It's Not About Free Speech

I'm sick of hearing the name "Chick-Fil-A" (stupid name, by the way, but not really the point.)

I want to shut up about it. I really do.

But I can't.

I can't sit here and watch you post pictures of yourself gleefully eating chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, or posting about how long the line ups were yesterday for "National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" as if this were something to celebrate.

Because hate is not something to celebrate.

"It's not about hate! It's about free speech!"

Dan Cathy has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right to think he's a bigoted idiot, and move on, but it's not so simple.

Chick-Fil-A has donated MILLIONS of dollars to the "Family Research Council" and "The Marriage and Family Foundation." These organizations not only support the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States, but they go do "missionary" work in other countries, giving support to laws there that would strengthen laws against homosexuality. Including punishment by DEATH. They support organizations like Exodus International who provide "pray away the gay" counselling (I use that term in the MOST ironic sense) that only does NOT work, but it further shames people for simply being who they are - the person that God created them to be.

In the US, it is still legal in 29 states to fire someone solely for being homosexual - and I'm making a totally uneducated guess here that most Chick-Fil-A restaurants are in states where this is true. Still think that CFA has never fired anyone for being gay? They probably did, but it never got any publicity because it was totally legal.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you how this impacts all of my gay friends and family. It doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if I had never met a single GBLT person in my life. It's about being a decent person, and not reducing a fellow human being to a "less than." It's not okay to discriminate on the basis of the colour of someone's skin, or their gender, so why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of whom they love?

It's not about chicken. I'm Canadian, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never set foot in CFA. It's not about free speech. It's about right and wrong. And hate, however you dress it up ("Love the sinner, hate the sin" anyone?), is wrong.

Why Do I Care?

I haven't lived within the boundaries of Metro Toronto since 1998. The last Toronto election I voted in was also the FIRST Metro Toronto election after the "megacity" was created. Since then our family has moved around, but for the most part we've been within the boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area (some "greater" than others).

So you might wonder why I care about who was elected Mayor of Toronto. Here are a few reasons:

1. I may not live there anymore, but I really do love Toronto. I love wandering around downtown. I love Queen West and the Beaches (wait, the Beach?). I love the entertainment district and all of the mega-musicals put on by Mirvish Productions and Dancap, among others. I love the smaller theatres like Passe Muraille, the Factory, Soulpepper and CanStage. I love the fact that I can walk all over downtown Toronto in the middle of winter without a coat using the PATH system. I love watching baseball games at SkyDome (I will never admit that it's no longer called SkyDome, so don't even try to make me.) I love the Toronto Islands. Most of all, I love the people - well, most of them, anyway. So I don't want to see a loudmouth politician screw up "my" city. I also don't want any Lastman-sized international embarrassments (African cannibals, anyone? How does that compare to wanting someone's wife to be go over to Iran and be raped? Hmmm...)
2. The truth is, what happens in Toronto affects the whole province to a certain extent, most notably the 905 area (for those not familiar with Toronto, this is a horseshoe-shaped area outside of Toronto thus called because of their "905" area codes.) If not a majority, then a lot of 905-ers are commuters. We may start our mornings in Oshawa, Pickering or Mississauga, but we spend our days firmly in the 416. Gridlock and public transit are issues that don't just affect Toronto residents. 
3. Again, because so many 905-ers work in Toronto, if you mess up the economy of Toronto, you mess up the economy of a much wider area. Even if you don't take into account the commuters, products and services are regularly traded amongst the cities of south-central Ontario. The economy of the country's largest city has a ripple effect across the whole area, at minimum.
4. I was talking to someone last night who works in social services in Toronto. The look on his face when told Rob Ford was elected said it all. Outside of the Great Depression, this may be the worst thing to ever happen to the poor, under-privileged, and mentally and physically-challenged people in Toronto's history.
5. Why is it that the right wing is so against funding for arts organizations? My guess is that most of them can't read a book or have the attention span to sit through a play, but that's just my (somewhat biased) opinion. Arts organizations in Toronto are surely quaking today. Hopefully many of them have been making plans based on this possibility, because they can be sure sure to lose most, if not all, of their funding if Ford gets his way. It amazes me how people think this is such a huge waste of their tax dollars. Do you know how much Toronto currently spends per capita on the arts? THIRTEEN DOLLARS. Yes, that's right: $13 of your hard-earned money goes to support the arts. How much do you spend on coffee in a week? Or on take-out meals? Or anything else. You can't afford $13 per year to support thousands of artists and workers in arts organizations that bring in millions of dollars to Toronto's economy not only through ticket sales, but through hotels and restaurants as well? An article in the Star says that Pantalone and Smitherman both hoped to raise that spending to $25 per year. San Francisco, to compare one city to another, spends $86 per year on the arts. Yet Toronto, for example, is the third-largest centre for English-speaking theatre in world, behind only New York City and London.
6. Toronto will host World Pride Day in 2014, just a few months before the next mayoral election. Can anyone picture Rob Ford riding on a float in the Pride parade? Me neither. With the cuts that he surely wants to make to their funding, the entire experience will likely be embarrassing. However, I have faith in the Pride Week organizers, and I'm sure they'll find a way to get around the whole "bigoted mayor" thing.

I am not completely terrified of Rob Ford as mayor - just yet. I admittedly do not know much about those who have been elected as councillors, and so I don't know how much of his mandate he will really be able to pass. It could be - as many have speculated - that we'll have gridlock until the next election. Not that four years of a stalemate is a good thing, either, as we've seen in our years of minority federal governments, but at least it may mitigate the damage Ford will likely do. With any sort of luck, we can all just look back on the Rob Ford experience in four years as an amusing anecdote, and let the grownups go back to running the city.

Love Prevails

I was out at the gym last night. Yay me! But, of course that means I come home to the Twitter timeline from Hell. This time, it was okay, though.

Because everywhere in my timeline there were posts praising the court judgement against Prop H8 in California. From Ellen DeGeneres to the random moms that I follow, to friends I've known for years, it seemed everyone was happy. Of course, I'm guessing that if anyone WAS for Prop H8, then they weren't likely going to speak up too much anyway.

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for five years now. It's just a fact of life. Our families haven't fallen apart. Our children haven't been "indoctrinated" and I doubt that anyone has been converted by "The Gay Agenda."

When will the H8ers realize that it's none of their business who other people love? Pierre Trudeau said so long ago that the government had no business in the nation's bedrooms. It has no business in the people's marriages, either. Let us marry (or divorce, as the case may be) who we want.

I don't know what will happen when this case in California goes to appeal (and I'm sure that it will), but I'm still hopeful that eventually California, and the rest of the US, will figure out that it is so much easier to love than it is to hate. Hate takes up way too much energy. Love only GIVES energy.

A Response to the SATC 2 Reviewers (I'm Looking at YOU, Roger Ebert!)

This past Wednesday night my friend, Janice, and I headed into Toronto to see a preview of Sex and the City 2. I had won tickets from the tv network Slice and so we were two of about 400 or so who got to view the movie in advance of its opening today. Most were contest winners from a couple of radio stations, some were media types.

I said to Janice as we were going in that it was blindingly obvious who the movie reviewers were: middle-aged white men in sport coats, looking like they were going to their execution.

I can't really blame them: Sex and the City is just not something that most straight men will ever understand. I'm sure I would have the same look on my face if someone tried to get me to watch Fight Club.

I enjoyed the movie. I imagine that most of the women in the audience did. Honestly, why would they have gone if they didn't already know that they enjoyed the series and the earlier movie? I didn't love the movie. There were parts that bugged me immensely: at the beginning, Carrie made me want to reach out and strangle her, whining about how Big wanted to spend the night at home, sitting in a chair staring at him like there wasn't a single thing to do in a glamourous - if somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion - Manhattan apartment. They eat out or eat take-out every night? Seriously? How can someone possibly be that spoiled? So, the movie already had a bit of a climb to dig out of that hole, about ten minutes in. Don't even get me started on Charlotte wearing white vintage Valentino while baking with two little girls.

However, as a general rule, I don't watch SATC for its intricate plot points, its statements on modern life or its moral values; I watch SATC for pure escapism, and this is where most of the reviewers and I differ.

Film critics - like theatre critics - are an interesting bunch. Every once in a while you get one who can accept a movie for just being fun, but that's rare. They want a "film", not a movie. There has to be some deeper meaning to all of it. They want to be intellectually stimulated (or just to be fooled into feeling intellectually stimulated). Absurdist comedies? That's okay. Heavy drama that makes you want to slit your wrist into your popcorn? Excellent - bring it on! Lifestyle porn for women? What's the "point" of it all?

And "lifestyle porn" is what SATC was created for. Yes, most of the women watching like to picture themselves as one of the characters (almost everyone claims to be a "Carrie", by the way), but for the thirty minutes of the tv show, or the 2.5 hours of the movie (and yes, even I think that's a bit ridiculous) you get to escape the reality of your own life. I don't know anyone who lives in an apartment like the ones in which Charlotte and Carrie live. I don't even know anyone with a house in Brooklyn like Miranda's. I sure as Hell don't know anyone with a hot, young movie star ex-boyfriend who gets invited to stay in a beyond luxury hotel in Abu Dhabi with a personal butler for each guest, just for the sake of a little PR. And, sadly, I've never been to a gay wedding officiated by Liza Minelli. A girl can dream, though.

Most of the reviews that I've read take issue with the "obscene" materialism of the movie. In real life, I would agree with them. It would be completely sickening, and I doubt that many real life women would enjoy hanging out with these characters. Most of us couldn't afford to! Watching them, though, is like picturing yourself glorious clothes and shoes that magically appear at just the right time, beautiful scenery that most of us will never see first-hand (even if it's actually Morocco standing in for the UAE) and having a butler fondly called "Paula Abdul".

And yes, men are always objectified in the movies. They were an abundance of package shots that had absolutely nothing to do with shopping. You know what? Good! For the amount of nudity that women do in every other movie on the planet not produced by Pixar, why can't men show a little skin (and er, other things...)? Why is it that women aren't allowed to have sexual thoughts? Do we all have to fit into the whole Virgin, Madonna, and Crone molds?

So Roger Ebert, I know that you feel you wasted your time in that movie. Did you really expect anything different, though? Why not just simply write a review saying "There was no way that I was going to like this movie. I can't objectively review it. If you enjoy Sex and the City you're going to go anyway, and if you don't, you won't."

And to Lindy West, does every movie have to be about your version of feminism? "essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls"? Really? Because that isn't offensive at all. Why isn't it okay for women to be offended by and curious about women wearing burkas? We're just supposed to assume that they wear them (in that kind of heat!) out of their own free will? Do you really think that every woman wearing a veil is doing it because she WANTS to? Are the writers and producers of SATC playing with fire a bit by "going there"? Probably, but how many of us wouldn't be fascinated by a woman having to lift her veil just to put every bite of food in her mouth? Those of us who grew up with the ability to choose our own clothing, including how much skin to show, have every right to wonder how another woman can enjoy life like that.

Oh, and Ms. West? The "c-word" is never appropriate. EVER. So when you write thing like "SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car" you offend me WAY more than any spoiled rich girl ever could.

More on Harper's Vendetta Against Women

I try not to just copy and paste articles as a general rule, but this one, from the Guelph Mercury, is worth reading.

Confused about federal take on women’s health

So, the Harper Government decided not to open up the abortion issue and allow debate. How surprising.
It didn’t want to open up a can of worms and embarrass its members. Refusing to fund international programs that fund abortions puts women’s lives at risk and is fundamental to the issue of maternal health. Thousands of women die every year from botched abortions. Let alone the number of women who die during and after child birth, because they do not have access to medical care.

Whatever your view, women who seek abortions will find a way to have one. The real issue is whether that abortion is a safe one. We can argue forever on whether it is ethical. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But the issue is women’s maternal health and reproductive rights.

Canada’s stance is confusing. Canada’s public health care funds access to abortions, but the country denies that access internationally. Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, back in 1980. That convention guarantees women’s reproductive rights including access to safe abortions. The United States is taking an opposite stance. The U.S. never ratified the convention. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that maternal health includes access to safe abortions. President Obama’s National Health Care Plan does not include public funding of abortions. But America will fund it internationally, as will the other G8 countries. So, why is our government taking this stance?

Abortion is an issue few want to talk about and it is politically dangerous. It’s a topic that is emotionally charged and many people see it as black and white. Instead of seeing it as a health issue, many people will let their religion decide what side they are on. But the facts speak for themselves. There is compelling evidence that where there are broad legal grounds to safe abortions mortality among women is considerably reduced. Currently, according to the World Health Organization, 300,000 mothers die a year during pregnancy and childbirth, and thousands more die of botched abortions. Furthermore, according to the WHO, if barriers to safe abortions and abortion services are removed more maternal lives will be saved. Clearly, access to safe and legal abortions should be part of the goal of maternal health. Has the federal government followed the same path as our Ontario government on the safe sex curriculum and caved into pressure from religious groups?

There have been recent successes in overturning strict abortion laws in some countries. Mexico and Nepal overturned strict abortion laws even against political and religious opposition. Canadian and international human rights groups are surprised and disappointed with our government’s stance. According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Canada is getting failing grades on issues of human rights. I am saying human rights because women’s rights are human rights.

The problem is that international human rights groups have been critical of the Harper government, and groups that are critical lose their funding. As we know, this government does not respond well to criticism. It would rather shut down parliament and end debate rather than face criticism. In this case, it is the funding of international programs that support reproductive rights. Like women who seek abortions, these programs will be funded anyway from other more progressive countries — mainly the United States and European countries. I find it shameful and sad that Canada is now not considered progressive. This Conservative party got rid of that word and have to appease their backsliding origins. These backward world views do not match with the rest of the world, and what we need to do to improve the human condition. There are thousands of unwanted pregnancies due to sexual violence and these women do not have access to safe abortions and are at risk. If this conservative government is truly concerned with maternal health, then it should put its money where its mouth is.

Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board. 

Shout Out Louder!

Today is Shout the F**k Up Day, according to a group on Facebook. I think it's about time. Today, as well as being Mother's Day (happy Mother's Day to meeeeeeee...) is also the 50th anniversary of the FDA approving "the pill" for use as birth control. It's ironic the way that the current government has been working to take away women's rights.

Conservatives deny it's happening. They say we shouldn't be funding abortion in other countries anyway, citing laws in many of these countries make abortion illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not illegal in ALL of the countries that the G8 is trying to help.

Funding cuts are affecting everyone, they say, not just women's groups, and if new rules created by this government make it easier to deny funding to certain groups, that's just a coincidence. If the Toronto Pride Parade loses it's funding, it's because it's such a big event that it can stand on its own two feet. The Calgary Stampede (which has been around since 1886, by the way) obviously can't.

What does the Pride parade have to do with women's rights? Truthfully, it has everything to do with women's rights now, because the Tories are just showing again that if you're not a white, middle- or upper-class man, they just don't care about you.

The claim this week is that this government has done more to promote safety than any other, and apparently that's what women care about. We don't care about abortion rights at home or abroad, they told us. We don't care about groups promoting women's equality, or protecting women from violence. Isn't it good that they told us that? Because obviously we don't know what we care about without Stephen Harper telling us. And the claim about safety? This is the same government that's trying to dismantle the gun registry, despite a coalition of police officers and chiefs telling them that they want and need it.

Stephen Harper, you do NOT speak for me, and you have no idea what I care about, but I will not STFU just to avoid further backlash. I will use every last breath that I have to keep shouting the f**k up. I am a mother, a daughter and a woman, and there is nothing "fringe" about that.

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on Quebec...

...but seriously? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-muslim-woman-ordered-to-unveil-or-leave-french-course/article1530874/

I can understand that in government security situations, your face needs to be seen. If you're presenting your photo ID, the person looking kind of needs to be able to see your face. It's pretty simple that way.

And I'm not a big proponent of veiling women. In fact, I'm generally pretty outspoken about it, however, the fact remains that this is a free country, and if she chooses to wear a veil, well, that's her choice. If she feels that forcing her to remove it is embarrassing to her modesty, then what's the harm? This was an immigrant integration course - the whole point is to help these people integrate into Quebec society. Easing them into it, not throwing them to the wolves. Not handing them a French-English dictionary and a bowl of poutine and putting them down in the middle of Old Quebec City.

What security risk was this woman posing by wearing her veil in class? The teacher didn't object. Her classmates didn't object. Where is the logic in this?

I Loved You Yesterday, but Today...

By now you may have heard of Constance McMillen, the Mississippi teenager who was told that she couldn't bring her girlfriend to the prom. When Constance went to the ACLU for help, and the media got wind of the story, the school cancelled the prom "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events". While the courts have decided that the school violated Constance's First Amendment Rights, they also ruled that the school couldn't be forced to hold a prom. Luckily a group of parents are arranging a private prom.

After hearing Constance's story, Derrick Martin, of Cochran, GA, decided to get permission to take his boyfriend to his prom. In this case, the school said okay, but sadly his parents, upset by the media attention, have kicked their son out of the house.


I just don't understand how someone can love their child one day for who they are, but as soon as a label is put on them, suddenly they're not the same person? You can't love your child because of who they love? It's just so sad.