Compromise & Subversion of the British Parliamentary System

The first night of Chanukah found me at Queen's Park (of all places!) for a celebration hosted by the Liberals (of all parties!) and, notably, by Kathleen Wynne, of whom I am a great fan. That's not a partisan comment...I just find her brilliant and eminently likeable. The party featured, as guests, many members of the Jewish community and so I chatted with old friends and met a few new ones. During the evening, I was not surprised to see my 2011 electoral opponent, Bernie Farber, roaming the room and, as we've often done, we shook hands and had a warm chat. He asked if he could take a selfie of us and post it on Facebook. I readily agreed - and he did.

So, what's your point, Peter? Do you want to write a blog post on the subject of meeting Bernie Farber? No, not today. Today's subject is partisanship and how it is NOT serving us well in government. I was reflecting on an article by Michael den Tandt in the National Post over the last weekend. He was discussing the fact that politics is now pretty much done by polling on peoples' attitudes to issues...not giant issues like national unity or bilingualism or abortion...smaller issues, perhaps like taxation changes or day care. And all parties govern based on the results.

Back to Bernie. He posted our little photo and entitled it "two long time adversaries, two old friends"...succinct, cutesy, true! In turn, I thought about how politically different we are and I wrote this post which many people saw and either "liked" or commented on:

"Many of you would have seen (still can!) the photo of Bernie Farber and I that Bernie posted yesterday. It was taken at a Chanukah party at Queen's Park. He captioned it "two old adversaries - two old friends". Bernie was my Liberal opponent in Thornhill for the 2011 election. The reason we get along today is that we did before and during that contest and it speaks to something that's good to share. 

Bernie and I, like many community-minded people, will never see eye-to-eye. But that should not get in the way of mutual respect. If people of good faith could state their views and allow them to stand while "agreeing to disagree", we'd all be much better off and maybe, just maybe, our representatives would, once again, understand that they were sent to do our bidding within the Westminster system which is entirely about give, take, and compromise. I hope and I suspect that the next generation is going to demand this. Happy Chanukah, Bernie...and everyone!"

I didn't spend much time wondering why most people who commented supported my expressed sentiments. As a veteran parliamentarian, I know. And if you think it's not so great in the Ontario Legislature, partisanship in Ottawa is worse...and in the USA (where the President gets voted in directly), there are two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are now both solidly Republican while the President is a Democrat - not the British system but it demonstrates how systems are internally flawed. Gridlock between the Legislative and the Executive Branches of government has always been an issue but it is reasonable to now make the statement that there hasn't been any really meaningful across-the-floor discussion nor any truly groundbreaking legislation passed for years.

Bottom line and prime thought: Westminster or the British Parliamentary system is about a government side and an Opposition and, often, other parties or independent legislators as well. The government presents legislation for debate, study, modification, and ultimate adoption. As conceived, the debate and study parts were about improving the legislation so as to broaden its positive effects for all citizens, not just the ones who voted the government of the day into office. It's why bills are read and debated three times before passing into law. 

Some will say that my suggestion for increased cooperation, less partisanship, addressing the big picture, and not depending on governance-by-poll is a pollyannish approach. Think what you will. We reap what we sow. But, I honestly feel that we can do better, that our children believe we can, and that when we're out of the picture, they'll pick up the torch and operate with a different prime directive...compromise.

Peter  

Social Media - the 'Dickensian' Comms Tool of the 21st Century

Charles Dickens wrote the memorable line “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times” in his epic novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ in 1859. I am interpreting his words in 2014 and applying them to social media and my love/hate relationship with it. I know I am not alone…many of my friends and colleagues, young and old, feel the same way.

The genie was out of the bottle the day the first person popularized using the internet personally in the early nineties. Until that point, the net (it wasn’t yet known as the “web”) was an arcane, slow-speed hook-up for cerebral university professors collaborating on research and, to some extent, the United States military. Everyday people like you and me became the beneficiaries of a remarkably powerful communications tool and a range of users and developers recognized that and set out to harness the internet, coming up with grand ideas…Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn are just some of the best known sites in terms of daily usage. But individual and corporate web presence also assumed huge importance in essential ‘one-to-many’ personal communications, marketing, advertising, and news. And it was and is completely interactive. Dickens would probably have called it magic.

That’s much of what I consider as the “best of times” part. The least desirable  or “worst of times” side is visible in the misuse or abuse of this tool. Strategically accessing Google Earth to see if someone in a rich neighborhood has a BMW parked in the driveway so it can be stolen; telling legions of so-called friends about one’s bathroom or bedroom habits; showing the beheading of some poor soul as a perverse fear tactic in pushing your illogical agenda; hacking the database of a large company to steal thousands of credit card numbers in order to rip off as many people as possible; publishing pure venom or screed in Twitter ‘wars’ with those who have made statements with which you disagree; accessing child porn. These are a few nastier uses of the internet that come to mind. I fret most over social media's duality.

I’ve spent the vast majority of my life in communications-related businesses. Radio broadcasting, TV, telephone/internet sales and service, just to name a few. In these businesses, a level of professionalism, proper language, decorum, and legality were absolute musts. Technically, all of these elements of polite exchange should have simply glided into the various internet-based apps most of us use to communicate, but that didn’t happen.

Now, YouTube gives anyone who avails himself of it, a private, worldwide TV station. You don’t need a broadcasting license anymore to create radio that can be heard around the globe. Twitter lets anybody say whatever he or she pleases about anything with virtually no threat of recourse. Facebook does the same, but on a vastly expanded scale as, unlike Twitter, there are no limitations on size of post. Arguments about one’s right to hold any opinion abound…no one believes their own opinion could possibly be a stupid one…and so, we are bombarded by millions of words every day written by the uninformed (I use that word only to be gentle!). I’ve developed several specific approaches for how and when I use social media, just to avoid viewing all the nonsense. First, birthdays aside, I don’t ever put personal information on line. Second, I work hard to suppress emotional responses to the garbage out there...I often tweet back and then nuke my answers before ever pressing ‘send’. And finally, I monitor only the people I choose to and I block the idiot fringe. I just keep visualizing the staggering number of strangers who can and do look at everything and have a burning need to comment, regardless of what they know (or don't!) about any given subject.

What prompted me to think about and address this now is the sweeter side of social media. I felt great warmth yesterday as literally hundreds offered me heartfelt birthday greetings; a pat on the back; a word of encouragement; or a positive acknowledgement of something I’d once done. I posted a thank-you that said in part:

“You took a moment to send greetings or just make a nice comment. So, I think that the quid-pro-quo for getting older is the great good fortune of having all of the people who are or ever have been in my life out there. It is your interest and your friendship, sometimes your challenges, and always your affection that make me look forward to the next birthday...hopefully, interspersed with exchanges and get-togethers with many of you for no reason at all other than because we want to.”

Now that is the social part of social media. It allows the privilege of ‘one-to-many’ communication in a sincere way. It reflects an aspect of personal contact often absent from daily life and it informs my Dickens quote applying to social media as sometimes being part of “the best of times”. Be well everyone…and use this amazing tool wisely.

Peter

Patriots Only...All Others Please Leave!

I am a patriot. I love Canada unreservedly, always have, always will and I'd never consider living elsewhere. Even when I'm not pleased with some aspect of governance or critical of a Canadian custom, my patriotism never wavers. Canada is, without question, the best place in the world to live. And so, when that way of life is in any way interrupted or threatened, I get agitated...extremely disturbed. I purposely wrote this blog entry as events in our nation's capital unfolded on October 22nd and I am feeling emotional about my country. That emotion includes a dreadful sadness for the victim and for our nation but there is also anger bordering on rage that any of our so-called 'countrymen' would even consider expressing opposition to what we cherish in such a hideous and heinous way. Countrymen they may be...patriots, they are not.

I wrote recently that I believed the ISIS threat was not about a few crazy people half a world away but, rather, a glimpse of what World War III  might look like. I worried then and worry now about the born Canadians, indoctrinated far away or right here at home and eager to cause unrest, even havoc. ISIS and its' ideology are foreign on all levels but can and will do incredible damage in its' stated objective of bringing radical Islam to the world. We have all read the threats and exhortations to kill at random in a list of coalition countries including Canada. When I ask the question "do you believe me yet?", I am not being sarcastic or saying I told you so. Our government warned us of what could happen. Now, I must question why increased precautions were not taken within our own seat of government on Parliament Hill in light of an announced increased threat level.

Canada is indeed under threat. That means that, while shocked, we ought not to be surprised when we find ourselves under attack. That begs another question, one I asked on this blog a few short weeks ago. It pertained to why we are part of a coalition that believes we actually will eliminate the ISIS threat by lobbing a few rockets and bombs at ground targets from the air. In two blog posts, I stated that we should be taking the threats very seriously and that we will need boots on the ground. I said that we, ultimately, WILL put boots on the ground. The only question now is what "ultimately" means. 

Here is an excerpt from my initial plea to take ISIS seriously...

"ISIS is a growing organization and it is made up of 'in-situ' Muslim fanatics PLUS tens of thousands of the disaffected and crazy from all over the world, Canadians included. They are trained to kill and to show no mercy in using techniques designed to shock and revolt normal human beings...I draw this distinction because it is my belief that our views of the world are completely at odds and are non-negotiable. We see equality and human rights as a basic concept and they do not. No god figure in the history of human religious practice has ever called for the eradication of every non-believer the world over and, by the way, that includes the God of Islam, Allah. To suggest otherwise is to misinterpret, twisting words in order to make them fit with one's own agenda.

These people are just plain out of their minds, however, they should never be dismissed. Rather, they need to be dispatched. I have never proposed violent behaviour as justifiable in dealing with any group or person anywhere. In this case, however, ISIS needs to be totally eradicated -- eliminated from the planet, never to be be heard from again. If we do nothing and just watch, this scourge will surely come to us."

Look at that last line and think about it. I hadn't thought, a few short weeks ago, that my words would become so rapidly prophetic. The incipient edge of a cancer is growing here and it must be eliminated now. I argued, and many disagreed, that the best method would be the direct one...go get them. It is understandable that political will has been less than enthusiastic on our part and on the parts of our coalition partners to date. Perhaps that will now change. More recently I wrote...

"...in many endeavours, the operative adage must be 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. In other words, if we have 100 advisors in Iraq and/or Syria on the ISIS project, they are all potential victims. And if we are there with potential victims (as are our partners), couldn't we put enough manpower and materiel on the line to ensure that we win the day and win for all time? That means that I believe in boots on the ground being essential. Could we suffer losses? Yes...indeed, we would. But here's another (and more populist) adage 'pay me now or pay me later'. I will say, without hesitation, that Canada will, at some point, put boots on the ground as will the United States and Great Britain."


In that old catch-phrase about paying now or paying later, I'd not have predicted that "later" would be a matter of weeks. I want my Canada, my safe haven, to remain just that way. In the past week, our security has been shaken and nowhere more so than our own Parliament. I believe we can spare no effort, spare no expense, and waste no time in taking this battle to where it must be fought. And we cannot allow Canadian-born malcontents to import hatred and violence because they hate their own birthplace and way of life so much that they would harm other Canadians. Note that I did not refer to them as "fellow Canadians"? Let them get out of Canada now and stay away forever. Fellow patriots, friends from other lands, can we please get on with this job? Canada Strong!

Peter

Panic Scares Me More Than Ebola

I am not terrified of Ebola. What does disturb me is the insanity of those who are! They are mysophobic, believing this is about preserving their very lives and the lives of their loved ones in what they view as a clear and present danger when it is nothing of the sort. It also concerns me that we now have some insight into what could actually happen if there were a situation where there might legitimately be a threat. Basically, it appears we might be facing something like neighbor-upon-neighbor...every man for himself. I do not like that exposed and unseemly edge of our otherwise polished veneer. Is this the reality of western refinement?

Mysophobia is, like anything ending in 'phobia', a word that deals with an irrational fear. Mysophobics are those terrified to the stage of panic about becoming infected with a disease. In my view, we are seeing that now and it comes as a result of both politics and the media. At the time of writing, there are precisely two cases of Ebola active in the United States, both of them in nurses who worked, under less than ideal conditions, with a man who had travelled from Liberia to Texas, was already infected, and died. There are no known cases in Canada as of today. And yet, leaders are carrying on as if North America were almost like West Africa. News media are leading their newscasts with Ebola and making it front page material 24/7. A helicopter video of a hazmat suit-wearing infected nurse walking to a special jet aircraft to carry her to an isolation unit is shown and shown again...but we get no decent coverage of the squalor and death of hundreds, indeed thousands, in Liberia or its near neighbours.

About 35 years ago, we began to hear about a (then) new plague that was  labelled Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. Much like Ebola, it was a viral disease that had, apparently, made a species jump from animal to human somewhere in Africa. And, again, like Ebola, it was not something one could easily "catch". You had to actively engage in activities that might infect you...shared use of hypodermic needles and sexual contact were examples. AIDS never mutated into some dreaded airborne pandemic and, ultimately, treatment advances resulted in the lifting of a certain death sentence in a relatively short period and provided an extension of life covering very lengthy timeframes. But, in the early stages, many panicked and some developed irrational fears of particular subsets of society as the perpetrators and spreaders of some God-created scourge. Is something akin to that what we're experiencing again? 

With Ebola, the mechanics of how the disease is spread are also clearcut. It is not airborne with no expectation it could become so. It requires exposure to body fluids...excrement, vomit, saliva, just to name a few. That is why there is an absolute requirement for those treating this awful illness to wear special gear that totally isolates them from any such potential contact. Despite knowing this, we hear everyday of people behaving in a panic-stricken manner; keeping their kids out of schools; not venturing into public places; being fearful of flying; carrying around giant bottles of disinfectant. Frankly, it is appalling that men and women with strong credibility and loud voices are not screaming from the mountaintops that this irrational personal terror must stop immediately. But they aren't...and the intermediaries who bring their messages to us are doing a pitiful job.

Let me be clear when I say that it is indeed the the job of governments to ensure that the public enjoys safety and security in daily life. It is not their job to inspire terror. My view is that this "insurance" work should continue...it seems they were caught flat-footed, initially. But now that they understand the scope of the significant Ebola outbreak affecting several countries in West Africa, their decisions should be focussed on containment there, travel precautions, and ensuring the availability of good treatment facilities and protocols to deal with any cases that might turn up in North America. Their very serious responsibility is to calm people who are both unskilled and uneducated in what this is and how it works - the vast majority of us, in other words. Given what I am seeing and hearing, my conclusion is that they are failing miserably at this so far. 

There is now great haste to produce a vaccine...and there should be. Too bad it wasn't happening a year ago. Can our scientists do it? Of course they can. We know that it won't help those already stricken. We know that things African have always been subjects we westerners talk about and, with few exceptions, never  address. But when Africa's exports include a potentially lethal threat, we get busy. It's not about the Africans...it's about us. Be honest with yourself when you digest that last line. So, money and speed on vaccine development are suddenly abundant. Meanwhile, best for all of us that our leaders put aside  the politicking. At the same time, let them take steps to reassure all of us that containment is the first job in heavily affected countries; that travel controls are properly established; that reliable protocols are in place to deal with eventualities.    


  

What Does World War III Look Like? It is ISIS!

At the end of August, I published a blog entry discussing the need to take ISIS out. For whatever reason, that post didn't light too many fires. I wondered why...because I believe that the subject of ISIS (or ISIL) is perhaps the single most broadly threatening issue of our times - it now makes the nightly news internationally. However, I am equally certain  that most people think that, while a hideous manifestation, ISIS is pretty much about the Middle East and not about Canada...and that is just plain wrong! 

In that post, I asked this question: what happens when some of our own decide they don't like the way we do things here in Canada, leave the country for indoctrination and training in a different and radical way of life, then re-enter Canada as Canadians (because they are)...except that now they are amongst us with a new objective of radically changing our customs and laws? Nobody commented and nobody has offered any reasonable answer. That is perplexing because the question describes what is actually happening right now!

The challenge for ISIS is not to revolt us with an on-screen beheading or two or three. That part is easy for them and they've done it, will again. I have actually heard people say "well, if those guys (the victims) hadn't tempted fate by putting themselves in harm's way, they'd be alive today". Pretty uninformed comment. Others prefer to believe it's all about Israel...another "Jewish problem". To both of those views, I say nonsense...you're ostriches. This is about anything and anyone in the world that isn't Sunni Muslim. And it is by no means particular to the Middle East (much less Israel which is not involved). It is everywhere now and we'll see that manifesting very soon, I fear. 

If you wondered, as I did, whether there would ever be a World War III and, if so, what it would look like, let me point to ISIS. World War III has arrived and it is a worldwide conflict of ideologies. What is ISIS and why should anyone reading this care? ISIS is a well-financed, highly organized, training-reliant, social media-savvy terror group...terrorists who want to instigate and create religious war in the name of their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam which is in line with their quest for an all-Muslim world. The first line of attack for people we call terrorists is to inspire fear or to 'terrorize'. Second and, simultaneously, they need to make good on their threats, hence the videos of beheadings we have now become familiar with...they have our attention and that of our governments. That attention has created a coalition of the willing...countries that have formed a kind of "cooperative" to rain airstrikes down on ISIS locations. Good? Yes, but not good enough. 

Canada is involved...I could say it's only minimal but placing any Canadians in harm's way is a serious commitment. My view about this, however, is that in many endeavours, the operative adage must be 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. In other words, if we have 100 advisors in Iraq and/or Syria on the ISIS project, they are all potential victims. And if we are there with potential victims (as are our partners), couldn't we put enough manpower and materiel on the line to ensure that we win the day and win for all time? That means that I believe in boots on the ground being essential. Could we suffer losses? Yes...indeed, we would. But here's another (and more populist) adage 'pay me now or pay me later'. I will say, without hesitation, that Canada will, at some point, put boots on the ground as will the United States and Great Britain...France already has. And we need Muslim countries to do likewise. They are already anti-ISIS and so demonstrating by joining the coalition of countries launching airstrikes meant to degrade this hideous organization.  

ISIS is in growth mode. It was unheard of a year ago. It was able to take advantage of weaknesses within the Iraqi government and military and of disarray in Syria, in civil war for several years. But, make no mistake, it is an amalgam of rag-tag stragglers, malcontents, and religious nut bars who may well have come from Al Quaeda, Al Shebab, Hamas, Hezbollah and (terrifyingly) from the house next door to you! Yes, there are Canadian and American and British kids being trained alongside many from other countries. Some of them are back among us now and others will be soon. The plan is to cause chaos domestically. Are we prepared to leave it to our police forces, secret and otherwise, to do what was done in Australia recently...interdict the bad guys? To an extent, yes. But, I mean no disrespect in saying that some of this evil will slip through the cracks and tremendous damage could be done with great harm to civilian populations. What is our military for if not to allay both those fears and, indeed, change that reality?

In my original piece on ISIS, I said this..."We see equality and human rights as a basic concept and they do not. No god figure in the history of human religious practice has ever called for the eradication of every non-believer the world over and, by the way, that includes the God of Islam, Allah. To suggest otherwise is to misinterpret, twisting words in order to make them fit with one's own agenda."

I went on to question the sanity of it. Sane people simply do not cut the heads off guiltless (or any other) human beings to make some point and this behaviour used to literally terrorize on a world scale is intolerable. Left unchecked, it is an exportable behaviour and it will be coming to Canada! If we don't make the full commitment to destroying ISIS, it is at our peril. And, not to politicize this any more than it does in and of itself, it is not helpful that the de facto leader of the "degrade and destroy" coalition is a weak sister in the person of President Barack Obama.

I am not the least bit interested in Islamic fundamentalism or Sharia Law except as it affects me, my family, people I know, and my country. If what it takes to keep that nonsense out of Canada is an active military mission, I'm supportive. I think this is so urgent and so required that I'd go so far as to say that I'd support it even if it meant an increase to my taxes. In a survey published very recently, Americans at large said as much to the tune of about 60% of those surveyed. I hope our countries and their leaders hear us before it is too late.

Those who know me would readily attest that I do not countenance violence or killing. But they also know that if the option morphs into 'kill or be killed', the rules change. If we do not make the hard choices now, ISIS will continue to expand, hence my contention that we are staring into the face of WWIII. The initial phase of WWII saw Hitler, a really swell fella compared to this collection of misfits, seize a neighbouring country. Soon afterwards, he began killing those he believed to be inferior human beings. I think we're well past all of that with ISIS. Let us act now.

Peter

Who’s In Charge Now? Move Over Boomers!

What makes today’s young families different from my own young family back in the eighties? Don't parents still want the best for their kids...a great education, nice vacations, a safe and decent home in which to live? Of course they do. But, there are things they don’t want…like confrontation, for example. Younger people called "millennials" seek compromise and are prepared to give and take in order to achieve resolution of issues before going forward. This is why we find politics, business, marketing, opinion leadership…everything…in the most significant state of change we’ve ever witnessed. Why would Justin Trudeau make marijuana a pivotal point in taking on the governing Harper Conservatives? Because his party researchers discovered that the issue is no longer of importance to a massively growing segment of the adult population who are just moving on...and he's impacted positively in the polls.

I watched a video of a speech delivered recently by a highly respected radio programmer who dates back to my time in managing that business. It didn’t tell me a lot I didn’t know but it certainly reminded me of some thoughts I’d “misplaced”. The first is that the baby boom (my) generation no longer pilots the pace car…that job has been handed to the millennials. Who are they? They are baby boomers’ kids…sometimes called ‘Generation Y’ or ‘echo kids’, they were born between about 1977 and the late nineties…so young families where parents are in their early thirties are the leading edge. The singles, and there are many, count too. It’s the next great generation, size-wise, and makes up about 25-30% of the population. We cannot underestimate its importance…it is  why social conservatism is fading away and why my generation (which tends to plant its feet in cement and takes intransigent positions) doesn’t communicate well with millennials.

Experts suggest millennials, like every prior generation, are a product of their  environment and the prevailing conditions of their formative years. This group has many of the traits of its' grandparents' generation but not so much of its'  parents’ approach to life. They are more civic-minded and care about their community, both locally and globally. They are prepared to contribute but, unlike their parents, their mantra is compromise and not confrontation. They don’t care for institutional groups but enjoy broadened friendships and they communicate directly using the tools they were given, basically at birth, and which have been refined and improved ever since. While my generation looks back and longs for the “good old days”, millennials (50%) say the best years are yet to come. Perhaps that’s because they inherited unemployment and student debt versus the great post WWII times our parents gave to us.

Baby boomers continue to discuss same sex relationships, abortion, legalization of marijuana, and universal health care. Millennials are past those decisions and are now well down the road onto newer concerns which include creating wealth and do not include politics as we know it. In fact, they are more fiscally conservative than we are..not at all extravagant...and socially, they have become extremely liberal. What does this say about how society is going to be managing itself and developing good governance going forward? Think compromise and you're on the right track. 

Millennials have delayed significantly on a number of things we boomers did early…leaving their parents’ homes; getting married; having children (if/when/how many); seeking meaningful work (which is far less plentiful). And they are, for the most part, neither concerned with nor tolerant of organized religion. It is no surprise that Pope Francis, in an effort to relate that I don't view as coincidental, is more interested in having gay couples show up for mass than dispatching them from church altogether by criticizing their orientation.

It is difficult to entertain or inform millennials because they have the power to self-deliver what they want to see and hear whenever and wherever they like. City dwellers are less concerned with having cars; more concerned about who their friends are and with how they look. They have little time for bullshit and can detect it a mile away…they demand authenticity. For opinion leaders and politicians, this is a sea change, a curve ball...because millennials “get it” when messages are being crafted for them. They want and can readily identify ideas and policies that directly matter to them. They want truth and they expect us to admit when we’re wrong because being wrong sometimes is okay with them...nobody's perfect.

Millennials are just more easygoing. Hype them and they’ll run the other way. That changes how things are decided, advertised, sold, or discussed. Think of a traditional menu as an example..."farm fresh eggs" had better be fresh from the farm! Consider visual advertising or TV talk shows. Millennials are less “Meet the Press” and more “The View”, less Brian Williams and more Jon Stewart. They believe that fairness and respect actually matter. One might argue that our generation did that too…but we’d be deceiving ourselves. What millennials seek is a mutual evenhandedness which our generation feigned more than practiced. It's about having a discussion where we sometimes actually walk away "agreeing to disagree" yet not thinking less of the person heading in the opposite direction.

Here’s something really wonderful and perhaps surprising about millennials…they are optimists. They maintain their dreams because, unlike us, they were born into a significantly more difficult period than prior generations. That helps them to be happy because dreaming is a happy pursuit. Baby boomers, for the most part, were handed a lot and taught to always expect more. It isn't that previous generations didn't seek happiness...they did! But millennials put a higher premium on being liked and being viewed as fun to be around than their forbears did. I look back at myself and my contemporaries while in our thirties and we wanted (demanded?) respect and control…being liked was a nice added (but not required) benefit.

Millennials thrive on diversity – different kinds of people, different fields of endeavor, different ideologies. They appreciate an open society and, in fact, their kids will likely be the first generation in western society that will not be white-dominated. Quite a change in fifty years, right?

It’s a strange thing to view myself as “older” - I discussed that in my first ever "Shurmanations" blog - it’s hard for everyone. But, for me, my lengthy career has mostly been about the marketing of ideas. Broadcasting and politics have been dominant themes in my life and were primary in terms of both medium and message for the boomer years. Now, with no surprise, the media are social in nature while the message is about vast choice and compromise. And so the result is that my generation either "gets with the program" or has an unenjoyable time to look forward to watching from the cheap seats for the twenty or thirty years we have left.

Peter

Let's Take ISIS Down -- Now!!

Recently, I wrote about those living among us who want to change things to suit themselves, as opposed to adapting to 'the Canadian way'. I suggested that perhaps we need to review our approach to something that's traditionally worked quite well but may now have developed some kinks...multiculturalism. So, this blog post is an offshoot of that because it asks the question: what happens when some of our own decide they don't like the way we do things; decide to leave the country for indoctrination and training in a different way of life; decide to re-enter Canada as Canadians (because they are) except with a new goal of radically changing our customs and laws?

Right now, there is a ceasefire in place between Israel and Hamas and we hope that this now takes the focus away from Gaza. We can hope, as well, that Israel remains at peace for an extended period and that Gazans will begin to build their own country. I'd have used the term "region" instead of naming two specific areas, but the Middle East is certainly not a region at peace. That said, now is the wrong time to take our eye off the ball...and the "ball" I'm referring to is ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).

No one in our part of the world had heard of ISIS a year ago. Emerging from the chaos that was/is Syria and from the instability of Iraq plus surrounding failed states, we must now contend with a well-financed, highly organized, training-reliant, social media-savvy terror group and it isn't a great time to look away and disregard this new threat. Terrorists who instigate and create religious war in the name of their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam which, they suggest, motivates their quest for an all-Muslim world are a dime a dozen. We've met the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Al Shebab...and so many more. But now, we have become very concerned with ISIS. Why? Because they appear to like publicizing their actions (atrocities), all committed in the name of Allah. One can only assume it's because they can inspire fear by posting videos of their heinous acts on the internet for the rest of the world to see. 

Recent questions have arisen on public panels in which I've participated and elsewhere about whether Canada should consider becoming involved, in the event western nations collaboratively conclude that ISIS needs attention. Well, it does need attention and quite urgently. So, I have gone on record as being in favour of some of my tax dollars being used to kill the snake. I feel strongly enough to say that, if it were required, they could raise my taxes to do it! I believe we need to act now and you should too.

ISIS is a growing organization and it is made up of 'in-situ' Muslim fanatics PLUS tens of thousands of the disaffected and crazy from all over the world, Canadians included. They are trained to kill and to show no mercy in using techniques designed to shock and revolt normal human beings...I draw this distinction because it is my belief that our views of the world are completely at odds and are non-negotiable. We see equality and human rights as a basic concept and they do not. No god figure in the history of human religious practice has ever called for the eradication of every non-believer the world over and, by the way, that includes the God of Islam, Allah. To suggest otherwise is to misinterpret, twisting words in order to make them fit with one's own agenda.

These people are just plain out of their minds, however, they should never be dismissed. Rather, they need to be dispatched. I have never proposed violent behaviour as justifiable in dealing with any group or person anywhere. In this case, however, ISIS needs to be totally eradicated -- eliminated from the planet, never to be be heard from again. If we do nothing and just watch, this scourge will surely come to us.

Imagine if it were the late 1990's and the world had been sensitized and was fully aware of camps used for training willing terrorist warriors in Afghanistan under the control of Osama bin Laden. What would we be doing? Back then, governments knew...but everyday people were oblivious. Governments made half-hearted attempts to derail bin Laden but we paid little or no attention. We woke up on September 11, 2001. That was the day we got to know Al Quaeda. 

Let's remember the late 1990's example and apply what we know to today's situation. Al Quaeda was, by comparison, a group of fun-loving guys when measured against the perverse creatures now trying to set up a state or caliphate in what currently is the landmass known as Syria and Iraq. Both of these countries are unstable enough that, if left unchecked, it could actually happen. And ISIS is said to operate a number of serious training camps specifically designed to build bodies and minds, turning young believers into merciless killing machines to dispense their particular brand of jihad to men, women, and children not conforming to their lopsided view of what is right.

At least a hundred (and possibly more) Canadians are part of that group. There will come a time, not too far off, when they will attempt to begin their work here in Canada, the United States, the UK, and elsewhere. In fact, we have heard this week that a severe threat already exists in Britain as I write. ISIS will kidnap, will brutally murder, will destroy. Our complacency and silence now would be their enabler! We must be vigilant and we cannot stand idly by. The way to put a halt to their future plan is to seek them out where they are and to put an end what they do.

Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary action. This is not a group that limits itself in any way. There are no defined territorial lines, no specific religious targets, no one government in their focus...they want to create a caliphate/state in a defined geographic area and, at the same time, they believe in the supremacy of Islam and show complete intolerance towards anything or anyone else. Even within the Muslim world, they draw lines of distinction. The fact is that if you do not conform to their ways and are not of their background, you are not considered worthy of life and a brutal death is your eventual fate. Since ISIS views its mission as changing the world, I suggest it would be in the world's best interests to deal with that threat with appropriate haste. In a battle to the death, the choice is clear -- it's your opponent or you.

Peter
   

No Country for Old Values - Multiculturalism Revisited

Multiculturalism, as we practice it in Canada, has been in the news lately. Events involving various parts of the Middle East have been the driving force. I’ve been revisiting what I once believed about how the diverse pieces of our Canadian puzzle fit together and I am questioning our laisser-faire approach. So, for me, our multiculturalism is now in a state of flux.

You should see a remarkably informative and horrifying film called "Honour Diaries". It is the work of a woman named Raheel Raza, a Muslim Canadian lecturer and author of some note. She and eight other brave and brilliant women are the mainstays behind this feature-length documentary and, on camera, they expose the so-called 'cultural' issues confronting women within (primarily) the Islamic world. I use the single quote marks around the word cultural because, while the issues discussed do fit that description technically, they are examples of intolerable inhumanity forced on unwilling girls and women. I describe these remarkable women as brave because speaking out against female subservience, female circumcision, or undesired marriages is, for all intents and purposes, heresy…in some countries, death would be the end result for simply questioning practices that tie in directly with so-called family honour and are simply accepted there. Here in Canada, we reject them and we applaud the bold, public stance of these female heroes…what else can we do?

That question has an answer. We deplore these practices but we don't interfere. Indeed, we can do little about what customs are observed by others living thousands of miles away. But we must certainly speak out forcefully against human rights abuses on Canadian soil and we can find ways to stop such abuses here - and they do occur here! We have seen honour killings in Ontario and in  other parts of Canada…and we're appalled, but we aren't discussing the Canadian multicultural invitation we extend that tacitly allows these practices to continue in Canada.

I see a conflict between the acceptance of multiculturalism (which is a positive work in progress) and the absolutely nonsensical pretzel-twisting we seem to engage in because of the religious dictates of certain newcomers. This is not healthy multiculturalism. It's about immigrants with values counter to Canadian ones who want broad accommodation - even changes to common law, if possible. It is not discriminatory to say "here is how things work in Canada - if you have special needs, address them privately in your community...but respect our laws".

Meanwhile, the activities in question do occur behind closed doors in Canada. We tend to take the 'live and let live' approach, culturally. Sounds fair on a superficial level but it’s not – because that attitude doesn't address suffering, humiliation, and subjugation here at home and around the world. Because  something is a cultural tradition dating back centuries does not make it right. Female circumcision, for example, is not excusable under any circumstances which is why the non-participating world correctly calls it Female Genital Mutilation. 

Women in Canada and women everywhere must have a full and equal entitlement to dignity, self-determination, and to basic human rights. Women are not trying to be men…but women are fully equal under our laws and in the view of all thinking people the world over.

I tire of the convenience we afford groups practicing tribal rituals when, cast in another reality, such rituals would justify imprisonment. And so it is in this context that I question what Canadian multiculturalism really means today. Are  we to welcome anyone to our country and either tacitly or overtly acknowledge  certain practices of their religions or customs even when they challenge our Canadian beliefs and laws? I don't think so. When we began to discuss multiculturalism 50 years ago, I believed, along with most people, that we’d benefit from the contribution of newcomers who would offer the best of their backgrounds to our bright and multi-faceted mosaic. Generally, that has been the positive result.

Multiculturalism was, for me, never about restricting or changing existing broad common practice to suit newcomers. I've never thought of multiculturalism as having been designed to change mainstream Canadian life based on one group attempting to impose its' ways on others. In fact, my own immigrant background and how it meshed with Canadian reality has informed this view. I am from a generation when kids attended public and high schools under a Protestant school board. In the late 50s and early 60s, after saluting the Union Jack and singing God Save the Queen each morning, we recited The Lord's Prayer and sang hymns I can still remember...Onward Christian Soldiers, Jesus Loves Me, and others. Somehow, no one complained and our parents didn't object...they thought it was appropriate if this was, indeed, Canadian custom. I grew up to be a reasonably well educated non-Christian with a good grasp of Christian culture and, while no longer practiced, it probably helped reduce the divide.

I have been reading about efforts in France, Britain, the Netherlands to put the brakes on tolerance. That is sad because tolerance goes a long way towards correcting much of what is wrong around the world. Perhaps it's a slingshot effect following a lengthy period of allowing new immigrants to rewrite the rules instead of asking that they follow those already existent. I'd prefer we not go that route in Canada.

Here, all people of all religions, colors, social backgrounds, and sexual orientations are equal in fact and in law. No person may rule or dominate  another. If your culture forces young girls to accept a chosen (by you) husband, Canada may not be for you. If you force your wife or daughter to cover herself, Canada may not be for you. If you think that sex is entirely for procreation and that the choices of where, when, and under what circumstances are not a choice and right of the female partner, Canada may not be for you.

I support multiculturalism. I don’t support forced physical mutilation; forced marriage; forced servitude…or forced ANYTHING. My country is Canada and Canada has successfully built multiculturalism into its fabric. But it has also put human rights first and I believe human rights always supersede everything else.

If you are here in Canada now and not free to live as you wish, reach out to a support group, a law enforcement officer, a shelter, a trusted friend, anyone…and seek help. And if you are an abuser, I invite you to leave our land…this is not your home because you don't accept Canadian values, and you are no countryman of mine. 

Peter