Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Earth Hour, John McCain, and the Texas Two-Step

Miscellaneous Sunday blogging:

EARTH HOUR

I don't know how the rest of Milton fared in observing Earth Hour last night, but we of the Milton Choristers did our bit despite the rather awkward timing of the event in the middle of our concert. We turned out all the lights at 8:00, processed back into the church by candlelight, and sang a lovely arrangement of 'What a Wonderful World / This Is My Father's World' along with our angelic-voiced child soloist.

Unfortunately this didn't take up the entire hour, and since we didn't have the Schubert memorized we had to put the lights back on a little early. Still, it was more than Stephen Harper could be bothered to do.

_________________________


JOHN MCCAIN: CONSERVATIVE MEAT PUPPET



Just when you thought no U.S. politician could possibly be any stupider than George W. Bush, the Republicans manage to find themselves another one.
Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Oh sweet Jesus on a stick.

The Dr. Coburn he refers to would be Senator Tom Coburn, head of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, whose knowledge of science and medicine is only exceeded by his overwhelming ideological fervour in promoting abstinence-only programs, dismissing the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of STDs, advocating the death penalty for abortionists, and warning us all about the icky icky gay agenda.

I can't wait to find out who's been advising McCain on foreign policy.

__________________________


BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: THE TEXAS CAUCUS RESULTS

The media seems to have forgotten all about Texas after Clinton took the primaries and was declared the winner. However, Texas has both primaries and caucuses, the latter of which have taken a ridiculously long time to calculate given the vagaries of the 'Texas Two-Step' system.

Although preliminary results were released soon after the caucuses were held on March 4th, it was only yesterday that Texas started their caucus conventions to officially sort out their delegate counts. And guess what? It looks like Hillary didn't take Texas after all.



Numbers are still coming in and it is still uncertain how this will all wash out in terms of total Texas delegates. However, most projections are putting Obama 1-3 delegates ahead by the end. Not a big margin to be sure, but then again it's Clinton who has been making such hay out of her "winning all the big states".

Now... not so much.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

'The Tin Drum' Revisited

One of my earliest memories of a cultural and political controversy where I felt compelled to pick a side was when the Ontario Censor Board (later re-named the Ontario Film Review Board) banned the critically acclaimed German film 'The Tin Drum' for a single scene implying oral sex by a minor.

The fallout from that decision resulted in a radical restriction of the powers of censorship boards across the country and a general shift in the perception of Canada, both inside and outside of the country, from that of a nation of prudes to a country where freedom of expression and creativity was actively encouraged. The result has been a flowering of unique, challenging and provocative film and television productions that have been recognized and lauded around the world. In many ways, Canada has become the 'HBO' of North America.

This is what progressives refer to as "progress".

This is what religious conservatives refer to as "Canada's rapid descent into decadence and Godlessness".

Thanks to Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Coalition, most people are now aware of the implications of Bill C-10 and the true intentions of the related 'update' of the Heritage Ministry guidelines that would result in a return to the kind of censorship we used to have here in prudish Ontario. If you haven't been keeping up, writer Denis McGrath over at Dead Things on Sticks has done some excellent coverage and analysis.

It should be pointed out that the specific clause in Bill C-10 that has caused so much anguish among both progressive bloggers and pretty much everyone in the Canadian entertainment industry is, on its face, completely innocuous. Out of a 600+ page income tax amendment bill, all it says is this:

(3) The definition "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

"Canadian film or video production certificate" means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that

(a) except where the production is a treaty co-production (as defined by regulation), an acceptable share of revenues from the exploitation of the production in non-Canadian markets is, under the terms of any agreement, retained by

(i) a qualified corporation that owns or owned an interest in, or for civil law a right in, the production,

(ii) a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the qualified corporation, or

(iii) any combination of corporations described in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and

(b) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy.


Hardly surprising that it passed by the House and the Senate without anyone connecting the dots.

It's that "public policy" provision that's the real kicker, because it just so happens that the Heritage Ministry has a rather detailed and draconian set of guidelines for establishing what might be against "public policy" all drawn up and ready to go. Worse, it allows Heritage and Justice to withdraw a certificate and thus disqualify a production for tax credits even after production is well underway - meaning that investors could suddenly find their investment to be not such a good investment after they've already committed and spent the money.

The chilling effect this would have on all Canadian film and television productions - not just the naughty ones - would be utterly devastating.

Happily, the true import of this seemingly innocuous bill has finally surfaced above the fold and made the nightly news, largely due to Charles McVety's inability to conceal his glee at what he considers a vindication of his anti-smut, anti-homosexuality agenda. The Governor General's office has been inundated with calls and emails, and the bill is now back in Senate committee for another look.

If you would like to encourage them to slam this loophole shut, please contact the senators from your province. And while you're at it, toss off a note to the Heritage Minister, and maybe join the Facebook group as well.

____________________

MORE COVERAGE: Even the Globe & Mail's Margaret Wente thinks this is a bad idea. I especially enjoyed this passage:

We may just have to say goodbye to sex, violence, and Viggo Mortensen cavorting with Russian gangsters in the nude. Instead, we'll have to settle for "films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country," as Conservative MP Dave Batters put it. David Cronenberg will be reduced to shooting remakes of Anne of Green Gables. Juno will be recast as the heartwarming tale of a plucky girl who realizes that if she has premarital sex with her boyfriend, she'll go to Hell. As for Young People Fucking, a new movie coming soon, forget about it. It will have to be reshot as Young People Starting an Abstinence Club.


(H/T to we move to canada, where you can find more text from the editorial in case you, like me, can't get past the !@#$% G&M firewall.)

Friday, December 21, 2007

Halton Catholic School Board Bans 'The Golden Compass'

The following letter was sent to the editor of The Milton Champion in response to today's front page article.

Dear Editor,

I was dismayed to read of the Halton Catholic School Board’s recent decision to ban Philip Pullman’s award winning books from their school library shelves. While I’m sure they had the best of intentions, I am concerned that by trying to protect their students from ‘atheist indoctrination’, they may be inadvertently promoting someone else’s agenda.

I find it hard to believe it is a coincidence that the Board received its single complaint about Pullman’s books at precisely the same time that the right-wing Catholic League in the U.S. began its email boycott campaign against them. These are the same people who have targeted everything from South Park to Rosie O’Donnell to the infamous ‘chocolate Jesus’ sculpture as being ‘anti-Catholic’. I would not be at all surprised if the complaint originated from either the Catholic League or from someone who had received an email from them.

I would have hoped that most Canadian Catholics were capable of seeing through this kind of reactionary neo-conservatism, but apparently not. At least not in Halton.

I was also shocked to read that the Board made their decision in direct opposition to the recommendations of their own Book Review Committee. What exactly is the point in having such a committee if their recommendations are simply going to be ignored? From what I understand, the committee members were all required to actually read the book. Did all of the trustees do the same, or were they simply reacting to what they had heard about the author and his views?

Ironically, it is precisely this kind of suppression of uncomfortable and controversial ideas that has led Pullman to be so critical of religion in the first place. By banning his books, they have proven his point.

I wonder what will inspire more Halton Catholic students to question their faith: reading ‘The Golden Compass’, or being forbidden to read it.

Your truly,

Jennifer Smith

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Speaking ill of the dead

I'm not the kind of person who would intentionally harm or wish to harm anyone. I've certainly never wished anybody dead, with the possible exception of a certain landlord who truly deserves to be found floating face down in the Mill Pond.

I'm a little conflicted over the news of Jerry Falwell's death today.


On the one hand, he wasn't quite as insane as Pat Robertson. Nor was he as deliberately evil as Ed Phelps. On the other hand... this is the guy who is personally responsible for the intrusion of the Religious Right into American politics, and the resulting mainstream acceptance of intolerance, hatred and murder for the past quarter century.

All I can say is this:

Jerry, I hope your God forgives you.

I, for one, will not.

Saturday, April 7, 2007

On Same-Sex Marriage

(Blog Against Theocracy, part 2)

I have always considered gay rights to be the fundamental civil rights issue of my generation. I will take any opportunity to defend those rights publicly and vocally, and have even been known to cast a ballot based on this single issue.

Some people are confused by this given that I am, for the most part, straight. I’m married, to a man (and don’t I love having to specify that!). I don’t have any close relatives who are gay, and I have lost touch with most of my gay friends from Toronto over the years since I moved to Milton. In fact, the only gay man I know here has a wife and three kids.

So what’s it to me? I don’t know. Why did a bunch of white kids from the northern U.S. care enough about blacks in the south to get themselves arrested, beaten and even killed to defend their rights? Me, I’m not that heroic. I just talk, and write.

Here’s one story I talk and write about a lot:

When I lived in Ottawa, I had a friend (I’ll call him John) who was in a committed relationship with his male partner for about 15 years. They were both relatively young, but his partner was quite obese and had been ill for some time when he suffered a massive heart attack. He died in John’s arms in the house they had shared for over a decade.

As soon as we heard the news, all of John’s friends rushed over to comfort him and do what we could to help him make the necessary arrangements. John was Mohawk Indian and a neo-Pagan, but his partner was Quaker. At the time (the mid-80s), the Quakers were among the few Christians in Ottawa who welcomed gays into their congregation.

Unfortunately, his partner’s family was not Quaker.

Less than 24 hours after his death, the family arrived. Three or four of them, mostly siblings, had driven all the way from the Toronto area and descended on the house. They barely acknowledged John’s presence as they started rooting through his partner’s belongings, even arguing over who would get his stereo and camera equipment. John politely asked them to leave. He then insisted that they leave. Then we all demanded that they leave, at which point these good, Christian people started yelling at John about how he had seduced their brother into a life of sin and fornication and that the house now belonged to his ‘real family’ and he would have to get out.

That’s when we called the cops.

Once the police arrived and established that these people were, in fact, trespassing, the family members left without further incident and without taking anything with them. Unfortunately, this was only the beginning.

John knew that his partner had written a will. He just didn’t know where it was. This put him in the kind of legal limbo that most gays and lesbians are all too familiar with. Without legal status, he had no say in the funeral arrangements or the disposal of his partner’s remains. It was left to the parents, who had been estranged from their gay and sinful son for over two decades, to claim his body and ship it home for a proper Christian funeral. They even left instructions with the funeral home that my friend was not to be allowed in for the viewing or the reception.

Luckily, the funeral home director was a better Christian than his clients and let John in the back door after hours.

Two weeks later, the will had still not been found and John was beginning to panic. Even though he had contributed to the mortgage and other household expenses for years, for various reasons the house was in his partner’s name. He consulted a lawyer, but there was nothing to be done. Without a will it would all go to his partner’s parents because under the law, John had no legal standing whatsoever, not even as a tenant. He was on the verge of becoming homeless.

John’s partner did clerical work for the government, and like all government offices things moved a little slowly there. When they finally got around to cleaning out his desk, they found the missing will in a locked drawer. It left everything to John.

It could be argued, and has been argued, that gay couples can have all the benefits of marriage by writing their partners into their wills, drawing up power of attorney documents, and making other complex and often expensive legal and financial arrangements. Some couples in the U.S. have gone so far as to legally adopt their adult partner in order to have them considered ‘family’, but even this desperate measure has been challenged in the courts.

The problem is, if you listen closely to those making seemingly rational arguments about civil unions and legal benefits, it doesn’t take long to realize that their real objection is fundamentally a religious one. Sometimes they don’t even realize it, insisting it’s all about what’s ‘natural’ or ‘traditional’.

This is why it has been the courts that have lead the way on this issue. A legal argument must, by definition, be rooted in logic and a rational analysis of constitutional rights. If you can’t argue against same-sex marriage without referring to religious morality or scripture, you will lose your case. And the people making these arguments have lost, time and time again.

These are not ‘activist judges’ making these decisions - they are thoughtful, rational jurists doing their job. The only activists are those on the Right who would remove the impartiality of judges by making them beholden to politicians and special interest groups under the guise of ‘accountability’.

Friday, April 6, 2007

How To Build a Theocracy

(a post in support of the Blog Against Theocracy)

It has long frustrated the Religious Right that the political tactics they have employed successfully in the U.S. for the past several decades have failed to gain any traction in Canada. Groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Action Coalition have tried time and again to influence politicians’ votes on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion by threatening to mobilize their members to vote against them. Fortunately, they have always failed miserably because they don’t have anywhere near the numbers to pull it off.

Yet.

There are several impediments to the Religious Right gaining a significant foothold here in Canada. One is our innate sense of decorum. We tend to think of religion as a personal, private matter that we do not casually discuss with strangers. It’s considered rude, and it’s certainly not something we want to hear from our politicians no matter how religious we might be ourselves.

An even more significant roadblock may be the success of our society itself. It must be remembered that almost all repressive regimes and conservative religious movements, including the current one in the U.S., have their beginnings in social and economic upheaval. When times are bad, people look for someone or something to blame. Poverty begets crime, divorce, substance abuse, social alienation, and any number of other social ills, all of which are seen as causes instead of symptoms. Religious and social conservatism can then be sold to a willing electorate as the panacea that will cure all of their problems.

Our problem in Canada is that we’re too happy. Our economy is strong, our standard of living high. The gap between the rich and poor is kept in check through taxation and our social safety net. Poorer regions are kept from becoming too poor through transfer payments from a strong central government. We have affordable access to health care and education and housing. We have an independent judiciary that protects all minorities from the tyranny of the majority. We do not feel constantly under threat of violence, either on our streets or in the wider world.

We certainly have our share of problems, but when you compare our situation with that of the U.S. we really don’t have a lot to complain about.

Yet.

We cannot become complacent. We must hold fast to our compassion, our tolerance, and our respect for one another. Because the minute things start to get bad (and they will), the vultures will descend and start whispering in our ears. They won’t talk about God or Christ at first - they will use terms like ‘family values’ and ‘tradition’ and ‘average Canadians’. They will speak with nostalgia and longing of better, simpler days when everyone looked like us and respected their elders and we all went to church every Sunday.

This is how it started in the United States. This is how it started in Australia. It's starting here right now.

We cannot let it happen.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Blog Against Theocracy (avec premble)

I don't think anyone has noticed, but I haven't posted in a while. I was going to say something right after the Quebec election, but I was finding it all too depressing. Not just because it bodes ill for the Liberals federally, but because it seems to signal a disturbing shift to the right in Quebec.

This is a largely Catholic province populated by people who, against all common sense and conventional wisdom, have consistently polled as among the most socially liberal in the country, particularly on gay and women's rights. Go figure. And yet, there has always been this deep abscess of conservatism and xenophobia in Quebec that bubbles up to the surface once in a rare while. Parizeau's post-referendum meltdown and the anti-Muslim nonsense in Herouxville are two examples that come immediately to mind.

Historically, though, this Gallic tendency has been mitigated by a combination of urban diversity and rural pragmatism. The city folks (ok, Montrealers) are tolerant because they have always lived cheek by jowl with people of many colours and creeds. Rural Quebecers are tolerant by default because they've never really had to deal with anything more exotic than that Presbyterian family up the road. And up until recently, everybody has gotten along just fine.

But now they have the ADQ peddling the same old neo-con shite that's been selling so well out west and south of the border. Specifically, that all those 'outsiders' (Anglos, immigrants, Muslims, the Federal Government, hippies - take your pick) are taking their jobs and their tax dollars and eroding their family values and are somehow responsible for whatever they think is wrong with their lives. And suddenly that pustulating abscess of intolerance is walking and talking and getting votes and sporting a really fine Republican hairdo.

(Ya know, I really wasn't going to get into all this.)

ANYWAY...

With all this nurdling away in the back of my brain, and with the polls going the way they have been, I’ve been feeling a little... pessimistic. I even bought myself a copy of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America", thinking it would make me feel better somehow to read about just how bad things have gotten in the States and to reassure myself that it could never, ever happen here. I haven’t started reading it yet, but I have a feeling it’s not going to work.

On the other hand, this just might improve my mood:



Blog Against Theocracy is an idea started by BlueGal, and picked up by a bunch of other bloggers on both sides of the border. Very loose guidelines - just post sometime between Friday and Sunday Easter weekend (Apr. 6-8). Some ideas:

No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally,
The right to worship, OR NOT.


The specific goal for the Americans is a constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state (believe it or not, they don't actually have one yet). For we Canadians, it will be about showing our support and sending our own message. As Dave at the Galloping Beaver pointed out, "the people they are fighting against all have branch offices in Ottawa and lobby-shops within view of Parliament Hill".

I am SO all over this. I feel better already.