We are intrigued to see Mr. Layton ‘serving notice" to Mr. Harper that the majority government will be kept accountable by one of the "strongest and most united" opposition parties in decades. (National Post May 12.)

Speaking at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr Layton said that the NDP had been given a "clear mandate" from voters to represent "hard-working families."

Ah those hard-working families! Ah, those connotative mantras so beloved of the NDP!

We are carried away on a wave of vision! There is Brad, the hard-working breadwinner, returning exhausted from another day at the salt mine, struggling to keep his eyes from closing under his briny brows. Amanda, of course has been working non-stop, taking in laundry and sewing to beat the band–and the deadlines of the Sew-at-Home Simon Legree Institute for Desperate Housewives.

Little Jenny, the eldest, is studying overtime for her rigorous course, Advanced Salt Mining Theory for Salt-Miners’ Daughters. Her younger brothers, Bill and Dick, are zonked out in front of the Television set, their tiny fingers numb from stuffing envelopes for the world-wide advertising conglomerate, Maria Duval Incorporated.

One should be careful about giving reign to one’s imagination. We happen to know Brad and Amanda. They are our next door neighbours. But it is a mixed family. Brad does, indeed, work at the salt mine, but Amanda spends her days painting her fingernails and watching soap operas. And although Jenny does, indeed, work hard at the Advanced Salt Mining Theory course, Bill and Dick are gormless layabouts.

What would Mr. Layton say about them?

Beyond that, our equality antennae give a little shudder of apprehension at this oft-repeated mantra. The NDP seems to have almost exclusive focus on "hard-working families."

Contrary to popular sentiment, what the world needs now is not love, sweet love.

What the world needs now is, in fact, a reliable, inexpensive, lightweight, easy-to-operate bullshit detector.

Think of the potential savings for you and your family! Think of the preservation of your valued self-esteem!

When Maria Duval offers you incredible luck and the winning of thousands with a modest cash outlay for one of her biomagnetic bracelets–think of the bother and disappointment that could be avoided if your detector could flash the warning light: "That’s Bullshit!"

When David Suzuki et al speak–in 2005--of fifty million climate refugees by 2010, and the need to retreat to caves and burn the furniture to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, think of the huge advantage for those possessed of a trusty detector, who could immediately pronounce: "That’s Bullshit!"

And again, when Jack Layton promises a Socialist Paradise, a Big Rock Candy Mountain just over the socialist rainbow, what a boon to the body politic if his listeners could conclude, upon zapping the Device in his direction: "That’s Bullshit!"

And when those of the Religious persuasion tell us that the world will end on May 21, or that there is a convenient afterlife, or that priests are asexual--how much better the world would be if the immediate response was: "That’s Bullshit!"

And when your doctor tells you to take a statin drug for high cholesterol, saying it’s a "risk factor" for heart disease, but cannot explain why some people with low cholesterol get heart disease, and others with high cholesterol don’t, and is unfamiliar with studies which show that, in the elderly, high cholesterol is associated with longevity–why–what a relief from your turmoil if you could point the detector at his white coat, and receive the comforting message: "This guy is talking Bullshit!"

What could be more simple?

Speaking of simple--we are reminded of our observation #55 in slight variation:

An argument does not have to be valid to be considered respectable; all that is required is a sufficiency of fools.

A few years ago, Jack Layton came up with the wonderful idea
for settling the Afghan problem--by instituting talks with the Taliban.

We understand that, subsequently, the idea has been brought up by
the solidly reliable Hamid Karzai. At the time, we felt that Jack's
suggestion was a quintessential example of the dreaded malady
leftwingnutitis. This psychological disorder, a Neville
Chamberlainish, peace-in-our-timeish naiveté, has its roots in the
modern, (sinister) belief in the essential goodness of mankind.

In view of Mr. Layton's recent popularity in the
Polls, we thought it appropriate to resuscitate our comments.

Jack Layton

All hail to Jack!
His dapper charm
A force for good–an antidote
To every harm;
And special plaudits for his plan
To sit and talk with the Taliban–
In the left-wing world of wine and rosies,
The drive of dark design
Defers to chat, and chew,
And a Hallmark card
Tucked in a clutch of posies.

"That simple!" you exclaim?
But yes! Have you not a brain?
If, for any cause you can find the root,
The answer is as simple as: root-- toot toot!

For example–that Hitler chap–
He’s acting dotty–
Put too soon (or too late perhaps) upon his potty–
An earnest talk on toilet training
Will put an end to all his straining.

And Jack the Ripper–wretched man–
When that first harlot laughed out loud,
And pointed to his tiny dollop–
He knew right there and then
He’d have to off
That teasing, taunting, tawdry trollop.

And poor Lizzie of the forty whacks–
She sat, when just a girl, upon some tacks–
And that accounts for her axe attacks!

I hope that now, you start to see
The heart of left (sinister, isn’t it?)- wing philosophy:
The ogres of the human race
Are not evil–no permanent disgrace–
But...unfortunate...and...misunderstood–
Just like you–or me!

With a little chat–some wine and cheese–
Why, you can have–or change– whate’er you please!

Now that you have seen the light,
You can understand
Why Jack is always in (not on) the right.
And– just imagine–
It’s no real mystery--
How Jack could have altered quite
Our long and bloody history--

Foreshadowing a deadly harm,
Olivia sounds the dire alarm:
"Genghis Khan is at the gate!"
"No matter dear," says Jack;
"Tell him to bring his tux–
We dine tonight at eight."

"I hear a knock! It’s the K.G.B.!"
"Oh good," says Jack,
"We’ve got some scones and
I’ve just put on the tea.
Now hurry, dear, get Josef on the phone
While I find that book of jokes;
Then you rustle up some rum,
And I’ll get out the cokes."

"Saddam Hussein is gassing Kurds!"
"Of course, you silly girl!
His awful home life–strictly for the birds!
We’ll have a chat about his father–
A jug of ale–some friendly words–
And–voila!–
That will end this bit of bother."

"Attila the Hun is bearing down!
This time he says, he won’t quibble:
Aims to grind us all to crunchy cat food kibble!"
"Relax," says Jack, "I know his mother!
We’ll sing old songs and have a nibble!"

In short then, you can see our beloved Jack
Can never fear–not gun, nor sword, nor bloody truncheon;
He’ll fight right back
With a Big Mac attack
Or a fine Swiss Chalet luncheon.

Now, from these just and timely observations
It’s clear Jack MUST go to the United Nations!
Give him an office, some princely wages;
He’ll not be there much–but off, abroad–
Wherever conflict rages.

He’ll pull no punch:
Arrange a pointed talk, a killer munch;
And on the door:

Jack Layton

International Affairs

(Out to Lunch)

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

After we quit teaching–a move that seemed advisable to avoid complete burnout, and the irretrievable loss of our few remaining marbles-- we sold an income property in the aspirationally termed "golden triangle" of the "western beaches" in Toronto. With the funds we purchased a similarly sized property on Orchard Park Boulevard, in the exclusive and ritzy race track area, not far from the upscale Orchard Park Tavern. It was much cheaper than the property we sold, and had the added advantage of coming complete with five paying roomers, only one of whom was a denizen of the conveniently located upscale tavern.

A branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was just around the corner, and it was, for ten years, a perfectly satisfactory bank.

When the Ontario Government decided, in its infinite wisdom, to include roomers in the Landlord and Tenant Act–thereby guaranteeing that only the cretinous or the insane would provide rooms for rent–we sold the property and moved back to our very first house on Woodycrest Avenue. We moved our account to a nearby CIBC branch on the Danforth.

In order to speed up the processing of customers, this branch had adopted the annoying policy of occasionally having a teller call out "Anyone just want to make a deposit?" There would be an immediate rush to the designated wicket. Lumbering, slow-moving, slow witted, unfit for the bank jungle, we seldom won any of these competitive events. The frequent losses to nimbler, fitter, and more agile competitors soon took its toll. Our appetite declined; our sleep was impaired; we longed for the proximity of the Orchard Park Tavern.

Letters sent to the President of CIBC with a copy to the branch manager had no effect in changing the established culture. Our central point was that the queue was a significant symbol of civilization; the bank was destroying the queue in favour of the law of the jungle, and this was a BAD THING.

The Bank of Nova Scotia

While still teaching in North York, we made our next bank the Bank of Nova Scotia–there was a branch at a plaza near the school. Our relationship with that branch was uneventful, and it is possibly for this reason that we opened a Scotiabank discount brokerage account.

The problem we encountered there was primarily philosophical. The brokerage arm had a certain puritanical inflexibility, the very bank-like nannyish outlook of a strict English governess. Brokers–even those attached to dignified major Canadian Banks–are expected to have a certain freewheeling, swashbuckling, devil-may-careishness appropriate to the rather sleazy business in which they are involved. But not so at Scotiabank.

You see, other brokers tended to treat those with margin accounts as adults. If the value of the underlying securities goes up, the account holder may increase his borrowing–whether it be to buy more stocks or to take cash from the account. Of course borrowing against the value of volatile securities is a risky business, and it is very easy to borrow too much, and find that, when the underlying securities decline in value, the one must come up with more cash, or sell stock.

But the Scotiabank brokerage--while it was happy to allow more borrowing to purchase stock-- was not very keen on cash withdrawals. It would allow them only with a sort of finger-wagging reluctance which we found bothersome. They had obviously not made the appropriate mental switch from Banker to Broker, from Governess to Pirate.

So we closed that account and moved to TD Greenline and BMO Investorline, who were quite happy to let us go to our own hell in our own handbasket.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank

Our next teaching position was in North York, and we had an account with the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

It will be difficult for the modern reader to comprehend the primitive nature of banking in those far-off days. Bank Machines and internet banking were unknown. More importantly, the single bank line-up had not yet been invented. Customers would line up in front of the individual teller cages–much in the way that they still do today at cashier stations in supermarkets.

In the supermarket, of course, there are only three factors to be considered in choosing a line-up: the apparent speed of the cashier, the number of customers, and the number of items being purchased by each patron.

How much more complex the task in the multiple bank line-ups of the past! A great deal of speculation and estimation was involved. Is that little old lady what she appears–a pensioner with a limited fondness for chit-chat, who wishes merely to deposit her pension cheque, and hurry, wordlessly, away? Or is she in fact, the founder and Chief Executive Officer* of Good Gracious! Granny’s Gelatinous Jams Inc., who wishes to engage the teller in endless matters of byzantine corporate complexity? Is that young man in work boots and jeans simply making a quick withdrawal of funds to finance a case of beer for the coming weekend? Or is he in fact, the owner of Megalopolis Contracting, who, in addition to making deposits to various accounts, wishes to pay household and business utility bills, order new chequebooks, and buy travellers’ cheques for his extensively described Caribbean holiday?

Banking in those days was always a challenge!

On one occasion we had made our estimations, and chosen our line-up. Little by little, we inched closer to the wicket. Granny cashed her pension cheque. The young man obtained funds for his weekend beer. The secretary briskly transacted her modest business. Then, just as our turn came, the teller closed her wicket.

(March 26, 2011)

George Orwell was an astute observer of human nature. We make this conclusion based on his depiction in 1984, of the Two Minute Hate, a daily interlude in the regimen of Oceania, during which citizens are encouraged to express their hatred for Goldstein, described as "the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity." In this manner, the oppressed citizenry is able to unleash its pent-up dissatisfactions in a manner undamaging to the state.

It is but little recognized-- because it is so unflattering to our ideals--that hatred is an extremely satisfying emotion, since it gives a license, a carte blanche to rage, which is often present, but conventionally suppressed. For its most satisfying expression, rage must be pure--untempered by any logic, or considered reason.

It is not surprising that demons, therefore, are a constant creation of mankind. The first Demon–the Devil, described as Lucifer in Milton’s Paradise Lost -- was a traitor –a model for Goldstein--one of God’s archangels who rebelled.

Demonization has, throughout history, been a useful tool in arousing powerful and destructive emotion. In war, the enemy is never seen as human; in Islam, apostates are deserving of death; in Germany, Hitler was able to demonize the Jews.

In the light of the above, the existence of Israeli Apartheid Weeks on University campuses is at least partly explained: there is a natural human satisfaction in the expression of hatred; the young because of their ignorance of the world, are easily led to see matters in terms of demons and angels, in terms of black and white.

But there must be more to these bizarre occurrences on University campuses. We claim that they are also a function of left-wing politics–the preferred politics of youth. You may remember the remark --often attributed to Winston Churchill--of Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929):

Mr. Day, the Rector of Queen’s University who is notable for describing "the genocide happening in Palestine" as "perhaps the biggest human rights tragedy of my generation," is said to have published his essay on "the left-wing website rabble.ca. (National Post editorial, March 25.) Left-wing philosophy in the universities is well supported in a land of Human Rights Commissions, socialized medicine, and anti-landlord legislation.

It has also been observed that lesbians and gays, traditionally left-wingers, seem to have hopped on to the anti-Israel bandwagon.

Phyllis Chesler, in a National Post article of March 22, quotes a group called Jews Against the Occupation-NYC; "It’s no coincidence that queers have been at the heart of Palestinian solidarity groups for decades..." Ms. Chesler notes that lesbian "activists imagine themselves to be outcasts, pariahs, ‘occupied’ by Western patriarchy. And so they long to be somehow ‘Palestinian’ in spirit, a posture that allows them to share in the Palestinians’ victim status."

We think this is perceptive. The left-wing is characterized by an unfettered idealism. They wish to right all wrongs; to make the weak, strong; the poor, rich; the marginalized centralized; the victim, triumphant. War, of course, is anathema to the left: since human beings are inherently good, all disputes can be settled over a couple of beers on a convenient patio almost any sunny afternoon.

It is hard to quibble with such idealistic aims of Biblical proportions, and Biblical propensities, but we would note that such exclusive concentration on mercy in human affairs--we are reminded of Mary in Robert Frost's, The Death of the Hired Man, who defines home as "Something you somehow haven't to deserve" -- leads to a significant distortion of perception: equality trumps all, and it becomes almost impossible to acknowledge the justice of success.

It has probably not escaped the attention–of even the most casual reader of these musings–that we think that all religion is complete nonsense. Indeed, our observation number 17 reads thus:

 All religion is bunk; it may be helpful bunk, comforting bunk, or, in some cases, necessary bunk. It is still bunk, nonetheless.

Note that we do not maintain that religion has no function–it is simply that its claims are untrue. Indeed, we have pondered of late of some of the benefits which we ourselves might derive from religion–particularly that sense of comfort from communicating with a great and powerful Being who has very much our own opinion of the issues of the day, and can be relied upon to be sensible and supportive. In short, we see no reasonable bar to the creation of our own religion.

"The CBC’s Ombudsman has blasted businessman and commentator Kevin O’Leary for using the term "Indian giver" on his CBC News Network show, denouncing the term as "unambiguously offensive." (National Post, March 8, 2011.)

(Click here for Audio)

Once upon a time, in the land of Discadia, there was a large and fertile valley, called Hythlos. The situation of the valley and its surrounding mountains was such that the climate was temperate, and the skies most often clear, with rain in sufficiency for agriculture falling usually at night. The mountain slopes were forested, and provided excellent opportunity for hunters. Through the valley ran a great river, the Copia, from which, at almost any time of the year, an abundance of fish could be obtained with little effort.

In the light of this fortunate situation, it is not surprising that the inhabitants of the valley were exceedingly prosperous, and because of a relatively modest expenditure of time devoted to achieving the necessities of life, were much advanced in the arts of painting, music, and poetry.

Their ruler, Harmonious Equality, was widely considered to be among the kindest of men, and was highly praised and revered by the inhabitants of Hythlos.

We should hasten to point out that the valley was by no means Utopian. The human condition is always subject to the circumstance of variability, and, of all gods, the great god Murphy is the most reliably consistent.

Thus, we should note that the inhabitants of the valley were of two disparate tribes. One, the Fatheads, were distinguished by a stolidity of frame and facial features. The other tribe, the Flatfoots, were remarkable for their large, flat feet. There were a few cultural differences: the Fatheads worshipped the God Normity, while the Flatfoots prayed to the God Size Eleven. The Fatheads tended to engage in  agriculture and music, the Flatfoots in hunting and painting. The Fatheads preferred a spicy salsa, while the palate of the Flatfoots seemed more compatible with mild.

Their ruler, Harmonious Equality, the kindest of men, was not entirely satisfied with the operation of his society. He was distressed to see, despite all the obvious benefits of the valley,  dissatisfaction, bickering, and dissension among his subjects. A Fathead might speak disparagingly of the cruelty of hunting, or a Flatfoot sneer at the effeminacy of agriculture. Harmonious Equality, the kindest of men, was appalled to encounter, even among schoolchildren, such epithets as "fatso," "ugly," "four eyes," or "stupid."

(Please see the initial article below, dated March 6.)

In writing the comments dated March 6 below, we found it necessary to do some minimal research on Google to get the names of the characters straight. Oddly, in our admittedly brief search, we found no reviews which referred to the symbolism in the film.

As Francis Bacon would say-- a mixture of complexity doth ever add pleasure. We were intrigued when, a couple of years ago, the CBC had a discussion of Catcher in the Rye which focussed entirely on the character of Holden Caulfield. No one even suggested that there was a symbolic structure to the novel.

Hmm. You really don’t understand poems like The Death of the Hired Man or novels like Catcher in the Rye unless you aware of the  symbolism.

We were not trying to read symbols into My Beautiful Laundrette when we saw part of the film the other night. But a little reflection brings up some possibilities.

The laundrette is in the title–so it’s not surprising that it’s the chief symbolic character. It is both transformed and transforming. The early immigrant, Nasser, peripherally connected to the drug trade, is the owner of a seedy and decrepit laundromat in a lower class part of Britain. His nephew, the "new" immigrant Omar, is symbolically blinded under the feet of Salim, the drug dealer–but his resulting clarity of vision does not lead him to take up drug-dealing: the drugs destined for Salim are diverted to an enterprise which cleans things up.

The laundrette is transformed by the "new" immigrant, Omar, and the reformed British thug, Johnny. It benefits both the immigrant, the thug, and the lower-class English neighbourhood where both characters live.

Johnny was once a member of the racist National Front–but one of his first tasks in the laundrette–in the new vision-- is to turf out some young disruptive boys–they are the potential thugs of the coming generation–and they have no place in the laundrette. The action is also a mirror to Johnny’s internal reform.

The chief interaction between the new immigrant culture and the reformed English culture is shown through the partnership of Omar and Johnny–and that partnership is symbolized by the laundrette. All the conflicts in the film but one take place outside the laundrette. No thug actually enters the building.

The Impulse to Fascism: Canada and 1984     Part II   

 February 12,    2011

Aldous Huxley, in his introduction to Brave New World, noted that the creation of Utopia involved making people love their servitude. It seems a reasonable proposition that living in an organized society does involve a certain amount of "servitude"– individual freedom must be sacrificed, in some measure, for the furthering of the common good.

We have always felt that capitalism does a fairly good job of making people love their servitude–because it harnesses the nearly universal human impulse towards competition and acquisition. Once people are hooked on having the television set, the automobile, the residence, and the envy of their neighbours, they can be organized, taxed and regulated to a significant degree.

In his novel, Huxley illustrated the potential of genetic manipulation, brain washing, and drugs in creating the desired acquiescence to servitude.

But the most common form of making people put up with their servitude is through fear. One could probably argue that fascism has been the predominant type of government throughout human history. We will not attempt too narrow a definition of fascism. We are using the term to suggest a rigid authoritarianism. We see it as a determined impulse to control citizens in their behaviour and thinking, in a manner which stifles dissent.

George Orwell’s Oceania of 1984–based in part on the repressive regimes of Hitler and Stalin-- is an illustration of the traditional use of fear –Party members are under constant surveillance, and live with the threat of being tortured and vapourized. But Huxley’s notion of the love of servitude is also present. The Party in Oceania wishes not merely behavioural compliance, but a control of the thought processes behind the compliance– a concept one associates with "re-education" techniques of Chinese Communism. The ultimate aim of the party is power, and the epitome of power is seen when citizens love their oppressor, Big Brother; thus, at the end of the novel, Winston Smith realizes, through his tears: "He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

In part, the Party achieves its aim of "making people love their servitude" by systematically destroying both history and language, by requiring a complete acceptance of an ever-changing "reality." In this way, citizens are kept mentally destabilized and perpetually vulnerable to the accusation of thoughtcrime. As O’Brien, the party Torturer says: "Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."

In his diary, Winston recognizes that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Thus freedom, in its essence, consists of being able to state the truth. The Party, of course, insists that the truth is variable, and is determined by the party. Under torture, Winston is made to realize that when O’Brien holds up four fingers–"Sometimes they are five, sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once."

We would note that truth seems to be losing popularity in Canada. It is not, apparently, a legitimate defense in a Human Rights Commission hearing.  Political Correctness is well established, and the term itself suggests that truth is being sacrificed to the greater good of inoffensiveness.

 Similarly, as we noted in Part I, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly a priority at Canadian Universities. Jennifer Lynch--Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is also less than completely enthusiastic:

"Freedom of expression is important because words and ideas have power. That power, while overwhelmingly positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality. It is for this reason that Canada, and many other nations, have enacted laws to limit forms of extreme hateful expression that have very minimal value in the free exchange of ideas, but do great harm to our fellow citizens."

Ezra Levant notes in Jennifer Lynch’s rage-filled speech in Montreal (June 22, 2009) that in the case Warman v. Lemire, commissioner "Dean Steacy testified that ‘freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.’"

Freedom of speech in Canada is best, apparently, when it isn’t-- well–actually free.

Similarly, in the Oceania of 1984, citizens must engage in doublethink–"a vast system of mental cheating." The slogans at the Ministry of Truth (which tells lies) are: WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

We will not laugh. In Canada, we are expected to believe that the imposition of quotas in hiring–is not discriminatory, but the benignly euphemistic "affirmative action." The "equity chairing" referred to in Part I below is, perhaps, the most brazen example of doublethink. And how can anyone who has seen the evidence possibly believe that Human Rights Commissions are concerned with real Human Rights? On the contrary, they are concerned with promoting the causes of complainants over the rights of defendants. A more accurate description would be Victimhood Advocacy Commissions.

One of the great concerns of the citizens of Oceania is that their thoughtcrimes not be revealed on their faces–this, of course, would be a facecrime. Sorry–we may be full of baloney here–but we cannot help but think of the panelists on The Agenda referred to in Part I. The topic of cultural stereotyping was such a "hot potato" – that all the participants, through a wooden-faced determination not to discuss the matter-- betrayed their anxiety.

In Canada, the young are brainwashed to believe in the orthodoxy of the day. The six-year-old in Laval is barred from a contest because he has a plastic lunchbag. There is no word as to whether he will turn in his parents to the Suzuki Foundation, but we would not be surprised. Students at a variety of Universities feel that their particular versions of Political Correctness justify their banning of sumo wrestling suits or preventing speakers from presenting views with which they do not agree.

The tendency towards fanatical idealism in the young–a sort of universal verity–seems not to have penetrated the consciousness of University officials.

In Oceania, Winston Smith’s job at the Ministry of Truth is the revision of history on a daily basis. A colleague, Ampleforth, was engaged in producing "garbled versions...of poems which had become ideologically offensive." We are not sure whether there are specific Canadian examples–there may well be--but the recent announcement of a new edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which changes the word "nigger" to "slave," is a fascinating example of the triumph of ideology over history.

Beyond the specific similarities--the use of doublethink, and ideological manipulation-- it has struck us that in both Oceania and Canada, there is a single-minded pursuit of an ideal. In Oceania the ideal is complete control–-the behaviour, thoughts, emotions-- of citizens. Despite the ending of the novel-- which Orwell uses to impress on us the dangers of Big Brotherism-- this aim is not actually achievable. As Dostoevsky noted: "a man is not a piano key."

Not surprisingly, the single-minded pursuit of power is costly. "Power tends to corrupt," as Lord Acton noted, "and absolute Power corrupts absolutely." Thus, in Oceania, freedom, justice, truth, even sanity itself are sacrificed to the pursuit of power.

In Canada there is also a single-minded pursuit of a more admirable* goal: the equality of citizens. Much as we might applaud the intent, we would note that, like complete power, equality is not achievable. A man is not a piano key.

The difficulty arises when equality becomes the greatest good, and merit, truth, justice and freedom are sacrificed in the doomed struggle to attain it.

The sacrifices in Canada are not inconsiderable. The Health Care System reduces the freedom of patients; Landlord and Tenant legislation favours tenants and discriminates against Landlords; Human Rights Commissions care nothing for the rights of the accused-- their aim is to advance the circumstance of those who perceive themselves as victims; government hiring practices ignore merit in order to favour some groups over others; universities uphold the notion that certain ideas should not be debated, and free speech should be inhibited; "equity chairing" is doublethink for discriminatory chairing; parking spaces are to be allocated--regardless of private contract-- by the government according to the obesity and determination of the applicants; truth is devalued as an insufficient defense--people have a "right" never to have their feelings hurt.

We can hardly resist noting the pursuit of an impossible ideal has a long history; possibly it is an natural human tendency.

Religion, as we see it, is in constant battle with reality-- and the nature of human nature-- in the pursuit of an idealized and impossible goal. How truly silly seem the Canadian Catholic bishops pontificating from their ivory and asexual tower that sex should be approached with a "purity of mind as well as body."

Have they never talked with Crazy Jane? She seems a bit more realistic. According to W.B. Yeats, (Crazy Jane talks to the Bishop):

'Fair and foul are near of kin/ And fair needs foul,' she cries, indelicately noting: ‘Love has pitched his mansion in/ The place of excrement.’

The Landscape -- a background of fascism linked to "benefits."

As noted elsewhere, a certain element of authority must be present in order to keep the trains running on time. Freedom can never be absolute. But Canadians seem to accept intrusions on their personal liberty–for their own good, of course–which those in other countries do not.

1. The Health Care System has the admirable intention of making health care accessible to all citizens equally. But it suffers from the problems of all centrally-planned government programs: it doesn’t work very well. Allocation of resources is best done through free markets. When governments limit the number of doctors, and mandate that ONLY the government system can be used, extended wait times, lack of innovation, and loss of freedom of choice are the result. People do actually die, neglected, in emergency waiting rooms. And, as we have noted many times in the past, the much-vaunted “equality” in the system is entirely chimerical. Those people who are dying in emergency rooms do not have names like Jean Chrétien, or Adrienne Clarkson--nor do they play for the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

The free market system, of course, has its limitations: there will always be those who are unable to function in a such a system. It is those to whom government assistance should be directed.

But the subject of the Health Care System and its obvious failings are not widely discussed. Certainly, among politicians, it seems to be a taboo subject. It is seen as integral to Canadians’ sense of their identity. More is the pity. Egregious is the stupidity.

 

2. Canada has a fondness for rent controls and landlord-tenant legislation. The impulse is the same as that behind the Health Care System: to provide accommodation for all at reasonable cost. The effect has been to create an adversarial relationship between landlords and tenants, to inhibit the provision of rental units, and to enhance and support one of the notable features of the Canadian landscape: the victimhood industry. An article in the National Post (December 7, 2010) by Iman sheikh notes some of the wonders of Ontario’s Legislation:

(a) A tenant can allow anyone to move into his unit indefinitely.

(b) A tenant does not have to provide a damage deposit. It is up to the landlord to pursue the tenant in Small Claims Court if damage is discovered. Tenants do not have to give forwarding addresses, making it difficult to serve papers.

( c) Leases restricting pets are not enforceable. Toronto municipal laws allow up to six dogs, cats,  ferrets, rabbits or combination thereof.

(d) Tenants can delay hearings for non payment of rent repeatedly.

(e) A tenant can disrupt proceedings with claims of deficiency in his unit–he does not even have to inform the landlord before the hearing. We can vouch for the fact that such claims do not have to be true. We once had a tenant who claimed, during a dispute, that his refrigerator was "not cold enough," and the water pressure "not high enough." Both these vague claims were completely untrue--by any reasonable standard--but money had to be spent to prove this. The motivation of the tenant was entirely malicious.

(f) Repeatedly asking for rent can be considered "harassment."

Another personal experience dates from the 1980's when an Ontario Liberal government passed a law which mandated approval by a government board of any rents set after an apartment had been renovated. This legislative change was not publicized, and doubtless many small landlords were caught in the trap: amoral tenants requesting a roll- back in rent because the landlord had not, through ignorance, complied with the law. Once a short deadline had passed, the landlord could make no request for an increase in the rent--EVER.

There are more tenants than landlords, and so, from a political point of view, landlords are easy and tempting targets.

Food is just as important as shelter. We suspect that it is only the complexity of enforcement that has prevented food price controls...a lamentable impediment to the fascist impulse.

3. A "good cause" may often justify a curtailment of freedom–seat-belt legislation comes to mind. But reasonableness does not seem to be a requirement. In what sort of culture is it possible for the enviro-fascist, David Suzuki, supposedly a scientist, to call for the imprisonment of legislators who do not agree with his environmental concerns? (National Post, February 7, 2008.) And what are we to make of the case of the six-year-old in Laval, Quebec, who was denied participation in a school contest because he had a plastic bag in his lunch? (National Post, January 31, 2011.)

4. It is well known that “affirmative action” policies are in place in government and University fields of employment. In other words, Governments and Universities interfere with normal market forces in order to impose their vision of “equality.”



 

2. Another case (October, 2009–but in the news February, 2011)) involved a human rights commission which ordered Maxcine Telfer to pay Seema Saadi $36,000, for firing Ms. Saadi after six weeks of employment. Ms. Saadi claimed victimhood on the grounds that she was discriminated against for cooking foul-smelling food in the microwave, and wearing a hijab. The Commission apparently ignored the fact that Ms Saadi visited the desks and used the computers of others. Ms. Telfer, unable to pay, had a lien put on her home, and was in danger of losing it until the Ontario Superior court struck down the ruling and stopped the seizure.

An editorial in the National Post of February 7,  notes some general flaws in such cases:

a) Complainants have their legal fees paid, while defendants pay their own.
(b) There is no downside for complainants–it is a risk-free way of pursuing a grudge.

To this we would add:

(c) There appears to be no penalty for making false or frivolous claims.
(d) Commission proceedings do not have to recognize certain legal rules of procedure.
(e) truth is not a defense for an accused; nor is any compensation made for the falsely accused.

3. Next, we can hardly overlook an incident drawn to our attention by Jonathan Kay in a recent column in the National Post. (January 21, 2011). At a panel discussion at the University of Toronto, a moderator announced that she would take questions from the floor using “equity chairing.” By this is meant–apparently–that preference would be given to “women, people of colour, and queers.” Is this not the triumph of equality fascism, whereby the notion that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” can be delivered without a trace of irony?

4. By far the most worrying circumstances are those which inhibit freedom of expression. Oddly enough, these circumstances often involve Canadian Universities.

For example, in March of 2010, Francis Houle, University of Ottawa’s academic vice-president sent the following letter to American Ann Coulter, who was to give a speech at the University:

“I hereby encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here,”

“Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

The speech was, in fact, cancelled.

5. Indeed, the same thing happened to Christie Blatchford in November of 2010. She was scheduled to speak at the University of Waterloo to discuss her book Helpless about the failure of the rule of law in Caledonia, but was prevented from doing so by student protesters and pusillanimous University officials.


6. We were most amused the other day (February 3) to watch a segment on The Agenda in which there was a discussion of difficulties experienced by immigrants in adapting to Canadian society. At some point, the question was asked–"does the Chinese culture which stresses education and hard work–enable Chinese to prosper in our society?" On the faces of all the panelists–or so we imagined–a horrified scuttling was immediately evident. To assent to such a notion, would, you see, be an example of cultural–indeed probably racial stereotyping. Cultural stereotyping–in spite of the fact that everyone does it–is a terrible social crime. One of the august panel admitted that it might be one of many other factors–but the others seemed not to wish to deal with the notion in any way. We imagine that they were fervently praying that the uncomfortable moment would soon pass. The human tendency to generalize--the English are reserved, the Scots thrifty, the Americans patriotic, the Canadians politically correct--must now be censored, lest the generalizations be perceived as hateful, or discriminatory. This, surely, represents the internalization of a fascist view of free speech.

7. Yet another example of this internalization was shown on the same program–around the same time–in a discussion of forbidden words. Steve Paikin, the moderator,  noted that two of the panelists had carefully refrained from using the word “nigger”– despite the fact that two black panelists seemed to have no trouble using the awful word. One lady admitted that the word was so distressing that she could not bring herself to pronounce it.

It is not surprising that, when an atmosphere has been created such that people are terrified of saying the “wrong thing,” and being hauled before a human rights commission, the fascist impulse becomes internalized. It is fascinating that the word itself–not just the manner of its use-has acquired the taboo status which we would expect to find only in a primitive society.

Well, we have written overmuch. Tomorrow, if we have the strength, we will deal with the relevance of all this to George Orwell’s 1984.


 

What is Truth, said Jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. (Francis Bacon, 1561-1626)

On February 2, Steve Paikin interviewed Mohammed Fadel, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. Mr. Fadel, although he was not raised in Egypt, has visited, the country, is of Egyptian background, and has relatives there.

We were not surprised to hear Mr. Fadel approve of the protests against the government of Hosni Mubarak, by all accounts a corrupt dictatorship. We were particularly struck with his optimism about the eventual outcome. In the absence of foreign intervention, he saw the Egyptians as having a "sophisticated civil society" with "competent, well trained and well educated" individuals who would be able to achieve a more democratic form of government. While he saw Islamic elements as having a rôle in a new regime, he did not see them as gaining control.

In the Saturday edition of the National Post (February 5), Lawrence Solomon notes that the Egyptian idea of democracy may be rather different from our own. The country has experienced only dictatorships in the last 5,000 years. He states:

2. Nearly three quarters want to see "strict imposition of Sharia law."

3. More than half want men and women segregated in the workplace.

4. 82% want adulterers to be stoned.

5. 77% view whippings and cutting off of hands as proper punishment for theft.

6. 84% favour the death penalty for Muslims who leave their faith.

7. 91% want to keep "Western values out of Islamic countries."

8. 67% want "to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate."

We do not know the source of the polls quoted by Mr. Solomon; nor do we have any way of assessing their accuracy. But we do know that democracy is a form of government that has evolved over many centuries, and while there are many elements in human nature that work in its favour, there are many elements that are inimical to its success. It appears to be not so much a dandelion, which spreads easily, and at will, but rather, an orchid that needs benign soil, favourable climate, and judicious care.

We are not optimistic.

(An authoritative View)

In a recent (January 21) column in the National Post, Lorne Gunter admits that his customary faith in police has been shaken by a series of incidents with which most readers will be familiar–the Dziekanski tasering and the Tavares face kicking are most prominent in our mind–but Mr. Gunter lists several others.

As a counter to these events, Mr. Gunter mentions the death of Toronto Police Sgt. Ryan Russell–the circumstances of which "remind us that most police officers remain solid members of our communities who put their lives on the line to protect us and our safety."

We confess that we also have a more skeptical view of the police than ever before, and are led to speculate on the causes.

The first, no doubt, is simply a matter of available perception. This is the age of the video and cell phone cameras. It is almost certainly true that many ugly incidents in the past simply never came to light because there was no visual evidence.

Indeed, one might argue that a certain percentage of the population has a propensity for bullying others, and that the policing is more likely to attract such people than would – for example-- interior design.

But we would not be surprised if a general movement away from the acceptance of authority has played a rôle. In an earlier, simpler era, (we are thinking here of the 1940's and 50's) there was more deference towards authority. People knew less, and obeyed more. We remember playing tag during recess in an elementary schoolyard (Ryerson Public School in London Ontario) and inadvertently straying onto the girls’ side of the playground. It was made clear that this breech of the rules represented a violence against decency, a betrayal of the principle of order, and, quite probably, a subversion of all that was human, and much that was divine.

Doctors, who, in those days, did not prescribe statin drugs, and did not seem so often to be the tools of large pharmaceutical companies-- were often comfortingly authoritarian, and seldom questioned.

Even politicians–perhaps because they were responsible for the life-and-death decisions of the Second World War– were seen–on a scale of trustworthiness--as significantly above used car salesmen.

Religion, was, of course, more highly regarded. Since the authority of religion is based on nothing more than hope, supposition, and good intentions, it is susceptible to terrible distortions, and can cause more misery than it alleviates. The decline of this authority is a "good thing."

We ourselves were, at one time, in the unenviable job of teaching High School students. When it became clear that the hierarchy had been reversed-- the student was the most powerful entity, (followed by parents) and the teacher was the least-- we picked up our marbles and refused to play.

It would not surprise us if the police, feeling despised and powerless, sometimes inappropriately express their frustration. Insecurity may lead to a mindless enforcement of the law when it is obviously a really stupid thing to do. It may seem better to follow the letter of the law in order to avoid criticism, than act with the confidence of common sense. The David Chen and Ian Thomson cases may be examples. Such responses by the police of course, only exacerbate the downward spiral of respect.

The problem of authority is a tricky one. It is necessary to have enough to prevent chaos, and as little as possible to be consistent with our desire for freedom. Authority can provide a sense of security. Living under a lot of authority can be quite pleasant, as long as you don’t tread on important toes. We  are sure many were quite happy under Saddam Hussein–or Attila the Hun. But a lot of arbitrary authority is not the solution, since freedom is the losing element.

Our own view is that there is too little authority in the lives of the young. The schools of today, having retreated from the enforcement of petty rules, now encounter problems with guns, knives, and assaults. The failure, of course is that the religious concept of "original sin" has been entirely discredited, and has been replaced with a folly more egregious-- the belief in the inherent goodness of mankind. A more accurate perception of the nature of reality would, we suggest, provide a greater authority and sense of security in the lives of the young. We are not opposed to the challenging of authority–it should be susceptible to reasonable test. But challenges to authority in society at large are likely to be more reasoned and reasonable when rooted in an underlying sense of order.

The solution, as with so many other things, is some happy middle ground. The important thing is that authority be based on the most reasonable apprehension of reality, especially the reality of human nature. Authority based on the whim of a ruler, or a tradition based on fantasy will not likely long endure. Nor will the authority of Human Rights Commissions which attempt to create paradisal situations in which lives are led free from offense, insult, or inconvenience–since this aim is inconsistent with the realities of human nature, and the human circumstance. Authority based on attempts to enforce some reasonable approximation of "peace, order, and good government*" seems most likely to garner respect, and to endure.

*The devil is in the details.

"May God give you 74 to marry. We want the virgins of paradise, not the ones here." Thus reads an e-mail to Sayfildin Tahir Sharif, a 38-year-old Iraqi Canadian from a prospective suicide bomber in Tunisia. Sharif, who lives in Edmonton, (and who has now been arrested and is fighting extradition to the U.S.) responds: "You come short, brother. God is more generous than that. It’s supposed to be 76 instead." (Hamilton Spectator, January 21, 2011)

We do think that this discussion between two Islamic plotters is worrying. When one of the chief motivations for suicide bombers is a specific number of after-life virgins, we think it a matter of urgency that the number be definitively established. To allow this sort of fuzziness about the matter calls into question the validity of the whole concept.

We recall with some trepidation that the translation of ancient texts has, on rare occasions, involved significant distortions of meaning.

In the event that a successful suicide bomber were to be greeted by a single 72, 74, or 76-year-old virgin, we imagine that his disappointment would be considerable. It behooves the Islamic suicide bomber community to investigate this matter at once, and arrive at some definitive conclusions.

As noted in our Diary of this Date, we are puzzled that Keegan Resources has been drilling on their Asumura Project for eight months, with no word on results. These results are, apparently, "backed up at the lab." This may be true, but, after eight months, it seems unlikely. We have dark suspicions that those providing $185 million of new funds at the low price of $7.50 per share have knowledge that has been withheld from shareholders. If not–this is what must have happened:

Scene 1

A paneled conference room at Moneybags and Moneybags Inc. (You’re in the hash–we got the cash.) Only three of the dozen richly upholstered chairs around the highly polished walnut table are occupied. Mr. Money and Mr. Bags are both men in their fifties; they appear confident and very fit–they probably work out at the gym daily and run marathons on the weekend. The third chair is occupied by K. Rep, an amiable younger man. The atmosphere is convivial.

Mr. Money: So you’re looking for about a hundred million?

K. Rep: Yes, that should about do it.

Mr. Bags: For the usual corporate purposes, I suppose.

K. Rep: That is correct.

Mr. Money: Well, everything seems to be in order. We do, of course, require you to sign this affidavit. It reads: "Everything is fine, as far as I know."

Mr. Bags: Oh, and one other thing–what’s happening at Asumura? Haven’t you been drilling there for about eight months?

Mr. Money: Gosh and Darn! Don’t you hate it when that happens?

Mr. Bags: You too! You may have noticed I’m wearing this old shawl and a pair of panty-hose. All my suits are backed up at the dry cleaners. Not a damn thing I can do about it!

Mr. Money: I think it’s a bit of an epidemic. Why do you think I’m wearing this pony-tail? There’s a line-up around the block at my barber’s. They say they’ll call me if it gets to less than half a block.

Mr. Bags: Holy Cow! But maybe, just to be on the safe side, we should amend the affidavit to read: "Everything is fine, as far as I know, and the results at Asumura are backed up at the lab." By the way, we could let you have $185 million, if you like.

K. Rep. (Signing) Sounds good to me.

The three men rise, shake hands, and leave the room.

My aim every day
Is to mean what I say
And always be seen
To say what I mean.

(Does not apply to politicians.)

   (January 10, 2011--but written much earlier.  See Diary of this Date.)

A consideration of powerful words.

Language is the great separator. It separates us, to a considerable extent, from the animals. It was a powerful tool for separating -- at first, we must imagine--things-- and then concepts and ideas; now it allows us to construct our own patterns of thought and imaginary worlds.

Words are not equal. One must imagine that the caveman equivalent of "I’m going to kill you," had considerably more impact than "Are we having rabbit again for supper?" or "I think I’m having a bad fur day."

One must suppose that there is something in human nature which is drawn to making of words which are marvellously powerful–words which are taboo–which name the Thing That Must Not Be Spoken–or–at least–spoken only by a very select group, or under certain circumstances.

In our society, there are powerful passwords and code words which allow us into the children’s fort, designate a secret mission, or enable us to get money at the bank–and these are carefully kept secret. Then there are words which are religious or sexual taboos. It has been pointed out that, as religion declines, the force of "blasphemous" words also declines. Much can be said about a society from an examination of the words which are considered taboo.

Currently, it would appear, the most powerful words are those terms which are considered insults, and which are based on an irremediable condition. We have all observed the frantic euphemisation of the terms applied to those with physical disabilities. While the term "crippled civilians" was in common use in my childhood, the word "crippled" has become, largely, taboo. I’m not sure whether "disabled" was next, but certainly "handicapped" has given way to "physically challenged," and "differently abled" –these last two terms yielding many results if you would care to google them. We can confidently expect that these terms will also prove uncomfortable –reality is often at odds with our preferences– and we will see such terms as--well--I was going to say "alternatively abled" – but I see it has already been thought of. Well, how about "triumphantly abled," or "functionally successful," or "achievementally admirable"?

Believe me, I do appreciate your delicacy. The genesis of this little essay was a reflection on our ability to change the power of insulting words, to blunt their destructive effects. I was much struck, a few years ago, on reading the account of a the prominent son of a prominent black Canadian, who, apparently, told his son: "Never let anyone call you a nigger."

At the time I considered the advice to be monumentally ill-advised. How much better, I thought, was my mother’s repetition of the old adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Not true, perhaps, but at least a start in the right direction. My advice to the son would be: "Son, if anyone calls you a nigger, sneer at him with all the malice you can muster and call him a "flapdoodle" –or–even better– a pièce de résistance, or an omphaloskeptic. These terms are virtually meaningless in the context, but they will suggest you know a hell of a lot more than he does."

Probably even better, is to examine the approach of homosexuals. Instead of getting angry at terms considered pejorative, and thus making themselves VULNERABLE to insult, they have claimed the terms as their own. Quick–a word association test --what is the first thing you think of when you hear the word "gay"? I would be very surprised if you didn’t say "pride." And what about "queer?" The word has been enthusiastically claimed in slogans such as "We’re queer! We’re here! Get used to it!"

Well, I’ll leave it up to you. What is the best way of dealing with insults to those with irremediable conditions? Are queers smarter than niggers? How about a comparable mantra: "I’m a nigger, I’m a nigger–I'm way cooler than you figure?"

Now that we have become used to inappropriately lethal tasering and unwarranted face-kicking by the RCMP, it appears that the dreaded Mountius Mentalis Contradictus, or Security Force Schizophrenia is beginning to pose additional problems. We quote two paragraphs from a news item in the January 7^th edition of the National Post:

"On Aug. 25, the RCMP and Ottawa Police arrested two Ottawa men–Hiva Mohammed Alizadeh, Misbahuddin Ahmed–suspected of conspiring with others in Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit terrorism....

The next day, Aug. 26, the RCMP and city police staged an hour-long meeting with members of Ottawa’s Muslim community with the ostensible purpose of ensuring that their community was not regarded with undue suspicion despite the arrests. However, at least one officer was heard apologizing during the meeting for the arrests having occurred during Ramadan, which last year ran from Aug. 12 to September 9."

We anticipate the following item from Forward News:

Consequently, from this day forth, the RCMP will make arrests only on June 5th, and October 7^th in regular years, and additionally on February 29 in leap years. It is only in this way that we can avoid arrests on days of religious holiday, celebration, and observance. We anticipate full co-operation from the religious faiths involved in forbidding their members to contravene any Canadian Laws, excepting on those days.

On June 5^th, October 7th, and February 29^th in Leap Years, the public may be well-assured that the RCMP will deploy an increased number of personnel, including equine (rear end), electronic zapper, and face-boot divisions, and will prosecute law-breakers of any religious affiliation without fear or favour.

It is anticipated that these measures will be applauded by Human Rights Commissions and Progressive Liberal Canadians from sea to conciliatory sea."

Following the announcement, Chief Superintendent Idjit declined to take questions, noting that the Druidical Holiday of Mystical Sunset was fast approaching, and an Explanatory Press Conference would be considered intrusive and defamatory by the significant Druidical community.

The cause of mankind might be considerably advanced, were the word "God" (or Allah, Jehovah, etc.) which has been so strongly personified, be replaced with the more neutral term Mystery. Thus, God–a  handy, unthinking term for first cause--a straw man on a stick dressed convincingly in long robes-- the easy, but meaningless answer (but who made the scarecrow, daddy?) to the grand question: where does the universe come from–is better expressed as-- Mystery.

The creation of the universe--well it's a Mystery.

And how much less compelling it is to argue: The Mystery abhors condoms, denigrates women, approves of torture to compel belief, or is in favour of killing the infidel? How would we know? It’s a Mystery.

Hmm. Perhaps Unfathomable Mystery would be even better. Absolute Mystery, Complete Mystery, and Utter Mystery are also good.

Absolute, Unfathomable, Complete and Utter Mystery: "Go forth and do my bidding."

Humankind: Excuse us! Do we know you?