Pastor "Doctor" Terry Jones, in his Harley-riding gear

Burning a book is never a good idea.  Our culture is rife with exhortations against this barbaric practice.  It was, after all, something the Nazis were famous for doing.  Ray Bradbury’s classic book, Fahrenheit 451 refers to the temperature at which the pages of books begin to combust, evidence of our culture’s abhorrence of this practice.  (It’s actually supposed to be Celcius, but let’s not quibble.)

Now comes news that a wacky Christian fundamentalist, “Doctor” Terry Jones, is planning to publicly burn copies of the Koran.  He’s even got a Facebook page (and I feel bad for advertising it, but it’s all in the name of education.)   He’s burning these books, not for the traditional reason espoused by book-burners (to suppress “dangerous” ideas), but overtly to offend and incite.  On second thought, maybe he really is afraid of some of the Koran’s “dangerous” ideas…?

This is big news because “the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus, has said that the move could endanger the lives of troops in Afghanistan and protests have already kicked off in Jakarta and Kabul.” [BBC]

(Aside: there are some “news” reports of Terry Jones being arrested for child pornography.  At the time of this blog post, none of those stories appear valid.  So don’t get distracted by them.)

In an interview with BBC radio, Jones was seemingly self-contradictory.  He said that his event was to draw attention to the violence of radical Islam.  Then he said that the Koran was demonic and that Islam was innately violent.  The contradiction is in his original intent to only target “radical” Islam, but his method and verbiage clearly smears all Islam. This appears to be the norm for many American Muslim-baiters, who try to cache their hatred in the rhetoric of the reasonable, but who fail miserably when their words are examined closely.

It’s important to note Jones’s official intent: he overtly states that his intent is to incite a violent reaction from adherents to radical Islam.  We’ll come  back to this.

So what’s going on here?  Well, there are three parties that need some serious condemnation.  First are those members of the Islamic community who will predictably react with violence at Jones’s little publicity stunt.  People, listen to me: yes, it’s offensive and Jones is a moron for doing it.  But it’s just paper.  It’s the words that are sacred, not the paper.  Anyone who rises to his baiting is, frankly, a fool.  So suck it up and respect Jones’s right to be a moron.

Related to this first group is the governments and para-governmental bodies that will literally “fan the flames” to make as much of this spectacle as possible.  Iranian government and Indonesians with bullhorns, I’m looking at you.

Third, of course, is Jones himself… and his thousands of Facebook followers and silent lurkers who will nod in cowardly and silent complicity.  I have written many times that one of humanity’s greatest inventions is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.  That remarkable document gives Jones the legal right to express himself however he pleases.  To me, that right is inviolate.

But the Constitution does not say that the exercising of its rights does not excuse a citizen from responsibility for the consequences of such actions.  This is an important point, I believe.  Some contend that the fundament of ethical (and therefore legal) behaviour is that one is ultimately responsible for the foreseeable consequences of one’s actions.

So, remember Jones’s declaration, that his intent is to incite the adherents of radical Islam into violence.  The consequences of his actions, then, are not only foreseeable, they are expected… by his own proud admission, no less.

Thus, if violence does erupt, the first who must be blamed are those who commit the violence.  But a close second are those who knowingly and intentionally incited the violence.  If anyone dies as a result of this feat of nonsense, I wouldn’t be surprised if civil suits –and possibly criminal suits– are successfully brought to bear against Jones and his foolish followers.

There is so much tragedy at play here.  First there is the tragedy of a foolish bunch of inbred Floridians failing to avail themselves of a state-funded education.

Second is the tragedy of a sea of religious Muslims whose sensibilities are so fragile as to be inflamed by an inbred Floridian.

Third is the tragedy of the beautiful U.S. Constitution forced to defend actions that may cause mass bloodshed; certainly not then intent of its brilliant writers.

Fourth is the tragedy of the rest of the world’s inability to understand the beauty and intricacies of the Constitution… and so many Westerners’ inability to acknowledge that culture gap!  By this I mean the many comments I’ve read by Muslims abroad who don’t understand why the U.S. government doesn’t just step in and stop Jones’s foolishness.  (It’s because the glorious Constitution doesn’t give the government the ability to do anything it pleases, a limitation much of the world has yet to embrace.) Relatedly, so many Americans don’t understand how foreigners don’t understand that an individual’s rights are sacrosanct.  This is the cultural gap I’m talking about.  Much dialogue is needed.

And fifth is the profound tragedy that this one act will undo years of hard P.R. work by the West’s brokers for peace and understanding.   The selling of the War on Terror has always been that it is a struggle against those radicals who wish to co-opt the good name of Islam to do violence for political ends.. to counter the world’s sense that it’s just a mindless war on Islam.  The burning of the Koran sends one message and one message only: that American military adventures in Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan are just manifestations of the West’s hatred for Islam as a whole.

No good will likely come of this.  But some good can come of this.  If the Muslim world takes a deep breath (for a change) and simply ignores this Floridian fool, maybe just shake their heads in pity and disgust and walk away, then Terry Jones’s thesis would be dramatically disproved and the two civilizations could take a giant step forward.  So how about it?  Any takers?

First off, thanks to the High Commissioner of India in Ottawa for hosting celebrations of India’s 63rd anniversary of independence from Britain yesterday.  Here’s a pic from the event, courtesy of Frank Scheme:

In private celebration of the anniversary, I re-watched Gandhi and did some additional reading on the circumstances of Indian independence.  Some of you might be interested in this critical appraisal of Gandhi’s role, by Richard Grenier.

Today, on the other hand, we celebrate two unrelated anniversaries.  First, it’s the 33rd anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley.  Weirdly, I remember the exact moment when I heard his death announced on the radio.  I was ten years old and playing in my brother’s bedroom (which was always cleaner than mine).

Second, today is the 36th anniversary of the first time that The Ramones played CBGB.  Why is this important? Because it marks the official birth of punk rock.  And yes, punk rock was important.

In Other News

Now, on a totally different topic, I’m sure many of you have heard of the plan to build a mosque on private property in lower Manhattan, near the site of “Ground Zero”, where the World Trade Centers came down on September 11, 2001.  For the obvious disappointing reason, this has become a controversy, fed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

Fortunately, President Obama has spoken out in favour of religious freedom.  Mayor Bloomberg has inspiringly stated that the building of this mosque is one of the most important tests of democracy in the USA, or something to this effect.  Despite these views, hatred and anger abound, as in this site.

Others have recently piped up to accuse the founder of the mosque to be in favour of certain seemingly undesirable principles, such as the promotion of Sharia law.

Frankly, the way I see it, it really doesn’t matter what the intent of the mosque is.  The fact remains that it’s a place of worship to be built on private land, and the Bill of Rights gives each citizen the right to build such a thing.  So the mosque must have legal licence to be built.

That doesn’t mean that other citizens aren’t free to voice their displeasure, discontentment and perhaps even suspicion.  That, too, is the nature of democracy.  But they certainly do not have the right to demand that the mosque not be built in the first place.

An interesting comparison is between the building of the mosque and the publication of those Danish cartoons way back when, the ones that portrayed Mohammed in an unflattering light.  A lot of readers took exception to my post back in 2006, in which I attempted to analyse the publishing of the cartoons via a set of ethical axioms.  To summarize, I maintain the right of freedom of expression under the law.  But it’s valid to ask the intent of the expression for the purposes of formulating a response.

Similarly, the law does and should defend the right of the mosque founders to build their place of worship.  But it’s also fair game for critics to question and discuss their motivations… without calling for the limitations of their rights under the Bill of Rights.

Fareed Zakaria put it best, in a recent interview with Charlie Rose.  He said something to the extent that the Bill of Rights is innately an anti-democratic document, as it should be.  The Bill protects the rights of the individual, even when the majority is incensed.   So both Bloomberg and Obama are correct in their characterization of this crisis as a test of the resilience of the US Constitution –for my money one of the greatest achievements of human civilization– and particularly the Bill of Rights, which is in essence the first ten amendments of said Constitution.  Failure of the Bill to defend the construction of the mosque may indeed signal the crumbling of the heart of the US social contract, the set of beliefs that truly made America into the shining city on the hill.

What our neighbours to the south eventually decide –both in terms of law and in terms of their behaviours and words– will inform us of the content of their hearts, and will tell us if they have indeed left the Bush days of exceptionalism, xenophobia and irrationalism behind them.

Arnel Pineda
(image stolen from rtvchannel.tv)

It’s 3:AM Monday morning and I’m procrastinating again. Big consulting contract is several days overdue and I must get it done before the start of the business day. But instead I’m on youtube looking up old classic rock clips. I’ve been through the entire Queen catalogue and moved on to the Queen covers. Now I’m into the category of music that a a girl I once dated used to call “butt rock”.

I’m not sure what “butt rock” is supposed to be. I always failed that particular ex’s quizzes on the matter. Apparently, Kansas is “butt rock” but Alice Cooper is not. Neither is Foreigner, but Journey definitely is. I really don’t understand her classification system.

Anyway, speaking of Journey, this is probably old news to most of you, but have you heard that they have a new singer? I’m a great fan of powerful stadium voices, and there are few modern rock voices as petrifyingly awesome as that of Steve Perry, the founding singer of Journey.

Here we are, more than 20 years after the reign of Journey atop middle America’s “butt rock” charts. Steve Perry left the band a long time ago. They went through a few interim singers, but no one captured the public’s imagination. Then the band saw a Youtube clip of a Filipino street kid singing in the Hard Rock Cafe in Manila, and were blown away by his raw power.

Long story short, the new lead singer of Journey is the formerly impoverished, self-trained long-haired Filipino dude named Arnel Pineda. How good is he? Check out this clip from last year:

Eerie, no?

So why do I care? What relevance does Arnel Pineda have to the regular themes and topics of Deonandia? Well, for one thing, I get a kick out of how the media refers to him as “that Filipino kid”. Arnel is exactly my age, 42. He’s no kid. More to the point, he’s a 40-ish, short brown man from the poorer part of the developing world. I gotta say, that’s more than enough to get me rooting for him. In fact, his tale is a classic one of beaten-down underdog who aspires to stardom; a classic Americanesque fairy tale that, one would think, would be embraced by anyone still holding to the fading myth of the American Dream.

Arnel, you see, was the eldest of several children. His mother’s illness and early death bankrupted the family, forcing all of them out of school and Arnel, literally, onto the streets. It was music, specifically Arnel’s otherworldly voice, that lifted him from squalour, and that has allowed him to lift his family and others from dire straits indeed.

The sad part, though, as alluded to in this article, is the degree to which racism has entered the fray, even with respect to something as irrelevant as who fronts a washed up 80s band. When Arnel was announced as the new Journey singer, US fan forums across the Internet lit up with peals of protest, along the lines of “Journey is an ‘all American’ band” that should not be tainted by a singer of the wrong race and nationality. I wish I’d kept the original links; can’t find them right now.

It’s interesting and sad that nationalism continues to be conflated with race, particularly in nations, like the USA, that were constructed in the modern era from commercial and philosophical principles rather than ethnic ones. It’s further sad that so many people feel the need to conflate their artistic tastes with racial overtones.

I’m reminded of when I lived in the USA, almost a decade ago. I was on a few local dating sites back then and was constantly shocked by how many White women had in their profiles, “I prefer to date all American men, so Caucasians only, please.” My objection isn’t that someone has or expresses their racial dating preferences –that’s a personal choice– but rather the bewildering conflation of race with “all American”. It was a meme I saw and heard a lot, both in dating profiles and in casual conversation.

The same sentiment is repeated in the current “Tea Bag” movement among the American Right, whose verbiage includes the sentiment of wishing to “take back their country from the current President”. Is it not his country, too? I wonder how much of that sentiment is informed by racial prejudice, either acknowledged or subconscious; that their country is White and does not belong to a Black man, let alone a Northern, educated, liberal Black President.

So I will continue to watch the reception of Arnel Pineda carefully to see how prevalent this conflation of race with things unrelated to race becomes. Until next time, here’s Arnel’s first public performance with Journey, in Chile in 2008:

Apparently a big screen biopic about Arnel’s life is coming soon to theatres near you. It’s title? Don’t Stop Believing, of course.

Three important facts to note:

1. I’m a professor at the University of Ottawa
2. Politically, I’m liberal on philosophical points, particularly relating to foreign policy, and conservative on fiscal matters. But I’m probably best described as Left of centre, if you really need me to pick a side.
3. I think Ann Coulter is delusional, hypocritical, possibly narcissistic, dangerously disingenuous, and a seething cauldron of unexamined –nay, proud!– hate.

And if you strongly disagree with point #3, you will probably cite points #1 and #2 in your inevitable actions to refute what I’m going to say for the rest of this post. I do tire of these games, and have no intention of entering into any kind of debate with anyone over anything to do with Miss Coulter.

As you probably already know, Coulter is on a pan-Canada tour. Why? Who knows. Maybe Americans –flush with purpose and a renewed skepticism of knee-jerk hate after a Democratic and supposedly liberal President gave them all health care– are no longer in the mood for Coulter’s particular brand of idiocy. Maybe she feels that Canada, North America’s only nation now with a retrograde conservative leadership, presents better hunting grounds for a niche in which to sell Coulter’s smear-jobs-of-the-week that she packages as books.

I don’t care why she’s coming. Lots of people come here. I don’t have a problem with it, especially since I’m presently in Mexico and thus far away from her.

The problem, of course, is that Coulter is known for her so-called “hate speech”. In the past, she has publicly called for the invasion of Muslim countries, the murdering of their heads of state and the forced conversion to Christianity of Muslim civilians. In a rehearsed public speech, she called John Edwards a “faggot”. These are two examples off the top of my head. To cite more would require me to go back and read her columns again, and I really don’t want to put my ageing and addled brain through such torture.

Do her words qualify as hate speech? Sure, why not? I’m on record, though, of being opposed to Canada’s hate speech laws and hate crime laws. I think that a crime is not made more criminal simply by being hateful; and I think that hateful speech should not be legally punished until a link can be shown between such speech and an actual criminal act. Otherwise, people should be able to say whatever (non-libelous things) they want to say.

But that’s just me.

So where are we? Ann Coulter, known for her hateful speech, is coming to Canada. Of more immediate concern to this blog post, though, is that Ann Coulter was coming to the University of Ottawa…. my generous and gracious employer whom I’d never dream of disparaging

Now, I don’t know why the following happened. I have some theories. Here’s one. The university knows its students, knows that they are mostly a Left-leaning activist lot who would get quite riled up by Coulter’s (deliberately) provocative statements. Statements that may dance on the border of hate crime, or maybe even cross over into that realm, would be carefully parsed and legal action would be demanded of the university by these passionate students. So perhaps to save itself such trouble, perhaps to avoid more administrative burden in an institution already known for its overwhelming mass of bureaucracy, the university issued the following letter to Ann Coulter:

“Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa”

I don’t know if the letter was meant to be public. But it has been reproduced in many Right-leaning forums, the National Post among them. Poor Dr Houle was now on the radar of the vicious, bitter and petty extreme Right-wing blogosphere, for what really is a polite letter.

Now, many Coulter supporters read this letter as a veiled threat of criminal action. There’s nothing veiled about it. I think it’s quite a reasonable letter, but it is clear in its intent and implications. If some of Coulter’s speeches in the USA were spoken in Canada, they might very well constitute hate crime under our current laws. The letter did not discourage her from coming or threaten to ban her if she didn’t promise to “play nice”. It just suggested that the university would feel compelled to add to its ridiculous administrative burden if Coulter did indeed give her standard US campus presentation on Canadian soil.

So far, so good…. Except that Coulter, seeing a chance to gain some press over what would have otherwise been yet another barely noticed campus tour, saw her opening. She re-printed the letter on her column, with the provocative –and incorrect– title, “Canadian University Provost Wants To Send Me To Jail… For a Speech I Haven’t Given Yet“. At that point, what transpired next was fairly predictable for anyone who’s observed the shenanigans of the bored and angry far-Right as much as I have.

Now, being in Mexico, I haven’t been privy to all the details of what’s happening on campus. But essentially, citing fears for Coulter’s personal safety, “organizers” cancelled her appearance. The “organizers”, as I understand it, were a campus-based student group. This is important: the university never cancelled Coulter’s appearance; her own representatives appear to have done so, or at least a campus group in coordination with Coulter’s representatives did so. Keep in mind that I have no facts beyond that which are published in the papers, and I’m observing all of this from Mexico. So, really, what do I know?

Okay, now on to the really predictable part. With the appearance cancelled, Coulter retained none other than Ezra Levant to –here it comes– represent her in a human rights complaint against the University of Ottawa.

Now, I have talked about Ezra Levant many times in the past in this space. There was Ezra’s seeming tolerance of hate speech on his own website. There was more of the same. There was Ezra’s attacks on former Liberal leader Stephane Dion. There was Ezra’s seeming blind love for all things George Bush. Oh, I’ve talked about him many many times before. One of his supporters even suggested that Ezra would one day track me down and beat me up. (Yeah, I laughed, too. I’m not that hard to find.)

Now the important thing about Levant, at least with respect to the current topic, is that he styles himself as an uncompromising defender of free speech. This, in and of itself, is a great thing. Who doesn’t love a defender or liberties? The problem is that his support only seems to extend to people who want to say things that he agrees with.

For example, when George Galloway was banned from speaking in Canada –a true and obvious denial of free speech!– Levant said of the issue:

“I don’t see this as a free speech issue; I see it as a sovereignty issue — keeping out an undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here, and who boasts about violating our criminal code.”

“Undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here”? Sounds like a certain skinny blonde firebrand with a hate-on for Muslims. Someone “who boasts about violating our criminal code”? Again, if Coulter brags in her column that the things she says would get her arrested in Canada, I think that that constitutes “boasting about our criminal code.” How about it, Ezra?

(By the way, read my whole take on the Galloway affair here.)

Levant is claiming that his reasons for taking on the Coulter case is to show how duplicitous the human rights tribunal process is, and that it is biased against conservatives. I don’t know if that’s true. But I think Levant lost pretty much all his credibility with not only his failure to defend Galloway’s right of free speech in Canada, but his active support for the denial of those rights. Levant would be more convincing if he were more consistent with his views and appplications of his principles.

What about Coulter? Since I started writing this post about 10 minutes ago, I received an email from her automatic listserv (someone thought it was funny to sign me up; I actually kind of enjoy deleting her emails). You can read her current column here (which is exactly what she wants you to do; so I guess I’m helping her out, as well.) It’s interesting how the mighty have fallen. Once a syndicated columnist at leading papers, a promising lawyer, someone who, I think, even worked at the White House briefly, Coulter is now calling out members of the SFUO –the University of Ottawa’s student federation! Picking fights with undergrads? Really? Oh Ann.

So Coulter is denouncing someone’s decision to “deny” her he opportunity to spread her extreme views on a college campus. Hmmm, this sounds vaguely familiar. Let me see… Columbia University once compared Coulter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why it this relevant? Because Ahmadinejad once spoke at the Columbia campus, despite conservatives trying really hard to prevent him from doing so.

In fact, prior to the Iranian leader’s appearance, conservative forces rallied under the leadership of such Coulter compatriots as Michelle Malkin, who issued this call for supporters to send a message to the university administration that Ahmadinejad was not welcome on campus.

When Coulter herself was asked about Ahmadinejad’s Columbia appearance, she said this:

“You know, I give a lot of college speeches, I know how colleges behave, and there is the least free speech on a college campus as any place in America. It is like Iran—so for them to be saying they are allowing this guy to speak because of free speech, you know, your head explodes.”

Er… what? Further in the same interview, Coulter suggested that by allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia was “aiding the other side.” At least that’s the way I read it. Coulter is a master of dancing around topics so deftly that it’s hard to pin her down to any particular viewpoints, except that liberals are sissies and Muslims are evil.

The president of the University of Ottawa, Mr Allan Rock, a seasoned diplomat, issued the following statement to all members of the university community today:

“On Tuesday, March 23, an appearance by Ann Coulter was scheduled on our campus, organized by the International Free Press Society Canada and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

The University of Ottawa has always promoted and defended freedom of expression. For that reason, we did not at any time oppose Ann Coulter’s appearance. Whether it is Ann Coulter or any other speaker, diverse views have always been and continue to be welcome on our campus.

Last night, the organizers themselves decided at 7:50 p.m. to cancel the event and so informed the University’s Protection Services staff on site. At that time, a crowd of about one thousand people had peacefully gathered at Marion Hall.

“Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University. “We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus. Last night was no exception, as people gathered here to listen to and debate Ann Coulter’s opinions.

I encourage our students, faculty and other members of our community to maintain our University as an open forum for diverse opinions. Ours is a safe and democratic environment for the expression of views, and we will keep it that way.”

It doesn’t sound to me like anyone’s free speech was being curtailed. In fact, all official missives suggest that Coulter was openly welcomed to the university campus. I think what actually happened was that when Professor Roule sent that ill-advised letter, the Coulter-ites and their hypocritical self-styled supporter of “free speech for people I agree with”, Ezra Levant, saw this as an opportunity to manufacture an event and make both Levant and Coulter briefly relevant again.

That is all. Nothing more to see here. Ignore the pests and they’ll just go back to screaming about Communists and evolutionists in their basement meetings.

Apparently there was a hockey game tonight, something to do with the Olympics. Judging from the noise on the street outside, I gather the favoured team won.

I don’t really care. Seriously, I don’t care.

I don’t begrudge any of you your joy; that is your right. This post is not about me being a curmudgeon and wanting the noisy people outside to quiet down so I that can finish writing the grant that’s due tomorrow. People need to celebrate occasionally; I get that. Rather, this is about something a bit more disturbing.

Last week, back when the Canadian men’s hockey team lost to the Americans (or so I’m told; I didn’t watch it), the great national soul-searching that resulted was rather sickening. One particular Toronto newspaper had on its cover, in 4 centimetre high red letters, “OUR NATIONAL PRIDE IS AT RISK,” or something like that. What followed were 6-10 pages of sports coverage and endless analysis about whether Canada would be able to rise above the shame of having a group of its favoured millionaire adolescents lose at a game.

All right. Fair enough. Whatever. I watch cartoons, German porn and reality TV. I’m in no position to pretend to be more sophisticated or enlightened.

But we are a lucky society indeed if our “national shame” is defined by a game. You know what else happened over the same time period that this “national shame” was getting ’round-the-clock coverage? The public supplement to the Iacobucci Report was released.

The Iaocobucci Inquiry’s report is an official study of the complicity of the Canadian government in the illegal detainment and torture of Canadian citizens Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin. You can read it at www.iacobucciinquiry.ca.

Not surprising to any of us familiar with the present government’s xenophobic tendencies, the Iacobucci Inquiry found that “Canadian officials likely contributed” to the “mistreatment and torture” of the named individuals. I won’t go into the details of how they contributed; you can read that bit yourself.

But here’s the thing: In the thorough, brow-wiping analysis of our gripping “national shame” (i.e., hockey game) that the aforementioned newspaper examined with such gravitas, was there a single mention of the Iacobucci report or its findings? None that I could see. In fact, I barely heard tell of it any of the mainstream media outlets that I follow, whereas discussion of the hockey game has been fairly overwhelming.

In this same period, a UN report on the status of women found that Canada had dropped from 10th place to 73rd place worldwide, among nations striving for the equality of women.

In this same period, Canada still has a prorogued Parliament, quite contrary to the overwhelming desire of the populace. Yet, our “hard working” Prime Minister can be seen nightly in the stands of the Olympics in his ridiculous red-and-white sweater, mouthing the national anthem. Get back to work, ya bum!

So you’ll forgive me if I’m not filled with “national pride” right now. You’ll forgive me if I’m not inspired to wave the Canadian flag and hoot and holler down the street with the rest of the revellers. I have a hard time swallowing the pablum of manufactured patriotism while no one seems to care that the same society that produces millionaire medal-winning hockey players also formally engages in the criminal torture of its own citizens, the degradation of the status of its women, the cynical stymying of its Parliament, and yet suffers no repercussions for this transgression.

Bread and circuses indeed.

No, not this Boe:

But rather, this Boa:

Boa was the last living speaker of the language Bo, named for the tribe of Bo, of the Great Andaman peoples who once populated the Andaman and Nicobar islands off of India.

If this link works, you’ll be able to see a video of Boa singing in her now extinct native language.

Maybe it’s hard for a non-academic pointy-head to appreciate the singular tragedy of Boa’s passing, but give it a shot. Beyond the sad tale of military decimation by the British, then the effects of paternalistic colonial-style policies by both the British then the Indian governments, leading to the literal extinction of complete races of these aboriginal peoples, there remains the tragedy of our lost links to human pre-history. Yes, as with all things, the passing of Boa is being characterized first and foremost as a loss to the selfish modern world, and not so much as the legacy of a brutal crime committed by the modern world.

Very few anthropological links remain to human prehistory. It’s remarkable how little we actually know about how the human animal lived, felt and thought prior to the innovation of writing and thus the recording of history. To examine such times would help answer some of the most fundamental questions of human existence having to do with what is natural and what is constructed. The perhaps thousands of years of human language prior to the advent of civilization a mere 6-10 thousand years ago reflect a sentient mind emerging from the grace of naturalism and into the realm of instrumentalism and exceptionalism.

With the passing of Boa goes one of our last connections to a language that reflected that ethic. In fact, it’s believed that the language of Bo predates the Neolithic period, thus pre-dating what we define as civilization.

The continued paternalistic treatment of the surviving Andamanese concerns me greatly, as does modern civilization’s treatment of extant tribal Aboriginals globally. In my review of the movie Avatar, some commenter made the annoying and all too common criticism, “I’m wondering why we don’t call Europeans in Europe with family ties dating back centuries aboriginals as well”.

Well, fool, we don’t call them that because the word “Aboriginal” refers both to a lengthy historical attachment to a place (typically lasting thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years) combined with a modern political, geographical and cultural marginalization of that extant and threatened race. I’ll never understand why so many people feel threatened when the plights of such vulnerable peoples so rarely manages to make it onto the public agenda.

Species, peoples, cultures, languages, religions and ideas all go extinct. That’s the way of things. But, you know what? It’s not necessarily the fact of it that should worry us. It’s the how of it. The Andamanese tribals are the victims of centuries of genocidal policies. As far as I can tell, one tribe remains.

You know what the first image I found when I Googled “Andaman”? This one:

Yeah, it’s a British tourist ad. Boa is dead. Her race is extinct. And her ancestral land is now the domain of drunken, shagging chavs from England.

In Other News

My latest article is up at India Currents.

And I’ve begun to archive my haikus!

Mysterious lights appear over Norway. Clearly, an alien space ship opened a hyperspace jump gate in the upper Earth atmosphere. Judge for yourself:

In unrelated news:

In even more unrelated news, a student who shall remain unnamed has honured me (I hope it was an honour) by naming her pet mouse somewhat after me. Introducing…. “Rayrat”:

Apparently, Rayrat lives in a cage with three lovely lady mice. It’s important to me that my namesake is, as the kids say, gettin’ some.

Lastly, D-Mack sends us the Top 10 Science Fiction Disappointments of the decade. The article is retarded. Yeah, I said it.

Today’s Real Topic

Now, in today’s serious bit of news, I just came from the press conference for the unveiling of my artist friend Jenn Farr’s newest project, a very important depiction of the cell in which Canada’s recent “extraordinary extradition” victims were kept and tortured while being held in Syria. The endeavour is spearheaded by Kerry Pither, author of Dark Days.

It’s one thing to read about modern torture and to have polite, fashionable discussions of it at cocktail parties and on the Internet. It’s another to physically experience the actual conditions. If you can get a chance, visit the installation. Here are a couple of quick pics snapped on my Treo:

The installation is called “El Abbar”, which means “the grave”, and is a precise recreation of the cell in which several Muslim Canadians were held and tortured by Syria, with collaboration (as concluded by the Iacobucci Inquiry) by Canadian agencies. Those held include Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki and, of course, Maher Arar.

The cell is tiny and dank. The walls are thin enough to overhear the torture of those held in adjacent cells. Sometimes so many would be stuffed into a single cell that they would take turns sleeping. I’m told that cats would pee on the prisoners from the grate above, and of course the odours of filth and decay were ubiquitous. One of the artist’s intents was to re-create the smell of the place, as well, but that was eventually not pursued.

It’s ironic that the press conference for the unveiling of this object was coincident with one by Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter McKay, someone I would charge as complicit in the abuse of the men held in these cells.

I think it’s important for all Canadians to recognize firstly the horror of these conditions, and the fact that innocent men were held there against their will and tortured repeatedly; and secondly the extent to which Canadian authorities were –and continue to be– complicit in these ongoing abuses.

Arrrrgh! Almighty Zod really doesn’t want me to walk. My L4/L5 lumbar disc has re-herniated and I am in agony.

But enough whining.

Two things come to mind today. Have you heard the recent news about Hilary Clinton? Video here:

Essentially, a Congolese university student asked her about what Bill Clinton’s opinion on something would be, and Hilary snapped back annoyedly: “My husband is not secretary of state. I am… You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channelling my husband.”

There are several thoughts that arise from this event. First, the fact is that the student had actually asked about President Obama’s opinion, not President Clinton’s opinion. The translator had screwed up, apparently. One hopes that the student received an apology for undeservedly receiving Clinton’s wrath.

Second, now we see why Obama could never have chosen Hilary as his VP. The spectre of Bill would have always been present. It would have been a three person administration, with Obama’s being the smallest personality!

Third, yes, it was a sexist question… maybe. If it had been asked of any other woman, it would certainly have been a sexist question. But, Zod amighty, your husband is Bill Freaking Clinton! Everyone wants to know what he thinks about anything vaguely political! Hilary, your husband might not be Secretary of State, but I don’t think anyone doubts he would be an excellent one. This has nothing to do with your abilities, or with your status as a woman, but more to do with Bill’s enormous shadow and diplomatic greatness.

If Margaret Thatcher’s husband had risen to the equivalent post in the UK, you’d better believe he’d be constantly hectored about what Margaret would have thought, as well!

Lastly, the Secretary of State is supposed to be the USA’s top diplomat. A diplomat is supposed to be sensitive to the ways of thinking of othersrs. While visiting the Congo, Hilary was asked a question by a Congolese that is not an untoward question in that culture. Yes, she has a right to be offended, but surely she could have expressed her unhappiness a little more…. diplomatically?

If I were more clever, I’d work in a “ducking from sniper fire” comment somewhere. Instead, I give you leave to insert your own joke.

Item two today is the Chris Kattan miniseries vehicle Bollywood Hero. I haven’t seen it, and maybe it’s good. What I do know is that in New York last week, I saw the miniseries pushed heavily in the media. It was particularly heralded by Indians as further evidence of their “arrival” into the mainstream, that an SNL regular would choose to star in an overtly Indian vehicle.

The story, such as it is, concerns a failing American actor who chooses to restart his career by starring in a Bollywood production.

My problem is that this has nothing to do with the “arrival” of Indianness. It’s more of the same Orientalism dressed up in miniseries clothing. The star is not Indian, but American. It’s not even a real star, but a C-list Chris Kattan. The heart of the story is not the Indian production, but the journey of the white American. It’s the Razor’s Edge and City of Joy all over again, but without the depth and importance.

Okay, gotta go lie down again.

Check it out…

An sign of intelligence from space? Now if only we could find a sign of intelligence here on Earth. (BOW! HELLO! TRY THE VEAL, I’M HERE ALL WEEK!)

(Video of alien intelligence here.)

The BBC apparently stands for “British Broadcasting for Christ” because it’s received 115 complaint emails since announcing its new Head of Religion is a Muslim.

Um… why does the BBC need a “Head of Religion”?

I’m sure many of you have seen this:

Well, it’s a lie!!!

So revel in your pervishness, my droogies.

Remember my review of the new Star Trek movie? Recall that it’s a JJ Abrams project, much like two of my favourite TV shows: Lost and Fringe. Well, I just finished watchin the season finales for both shows…

…Wow! Now that’s writing! HOWEVER… JJ is showing his unmentionables. All three products –Fringe, Lost and Trek– rely heavily on either time travel or alternate realities. I’m a little sick of this science fiction crutch. Suddenly I’m not too optimistic about the continuing resolution of either of the TV shows. I’ll let you know.

I’ll leave you with some Facebook goodies. First up is my new profile pic, the Hasselwat:

And lastly, here’s the profile pic of my friend Sara F. Looks like he’s been out all night drinking, no?

From E.K. Hornbeck comes this story of John McCain’s idiot daughter complaining about her love life. Cry me a river, baby. Sample of her idiocy: “I am not only turned off by people who voted for Barack Obama, but I am also turned off by people that voted for my dad.” Really? So you’re essentially turned off by pretty much anyone who voted… unless he spoiled his ballot or voted for a loser third party candidate.

Jeez.

Meanwhile, Nadya “Octomom” Suleman’s story is so ridiculous that I found myself talking about her to my class of first year undergrads today. Here’s an interesting take on our own hypocrisy when dealing with her.

Speaking of Octomom, I think I found my Hallowe’en costume for next year:

And here’s the “Octomom” Denny’s special: “14 eggs, no sausage, and the guy next to you has to pay for it.”

Meanwhile, know of an interesting immigrant in Canada? Why not nominate him/her for the Top 25 Canadian Immigrant Awards?

Meanwhile, Brad Parker sends us this great collection of art work done by prisoners in New Delhi. Here are two of my favourites:

By the way, everyone and his/her dog has been sending me this article about inter-racial dating. I’m not sure why. I have no comments.

I have no more meanwhiles for you today.