Category: Uncategorized

Free-for-all

There’s been an awful lot of chatter lately about Freedom of Speech, or lack of it, in Canada.  And it’s gotten fierce since Christie Blatchford was prevented, by some pretty vocal opposition, from speaking, at the University of Waterloo.  It’s a complicated case, but the quick and dirty version is this: Ms. Blatchford was invited to speak at the University of Waterloo.  Some people associated with the University didn’t want her to speak and they commandeered the podium.  They voiced their opposition to Ms. Blatchford by loudly chanting “Racist!” among other things.   Ms. Blatchford was told her safety could not be guaranteed and the event was cancelled.  There are a lot of other facts and blather about it, but really — who cares?  The real question is this: should we have free debate in Canada or not?

Most people get this question confused.  They think that freedom of speech is a Canadian right that cannot — or at least should not — be abrogated, especially at our universities.  This is not true.  Freedom of Speech is an American concept, and its relationship to Canada is in direct proportion to how much American TV you watch.  Ms. Blatchford does not have any absolute “right” in Canadian law to speak or be heard. 

This is where Canadians run into trouble because — once again — we are fighting the wrong battle.   It’s not whether we’re losing our ability to have open and reasonable discussion: it’s whether open and reasonable discussion should be allowed in the first place.  There are lots of very large, very influential groups in Canada who don’t want debate or anything even remotely resembling it.  This is not a wicked plot.  It’s just that they see their ideas as the ultimate moral truth, and they see no reason to discuss it any further.  They also see themselves as enlightened individuals on the frontlines of a battle against ignorance and intolerance.  They even call themselves “progressive.”

You don’t have to look much beyond our universities, which are the largest forums of thought (notice I didn’t say “free thought”) in our country, to see these “progressives” in action.  Our universities have been under mob rule for quite some time now.  There’s a litany of examples, but here are some of the most visible highlights.  In 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Concordia University was violently disrupted (before he ever opened his mouth) and his appearance was cancelled.  In March, 2010, Ann Coulter, America’s resident nutbar, was threatened with legal action before she even arrived at the University of Ottawa and was shouted down once she got there – again, before she had uttered a word.  Her appearance was also cancelled.  We’ve already seen what happened to Christie Blatchford at Waterloo.  Similarly, over the last decade or so, Pro-Life (anti-abortion) groups and clubs have been either banned or had their message severely restricted on several university campuses — notably Victoria, Calgary, York and, most recently, Carleton University.  In November, 2008 Queens University actually instituted “dialogue facilitators,” students hired to patrol the campus, hunting out conversations which they deemed “offensive” and “educating” the perpetrators on more appropriate speech.

This stifling of public discussion on university campuses didn’t come out of nowhere.  It has a precedent in the highest shrine of public debate in Canada — Parliament.  In 1987, MP Svend Robinson and other members of the NDP took it upon themselves to heckle a speech by then President of the US, Ronald Reagan.  This was a small thing but it had a big impact because it made out-shouting one’s opponent a legitimate feature of the free exchange of ideas.  The NDP were so convinced Ronald Reagan was so wrong that they did not believe that Parliament or Canada was entitled to hear an uninterrupted speech by him — this brings us to the core of the problem.  Is free and open debate a Canadian right or not?  In 1987, Svend Robinson and the NDP did not think so.  Today, many groups agree with the NDP.  They believe that opinion and expression in Canada should be strictly regulated.  They also believe that certain points of view should not be expressed at all.  Ms. Blatchford’s experience at Waterloo is a perfect example of this.  These are not just fringe fascists or student groups using the mob to get their way.  There are large segments of our society who believe restrictions on opinion are of great benefit to us, and they are willing to use Canadian law to achieve these benefits. 

In Canada, freedom of speech may be a long standing and well guarded tradition, but it has no absolute guarantee in law.  The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there can be limits placed on free speech in a free and democratic society.  Unfortunately, most ordinary people and free speech advocates are still labouring under the mistaken assumption that they have an inherent right called “freedom of speech” and that they need to defend it.  They are fighting the wrong battle.  We need to protect open debate first.  We need to stop the mob from closing off discussion, whether it be in the streets or in the courtroom.  Without that, we can never hope to elevate the discussion about freedom of speech beyond intimidation and resident Brown Shirts shouting “Racist!” until we all just get tired and go home.

Aung San Suu Kyi

On November 13th, 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in Yangon, Myanmar (Rangoon, Burma).  In Canada, we clicked our breakfast juice glasses and said “Good on ya!”  In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi walked from her house to the iron fence: the voice of democracy, able to speak again.   I’m glad she’s free.  I’m glad that the world didn’t forget about her while she was in the hands of the Myanmar military.  I’m glad democracy has another chance in a country I know nothing about.  I’ve always thought of democracy as a delicate thing – a fragile institution that needed to be handled with care.   But what the hell do I know about democracy, anyway?  Not much.  In my world, democracy has always been there, like clean water, or warm socks or 30 different kinds of breakfast cereal.  The constant of it lulls you to sleep.  Canadians wouldn’t know repression if it bit them on the ass.

In other parts of the world, repression isn’t just an entry on the Word-of-the-Day calendar.   It’s a living, breathing thing.   It stands on street corners with bayonets and rifles.  It walks through the sunlight to work in the shadows.  It’s a slogan, marched down a wordless street, and it’s a scraping scuffle in the whispering night.  It lives on fear, and if you listen, you can hear it chewing in the darkness.  In other parts of the world, repression doesn’t have a name because people are afraid to say it out loud.  Yet it’s always there like, some tainted fog, hiding prisons and torture and a hundred other nameless horrors.  These are the weapons of the brutal, who seek to rule without law and to silence those who oppose them — like Aung San Suu Kyi.

 Aung San Suu Kyi wasn’t always in politics; actually, she half stumbled into it.  Although her father was one of the architects of Burma’s independence from Britain in 1947, and her mother was the Burmese Ambassador to India, she lived outside her country for many years, in Britain and the US.  In 1988, she returned home when her mother became ill.  At the same time, there were widespread protests in Burma and calls for democratic reform.  In the middle of this national upheaval, Ne Win, the general who had controlled Burma since 1962, resigned, and created a political vacuum.  It was filled with louder calls for democracy and surging protests against Burma’s military rulers.  This was called the 8888 Uprising, but auspicious dates and unarmed monks are no match for disciplined troops — thousands were killed.  Aung San Suu Kyi had a famous name and a love for her country.  She and others formed the National League for Democracy and came out of the chaos as the leading voice for reform.  They were so strong it forced the ruling junta to place Suu Kyi under house arrest and nullify the League’s 1990 election victory.  Since then, despite the world watching and a Nobel Prize for Peace, Aung San Suu Kyi has been isolated by the military rulers of Myanmar.  She has remained under house arrest, off and on, for the last 21 years, sitting in her home in Rangoon, playing the piano and reading philosophy.

Now, she`s been released.  But nobody`s taken off their uniforms yet or put away their riot sticks.  The Myanmar military is still firmly in control and quite willing to put a stop to anything or anyone they see as a threat.  Suu Kyi and the democratic movement in Myanmar have been here before, and there’s no guarantee that this isn’t just another empty gesture.  History has a way of showing us what happens next, though, and somewhere Aung San Suu Kyi and the military rulers of her country are going to have to face each other.  Then the choices become clear – Rule of Law or Might is Right.  There’s no way around it — tyranny and democracy can’t live together.

We fear for democratic institutions and with good reason: evil never takes a vacation.  There’s always a politician, a general, a religious leader or a fanatic who’s willing to take control of our lives for us — for our own good.  They always come with promises and just a “few” restrictions until things get under control again.  They have a knack for enlisting convincing arguments and well-meaning people to do their bidding, and they prey on the weakest of us to subvert our society.  I’ve always thought democracy was fragile in the face of this – until today.  It’s not, and I was wrong.

We live with democracy, so we have no idea how strong it is.  We see its frailty and worry about its flaws.  We have the leisure to debate its shortcomings and the luxury to criticize its inadequacies — sophisticated chatter across an after dinner living room.  In other parts of the world, democracy writes its name in purple prose.  It feeds children and protects their parents.  It powers learning and attacks ignorance.  It guards law.  It builds hospitals.  It shelters the weak and gives power to the strong.  No matter how many times dictators come to destroy it, it always rises again to topple their statues and prosecute their crimes.  Sometimes, it’s a playwright in Czechoslovakia.  Sometimes, it’s an electrician in Poland.  Sometimes, it’s a South African who never lost faith despite 27 years in prison.  Sometimes, it’s a guy in a white shirt, facing down a tank.  And sometimes it’s a little woman in Myanmar, playing the piano.  Tyrants tremble when democracy speaks because no matter how many tanks, how many soldiers, how many bayonets a dictator gathers around him, democracy always wins.

So this morning over breakfast, I’ve changed my mind. I’m putting my money on a tough little chick in a lilac dress.   And while I’m at it: Liu Xiaobo, good on ya, buddy: China, you’re next.

A Lesson in Logic

A week or so ago, a man disguised himself, for no apparent reason, got on an Air Canada flight in Hong Kong (apparently without a passport) and came to Canada.  Within minutes of his feet hitting the ground, he claimed refugee status and got a lawyer — although not necessarily in that order.  He is now a refugee or something like that.  It really doesn’t matter because he’s here now, and he’s going to stay here for the foreseeable future.  That’s Canadian law.  By the way, there’s nothing unusual about this.  Over the past few years, we’ve literally had boatloads of refugees showing up on our shores.  The thing that I don’t understand is why is this Canadian law?  What bunch of blithering idiots decided that an individual can’t become a refugee to Canada unless he’s already in Canada?  That’s just completely ass-backwards.

First of all, have these people, whoever they are, ever actually seen Canada and where we’re situated on the planet?  Just FYI, we’re the big pink bit at the north end of North America.  We have this long border with our only neighbour, the United States, and the rest is surrounded by water – ice and water, actually.  We are thousands and thousands of kilometres away from everybody except Detroit, Greenland and Siberia.  This would suggest that it’s stupid to process refugees only after they’ve already gotten here.

Secondly, have these people, whoever they are, ever actually seen a refugee?  Again, just FYI, refugees are what’s left over when Hell comes calling.  Severely beaten mentally, physically or both, about the only thing they have left is hope.  In general, refugees can be found fleeing for their lives, scared out of their wits, or in disgusting refugee camps that look like poverty was having a 2 for 1 sale.  Once again, this information would suggest it’s stupid to expect these poor buggers to get here first before we decide to help them.

So, just to clarify, no matter how desperate your circumstances, how many times you’ve been shot at or raped, whether you’re an orphan or just watching your family starve to death, as an individual, you can’t even apply for Refugee Status in Canada – unless you’re already in Canada.  There is a magic lottery where you could get picked or get sponsored, but you’re probably just as far ahead to wait for Madonna or Brangelina to wander by.  There’s only one other option – go look at a map.

There are only three ways to arrive in Canada – by boat, by plane or through the USA.  I’m sure some enterprising young people could kayak, swim or skate across the polar ice cap, but it’s not going to happen that often.  Coming from the USA is a bit problematic because, unless your name is Randy Quaid, there’s really no reason to travel through the Land of Milk and Money just to get here.  In other words, it’s highly unlikely your average Guatemalan refugees would risk their lives in the Sonoran Desert and bypass places like Phoenix, Los Angeles and Chicago just to get to Revelstoke or Timmins.  There’s got to be something else going on.  Your next choice is an airplane.  It’s quick but extremely difficult.  First of all, you have to get to an airport, presumably an international airport.  Then you have to buy a ticket, and finally you need a passport – although the passport thing seems to be optional when your destination is Canada.  In other words, you need money, transportation and some official status in your country of origin.  Your last alternative is a boat, and since very few cruise lines offer all-inclusive excursions to stinking, pestilent holes, your choice isn’t going to be Holland-America.  Once again, you need to get to a port, find a ship, pay for passage and have a passport or some documentation – money, transportation, and status.  Of course you can bypass all this if you choose Door #4: find a human smuggler.

There has been a lot of debate recently about refugees and human smugglers.  After you cut through the rhetoric (too many smugglers; too few refugees; too much money; too little compassion) it’s generally agreed that people who traffic in human beings are bad, and the refugee system in Canada is broken.  In fact, the Minister of Dumb-ass Solutions has even changed a few laws lately, but am I the only person who sees the fundamental problem?

We’re here; the refugees are way the hell over there.  We have a huge infrastructure worth millions and millions of dollars to provide aid, comfort and legal advice to refugees — here.  Whereas, to be blunt, refugees got dick – over there.  Wouldn’t it make sense to bundle up this whole system — lock, stock, barrister and solicitor — and move it from here to over there?  It would simplify the process no end.  It would be incredibly easy for refugees to get at the Canadian system, and it would make applications, hearings, and judgements quicker and more flexible.  The backlog would shrink and most importantly, it would virtually destroy the traffic in human beings.  I don’t see a downside, but it’s almost like Canadians are clinging to the status quo as if their lifestyle depended on it.  It strikes me that keeping our advocacy groups, NGOs, activists, social workers and lawyers bottled up in West Vancouver, Mount Royal and Rosedale, while the most destitute human beings on the planet are selling their souls just to get here, is really souring the milk of human kindness.  Canadians are passionate about our refugee problems – for and against – but there is universal compassion for human suffering.  We need to fix our refugee system and stop this insidious trade in human misery.  Personally, I think if Canadians knew who the bloodsucking profiteers were, they’d put a stop to them — immediately.