Tribalism Isn’t Working, so There Needs to be a Better Way

A commentary on our present state of democracy.

Advertisements

The province where I live is presently immersed in an election to determine who will govern  for the next four years. As I educate myself and watch the campaigning, I am alarmed.  Why you ask? The Edmonton Journal’s article, Controversies hound numerous MLA hopefuls ahead of Tuesday’s election, outlines numerous candidates, most from one political party, who have posted homophobic, Islamophobic, and white supremacist comments on social media. There are other controversies as well, such as one of the parties being under RCMP investigation for voter fraud and a “kamikaze’ scheme during the leadership race, yet people continue to support this party. I don’t understand why.

More and more, it feels like elections and politics are becoming increasingly divisive and polarized. Politicians show no shame in provoking anger, attacking one another, bolstering fear, and pitting people against each other. This certainly is true for the provincial election happening right now. I see it in our Federal politics as well, with the current Prime Minister and his government attacking the opposition leader and his party and visa versa. Threats of lawsuits for defamation of character are taunted. Then there is the United States, the most polarized country with its president constantly attacking someone and most definitely displaying these polarized views.

I’ve gone through numerous elections before, so I’m trying to understand what is happening in this one. I don’t recall them being so divisive before. It could be my memory, but I don’t believe so. We seem to be living in turbulent times. Recently, someone helped me understand what is happening. He said—not  in these exact words—’our democratic system is based on tribalism’. What is he talking about?

The Oxford Dictionary defines tribalism​ as “the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes,” and “the behaviour and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.” Yes, this is what is happening in our politics. We have tribes—political parties with specific philosophies on how to govern—with members loyal to the tribe, that is, political party, and its tribe members refuse to consider philosophies different from the one they align themselves with.

From Debate.org

I see two main philosophies; conservatism and liberalism, or some may say the progressives. The Oxford Dictionary defines conservatism as “commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation,” and “the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.” It defines Liberalism as, “willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas,” and “favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.” That same dictionary defines progressives as “an idea favouring social reform,” and “favouring change or innovation.”

That appears to be it. Both philosophies are found in most democratic countries,  and its people are aligned with one or the other. In Canada, some of our political parties even have these words in their names. Federally, we have the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada. In my province, we have a Liberal Party and the United Conservative Party (UCP). In the U.S. there are the Democrats—the tribe that follows liberal/progressive philosophy—and the Republicans—a conservative philosophy. Even churches like the Catholic church is divided into conservatives and liberals. I’ll be honest about which tribe I align with. It’s the Liberal tribe as we have to be open to new ideas, since many of the old ways are not working.

From my point of view, political tribalism is failing us. As I mentioned earlier, it stokes anger, promotes attacks on one another, bolsters fear, and pits people against each other. I’ve read many of the comments on political stories involving the provincial election, and people are nasty, and insults are written to those who oppose their views. Conservatism is strong in rural areas of my province, and my experience has been most are unwilling to listen to other points of view. They dig into their positions and refuse to listen to counter arguments. This is NOT healthy!

The New York Times has an opinion article called, The Destructive Dynamics of Political Tribalism, which outlines the many ways tribal politics is detrimental to our societies. Canada’s Maclean’s Magazine has an article titled, Tribalism is tearing Canada apart. The title needs no explanation.

There must be a better way; a gentler, kinder, and more cooperative way. I’ve pondered this and the only system that makes sense to me is a system of governance involving consensus, which means a general agreement must occur in decision-making.

Wikipedia explains consensus decision-making as,

a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the ‘favourite’ of everyone.”

Wikipedia says consensus decision-making aims to be:

  1. Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision-making process attempts to generate as much agreement as possible.
  2. Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members .
  3. Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
  4. Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body are afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members could present, and amend proposals.
  5. Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
  6. Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.
The Legislative Building of the NWT.

Does consensus decision-making exist in governance today? Absolutely. Consensus democracy government is alive and well in Canada as it is used in two of Canada’s three territories; Northwest Territories and Nunavut. These Legislatures are designed so politicians sit in a circle, symbolizing a unity of purpose.  In Provincial Legislatures, opposing parties sit across from each other, symbolizing opposing views. It’s interesting to note that the population of these territorial jurisdictions are a majority of Indigenous people.

Consensus democracy government stems from the Indigenous culture. I’ve always maintained that the traditional Indigenous people have always done things right, and this is but another example. A blog by Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. called What does traditional consensus decision making mean? explains some of the roots of this form of governance. I know many of you are thinking “no way consensus democracy would work because it is impossible to get everyone to agree.” This blog explains,

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Consensus means a group or community arrives at a consensus by listening to the opinions and concerns of others – they work towards a suitable decision. Not everyone is necessarily pleased with the outcome but they realize it is the best decision for the community. Unanimity requires that everyone involved agrees.

This is how governments should work, and need to work. Perhaps it is time for democratic countries to seriously look at alternatives, such as consensus democracy. Just because tribal politics has been our the way till now, doesn’t mean we can’t make a change for the better.

Opposed to Better Men. I Don’t Get it.

A commentary about male privilege.

Gillette, a company owned by Procter & Gamble, released their “We Believe” ad a few weeks ago. It’s an ad that addresses issues such as toxic masculinity, sexual harassment and #metoo. If you haven’t seen the ad, here it is.

When I saw this ad, I applauded Gillete. I thought, “finally a company brave enough to take a stand against an injustice. The #metoo movement has educated us on how prevalent sexual harassment is in the 21st century, especially among celebrities and politicians.  I’ve heard the excuses men use, excuses like, women ask for it because of how they dress, #MeToo is just a “male witch hunt” and I Was Drunk.

I celebrate this ad because it promotes the idea that men can, and need, to do better, men need to hold each other accountable, and women need to be treated with respect.  The ad reminds us that young boys watch us and model what they see.

That is why I applaud this ad and this company.  I have a wife and two daughters, and I want them to live in a world where they feel safe and equal.  The ad didn’t offend me, even as a man, yet the backlash to the ad surprised me.  Am I missing something? Am I different from other men. (That is not a negative thing either).  Even after researching, I still don’t understand. Why is there opposition to an ad like this?

Business Insider’s article, People are trashing their razors, reports that some people have taken to social media to say they are boycotting Gillette and even posted photos and videos of themselves discarding Gillette razors.

Canada’s Global News’ article,  Gillette’s new ad tackles toxic masculinity, says,

“The ad sparked wild backlash, with some arguing the company was ‘moralizing’ or ‘virtue-signalling.’”

Instyle’s article, Everything to Know About the Gillette Boycott,  has a selection of Twitter reactions. Here is a sampling.

Hey [Gillette]. I have an idea, stay out of politics. Real men already stop other guys from acting badly. A razor company should want me to shave with your product. And, btw, I’m extremely masculine. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

So nice to see [Gillette] jumping on the “men are horrible” campaign permeating mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment. I for one will never use your product again.

Look [Gillette], I know your heart is in the right place.  But there’s a line.  And that line is where my razor blades start issuing me moral instruction.

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)  says, “In the U.S., one in three women and one in six men experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime.”

SexAssault.ca reports, “Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police and 1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime.”

It seems to me with statistics as alarming as these, that men do not stop other men from assaulting.  Masculinity that harms the opposite sex is not something to be proud of.  Men, at least some men, do need moral instruction. Treating others with respect and dignity is a virtue. That includes women.

I found an interesting article titled, 160+ Examples of Male Privilege in All Areas of Life. This article listed examples of male privilege, more than 167 privileges to be exact. This list made me think. Here are some examples related to this topic.

Men:

  • are less likely to be the target of street harassment.
  • can have a casual, friendly interaction with a stranger, like exchanging a smile or responding to a greeting, without worrying about that stranger taking it as a sexual invitation and telling you to “lighten up” if you don’t.
  • can drink in a bar alone unbothered. In many other public spaces, including bookstores, coffee shops, festivals, and more. A woman alone is often assumed to be available for men to talk to and harass.
  • can travel alone without worrying about being targeted for violence because of your gender.
  • less likely to be stalked.
  • less likely to be the victim of revenge porn.
  • less likely to be killed by a partner. Researchers estimate that 40 to 70 percent of women who are murder victims were killed by a husband or boyfriend.
  • less likely to be blamed for your own sexual assault based on what you were wearing.
  • can stand in a crowded area, like on public transportation, without worrying about being groped.

A female once asked me (paraphrased) if I ever thought about my safety before going out alone. When I thought about that, I had to answer no. The female rebutted with, ‘as a women, I always do.’ Using the Internet, I did a comparison of safety tips for men verses women. What was interesting was there were countless web pages of safety tips for women. Most of those tips were to protect themselves from assault. (see Tips, as an example). When I googled ‘safety tips for men’, the pages I saw—and there weren’t many of them—were how to exercise safely.

I have to wonder if the men who oppose this ad are afraid their male privileges are in danger.

Christmas Controversies 4.0

A commentary on this year’s Christmas controversies.

I do have more to say about China, but since Christmas is rapidly approaching, let’s talk about Christmas. Every year, I’m curious as to what Christmas controversies will erupt. In past years, Starbuck’s Christmas cups spurred controversy and this year seems to be no different. According to The Washington Post, this year’s debate is the same as 2015.  There are claims that Starbucks is not embracing Christmas. The coffee giant said it wanted to “look to the past” for inspiration. It seems there are some people who think the coffee giant’s cups lack Christmas symbolism and thus is an attack on Christmas. Starbucks seems to be ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t.’ I can’t help but think of the idiom, “You can’t please everyone.” The truth is, you will never please everyone, so why bother. Maybe that is the approach Starbucks is taking.

The Guardian has an article, Iceland’s Christmas TV advert rejected for being political, about a controversial ad in United Kingdom. Here is the ad:

A supermarket chain in the United Kingdom, Iceland Foods, pledged removal of palm oil from all its own-brand foods. Habitat loss in countries such as Malaysia – a major global producer of palm oil – has contributed to the orangutan endangerment. The supermarket says, “this is a huge story that needs to be told.”  Iceland Food’s Christmas commercial, about the plight of the critically endangered orangutan, was banned from airing on television.

The ad was pulled from TV because it breached political advertising rules. Ads are prohibited if it is “directed towards a political end.” My question: Was the ad too political because it was affecting sales of palm oil products? The supermarket was merely trying to educate people on the plight of the orangutan. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours (see UN Environment Programme). That is alarming! The world needs to be educated, but if people know this truth they may stop buying palm oil products—therein lies the politics—thus affecting profits. That applies to many products. This isn’t so much a controversy about Christmas as it is about keeping people ignorant. The reality is, for the corporate world, making money is more important than saving the environment or endangered species. There is a so-called Native American saying, “When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.”  I fear this may become truth.

Black Pete Character

Another interesting controversy is taking place in the Netherlands regarding Black Pete or Black Peter—Zwarte Piet in Dutch—a companion of Saint Nicholas (the Dutch say Sinterklaas). On the feast day of Saint Nicholas, celebrated December 5 in the Netherlands and December 6 in Belgium, this character can be seen.  The character’s depiction typically accompanies Sinterklaas, involves covering the skin in black makeup, wearing black wigs, large earrings and  distributing presents to children. Many people in the Netherlands dress up as Zwarte Piet as well.

Traditions surrounding Zwarte Piet have been controversial since the late 20th century. Opponents to the Black Pete character argue that he stems from Dutch colonial heritage, in which black people were submissive to whites, in other words, enslaved. The Netherlands abolished slavery in 1863.  National Geographic reports,

The character [Black Pete] was popularized in a mid-19th century children’s book written by a man who was very interested in the Dutch royal family members, “one of whom bought a slave in a slave market in Cairo in the mid-19th century,” says Joke Hermes, a professor of media, culture, and citizenship at Inholland University. This slave, Hermes suggests, may have helped inspire the character of Zwarte Piet.

Others reject the stereotypical black features of the figure, such as bright red lips, curly hair and large golden earrings. Some argue that it’s a way the white Dutch people remind black Dutch people that they are tolerated but not yet fully accepted citizens. National Geographic reports that white supremacists raised Nazi salutes at the Sinterklass parade in the Dutch city of Hoorn, and flew neo-Nazi flags at the one in Zaandijk. In Eindhoven, an estimated 250 white extremists chanted racist slogans and threw eggs and beer cans at people peacefully protesting the parade.

Now the question is: Should this tradition continue or should it discontinue as it promotes racism or at least keeps alive a racist past? Many argue that Black Pete is harmless fun. Which is more important, tradition or preserving peace? We are living during a time when racism seems to acceptable and even encouraged by some politicians. If black Dutch people, whose ancestors were slaves, are offended, then the tradition is unacceptable! Any traditional Christmas character that prompts white supremacists to raise Nazi salutes needs to be rejected.

The biggest Christmas controversy of 2018 surrounds the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” a popular song written by Frank Loesser in 1944. It is a duet in which a host, usually performed by a male voice, tries to convince a guest, usually performed by a female voice, that she should stay the evening because the weather is cold and the trip home could be problematic. While the lyrics make no mention of any holiday, it is popularly regarded as a Christmas song due to its winter theme. If you’re unfamiliar with the song—I was—here it is.

Why is an old song causing so much controversy to the extent where it is being refused to be played on some radio stations.  CBC News explains that the song is offensive because of the man’s refusal to accept the woman’s “No” for an answer. It says many modern listeners view the song as “coercive and problematic.” For an in-depth analysis of the lyrics, see Vox.

Ironically, recently on my Facebook feed, was a post that forcibly argued that this controversy was ridiculous as people know that the song was written in the 1940s, and must be interpreted in light of the times. I doubt young people know this. In the 1940s it was considered a romantic, innocent song. This individual argued that there are worse things, like violent video games, that we should be concerned with rather than an old Christmas song.

Even though the author made some valid arguments, we must be sensitive to the fact that we now live in a #metoo era. The Me Too (#MeToo) movement is a crusade against sexual harassment and sexual assault. This year has been filled with numerous women coming forward with sexual harassment and assault allegations against celebrities, coaches, and politicians, all people with money and power. The current resident of the U.S. Whitehouse has had several accusations lodged against him. This is an issue not to be taken lightly.

A global rape prevention organization known as, No Means No Worldwide (NMNW), has a mission to end sexual violence against women and children. According to this organization,

Globally, an estimated 35% of women experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. In Africa, that percentage increases to 45%. According to the UN Population Fund, almost 50% of all sexual assault victims are girls age 15 or younger. In the slums of Nairobi, where our programming started, 1 in 4 girls are raped every year.

This organization teaches a preventative program. In other words, when a woman, child, or man for that matter, says NO, then they mean no. In the song, the female declares her intentions, “I simply must go.” The male’s response, “Baby, it’s cold outside.” She declares her intentions again, “The answer is no.” The guy’s response, “Ooh baby, it’s cold outside.” Later in the song, the guy plays with her emotions (my interpretation) saying, “What’s the sense in hurting my pride,” and “Baby don’t hold out.”  Now I can see why people would take offense to this song. The male character in the song doesn’t respect the female’s answer of no. No doesn’t mean no to him. It means maybe, hopefully, try harder and so on.

An article titled, What Nobody Wants To Admit About Rape Culture, says,

One of the most common occurrences when a woman has been raped is that her entire sexual history is brought up and used against her. The point of this attack is not that rape is okay, it’s that she’s a slut so she must have consented, right? Therefore it’s not rape. When guys are told “When a woman says no, she means try harder,” it doesn’t mean that rape is okay. It means that a woman is still consenting even if she says no. Therefore it’s not rape.

Does this song promote the rape—legally known as sexual assault—culture? Seems to. Should a song that is a traditional Christmas song—even that is open to debate—that may preserve a rape culture  be aired on radio because ‘it’s traditional? No. Should radio take this as an opportunity to teach about the objectionable parts of the song? Yes. Just because a song is a traditional Christmas song doesn’t make it acceptable. W. Edwards Deming, an American engineer, statistician, professor, author, and lecturer, once said, “Two basic rules of life are: 1) Change is inevitable. 2) Everybody resists change.” Sometimes Christmas traditions have to change. Airing of this song may be one of them.

When Lydia Liza heard the song, she was offended. She disliked the song so much, she recorded her own, “consensual” version with fellow musician Josiah Lemanski, in 2016.  In other words, she disliked the traditional version, so she changed it, and that is okay. I’ll end with Lydia’s version.

Should We Be Worried?

A commentary on the rise of bigotry

On October 27th, yet another mass shooting occurred in the United States at a Pittsburgh synagogue. A radicalized, American born citizen expressed his hatred of Jews during the rampage, telling police officers afterward that Jews were committing genocide and he wanted them all to die. Sadly, this disturbed individual shot and killed 11 Jewish worshipers during the Jewish Sabbath service. (see Pittsburgh synagogue)

anti-hateWhile watching CNN, I saw an interview with a Jewish Rabbi hours after the mass shooting happened. The words uttered by the Rabbi struck me. He said, “I worry that hatred is becoming mainstream.” These words struck me because he expressed what I’ve been feeling. It seems people feel empowered to express their hatred towards people, such as visible minorities, indigenous people, Jewish people, Muslim people, immigrants, LGBT people, transgender people, and the list goes on and on. This sense of permission to express hatred is not only happening in the U. S. but in my country as well. I began to recall all the things I’ve read or heard in the news this month.

Earlier this month, CBC News reported in an article entitled,  ‘Go back where Indians belong’: St. Albert mother frightened by racist letter from neighbour, that a  woman living in St. Albert, a city two hours from where I live, fears for her children’s safety so has decided to move out of her rented condo.

An anonymous letter, which her 12-year-old daughter found in the mailbox, complained about children riding a scooter on driveways and playing basketball and football on the street. Then the letter said, “We don’t like your kind around here.” The tone of the letter became threatening and focused on the family’s First Nations or indigenous background. The letter told the family to, “Move out or things will escalate. Would not want to see the kids getting hurt. This isn’t a reserve. Go back to the reserve where Indians belong.” The letter ended with, “Your friendly Phase II Neighbours.”

Now I find this entire worrisome incident ironic for two reasons. First, the letter is signed “Your friendly Neighbours.” I would hardly call a letter threatening a family as friendly. The author or authors of this letter is/are hypocrites to say the least. Secondly, it is ironic that these neighbours, presumably white Caucasians, are telling an indigenous family to go back where they belong—in their minds the reserve—when indigenous people have been living on this land that we call Canada for thousands of years before the white Europeans arrived. It was our ancestors who created reserves in  the first place to acquire land for the state. It seems to me that if anyone should be telling someone to go back to where they belong, it should be the indigenous people telling the Caucasians to go back where they belong. I would be willing to bet that the “friendly Neighbours” are ignorant of Canadian history.

Another CBC News titled, Indigenous man kicked out of McDonald’s after racist confrontation says he feels lucky to be alive, describes how an Indigenous man in June was kicked out of one of the city of Red Deer’s MacDonald’s restaurants  following a racist and profanity-laced encounter with another customer. Zach Running Coyote, an indigenous actor from a nearby town, says he decided to confront a man who used a racial slur. Coyote said he wanted the man to say it to his face when he heard the racist say, ‘What’s your f–king problem?’ The racist customer then turned to his girlfriend saying, ‘That, “insert expletive,” little Indian know-it-all should mind his own business.'” Leaving the restaurant’s parking lot, the bigot yelled that he was sick of Coyote’s people “mooching” off tax dollars and living on welfare, spewing more profanity as he sped away. Clearly, the xenophobic is ignorant of history. If you read my post entitled, Is First Contact with Indigenous People Necessary? or do some research on your own, you will learn most of the indigenous stereotypes are based on misconceptions. To stereotypically label all indigenous people as welfare recipients simply is untrue.

Also, in the province where I reside, a story came out this month about one of Alberta’s new political parties, the United Conservative Party (UCP), claiming it does not share the “hateful views” of Soldiers of Odin, a white supremist group, after three candidates, contending to run as a UCP candidate, posed for photos with members of the extremist hate group. (see Candidates unknowingly posed).

What I find ironic, is in another CBC report, UCP nomination candidate says he knew Soldiers of Odin were coming to party’s pub night, the candidate told reporters that, ‘People have a constitutional right to voice their opinions and I’m not going to deny them that.’ In other words, he knew all along who the Soldiers of Odin were. Is this new political party attracting racists? Do its policies allow extremists to feel comfortable in their party? I have a difficult time believing any political party encourages racist extremists to join them, but sometimes actions speak louder than words.

These are just three examples of intolerance in my province. There are many more, I assure you. If this is occurring in every province, then racism seems to be rampant in my country. Hate crimes are on the increase. The National Observer reported last year that police-reported hate crimes in Canada rose in 2016 for the third year in a row, and became much more violent, according to data from Statistics Canada. With all the rhetoric coming from the current resident of the American White House bombarding  the Canadian news, it doesn’t surprise me that hatred is becoming mainstream. Even some of our Canadian politicians are spouting that there should be less immigration. Maxime Bernier, a once outspoken Conservative MP who left the party and has since formed a new political party, criticized an immigration system that he said was attempting to “forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada.” (see Maxime Bernier’s rebellion) Are these politicians bigots or just ignorant? Whatever it is, I don’t want to live in a world that is divisive and exclusive.

One thing I have learned from the many years of travel and experiencing numerous cultures, is that every human being, no matter what race or culture, just wants to live comfortably, enjoy life and live in peace and safety. The late Pierre Berton, a Canadian non-fiction author and journalist, once said, “Racism is a refuge for the ignorant. It seeks to divide and to destroy. It is the enemy of freedom, and deserves to be met head-on and stamped out.” I believe that to be true. Racism comes from ignorance. Racism is a learned attitude. Racism does not belong in my world or in my country. It needs to be met head-on and stamped out. Everyone, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation have the right to live their lives with dignity. As stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, declared in 1948,

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

The bottom line is a bigot is a bully. Bullies intimidate to get their way. There is no place for a bully in my world.

Are Our Countries Undergoing a Divorce?

A commentary on the current relationship between Canada and the United States.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy in his address to the Canadian Parliament in 1961 told Canadians, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us.” Republican President Ronald Reagan in his 1981 address to the Canadian Parliament told us, “We are happy to be your neighbour. We want to remain your friend. We are determined to be your partner and we are intent on working closely with you in a spirit of co-operation.”

I have always considered our southern neighbours to be friends, family really, as my ancestors emigrated from the American states of North and South Dakota. We share the longest undefended border in the world and I am very proud of that. I believe all Canadians felt this way. It seems that is no longer the case. I, as most Canadians, were angered by Trump’s childish  behaviour at the G7 meeting. I have talked to numerous people who have told me they plan to avoid travelling to the United States because of the way the current resident of the White House treated Canada and our Prime Minister (PM), and because of the tariffs unfairly placed on Canada.  I have also seen several campaigns on social media promoting the boycotting of American made products.

The New York Post’s article, Canadians boycott US products, cancel vacations to America reports that Canadian shoppers are shunning Kentucky bourbon, California wine and Florida oranges, and avoiding American companies like Starbucks, Walmart and McDonald’s. The article claims Twitter hashtags like #BuyCanadian, #BoycottUSProducts and #BoycottUSA are spreading over anger because of Trump’s trade tariffs. The article also describes an Ottawa man who posted a “Trump-free grocery cart” full of products from Canada or from “countries with strong leadership.” It also says that many Canadian travelers have declared they would be staying in Canada this summer instead of booking trips to the US.  One person tweeted “F​–k​ you Trump. We just booked a $3,000 vacation to beautiful British Columbia. Happy anniversary to us. #Canadastrong #BuyCanadian #F***Tariffs.” 

An article by Maclean’s called, Canadians join movement to boycott academic events in the U.S., reports that hundreds of academics who teach at universities across Canada have joined more than 6,200 academics around the world pledging to stay away from international conferences held in the United States. It is very evident to me that Canadians are upset.

According to  public opinion polls, Canada has consistently been Americans’ favourite nation, with 96% of Americans viewing Canada favourably in 2012. I guess Trump wasn’t one of them. In 2013, Pew Research Centre reported 64% of Canadians had a favourable view of the U.S. while only 30% viewed the U.S. negatively. Sadly, a 2017 Global Attitudes Survey, says 43% of Canadians view U.S. positively, while 51% hold a negative view of its southern neighbour, a drop of 21% since 2013.

How can relations between two countries who share the longest undefended border in the world become so sour? The answer: Donald J Trump.  According to the 2017 Global Attitudes Survey I cited earlier, in more than half of the 37 nations surveyed, the positive views of the U.S. experienced double-digit drops. It seems it is not just Canadians who are changing their views of the U.S.A. This is a trend that both disturbs and saddens me.

What is even more disturbing to me is the number of posts on social media that refer to Trump as a fascist.  Merriam- Webster defines fascism as a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Granted, there is debate as to whether the U.S. leader is a dictator or not, but what disturbs me is the current U.S. administration displays all the warning signs of fascism.

There are many social media and internet articles telling of a sign hanging in the U.S. Holocaust Museum that defines what to look for when you are worried that your country may be slipping into fascism. It lists the following 12 early warning signs of fascism.

  1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
  2. Disdain for human rights
  3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
  4. Rampant sexism
  5. Controlled mass media
  6. Obsession with national security
  7. Religion and government intertwined
  8. Corporate power protected
  9. Labor power suppressed
  10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
  11. Obsession with crime and punishment
  12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

I was shocked at how many of these apply to the present-day occupant of the White House. I could easily provide evidence that the U.S. president exhibits every one of these early warning signs. I won’t do that as I think each person should draw their own conclusions. I would encourage you to do that with your own research.

An article, Canada ranked as ‘most admired’ country in the world: report, by CTV News  says that Canada is the “most admired” country with the “best reputation” in the world, according to the 2015 report from the Reputation Institute, an annual survey ranking the reputations of developed nations across the globe. In particular, the report praised Canada for its “effective government,” “absence of corruption,” “friendly and welcoming people” and welfare support system. That is what makes us proud Canadians. I have to wonder if the majority of Americans are proud of their country these days.

I know, as most Canadians do, that the majority of Americans do NOT think the same as their president. I know many are outraged by the behaviours of their elected leader. The Globe and Mail reports that Americans have written numerous letters to them reacting to Donald Trump’s conduct at the G7 meeting of world leaders in Quebec.  Here is one of many such letters.

Dear Canada: Please do not judge us Americans by the actions and words of the President. He continues to alienate our friends. What he recently said and did is not supported by all of us. Canada and the U.S. have had, and will continue to have, a great relationship. This will pass. We have far more in common than some small differences.   Name withheld, North Huntingdon, Pa.

It is letters like these that give me hope.  I look forward to that day when America returns to the principles stated in the United States Declaration of Independence, where it states in the Preamble: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Based on my observations, these principles have been abandoned under the current leadership.

A Flashback to School Yard Supervision

A commentary on Canada-U.S. relations.

Watching world events this week have dumbfounded me.  During and after the G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada, I had a flashback to my days of supervision on the school yard. Over my 35-year teaching career, I’ve dealt with numerous school yard bullies over the years. Recent world events illustrated a school yard on a grand scale. Let’s recap what has occurred this week.

from cbc.ca

There was a communiqué signed by all G7 countries suggesting these countries had reached a consensus on investing in growth for everyone, preparing for jobs of the future, advancing gender equality, working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy and building a more peaceful and secure world. There were, however, prominent points of disagreement. The United States refused to endorse the section on climate change. The U.S. and Japan refused to sign a plastics charter, a non-binding agreement promising to eradicate plastics pollution affecting our oceans. At the very least, the G7 leaders initially seemed to present a united front.

Donald Trump, who came late and left early, exited saying his relationship with the G7 countries was a 10 out of 10, and blasting reports of rifts between the U.S. and world as nothing more than “fake news.” Then all hell broke loose. While on Air Force One, Trump rescinds his signature on the communique over words Justin Trudeau said at his news conference.

As the New York Times article, Trump’s ‘Bully’ Attack on Trudeau Outrages Canadians, reports, Trump launched into a “bitter” rant on Twitter over perceived trade inequalities. He proceeded to accuse Canada’s Prime Minster (PM) Justin Trudeau as “meek and mild” and “very dishonest and weak” all because our prime minister declared that U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum were “insulting” and his insistence that Canada would not be pushed around; the same words he said in other news conferences. Trump continues with his attacks.

The attacks on our PM didn’t stop there. Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said, “There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.” Navarro later apologized admitting his words were inappropriate.

Mr. Trump’s economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, declared  that Mr. Trudeau had “stabbed us [the U.S.] in the back,” betrayed Mr. Trump and made him look weak before his summit meeting with North Korea’s leader.

What is ironic is that First lady Melania Trump launched her “Be Best” campaign in the White House Rose Garden in May. One of the issues she desires to tackle is cyberbullying. It is indeed satire that her husband, Donald Trump,  notoriously cyberbullies. Merriam-Webster defines cyberbullying as “the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person often done anonymously.” Granted Mr. Trump isn’t being anonymous, his tweets and attacks on our PM indicate, he is mean-spirited. Furthermore, attacking someone using a keyboard is a cowardly act! Bullies are afraid to attack their foes face to face.  Mr. Trump appeared to be cordial at the G7 summit, but attacks people when he is alone with his phone.  Trump is your classic school yard bully and I’ve seen many over my years.  A bully, according to Merriam-Webster, as “one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others…”  Trump’s behaviour certainly fits that definition. He is your classic school yard bully.

Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, said “The national security pretext is absurd and frankly insulting to Canadians, the closest and strongest ally the United States has had.” This is a reaction to Trump suggesting Canada was a “national security” threat. His administration argues that the increased imports have led to the closing of U.S. steel and aluminum plants, leaving the U.S. industry at risk of becoming unsustainable, thus threatening national security. An argument that is absurd as Canada and the U.S. has the longest undefended border in the world. If Canada were a national security threat, then why isn’t the Trump administration propping up defence along the border. I as a Canadian was indeed offended as the argument makes no sense.

Canada and the U.S. have always had a close relationship, until now.  U.S. allies fought and collaborated together during both World Wars,  throughout the Cold War, bilaterally through NORAD and multilaterally through NATO.  A high volume of trade and migration occurs between our two nations, as well as an overlapping of culture.

Freeland responded to Trump’s attacks on PM Trudeau after the G7 summit saying Canada “does not conduct its diplomacy through ad hominem attacks.” She said that “we don’t think that’s a useful or productive way to do business.”  I agree completely with our foreign minister as stooping to the level of bully is not the way to do business.  I am grateful that our PM is being the adult in this relationship and avoids lowering himself to the level of Trump, a school yard bully. It is the Canadian way to be nice and polite. That is what our PM is doing and I applaud him for that.

Furthermore, bullying allies is damaging.  A Pew Research survey published in June 2017 found that Canadian dislike toward Mr. Trump had helped reduce Canadians’ opinions of the United States to a low not seen in more than three decades, with only 43% of Canadians holding a favourable view of the U.S.A.

Thankfully, not all Americans think the same way as their childlike president.  As CBC News reports that American actor, Robert De Niro, at the Tony Awards verbally attacked the U.S. president. The next day, while in Toronto, Canada he apologized for Donald Trump’s behaviour at the G7 summit. De Niro called Trump’s behaviour “a disgrace.” and apologized saying, “I just want to make a note of apology for the idiotic behaviour of my president. I apologize to Justin Trudeau and the other people at the G7.”  Thank you, Mr. De Niro,! You give me hope that America is still a decent place.

The Global News article, Americans are saying #ThanksCanada in wake of Donald Trump’s attack on Justin Trudeau, report that many Americans began to point out on social media the many times Canada has helped the United States, sharing personal stories on why they are thankful for their neighbours to the north. Nicholas Burns tweeted, “Canada spirited four American hostages out of Iran in 1979, welcomed thousands of stranded U.S. airline passengers on 9/11, has our back in every war, shares the world’s longest undefended border with us and a symbiotic North American economy. THE best neighbour we could have.” This is just one example of many wonderful things Americans tweeted about Canada.

Shockingly, Trump is helping our country by uniting all Canadians. The CBC News article, MPs unite to condemn Trump’s tariffs, verbal attacks, reports that Members of Parliament set aside their partisan stripes uniting to adopt a New Democrat—one of Canada’s political parties–motion to oppose Trump’s trade tariffs and verbal attacks, and to respond with steep duties on American products. The symbolic motion called on the House of Commons to “stand in solidarity” with PM Trudeau and his government’s decision to retaliate against “illegitimate” tariffs imposed by the U.S.

As the New York Times reports, even Mr. Trudeau’s political foes rose to his defense. Recently elected premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, a person often accused of being Trump-like, tweeted, “We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the prime minister and the people of Canada.”

Stephen Harper, the former Conservative PM of Canada told Fox News that Mr. Trump had made a mistake targeting trade relations with Canada. “I can understand why President Trump, why the American people feel they need some better trade relationships,” he said. But, he added, “this is the wrong target.”

What puzzles me the most is that Trump treats his allies as foes yet embraces his enemies. During the Singapore summit, he described North Korea’s leader as having a “great personality” and as “very smart.” This is the same man who Trump labeled “Little Rocket Man” and in private called him “a crazy guy.” Kim, in turn, called Trump a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard,” a word suggesting senility. BBC News has a long list of North Korean human rights violations. Trump signed an agreement that appears to be nothing but vague promises (see NBC).  I’m not “holding my breath” on this deal when North Korea has made deals in the past and never honoured them. Trump made an agreement at the G7 and then pulled out as soon as he left. Neither one of these leaders can be taken on their word.

Trump during the G7 summit in Quebec called for Russia to be readmitted to the group after its expulsion for annexing Crimea. Putin, Russia’s leader, has a long list of human rights violations as well (see Human Rights Watch). Even on the school yard, bullies typically, in my experience, don’t attack their friends. It seems the U.S. president is more comfortable with his enemies who are brutal autocrats than he is with his friends. That says something about the character of this man.

Did the Pope Really Refuse to Apologize?

A commentary on whether the Pope should apologize to Canada’s Indigenous people.

Back in May of 2017, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Pope Francis and asked him to apologize for the Catholic Church’s role in the residential school system where abuse of indigenous children occurred (see Newsweek).  When I first heard about this, I was confused as I thought the Pope had already apologized. I  wondered why the Catholic leader was being asked to apologize again.  Newsweek’s article explains that in 2009 the previous pontiff, Pope Benedict, met with survivor of the system Phil Fontaine, then national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. The article asserts that the pope did not formally apologize. Instead, he simply shared his ‘sorrow’ and ‘sympathy.’

Pope Francis

In March, the headline, Pope’s decision to not issue apology , appeared on the CBC News website. The article says Pope Francis claimed he could not personally apologize for residential school abuses. This month, Global News reported that the Canadian Parliament held a “historic” debate on whether to ask Pope Francis to formally apologize for the substantial role the Catholic church played in the residential school system. This week The National Post reports that Canadian Members of Parliament (MPs) passed a motion to invite the Pope to Canada to apologize for residential schools. The vote was passed by a margin of 269-10 .  One of the advocates of the motion was residential school survivor and MP, Romeo Saganash. The article says that an apology is one of the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; a Commission that recommended an apology be delivered in Canada by the pontiff, for the church’s role in the residential school abuse of First Nations, Inuit and Metis children.

All this talk about another apology from a pope piqued my curiosity. If the previous pope, Pope Benedict, already issued an apology, what is this all about? I set out to find out.

The National Observer’s article, Bishops try to clarify Pope’s refusal to apologize for residential schools, says the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a background paper to MPs and senators. The paper says the church has “on a number of occasions expressed regret and remorse at the involvement by various Catholics” in the schools. It also reminds us that Pope Benedict met with a delegation of Indigenous leaders in 2009 “and expressed sorrow and regret for the abuses suffered” in the schools. The Bishop’s paper said Phil Fontaine declared that the meeting with Pope Benedict “closes the circle of reconciliation.” It also said

  “To suggest that the Catholic community has not accepted responsibility for its involvement in residential schools is simply inaccurate. The Catholic Church has apologized in the way it is structured.”

The New York Times article, A Pope Given to Apologies Has Nothing for Indigenous Canada, says that Phil Fontaine has since stated, “It was right for the moment,” about Pope Benedict’s expression of sorrow. “But there’s a lot we didn’t know about in 2009: We didn’t know the number of deaths, the numbers of those abused. So much has been exposed through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it’s really so different now.”

 I have to agree with Mr. Fontaine. Since 2009 we’ve learned a lot more about the horrors that occurred in those schools. In fact, I was shocked to learn doing this post that CBC News reported that Ontario Provincial Police files reveal that an Ontario residential school, St. Anne’s, had built its own electric chair. In my last post, Hockey is Part of Canada, I talked about how residential school students lived in substandard conditions, endured physical, emotional and sexual abuse by brothers, priests and nuns who claimed they represented God.

This begs the question: Was the 2009 apology a true, sincere apology, and what constitutes an accurate apology anyways?  Mindtools.com in its article, How to Apologize: Asking for Forgiveness Gracefully, says to apologize correctly, an apology must:

  1. start with two magic words: “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize.”
  2. admit responsibility for actions or behaviour and acknowledge what an offender did.
  3. take action to make the situation right.
  4. explain that the offender will never repeat the action or behaviour again.

Psychology Today’s article, The Five Ingredients of an Effective Apology, says in order for an apology to be effective, it must have the following ingredients:

  1. A clear ‘I’m sorry’ statement.
  2. An expression of regret for what happened.
  3. An acknowledgment that social norms or expectations were violated.
  4. An empathy statement acknowledging the full impact of the offender’s actions on the victim(s). In other words, to truly forgive, a victim needs to feel that the offender completely understands the full impact their actions had on them.
  5. A request for forgiveness.

So, do the Canadian Conference of Bishops have a valid argument? Has the Catholic Church given a proper apology? Using the above criteria, l shall analyze Pope Benedict’s 2009 apology.

CTV News in 2009 reported, that the pontiff expressed his sorrow and emphasized that “acts of abuse cannot be tolerated”.  Pope Benedict went on to say,

“Given the sufferings that some indigenous children experienced in the Canadian residential school system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”

Both Mindtools.com and Psychology Today say the words “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize” need to be used. They were not used by the pontiff in 2009. This is the primary argument for why it was  not a real apology. Pope Benedict’s apology definitely fails on this point.

Psychology Today says there needs to be an expression of regret for what happened. The Pontiff expressed his sorrow at the anguish. I’d say that shows regret, so it’s a pass on this one.

Mindtools.com says an apology needs to take responsibility for actions or behaviour as well as acknowledge what occurred. The Holy Father did acknowledge what happened, i.e. “the deplorable conduct of some members of the church”.  It’s debatable whether he’s taken responsibility. Another word for responsibility is accountability, which means being answerable for one’s actions.  Expressing “sorrow” and “regret” is not being accountable . I’d give a fail for this one.

Psychology Todays says an empathy statement acknowledging the full impact of an offender’s actions on the other person, needs to be given.  Benedict talked about “the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the church” but that is hardly acknowledging the full impact of the actions. I would give a fail on this one.

Mindtools.com says the offender must take action to make the situation right and promise to never repeat the action or behavior. The pope’s apology fails on these points. Psychology Today says there needs to be a request for forgiveness. This did not happen, so a fail on this one as well.

Canada’s Parliament Buildings

Is our Prime Minister and Canada’s Members of Parliament justified in asking Pope Francis to apologize? After my analysis, I would say a resounding YES. Furthermore, aboard the Papal plane back in 2016, Pope Francis told reporters that gays — and all the other people the church has marginalized, such as the poor and the exploited — deserve an apology (see CBC).  It would seem to me that the indigenous people were marginalized, meaning they were seen as less important by members of the church, as late as 1996 when the last federally operated residential school closed. Actions speak louder than words. The pope needs to put his own words into action and deliver a sincere, acceptable apology to the indigenous people of Canada on behalf of the church he represents. It’s the Christian thing to do!