It's not just about Freedom of Speech.

People are talking a lot about freedom of speech lately, in the wake of the terrible killings at the Charlie Hebdo offices last week. I'm more than a little alarmed by some of the very credulous responses to the way this is being reported.

I first want to establish what I believe we should all be able to agree on.

1) Freedom of speech is extremely important and should be protected. Nobody should live in fear for something they've said, or in this case, drawn.

2) Violence towards someone for saying, drawing or printing something which offends you is not okay. Nor are threats or intimidation.

3) Racism and/or religious discrimination is also not okay. Assuming all people of a nation or all believers of a faith are guilty of the crimes perpetrated by a few is discriminatory and wrong.

I already think I'm pushing it a bit by asking people to accept that third point, but I kind of feel that if you can't at least consider that bit, you're unlikely to see what I'm getting at with the rest.

I don't think Charlie Hebdo is funny. Some of it I can attribute to being very local, and just not translating well to a Canadian audience. The rest? Well, here's where it becomes a little more complicated.

When Charlie Hebdo takes potshots on a larger, more international scale as opposed to just mocking those involved in French and European politics, they aren't typically taking aim at the big guys. They're targeting people and groups that are often already marginalized and/or oppressed... groups that are treated particularly badly in France. Anti-Muslim sentiment, along with many other kinds of anti-immigration or anti-ethnic sentiment, has been on the rise for some years. The law which forbids wearing religious symbols in public has been almost exclusively enforced in cases of young women who choose to wear a hijab; while the law isn't specifically anti-Islam on paper, it certainly is in practice. Many of Hebdo's jokes seem entirely designed just to be shocking and deliberately provocative. They're not subtle, they're not even particularly clever. They're often cruel, and cruel on multiple levels.

These are the guys that a while back, published a cartoon which depicted the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram as pregnant welfare moms.

Let's look at that for a second. These young girls who only wanted an education, who were forcefully abducted by violence from their school, were portrayed in a way that the cartoonists and editorial team at Hebdo felt was shameful. This is not only cruel and insulting to those girls who harmed no-one, but to the girls' parents who must be so worried about their children. Many of those girls have likely already been forced into marriages they don't want, with men who will likely treat them as property. It's also subtly insulting to young single mothers, by further stigmatizing being young and pregnant and reliant on assistance.

Another, more recent, cartoon showed Charlie Hebdo in a deep, passionate kiss with the prophet Mohammed. This is not just deliberately antagonizing to those who believe the prophet should never be depicted, but I think it's more than a bit insulting to the homosexual community, by inferring that kissing another man is somehow shameful. It's also interesting to note that in all its many depictions of the prophet, he's a singularly ugly caricature of an Arabic man. That seems unnecessary; if simply drawing the prophet is the joke and it's all about showing their irreverence for religion in general, why does he have to be hideous? A cursory examination of caricatures of other religious leaders does not yield the same results. This lends weight to the argument that Hebdo is often racist.

I have a problem with these things because they're in poor taste. They're making fun of people who are easy targets. Just because you have freedom of speech and CAN say and draw and print these things, it doesn't mean you should. You aren't a hero for making fun of people and being mean, what you are is a bully. Being killed by extremists doesn't automatically canonize you as a saint and a martyr to the cause of free speech. It's still tragic, because nobody deserves to die a violent death for something they said, but forgive me if I'm not going to lionize you for your "bravery" after your death. I'm just going to be sad about the whole thing.

I'm kind of horrified that I saw a friend post this quote a few weeks back:

but then saw that same person go on to post images from Charlie Hebdo and put up a new profile picture of "Je Suis Charlie", all ostensibly in favour of free speech.

My refusal to identify with Charlie and change my profile picture isn't about stifling freedom of speech.

It's about being kind.

It's about not deliberately antagonizing or demonizing people who we need to learn to get along with, especially as the world gets smaller. We do not make peace with other cultures or end extremism with disrespect.

To me, freedom of speech means that we also have the right to NOT say things that are disrespectful and unkind. We can say and print whatever we want to, but we can also take the higher ground of kindness, good manners and good taste.

I am exercising MY freedom of speech by refusing to identify with Charlie. Je ne Suis Pas Charlie. I am not Charlie, and I don't want to be anything like Charlie; I think Charlie is a crass asshole who can't pick on someone his own size.

Charlie Hebdo can say/print whatever it wants. The paper has that right.
I have the right to not read it, identify with it or support it in any way.
I have the right to support newspapers and media outlets that have chosen not to reprint these images in the interest of being sensitive and kind to others.

If you want to call me a coward or say inflammatory things because I make these choices, go right ahead. Just remember this: if you feel threatened by the idea that we can also choose not to say things, then maybe you aren't such a big fan of free speech as you think you are.

They're at it again.

Once again, PETA's in the news. This time, their attention is turned to Canada, and how awful a country it is because of the seal hunt.
PETA has no shortage of critics, but until recently, I thought that most people with PETA memberships have good intentions but were just lacking in perspective and common sense. I maintain that PETA appeals to two kinds of people- hardcore anti-human vegan nuts and new converts to the cause of animal rights. Anyone who genuinely cares about animals and has a degree of sense outgrows them rather quickly; generally right after one of these ill-chosen publicity stunts. Any good they accomplish by raising awareness is quickly negated by the absurdity of their publicity stunts. PETA is counterproductive to the cause of animal rights by making more moderate and sensible activists look bad by association.
I'm a supporter of anything that causes less suffering in the world to any animal, human or otherwise. I can't bring myself to think it a bad thing that there are people out there who want to look out for creatures smaller and more helpless than ourselves... but in general, PETA activists fail to grasp that as humans, we should make other humans our priority. That's not to say we turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals; but we are obligated to make wise choices and support things that do not cause harm to people in favour of animals.

PETA's crossing that line with their new campaign.

The front page of their new Olympic protest site sports animation in which blood-soaked Inuit, brandishing primitive clubs, race across the screen in pursuit of a wide-eyed, fleeing baby seal. Explore the site further, and there's even a colouring page for children with the character in question triumphantly holding his bloodied club aloft as the corpses of several small, adorable seals lie in pools of gore at his feet. (The e-cards, while not racist, are pretty gory and unintentionally funny- I will be emailing them out to friends and family all afternoon.)
The Inuit are an often misunderstood people who have had their homeland and traditions eroded, and their traditions come under further threat every year when thousands of people worldwide make the mistake of equating the sustenance hunting of this relatively small community with the much larger commercial seal hunt. PETA's new campaign portrays Canada's native peoples as bloodthirsty barbarians and vilifies their already threatened way of life and traditions.

As it turns out, this isn't the first or only time PETA's supported questionable causes in favour of animals, nor is it the first time racist imagery has been used.

The same anti-Olympic site has a link to an article glowing in support for Israel, because Israel is poised to ban fur. No mention of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but it's not a worry, since the animals are safe.

Check out this site, for a bizarre billboard campaign filled with racist imagery that PETA wanted to put up at the US/Mexico border.

Next up, we have PETA opportunistically using the murder of an abortion provider as an intro to veganism... the images used of fluffy yellow chicks on the billboard make one wonder if they make are capable of making any distinctions between a dozen eggs and a dozen human babies. This is a very recent campaign, by the way- that article dates June 2nd, only ten days ago.

They also used white supremacist imagery in a protest against the AKC, and misused holocaust imagery- equating the persecution and incarceration of millions of Jews in concentration camps with chickens in factory farms. (See images here and here.)

PETA may have failed miserably to champion animal rights with these campaigns, but they've done some good. They've added weight to the argument that racism is patently anti-human and demeans us all.

This article on CBC.ca today caught my attention, as I am often responsible for selection and scheduling interviews of applicants for my workplace. This article talks of the difficulties job seekers with foreign-sounding names may have in obtaining interviews in the Canadian job market.

Depressing, but hardly surprising. All one has to do in order to find evidence of rampant racism in Canada is read through the comments on any given article on that (or any other) news website involving an immigrant or person of visible minority.

I read one recently in which three teenagers beat a woman in her 50s at a bus stop in Montreal. The comments therein were overwhelmingly of a racist/anti-immigration nature, in spite of the fact that said article never once mentioned the race or ethnic group of the perpetrators.

(Interestingly enough, the perpetrators turned out to be three white boys, but I'm sure the racist commenters will blame the "bad influence" of their immigrant neighbors. If you read through the comments, you'll see that this bit of info was edited out later from the article, so that people could continue assuming the assailants were black kids.)

But, I digress. Let's get back to discussing the UBC findings.

Hopefully, further studies will discover that much of the discrimination based on names is unintentional. Perhaps awareness will cut down on some of it, as employers conscientiously become more inclusive. In spite of all the evidence of racism I see, I continue to believe that with every decade Canada becomes more inclusive and that the conscious efforts of anyone who fights to be more accepting makes a difference.

In the meantime, folks applying for jobs via Monster and other job hunting sites can always use the "keep contact information confidential" option, in which employers cannot see names or contact information until they have decided they're interested in contacting the individual for an interview. That option might turn out to be a great equalizer in the job market.

The article also states: "The study also found employers preferred Canadian work experience over Canadian education.

For resumés with foreign names and education, call backs nearly doubled when the applicant had held one previous job in Canada."

This is something I understand, and may be not as related to race as one might initially think when reading this article. After all, I see plenty of resumés from people in English-speaking countries as well as those not. Verifying work experience in other countries can be a serious obstacle. Checking references from overseas employers can be expensive and awkward, as overseas telephone rates are costly and most people don't have a good working knowledge of what time it might be in Wales if it's 1pm in Toronto.

So what do we do, as employers, when we have a great applicant whose interview has gone well, but whose references will be difficult to check because they're on the other side of the world? Doesn't everyone deserve a chance? How can a new immigrant in Canada get a job without having had a job in Canada?

As much as I am a fan of diligently checking applicant's references, it's far smarter to base your acceptance or rejection of an applicant based on the interview than a reference. If you've ever called a lot of references, you'll know that you'd be hard pressed to find someone using an individual who will say anything negative about the applicant's work history as a reference. References are useful to verify details, but your experience and impressions of the individual are a far more important criteria to make a hiring decision on than anything a reference might say.

I will accept letters of reference from other countries, provided I can contact the writer of said letter via email and ask a few pertinent questions. I've also found that many employers from larger companies in other countries are happy to call you, if the cost of the call is of a concern and a time can be scheduled to talk. Live chat with previous employers over internet is also an unconventional, but useful, option.

We have a responsibility to do our part, as employers, to make it possible for a committed individual to get that first job in Canada. If you're an employer, and your applicant really seems the right person for the job, it's up to you to work with that person and find a way to make it possible. It's worth it to work a little harder to have the right employee, and it feels fantastic to know you've helped someone get a start here.

Turnabout is Fair Play

According to this article in the Toronto Star, Shin Bet claims that spies are being recruited via facebook by Hamas and other organizations.

"Arabs are trying to recruit spies on the popular social networking site", writes the Associated Press, "The Shin Bet security agency warned Israelis against answering unsolicited messages or sharing telephone numbers and other sensitive information over the Internet. It said there have been numerous incidents recently in which violent groups tried to recruit Israelis through Facebook and other networking sites."

The irony of this article isn't lost on me.

Shin Bet has long come under fire for continuing to torture captives in spite of having been ordered to stop by the Israeli Supreme Court, killing prisoners without trial (the Kav 300 affair), committing assassinations, and deporting peaceful speakers who criticize Israel's policies (Norman Finkelstein, for example).

Shin Bet has been using this slick website, complete with blog, to solicit talent worldwide since 2006.

Apparently it's okay for an organization with a long history of torture and violent assassinations to recruit via the internet, as long as it's an Israeli organization.

Victory!

A small one, perhaps, but a victory nonetheless.
CBC.ca took down the racist remark I found so objectionable, after I emailed them my objections. In its place is "This comment has been removed by a moderator."

Score one for the rabbit girl.

Racism in Canada is Alive and Well

I've been pondering the idea of starting a blog to expand and explore my political ideals for a while... but the thing that finally gave me the impetus to sit down and do it was a comment made in this article about the response of local Tamil protesters to the LTTE's recent surrender in Sri Lanka.
The remark in question went as follows:

Another solution is the FINAL solution. Either learn to get along and get on with your lives or go away - forever.

My response to this, which I more than half expect the CBC will not publish, was as follows:

This remark essentially says "conform or submit to ethnic cleansing, Nazi-Style". And a disproportionate number of "agrees". How depressing. Racism appears to be alive and well in Canada.

No matter how angry you are at the local Tamil community for disrupting your roadways, no matter how little you want to get involved in a foreign civil war, it is never okay to make a blatantly racist remark like this.

I'm shocked that this remark made it through on a moderated board where they pre-screen comments. Am I supposed to believe that someone working for the CBC doesn't actually know what the Final Solution is?

It's the last sentence that I think will disallow its posting on the site; CBC does not like to be criticized. Still, I think it is important to make criticisms when appropriate, whether anyone sees it or not.

I believe in people's right to have an opinion, and I believe in free speech. However, the rules for posting on that site clearly state that racist remarks will not be allowed, and freedom of speech does not equal a license to spout hatred. I wouldn't object to these people posting their hatred on their own damn sites, but if they've agreed to abide by the rule of not posting racism, it becomes the moderator's job to ensure it doesn't go up.

There are many other racist remarks posted every single day; indeed, racist remarks go up every hour of every day on the CBC. Now, I know that the disclaimer says the CBC doesn't endorse any of these opinions, but I'm troubled by the fact that they allow so many of them to go up when it's a violation of the terms of service every registered member has to agree to before posting comments.

Read some of the remarks in this article. The University of Saskatchewan refused the donation of a scholarship because it deemed the terms of the scholarship to violate the Human Rights Code- in other words, stipulating that the scholarship could go to anyone except an aboriginal was racist.

Most of these comments are not blatantly racist enough to make me feel that the CBC would be obligated to remove them, but the nasty odour of racial intolerance still hovers around most of the remarks, as if someone has silently passed gas in a crowded elevator. In spite of the posters' claims that the university's decision is "reverse racism", you know that the real reason they're protesting the decision just stinks.

A scholarship meant to help a disadvantaged group of people hurts nobody, but a scholarship intended for the sole purpose of excluding another hurts everyone.

Those are but two examples; but there are hundreds more. Several dozen every day. I won't even start about some of the things I read in the articles about Omar Khadr, and as much as I think it's very likely that Ruby Dhalla is guilty of mistreating her employees, far too many people are assuming her guilt on the basis of her heritage. A lot of the comments in the articles about her are misdirected towards her appearance in a Bollywood film or coming from a country with a caste system, rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing.

CBC is irresponsible for allowing the worst of the racist comments on their site to be posted (like my first example above), but we can't forget that the comments themselves were made by the Canadian public. Nor can we excuse the number of "agreed" votes on each of them.

When did it become socially acceptable in Canada to be a racist, so long as you were hating on Natives, Arabs or South Asians?