On Global News tonight they featured a few people living in downtown Toronto who were asking why these talks are being held in their neighbourhood rather than in a remote location.
Perhaps this map has something to do with it:
I know if I was a conniving prime minister with delusions of a majority and was expecting violent protests, that I wouldn’t want such a conference anywhere near a riding that my party had won or had a chance to win…
Last summer I had the privilege to go to the capital of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife (pictured right), to teach science summer camp with DiscoverE. Yellowknife is a town of under 20,000 people. Life takes on a slower pace there, and everyone drives 10-20 km/h under the speed limit downtown (unlike Vancouver where 20 over the norm).
One of the activities for youth there in the summer (besides the week of DiscoverE summer camps) is The Rock skateboard camp, run by some local evangelical Christians. Hopefully, this group has nothing to do with the following story, and doesn’t breed the same contempt, because from all accounts Yellowknife is a happy little community.
Scott Robertson and Richard Anthony, a gay couple, were trying to rent a room just over a year ago and had signed a lease with Will Goertzen. However, days before they were to move in they noticed that their room was listed online. It turns out that Will, with all his Christian love, had learned of the couple’s relationship (I’m not sure if he though they were just friends who planned to share a bed or something) and decided he didn’t want their kind in his house. The couple had to find a new place to rent since they had already sold their previous home and ended up homeless in Yellowknife for 10 days (the average high in Yellowknife in May is a mere 10oC).
They have already been compensated a portion of their deposit (they haven’t received their utilities expenses back yet) and are expecting to hear back from the courts about their discrimination case in August.
Jason at The Gay White North makes a good point on this story however,
So now I’m a bit worried. On the one hand, I believe Mr. Goertzen must be held accountable for his actions and the consequences of his actions, and on the other hand, I don’t want him to become a hater.
I know I have no control over what other people do or think. And I know how easy it is to label someone who does not share the same worldview as ourselves. I’ve heard characterizations such as "crazy" or "nut job," much too often. But that type of behaviour (ie: discrimination or name calling) will get us exactly the opposite of what we want: live in peace, harmony and happiness.
In an ideal world, everyone would think like us and act like us. But, the world is far from ideal. So, in the meantime, I’d much rather live next door to a homophobe than a hater so please don’t make a bad situation worse.
Please.
In a large city, where few people actually know their neighbours, there’s no real social ostracism that occurs after a case like this. But in a small, progressive town, where everybody knows your name and life story, it could turn ugly quick.
I think Jason’s sentiments are, somewhat ironically, much more Christian than what Will is doing. And this is one of those few cases where the Bible does have some wisdom: forgiveness is sometimes better than revenge.
Hopefully the Will sees the error in his ways (as it were) and learns some tolerance. Otherwise, a small, progressive community has little space for him.
(h/t Friendly Atheist)
Perhaps it’s just the over-usage by Christian apologists, but every time I hear someone use the argument that some policy or action ought to not be taken because it’s a “slippery slope” to some horrendous sin that will destroy society, I immediately think their entire argument is fallacious.
The slippery slope argument goes by another name that bugs me even more – that is when people argue that something ought to be taken “to its logical consequences.” As though logic dictates that insane and terrible results absolutely must follow some meagre policy change or other position. This terminology is much more prevalent among the more educated reactionary debaters, perhaps since we must all defer to the apparent truths that are being trotted out.
Now, I don’t think the slippery slope defence is quite a fallacy on its own. While my inclination is to think you’re full of shit, there have been a few cases where slippery slopes have proven true.
In Losing Control, Tom Warner explains how the slippery slope argument was frequently used by the religious right in the battles to include sexual orientation in human rights codes. The fear was that if homosexuality was entitled to be free from discrimination, then it was a quick and slippery slope to gay marriages and adoptions.
How fabulously right the zealots were!
Of course this example brings up the first counter to the slippery slope argument: some slippery slopes end not in the moral decay of society or Armageddon, but rather land in pools of fun, like waterslides. Sometimes the logical consequences are either neutral or a net positive to society.
Gay people getting married means more money being spent on lavish parties and gifts.
However, more often then not, the slippery slope argument seems to suggest to me that people are devoid of compromise. It gives a very dichotomous worldview where it denies that people can be reasonable and will set limits.
A great example is Vancouver’s new by-law permitting people to keep 4 chickens in their backyard for eggs.
I hope the stupidity is apparent if someone were to argue against the allowance on the grounds that pretty soon they’d be allowing entire barnyards and petting zoos in people’s backyards.
In our democratic society we very often have conflicting sets of rights and desires. We negotiate this competition through dialogue and discussion. People are generally okay with modest limits on their freedoms in exchange for greater rights or protections in other areas (cue fundamentalist libertarian disagreement).
Were the slippery slope to be a viable argument, the development of the first atomic weapon would have logically required our extinction due to nuclear fallout. Luckily for us, people are smarter than these apparent logical requirements.
Hot on the heels of Marci McDonald’s bestselling The Armageddon Factor, comes another expose on the religious right in Canada. I just finished Losing Control: Canada’s Social Conservatives in the Age of Rights, which was written by gay activist Tom Warner and published by Between the Lines.
Full disclosure: My review copy was provided at no charge by BTL publishing. Nevertheless, take my review as my honest opinion on this book.
Losing Control provides a good supplemental reading to the narratives provided by McDonald. While McDonald provides the detailed look into some of the cast of characters involved in the religious right, Warner adds an academic history in the events that date back to the formation of the modern rights movements in the 1960s.
Warner documents a shift in Canadian thinking from it’s Christian roots to a secular society that prizes individual and minority rights. This shift has obviously come hard for the social conservatives in the country, who have since rallied around various conservative parties, from the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform, Canadian Alliance and modern Conservative Party.
Warner breaks his treatment thematically, treating the abortion debate, repressive sexuality laws, gay rights and gay marriage in successive chapters. He finishes with some discussion about the social conservative inroads in politics.
Unfortunately, he only has passing references to the debates over evolution vs. creationism and school prayer, both of which have been hot topics for social conservatives.
In The Armageddon Factor, McDonald used mostly original research to compose her book, however the vast majority of Losing Control is based on 29 pages of third-party sources. This extensive bibliography provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to get the dirt straight from the source.
I partially criticized McDonald for minor editorializing at points in The Armageddon Factor, and while Warner uses the mostly neutral term social conservative to refer to Canada’s vast network of religious right figures (which includes evangelical protestants, Catholics, conservative Jews, Sikhs and Muslims), he does end many of his chapters in a more of a warning style.
As an example, at the end of the chapter on regulating sexuality he states:
Sadly, there is no realistic reason to believe that members of Parliament will take the next logical step and actually decriminalize prostitution and repeal the repressive bawdy house sections of the Criminal Code. As has so often been the case in the past, the best hope for progress on those issues rests with the justices of the Supreme Court and their interpretations of the rights guaranteed by the Charter.
This is of course not to say that I disagree with anything Warner has to say, I’m with him almost the entire way through this book. He does come down firmly with the BC Civil Liberties Union and criticizes other gay activists who have used the Human Rights Tribunals to censor hate speech, to which I’m still undecided upon, but otherwise I’m in total agreement.
I think the greatest value in Losing Control is in its framing the battles with the religious right in terms of conflicting societal values. It’s secular rights (which include religious freedoms) versus theocratic ambitions to regulate morality.
One final chapter I was hoping for was for Warner to connect the dots (something McDonald attempted to do) and discuss the main organizations that have been active in the fights against progressive minority rights. Such organizations as REAL Women Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Focus on the Family Canada. At the very least, a brief perusal through the comprehensive index will identify the organizations that routinely come up in church-state separation debates.
Overall, Losing Control is a well-researched book that covers the history of social conservatives in Canada and the battles that have been fought and progress that has been made since the introduction of various Bills of Rights and the Charter. While not an outright replacement for The Armageddon Factor, it does make a good supplement for anyone who wants to dig a bit deeper into these issues.
I’ve had an increase in spam comments recently so all new commenters will require approval before they can post. I’m not sure if this works retroactively, but I don’t intend to block any comments (except spam links).
I think I have the wrong idea about the point of the modern judicial system.
I was under the impression that sentencing a convict was at least in part to help rehabilitate them and make them see the “error of their ways.” A part was always retributive punishment, but there was supposed to be some focus on actually returning that prisoner to society as a contributing member.
Prisoners are still human beings, and they have rights.
Well, it turns out that even the most progressive parties out there want to take some steps to take any hope for forgiveness out of our system and ensure that it remains focussed on good old “eye-for-an-eye” scriptural punishments (while forgetting the contradictory turn the other cheek passages).
Perhaps it’s just all politics though. No party really wants to be known as supporting murderers and child molesters. Who really wants to be “soft” on crime?
Nevertheless, my support goes to the John Howard Society in Manitoba on this case. Their arguments are rational and rights-based.
“Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence,” said [John Howard Society executive director] John Hutton.
…
Hutton offered statistics from the National Parole Board showing out of 400,000 pardons granted in the last 40 years, only 4,000 have been revoked after an offender committed another crime.
So there’s talk about a “Fox News North” coming to Canada to spew lies and propaganda for the Conservative Party.
Besides the obvious issues with such a network, it’s worth wondering how much Harper’s cabinet would use such a network as its sole voice in the media, as journalists are increasingly getting stonewalled by the PMO. Rather than muzzling everyone in the government, Harper could get away with letting everyone talk to the media – so long as its only through the Con-Ad machine.
Coming up this Saturday I’ve offered to moderate a CFI Cafe Inquiry at Harbour Centre on the topic of whether or not religious symbols in public matter.
I’m going to use this post to get my thoughts in order for Saturday, so if you don’t want a spoiler, don’t read the following until after.
This topic is especially topical for myself as this morning I got a call from one of the Wardens from the Corporation of the Seven Wardens – the group that oversees the Iron Ring Ceremony.
First some history. The Iron Ring is a ceremony dating to 1922 for engineering graduates in Canada that symbolizes their commitment to upholding the high standards required of their profession (as in we want bridges that don’t fall down). The process to obtain a ring (upon successful graduation) begins with signing an obligation which features the following lines:
…I will henceforth, not suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.
…Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, by these things I propose to abide. [emphasis mine]
In the spring of 2009, I requested the option to strike the words “God helping me” from the obligation. When my request was turned down, I walked away from the Iron Ring. I soon typed a letter about the ceremony and forwarded it to the Corporation and various engineering bodies (including the UofA Engineering Faculty of Engineering who promotes the Iron Ring and provides space for sizings and APEGGA – Alberta’s engineering professional association). The letter made the rounds and the Corporation discussed it at a meeting last October but then I didn’t hear any more from them.
Then this morning, I got an update. The delay was no one’s fault (a medical issue), but I did get some good information. The Warden admitted that adjustments have been made to the obligation in the past (about a decade ago), mostly to respect women in engineering by moving to gender-neutral terminology. And while it didn’t sound like change was planned, the issue will be discussed at their upcoming plenary meeting.
He also stated that the only other time it has really been brought up was when a pair of Muslims objected. Their complaint was withdrawn when they agreed to interpret the God of the obligation (likely Kipling’s Freemason deistic God) as Allah.
I guess the only reason I was privy to a return call after these months was how impressed the Wardens were with my letter and approach to the situation. I guess there is still something to be said for a rational, well-worded letter in some instances.
So, getting back to the topic at hand, why does this symbol, and ones like it, matter? And, perhaps more importantly, is this something that atheists should get up in arms (note: “fundamentalist” atheists are prone to write books when they’re angry, as opposed to some other worldviews) about?
Obviously, given my history, my answer is yes.
My general response is that the invocation of religious language actively alienates a portion of the population. This portion is as high as 1-in-3 among young-adult Canadians (those who would be convocating or earning Iron Rings).
Events like convocation from a university degree, singing the national anthem, or earning an Iron Ring are cultural rituals. The point of these rituals is to unite people and develop a sense of community. While using religious language can strengthen that connection between theists, it prompts reactions from rolling eyes to righteous indignation in non-theists.
Another issue I noticed while attending my fiancées recent convocation, as the Chancellor used her opening invocation to give a little prayer to “our Creator” (perhaps to spite His reduced role later in the ceremony), was that religious language devalues the effort and hard-work of the people who have earned their degrees, rings, or founded this nation. By focussing on the supernatural, we neglect the natural.
I understand that we are supposed to feel humbled by the good graces that are bestowed upon us from up high (whether it be God, the universe, or even just our elders), but in ceremonies that are meant to honour achievements, shouldn’t the focus be on those who have made the achievements?
Some will want to share their moment, and recognizing friends, family, and other support networks, and that’s fine – but it’s worth recognizing that not everyone has the same networks. Some are religious, other are not. By presuming the religiosity of the audience and attendees, those in charge of the ceremony belittling the accomplishments of those who aren’t religious.
Now, what about atheists who just aren’t bothered by God in ceremonies and speeches? The live-and-let-live apatheist type.
For them, at very least, parts of the ceremony or anthem are of little to no value to them – and are therefore a waste of time to repeat.
But more importantly, it’s worth recognizing that members of the Religious Right utilize religious language in public ceremonies as an argument for more public pronouncements of faith, or for scripturally-inspired laws.
Should Canada ban abortions? It says God in the anthem and charter, so Canada must be a Christian Nation, which ought to follow Christian laws.
Finally, on a purely strategic note, going after these symbols nearly always gets press attention, and if utilized properly, can be very positive for a group. The media still loves the God debate and atheists fighting to kill God gets attention. The UofA’s convocation charge received national media coverage both when it was initially brought up, and when the changes were finally approved (convocating last, I chose not to release a statement as I crossed the stage).
With all of that said, I think there are a lot of challenges out there for secularists and atheists. We each have interests and cares, and many campaigns only take a few people (but showing your support for such movements helps) to at least bring attention to the offending language. I can understand the desire not to take on some long established symbols, but in other cases, like the Iron Ring, I could not sign the obligation without violating the very intent of the document.
Symbols are important, but only so long as they are still applicable to the communities they represent. Values progress and change, and our ceremonies and rituals ought to reflect that progression.
It’s a bit scary to me that ultra-nationalist, anti-immigration parties are soaring in popularity. The fact that a party that believes the Netherlands needs its own Guantanamo Bay or that wants to ban the Koran has placed third and will potentially grab a seat in a coalition is very worrisome.
While Muslim extremism is a threat, racist fascists are still not the answer.
Of course, similar wing-nuts are easily found much closer to home.
Apparently the easiest way to get out of a parking ticket in Toronto now is to claim you were with a religious group at a worship service.
I guess the best way to see if this law is truly discriminatory or not is for humanists meeting at the Centre For Inquiry Ontario (just blocks from the University of Toronto campus) is to try to get parking exemptions.
Parking fines either apply universally (people can walk/ride/transit to church) or they don’t apply to anyone.
What’s the point of a law if you just give exemptions left, right and centre?
(h/t Friendly Atheist)