The Body

Standard

An interesting discussion arose recently over a boy’s reluctance to be hugged by an older female relative. The hug came as a surprise and the boy jerked back and pushed the hugger away. Some felt this was rude and a sign of him not being comfortable in social situations.

But why should anyone have to accept social touching even by a close relative or friend? Certainly, we know that casual touching is increasingly looked on with suspicion. Which is not necessarily always a good thing—something I may explore in a subsequent ten minutes.

But the real issue is the matter of body autonomy. The right to security of the person—as it is described in some constitutions—is one of the underpinnings of all human rights.  Even as far back as 1776, there was some understanding of this in provisions against unlawful confinement and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Though it took another century for America to realize that security of the person—in a land where all men are created equal—should also include the right not to be enslaved.

My body, my choice has long been a mantra of the feminist movement. The right to own one’s own body underlies the right to reproductive control including the right to an abortion. Despite efforts by mostly male legislators to argue differently, there is no competing right between mother and fetus, since the fetus without the mother’s body, cannot exist on its own until very late in the pregnancy, and, even then in most of the Western world, the woman’s autonomy is paramount. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is no different than forcing a person into slavery.

Body autonomy is also critical to other gender issues. No-one should have the ability to control or limit who people love or have sex with (provided the other person is capable, legally and psychologically, of giving consent) or even how they define their sexuality to be. The right to modify your body to fit your definition of self is critical to the essential freedom of the body that cuts through all our most basic rights.

Which brings us back to the boy who didn’t want to be hugged without consent. Later, that same day as the family was leaving, the situation of hugging came up again. Grandma asked permission to hug and when granted gave a small squeeze, careful not to go too far. Grandson replied by seeking a second more generous embrace. Consent given, freedom expressed, love displayed.

And that’s ten minutes.

IMHO

Standard

We all have a range of opinions; some of us have opinions on everything. Like taste, opinions are not disputable; you feel one way or you feel another. That doesn’t mean some opinions aren’t wrong—just that the people who hold them are not open to persuasion by facts. Facts are something else entirely. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

Some people find that annoying and insist on their own facts. We might refer to them by a lot of names but I prefer to call them “willing slaves of tyranny.” As soon as you deny reality and accept “alternative facts” (that is, lies) as equally valid as something that can be objectively proven, you become the ready and easy bait for would-be dictators.

Still, most opinions are harmless, right? For example, I’m of the opinion that Brussels sprouts aren’t fit for anything but garden fertilizer; they certainly shouldn’t be eaten. Many disagree and have even argued vehemently that I’ve just never had them served in the proper way. I listen more or less politely and then explain that those recipes would be delicious if only they didn’t contain the offending sprouts. I’ll even accept they might be nutritious (those are simple facts, provable by scientific analysis) without agreeing that they are worth eating. After all, those vitamins can be obtained elsewhere. I’ve had people tell me I’m wrong but I respond with: to each their own taste and have I extolled the virtues of stinky sticky blue cheese?

You see – there are opinions (taste) and there are facts (nutritional value) and never the twain shall meet.

But most things in the world are not like that. You can have the opinion that the world is flat but the facts say you are wrong. Some people can’t let the facts or any kind of evidence prove their firmly held opinion wrong. Those people are stupid or they are deluded and, if they happen to be famous, they are stupid, deluded and dangerous. Celebrity is not a certificate of excellence.

Of course, some people know they are treading on dangerous ground and qualify their remarks with such phrases as “in my humble opinion” (IMHO) and then proceed to prove they never have looked up the word “humility” in the dictionary.

Some of you might say that in a democracy, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that’s true, but they are not entitled to think that their opinion is some reflection of reality or is in some way superior to the opinions of other people. They are certainly not entitled to the idea that their opinion cannot be criticized or disputed, or heaven forbid, proven wrong-headed or actually wrong by an examination of the evidence.

Of course, this is much like a salmon trying to swim up a dry stream – the salmon is programmed to do it and determined it will somehow work but it learns the hard way that you can’t fight reality (or the laws of physics). It would be nice to think that this fact denying affliction only troubles one small group of people or one side of the political equation.

But the reality is—we all, including me, like to hold onto our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. It’s wired right into our brains. But here’s the great thing, we have language to communicate and explore alternative views and we have reason and the scientific method. And if we all just used those tools on a regular basis, there would probably be a lot less arguing over opinions. IMHO, at least.

And that’s ten minutes.

Doctrinal Purity

Standard

Before he became the ruler of the city-state of Geneva, John Calvin was noted for, among other things, his writings on religious tolerance. During the five years as head of a government – not so much. He oversaw the execution—mostly by burning at the stake—of more than 50 people for heresy. Calvin was catholic in his approach – not capital-C Catholic of course but ‘universal’ as the word also means. He killed pretty much anyone who disagreed with his particular interpretation of the Bible and God’s word. And, if anything, he seemed to dislike his fellow Protestants the most.

Doctrinal purity is a dangerous thing. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Careful how you answer that or you could find yourself catapulted away just like those who can’t figure out the ground speed of an unladen swallow. There is always a finer point of questioning to catch you up. As for three-in-on or one-in-in three, unless you are talking about lubricating oil, you had best shut up.

Thankfully times have changed. You can no longer be burned at the stake for getting some trivial religious interpretation wrong. These days it is more likely to be beheading or maybe just a bullet to the head. But not in the west, surely?

Well, surely not. Here we are satisfied with jailing people for defamation or perhaps shouting them down at a political meeting. Slap suits are a common tool of the rich to silence people who question how they got their money. And give them enough power and they may just remove your right to speak at all.

I recall once being accused of being a Trotskyite by a fellow NDP party member as a way of shutting me up. But that was nothing.  Now you’d best be careful of what you say on any cultural issue or you may find yourself in for a Twitter storm of abuse or much worse – having the SWAT team called to your house by an anonymous tip. Not exactly a walk in the park.

Both left and right have considerable aversion to each other’s shibboleths and doctrines but I sometimes think they hold out their strongest criticism for those within their own ranks who deviate from the received Truth. Just read a few of the repulsive alt-right tweets about John McCain’s recent diagnosis with brain cancer or the silencing of any voice that doesn’t toe the identity politics line – check please (your privilege that is). Silence is far preferable – and apparently safer – than critical analysis or questioning of someone’s facts.

Everyone, of course, can lay claim to their own opinions but increasingly they lay claim to their own facts, too. Cries of fake news started by the right have been embraced by the left just as political correctness, originally a weapon of the left against their own, was appropriated by the right. Oh, and don’t get me started on appropriation.

Of course, the left argue they have the high ground since, while the right rely on religion, they believe in science, except when it comes to the disquieting studies that show GMOs or vaccines aren’t dangerous or that eating meat may not be as environmentally dangerous as we thought.  I could go on but who needs the abuse.

Well, pox on all of them, I say. And if you don’t agree, well, sit down, shut up and wait your turn on the grill. And that’s ten minutes.

Wave the Flag

Standard

This year is Canada’s 150th birthday and big celebrations are planned from coast to coast to coast. Nowhere will the party be bigger than in Ottawa on July 1st. As it happens I’m going to miss it. Was it intentional? Not consciously perhaps but, unconsciously, probably so. I’ve liked the annual foo-foo-rah less every year and, since the tightening of security over the last 10 years or so, it is a positively negative experience as far as I’m concerned. The crowds, the lines, the noise and, usually, the heat – it all seems like more trouble than it’s worth.

Then, there are the flag wavers. Canada doesn’t do patriotism/nationalism quite the way Americans do. When people wrap themselves in the flag (literally) it is often done with modified Canadian flags that express their identity – cultural, sexual or drug (replacing the maple leaf with a cannabis plant). They paint maple leaves on their faces and bellow incoherent versions of O Canada at passersby. And they get drunk and watch fireworks. Mostly good fun.

You seldom see demonstrations by white nationalists and when you do, other Canadians tend to stand around and stare disapprovingly. The sound of tut-tut-tut can sometimes be overwhelming.

Nonetheless, there is a streak of ugly exclusivity that still exists in certain parts of the country – not geographic parts so much (though that is a factor) but ideological parts. Take for example the current shenanigans around the changing of the words to our national anthem. The change is pretty minor: replacing the line ‘in all our sons command’ with ‘in all of us command.’ The arguments currently being voiced in the Senate border on the absurd. It’s traditional, they say. While I will acknowledge that Canada was traditionally a sexist patriarchy, it is now 2017 and we’ve had complete equality of the sexes in our constitution for 35 years. Besides, the anthem hardly dates back to the founding of the country (written in French in 1880 it was only adopted as the anthem in 1967) and has been changed numerous times over the years. My favorite argument, by one Senator, is that it is ungrammatical. Now there’s a cause most Canadians can rally around.

The reality is that few people sing the anthem anyway and when they do, they pretty much sing it the way they want. While one so-called patriot was up in arms because a choir in Toronto recorded the anthem using the as-yet unapproved words, few people are too concerned. They’ve been to hockey and baseball games and heard the mangling of the anthem too often to really care. At least they’ve stopped booing the French version when it’s sung.

Besides, there are bigger issues for some of us. One line extols God to keep our land glorious and free. One friend sings that line as ‘Dog keep our land’. I’m not sure if that is an expression of atheism, animal rights or simply a case of dyslexia. Other friends – avowed atheists – simply refuse to sing the anthem at all.

Flags and anthems are all well and good but too much adherence to any of them is not a mark of patriotism but a sign of impending fascism. The extreme right just love their little symbols; it would be cute if it wasn’t so ugly. One American friend of mine was shot at shorty after publishing a defence of flag-burning in a local paper. Coincidence? I think not. Still, it is worrisome that someone thinks shooting a person for expressing their opinion is a ‘defence of freedom.’

So I may watch the celebrations from England but I’m just as happy to miss all the patriotic noise and honour Canadian values of equality, multiculturalism and freedom in my own quiet way.

And that’s a bit more than ten minutes.

Retirement

Standard

In two weeks I will be retired, or as a friend of mine wisely calls it, refocused. Still it will be a strange thing not to work for someone else. I took my first paid job when I was fourteen (though I did freelance for a few years before that as a lawnmower and snow-shoveller and berry-picker). I still have the pay-stub from my first regular job. It was for $4.65 for 3.5 hours work. That was obviously a long time ago.

Since then I’ve worked for a lot of different people and organizations – mostly on regular salary though sometimes on contract. It has been a varied life. I’ve worked as a library assistant, a gardener, a chemist, a research manager, a house painter, a labour negotiator, an actor, a bartender, a pizza cook, an arts administrator, a policy advisor, a medical researcher, a telemarketer, a political assistant and several other professions I now forget.

During that time I did work for myself as well. I spent my teenage years selling greeting cards door-to-door and, later, took research jobs on contract. Of course, I’ve been a freelance writer for more than  25 years and, most recently, an editor and publisher for my own company.

I expect that I’ll keep writing on a regular basis and I hope to even make some money in the process. But it’s not the same as having to go to the office every day. I only have myself to answer to and only I can make me sit at the computer and work. I expect to be a pretty easy going boss. Although I intend to write a novel between now and the end of September, that’s only about 900 words a day of new prose. I can generally do that in an hour or two. There will be research, of course, and re-writing and editing, not to mention the publishing company, but still, I don’t plan to write every day and I don’t plan to work any more than 4 hours in any given day.

But what will I do to fill the time? After spending most of my life working 8 or more hours a day – for someone far less easy going than me – what will I do to stop from being bored?

Even to ask that question suggests you don’t know me very well. I can’t stand being inactive – it doesn’t just bore me it makes me grumpy. So I will read and walk and talk and party and cook and travel and photograph and think and watch and listen and play and dream up adventures to do or write about.

Retirement? I don’t think so. Refocus – it is a wiser term.

And that’s ten minutes.

Democracy is Hard

Standard

We have it right from the horse’s mouth; Donald Trump has expressed surprise at how difficult it is to be president. It’s almost as if he thought he had been elected king and could rule by divine right. But no, he actually has to work – and it hasn’t been easy.

Trump touted his ability to make deals and to be decisive. It seems neither has served him well in the White House. The thing is this – it’s easy to make a deal when people have common interests, where people want to make a deal. What he has discovered is that a lot of representatives in Congress simply aren’t prepared to compromise. They would rather stick to what they refer to as principles then be seen as ideologically impure.

Take the repeal of parts of the Affordable Care Act yesterday. The vote was close and one group of moderate Republicans threatened to fire their leader when he made a deal – not with Democrats – with another group of Republicans. Even though the Bill passed in the House, it is unlikely to get through the Senate without amendment requiring it all to be done again next month or next year. Obamacare may still be in the gun-sights of Trump when he runs for re-election – providing it all doesn’t get too hard before then.

The real concern isn’t that Donald Trump finds the process of democracy hard; it is that people throughout the West are giving up on the democratic process. More and more, those on both right and left want change and are quite willing to put their faith in autocrats to bring it about. A recent poll has shown that increasing numbers of people, and especially the young, no longer believe that democratic governments are a necessary precondition to their own freedom.

This is more than simple minded libertarianism that proposes individuals can be free when societies are not. It is, in fact, a deeper malaise that seems to have led to a belief that society itself no longer exists. Didn’t Margaret Thatcher predict this some years ago when she said that there was no such thing as society – only individuals and families? Apparently, for her, friendship and common cause were not significant factors in how people behave (despite the cozy deals that the ruling elite commonly made). Now , as we all withdraw into our silos and where some even argue that whole communities should withdraw from the world in a kind of new monasticism, it is difficult to see  how we will ever come together to solve the really big problems which we can only solve collectively.

Still, there is some hope on the horizon. The sudden threat of the return of fascism in Europe – and indeed the very election of Donald Trump – has reinvigorated people who had grown complacent. Maybe democracy isn’t hard – it’s just lazy.

And that’s ten minutes.

Freedom

Standard

Everywhere man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. So thought Jean Jacques Rousseau back before the French Revolution. One wonders what he might think now. Plus ça change… and all that, I guess.

Freedom is relative, of course. Very much a case of the chains half on or half off. In the West, we often talk about how free we are and, yet, whenever someone chooses to exercise that freedom, say by refusing to stand up when an anthem was played, we get all sorts of responses – such as the pastor who stated at a football game (to wild cheers) that anyone who refused to stand, should be shot.

That struck home since, on occasion, I’ve refused to stand for such ceremonies. I got some dirty looks – or, this being Canada, some sidelong glances – but no one pulled a gun on me. Of course, talk is one thing – it’s a free country isn’t it? – but action is quite another. “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?

Religious freedom is one area where people become particularly confused. They feel that their freedom has been limited if they aren’t allowed to impose their views and values on other people, aren’t allowed to be paid by the government but refuse to serve citizens if they don’t like the cut of their jib. It’s public service folks! If you want a cult-run state, move to North Korea.

Or they believe in freedom religion but only for their own. Daesh (ISIS if you like) is all for freedom of religion – you’re free to convert anytime you like. And if you don’t… well, you have no one to blame for yourself.

But, of course, freedom can take many forms. In some places, people have proposed right-to-work legislation – even imposed it – but what they really want to do is take away your freedom of association, or put it more bluntly, they want to outlaw unions. And why not? Employment they say is a matter of a contract between two people – a boss and a worker. It’s a bit like saying that anyone can get in the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world and expect a fair fight.

Still, we have the right to vote, right? Well, we do as long as someone is watching. But look away for even a moment, and someone will start to find ways to exclude some voters. Voter registration and identification is just a modern form of the Jim Crow laws that were designed to keep black Americans from voting or the Indian Act in Canada that denied indigenous people the vote into the 1960s. Even when we talk of wasted votes or design systems where votes don’t really matter, we find ways to limit political freedom – at least for some of us. The very wealthy can always buy whatever freedom they want and often do.

Still, not all is lost. In the West at least, what used to be solved by force of arms – war and revolution – is now achieved through voter revolts and populist movements. Not always pretty but less likely to enslave us. And if it does we can turn to another old time thinker who said, echoing Rousseau: Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

And that’s ten minutes.