centre of the universe - the dreaming

My friend RJ and I went for lunch together yesterday. I love going for lunch with my friend RJ. In fact, I love doing a lot of things with my friend RJ. And what's cool is that if it hadn't been for my friend AJ, I might never have met my friend RJ. So thanks, AJ, for introducing us!

So RJ and I were finished having lunch (actually, I didn't quite finish the pressed fairy cider, but that's because I was trying to untangle a Ball of Uncooperative Yarn what Bad Cat had tangled...and was secretly (not so secretly) enjoying the look of Great Consternation I was getting from RJ who gets so uptight when she knits that she breaks the needles. Or so I've heard), we were walking back to where I work so's she could get her own self to work. And it was miserable and sleet was "falling" sideways and the wind was cold and it wasn't at all a nice day like there ought to have been but weren't very many of in summer, and after half a block, I said, "let's walk indoors".

Because when you live in a wind tunnel (I'm fairly certain the Winterpeg folk will back me up on this one) it's really Rather Nice to have a series of warrens and burrows indoors that you can follow from point A (place what serves pressed fairy cider) to point B (place what pays you money to read books). So kudos to The City, who allowed contractors to build buildings with lovely connecting bits. Anyway, on the way to the connecting bits, which sounds vaguely naughty but really isn't, I saw A Sign.

First, before I get to that Sign, I need to tell you something.

You know when you're walking through a department store and first, there's all the womens' clothing that looks like some poor geriatric cat was fed day-glo kibble before being shoved in a paint mixer inside a cement truck...and then, when you're done with that ocular feast, you usually walk through one of the 'specialty' sections (Fat Broads, Short Chicks, Really Really Old Farts), and then, eventually, you are faced with a full-frontal assault on every single sense at once? You know how that happens? That happens when you walk from the *outside* doors to the *inside* doors. What happens when you walk through the mall and enter the department store from the *inside*?

I'll tell you.

First, it's the visual cortex that dies the little death. There are shiny things, and sparkly things, and colourful things (and often, you can just see past the mall entrance to the geriatric cat/day-glo kibble/paint mixer/cement truck section). Sometimes, there are moving things. Sometimes, they even have Made Up Ladies hovering about talking about Very Important Things with other Made Up Ladies. Your best bet here is to stare very hard at the floor and hope you don't end up in the Hideous Scarves section. I've heard Sir Edmund Hillary actually died in the Hideous Scarves Section in the 80s, and not on Mount Everest as had previously been suspected.

Next, the aural centres shrivel and die. This is because anytime from November to January, the department store is playing the Christmas carol. There really is only one Christmas carol that department stores are allowed to play. It starts out with "O", and it never, ever ends. For THREE MONTHS. If you happen to be in the department store when there is no Christmas carol playing, you will hear the loudspeaker, which is always calling Missus Somebody to Somewhere. I suspect this is where they send the Really Bad Angels to re-train them for the Trump and Call.

While your visual cortex and aural centres are dying, the skin on your hands and face, and any other exposed area, is actually in the process of flaking off *all at once*. In one big, huge, chunk. As you enter the department store, it makes an audible 'thud' as it falls off. Cue the Made-Up Ladies.

And, finally, your sense of smell, and taste, simultaneously, are annihilated by the Horrendous Stench caused by all kinds of tinctures, balms, eaux-des-toilettes (seriously. TOILET WATER? Gross), perfumes, colognes, creams, and cure-alls. It is the depleted uranium of the cosmetic industry, except rather than killing you slowly with radiation, it kind of causes everything you've ever eaten and every breath you've ever taken to immediately vie for top billing somewhere around your larynx. It is most decidedly Not Pleasant, and I dislike it Very Much. In fact, if you know someone with a flame thrower, or some kind of mortar or shells, or even a tank...I'll settle for a tank...please have them immediately eradicate the cosmetics section of the department store.

This brings me to my point.

RJ and I had managed to survive the majority of the Cosmetics section, and I was, to be honest, kind of sprinting through, when I saw this sign. This sign had pictures of tinctures and balms and sparkly things and eaux-des-toilettes, and the Big Lettering on the sign said this:

FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

And I thought, What the fuck? I mean, please excuse my language here, but really, what the fuck? I thought, Germaine Greer, and Gloria Steinem, what would you think if you saw this? What would you think if you saw the words we most often associate with equal rights and reproductive freedom emblazoned across an advertisement for face-paint and perfume? When did 'freedom to choose' move from the anti-censorship movement over to the cosmetics department at the department store? When the hell did Roe v. Wade get reduced from the right a woman has to choose what happens to her own body, to a catchy jingle selling cubic bloody zirconias and cheap lipstick? Isn't it bad enough that women are pressured to look younger, thinner, better than they did at 20? At 16? Isn't it bad enough that we, as a society are pressured to buy, to consume, to HAVE? But now this? Now, you take a statement that is so full of meaning, so pregnant with important ideas, and you reduce it to materialistic prattle? 

What does "freedom to choose" mean to you? Does it mean you get to decide which watch to wear with that eyeliner, or does it mean you have the right to read whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want? Does it mean you can mix and match your earrings with your perfume, or does it mean you have the RIGHT to decide to have an abortion - that nobody else gets to make that decision but you? Does it mean you can pick a toner shade from this pile and a nail file from that pile and put them together for an all-in-one beauty care package, or does it mean that you have RIGHTS enshrined in law that make you a *person*?


Rousseau held that freedom is inherent to humanity; it's what you get for being self-aware. The Greeks differentiated between inner freedom (freedom from anger, fear, and lust) and external freedom (conquest over enemies). Philosophers have long discussed the difference between "freedom from" and "freedom to".  And I guess being able to pair stinkfume with skin poison is one of those 'free choices' you have...but what an utter insult to the very idea of freedom.

My friend Smarty Pants will probably say (as he does when I go on tears about things), "so what do you do to change it?"

Well, my opinion is to rip the bloody thing down. Anyone interested in a downtown flash mob to take back our freedom?

Labels: Bad Mojo, equal rights, women

Saskatchewan too backwards? Or just backwards enough?

Okay.

Gay marriage is legal in Saskatchewan. YAY!
A marriage commissioner who refused to marry a gay couple was fined $2500 for discrimination. Makes sense.
The marriage commissioner in question has launched an appeal with the Government of Saskatchewan, in essence saying that *he* is being discriminated against in terms of his religious beliefs. Okay.
Now, the Saskatchewan government is re-examining (see that link above, there) making an exception to the ruling of the previous court, that as a public official, he doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of the law he wishes to uphold. Right.

So.
First of all, as everyone knows, many Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to uphold, so why is anyone surprised that this marriage commissioner wants to pick and choose what parts of civil law he wants to obey?

Secondly, what's the big deal? So some marriage commissioners want to be 'specialists'. We don't get all up in arms when our GP refuses to do a colonoscopy, choosing instead to refer you to an arse doctor. We don't get all up in arms when our history professors refuse to teach particle physics.

We all get our knickers in a knot as soon as someone says the word 'discrimination'. We've turned that word into a kind of curse; a swear word. It's not quite as bad as the eff word or the cee word, to be sure, but if someone accuses you of 'discrimination', it's essentially a social (and sometimes legal) sentence. Discrimination doesn't have to be a bad thing, people.

I do discriminatory things *every day*. In addition to meaning "to treat differently" (which isn't always a bad thing...more on that later), Discriminate also means the ability to recognise differences, and distinguishing one thing from another. What's so wrong with treating people differently? This is something that has always blown my mind. I treat my family differently from the way I treat strangers (I don't *often* yell "GET YOUR GODDAMNED ELBOWS OFF THE GODDAMNED TABLE!" at people I don't know. Sometimes, but not often.

I'm going off the rails here.

My point is that professionals discriminate *all the time* in what they do. When you become an engineer, in, what, your second or third year, you have to discriminate "against" all the other disciplines. So what's wrong with allowing a civil servant to discriminate, to specialise?

Well, I guess you could argue that police officers don't get to choose which criminals to arrest. But they do. Every day. Sometimes, you don't get stopped and fined for jaywalking, f'rinstance. Granted, police officers who choose to arrest you or not to arrest you based on how unpink you are is kind of douchey (should that be douchy?).

I guess there's the argument that elected officials and their staff don't get to choose which parts of society they serve. But they do. Every day. My elected officials don't, for the most part, represent me *at all well* in their work. In fact, they kind of totally suck at it. They refuse to represent me, not because of my gender or my religious beliefs or whether I prefer innies or outies, but because we have differing opinions on what "they" should do with "my" money.

So, I mean, yes, it's terrible that someone refuses to perform gay marriages. Particularly a civil servant. To be honest, I think it's shameful that anyone still thinks "that way" (that backwards way). I am also of the opinion that until the church changes its position on what marriage is for, gay marriage should not be a religious ceremony. But THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE. The argument is whether or not someone can refuse to perform a civil service because they have moral (or social, or religious, or whatever) objections to it.

In Canada, we uphold freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. No matter how shameful and backwards someone's action is, as long as no harm is done, you should be able to uphold your own religious beliefs wherever and whenever you want. But let's think about this - the marriage commissioner who refused to perform gay marriages on religious grounds...what's he been doing all these years? Sneaking religion into civil services? Isn't that illegal? If I wanted a civil union and the Justice of the Peace started talking about prayer and God, I think I'd hit him/her with my matron of honour and take the jerk to court. Some people just don't want to invite God to their weddings and THAT'S FINE. You can't sneak Him in. People notice that kind of thing, you know.

In fact, if I had been married by this guy, after having read some of the stuff he's said about his other civil marriages, I might file a discrimination lawsuit against him too. If he's been offering prayers on my behalf when I don't want them offered (I am not an atheist, but let's just pretend for a moment that I am), he's being incredibly offensive.

Again, sorry. I'm derailed. My point is this as long as no one is harmed, there oughtn't be a problem. Actually, no, that's not my point. My point is the question. Which was:
What's wrong with allowing JPs or Marriage Commissioners to 'specialise'? Is it just a gay thing? Would it be worse/better if it was a race thing?

Ultimately, I don't even know what *I* think about the whole thing - I mean, I think it was shameful for the Commissioner to turn away a gay couple from his services. I think it was good that he stood up for his religious beliefs. I think that maybe being a marriage commissioner was not the right vocation for this guy, and that maybe he ought to have gone into the clergy. I think that the question of whether or not gay folks should be able to marry each other is ludicrous. I think the marriage commissioner gets to feel that his religious freedom has been tramped upon. I think that his religious freedom oughtn't have come in to the equation at all, because he was supposed to have been performing a God-free service. But, you know, conscience and all. I think it's unfortunate that the couple wanting to get married were affronted (after all, just because something's legal doesn't mean folks have to like it - it's legal to own handguns in this country, but you'll never force me to like them). I think a lot of things, and could probably argue myself in to and out of either point of view.

Labels: Canadian politics, equal rights, gay marriage

I've been listening to protest songs and all the peacenik, commune-loving hippie music I can get my hands on (it all started two days ago with the 'anarchist' bookstore purchases ("Turning the Tide" bookstore in Saskatoon has all kinds of interesting things), and then yesterday with the celebration of Pete Seeger's music, which pretty much had me slamming my hands against the steering wheel on the way home, cross with myself for having allowed my disgust for armed conflict to weaken over the past ten years.

Yes, it's true...I *am* the filthy hippie - that's what my friend Jenn's husband Ian calls me. I'm not sure if he thinks of it as a derogatory nickname or not, but it really isn't. I'm going to go make some granola, turn up the Peter, Paul, and Mary, and I'm going to wander around the house today wearing as little as possible. I'm'a do my best to commune with the earth and think derisive thoughts about governments' military policies.

I'm going to go and think and dream about how I can make the world a Better Place (I know, and you can just save the comments about how not being a tree-hugging communist will be a good start). Right now, The Nipper and I are sharing a pot of Vanilla Tulsi tea while I attempt to get rid of the sick that Saskatoon gave me.

Labels: equal rights, hippies, i cock, the importance of arts and culture, The Nipper

Wednesday, 10th December is International Human Rights Day.
This year, members of GLBT community (that's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered) are advocating an economic boycott. It's an interesting idea, and cenobyte is going to participate. From the Day Without a Gay website, here are some suggestions for how you can observe this day, if you are so inclined:

Strike: call in gay, shut down your business, or just take the day off.

Boycott: don't buy anything, spend money or support the economy.

Participate: visit www.daywithoutagay.org for a list of volunteer and/or protest opportunities.


I would *love* to "call in gay". In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the entire office called in gay.

It is ridiculous that there are still 30 some states where it is still legal to fire someone because of their gender identity or because of their gender preference. Just think about this for a minute: you could be **fired from work** because of **the way you have sex**. From now on, I'd like to suggest that everyone who has ever had a *heterosexual* relationship also lose their jobs. And anyone who has referred to breasts in any of the following ways immediately have their children removed from school: "jugs, hooters, ta-tas, paps, tits, love puppies". Also, if you have ever used any of the following words or phrases in public, you're no longer eligible for government funding or tax rebates: "God, prayer, traditional values, "adam and eve not adam and steve", sex education, mixed-race marriage".

Do you see how stupid this is?

Now, let's do the 'change the words' thing again here. This is an article from The Right Side News, a right-wing news/tabloid source in the USA. I've changed some of the text.

Inter-racial marriage will end the value of traditional marriage in America. How do I know?

The Federation of First Nations tries to paint an "Ozzie and Harriet" picture of the poor Aboriginal couple that wants to get married and raise a family. But what are the facts. We know because inter-racial marriage is legal in the Netherlands and has been for some time. Surveys conducted in both America and the Netherlands show that there is no comparison between an "inter-racial marriage" and a "normal marriage."

• In normal marriage 90% of women and 80% of men surveyed have never cheated on their spouses. Contrast that with the fact that surveys show Aboriginals in "committed" relationships have sex with eight other partners in an average year (the number of liaisons with each of those eight was not recorded)
• In heterogeneous marriage, studies show that 70% of first marriages last at least 10 years while 57.7% last over 20 years. When Aboriginals are involved, the average relationship lasts 18 months.

Currently, in Scandinavia, 60% of first-born children now have unwed parents.

Is there a cost to society for not having a white Mother and a white Father in a home? In America, single parent homes are 700% more likely to live in poverty while in our prisons, 70% of prisoners are from single parent homes. Just as the cell is the basic building block to the human body, the family has been the basic building block in America. If we destroy the family, America will not be far behind. But even if a person didn't care about our Nation and didn't believe the Bible, if a person claims to have compassion for his fellow man, he would still oppose inter-racial marriage.

Over the past 15 years, there have been many surveys trying to determine what percentage of the population in America was Aboriginal. Even liberal think tanks place that number at around 15% of the population. The percentage of sexually transmitted diseases, depression and suicide should be consistent with other population groups if marrying an Aboriginal was a safe alternative. The evidence proves the opposite.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control reported that inter-racial marriage with Aboriginals was responsible for 60% of all cases of HIV in America. A 2004 study on Gonorrhea revealed that 64% of all cases were the result of inter-racial marriage. When such a small percentage of the population is responsible for such a large percentage of STD's a question should be asked about the safety of that behavior. An epidemiological study released in 1997 from data gathered over a five-year period in Vancouver, Canada, concluded that those who married Aboriginals lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. If someone truly cared about the Aboriginal, this data should be cause for concern.

Along with the medical risk is an unusually high occurrence of mental disorders and illness among Aboriginals. Research results in the October 2000 issue of the American Medical Association's Archives of General Psychiatry reported that Aboriginal youths were 600% more likely to commit suicide than their white peers. The excuse is made that suicides and mental illness among Aboriginals is a result of bias or "racism" in America, but that myth has also been proven wrong. The Dutch are considered progressive in their sexuality and inter-racial marriage is legal in the Netherlands yet, statistical results there are consistent with the statistics in America.

We in America have taken great care for the well being of our fellow man. We require seat belts to be worn in order to save lives. Cigarette smoking is discouraged because of the increased risk of lung cancer . We even have limitations on vending machines in schools because of the danger of obesity . Yet, if someone dares raise a question about the obvious dangers associated with inter-racial sexual habits, that person is labeled a racist. It is more loving to speak the truth in love than to placate those practicing self-destructive behavior.

Inter-racial marriage is dangerous. Inter-racial marriage is sinful. Inter-racial marriage will destroy the very existence of the home in America. Never in the history of America is the traditional home facing the threat of extinction as it is today.

How stupid does that sound? How stupid is it to say "I don't want my children learning about Indians in school, because knowledge of how Indians have been treated by colonial interests might damage them. They might get scared of Englishmen." Or "Please don't teach my children that women can be firefighters. It puts fancy ideas in their heads". I mean, really. How many steps are we away from that?

So, yeah. December 10th, call in gay. And if you can't call in gay for fear of being fired, then don't be a consumer. Don't buy anything; don't pay your bills. Support equal rights

Labels: equal rights, GLBT