On November 3, Jane Currie and her partner, Anji Dimitriou, were assaulted by a man as they were picking up their children after school. The same man had verbally abused them on previous occasions. This time, the man swore at Anji, accused her of talking to his child, spat in her face, and then attacked her without warning. When Jane intervened, she was hit as well, until other parents intervened. Jane needed four stitches to close cut on her cheek; both have black eyes. Mark Scott, 43, was charged with two counts of assault causing bodily harm.
Jane and Anji want Mark charged with hate crimes. Oshawa Police are reported to be "investigating", but say that charging someone with hate crimes is usually up to the Crown attorney's office.
Why is this being debated? The fact that a physical assault is accompanied by slurs such as "fucking dyke bitches" cannot be a coincidence. Violence against a person based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is a hate crime. Being a lesbian is not a crime; attacking someone for no other reason than that she is a lesbian is. Can anyone really imagine the public reaction if a straight couple, picking up their children from school, had been viciously beaten simply because they were straight? Keep in mind also how the public would have reacted if a man had viciously beaten a single woman.
As I continue to ponder the significance of Remembrance Day, it occurs to me that the gay community would do well to recognize the importance of its own remembrance - of the accomplishments made by those who fought the battle for gay rights, and the acknowledgement that the battle is not over. Americans celebrate the election of their first black president, and yet the same election put up barriers to gay marriage in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida, and rolled back the right to gay marriage in California. While gays in Canada appreciate how far ahead we are in acceptance from the straight community, the assault on Jane and Anji is a disturbing reminder of the neanderthals still out there whose ignorance and hatred can lead not only to violence, but the creation of a new generation of bigotry. Remember, Mark Scott is a father.
June 2009 seems a long way away; we still have to get through winter. But come the end of June, gays will be out in the streets, celebrating another Pride week of parties and festivities. For those who are too young to remember Stonewall in NYC and the bathhouse raids in Toronto, Pride Week is just an excuse to party. But it is much more than that. It is our Remembrance Day. It is a reminder of the days when it was ok to openly discriminate against gays, when gays had to fear being "out" in public, when being gay was looked upon as a disorder, when we had to fight for our rights. Today we have to fight complacency, and remember that the atmosphere we enjoy did not exist 30 short years ago. And clearly, we are not at the finish line yet.
One day, gay activism will be obsolete. In the meantime, there is work to be done.
Remembrance Day takes me back to my teaching days. I could never ignore such an occasion, with everyone walking around wearing poppies, and soldiers in uniform on the streets, on tv, and in newspapers. As a grade one teacher, it was an opportunity and a duty to introduce an important concept and start a foundation for further learning. I maintain that there is almost nothing you cannot teach 6-7 year-olds, as long as you remember their vocabulary and level of knowledge. So every year I taught a big lesson about Remembrance Day.
It was not, of course, about glorifying war or the military. It was about honouring the people who fought for our country and our freedoms. No one understands that better than I do; my Father and uncles all fought for Canada during WWII.
For young children, we want to downplay violence, and also have to be sensitive about fear of death. So I would talk about the wars of the past, and that our hope for the future was that those wars would never happen again. I taught about the concept of learning from our mistakes. That wasn't idealistic, nor overly hopeful; I don't know many who expect another world war.
While we have come a long way from the world wars, today we have an army in Afghanistan. We very nearly sent soldiers to Iraq. So-called "free" countries have taken part in the invasion of Haiti, where Canada helped remove a democratically elected leader. We intend to continue the occupation of Afghanistan, where conditions have worsened instead of improving, and where our soldiers are not wanted. We have abandoned our reputation as an international peacekeeper. Canada's own General Hillier removed all doubt about that when stated that a soldier's main purpose is to kill.
Today's Toronto Star online has a video link featured prominently, in which a young man with a creepy skull t-shirt says that "Canadians have a new-found respect for the military." Eh? Not in my world. While I do believe a lot of people enter the military with the best of intentions, the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti debacles - among others - have painted grim portraits of the military and the difficulty some soldiers face trying to do the right thing in the face of orders to the contrary.
The entire recognition of Remembrance Day rings hollow as Canada continues to occupy Afghanistan. The PR machine, including media, military, and government officials, tells us that we are there to do good; there is overwhelming evidence that that is not the case. And while Obama has supported American troop withdrawal from Iraq, he wants to divert troops to Afghanistan and step up the fighting there.
Harper and Obama are not committed to peace; on the contrary, they are committed to war. And so, on this November 11, 2008, what are we teaching our children? What are we honouring?
There's so much to blog about, with the US election days away and the Republican clown-car/horror-show drama in the news daily. It's been difficult to decide what to blog about: Republicans purging Democrats from the voter lists, Republicans claiming the misspelling of "Obama" on ballots as "Osama" was a typo, Republican racists using the word "nigger" at McCain rallies...
But I've been short the time or energy to blog.
Three weeks ago, as my family was planning the usual 20-person Thanksgiving weekend dinner, my brother-in-law had a stroke. He had been ill with cancer (terminal), but this was unexpected. He made some good progress in hospital, regaining movement on his right side. But Thursday he took a turn for the worse. He passed away Sunday.
I've spent some time in the hospital over the past few weeks, and although you don't have to look too hard to see the flaws in our health care system, I am grateful, once again, to be living in Canada and not the US. Maybe I'd have forgotten that if McCain wasn't in the headlines daily, claiming the American health care system is the best in the world. When you go to see someone in the hospital, you should be thinking about how to care for that person, not how to pay for the care.
I'm grateful for the kindness of the nurses at the Scarborough Hospital. A friendly face makes all the difference when you and a loved on are dependent on their care.
Now there's a hole in my heart. It's easy to regret not having spent more time with Ian. He was one of the nicest guys I've ever met.
There are no prayers. I came to terms with religion long ago (in another hospital, in fact). What is religion if you only pray when you need something? For myself, I'm ok with the idea that there is no afterlife, that when my time is up, that'll be it. It's more for others that I hope there's something more. Ian deserves more than this.
If you're running for the vice-presidency of the US, but are too stupid to understand (or bother finding out) what the job entails, you'd better at least look good in front of the cameras. Sarah Palin understands this - if nothing else. So lest the common American think they can be like her - or dress like her, think again. Joe the Plumber will need to raise his rates if he wants to be able to spend $150K on his wardrobe, as it was revealed Palin has done with the support of the Republican campaign.
The shopping spree included two trips to Neiman Marcus, in which she spent half that money. How the hell do you spend $75K in just two shopping trips on clothing? I couldn't do that if I tried.
Defending the criticism, MacCain/Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt gives us the quote of the day: "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
Charity? Such as Sally Ann, or Goodwill? Well, I feel, oh, so much better. Because there's a lucky homeless woman who can really use a pair of Manolo Blahniks, especially with winter just around the corner.
Before the 2008 federal election fades into memory, I need to document an issue that cannot be forgotten. It is the scandal over CTV's coverage of the Stephane Dion interview, and more importantly - how CTV used the footage to attack Dion and the liberal campaign.
For the record: Steve Murphy, CTV's interviewer, asked a hypothetical question about what Dion might have done had he been prime minister. The problem is that the question is phrased badly. Dion actually appears to understand the words, but is unclear as to exactly what Murphy wants to know. Dion attempts to answer more than once, but stops for clarification and asks to start over. Although Murphy assured Dion the outtakes would not be shown, CTV executives overrode the decision and aired the entire footage uncut.
The implication here is that Dion's English is not good enough and/or that he is indecisive about the economy as indicated by his inability to answer. I use the word "implication" here, because the viewer is not simply left to infer these things; CTV insidiously leads the viewer to think something is significantly wrong, by prefacing the airing of the footage with a disclaimer that has all the sensationalism of a breaking scandal. It is despicable. (To view the entire clip on YouTube, see the link at the end of this post.)
The facts: 1) Interviews are stopped and re-started all the time, and then edited before airing. To insist on airing the outtakes proves CTV's conservative bias. 2) Dion is being persecuted with a language double-standard. Harper's French is not good and he has asked for questions in French to be repeated, but he has never been challenged or criticized for this. 3) The problem is not with Dion's comprehension, but with the poor phrasing and faulty grammar by Steve Murphy.
The CONS jumped on this footage, naturally, and claimed that this proves Dion can't lead. Unfortunately, language bias is one thing that flies with the right-wing. The damage was done.
The Toronto Star, to their credit, published an article dissecting the language of the footage and showing why the problem lay in Steve Murphy's phrasing. Below is the article in its entirety.
Dion interview shows need to extend clarity to journalism
J. Fred Kuntz Editor-in-Chief
In journalism, the story you get is often only as good as the questions you ask.
On Thursday, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was interviewed on CTV. His performance, seen by some as showing him in a muddle, was denounced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as proof that Dion cannot lead on the economy.
I've reviewed the video and, in my opinion, it was not Dion who was confused, it was the CTV interviewer.
Anyone can verify this by watching the interview on YouTube.
The first time, the interviewer asked Dion what "would you have done" on the economy, if he were prime minister, "now." Look at that carefully. The verb tense "would have" suggests Dion was asked to say what he would have done in the past; but the word "now" could suggest he was asked what he would do today.
These are two different questions. The first asks: Could government have averted this economic trouble? The second asks: can the current mess be fixed?
Dion rightly asked for clarification: Was he being asked what he would have done if he had been prime minister since the previous election?
The interviewer said no, he was not asking what Dion might have done for the past two-and-a-half years, but rather, if he were to act "right now."
Just to be sure, Dion asked whether the interviewer meant if Dion was elected on Tuesday.
The interviewer explained that he meant "hypothetically" right now, at this very moment. Dion said that he would take the question to mean "today," not after the election and not since 2006.
But just as Dion was about to answer, the interviewer, apparently backpedalling, interjected that he wanted to know what Dion "would have" done.
Moving along, Dion began to answer that he would launch his 80-day plan to boost the economy. But he stopped mid-sentence, displeased with the erratic opening to a pre-taped broadcast. He asked whether they could start over.
The interviewer agreed to a fresh start, a commitment that CTV may have dishonoured by airing the aborted segment.
On second try, the interviewer launched a new wave of confusion, making the question more about the past. He asked Dion, if he were prime minister "now" (present tense), "what would you have already done" (in the past) that Harper "hasn't done."
This was baffling. Had the interviewer regretted saying just moments prior that he meant "today" and, on reflection, preferred to reframe the question as a hypothesis about the past?
Dion paused, then asked just what time frame the interviewer was trying to place him in, this go-round. Now? A week ago? Three weeks ago?
The interviewer, getting fuzzier, said, "No. No. If you were prime minister during this time already." But what did he mean by "this time already"?
Turning away from the interviewer, Dion asked an aide off-screen for clarity. However, she was just as unclear, answering that the time frame was "when Stephen Harper was prime minister." As we know, Harper has been prime minister since 2006.
Dion asked whether she meant since "two-and-a-half years ago."
She replied: "At any given time." In my view, that's a shrug. It could mean two years ago, it could mean today. Dion was no farther ahead.
It was as if the whole studio had gone down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. Several people, including Dion, began laughing.
They began a third time.
One could argue Dion should have sidestepped the fog, saying anything he liked about the economy. He might have taken a cue from vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who proved adept in the U.S. debate at ignoring a question.
But Dion, remember, was champion of the Clarity Act, a law requiring any Quebec referendum on separation to pose an unambiguous question. This Liberal leader may be willing to answer questions, but he does demand questions be clear.
It's a fair requirement of any on-air interviewer, or newspaper reporter, for that matter.
J. Fred Kuntz is editor-in-chief of the Toronto Star.
CTV eventually published their defense. In the typical manner of Harper conservatives, they ignored the facts and real issues, and pretended they had a duty to show the footage:
"We decided that it was important that CTV News not hide anything during an election campaign," said president Robert Hurst.
"Central to the campaign was the argument and the issue that here's a guy who's running to be the prime minister of Canada, and he's being criticized for his inability to communicate effectively in English and that was very evident in the interview that day," added Peter Mallette, a senior news producer in Halifax.
The interview, restarted four times because Dion didn't understand a question about the economy from anchor Steve Murphy, was originally broadcast in the Maritimes, but later seen across the country. That night, Murphy said the network had told the Liberals it would not broadcast the fumbling start.
Toronto Star readers chimed in with some good retorts, calling attention to Steve Murphy's poor grammar:
"How many lunches would you have eaten if you were now two-headed?" That's a grammatical equivalent to the question that the CTV interviewer asked Mr. Dion. So the confusion began with the interviewer's inability to construct a question with a logical sequence of tenses. Michael J. Sidnell, Kingston
Dion hit the nail on the head when he later paraphrased the question as, "You're prime minister today, what will you do yesterday?" Linda Genova, Toronto
I must ask Mr. Murphy, "If he were not a reporter now, what would he have done in his interview with Mr. Dion last Thursday?" Duff Sprague, Rossmore
And finally:
Up until Thursday evening, I have always felt that CTV provides exceptional, first-rate programming. However, reading the transcript and viewing Stéphane Dion's interview with Steve Murphy, I also would have been confused about the ambiguity in time frame and verb tense Steve was asking about.
And CTV sank to a despicable level of broadcasting when they decided to air the entire segment instead of respecting their commitment to give Dion a fresh start and discard the earlier portion. We should all boycott CTV until Stéphane Dion gets the apology he deserves!
Hilda Swirsky, Toronto
Before this election, I was unaware of CTV's conservative bias. Talk about a quick education! This whole debacle has made me sick. I don't think there's any doubt that CTV swayed many viewers to avoid voting liberal. It's not just that CTV is biased; it's that they used their influence to appeal to the lowest common denominator: conservative bigots.
I won't be watching CTV any time soon.
YouTube clip of Steve Murphy starting the interview with Dion:
Q. Faced with the depressing prospect of another term with Harper - what to do?
A. Get out on the streets and demonstrate.
Four days after our election, demonstrations were held across the country to demand that Harper honour the wishes of the majority of Canadians. In Toronto, we rallied at Queen's Park, and then marched through the streets to voice our thoughts. Bring the troops home now!
Harper had stated before the election that he would run the country as if he had a majority, whether he got one or not. He'd already been behaving like a dictator, so I don't know what will be different. What is clear is that we have to forge ahead and keep pressuring the government to do all the right things:
• Respect the will of parliament. • Respect the will of the Canadian people. • Bring the troops home. • Let the war resisters stay. • Stop persecuting Muslims. Either the Secret Trial 5 need to be charged - or they should be freed unconditionally. • Give Omar Khadr a fair trial - in Canada. • Fund the arts, not the military. • Let cities have some of their tax money back. • Protect women's rights - including reproductive rights. No debate on abortion. • Restore Canada's reputation as free, fair, and peaceful.
Come on, people, we need a good adjective. Or a noun. I'm so tired of reading about all of the offensive things he's said and done, and getting more and more frustrated. The idea of another term is discouraging, but in the event we get another tory govenment, let's be well-prepared. Can you contribute a good descriptor?
This is not a contest; we should amass a nice inventory of words and phrases to have on hand in case we need them. If you've been reading this blog, you might know my current favourite is fuckwad. Post your suggestions or favourites in comments or email me.
