For What It's Worth

Unfortunately, bias and prejudice are an ingrained part of human nature, and as much as we might wish to deny it, there are demons that reside in all of us. The only honest way to deal with them, in my view, is to admit to and confront them as the first steps in overcoming them.

Like many Canadians, I have long wanted to believe that we occupy a higher moral ground than, for example, the United States, when it comes to racial, ethnic and religious equality. Of course, both history and recent events, including what was covered in this podcast, show that to be but wishful thinking. The internment of Japanese-Canadians and Italian-Canadians during WW11 is a historical rebuke to such notions, but there are other, lesser-known blots on our collective conscience.

You may have heard that a Canadian banknote set to circulate in 2018 will feature the first woman who is not the Queen. While the top five finalists are all worthy choices, my preference is for this woman:

Most people have heard of Rosa Parks, but how many know about Viola Desmond?

A business woman and beautician, Desmond is best known for her stand against racism as a black woman in Nova Scotia. While attending a movie in 1946, Desmond daringly took a seat on the main floor of the theatre rather than the balcony — reserved for non-white customers — after being refused a floor seat by the cashier. She was convicted in court for her actions, but was posthumously granted a pardon in 2010.

And this video conveys the situation she faced with such courage and conviction:



Historical injustices can never really be atoned for. However, they can be acknowledged and used to educate all of us, with the hope they they will never, ever happen again, however fond and unrealistic an aspiration that may be.

Use Your Words

This, courtesy of our friends at Raw Story:

UPDATED: Words Are Important

Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

- Excerpt from George Orwell's Politics and the English Language

As a reader, writer and retired English teacher, words have always been important to me. Words rarely exist in a vacuum; they are almost always laden with context, either implicit or carefully spelled out. They have the power to convey meaning and truth, but they also have tremendous power to either help to heal or to destroy. Words need to be respected.

It is within this context that I was very happy to see ThinkProgress offer this note from its editors:

You can learn everything you need to know about the “alt-right” by looking at the man who popularized its name. Credit goes to Richard Spencer, head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute (NPI), and one of the country’s leading contemporary advocates of ideological racism.

The weekend before Thanksgiving, Spencer keynoted an NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his speech, he approvingly quoted Nazi propaganda, said that the United States is meant to be a “white country,” and suggested that many political commentators are “soulless golem” controlled by Jewish media interests.

... ThinkProgress will no longer treat “alt-right” as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members. We will only use the name when quoting others. When appending our own description to men like Spencer and groups like NPI, we will use terms we consider more accurate, such as “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”

We will describe people and movements as neo-Nazis only when they identify as such, or adopt important aspects of Nazi rhetoric and iconography.

The point here is not to call people names, but simply to describe them as they are. We won’t do racists’ public relations work for them. Nor should other news outlets.

An article by Lindy West in The Guardian makes a similar point:

In my column last week, I wrote: “One defining aspect of alt-right white supremacy is that it vehemently denies its own existence … This erosion of language is an authoritarian tactic designed to stifle dissent. If you cannot call something by its name, then how can you fight it?”

So I was heartened yesterday when KUOW, a public radio station in Seattle, released a statement announcing that they will be substituting “white supremacy” or “white nationalism” for “alt-right”. The reasoning, laid out in a memo to staff: “‘Alt right’ doesn’t mean anything, and normalises something that is far from normal. So we need to plain-speak it.”

Such measures as described above are all to the good. As I wrote in a recent post, New Yorker writer David Remnick points out the fact that the media are now beginning to 'normalize' Donald Trump and his ilk. This must not be allowed to continue, and it is to be hoped that more news agencies will find the courage and integrity to tell things as they are, not the way their corporate masters and Trump racists want us to believe.

I leave you with one final warning from Orwell:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

UPDATE: At noon, CBC's Ontario Today had a show about words that hurt. It is painful to listen to, but also a sobering reminder that Canada is hardly free from racism.

How Can We Remain On The Sidelines?

We cannot be silent in the face of this:

No One Escapes Blame: A Guest Post

In this guest post, my good friend Dom offers a point of view well-worth serious consideration. In contrast to my post yesterday, in which \i heaped scorn on those who either voted for Donald Trump or absented themselves from the electoral process, Dom argues that there is plenty of blame to be borne by everyone, included the progressives.

In the spirit of a good rant:


If Americans want to take a long hard look at the reason why Donald Trump won the election, I would suggest the left and centre in the US get a mirror. Have a good look. They are the reason that a pussy-grabbing, tax-dodging, bankruptcy-profiteering, climate-denier, war-monger, white-supremacy-supporter, health-care-abolisher, demagogue, and narcissist won the presidency of the United States. That’s right. The left is responsible. Why?


Because of their arrogance. Because of their sanctimonious dismissiveness of the right. Because of their seemingly cultural superiority of the right. Because of their unwillingness to have meaningful conversation with the right. Because of their constant insults of the right. Because of their “club-left” and exclusionary attitudes the right. That’s why.


How can any rational person think that the US democrats were going to win an election when their platform was to insult the right? “Trump”et across the country that the only answer was theirs. Remind right wing voters on a daily basis that the Washington Elite is the only answer and that their concerns are secondary to those of every other special interest group on the planet. Divide and leave out of the equation. That was the platform Hillary Clinton and her democratic party put forward.


Hillary Clinton: a corporate supporting elite that pretends to have the interest of the working class. That is the leader the democrats choose to represent the middle and working class? The US citizens are supposed to go to the polls and chant, “well at least she’s not Trump.” This is what the “the land of the free and the brave” boldly offers its citizens: a woman who stands for nothing, and a man who stands for the 15th century. But I digress…the right put forth the man that represents their interests. Yes, a fearful to your bones interest, but never the less a clear choice. What the hell did Hillary stand for? You would never know, for it was buried so deep, I doubt she would be able to find it with a soul searching GPS.


And don’t even think of getting me started on the protesting abstainers. Their arrogance and narcissism is beyond anything I have witnessed of Donald Trump. To think that abdicating responsibility of voting makes a statement is beyond comprehension. Votes “count”. “Count.” Arithmetic, simple arithmetic. When you don’t vote, you don’t count! There is no greater cause in abstaining a vote. There is no point to be made in choosing not to vote. The only point you are making is that you are a narcissist. You choose not to participate because you believe you’re special and your sacred vote should not be tainted. What you are is irresponsible and self-indulgent.


Trump was elected by the left. He was rocketed to power because of an unwillingness to adopt inclusiveness of the right by the left. There is no doubt in my mind that the US has been put on a path toward oligarchy and it has the majority of its people to blame. There can only be one thing left to say, “You get the government you deserve.”

Taking Responsibility

The other day I came across the following stinging but very accurate indictment of those who voted for Donald Trump:

Not all Trump supporters are racist, misogynist, xenophobes. All Trump supporters saw a racist, misogynist, xenophobe and said “this is an acceptable person to lead our country.”

You may not have racist, misogynist, xenophobic intent, but you have had racist, misogynist, xenophobic impact.
Impact > intent.

So when you get called racist, misogynist, and xenophobic – understand that your actions have enabled racism, misogyny, and xenophobia in the highest halls of our federal government, regardless of why you voted for him.

You have to own this. You don’t get to escape it because your feelings are hurt that people are calling you names. You may have felt like you had no other choice; you may have felt like he was genuinely the best choice for reasons that had nothing to do with hate.

But you have to own what you have done: you have enabled racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.

Impact > intent. Always.
—  Phillip Howell 

The above seems particularly germane given the spate of appointments the president-elect is making, appointments that confirm the worst fears of a large number of people.

The US president-elect on Friday picked Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Representative Mike Pompeo as director of the CIA and retired lieutenant-general Michael Flynn as national security adviser.

The hawkish trio have made inflammatory statements about race relations, immigration, Islam and the use of torture, and signal a provocative shift of the national security apparatus to the right.

And what is one to make of the fact that the supremacist Steve Bannon has been named Trump's chief strategist and senior counselor?

You are as capable as I am of reading in depth about these appointments, so I won't go on about them here, since my real point is that while many commentators have offered an array of reasons that people supported Trump, such as their feelings of alienation, the fact that they don't feel their voices are being heard by their politicians, etc., etc. ad nauseam, the fact is that none of them can be excused for their choice. It is not as if they did not know the twisted 'values' of Trump, but either because of or despite those 'values', selected him anyway. For that, they must be harshly rebuked, even condemned.

And what about the approximately 50% of Americans who didn't bother to vote, some out of the usual indifference and apathy, some because they couldn't bring themselves to support either candidate? As Thomas Moore said in A Man For All Seasons, "Silence gives consent." By their non-participation in the election, they have significantly contributed to the darkness that is sure to envelop America and, unfortunately, much of the world.

The failure of the American electorate imposes upon the rest of us a special obligation. As I indicated in an earlier post, none of us can sit on the sidelines or turn away when we witness acts of hatred, racism, misogyny or other behaviour that represent the distemper of our times; sadly, in the minds of many, the election of a moral misfit has sanctified such vile acts.

Silence gives consent.

I will leave you with this peerless commentary that, from the progressive side, is the equivalent of shouting, "I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore!

A Hearfelt Rebuke

In a commentary this morning, Danyaal Raza issues a stinging and heartfelt rebuke to his former professor, Kellie Leitch. Now a doctor, Raza talks of his reaction to that strange lady's dog-whistle politics:

Leitch’s email following the U.S. presidential election hit me hard. At 3 a.m., just hours after TV networks declared Donald Trump President-elect, Leitch doubled down on his racist and xenophobic campaign in an email to her supporters.

“It’s an exciting message and one that we need delivered in Canada as well,” she declared regarding Trump’s victory. “It’s the message I’m bringing with my campaign to be the next Prime Minister of Canada ... It’s why I’m the only candidate who will ensure that every visitor, immigrant, and refugee will be screened for Canadian values.”

Feeling deeply betrayed, the writer, a Muslim, wonders what she really thought of his ethnically and racially diverse classmates:

Surveying the class as she lectured, did she think we all belonged? Did she think we shared her values, presumably the Canadian ones she has in mind? What does her campaign mean for those who think we don’t have a place in Canada?

And therein lies the real problem with people like Leitch. Her divisive tactics do not exist simply in the abstract, but in fact have real-life consequences.

Trump’s “exciting message” that “we need delivered in Canada” has already unleashed a torrent of hate and intimidation.

At the University of Michigan, a “Crime Alert” was issued after a student was told to remove her hijab or be set on fire. In Los Angeles, a teacher taunted his Latino students, telling them their parents were going to be deported. In Indiana, a black women was told “Trump is going to deport you back to Africa.”

With many other incidents being reported, it’s amazing that a little more than a week has passed since Trump’s victory and Leitch’s endorsement.

And those are the kinds of consequences that all Canadians need to bear in mind when they consider her candidacy. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, Canadians are no different from, or superior to, people in other parts of the world. The civil society we live in, the values we hold dear and try to practice, are always going to be fragile. They need to be nurtured and deepened, since it would not take much, as polls already show, for us to succumb to the blandishments of those demagogues lurking within our midst.

As always, the character of our country and the health of our democracy rest with us, responsibilities that we should never, ever take lightly.