None of the Above?

So, if Angus Reid were to call me today, and ask, "If a federal election were held today, which party would you vote for?", the interviewer would be faced with a long pause, followed by "None of the Above?"

"So, you are undecided?"

"No, I am decided, and I don't want to vote for any of the federal parties."

Having been a loyal federal Liberal all my voting life, I nevertheless find myself unable to vote for any party led by Stephane Dion. He was elected as an agent of change and principle by the Liberal youth vote, and his first change was to remove the spine from the federal Liberal party. His decisions to vote up or down a bill is not based on whether or not the bill would forward Liberal principles, but only on whether or not he thinks (at that very moment) the Liberal party can win the next election. By abstaining, the Liberals are allowing laws to pass that they don't feel are good laws. So much for being a man of principle. At this point, the federal Liberal platform is meaningless because they aren't willing to advance with any sort of seriousness for fear they might have to face the voters.

My next option is to vote Conservative. At the provincial level, I have voted PC for at least the last two elections, because Dalton has done nothing to convince me that he isn't a typical lying, evasive politician. John Tory at least seems willing to work with the governnment to pass legislation that he feels are good for Ontarians (such as the TTC back to work order). (I know, I know, they voted for their pay raise, but at least they voted on principle, even if it means pissing the voters off).

But Stephen Harper is a different type of conservative. He advocates accountability, but limits the press' ability to ask questions to his MPs and staff. He advocates transparency of government, but even the auditor general feels that his new laws in this area would hide things like Ad-Scam due to the numerous new loopholes it creates. And boy, does he love loopholes. Just look at the "In-and-out" scandal. The official position is, "We didn't do anything wrong because we interpreted election law differently". Wow.

I can't bring myself to vote for any political party, at any level, led by Jack Layton. I danced the Lotto 6/49 Happy Dance when Olivia Chow lost in Spadina Centre.

Greens? Maybe, but voting for a one issue party is bound to bring nasty surprises.

So, to summarize:
Liberals - not willing to stand up for their principles
Conservatives - lives too much by the "do what I say, not what I do" principle
NDP - ABJ (anyone but Jack)
Greens - a party where everyone wants to be the environment minister doesn't make a good government

Miller Time

When the going gets tough -- the tough get going. And sometimes, when the going gets really tough -- the tough get really gone.

During the toughest negotiation Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union has faced, Mayor David Miller got himself gone all the way to China. Then, returning just when a strike-averting agreement was being reached, Miller somehow managed becoming situated as if he’d saved the day.

Union president Bob Kinnear, for instance, had some suspicions the day got saved by Miller. Though uncertain how transit strike was averted entirely by Miller, Kinnear must have had profound suspicions when saying,

I think it's evident the mayor did get involved. If it wasn't the mayor, somebody from city hall sent a new directive.

But Mayor Miller is far too modest, smart or magnanimous to accept such false credit. Mayor Miller stomps false credit down flat. Insists it was TTC negotiators that did the bargaining. And not just this time around. All that credit Miller got for TTC strike-averting 3 years ago when speaking directly to Kinnear? Ayup. Miller stomped it all flatter’n shoe-paste. Said it amounted to a five-minute phone call in which he merely asked the union leader to go back to the table. Which phone call he could as easily have made from China. Maybe even called collect -- as a cost-cutting measure.

Goes to show how well we do without Mayor Miller when the going really gets tough in Greater Toronto. Heck. Some might say we’d do far better without. But here’s the thing. They’re having a rough go of it in China. Falling over themselves, tumbling all over the world stage. Yet they listen to Mayor Miller in China. In China, it might be singularly when Miller raises Tibet human rights issues that the rights message gets clearly heard.

That’s where our Mayor can do the most good. In China -- not in Greater Toronto. Seriously. He could tell Chinese partisans how, despite being for human rights in Tibet, the West is absolutely not against China. How fascinated by Chinese capitalism we are in the West -- having not ourselves experienced capitalism so unrestrained since the English industrial revolution. How, despite always rejecting communism, we have become far more socialist in the West than in China. What embarrassment demonizing the Dalai Lama is for China. What shame abducting Panchen Lama -- world’s youngest political prisoner -- brings to China. What humiliation staging anti-Western protests constitutes for China. As if nobody knew what happens to unauthorized protest rallies in China. Come on, Chinese partisans -- there's no staging anything that inept without laugh-tracks.

Most of all, Miller should venture Canadian help and expertise when it comes to Tibet. China would do well to seek Canadian advice instead of silence. Because China’s sovereignty issues can’t hold either water or candles relative to Canada’s. Chinese partisans would not be called upon to permit referenda -- as in Canada. Chinese partisans would never have to seriously negotiate land claims -- as in Canada. None of the above. All Tibetans seek is some cultural autonomy. Come on, Chinese partisans -- what's the big deal? Relative to Canada’s sovereignty issues, China’s can be walked through parks off-leash most sunny days.

They really listen to Mayor Miller in China. In China, Mayor Miller gets clearly heard. So never mind talking to Dalai Lama -- since no way would Chinese partisans listen to anything he’d have to say. Never mind releasing Panchen Lama –- who’s not likely talking or even breathing by now. It’s Mayor Miller Chinese partisans should be talking and listening to. Some quality Miller time might chill them right out. And if Greater Toronto gets lost without him -- we’re just a phone call away. Toronto would never hang up on Miller -- not even if he did call collect.

Miller overlooking Great Wall of China screenshot from here.

dis-Junction

Back when I first moved to the Junction -- 20 years ago -- no one ever called it that. None had heard of any Junction. And even if they had, residents would never have called it that. Not for love nor for money.

Back then, reference had to be roundabout. Indirect. Oblique. This was Bloor-West -- North. Or High-Park -- West. In events of direst emergency, it became Annette Village. Dire emergencies as when clients confronted real-estate agents with: “You mean it’s (gasp) north of Annette?”

Like some geographic sore spot or socio-economic canker, it was way too unmentionable to rate its own designation. Blemishes seldom get personalized nameplates.

Then, suddenly, everything changed. Everything that mattered. First, the City finally repealed its prohibition against alcohol in the Junction. The economically devastating prohibition lingering in the Junction until 1997. Which meant that instead of lurching along Dundas West, guzzling from paper bags, I could actually sit myself down at excellent neighbourhood pubs. Like Axis, for instance -- where nobody knows my name but they’re damn friendly anyway.


Axis: among first and best post-prohibition Junction watering-holes.

Second thing that really changed in the Junction was when the City installed spectacular-looking, historically relevant light posts all along Dundas West. All the way from Keele to Runnymede. Reminding everyone how great the Junction used to be -- late in the 19th century.


One light to remember the Junction’s better days by.

Now, the Junction has become almost idyllic. People boast living here -- despite what traces of old economic sores remain. Despite how, in the Junction, all sides used to be wrong of the tracks.

Tough either quantifying or qualifying such transformation. Once, Dundas West was considered fraught and hazardous. Now, biking back from downtown during rush-hour, one feels nothing but relieved crossing Keele. Motor vehicles make some room. Instead of swerving around parked-car doors opening in one’s face, smiles are exchanged with motorists waiting until one’s safely passed by. And it’s been quite a while since I’ve heard the fear of walking Dundas West after sundown expressed. Day or night, people seem to flock this way.

That’s what really struck me a couple days back. How flocking to Dundas West might be getting a bit ridiculous. See, this building got knocked down between Keele and Pacific. Then, instead of new building, there was this sort-of stage erected on that lot.


Some sort of stage.

The other day, on this sort-of stage, there were people in top-hats and bonnets. Also, a crowd gathered round watching. A rather large crowd. So large that I roller-bladed the periphery of it spilling into the street.


Spilling in the streets.

Turned out to be guided-tourism. No doubt by the Junction Historical Society. Got me curious enough to rush home, dump roller-blades, grab camera, hop on bicycle and rush back. What I wanted to know was this: would tourism-guides point out sores and cankers remaining from the Junction’s bad old days? Or would focus get restricted to the Junction’s more ancient, spectacular history -- and the new, so much improved look?

There are plenty sore spots remaining. Architectural restoration and improvements along Dundas West of Keele shoulder tight against a century’s dilapidated neglect and dereliction. Certainly some business survives -- even prospers. Yet, despite famously cheap rents, there linger legacies of the ghost-town this used to be. Commercial activity still fails so predictably and repeatedly here -- storefronts get boarded up and papered over just about more often than not.

Listening in best I could -- nothing said about the bad old days. How residue from those days still lingers. Ancient history? Heaps. Everything new and improved? Loads. The days in between and reasons how bad those were? Nothing I could hear.


As if the ghost of McBride Cycles weren't looming right there.


Strenuously ignoring commercial ghost across from McBride's.

There's so much remaining to ignore in the Junction. Historic tourist-guiding must demand real careful stepping. Almost like around open graves in otherwise splendid grave-yards.


Spectres of a former Handyman's..


Of a former Upholsterer's..


Even the long-abandoned corpse of an overly Hasty Market.

That’s why I’m so not into history. Including the Junction’s. Because how often history seems to mean the mistakes we’re bound to repeat.

Failing Economics II

Hey -- what’s with the partial nudity?

That’s just how Robert Nadeau regards economists. Because, according to his recent article in Scientific American, economists are scientifically ignorant. That’s why, on his view,

Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts to solve environmental problems.

Essentially, Nadeau’s argument isn’t that economic theories are inconsistent. Only absurdly incomplete. As if mainstream economists were describing nothing but straight narrow portions of spectacularly long winding roads. Thus, particularly when it comes to ecological impacting, economists mislead us. Their theories can’t lead us anywhere we need to go.

Economic theories are misleading rather than explanatory due to how absurdly incomplete they are. Nadeau is calling for economic upgrades:

Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet. It is imperative that economists devise new theories that will take all the realities of our global system into account.

Some economists might not take Nadeau’s threat to tinker economics lying down, though. “Bender”, for instance, commented that,

In an article purportedly discussing economic analysis and environmental policy neither externality nor externalities ever appeared! I don’t know which is more depressing, that someone could be stupid and ignorant enough to produce this tripe or that the Scientific American has sunk so low as to publish it.

How pedantic. That's exactly what Nadeau's talking about -- how overwhelming economic externalities like ecology are getting. But Nadeau not utilising the specific terms “Bender” recognizes resulted in “Bender” utterly missing Nadeau’s point. Standard economic theories mislead us precisely because environmental crisis constitutes such overwhelming externality.

Nadeau’s right, of course. We are rushing full steam and toxic waste to being overwhelmed. Not just economically.

But should economists seek to internalize theoretically and factually overwhelming externalities like environmental crisis? No. By no means. Absolutely not. There is no economic solution to our problems. Rather, let’s better appreciate how limited and incomplete economic theories are -– and let’s start looking way past economics for what it means to be more natural. What it means to be at all natural.

Can we do that? Toronto living is just about the most economically affluent anywhere –- ever. We expect some economic turbulence ahead. Will we be willing to look past it –- for what it means to be more natural? Or do we remain forever fixated on economic maximizing -- regardless how affluent we get? Regardless the cost to everything natural so precariously remaining?

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Screenshot from here.

This Browser Officially Hijacked

This is what you’ll see when your household exceeds the bandwidth quota allotted by Rogers.

You’ll be sure to see it. Rogers will hijack your browser and show it to you.

And your browser window will wind up looking like this:


But I refused to believe it this morning when it happened to me. What -- over 60 gigs? Just in March? No way. I monitor every last drop of bandwidth percolating through the router. No way.

That’s what I said when I finally got through that crazy voice recognition system of Rogers’. No way.

“Well,” replied their living and breathing tech support fellow, “what does your record show?”

“20 gigs -– give or take a few,” I growled. All indignant.

So we compared daily bandwidth records. And it turned out I was totally wrong. The 20 gigs I’d been looking at? Corresponded with the last 10 days’ use. Only.

“Alright, fine,” I relented. “But how confident are you guys in tracking everyone’s bandwidth? And what will you do when individuals dispute your readings? How will you resolve that?”

“Pretty confident,” he said. “We’ve been testing the hell out of it. Of course, computers do make mistakes. And in such cases, customers self-tracking their bandwidth will stand a good chance of getting credited.”

“Ok, but why do it at all?” I asked. “Didn’t your high-speed customers sign up for unlimited use?”

“We have no choice,” he replied. “We pay for bandwidth and now it’s getting to the point where some customers are using 200 gigs. More even. That’s what’s wrecked it for everyone else.”

Ok. Fair enough. But still. The link provided by Rogers to view one’s bandwidth usage -- rogers.com/keepingpace –- is not accessible. In fact, Rogers’ website has been down all day. How to trust Rogers’ bandwidth tracking everyone –- when Rogers can’t even keep their own website up?

I’ll keep right on self-tracking, thank you. And this whole browser hijacking thing? I’ll have to think about that some more. Because, going by first impressions –- it just seems like some sort of security nightmare. But first, I’m gon’na find out who’s been abusing the torrents @ my household last month. That’s one mystery won’t require much brilliance detecting.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

p.s.: Are there any decent providers left -- or is the whole virtual universe getting chocked by Bell "traffic shaping"? Anyone know -- Carolyn, Richard?

Beyond Ignorance and Understanding

Not long ago, I wrote that we clash cultures while the world plunges to climate-change hell in burning hand-baskets.

Sure there might be some hoping for the future -- if only human beings bothered understanding cultural principles and ideologies better. Cultural principles and ideologies defining who people are -- and who the enemies of the people are. Because then, just maybe, we might start bridging gaps between ourselves and cultural others by discourse -- rather than plugging them with bullets.

But better understanding is not enough. If cultural ignorance of self and others escalates conflicts, let’s absolutely struggle against ignorance. What to do, though, when hatred precedes mis-understanding? When the hatred precedes and surpasses all ignorance? When we set out to genocide cultural others -- knowing full-well what we set out to do?

That’s what I was confronted with on Thursday while at York University. How hatred has a life and death wish all its own. Surpassing both ignorance and understanding.

First there was the Toronto Star article about China’s ambassador to Canada accusing Dalai Lama of “telling lies to the world” and masterminding violence in Tibet. Lu Shumin actually expects us to believe the Dalai Lama is some sort of lying, violent devil. That the Dalai Lama just pretends to be an angel. According to Lu Shumin,

Dalai Lama has presented himself to be a peaceful, like an angel kind of figure, for such a long time.. the Western public take this for granted…

Sorry, Mr. Ambassador. Every public in the world knows the lies are all yours. Because everybody knows the Dalai Lama is as close to angels as human beings get. Everyone knows where the Dalai Lama stands against violence. So best luck with your crass, transparent vilifying and demonizing campaigns, Mr. Ambassador. Such lies do nothing against the Dalai Lama -- they just trample the shreds of China’s dignity from the world stage.

And then, doing my usual rounds, I started hearing ululations. Following the sounds of which across campus led me to Vari Hall -- and this unbelievable mob scenery.

Not just the regular mob that occupies Vari Hall, though. Nope. Now there were two mobs. As if the regular had somehow, amoeba-like, split. Found themselves waving different flags. Just went collectively insane. Competing to drown each other out by megaphone-amplified histrionics. Barely separated by York security guards. With eight police cruisers parked right outside -- just waiting for York security to collapse.

There were a couple signs getting totally ignored up in the rafters -- requesting dialogue instead of mob-action on campus. And on spur of that moment, it seemed I could do better. After all, hadn’t I been writing articles against cultures clashing and dashing the future of everything natural to cinders?

That’s why I laid me down between mobs. Vaguely hoping the mobs would realize that by lying down between them I was standing up for the future.

Well, the mobs paid no slightest heed. Either didn’t notice or didn’t care. York security, though, reacted instantly.

“Sir! You are going to have to move. Right now!”

“Where to?” I asked.

“One side or the other, sir. Right now!”

Great. York security demanded I pick sides. So I settled for walking back and forth. Asked a few questions. Read some literature.

Nearest I could make out, the entire dispute was semantic. Whether the border fencing separating Israelis, Palestinians and Egyptians ought to get called an “apartheid wall” or not.

Well, wasn’t that obvious? Of course it shouldn’t. Apartheid is offensive -- not defensive. When walls are defensive life-savers, we tend to think of them as being great. Not just when they’re huge -- like the Great Wall of China. Also when they’re relatively smaller. Like that wall of Hadrian’s. Even when they’re relatively tiny fortifications. They’re all great when built as defensive life-savers.

The Berlin Wall was offensive. It was pretty huge -- but it sure wasn’t great. No way was the Berlin Wall defensive.

The real issue, of course, is how to quench burning cultural hatred such as surrounding Israel and Tibet. Before it’s too late. Can better cultural understanding suffice to span gaps and contradictions between human cultures by dialogue instead of bullets? Not likely.

But not because the issues are too complex to resolve. To the contrary. When it comes to Tibet, Communist Chinese partisans keep demanding Canadians remain silent. Otherwise, how would Canadians like it if China began agitating for Quebec sovereignty -- or the return of our home and native lands to the native peoples they were stolen from?

Such nonsense. China ought to seek Canadian advice instead of silence. Because China would not even be called upon to permit referenda or seriously negotiate land claims in Tibet. All Tibetans seek is some cultural autonomy. Relative to Canada’s sovereignty issues, China’s can be walked through parks on any sunny day.

Issues get a tad more complicated when it comes to Israel and Palestine -- but not too much. All distinct peoples and societies must possess territorial integrity to secure cultural autonomy. Otherwise, absent some territorial integrity and cultural autonomy, distinct peoples are at constant risk of genocide. That’s just how we are once cultures get clashing. What else is human history even about other than our clashing cultures?

Hence, Palestinians must have their own country. But not a shittier littler country to stew in eternal resentment, for crying out loud. Palestinians must have a country they can be proud of. A country they can proudly work to build -- rather than constantly looking to destroy someone else's.

That’s why everybody has got to chip in. Not just the Israelis with the West Bank and Gaza. Everybody. Internationally. Jordan can give up a little space, surely, on the river’s east bank. Egypt can provide a chunk of the Sinai. Why not? These would just be territorial crumbs. But crumbs which, together, would create a decent dignified future.

So simple. Palestine must be larger than Israel. Come on, Arab brothers. Contribute. Just some crumbs from your laden territorial tables. The days of the Palestinian people foddering your cannons against Israel are over. You threatened Palestinians to leave, to get out of your way when you came shooting to genocide Israel in 1948. Yet Israel still stands. You promised Palestinians they’d return to feasting on the corpse of Israel. And not only haven’t you delivered to this day and age -- you continue burying the Palestinian people, heaping perpetual shame on them as refugees. As if Israel still standing were their fault instead of yours. But it was your threats and broken promises, Arab brothers, which broke Palestinians from their homes. It is your duty, Arab brothers, to contribute making the Palestinian people whole again.

Contribute, Arab brothers. Don't shrug off every responsibility onto Israel -- there must be more honour. And give up levering the Palestinian people to genocide Israel already. You've been trying for 60 years. Give it up. If god were willing, you would long since have succeeded. Help make the future better, please. Not always worse. Come on. How hard can it be? Any future would be better.

No. The issues are not too complicated to resolve. Not if better futures were desired. But, of course, there’s no intention of making anything better once cultural hatred starts burning out of control. Sometimes cultures do clash due to plain ignorance or misunderstanding. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, for instance, ought to have been averted by better intelligence, better understanding and a little less ignorance. But too often, once hatred flames out of control, cultures can’t stop clashing. No matter what. Not until at least one is extinguished.

Because hatred can’t be extinguished once cultural others come to be regarded as antithetical to everything good and proper. When some cultural other merely continuing to exist becomes unbearably humiliating. In such cases, vilifying and demonizing cease reflecting strategic lies and tactical propaganda. The hatred expressed in such cases is genuine -- honestly reflecting sensations of utter humiliation entailed by the cultural other merely existing. The cultural other comes to embody everything which hinders attainment and the manifest destiny of one's people.

In this sense, Chinese leadership demonizing the Dalai Lama indicates profound humiliation that Tibetan culture continues existing. Chinese leadership expects to be believed despite what the whole world has been witnessing for decades -- how the Dalai Lama stands against hatred and every manner of inadvisable material attachment. Because Tibetan culture continuing existing, cankering China's becoming super-powerful and preparing to host Olympic Games, necessarily means the Dalai Lama must be some sort of lying, violent devil.

Just the same in the case of Islam and Israel. Islam can never stop shooting at Israel because nothing can more profoundly humiliate Islam than Israel continuing to exist. How can Israel’s existing 60 years despite all Islam’s best efforts even be conceived? Like, whose side is god on, anyhow? It can’t be conceived. Islamic maps deny even the geographic fact of Israel. That’s why it doesn’t matter what Israel does. From how much land occupied in defensive wars Israel retreats. How great the walls Israel builds to defend itself are. What truces Israel ratifies. How relatively well Muslim citizens fare in Israel. None of that matters. Islam can’t ever stop shooting at Israel. When Israel builds walls to stop violence, Islamic leaders vilify those walls as if offensive rather than defensive. Since Islamic leaders honestly don’t get how Israel could be entitled to self-defend. When Israel gets forced to shoot back at Islam in self-defence, Islamic leaders holler that Israel commits genocide. Despite how unabashed Islamic leaders have been calling for Israel’s genocide since 1948. Despite how some Islamic leadership is actually chartered on genociding Israel. Despite how Israeli culture was conceived in resisting genocide. Despite how desperate Israel is for peace with Islam -- i.e., to not itself get genocided. None of that matters. Israel continuing existing entails such humiliation for Islamic culture -- it means Israel must be the genocider rather than the genocidee. Thus, when vilifying and demonizing Israel, Islamic leadership isn’t intending to lie. They are just expressing their feelings of cultural humiliation -- and reminding us, once again, how to really hate.

We can’t always be forgiven for not knowing what we do. Sometimes we know perfectly well -- but our hatred surpasses all ignorance or understanding. Times like that, it doesn’t matter whether we boycott the Olympic Games. Since, whether we boycott them or not, these games will likely come to be known as the Cultural Genocide Olympics. Nor does it much matter what road-maps we draw to Middle-East peace. There’s no place for Israel on Islamic maps. Ultimately, the power of hatred to clash human cultures suggests Armageddon will long precede our climate-change hell. And, if only so, the world might become a far better, more natural place.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Dalai Lama image screenshot from here -- CBC interview with the Dalai Lama. Very much worth reading.

Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society's Benefit

an article by David Brin, Ph.D.

This unusual article looks at how truth is determined in our four 'accountability arenas' -- science, democracy, courts and markets. It was lead article in the American Bar Association's Journal on Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University), v.15, N.3, pp 597-618, Aug. 2000.

Copyright © 2000 by David Brin. All rights reserved. No duplication or resale without permission.

Dr. Brin's the 3-part article:

I. The Need for a New Kind of Dispute Resolution

II. Toward a New Dispute-Resolution Process for the 21st Century

III: A Concept for Implementation

No Obligation to not Offend?

With mainstream media attention recurring weekly, scrutiny of human rights commissions has been unprecedented in 2008. But not any more. Now it’s just about daily. Even on Saturdays and Sundays.

Nothing even suggests abatement. Instead of subsiding, mainstream criticism is escalating. Swelling. And today it might be just about to burst. Because, as the Post’s Joseph Brean announced,

.. Tuesday, at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa, one of Canada's most prominent white supremacist propagandists.. will put the country's entire human rights bureaucracy on the witness stand… The curious thing.. is that Mr. Lemire, the last president of the now defunct neo-Nazi Heritage Front, enjoys the qualified support of a Liberal MP, PEN Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- even a leader of B'nai Brith Canada.

Which so goes to showing and telling how questionable the antics of human rights bureaucracies seem to Canadians. By all means -- let’s find out. This day the interrogators get interrogated.

How has it come to this? Why do we regard human rights commissions with such suspicion? How have human rights bureaucracies heaped such undivided public disrepute upon themselves?

The Star’s Haroon Siddiqui would like us to believe shameless detractors have got nothing to object but justified limitations to free speech. That’s the only reason why detractors, as he alludes,

.. argue that human rights commissions have no business limiting free speech. [Despite how] by law it is the business of several of these tribunals to assess and curb hate speech…

What nonsense, Mr. Siddiqui. We get that speech must sometimes be constrained. As when shouting “Fire!” in crowded theatres. And we totally get how justified tribunals are to curb hate speech. What we do not and should not get is these tribunals hurdling from curbing hate speech to imposing false obligations to not offend on Canadians.

That’s what we do not and should not get. How, as Darren Lund warned, these tribunals test the limits of expression:

[Far as tribunals are concerned] ..the test is fairly straightforward: Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people.

Because, should Mr. Lund be right as we suspect -- that kind of testing isn’t just wrong. It’s evil. Nobody is invulnerable to hatred and violence. When it comes to human rights, expressing hatred and calling for violence must always be limited. Always. Not just when these tribunals deem whatsoever expression to be against the vulnerable -- i.e., by the invulnerable or not so vulnerable.

Tests for limiting expression must absolutely never fail to address real distinctions between hate speech -- and speech which is merely offensive. Regardless who speakers are deemed to be. All hate speech is offensive. But not every offensive expression qualifies as hate speech. For how invariably offensive are inconvenient and troubling truths? Just so. By failing to distinguish hate from offensive speech, by creating false obligations to not offend, what will tribunals most particularly silence? Most particularly: inconvenient and troubling truths.

Tribunals must cease curbing people from shouting “Fire!” in crowded theatres whenever there actually are fires in crowded theatres. Regard for truth must be understood to contradict allegations of hatred. Hatred entails some sufficiently reckless disregard for truth. Otherwise, if identity of speakers suffices for tribunals to conclude hatred absent any disregard for truth in speech, then tribunals assail the most basic fundamental values and principles of Canadian society.

Invulnerability of speakers? Vulnerability of listeners? For how long? If tribunals keep hinging hatred on identity, how long before Canadian society becomes stratified by systems of enforced deference? How long until regard for truth ceases to protect against allegations of hatred or defamation? How long until we cease daring expressing any truth to power?

Hinging hatred on identity is precisely contrary to human rights. Contrary to the basic fundamental rights of each, every and all Canadians. That’s why we must resist tribunals imposing obligations to not offend on Canadians. Guard against tribunals’ inquisitorial character. Because this is how the long and slippery slope to totalitarianism spirals. With initially isolated scapegoating and witch-hunting. But only to start with.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Image above screenshot from here.

Failing Economics

Now there's a story at the Globe & Mail about how "Canada begins tracking U.S. into slump". The implication being we need not worry -- it's only going to be a "slump".

Meanwhile, there's opinions published at the Globe about how "Global capitalism teeters on the brink". Meaning that economies everywhere aren't just slumping or flirting with recession or depression. Nope. Economies are teetering. On the brink of what? Destruction? Annihilation? Obliteration?

Fair enough. Nobody knows how bad the economic news will get. In Toronto everything seems fine. Across Canada inflation is down while consumer demand, housing starts and home prices are all up. But by this time next year? Who knows.

Other than soothing present anxiety, there's not much point even trying to predict economic futures. However. Is it possible to avoid economic disasters? Can we learn anything from this one? Who is to blame?

Back in August 2007, the Globe ran a piece suggesting we ought to blame our economic disasters on 77 year-old widows living on social security and refinancing their homes in order to pay for medical bills. Because, by unwittingly stepping into the arcane world of subprime lending, Ms. Barron was, in fact,

.. helping to set in motion a chain of events that has rocked financial markets around the world and left few investors untouched.

And it didn't sound like they were kidding. But why would Globe editors run any story insinuating "The face of the global credit crisis" belonged to Ms. Barron? As if any global crisis should ever get blamed on elderly widows? As if refinancing homes to pay for medical bills happened so frequently often as to demolish whole economies? Why, other than as a truly sad joke, would Globe editors run stories blaming Ms. Barron's demographic?

No clue. Ought to call and ask why. Except, going by what happened last time -- better not to call or ask them anything at the Globe.

Best guess? Globe editors prefer blaming anyone but those actually responsible. They’d blame medically distressed elderly widows living on social security if it meant turning blind eyes to the real source of North-American irresponsibility.

It wasn’t the medically distressed elderly poor. Nor was it just the rich getting too greedy. Let's stop pointing such false fingers. Regardless whether in illness or good health, for richer or relatively poorer -- it continues to be across every North-American demographic that we’ve become irresponsibly and obscenely greedy.

Whether using our home equities as ATM machines. Or lending no money down. Or securitizing bad lending practices. North-Americans across every socio-economic spectrum are fully to blame.

Not to say all speculating is wrong. To the contrary. But liquidating our own homes? Securitizing our debts? Hedge-funding our obligations? When we agree to do so across every demographic? How can consequences not assume biblical proportions when we so shamelessly rob and sacrifice the future to our all-consuming, devouring greed?

The irresponsibility of North-American greed. It is not just natural or regular greed. Economically, ecologically, personally and culturally -- it is obscene. And while I fear the pragmatic consequences like anyone else -- in principle, I am glad. Almost eager to observe the spillage from this tempest we’ve been brewing in each and all our cups. Just maybe we’ll learn something.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Image above screenshot from here.

No Right to Not be Offended?

We all know the joke.

“How does one identify Canadians in international crowds?”
“Easy. Step on everyone’s toes. Only Canadians apologise when their toes get stepped on.”

Funny how true that is. Applies most remarkably to distinguishing Canadians from other North-Americans. The more brash, outspoken or vulgar our southern neighbours get, the less offensive we get. As if it were our job to make up for their exuberance. Provide countervailing balance to North-American culture. Be prim as proper church-ladies at Jerry Springer choir auditions.

No Jerry beads for us -– but thanks for offering.

Our correctness isn’t just political. It is by long and distinguishing cultural tradition that Canadians remain inoffensive.

Nevertheless, Canadians are fully committed to freedom of expression. Regardless what absurdities human rights commissions might consider. Absurdities so aptly summarised by Darren Lund:

Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people.

Nonsense, Mr. Lund. Freedom of expression must always be limited whenever expressing hatred, calling for violence or defaming. Always. No person is invulnerable to hatred, violence or defamation. And it is precisely the apprehension of bias such as yours that has brought tremendous public disrepute to human rights commissions proceedings.

Nobody should ever be presumed invulnerable to hatred, violence or defamation. Not in any free, democratic or minimally just society. Because societies turn totalitarian when rejecting human rights as fundamentally and inalienably inhering to each and every member. When basic human rights become privileges to which only some get entitled. Regardless whether those entitled to basic human rights on any particular day be deemed as sufficiently vulnerable, sufficiently powerful, sufficiently virtuous or whatever else. Either human rights remain fundamentally inalienable -– for all -– or we subject and subjugate human rights to expedience, to circumstance and to group dynamics.

Either basic human rights -– or special privileges. Not both. Either everyone gets protected from express hatred, violence or defamation. Or some get granted special privileges to not be offended while we open seasons to targeting the rest. As if the rest were either invulnerable or -– if vulnerable -– not human. Not entitled to having their human rights protected.

Why would Mr. Lund even suggest human rights commissions become special privileges tribunals? No doubt due to some confusion rather than any plain evil. Distributive social justice requires recognizing and assisting materially vulnerable people. Most likely, Mr. Lund went leaping from the concept of assisting some to notions of denying the human rights of everyone else. The sort of leaping so reflexive among those devoted to ideologies of gender, race and class struggling. But the justice of socially assisting some must not and can not mean denying the basic human rights of others. The very possibility of justice hinges on human rights enduring for all Canadians.

Mr. Lund might conceivably be correct that human rights commissions become special privileges tribunals. Thus, precisely due to our apprehensions of the bias entailed, Canadians have repeated affirming there is no right to not be offended –- and no obligation to not offend. And our apprehensions of bias must be vast indeed. Wouldn’t have been as surprising coming from other North-Americans. Or from Danish cartoonists. Or from Israeli troops. But from Canadians?

No right to not be offended? No obligation to not offend? What more terrifies us as Canadians than giving offence? We don’t really mean it. We can’t. Not as any sort of cultural principle. Canadians just aren’t ready to start seriously offending each other.

We can’t mean it as any sort of cultural principle when saying there’s no right to not be offended. We might mean it as a common legal principle -- but so what? Legal principles become meaningless when too culturally dissonant. Archaic legal principles are meant to be ignored.

What do we mean by our unanimity against rights to not be offended, then? Simply this: that granting special privileges inconsistent with basic human rights would totally contradict Canadian cultural principles. It is necessarily corollary with our cultural principles that there be no right to not be offended. It means we stand against everything totalitarian –- and on guard for our free, democratic and multiculturally just society.

Protecting against express hatred, violence or defamation must never hinge on special dispensation, entitlement or privilege. Protection must not be restricted according to whom commissions, tribunals or Mr. Lund might deem deserving on any particular day. Let's always make certain to protect everyone. No one has the right to not be offended. Everyone has the right to be protected from hatred, violence and defamation.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

[The image above is a screenshot of the Ontario Human Rights Code website, whose preamble reminds us that "The Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") is for everyone."]

Culture & Multiculture 14: Why talk about Culture?

Despite every denial, Antarctica melts ever faster in the south. Greenland and the arctic melt ever faster in the north. Devastation of genetic diversity and natural habitat accelerates past every point of not returning. Biotoxic mercurial and other poisons contaminate lakes, rivers, streams and oceans to the molecular bone. And while some fish species “can continue to be enjoyed by consumers as part of an occasional meal” -- for how much longer? How much longer before there are no more species left to consume? Before oceans not just rise but boil off all trace of living? When we finally tip the Earth over the irrevocable edge to becoming like either Mars of Venus. Lifeless.

Rays of hope are dimming fast. While we keep believing ourselves entitled to slashing and burning every single food chain we’ve so unnaturally lurched to the top of since hefting that damn club of Moon-Watcher’s. While we keep acting like the Earth and its creatures were god-given us for indiscriminate consumption. To play with like every living thing was meant to be our food. As if the Earth was meant to be crushed beneath our feet and we were meant as lords of anything but false creation stories.

Rays of hope are dimming fast. Better get them while supplies last. For how much longer can we shop before we drop?

International emission targeting accords like from Kyoto or Bali might scratch some veneer off our unnatural habits and habitating. But not so as to brighten much hoping. Not even if the far greater part of greenhouse gassing -- just for instance -- were emitted by large scale economic activity. Rather than by the hordes of us personally. For even if the greatest part of greenhouse gassing were subject to carbon taxing, emerging economies must have every opportunity to emerge precisely as the G7 or 8 or 20 did. Despite how much worse each and all things ecological now are. Regardless how much better we now know. Like, what doom thus emerging entails. Totally regardless. Leading economies have had every fair chance to despoil the Earth. Emerging economies must get their chance as well. Fair is only fair.

And. Even were none of it so. Our hopes for the future -- for any future -- would still keep dimming. Dimming inexorably. Because we can’t even look to the future. We can’t pay attention to how we destroy everything natural. We are far too utterly distracted fighting amongst and against ourselves.

Neither our shared responsibility since 10,000 years B.C. -- ever since we got serious about extincting other species -- nor any collective future doom can mean anything while we so universally keep fighting amongst and against ourselves.

Do the leading edges and cracks of doom not approach precipitous enough? Then why, accelerating to collective doom, do we continue escalating fighting amongst and against ourselves?

Hard question. The roots of human conflict, we insist, lie in material causes. Whether in social, academic or diplomatic circles -- we insist on material root causes. But that’s just nonsense. Causes are rarely material at the roots of human clashing. However constrained by physical causes, human choice and action gets determined and entailed by reasons. Human clashing is rooted in reasons. Entirely cultural reasons.

Cultural consequences, whether clashing or working together, are found in all our ways as people. Yet culture can not in itself originate from material causes -- such as similarities or differences in ethnicity, gender, class, caste, costuming, technology or what recipes we cook. Culture can only originate in our most basic and fundamentally shared principles. Since only cultural accords defined by sharing fundamental values and principles enable societies working together despite every material divergence in our prior experience. And only cultural discords defined by fundamentally conflicting principles compel human populations to clash despite every kind of experience shared in common.

And that’s the whole point. We must begin understanding the cultural reasons for conflict -- not just keep rooting after causes. Rooting as if human actions were physically and causally determined like rocks bouncing and billiard balls rolling downhills. What hoping remains for the future of all things great, small and naturally evolved, hinges specifically upon unprecedented conflict resolution possibilities arising between clashing cultures. On learning to span the categorical gaps and contradictions between cultures by narrative instead of force.

The question can no longer be whether cultures clash. We must start asking if and how, for the first historical time ever, human cultures might cease clashing. Because the issue has gone too far past mutually assured destruction. There are no options remaining but to stand together -- united against the great unravelling of nature we have loosed in every land, in the oceans and in the air.

Hence this “Culture and Multiculture” series. Dedicated to the meanings and consequences of cultural diversity (not only) in the world’s most multicultural city. Since, both culturally and ecologically -- if we can’t make it here then we can’t make it anywhere.

[Battle cat image by giddygoose and used via Creative Commons license.]

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Culture & Multiculture 13: Globe & Mail Comments Closed?

Canadian media leapt right up in arms a few weeks back. Leapt all over the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant Human Rights Commissions Affairs. I heard Christie Blatchford expressing her say on CFRB. Seen Rex Murphy performing his. Not much left to be said. Not by me. Particularly not after reading the thoroughly insightful Eye Weekly editorial concluding:

Human Rights Commissions.. need to be reined in. They should have no jurisdiction to restrict or stand in judgment of freedom of speech and of the press.

Indeed. There was no point me saying anything. No need. Not once the public and press got unanimously moving heaven and earth. Swelling the very ground demonstrating how our tolerant, free and democratic multicultural principles must not get stretched and torn beyond total absurdity. There’s no right to not be offended. There’s no duty to not offend.

That’s why the withdrawal of the complaint against Ezra Levant came as no surprise. It requires powerfully principled courage to persist despite mainstreaming media full-blowing gales of public opinion. Also why not much significant will emerge from the complaint against Mark Steyn. We were mostly born before yesterday. There’s no right to not be offended. There’s no duty to not offend.

But a thing of potentially greater significance occurred on February 13th, 2008. Something mainstream Canadian media will neither crane nor ostrich to note. Something mainstream media will not sufficiently acknowledge to wilfully ignore. Despite how plain the evidence of it having happened remains for all to see.

Evidence found at one popular -- unusually highly recommended by over 100 votes -- Globe article. About how Major Danish newspapers republish Mohammed cartoon. In order to express “unconditional solidarity” with democratic culture against threatened terror. Soon after Danish police arrest suspects in plot to kill cartoonist.

At second glance or third reading nothing much appears out of place. There is no option to comment on this Globe article -- but that’s not in itself unusual. As regular contributors to Globe commentaries well know and often bitterly bemoan, Globe editors have increasingly withheld options to comment articles addressing controversial subject matter. And what could possibly be more controversial than major newspapers anywhere -- at any time -- republishing so-called “Mohammed” cartoon(s)? However rightly or very wrongly, there is nothing particularly unusual in Globe editors having provided no option for readers commenting.

But hold on. One moment, please. What’s this here? Why.. it sure looks like a comments page titled “Major Danish newspapers republish Mohammed cartoon”. It really totally looks just like a dedicated comments page. Specifically dedicated to the Globe article in question -- the title of which it shares. The one at which there was no option to comment. Which must mean there had initially been available the option to comment -- and that commentary was only subsequently closed. Except.. that can’t be right either. For if there had been option to comment earlier then, presumably, there would continue existing standard links as from any article to its own commentary page. And there aren’t. No such linking exists. There is absolutely nothing forward-linking the originating article to what appears its own comments page.

Moreover, there is not one single comment at the comments page. There is nothing but the standard notice provided whenever commentary gets closed:

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor… Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

Say, what? “No longer accepting submissions”? “Report an abusive comment”? What comment? There’s nothing there -- whether to report or merely to read. Where are all the comments posted prior submissions ceased getting accepted? What has happened here?

What happened was, to my alter-ego’s long Globe-commenting experience, a novel and complete first.

It happened the morning of February 13th. Some time between seven and eight A.M. As often if not usual on rising, I checked online news (not only) at the Globe. Wondering what our time-space sector had been getting into during my absence. That’s when I found the “Mohammed” cartoon re-publishing article and read all about it. Subsequent to which reading I sat slightly stunned. Like, seriously? Our time-space sector was getting into those so-called “Mohammed” cartoons? Again?

Meanwhile, however, my Globe-commenting alter-ego -- Lie Detector -- was gathering neither moss nor wool. Checked immediately to see whether commenting was permitted. Which it was. Permitted -- and booming. The article had been posted at 3:31 A.M. and, already, by between seven and eight that morning, the number of comments was poised near exceeding the first hundred.

Took reading maybe fifty comments or so for Lie Detector to start itching at my fingers. I could feel him taking over parts of my mind -- no doubt formulating contributory arguments. But I stopped him cold. Got up. Stepped into my boots. Threw my jacket on. Stumbled outside, grabbed a shovel and pushed record-breaking amounts of snow off the sidewalk. Came in and fed cats. Took maintenance cat-food outside and filled up the stray-animal dishes. Went out back and clambered bird-feeder from tree. Filled bird-feeder. Clambered it back up the tree. Returned inside, sat my selves down and prepared giving Lie Detector free reigning.

We wondered -- Lie Detector and I -- how many new comments had accumulated. That’s why we were so unprepared. Because, given how hot the subject, we were expecting significant further accumulation. Not what we discovered when refreshing the comments page. The way it blanked right out. Like, tabula utterly rasa. No comments there whatsoever.

There was still a (closed) comments page there -- just no comments. And we thought for a moment that we’d imagined or hallucinated all the comments we’d read. But no, we weren’t going nuts or anything. Absent all commentary, why would there even be any comments page? Clearly, comments had been closed and, unbelievably, all prior commentary had been purged. Purged of each, every and last comment. Just eradicated.

Thinking it could only be a glitch, we re-loaded the original article and moused around seeking any the three standard links leading from articles to commentary. But -- nope. All gone. Links to comments had been razed just as well. Equally as thoroughly. All that remained was this blank limbo-floating comments page. Inaccessible as ghosts or quarks from our time-space sector. Except for the captive URL later found archeologically deep in our browser’s cache.

Lie Detector vanished too. In a puff of terminal disgust. Purging by revisionist retroactive censorship struck him too totalitarian. Contributing commentary at the Globe had been his whole reason for being around. Once he figured what shameless mockery of public space had been foisted by the Globe on its public -- he had no reason left for being. So he stopped.

I’m not like that, though. I don’t go leaping that hasty to my conclusions. However unlikely -- what if it all turned out to have been a long series of coinciding glitches? Or what if, albeit not personally conceivable to me, someone at the Globe had a perfectly reasonable explanation for purging public commentary?

That’s why the following day, on Thursday, February 14th, I called the Globe & Mail. Canada’s national newspaper. To find out why.

“What happened to that comments page,” I asked. “How come it vanished so traceless?”

I was passed down, sideways and up the hierarchy. Eventually, I was told I needed to speak with Executive Editor Jim Sheppard. I was also told, namelessly and insistently off the record, that the comments page had been eradicated because commentary at it had “diverged into wild racism.” This was a good thing -- being told this off the record. First, because of how laughable it was by way of rationalization. Second, because it confirmed how conclusively commentary purging had been due to no glitch. Eradication had been totally intentional.

Remaining eager to hear what rationale there officially was on the record -- opposed to off the record rationalization -- I nervously recorded my question with Mr. Sheppard’s answering service. He was away from his desk at that moment. And then naïve silly me waited by the phone a couple hours. For the Globe & Mail’s Executive Editor to return my call and answer my question. Subsequent to which couple hours I recorded my question at Mr. Sheppard’s again -- since he was away from his desk at that precise moment as well. And then I hung around waiting the next day. Friday, February 15th. As if the Globe’s Executive Editor had nothing better to do.

Doesn’t matter. Commentary had been intentionally purged. And it’s just ignorant rationalizing such indiscriminate purging of public commentary for some blithely alleged racism. There’s no excuse alleging or even mentioning racism in the first place. Not when disputing is cultural. Because it isn't easy conceiving any better working definition for 'racism' than falsely believing all dispute, hatred, conflict or clashing as a function of race. Too much hatred? Fine -- eliminate those comments expressing hatred. But declaring any and all disputing -- even outright hatred -- as racist? When issues in dispute so obviously cross all our ideologically constructed false discriminations of race, gender and economic class? No. That has got to be a joke. Or ignorance. Potentially even racist.

Doesn’t matter. I really wanted to ask whether Globe editors had ever purged public commentary so brazenly before. But never mind. Whether or not they had. Whether on or off the Globe’s record. There’s huge problems with doing so. Ever.

Danish papers re-publishing any so-called “Mohammed” cartoon was major international news, right? Regardless who became offended. Regardless whether “mobs of youths torch[ing] cars.. in Danish cities” had anything to do with it or not. Of course it was big news -- as per the Globe’s carrying the story of it all the way over here in Canada.

Perhaps, when it comes to a so-called “Mohammed” cartoon, Danish papers went too far defending democratic culture. But globally censoring all comment whether Danish papers went too far defending democratic culture? That also goes too far. Goes even farther -- the opposite way. It utterly offends against democratic culture if or when Canada’s national newspaper gets censoring that spectacularly -- like, completely censoring the very public it invited to comment that “Mohammed” cartoon.

Rather than engaging yet farther and further in such spectacular censorship, the Globe would do far better not to provide any forum for free speaking and free public expressing whatsoever. This is not in any way to intimate that Globe message boards legally constitute anything other than private proprietary space. However. There can be no doubt the Globe derives great benefits, both economic and otherwise, from public participating. Further. As Canada’s national newspaper, the Globe itself relies upon principles consistently applied throughout our free and democratic society: freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Therefore, the Globe must not engage in extravagant censorship. Doing so harms not only Toronto, Canadian public spheres -- but calls into doubt how any future of Canadian press can remain free. For what is more likely to restrict freedom of speech, expression and the press in Canada? Human Rights Commissions of questionable jurisdiction arriving at occasionally absurd decisions? Or Canada’s national newspaper repeatedly engaging in exaggerated censoring? Yeah. Obviously. That’s why Canada’s national newspaper had better cease and desist repeating disproportionate censorship.

And it absolutely was spectacular, extravagant, exaggerated and disproportionate censorship. Partially or fully moderating public commentary? Vital. Removing, as warranted, comments specifically reported as abusive? Necessary. Indiscriminately purging all commentary from comments pages -- while razing electronic linkage in order to eradicate the evidence of having done so? Unbelievable. So not Canadian. So.. gulag.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

[Globe comments image above is a screen capture from here.]

Culture & Multiculture 12: Indiscrimination

I’ve never bought the Toronto Star. Not even since the Star’s website started crashing each and all my browsers like nothing else on the World Wide Web. Anywhere. Fortunately, there’s heaping Toronto Star stacks piling up daily at York University. Like leaves off trees. Or, lacking trees, grains of desert sands. Drifting, blowing, piling all over campus. Free as wind.

That’s how I wound up reading Joey Slinger’s column this past Thursday. Titled “School issue is not black and white”. Just about an hour after posting on that very subject right here.

Now, I’ve read Joey before. Seeing as the Star’s always free at York -– not just this past Thursday. And, having read Joey before, I knew how funny he tries to be. To which I can totally relate. Since I too am funny despite almost nobody realizing it. However hard I try.

Except Joey totally let me down this past Thursday. Not only wasn’t he funny –- to which failing I completely relate. He gave up even trying.

He’d intended trying being funny. Intended trying real hard, originally. “[B]een working on a column,” he boasted, “.. about the need for Me-centric schools.” Thought it would have been “.. quite humorous.”

Who knows? Might have turned out adequate for chuckling. Might have turned out his best performance. If only he hadn’t given up on it. If only Joey hadn’t thrown in his funny towel and tried getting all serious, instead.

Shouldn’t have. Big mistake. Terrible misunderstanding. Not to cridicule too much -– but there’s more to being serious than not being funny.

Joey seriously tried persuading his Toronto audience that we’re not against race-based schooling. Despite how categorically against faith-based schooling we are. Despite the way we reject anyone –- such as the once legitimate public figure of John Tory –- daring to suggest or insinuate what a great idea faith-based schooling is. Regardless. Doesn’t matter how against faith-based schooling we are. Far as Joey’s concerned, we’re not against race-based schooling.

How come? Too simple –- on Joey’s view. Because race-based schooling is nothing like faith-based schooling. Since diversity of faith is elective whereas diversity of race is physically indelible. As Joey put it,

.. you can be born to a Jewish mother and a Jewish father and choose to be, say, Anglican. You cannot be born to a black mother and a black father and choose not to be black.

Our overwhelming repudiating faith-based schooling can have no bearing on race-based schooling. Not where Joey’s concerned.

But there really is more to being serious than not being funny. Like not being absurd, for instance.

With the arguable exception of identical twins, we are all physically diverse. Whether individually or collectively -– our physical diversity is endless. Infinitely too vast to enumerate.

How, then, can we determine when physical diversity makes us different –- and when it does not? We can’t. We do not determine difference on basis of physical diversity itself. Clearly not. Rightly or wrongly, we determine our differences by sorting some fraction of our diversity from the rest. We discriminate our differences only by distinguishing some diversity as particularly significant. Doesn’t matter if diversity be physical or otherwise. What matters in discriminating difference is which aspects of our diversity seem particularly significant. What selective elements of diversity mean to us. Difference is in the cultural meaning we assign to diversity –- never in diversity itself.

That’s why Joey’s view is so absurd. Rather than asking how meaningful -– and why –- aspects of diversity are, Joey chose to ask -– and answer -– just how entirely physical diversity is. As if physical diversity were just finite. As if we could ever discriminate or resolve our differences just physically. As if humans, like billiard balls, were caused in all actions –- and our reasons for acting outward ought get utterly dismissed from both minds and hands. It is this very (ideological) view sourcing discrimination -– and eventual segregation -– in the first place. Even though we ought rather speak of false-discrimination. For while we must discriminate allies from opponents, friends from enemies and whom we agree from whom we do not -– we certainly must not discriminate too shallowly and superficially. Like, concluding who people are by their physical pigmentation.

Definitely there’s more to being serious than not being funny. Also not absurd, ludicrous or preposterous. For instances. Better seriously help Joey out some. Better ask how and why pigmentation diversity has become so particularly significant to us.

Except it hasn’t. Not to all of us. Absolutely not world-wide. One would not likely encounter false-discriminating by pigmentation on pilgrimage to Islam’s holy places. One would be far more likely, on the other hand, to encounter false-discrimination and even potentially forcible segregation when it comes to gender and faith differences. And while this example might seem outlandish, it goes so far only to show how differently diversity gets culturally constructed world-wide.

Strangely, it is North-America that’s outlandish. Where false-discriminating by pigmentation keeps going on and on to this day and age. I’ll never forget how boneless my jaw dropped when first arriving in Toronto from a couple other continents. When two seemingly sane and healthy young boys ceased whatever they’d been doing and turned on each other.

“You white bastard,” said one.

“You black bastard,” replied the other.

While I was left to decades wondering what sort of bizarre place this was -– where anything that superficial could conceivably matter.

It’s a tough question. How has skin pigmentation persisted meaning anything significant to this day and age in North America? Perhaps, at least in part, because we keep mistaking the material fact of pigmentative diversity for the cultural meanings from which we construct the significance of that diversity. Perhaps, like Joey, we’re all knee-jerks when it comes to skin pigmentation in North America.

One way or another, North-American culture has founded itself on and extended itself from certain principled ideals inherited from European Enlightenment. Not that North-American culture hasn’t inherited native and other ideals as well. But, should there be cultural foundation, if anywhere –- it’s in Enlightenment principles. American liberty, democracy and pursuit of happiness. The American dream. Canadian tolerance. Especially Toronto multiculture. And, unifying all: the expectation that arriving in North America is by the most heartfelt choice. Not only in coming to lands more promising. But also in escaping from the places where ideology yet fundamentally rules. Whether guised as god-given truths –- or as viable ideals regardless how false, absurd or damaging.

Culturally, that’s what makes us most North-American. Arriving here by such heartfelt choice. And that’s how the most intractable cultural differences emerge. Differences which can’t help being intractable due to the contradictions they entail to culture and discourse. Since not all arrived by choice. Some were already here by thousands of years’ priority. While others were brought in chains.

That’s what persists our least tractable cultural differences in North-America. And, if so, resolving North-American cultural contradictions must never be sought in separation or segregation. Not unless and until we get forced to conclude there’s no resolving our cultural contradictions. Only then, if and when we become societies too distinct for tolerance, can segregating make any sense. Since forcible separation does beat shooting. But, otherwise -– our focus has to remain on how superficial our differences in North-America are. And it remains entirely premature, especially in Toronto Canada, to conclude we can’t resolve the differences we’ve constructed culturally –- together.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

[Black swan " title="image">image by idmaer saxon and used via Creative Commons license.]