Helicopters and Peep Shows

So, I was getting ready for bed on Monday night, and as soon as I was unmentionably underclothed, outside my second storey apartment window there let up a monstrous roaring cheer.  And let me tell you, my clothes flew on all by themselves, from hat to spats.

And then I realized, no, my curtains are closed.  Not only that, but if it wasn't for the fire escape, there's nothing between that window and an impossibly narrow alley strew with torn bits of apartment building stuff.

I laughed it off, but the cheering wouldn't stop.  As a matter of fact, it got louder.  They were chanting.

Then came the helicopters, and suddenly it wasn't funny anymore.  I held my breath and waited for the bullets.

For the last 101 days, there have been protests downtown Montreal.  I'm in a central but very residential area.  The most impressive building we have on my street is the retirement home kitty corner from here.  And yet, these protests had migrated this far afield.

At nearly midnight, when you're least expecting to hear one, a mob is a very frightening thing indeed.  I stayed dressed for a while, because I was terrified - justly or not - that someone was going to lob a Molotov cocktail through one of the ground floor windows.  

Don't laugh - earlier this week, someone set fire to the building's garbage pail.  It shouldn't be such a comic stretch to believe a committed pyro or prankster wouldn't hide in a "peaceful" protest when tempers are already running high, and identities are obscured by masks and nightfall.


I barely slept that night.  It took a long time to fall asleep, even after the protesters had moved on.  I had my first nightmare at 2:00 in the morning, and my second at 5:00 - each of them worthy of blog posts of their own.  Somewhere between those two nightmares, I woke up with a bad case of sleep paralysis, a flashing light in my eyes (thunderstorm in progress), and a hallucination that some scary, pixelated face was staring down at me.  I was in a total fog the day after.


Warning!


I'm no expert.  I can't even claim to make sense of what's going on.  But I ran out of time when I was trying to explain it to Tobin, so I thought maybe I should just write it down.  And then I thought, maybe instead of being afraid of what's going on, I should really make a point of understanding it.


Feel free to add your commentary below, but remember:  I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around all that's going on - and I'm trying not to pick a side, because I know I don't have all the information.  If I missed a point, it's only because I haven't read every article and website, and I haven't interviewed anyone involved in the goings-on downtown.  I'll try citing as many opposing views as possible - including from those sources I don't even like - but I'm bound to miss something.  It's not on purpose, I swear.


So, let's start at the beginning.

The Cause

(For a really good run down of the timeline of events, check out this CBC webpage.)


Once upon a time (March 2011), somebody in the Quebec provincial government decided that tuition fees needed to go up for all university and CÉGEP students across Quebec.  Up to that point, there'd been pretty much a tuition freeze.  I've read different articles that site different increases, but - my understanding is university tuition was going to raise by about $325 a year over a period of five years starting the 2012 fall term), and tuition would increase from $2,168 to $3,793.

Now, as somebody coming from Ontario, I don't understand this, so bear with me:  I went to a public high school, and from there, I went to university.  I didn't have to pay for my education until I got to university.

Here, there's primary school, high school, CEGEP, and then post-secondary.  The first two are compulsory; the other two ain't.  But what I understand of CEGEP, it's like High School Plus or College Light.  Back in my day, we had OACs (Ontario Academic Credits) which you took as a preparation for post-secondary education, and we didn't have to pay for them.  So now I think that CEGEP is voluntary, but it's not free.  Therefore, tuition raise = uncomfortable and/or not feasible for a lot of people.

Also, again because I'm coming in from Ontario, I chose my career path and school based on the cost, as well as the quality of the courses.  One school didn't cost the same as the other; and each program cost different from the other.  One year in an undergrad program for law at UoT will cost considerably more than a year in an engineering undergrad program at UofT, which costs more than a year in the bachelor of arts and sciences program at UoT.  And a BSc program from U of T is considerably more expensive than U of Wo, even though it's pretty much the same thing.

So, unless I'm missing something:  in Quebec, tuition is tuition, across the board, regardless of the program, regardless of the school.  That's why newspapers are able to quote specific numbers, instead of a range.  Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.  But if prices are fixed and low across Quebec, I'm going to go back to 1996 and kick myself for not having gone to Bishops University when I had the chance.

Okay, so bottom line:  tuition is rising.  Rising tuition costs = more debt.  Those in lower income families will be saddled with greater debt.

The Tough Love

In 1996, I was paying upwards of $3200 per year for a BSc in Psychology, and I was staying on residence.  That was sixteen years ago.  I came from the lower income family in question.  I worked my way through the last two and a half years of my program, and over the next ten years, I managed to pay off my entire student debt.  One year in the same program at the same school now costs $5613.  (For the record, my daytime cell phone rate at the time was $1.95/minute.)

The self-made graduate in me is full of "suck it up, princess."  I'm sorry, I can't help it, that's just the way I am.

And then the business person / tax payer / wage earner in me thinks:  Why are we raising tuition fees in the first place?  Is it maybe because teachers are underpaid or because faculty is understaffed?  Is it because computers need to be replaced?  Material and fuel costs on the rise?  Is it because voters have been asking for tax cuts, and as a result there's not as much subsidization happening?

I lay this out, not because it's wrong or right to protest the tuition rates.  I say this because I'm from Ontario, because I'm a university grad, because I came from a low income family and graduated and paid off my debts in full within 10 years of graduation, and because this is what goes through my head each and every time I see the student protests.  Based on this alone, the students have not gained my sympathy.

Before anyone bites me, I recommend reading on, first.

The Players

One thing I will say about the protests that have been really in the public eye since the beginning of the year:  this is not just between the students and the cops.

This is the cast of characters, as best as I understand them.  Remember, I'm not a journalist.  I'm still researching this myself.

The students

A) those in favour of the strike, including:
     a) student unions - moderate student leaders who advocate a peaceful demonstration
     b) Coalition large de l’association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (C.L.A.S.S.E. ); "radical" is a bit strong of a word for it, but they have been a lot more vocal about the need for a full, united demonstration - whether other students want it or not.  It's important to note that their symbol is a red square, which evokes terms like "the red bloc", and in my own head, another "red" square.
          1) Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is currently the leader of this coalition.  And he seems to be having some financial and leadership problems close to home.
     c) the Black Bloc style anarchists
B) those who just want to get through the school year

Unions and other groups
A) labour unions - including teachers associations - are providing visible and financial support, especially since May 18 (more on this in a moment)
B) And Others:  including Arcade Fire, Michael Moore, Strike Everywhere, and Occupy Wall Street.
 

Police

A) both municipal and provincial police have been called in.  Some claim that police are being assaulted; some claim police brutality; some claim that the police are doing their best to stop property damage; some claim that the police are causing the property damage.  There are some officers who are overreacting.  That doesn't necessarily mean the police are out of control.  I can't emphasize enough the importance of seeing the whole clip, including the preceding minutes, including multiple angles wherever possible, including both video and sound, unedited and unbroken.

Government

A) Former Education Minister Line Beauchamp - who resigned her post in early May after talks fell apart.  Well, if that doesn't say pessimism, I don't know what does.
B) Education Minister Michelle Courchesne - who has openly invited student unions, including CLASSE, back to the negotiation table.  I don't know what she's doing tonight, but I suspect it might have something to do with a bubble bath and a strong beer. I wouldn't blame her.
C) Provincial Premier Jean Charest (leader of the Quebec Liberal Party).  He lives in Westmount.  Monday night, the protesters had marched toward his house, but had been blocked by the police.  They weren't cheering for my striptease.  They were calling on the Premier.  More on him in a moment.

Media

A) pro law and order (strong focus on municipal impact, lost income, inconvenience, property damage; use of words like "radical group"; photos of how police are being assaulted by students)
B) pro student (strongest claims of police brutality, strong focus on how students are or will be affected by the tuition hikes)
C) anti Bill 78 - somewhere in the middle, depending on the bent of the newspaper as a whole.
D) blogs, youtube, Facebook, local media outlets (i.e. the Montreal Gazette), national media outlets (like the CBC), and media outlets outside of Quebec from both sides of the argument (i.e. the Toronto Star vs. the Toronto Sun).
 E) Some ghostly form that seems bent on preventing one video from staying online - something to do with Montreal police officers allegedly breaking storefront windows during and/or near one of the protests.  Is it some archgovernment that's preventing this from staying online?  I dunno.  What's in the video?  I dunno - every time I see someone's posted the video, by the time I get there, it's gone again.  It's very 1984.
     - Context is everything, no matter which side your on, or what's your media source.  Video one.  Video Two.  I wasn't there, so I don't know who threw the first punch or who said what, so I'm not commenting one way or the other.  In fact, if I was there in person, I  would have been so confused and angry and frightened that I wouldn't have known who did what; I would have just been angry at everyone and everything.

Montrealers and Quebeckers at Large
A) those in favour of the students
B) those opposed to Bill 78 (more on that in a moment)
C) those affected by the student protests, either through inconvenience (also here), property damage, lost income, or worse, regardless of which side they're taking - or if they're taking a side at all.


The Protests, the Demonstrations, and the Damage

Today marks Day 101 of the protests and student strikes.  Most of the protests have been done at night, but there are a few that stand out in my mind: 

Blocking a bridge.  Twice. Vandalism.  A lot of vandalism. Blockading schools.  Whether other students approve or not. Leading Jean Charest to suspend the rest of the semester.  But those are the ugly spots.  remember, there have been 101 days of this so far; not every day has been bad.  Some days are bad, and some days are rainy.


The Situation, as far as I can see it.

Montreal is where we riot when the Habs win, and where we riot when the Habs lose. 

But, the "we" must here be defined:  I don't know who is actually doing the riots.  I actually heard a story about some people from "out of town" who wore knock-off jerseys immediately before looting shops downtown after a game. 

So are Habs fans the problem?  Are semi-professional hooligans the problem?  I dunno.  I'm not an investigator, and I wasn't there.  Is it possible that looters are infiltrating peaceful demonstrations?  Absolutely.

The same question is applicable here:  obviously, there are some people - not all, but some - who are causing property damage (fires, blockades, vandalism).  Are these incorrigibles students?  Dropouts?  Ruffians?  Undercover cops?  I don't know.  Is it possible that peaceful assemblies are being infiltrated by idiots and fearmongers?  Absolutely.

Here's what we do know:  vandalism has occurred.  Pepper has been sprayed.  Rocks have been thrown.  People have been arrested.  Bill 78 was penned and stamped into effect.

Here's what else we know:  people (like me) are avoiding downtown, tempers are flaring, and there are some known and unknown individuals who are fanning the flames.

Bottom line:  the protests have now become the focus of attention, not the underlying reason for those protests.  So, for now, let's get back to the actual issue at hand.

The Stakes, a.k.a. The Money Question

Now, I could just be spitballing here, but this is what I'm seeing, from a strictly financial perspective.  After all, the initial problem was around finances, and then it (d)evolved into an argument over the nature of freedom of assembly.

1)  Tourism has decreased, people avoiding going downtown:  lost income.  Lost income = lower taxes paid.  Lower taxes paid = less subsidization against tuition.  Oh, that can't be good.

2)  Semester has been suspended unexpectedly early, only to resume again in August, immediately before the fall session.  That means students are thrust out into the workforce earlier than planned (summer jobs aren't available yet), and it means that they're going to fall out of the workforce earlier than planned.  In other words, they're not going to be able to work as long as they would have otherwise.  Shorter summer employment = less student income = greater student debt.  Well, nuts.

3)  No tuition increase = staff and faculty wages frozen, though the cost of living will increase.  Staff cutbacks and wage freezes = high quality professors will seek out other centres of education - outside of Quebec, maybe outside of Canada - in order to find a more competitive employer, 'cause people like being paaaaaaid.  That means Quebec students are stuck with the bargain basement professors.  And that sounds dull.

4)  No tuition increase, part two = lower budgets for building maintenance, hardware and software upgrades, limited hours of operation in libraries and other student resource centres, and cutbacks to extra-curricular programs.  Well, okay...if you want it that way.

5)  Tuition increases have a negative impact on lower income families.  Yes!  I totally and one hundred percent agree with this.  I put myself through university, thank you very much; and I paid off my massive student debt all by my lonesome too.  You know why?  Because a degree helps you to get a better paying job; it's helps to continually advance my career too!  Much of the reason why I was able to pay off my student loan is because, over time, my income increased.  Not only is it because I was able to find a job in a competitive market, one that tries to keep up with or ahead of the increase in cost of living, but, I was also able to advance from one post to a higher position no less than nine times in the last ten years.  Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!

6) Post-secondary education should be free.  You know what?  High school's free.  Not many people want to be there.  In fact, they'll go out of their way to tell you how much they don't want to be there.  And you know what?  University isn't free, and people don't want to go there either.  Once upon a time, I got up in the middle of a lecture, walked in front of the professor, up the middle aisle, leaned across four women, poked my finger at a guy's nose and told him, "You have two choices.  Shut up, or get out of my class."  He paid just as much as I did - paid, mind you - and still, he made no use of his time there.  Therefore, I have to argue:  if post-secondary education was free, would it be put to good use by all who took it?

7)  Post-secondary education should be free, part 2.  There is no such thing.  People, professors included, like getting paid.  It helps with things like housing, and laundry money.  So the money comes from somewhere.  Students, ask your future, employed selves:  how much do you think your taxes will increase, if you're helping to pay for the post-secondary education of every student in your city, as well as for all the sanitation and road infrastructure repairs, health-care, legal institutions, etc. etc.?  Hate to say it, but communism didn't work, and we're too North American to be Sweden (where their general tax rate is about 51.1% - so basically, for every $100 you make, $51 goes to the government.  The other $49 has to cover your rent, electricity, food, insurance, clothing, entertainment, iPhone and bicycle - I'll bet that's no fun if you're a parent).

I'm going to leave the money stuff there for now, because I'm getting sarcastic.

Where Things Went Stupid

Okay, so:  on one side, you've got students who do not want tuition hikes.  On the other hand, you've got the Quebec government, who do want tuition hikes.  Let's skip all the details of both sides of that argument, because we all know, there are points for and against on each side, and it's complicated.

Now, on one hand, you have people actively protesting the tuition hikes, and I say, okay, that's your right.  And I say "people", because we can't assume that they're all students (there are grads and others who support the students too), and on the flip side, we can't assume that all students are in unanimous agreement with what these "people" are doing.

On the other hand, you've got the QC government who is at the table, making offers to spread out the tuition hikes over seven years instead of five, who are making offers of increased bursaries and changes to loan processes, but who are adamant about removing the tuition increases altogether.  And who write silly things like Law 78.

I don't know what's happening behind closed doors, but I do know that student leaders are back to the table with the current education minister.  This is good!  I don't know if there are any discussions about why tuition hikes are proposed to be so high, I don't know what arguments have been made for or against.  I don't know if there's miscommunication going on, or just plain old-fashioned stubbornness on both sides of the table. 

Either way, I don't know where we're at with the tuition thing.  Like I said, the focus has shifted in the public eye from the tuition increases to the protests themselves - and now...to Bill or Law 78.

Law 78 was a bad idea.

Law 78 is an emergency law enacted by the provincial government, once it was accepted by a majority vote.  It does not prevent the assembly of 50 or more people.  Read the provisions here:  (Wikipedia, I love you.)  In short:  it specifies where these assemblies of 50 or more are unwanted (near CEGEPs and Universities); it outlines which schools are suspended and for how long; it issues a back to work order for education employees; and it outlaws any assembly of 50 or more, unless the police have been notified of and approve of the locations and routes of those assemblies.

This was put into effect ostensibly to curb the behaviours of a handful of ruffians, to protect property and civilian safety, and to prevent things like...more bridge closures or rolling highway blockades during rush hour traffic, which only makes Montrealers into worse drivers than they already are - trust me, that is no small feat.

Insert tired, sarcastic laugh here.

Good.  Now for the fun stuff.

1)  This law was put in place in order to create a safe zone for students who want to return to school, guaranteeing their right to enter and attend without threat of harassment.  Great...Except...Well, that doesn't really make any sense, if you're going to go ahead and suspend classes anyhow.  So I'm still scratching my head about that one.

2)  Law 78 outlaws any assembly of 50 or more - no matter who is assembling or why - unless the locations and routes have been approved of by the police. 

Wow, do we have problems here.

2a) That kinda goes against a certain piece of paper we like to call The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  In fact, this provincial emergency law goes against oh...I dunno, "(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," and uh... "(c) freedom of peaceful assembly" and um... "(d) freedom of association."  The key word here is:  "freedom of peaceful assembly".  So we are not guaranteed the "freedom of violent assembly" or the "freedom of chuck-a-Molotov assembly".  There are already laws in place protecting the rest of us from violence and mobbery.  It's called the Criminal Code of Canada.

2b) This also goes against what little I know about government in Canada, namely, that federal law (like the Charter, or like the Criminal Code of Canada) overrules pretty much anything else at the provincial or municipal level.  So...why is a provincial governor attempting to supplement and/or overrule federal law?

2c) Moreover, since when does municipal police get the right to approve or disapprove of an assembly?  Think about that for a second:  you have to submit your itinerary in advance.  If the police approve, the assembly goes ahead, great.  Traffic news is alerted, and we can all curse and swear and find alternate routes.  Swell.  But, if the police don't approve...they've just revoked your legal right to freedom of assembly.  The police...can now revoke your legal right to freedom of assembly.

2d) And, this is no longer a law about "student protests."  The vagueness of that provision doesn't specify the nature of the assembly, or the composition of the group of 50.  That means the police are now enabled to walk up to a peaceful and legal strike, count the number of heads and declare a picket illegal. 

The Charest government has now expanded the fight.  This is no longer about Longhairs versus The Man.  This is The Man against Those Folks Who Voted Him In.  This is The Man against The Unions.  In terms of political blunders, this falls somewhere between Waterloo and Pearl Harbour.  He has awoken the giant.

Did I mention the sympathetic demonstrations in places like...New York, Paris, Toronto...

3)  We riot when the Habs win.  We riot when the Habs lose.  Strikers and their supporters have been livid about how the police have been hemming them in, arresting them, pepper spraying them, etc. - and that was before Bill 78 was put into place.  Montrealers - and Quebecers at large - are, if anything, a vocal bunch of people.  We like being vocal.  It's our guaranteed right in a free and democratic society, and dang it, we're gonna benefit from it.  And we do it so well we don't even restrict ourselves to one language.

So who in his right mind thought that a bill like this, which was designed to curb, restrict and/or outlaw loud people, was actually going to make them more quiet?

This is a law designed to invite civil disobedience. It's like frickin' legal reverse psychology!


4)  How is this supposed to be enforced?  Let's say you get 10,000 people all marching relatively in one peaceful direction.  What's to prevent 200-ish pods of 50 people from spinning off in multiple directions?  How are police supposed to disperse 200 "illegal" assemblies? 

Now what if we're dealing with 200,000 protesters?

5)  Wow, what bad timing.  Now the Bloc Quebecois (those primarily in favour of the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada) are saying that they've been siding with the students all along, and that they're opposed to Charest, his government and to Bill 78.  Did I mention we're coming up on an election soon?

Closing thoughts

1)  The students did not have my support for three main reasons:  a) I'm not convinced that the tuition increases are unwarranted, nor that they're draconian, though I do sympathize and agree that they suck.  b) Sticking me in traffic for four hours on a bridge when I'm already late for work - this does not make me very open-minded and sympathetic to your plight.  Lucky for all of us, I work from home.  c) I'm not convinced students are going to accept any deal short of "no tuition hikes", nor that they're serious about negotiating with the intent to stop the protests.

2)  I am against Law 78, 'cause it's just all sorts of wrong.  It's un-Quebecly, it's un-Canadian, it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain old unhelpful.  As a matter of fact, the only thing this law has been good at is encouraging people to break it.

3)  There are miscreants among those who have the right - and need - to protest.  There's no sure-fire way of pulling the miscreants out without someone getting elbowed in the face - unless those in favour of peaceful demonstrations simply point at the miscreant, shout "cooties!" and make way for the police to arrest the actual bad guys.

4)  The rest of us aren't helping (We are the Media).  It's really, really hard to get a full picture.  Pick up one paper, and the police are the victims; pick up the other, and the police are beating the snot out of some granny.  Both are equally convincing. Which means the media is being divisive.  I want the full story, because I want to make an informed opinion of the tuition hikes themselves - and I cannot do that right now.  There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said before; the best I can hope to do is try to pull all the threads together into a coherent, well-balanced presentation, and I don't think I'm succeeding even there.

5)  The government is not helping.  I think I've already made my point.

6)  What harm is there in the government itemizing the tuition hikes and/or negotiating a lower overall tuition hike?  Really, what is gained, what is lost, if both sides bend and lower the total tuition increase?

7)  What harm is there in the QC leadership in saying "You know what?  You spoke, we listened, we are acting democratically, and we are revoking Law 78?"  I think there's more honour in saying "Oops, here, we're fixing it" than there is in saying "We're not backing down from this, even if it means alienating our voters".  I think in the next election, if there's going to be a dramatic swing in favour of "Not Liberal", it's going to be because of Bill 78.

8)  While I am against Law 78, and while I feel for students who may or may not be affected by the tuition hikes, I will not wear a red square or wave a red flag.  Yes, democracy (as it is right now in Canada) is badly flawed; yes, capitalism really has its bad points; but I don't support communism simply because of all the other connotations that goes along with it.  People, do your research:  if you don't like Bill 78, if you don't like partisan politics, you won't like what that red square stands for.

9)  I just really want this to go away.  Students sitting down with the Education Minister, both parties talking and listening, the provincial government acting on mutually agreed-to proposals, tearing up Bill 78, and going out for another long weekend out on the terrasse, without any fear of flying chairs, beer bottles, rocks, batons, pepper spray or Molotov cocktails.

So, Tobin - because really, I wrote this for you - I hope this helps to give you a better idea of what's happening out here.

Because it's been working wonders for me.

Because I'm [Different] too.

It's a strange quirk of the Canadian identity that culture must be simultaneously celebrated and diligently ignored.

Think about it - really, there are only two facets to the Canadian cultural heritage:  our multiculturalism, and our not-American-ness.  That's pretty much it.  We're encouraged to celebrate our differences, but woe to those who treat one group differently from another.  That's not a bad thing - it's just where we're at.

A lot of people, myself included, are fascinated by the lives of others outside our narrow cultural niches.  I love looking at photos from friends' Diwali and Holi celebrations.  I live vicariously through my church friends who vacation in Brazil, in Argentina, in the Belgian Republic of Congo, in Benin and Burkina Faso, and Trinidadians who live in the UK.  I'll ask questions of people in wheelchairs, or who are blind or deaf, because I genuinely want to know more about their life's experience.  When the time is right, I say "Eid Mubarak" to my friend at the Second Cup.  I know that it's okay to say "Happy Hanukkah" but pretty awkward to say "Happy Yom Kippur".  My friends say "Happy Easter" and "Merry Christmas" to me, whether they celebrate it or not.

And I love it.  These are people who are different from me, and these are people from whom I can learn new ways of thinking.  And I'm happy to share my heritage, because in their world, they are normal and I'm the different one - and in some rare instances, my heritage is just as interesting as theirs!

But when it comes to work, their identity is invisible to me.  When it comes to standing in line, or to being served in a restaurant, or to serving someone else, identity simply has no bearing on the business at hand.  Language barrier?  We get around it.  Cultural misunderstanding?  We ask questions of each other, we apologize respectfully, and we don't do it again.
Do I care about the race of the person who just stopped me on the road to tell me I'd dropped a twenty dollar bill?  Does it matter if they're Chinese?  Do I care if they're Jewish?  Do I care if they're Martian?  No!  I'm over the moon that some honest person just saved me a week's worth of coffee money!

Do I really care if you're a White anglophone bad driver or a good driver of mixed-race?  No!  If you're in my way and if you're a lousy driver, get out of my face and take your car with you!

Special note:  if you don't have an open mind, save yourself an angry, sleepless night by stopping right here and going away.  If you are going to respond, please make sure you've read all the way to the end.

There are some that are exceedingly conscious of difference, and they can't get past it.  Racism, sexism, homophobia - it exists. History is paved with all the evils we have done against one another.  Ignorance begets ignorance; but studying history can bring up a lot of bad blood.  It reminds us how we've been wronged.

But this obsession with difference goes both ways.  Belittling one group in favour of another is bad enough; we can sometimes go too far with "[Difference] Pride" as well.  It can quickly become the downhill road paved with good intentions.

Take Black History month, for example.  I love it.  I really do.

As a matter of fact, I love all history - no matter the era, the continent or the culture.  Even the stuff I don't agree with - slavery, conversion by the sword, governmental systems I wouldn't have liked if I was under their yoke, etc., I love to learn about it, because it tells us why we are the way we are today.  It should teach us humility.  If we don't know our history, if we don't apply the lessons learned from yesterday, we're doomed to repeat it - and with our technology and reach, we can make a far bigger mess than ever before.

What fascinates me most about history are the people that drive it.

Take Ellen and William Craft for one tiny example.  Here we have a mixed race woman dressing up as a man in 1848 in order to escape slavery with her Black husband.  This is the story of an incredibly daring couple who traveled openly as White male planter and manservant - not as husband and wife - in an era of great violence against fugitive slaves, and of cross-dressers!

How about Marian Anderson as another example?  Or George Washington Carver - scholar and inventor?  Benjamin Banneker - astronomer and mathematician?  How about C.J. Walker - the first self-made, African-American female millionaire?

But why stop there?  African-Americans have a long and rich African history too!

Take 17th Century Queen Nzinga for another example - an African queen who didn't take any guff from the Dutch, the Portuguese or her own people, but rather who put herself on par - physically and mentally - with those who were her diplomatic equals.

Or Mansa Musa, Malinese king, who was arguably the wealthiest man of his day, who reinvented his country into a centre of global commerce and scholarship.

Hannibal - African. Shaka - African.  Osei Kofi Tutu - African.  Name a pharaoh!  Or how about reading up on the Dahomey Amazons!  Bet you never heard of them!  (Actually, until tonight, neither had I.)

But why focus specifically on one continent or another?

How about Trung Trac, the "She-King" of Vietnam in 43 AD?
 
How about Aisha bint Abu Bakr, one of the wives of Muhammad, and her rich history and incredibly complex involvement in the battle of Bassorah?

Or Yi Sun-sin, the brilliant Korean naval commander, who repelled 133 Japanese warships with only 13 ships of his own, at the Battle of Myeongnyang?

What about Catalina de Erauso?  Nun turned sailor turned soldier - just because she could?  Who, for fun or by accident, entered a Catholic church dressed as a man and was very nearly recognized by the same nuns from whom she had escaped?  And by her own mother?

And did you know the term "genocide" didn't originate with the Jewish Holocaust?  Did you know that during World War I (and after), Armenians were also subject to so-called ethnic cleansing?  How did I miss that in school?

I could go on for hours, I really could, but I have a point to make.  And that point is: we have a bad habit of celebrating one culture over another, even when we do it with the best of intentions.

Take Black history month for a prime example.  Morgan Freeman says it better than I can.

And yes, he said it.  Here's the interview to prove it.  And there's little more that I have to say about Black History month, after that.  But I will, because I can.

Let's take the timing of the event.  February is Black History Month.  February.  The second month of the year.
For fun, let's say we're now going to add in a Jewish history month.  Do we put them in January, before Black history month?  Or do we put them in March, after Jewish history month?  Do we put Jewish history before Black, or vice versa?  What a delightfully stupid question to have to ask!

Now, let's take a look at U.S. demographics.  In 2010, Black or African American citizens made up about 12.2% of the population.  That's a significant portion of the population.

Did you know that Hispanics and Latinos made up 16.3% during the same census?  When will their month be?  Or do they get six weeks, since they have more representation?

And heck, if anyone deserved January as a history month, wouldn't it be the First Nations?  How many "First Nations" were there in North America before the first Europeans arrived?  And within those nations, how many tribes?  How many clans?  We're talking about the combined land space of roughly all the countries in Europe, all the Middle Eastern countries and most of the countries in Africa - surely there's some Pre-Columbian North American history worth touting.

And what happens if you're of mixed race, as have been your parents, or grandparents?  Do you get to celebrate five or six times a year, or do you have to pick a race that best suits your colour?

But let's not divert too far away from the topic at hand.  Let's say Black History month is a good thing - and in a way, it is.  It helps us to stop and really reflect on how eurocentric North American history classes tend to be.  For example, I recall in high school that the closest thing to "non-European history" was Ancient History - Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Hammurabis and Pharaohs of the ancient world.  Nothing - zip - zilch - nada - about any culture south of the source of the Nile, and certainly nothing southeast of Siberia.  If we had "Asian History month" and "Middle-Eastern History month", I'm sure our young scholars would recognize more than Napoleon, Cleopatra and Hitler.

But there's a problem with making a big, month-long event of one culture's history.

For one thing, we're lifting non-WASP contribution out of the general context of history, instead of integrating it all together.  History wasn't written one race at a time; so why should we teach it that way?

Like Freeman says:  "Black history is American history."  The two are one and the same.  We should say the same about Canadian history.

And because there is a month reserved for one section of history, there's a tendency of saying "Oh, hey!  This is a great article about Elijah McCoy - the man to whom the phrase 'The Real McCoy' is attributed.  Oh wait - his parents were refugee slaves from Kentucky, and he was born Canadian, and then he moved to Scotland...Let's not talk about this now.  We should leave it for February instead."

Black History Month compartmentalizes African American history - which is the antithesis to the whole point of Black History Month.  Vice versa, it becomes terribly gauche to talk about White history during Black History Month.  To me, that sounds awfully like "Separate But Equal."

And worse - like Freeman says:  you're going to relegate Black History to a single month?  So who gets the other eleven?  Do we need a highly detailed calendar that summarizes all of history and all of culture into twelve neat sections?  Excuse me - ten.  After all, school lets out for summer.  And who goes first?  Who chooses which groups go first and which go last?

Now - here comes the backlash.  Someone, somewhere, is going to say that I'm against Black History Month - which in turn, makes me a racist.  Far from it.  Someone is bound to say that I'm protective of my WASP history and heritage, and that somehow, Black History Month is a threat to that.  Far from it, and shame on you for not reading the first half of this blog post.

There is a sentiment of "Now it's our turn."  Yes, it's time to celebrate your "differentness".  Guess what - it's always a good time to celebrate our differences.  Now more than ever!  Thanks to the Internet, and to those few, brave, firewall jumping freedom fighters, we have the means to do it.

But there is a backlash out there, and it's ugly.  I wish I could say it's done by the anonymous trolls of the Interverse, and in most cases, it is.  But I'm looking squarely at people I know as personal friends.  Smart people.  Eloquent people.  People who have a right to stand up for themselves and for their beliefs, who, in the process of blindly swinging their rhetorical fists, have socked me square in the mouth - without just cause.

Yes, Whites were engaged in slave trade.  I'm not.  That was history.  This is today.  I can't do anything about my being White any more than Louis Armstrong could have stopped being Black.

Yes, Christians - Catholic and Protestant - are guilty of some very bad things in history - to other cultures, against other religions, against other beliefs.  The Conquistadors are dead.  The Inquisition ended 800 years ago.  What the Catholic boarding schools did to First Nations children was wrong.  But I'm not one of those people.  In fact, if I overhear a Christian cursing anyone, I will go up to them and softly read to them a few choice Biblical verses about casting stones, overturning tables at the Temple, and about somebody not being sent into the world to condemn it.

And yes, straight people were - and some still are - guilty of atrocities and hypocrisies against people who don't share the same sexual and marital values as they ascribe to.  I'm not one of them.

I'm White from British descent.  I'm proudly and openly Christian.  I don't use euphemisms like "faithful" or "spiritual".  I'm Christian - moreover, I'm Baptist.  I'm also straight, and celibate.  Does that make me a slave-trading, eurocentric, Bible-thumping homophobe?  Far from it.

I won't speak against Pakistanis, or Afghans, or Pagans, or married transgendered people, or Americans from the Deep South, or people with physical or mental disabilities. For the sake of the individual, I will not judge anyone by the colour of their skin, or by their culture, or by their heritage, religion, sex or orientation.  To do so is called prejudice.  To insult someone based on their biology, nationality or ideology is called harassment or bigotry.  To insult a whole group of people based on their biology, nationality or ideology - that's called racism, or sexism, or any other number of -isms that are counter to rational thought.

And frankly, if you put a brown-haired, brown-eyed, well-tanned individual in front of me, I couldn't tell you if they were Russian, Italian, Egyptian, Indian or Armenian.  I won't even guess.  If you tell me they're Armenian, I'll ask all sorts of intrigued questions - what's it like over there, what did their family do, what's the best food, what's the best natural features of the landscape - because I celebrate our differences.

But I will judge someone against their own standards.  This includes Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists, agnostics, political leaders, thinkers.

So for those of you who are outspoken in your rights to be recognized and protected under the law, for those of you who are "[different] and proud of it," I say, good for you.  You deserve recognition, and you deserve protection.  That's why I live in Canada.  That's why I'm proud to be here.  And you don't need a month or a parade or an awareness campaign to do it.  Just be it.  All the time.  Everywhere.

But be respectful of others, lest you be judged a hypocrite yourself.

You have the freedom of speech - by internet, by print media, by spoken word.  You have that freedom guaranteed under by the constitution of this nation - the very backbone of all other Canadian legislation.

You even have the right to post "funny" pictures about people who ascribe to one religion over another - or to religion, period.

That is your right.

You have the right to insult my beliefs.  If it came down to it, if we were invaded by a totalitarian state that sought to revoke our right to speech, I would do as our forebears have done, and I would put my life on the line in armed combat to protect your freedom of speech - even when your mouth is full of insults and hatred.

Now take a look at the picture below here.

"Oh Memebase."  Facepalm.

Now, let's say I had put up a picture of two men holding hands and kissing, and I made some "funny" comment about them not being acceptable in today's society.  What do you think would happen?

I'll tell you what would happen:  George Takei would get on YouTube and put a rhetorical bullet in my rear end, that's what.

Now what if I replaced this image with one of the Buddha?  Or Mohammad?  It wouldn't get past the moderators, I can tell you that.  And if it did - well.  The consequences could be public and grave.

So what should my reaction be to this?  I could do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek.  But I only have so many cheeks to turn, and in the last couple of months, I've turned them all.  Now I'm dizzy and the problem hasn't gone away.

And even Jesus lost his temper when hypocrites and capitalists took over the temple.  Sometimes it's okay to get angry.  Sometimes it's right - and imperative - to call out hypocrisies.

My reaction is not "How dare you insult who I worship?"  What, did the Christ go cry in a corner the first time the Pharisees pointed their fingers at him and called him a blasphemer?  No.  He's bigger than any insult the interwebs can throw at him.

And my faith is not so weak that I feel threatened by outspoken atheists.  They're not likely to convert me to atheism with a poster like this any more than I'm likely to convert them with all my scriptures, testimonials and best wishes.

By the way, abiding by any particular religion doesn't make me somehow intellectually inferior or morally inept.  I have my reasons for joining this particular church; it was my choice, and it's a choice I stand by.  My faith directs how I act - even now, in how I write this post - and my membership in a church allows me to be part of a bigger community, one where I can make a contribution and where I can be welcomed. We help each other, and we hold each other to a standard we have share in common.  We hold each other - including the leadership of our church - accountable to that standard; we forgive each other when we fall short of that standard, and we help each other along.  Is that so wrong?  Really?  Really?

My real reaction is this:  who has the right to tell me what I should or should not believe?

This is an intellectual question as much as it is an angry one.

Don't we all have the right to freedom of religion?  Didn't we institute that in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that the Jewish faith could be practiced in safety and liberty?  And Islam?  And Hinduism?  Paganism?  Atheism?  Jehovah's Witness?

Do not get me wrong here.  (If you do put words in my mouth, I will ask George Takei to belittle you on YouTube.)  I'm not about censorship and political correctness; that would imply I want to shut you up.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I'm asking you to be sensitive to what harm we're doing to each other, and stopping it, voluntarily, consciously.

I'm asking my own friends to realize who they're hurting when they redistribute anti-religion propaganda like the above picture.  You have the right to insult me.  But be aware of how much it hurts me, and how much it undermines my faith in you.

I'm about celebrating differences, yours and mine.  If you say "Protect the rights and freedoms of my [Different Group]," I will support you.  I will defend you, even at great personal cost.

But what am I supposed to say to those who shout "Rights and Freedoms for my [Different Group]!" and then turn around and ridicule me for my own beliefs?

Memebase is grand, ain't it?

There are two such people I haven't confronted about this yet - two people that I count as personal friends outside Facebook and the blogosphere.  My passivity weighs heavily on my conscience, because I don't like pushing away people who are different from me, from whom I can learn, but I can't sit silently by anymore.

So why should these individuals ridicule my faith, when their own beliefs have been subject to persecution for so long?  Why should they ridicule those who have joined a church voluntarily in search of self-improvement?

It's not a question of "What right have they to do this?" because the answer is, "The right that's guaranteed by the Charter."

It's an intellectual question, and a painful one - asked in the same sad confusion a very young child might feel the first time someone says "no you can't, because you're [Different]."

You cannot uphold equality for all, not so long as you're bashing someone else for what they believe in, or for who they are.  So choose carefully between "celebrating" and "getting revenge."

So, what's say we stop bashing each other and start working on the hypocrites, and judging them by their own standards with the intent to address the behaviour, and not the beliefs?

Because I for one have a heck of a lot more fun celebrating differences, instead of dwelling on them.