Tag Archives: rights

Ending discrimination

This article was in my inbox this morning: Premier’s, attorney general’s, parliamentary secretary’s statements on International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Niki Sharma, Attorney General, said:

“We all must do our part to fight racism in all its forms. But words are only as good as the actions that follow, which is why we will be introducing anti-racism legislation in the coming weeks to address systemic racism in government programs and services, and launching more supports for racialized people. On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, please join us in standing up against racism to create a more equitable and safer province for everyone.”

Imagine a world where we cared as little about skin colour as we do eye colour. A world where bodily autonomy wasn’t controlled by religiously biased policymakers. A world where entire groups of people were not disenfranchised or discriminated against based on how they looked or where they came from.

If you asked me 25 years ago, I might have said this was possible by now. Ask me now and I fear we are much more than 25 years away from this. How have we gone backwards? What will prevent a further slide? There will not be an end to discrimination in my lifetime, but I do hope it’s possible in my kids’ lifetime.

Intolerance for bad faith actors

I have always been a pretty strong advocate for free speech. To me it’s the underpinning of a robust democratic society. We don’t have to like what someone says, but they have a right to say it as long as it isn’t hate speech or harmful to someone. We shouldn’t allow racism, threats, and doxing, but we should allow differences of opinions and even angry rants when they are not threatening to a person or group of people.

But I’m struggling with the lack of good faith that I’m seeing. In our country, I see a lot of protests and anger towards our Prime Minister. I believe people should be allowed to protest and share their concerns, but when I see articles like, ‘Attack on Trudeau unsurprising, experts say, warning of future violence against politicians‘ stating that he was “pelted with gravel while at a campaign stop in London, Ont.” Or I read that he was heckled so loudly that he couldn’t continue a speech… Then that is going way too far. This isn’t protest, it’s fascist, it is intolerant and oppressive.

There is a difference between voicing concerns and harassment. There is a difference between protesting and threatening, there is a difference between peaceful, civil behavior and what seems to be happening today.

If I was to describe my politics, I’m definitely left of center. And while I fundamentally disagree with many things Ben Shapiro thinks and says, I get upset when I read articles that he can’t even speak at a university because of safety concerns… And that was 6 years ago! Things are even worse now. Much worse.

When I recently read, “The presidents of three of the nation’s top universities are facing intense backlash, including from the White House, after being accused of evading questions during a congressional hearing about whether calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ codes of conduct.” I am deeply concerned. Should students be allowed to protest? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to promote genocide of any person or people as part of their protest? Absolutely not.

It’s an easy line to draw. Absolutely not. That’s acting in bad faith. That’s undermining our democracy and our freedoms.

We need to differentiate how we handle protests and free speech by people who are acting in good faith from those acting in bad faith. The very rights and freedoms we are given in a free and democratic society depend on us doing so. When we give those freedoms to people that abuse them, we subvert our own liberty. We diminish our freedoms and allow others, with harmful words and actions, to impose less civil values on us.

When free speech is misused, it harms us all. When violence is advocated or permitted; when protests prevent civil conversation and debate; when harassment is permitted; we all suffer. We can’t let people acting in bad faith weaken our civil liberties. We can’t just expect people to act in good faith, the minority who don’t will be too disruptive. We need to squash the bad faith actors. The trick is that we need to do so with legal actions. We need to have zero tolerance for intolerance, and we need to create laws that clearly restrict and penalize threats, hate crimes, and malice.

This is known as the paradox of tolerance, “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

Instead, what I am seeing is things like this happening:

People who have caused over a decade of harm to others do not deserve a social media platform. That’s not censorship, that’s prevention of further malice, pain, and suffering to innocent people. As I contemplate leaving Twitter, news like this makes me lean towards shutting down my account. But I don’t pretend that will have any meaningful impact beyond my own peace of mind.

The acceptance of bad faith actors has been building over the past decade, and we are deep into the consequences now. Free speech should only be a right for people who act in good faith. There can be disagreement, there can be discourse, there can even be civil arguments and protests. What there can’t be are bad faith actors and activists using free speech as a mechanism to promote harmful ideas, hate, violence, and disruptions to public discourse. For this we need zero tolerance.


Related: Ideas on a Spectrum

Performances and life

We watched The Prom last night at Theatre Under The Stars (TUTS). It was an excellent performance, with clever comedy and fun songs. It was also a nice, cool night for outdoor theatre. My wife and I had a wonderful night out.

This morning I thought a little bit about the play’s theme: “The musical follows four Broadway actors lamenting their days of fame, as they travel to the conservative town of Edgewater, Indiana, to help a lesbian student banned from bringing her girlfriend to high school prom.”

While the town is fictional, I can’t help but be disappointed that this story doesn’t play in my mind as an era piece. It doesn’t come off as a 1960’s hick, small town story from yesteryear. Instead, it feels incredibly relevant to some of the stories coming out of small towns, and whole states, south of our Canadian border.

That equality and equity are still basic rights being fought for today is sad to the point of tragic. That there is relevance to the play’s message, and it’s not a piece about a long gone era is upsetting. However this was based on a similar story in a small town in Mississippi in 2010.

2010!

Good theatre tells stories that are relevant, I just wish this performance was less relevant today, and more of a historical telling.

Inequity analogy

Imagine you are a praying mantis. You are male and you mate with a female. You know there is a chance that she will decapitate you during mating:

You take a chance of dying every time you mate.

What an unjust world that one sex has so much control over another; that your life completely falls in the decision-making of the other sex. This might be ok for the praying mantis, but it would be completely unacceptable for humans.

Or would it?

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLnebuFv/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLneTA2a/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLne3y9p/

How does something like this happen in 2022 in a nation that is supposed to be a model for the free world? Free for who?

And they irony in using this analogy is that people were praying for this to happen.

The free world

The free world isn’t free. It’s not. When a privileged few get to decide what people can and can’t do based on their out-dated beliefs, that’s not free.

More Than 1,500 Books Have Been Banned in Public Schools, and a U.S. House Panel Asks Why

“Most books being targeted for censorship are books that introduce ideas about diversity or our common humanity, books that teach children to recognize and respect humanity in one another,” said the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Rep. Jamie Raskin.

When believers of religious dogma limit the choices of non-believers, that’s not free.

We don’t live in a free world, we live in a world of privileged and unprivileged. A world of bias. A world of inequity.

If I took headlines of today, like the article above, or headlines on abortion laws, or on free speech on college campuses, or on lack of social programs, and I stripped away today’s date, in 25 years you wouldn’t know when the article was written dating back as far as 75 years ago. It’s 2022 but if I told you that the article above was written in the 50’s, 60’s, or 70’s, you’d believe me.

Think about that. How much freer have we become? How much more civilized?

Empty Words

I responded to a post on LinkedIn by Arun Jee, on the topic of “Justice is no less challenging to teach in the classroom” by saying:

“The worst form of injustice is pretended justice.” ~Plato
The world I see today has many people using the word justice… but in defence of unjust ideas.

This is the crazy world we live in.

People talk about defending their freedoms by doing things that undermine the communities they live in… the very communities that offer those freedoms!

No, enforcing a mask policy isn’t an infringement of your rights, it’s preventing a lockdown that will reduce your freedoms while we take care of our community.

No, stricter gun laws in the US are not infringing on your constitutional amendment rights, but they will reduce easy, dangerous, and deadly weapons access to unfit people that are likely to harm your community.

No, your flat earth or QAnon conspiracies based on pseudoscience and fake facts are not counter-arguments to actual science, and don’t get equal footing in an argument.

No, All Lives Matter is not an argument against Black Lives Matter, it’s actually an argument to support the Black Lives Matter movement, “If you truly care about living in an equitable and just world.

No, right wingers are wrong to think left wing ideals are a path to a socialist controlling government that will strip away your rights. And no, left wingers, being violent against opposing views, because you disagree with them, isn’t a left wing ideal: It’s fascist and authoritarian to block free speech.

No, media outlets you should not be sensationalizing the news by polarizing ideas. You are not reporting news when you do this, you are selling out. You are sacrificing factual reporting for the price of views and clicks. You are not reporting, you are entertaining, angering, and dividing people with bias on the verge of being called propaganda.

Justice, rights, freedoms, and truth are no longer things that have the meaning they intended. They are empty words filled with polarized and rationalized meanings shared by less convincing and less reliable sources. Each ‘side’ believes these words belong to them. But words only have meaning when their definitions are shared.

Anti-Yellow Line

That’s it, I’m fed up! I’m sick and tired of rules limiting my freedom. The roads are public, the government shouldn’t be able to tell me which side to drive on.

It’s my car, my choice.

Prohibitive yellow lines are a symbol of tyranny.

I will not succumb to someone else’s fear.

It’s not about road safety, it’s about control.

When injustice becomes the law, resistance becomes a duty.

I’m not a sheep that you can keep in line.

Motor vehicle death statistics are exaggerated to scare you.

I should be able to drive as close to other cars as I want to.

Mandatory lanes are illegal. They limit my rights and freedoms.

Yellow lines are a symbol of false security.

—–

How ridiculous would it be if we didn’t obey the laws of the road that kept us from colliding with oncoming traffic?

How ridiculous would it be for us to ignore laws and norms designed to keep us, and those more vulnerable than us in our community, safe during a pandemic?