One Last Post: Why I'm Staying

I decided to make one last post to this blog, and it's about why I'm staying in Canada. From an objective standpoint, Canada isn't without it's problems and disappointments. Winters are brutal here in Fredericton, NB. But if you look at where Canada ranks in the OECD's 'Better Life' index, which is a measure of 'quality of life' based on official data from all OECD countries, you'll know why I'm staying. Canada ranks second in the world, next to and almost equal to Australia.

In other words, Canada isn't perfect, certainly, but there's really no "better" place to go in the world. Life has its problems and disappointments no matter where you live. But I can say for sure that, in Canada, I'm happy enough.

Election 2011: Battle of the Snow Men

I promised myself that I wouldn't write about the Canadian Federal Election 2011 until after the election was over. That's because I was directly involved as a volunteer for an MP Green Party campaign in Fredericton NB, and I wanted to keep my opinions and observations separate from my work as a volunteer.

I certainly learned a great deal during this election, including two new words in the Canadian lexicon related to elections. In addition to "riding", which is an electoral district; and "hustings", which are public places where politicians meet voters, I discovered "bingo sheets", the list of people who voted (and didn't vote); and "scrutineering", which is observation of the ballot counting after the polls close.

The other fascinating difference in Canadian elections, contrasted with the American custom, is how people decide who to vote for. Technically speaking, Canadians don't vote for their Prime Minister. They vote for the Member of Parliament in their own riding. If enough MPs from a Party are elected to Parliament, usually a plurality, i.e., more than any other single party, the Leader of that Party forms a government and becomes the Prime Minister of Canada. However, in practice, Canadians vote for the Party Leader they like best: Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe, or May. If they like Harper, they vote for the Conservative candidate in their local riding; if they like Iggy, they vote for the Liberal candidate; or if they like Jack Layton, they vote for the NDP candidate. Sometimes voters know very little about the actual candidates in their local district. They just vote for the candidate who represents the Leader and the Party they want to win.

It's not exactly a rational process, at least not for an American observer. Take, for instance, the NDP candidate for the Berthier-Maskinongé in Quebec, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who won the race in that riding. She doesn't live in the district, and had never set foot there until after the election was over. She doesn't speak French—odd for a person who represents a French-speaking district. A professional bar tender, she went on vacation to Las Vegas during the campaign and was otherwise unavailable for the better part of it. She never went to any of the debates or spoke with the press. Brosseau, or her election committee, credited her with having a degree from a community college that she never received. The list of embarrassments and incompetencies goes on, but nonetheless, a plurality of voters of Berthier-Maskinongé voted for her in an NDP sweep of Quebec that gave the party over 100 seats in Parliament. Quebeckers liked Jack Layton and the social democracy of the NDP, so they voted for the NDP candidate in their riding as a way to vote for Jack, even if they didn't know who that candidate was.

There were exceptions to this phenomenon of course—the biggest one being that the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands, BC voted for Green Party Leader Liz May over Conservative Gary Lunn, by a margin of 11 percent. The NDP and Liberal candidates came in a far distant third and fourth place. For the Greens, it was a textbook race. When Liz May beat Lunn, she beat a Conservative, a five time incumbent, and a Cabinet Minister. The Greens concentrated so much of their money and resources on that one seat, they lost 300,000 votes nationally. Overall, the Greens did not suck the oxygen out of a single NDP campaign, either in her district or anywhere in Canada. No one in their right mind could accuse the Greens of taking votes away from the NDP. Strategically, for the Greens, it was best case scenario.

But after the Leader's Debate in mid-April (from which Liz May was unfairly excluded), there was a surge of popularity for Jack Layton and his NDP, primarily in Quebec, but also in parts of Nova Scotia and British Columbia. At that point, it became a race between the Snow Men. It struck me that Canadians like their leaders to be Snow Men: white-haired anglo males with ice-cold faces and body language, and voices that never show any emotion. Both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton are snow men. But Harper is a mean, scary snow man, while Jack Layton is a friendly, happy snow man. After five years of the mean scary snow man, a growing number of Canadians decided they liked the happy snow man better.

Iggy lost because he wasn't a snow man—he had pepper-grey hair, Russian ancestry, and a demeanour that showed passion—strong negative emotions. Bob Rae, on the other hand, is a perfect Snow Man and may possibly become the Interim Leader of the Liberals. Gilles Duceppe was a pretty good Snow Man—he even had crystal blue eyes—but he's sarcastic and French; thus he lost big time. Jack also shows emotion, but only the happy kind, like the kind of snow man you see in a department store display at Christmas who's always smiling sweetly, and that's the kind Canadians like.

So the Abominable Snow Man Stephen Harper is still Prime Minister, but the Frosty the Happy Snow Man Jack Layton is there as Official Opposition to soothe and entertain us and make us feel ok about the fact that we’re stuck with a majority Conservative government for the next four years. Hi-di-ho, as Kurt Vonnegut would say.

This will be my last blog post in Alice in Canada for some time. I have moved on in the blogging world. I am now running two Wordpress publications that work in conjunction with local movements that do activist stuff on the ground in the real world. I run FQ: Fredericton Queery, which I work in tandem with the Queer Theory Collective, and The Harbinger, which I coordinate with the Green Party of New Brunswick. Meanwhile, Alice has decided she's staying on this side of the Looking Glass—in Canada. She likes it here.

Obama: Puppet of Wall Street Oligarchs

Cornel West speaks the truth about Obama, the Corporate State and the American empire.

Bradley Manning: Don't Ask/Don't Tell?

Private Bradley Manning is gay. Bradley was arrested in May 2010 and is being held at the Brig in Quantico, Virginia, charged with 22 crimes related to his alleged involvement in the "Wiki-leaks" affair. Bradley is awaiting trail and has never been convicted of any of these crimes. Yet, he is being tortured: held in solitary confinement 23 hours per day, no contact with the outside world, stripped of all his clothes, even his underwear, forced to sleep naked and inspected while naked every morning. He is not allowed to exercise or read anything. He is forced to answer questions by guards sometimes every 5 minutes. Furthermore, he is the only prisoner at Quantico who is being treated this way. These are all the kinds of torture techniques that are being used at Guantanamo, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other "black site" prisons around the world in the "war on terror." And these are exactly the kind of torture, abuse and war crimes that Bradley Manning tried to expose to the world.

Bradley Manning allegedly released anywhere from 50,000 to 300,000 cables, photos, videos and documents to an informant who was connected with Wiki-Leaks. It's still uncertain as to whether he had direct contact with Julian Assange, which Julian denies. Bradley released the "Collateral Murder" video, showing that American military intentionally shot and killed a dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians, and two reporters from the Reuters News agency. Bradley released thousands of other documents and communications that contain information that provides evidence of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bradley also released a huge but unkown number of US diplomatic documents. The Obama Administration contends that the release of this information threatens the security interests of the United States. Some might argue that Bradley went too far in releasing diplomatic and military information that had no direct bearing on evidence of war crimes, and I might even agree with you on that. But that doesn't justify using torture to punish him, especially as he hasn't even been to trial or convicted of anything. Even if he was convicted of threatening US security interests, there is no justification for subjecting him to torture. His treatment constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" which is illegal under the US Constitution. The United Nations and Amnesty International are investigating Bradley's case as a prisoner of conscience and a victim of torture. Deputy Secretary of State, P. J. Crowley, a retired Air Force Colonel, resigned his position at the State Department in protest over the torture of Bradley Manning.

But beyond these gruesome facts is something even more troubling for both Bradley and the gay community in North America: the stunning silence of gay leadership about Bradley's situation. To date, NONE of the gay and lesbian human rights organizations has made any kind of public statement about Bradley Manning. I have searched the websites of NGLTF, the Human Rights Campaign, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and EGALE Canada. NOT ONE of these sites has published even a statement acknowledging Bradley's situation.

Just to be sure that I wasn't missing something, I actually called IGLHRC's headquarters in New York City and asked them if they had a position on Bradley Manning's situation. I was told that I had to speak to a Communications Director, but that she was out of the office. I was told to send an email to the person I spoke to, and he would pass it on to her. I regretfully sent the email on Monday, March 14 and awaited a reply. To date, I have not even received a reply to my email.

The stubborn silence about Bradley on the part of gay human rights organizations is an outrage and a disgrace. I almost fear what would happen if I was imprisoned for some alleged crime and subjected to that kind of torture. Would the gay human rights community be silent about me? Why are they silent about Bradley? Have they forgotten the basic queer truth: SILENCE EQUALS DEATH? When does "It Get Better" for Bradley? Are they going to stand by in silence if he commits suicide because of the torture and abuse to which he is subjected?

Or is there another agenda here? In December, 2010, the Obama Administration, with the Department of Defense, issued an order repealing Don't Ask-Don't Tell, essentially making it legal for gay and lesbian soldiers to be "out" in the US military. (I will not extend that to say it applies to transgender and transsexual soldiers, because it probably doesn't.) Immediately, in December, Matthew Tsien, an out gay member of the military, wrote an editorial in the South Florida Gay News that "Private Bradley Manning is No Gay Role Model." Tsien argues that Bradley Manning is not a champion of truth and human rights for exposing US war crimes, but a traitor to his country. Furthermore, he argues that Bradley's actions threaten the rights of gays and lesbians to be out in the military, which had just been secured that month.

The silence of the gay and lesbian human rights organizations concerning Bradley, and his denouncement by gay military, implies that the equal right to serve in a military regime is more important than the right of a gay brother to be protected from torture. It implies that queers who serve the Imperialist State will be protected, but queers who challenge the Imperialist State by exposing the horrific human rights abuses, torture and brutal criminality of the Imperialist State will not be protected. Furthermore, it implies that it is more important to be seen as compliant functionaries of the Imperialist State than it is to challenge the brutality of the Imperialist State.

Private Bradley Manning is gay. He copied the data from the military computers on to a CD of music by Lady Gaga, gleefully lip-syncing her songs while he downloaded the information. He was bulleyed as a fag at the school in Wales where he lived with his mother. His military father in Oklahoma kicked him out of the house as a teenager because he was gay; he survived by living in his car. But he was a genius programmer and found a job in the military, obtaining high security clearance to data banks that stored both military and diplomatic information. He was about to be discharged from the military, on grounds that he was mentally ill, when he discovered the evidence of war crimes and decided to release it. Bradley Manning is as queer as any 23 year-old could possibly be, suffered all the abuses that young queers suffer, and is now a victim of brutal State torture, and yet the gay and lesbian human rights organizations have turned their backs on him. So with regard to Bradley Manning, it's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or really, it's Let's Save Our Own Gay Asses by Sacrificing Bradley.

Bradley Manning, who is clearly gay, is a champion of justice for exposing the truth about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, a queer hero of the first order, a prisoner of conscience, and a victim of torture. It's about time we in the gay community claimed Bradley as our own and did what we could as a community to protect our queer brother.

Queers in Solidarity for Bradley Manning is joining the fight to free Bradley. Queers in Solidarity for Bradley Manning stands in support of our gay brother to demand the immediate end to his torture and abuse, to demand that he receives a rigorous defence and is finally set free as a champion of truth and human rights.

Come out to our Rally for Bradley Manning on Sunday, March 20 at 2 PM, Officers Square, corner of Regent and Queen Streets to call for an end to the torture of Bradley Manning.

The Greenhouse Parliament—2018

The Canadian Parliament will be moved into a greenhouse structure, attached to the original Parliament building, in 2018. They will deliberate and conduct business in the greenhouse while the old building is renovated and asbestos is removed. The Parliament is scheduled to remain there for several years while the renovations are completed. Subsequently, the greenhouse will continue to be used for committee meetings and other business.

As they deliberate in the greenhouse, MPs would watch the sun and clouds move overhead. They would listen to the thunder and patter of raindrops of a passing thunder storm. They would see the snow fall and the hear the wind blow in winter. They would see the rising of the moon as they vote in the evening. They would hear the patter of squirrels and pigeons as they run across the roof. Perhaps a sparrow or two would make its way into the glass structure and fly over their heads. MPs might take advantage of the bountiful sunlight and put potted plants on their desks. A dwarf maple tree might grace one end of the glass hall, producing living reminders of the symbol of Canada's flag.

Is it possible that by simply exposing government leaders to the power and beauty of nature as they deliberate that they might enact environmentally conscious legislation? Might they take some real, substantial action on climate change if they had daily exposure to the climate? Is it possible that being surrounded by plants and animals, trees, clouds, sun, rain and snow that they might start to think about the impact of their legislative acts on the environment? Would it become painfully clear how much they have failed to act? Would they moved by the beauty and power of nature herself to protect the earth and its people?

Perhaps it is hoping for too much, and perhaps my already greened-imagination is running away with me, but I can't help but think that this could be a model for governments in the 21st century. Instead of constructing fortresses that seal governments off from the natural environment and all its inhabitants—humans, animals and plants—we should build government greenhouses where leaders are reminded as they work every day just what it is they are charged with protecting.

The Next Revolt: The United Homeland of America

The revolution in Egypt could also spark a revolt in the US. All the conditions in the US are ripe for it: high unemployment, homelessness, increasing food and gas prices, and an unresponsive government that is selling America by the pound to Wall Street speculators and banksters. The only difference: it is not the revolutionary Left that will revolt in the US, but the extreme radical RIGHT: the Tea Party, the Christian Fundamentalists and White Supremacists. They are racist, misogynist anti-immigrant, and anti-gay. They are extremely violent, dangerous, and armed to the teeth.

Political Speech

I stopped paying attention to political speech years ago because I had always assumed that what politicians said had a direct relationship with the policies they enact; and then I was angry when their policies failed to match their rhetoric. Political speech and political policies have nothing to do with each other. Political speech creates a political culture that is part of the broader socio-economic culture. Political speech shapes our values and expectations, what we believe is right, what we deserve to have—our rights—and what we believe we have the power to do. That feeds into the broader cultural milieu.

Obama's policies really aren't Obama's: they're a product of the Corporate State. Obama has simply adopted whatever policies the Corporate State generates. Obama is merely a mouthpiece to circulate the right kind of rhetoric to get the public to accept the policy of the Corporate State. The rhetoric doesn't even have to match the actual policies. Like a "soft focus" TV ad, it merely softens the public's consciousness into accepting whatever policies Obama promotes, because they are "good for us" and steer the country in "the right direction."

President Obama's political speech is a prime example of the operative gap—the disconnect—between rhetoric and policy. What we have to be concerned with is the size of the gap; how big is the disconnect? If Obama's speech sounds like civil rights-hippy veggies-middle class protectionism, and the policies he is promoting are nearly the opposite, then the disconnect is nearly complete, the size of the gap is huge, and so is the lie we are being told. We are being softened by a carefully orchestrated political rhetoric that will get us to equate "civil rights-hippy veggies-middle class protectionism" with Wall Street fiscal and labor policies.

Political speech shapes the culture and language in which the economy functions. The real powers of society, capitalists in the corporate sector, rely on political speech to set the tone, to shape the expectations, so that they can move freely in society to achieve their goals without interference, to shape public policies to facilitate their goals. Political speech “softens” the culture into acceptance of a certain kind of economic and environmental/material structure and relationship; it softens the culture into acceptance of a certain kind of power structure and relationship. Thus, political speech is very important and we need to pay attention to it to understand how our culture is being “softened” and shaped, like a lump clay that will be spun on a potters wheel. The potters wheel and the hands are the corporate state, the clay is the public and the environment. Kneading and massaging the clay and wetting the clay with slip (clay water) is the process by which political messages soften and shape the clay, to prepare it for turning on the potters wheel. Once softened and placed on the potters wheel, the brute force of capitalism pulls it into its final utilitarian and economic form.

Politicians have no real power to shape the actual policy; all they can do is prepare the public to accept whatever policies the Corporate State has planned.