fold. The V was red and huge. I don't think it could have been any more conspicuous.

So, for those of you who might not know what the new v word is, it's 'va-jay-jay'. No, I'm not kidding. (It can also be spelled vajayjay apparently.) The orignial V word, VAGINA, the one that people don't like to use in 'polite' conversation, the one that Eve Ensler has worked so hard to make a household word, is apparently being replaced with a comical word.

This, apparently is not news to many people who watch TV. It is to me. I don't watch Oprah and I don't watch Grey's Anatomy. The first time I heard the word was early this spring when I was cottaging and I thought it was a kind of funny word that someone not comfortable with VAGINA had invented for her kids. You know, like pee-pee or tushie or yoo-hoo.

I'm pretty sure that those of you who know me, will know how I feel about this. If you're afraid of saying something, then you're clearly not comfortable with it, and if you're not comfortable with your own body and can't teach your kids to be comfortable with their bodies, then it will be difficult for them to ever be truly comfortable with another person, and people of the opposite sex will always be 'other'. This may seem like a small thing, but this is exactly how we socialize our children into believing that anything having to do with 'their private parts' aka their genitalia is not something that we should discuss. It's not something that we should talk about openly and we certainly shouldn't talk about it with the people we are supposed to be able to go to for anything; the people we should be able to trust most to be honest and helpful. You know; our parents. And if we can't discuss something with our parents, then it must be bad; or wrong, or dirty or whatever.

Having re-iterated stuff that most of my peers should already know, I'm going back to Oprah and Grey's Anatomy. It doesn't really matter where the word originated. Oprah, apparently, uses it quite frequently. So does Grey's Anatomy. A spokesperson for Grey's Anatomy said (when interviewed) that they had been told that they had used the word vagina too many times in one episode and were asked to try to find another word. That same person also pointed out that the word penis had been used several more times in that same episode, but no one had commented on that.

My main complaint with the new V word is that it's comical and childish. It really sounded to me like something a child had said because she or he couldn't pronounce vagina correctly the first time she tried. Kids mess up words all the time when they're learning.

If it's a three year old and you laugh a little but gently correct her the next time, she will eventually start to pronounce the word correctly. However, if it's Oprah Winfrey and she's shouting it out to millions of viewers in North America every day, are we ever going to get our daughters to be comfortable with themselves if they can't even talk about their bodies unless they make it comical or laughable? Oprah clearly has much power over North American women; young and old. She wields a mighty hammer, and if she says something is good, it is. She is a powerful, intelligent woman in a position to sway public opinion. I wonder if she's aware of the effect she's having on decades of effort put forth by women to be treated as equals as opposed to indentured servants responsible for housekeeping, childrearing and sex.

Call me Chicken Little if you like. I don't mind.

The other side to this (for people slightly less reactive than I), is that perhaps the comical word will be a little easier for some women to say. Perhaps asking some women to say vagina is just a little too extreme for their sensibilities, but they may be able to manage va-jay-jay. In this case, at least they are using some form of the word that other women would understand, and those of us who are not extremists, may understand that this is as far as those women can go. It would be a step in the right direction I suppose. A small step, but at least a step.

That's my rant for today folks, thanks for coming out!!

Drive safe peeps,

Inaction is a Choice Too

Hello beautiful people,

This may seem a little bit long, but I think it's worth watching. A friend of mine sent it to me. (Yes, I'm on my little soapbox again! ;)



Hope you enjoy it!

Election Day Approacheth in Ontario

Greetings Good Peoples,

I hope you are all well, and I would like to thank any of you who are actually still clicking on my little blog occasionally to see whether or not my writer's block has ended yet.

I'm hoping it has. I have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to start blogging again, but those posts are still in draft form and are still incomplete.

Anyway, if there's one thing that may spur me into action, it is an election! Ontario is having a provincial election tomorrow and I'd like to urge all of you Ontarians to vote. As any of my regular readers may know, I am a huge supporter of participating in the electoral process; which, for most people, means voting. I don't even view the right to vote as a privilege (which it may be for some who do not possess it), I view it as an obligation. It is a duty to which we, as participants in our social contracts, are bound. How can we expect our political representatives to know what we want if we don't tell them? Further, how do we know which representative will best represent us if we don't get involved and find out what they (or their party) stand for?

This particular vote is especially important because it contains a referendum (yes! we can have them too!). If this is news to you (and you're an Ontarian) I urge you to visit YourBigDecision to see what all the hoopla is about. I'm not going to explain everything here, but the government is asking its citizens whether we want to keep our current electoral system (first-past-the-post) or if we want to change to a mixed system which involves both first-past-the-post and mixed-member-proportional. Please click on the link for further explanation of these. I don't want to explain these options in a perhaps slanted way.

As of this time, I have still not decided how I am going to mark my ballot tomorrow, but mark it I will, and I will do so with the knowledge that I have done all that I could to determine what I think are the best options for our province.

Thanks again for your time, and thanks for your patience.

Drive safe peeps,
Lesle

Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

Hi Everybody,

It's that time of year again... Nope, not spring, because as the weather has just reminded us here in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), we really can't rely on the past to help us figure out the weather's behaviour in the present (maybe it's supposed to be spring, but no... some more snow for us). No, now is the time when all the little accountants start sharpening their little pencils and stacking up the rolls of adding machine paper (I don't really know the name of that paper, sorry). It's Tax Season folks!!!

Aren't you all excited? I am! Well, I was, but I got my refund two weeks ago, so my excitement has subsided a little. I have safely tucked most of it away (no I'm not telling where!). I am kidding about getting really excited about tax time; slightly. Taxes are so easy now if you use software and file on-line that it literally takes only a week (maybe two if you file closer to the deadline) to get your assessment. If you have arranged for direct deposit, and you're getting a refund of your hard-earned money, then the money is in your account before you even get the paper assessment.

But I digress. My excitement was not why I wanted to discuss taxes today. A friend of mine sent me an email today that reminded me that I've wanted to discuss taxes before (but clearly had not gotten around to it). This is what she sent me:

Explaining Taxation

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1
* The sixth would pay $3
* The seventh would pay $7
* The eighth would pay $12
* The ninth would pay $18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings: "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Okay, that may be a slightly heavy-handed example, but it's essentially true. As much of a socialist as I am (sort of), I am not a fanatic and I do understand money management. People (media, politicians) like to grab headlines, but the bottom line is that a tax cut is not 'free money' for anyone. It simply means that the amount of taxes we have to pay is proportionately less. That's why they call refunds; refunds. We're getting our money back. It was our money to begin with. It may seem as though the wealthy are getting a break when others are not (or are not getting much of one), but only because they were paying more originally. If we're not paying any taxes, then there is nothing to refund. If we're paying some, then we'll get some back, and if we pay lots, we'll get more back.

The bottom line for me is that I support paying taxes. I don't think I've ever complained about it, and I know several others who feel the same way. I think that we need to pay taxes to keep our social services alive and well. Yes, I am aware that there are some serious problems with our social services in Canada, and I am also aware that the more wealthy you are, the more opportunites your accountant will find to save you tax money. But, the wealthy (and businesses) still pay more in taxes than middle income or low income earners, and when there is a cut, the dollar value looks better for the wealthiest, even if the percentage doesn't.

When you enter into a social contract, there are benefits to be gained and there are obligations imposed. The taxes are one of the obligations we must meet so that we can benefit from living in one of the most developed nations in the world. Benefits like socialized healthcare and welfare, and passable roads and clean drinking water running hot and cold from our taps inside our homes (for the most part; if you don't have a home, you're probably not paying taxes).

I hope this little post of mine hasn't offended anyone!

Drive safe peeps!

International Women's Day '07 - Epilogue

Sorry to bug you twice in one day friends, but I was catching up on news and found this headline: Witness at Sask sex assault trial testifies girl made first moves on him , so of course I had to click on it.

If you don't want to make the effort to click on the link, here's a quick summary: three men (white men in their mid-twenties) have been accused of gang-raping a twelve year-old aboriginal girl. They picked her up on the steps of some bar, she had just run away from home, they drove out into the country and they gave her beer (four of them I think). But she started it. She was the aggressor.

This is why we need an International Women's Day.

Peace out peeps,

Quebec Votes 2007

Good Rainy Morning to you!

I don't know what it's like where you are, but it's raining like crazy here in the Big Smoke. It was sunny when I was driving to work, then about an hour later it was pouring, then it stopped, then it was pouring, now it's drizzling... Like I said, crazy! However, the temperature is a balmy 14 degrees Celsius and I am pretty pleased with that. I think we may be on the road to spring!

So, with spring in mind, I'd like to point out a little something to my faithful friends: Quebec is having a provincial election on Monday and apparently, the Liberals may not win! Follow along with the CBC to keep tabs on the nail-biting, mud-slinging, name-calling race.

Some of you who are Canadian, will understand what it means for the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) not to win the provincial election: the issue of separation will once again rear its ugly head. If the Liberals are not elected to government, then (most likely) the Parti Quebecois (PQ) will be elected; although that is also not guaranteed any longer because there is a relatively new player, the Action Democratique de Quebec (ADQ), that is right up at the top of the polls with the other two. Both the PQ and the ADQ are sovereigntist parties. Therefore, if either of these two form the provincial government in Quebec, there will be more, and louder, and more insistent talk of referendums and separating from the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada (as far as I know) doesn't want them to separate; aside from the whole 'losing a vital part of your country and its history' thing, we'd be cutting our country in half and that would mess up our maps. Thus, I will be following the results on Monday as closely as I can. I'll have to do it in French, but that's cool; they say better stuff in French anyway.

I'm not sure how many of you knew about the upcoming election, or the platforms of the parties or how the race was going, or anything like that. As I was reading the French language articles on canoe.ca from Quebec I began to realize that I should have been aware of more than I was. There's a lot of stuff going on in our country that we don't know about because we don't read their newspapers, or watch local French news, etc. It occurred to me that if we (the rest of Canada) always wait until the horse has left before closing the barn door (so to speak) then we're not going to be able to have any credibility with the Quebecois. Or, to put it more simply: Most of us are going to wait until a separatist party is elected before we even think about the fact that a large amount of people in Quebec are willing to separate from Canada.

I don't think that's a good idea. I know it seems as though there is nothing we, the rest of Canada, can do since we don't get to vote in a referendum, but perhaps we're wrong. What if we did think about it more? What if we tried to make it an issue with our MPs? What if we told them that we wanted Quebec to be a part of Canada and that we wanted making that happen a priority? Isn't that what government is for? Aren't the elected officials supposed to represent the will of the people? Are we not obligated to take an active role in public life in some way as part of our social contract? Yes. To all of those questions. If we want something to be done, we should not wait until the milk is spilling to start crying about it. We should be working pre-emptively to try to prevent the milk jug from tipping over in the first place.

I am as guilty as the next person. It wasn't until my friend from Quebec pointed these articles out to me that I woke up to the realization that all sorts of wierd political stuff is going on in Quebec right now and that a separatist party just might win the election on Monday.

We (the rest of Canada) may be 'tired' of hearing about Quebec's distinct society, or some of us may think they should just let it go because they've had two referendums and lost both; but at least the Quebecois care about their nation and their politics. That's more than you can say for most of the rest of us. (I'm not suggesting that their position is a good one.) Would we all get out and vote if we were allowed to vote in the referendum? I'm not sure that all of the people I know would.

Rant over for today, thanks for coming along for the ride!

Drive safe peeps,