The digital environment is a double-edged sword

From telephone operators to text messaging

"Vintage Telephone" courtesy of Stoon/
 Free  digital photos.net

Communication technology has come a long way in a short time.  In my lifetime, we have moved from twice daily mail delivery and phones that required the services of an operator to connect callers, to the instantaneous communication of smart phones and text messaging. At the click of a mouse, we can “join the conversation” on any topic, or post our thoughts and images online for the entire world to see. 

The ability to be digitally connected around the clock creates meaningful opportunities for human interaction, but it also comes with some challenges; the digital environment can be a double-edged sword.

Technology can bring people closer, or separate them

On the plus side, technology enhances our ability to stay in touch with family and friends. Recently, my family enjoyed our own version of cross-country check-up via a three-way Skype call on the big screen TV with family members tuning in from Halifax, Montreal and Trail.  While it was not quite as good as sitting around the kitchen table  playing Settlers of Catan, it was an acceptable option for being together under the circumstances.

Just as technology can bring us together, it can also separate us, even to the extent that it can create distance between people in the same room.  I can think of no better example of this than the manner in which we frequently use smart phones. How often have you been in the company of a person who is obsessively checking their phone? In this case, the technology, despite its many excellent applications for augmenting communication, interferes with our ability to be truly present to those who are right in front of us.

A smorgasbord of options - healthy and not so healthy

The digital environment presents us with a smorgasbord of options for everything – current events, documentaries, online learning, and entertainment of many varieties. The Internet makes it possible for us to stretch our understanding of others and the world from the comfort of our recliners.   The accessibility of quality entertainment, online learning, and probing news analysis is truly a boon to human development.

On the down side, the communications media can also provide a platform for the expression of some of the shadowy sides of human nature. Cyber-bullying and access to pornography come to mind, as do television shows of the Jerry Springer variety, and reality television that makes a virtue out of stabbing others in the back.  Not all the options served up for consumption at the smorgasbord are healthy and wholesome.

Runners have a saying, “Garbage in, garbage out”, which means that what you eat prior to a run affects performance.  Our use of digital technology and our media choices can have a similar effect on our mind and relationships.  If we opt for a steady diet of mindless, violent, or sexually explicit entertainment, we may begin to treat others with less than the respect they deserve, and if we always choose sensational newscasts over thoughtful analysis, we run the risk of mistaking human tragedy for entertainment.

Pope Francis's message for World Communications Day

In his message for World Communications Day, Pope Francis writes, “Communication is about realizing that we are all human beings, children of God”, and his message encourages us to think of communication in terms of “neighbourliness”. The communications media and digital environment can help us become like the Good Samaritan who saw the wounded man as his neighbour and crossed the road to care for him. As the Good Samaritan  “tended the wounds of the injured man by pouring oil and wine over them”, our communication can become like a “balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts.”

When we use digital technology and the communications media wisely, they are a powerful force for connecting people and for fostering positive human interactions.  On its own, the digital environment is neither inherently good nor bad; we decide which edge of the sword to use. 

Abortion debate needs voices of reason

The leaders of Canada’s national political parties all agree on one thing; they do not want to talk about abortion.  Yet, with Justin Trudeau’s announcement that going forward all Liberal candidates must be pro-choice, abortion is back on their radar screens. 

Under Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberal Party joins the New Democratic Party in discouraging those who believe in the sanctity of life within the womb from the party folds and from running for Parliament. This leaves only the Conservative Party truly open to those with pro-life sensibilities.

While Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair may want to avoid candidates who are solely interested in codifying an uncompromising ban on abortion, party policy that precludes individuals who are not pro-choice from running for office violates a fundamental principle of Canadian democracy.

Representation is a pillar of democracy

As any well-taught sixth grader in the country knows, representation is one of the pillars of Canadian democracy. Canadian citizens have a right to select their representatives to Parliament. Collectively, these representatives should represent the diversity of Canada in race, creed and opinion.

Representatives have a responsibility to listen to the conflicting voices of Canadians on all matters, including those of conscience, even though they may disagree with those voices. The electorate is not well served when political parties pay lip service to Canadians of all views, but then stipulate, as Mr. Trudeau has in an email to Liberal party members, “incoming Liberal MPs will always vote in favour of a woman’s fundamental rights.”  

While it is true that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s last abortion law in 1988 on the basis that the law was unconstitutional, and contravened Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees a woman’s legal right to life, liberty and the security of the person, there are other ways to support pregnant women besides silencing the voices of those who believe that life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Canada needs voices of reason to move beyond polarized arguments

The practice of discouraging, if not down right excluding, those who are pro-life from vying for office implies that anyone who is not pro-choice is incapable of being an effective parliamentarian. There seems to be an assumption that all pro-lifers are radical zealots. This is simply untrue; many people who hold pro-life views and who have reservations about Canada’s lack of abortion laws are quite capable of approaching the issue rationally, realistically, and with regard for a woman’s right to choose.

Canadians need voices of reason on both sides of the abortion debate at the national level. Perhaps if national leaders were more open to dissenting voices on the topic, and to the concerns of the sixty percent of Canadians who favor some legislative restriction on abortion (such as on sex selective abortion), the debate could move beyond inflammatory rhetoric and polarized arguments. Instead of focusing on universal and unrestricted access to abortion or a complete ban on abortion, Canada could move towards the development of educational and social programs that would held reduce the number of abortions in the country, while at the same time respecting a woman’s freedom and right to choose.  Too often pro-choice means no choice for a pregnant woman because of a lack of practical support for other options during a difficult time.

National parties that prevent Canadians from running for office based on a single issue shut out many talented, principled, altruistic and reasonable people from participation in the development of the broad range of economic, environmental, legislative and social policies that affect Canadian life. 

As Archbishop Cardinal Collins of Toronto noted in his letter to Trudeau, Pope Francis "would have been ineligible to be a candidate" for the Liberals. And, as someone noted on a media discussion board, Mother Theresa would not have made the cut either.

With Trudeau’s “resolutely pro-choice” version of Liberal values, the Liberal Party follows the New Democratic Party in an exclusionary practice that has implications for representation in a parliamentary democracy, and at the end of the day, may do little to support women facing the difficult decision of carrying a pregnancy to term.

We learn to be racist

Just who was Jesus?  

It’s a question that commands a lot of attention, and engenders a whole lot of heated debate.  While I have read scholarly books on the topic, I rather like a comedic set of arguments that attempts to define Jesus in terms of racial stereotypes.

It does not matter whether you believe in Jesus or not, these sometimes irreverent arguments challenge us to see an image of divinity in all people, and to acknowledge, respect and cherish the innate dignity of others.

Quoting from these anonymous arguments, Jesus was black because he called everyone brother; he liked Gospel; and, he couldn’t get a fair trial. But, there are three equally good arguments that he was aboriginal: he was at peace with nature; he ate a lot fish; and, he talked about the Great Spirit. Then again, there are three equally good arguments that he was Italian: he talked with his hands; he had wine with his meals; and, he used olive oil. 

Racism in sport

Two recent incidents of racism in sport  - the offensive comments of Los Angeles Clipper’s owner, Donald Sterling, against blacks, and an alarming number of racist tweets against PK Sabban of the Montreal Canadiens following his overtime goal against the Boston Bruins - provide striking examples of the inability of some people to accept others who differ from themselves.

While these incidents have sparked discussion about the prevalence of racism in pro-sports, and have drawn attention to racism in the NCAA, which Billy Hawkins, professor of kinesiology at the University of Georgia, dubs the “new plantation”, racism is definitely not limited to the sporting arena. 

and in Canadian history

Consider the legacy of Indian residential schools in Canada.   The very creation of the residential school system was an expression of the concept ‘the white man’s burden’, which held that the white man was a superior being responsible for the management of non-whites. All too frequently, this attitude of racial superiority resulted in terrible abuses to First Nations children as we are learning from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which wrapped up four years of hearings in late April of this year.

Racism perpetuates itself

None of us are born with racist views. We learn them, whether at home, in our social circles or elsewhere in our culture.

As an adolescent growing up in the late 1960’s, I had an early lesson in the perpetuation of racism that made racism much more real to me than the violent images on television coming out of the southern United States.

My older sisters were members of “Up with People”, a movement of young people that promoted racial equality through music.  Our hometown was pretty much white, and when a visiting choir from the States came to perform, some families were reluctant to billet the black teens, which was strangely ironic. My mother was indignant that race was an issue in placing these kids, and volunteered to take two black billets.

That night at the supper table, we talked about prejudice, including the prejudice that existed against Italians, and the derogatory term “wop” that cut deeply, and angered my Italian father and grandfather, who were both Canadian citizens. We did not talk about the prejudice against aboriginal people; while Canadians watched the civil rights movement unfold to the south, the majority of us were oblivious of the destructive systemic racism in our own country.

That conversation left an indelible impression on my developing character and sense of morality. The message that night was clear. People are people. There is no such thing as the “other”; we are sisters and brothers of one human family.

While my parents used the moment of welcoming two billets into our home to instill respect for the “other” in their daughters, I could have learned a very different lesson that night had I been sitting somewhere else, like in a hockey arena, listening to adults around me jeer at a skilled NHL player for being black.

So, just who was Jesus?  He is any person who is marginalized, ridiculed or abused.  

No easy answers in TWU's bid for a law school

There are no clear winners when the rights of disparate groups compete. Sometimes it is necessary to balance Charter rights against each other. Thoughtful discourse can help sort out the issues. In the Law Society of BC April 11, 2014 debate, we have an informed  discourse.

Equality vs. religious rights

When equality and religious rights butt heads, as in the controversy over the proposed law school at Trinity Western University, Canadians need thoughtful analysis and informed discussion, not knee jerk reactions. The recent decision of the Law Society of BC to approve the proposed Faculty of Law at TWU provides a principled approach to a thorny problem.

Although the proposed law school at the privately funded Christian university has received approval from the BC Ministry of Advanced Education, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and various provincial and territorial law societies, there remains considerable opposition to it. A lawsuit has been filed against the BC government for approving the school, and, a BC lawyer has circulated a petition to members of the BC Bar that could force the Law Society to reconsider its decision.

At issue is a clause in TWU’s “Community Covenant Agreement” that reads,
“Further, according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman…”

A sincerely held religious belief

The Community Covenant Agreement at TWU is a roadmap for personal and community conduct. It is rooted in the faith of the community and based on the institution’s acceptance, as expressed in its Community Covenant Agreement, that the Bible is “the divinely inspired, authoritative guide for personal and community life”.  All faculty, staff and students at TWU agree to abide by the community covenant, and to model themselves after biblical virtues as interpreted according to the university’s evangelical Protestant tradition.

There can be no doubt that the traditional view of marriage and sexuality expressed in the Community Covenant is a sincerely held religious belief, and in keeping with its beliefs, the university requires a level of sexual restraint from all its members, regardless of sexual orientation.  Nevertheless, the implications of the clause discriminate against the enrolment of LGBT persons, and have called into question the university’s ability to properly train individuals, who, as lawyers, must swear an oath to uphold the rights and freedoms of all people.

Because of this clause, the proposed Faculty of Law at TWU raises complex questions about religious freedom, freedom of association and equality. Those who are interested in the specific arguments will find a thought provoking analysis of the issues in the archived webcast of the Law Society of BC debate (http://new.livestream.com/mediaco/lsbc041114), as well as in the BC Civil Liberties Association submission to the Law Society (http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20140302-Submission-Law-Society-re-TWU.pdf).

A process that rigorously examined the issues

As the deliberations of the Law Society of BC make clear, there are no easy answers when the rights of two disparate groups conflict. The Benchers of the Law Society waded through approximately 2000 pages of material in preparation for making a decision. In what I would describe as a rigorous examination of issues and opinions, the Law Society considered legal advice from a number of advisors, Federation reports, the proposal from TWU and close to 300 submissions from the public, which were nearly evenly divided for and against TWU. 

Because rights and freedoms are not absolute, it is sometimes necessary to balance them against each other. In the balancing act, there are no clear winners, as the Law Society debate illustrates; TWU did not come out smelling like a rose even though the Benchers voted in its favour.

Informed debate can help us become more tolerant

Whether we agree or disagree with the decision to approve a faith-based law school at an institution that covenants with its members to uphold a traditional view of sexuality, the process of respectful and informed debate can help us more comprehensively grasp nuanced issues, and lead us to a more compassionate understanding of those whose beliefs, lifestyles, and identities differ from our own.

The controversy over the proposed law school at TWU is an example of the tension that exists in Canadian society between religious rights and equality rights.  This tension is not going to go away. No matter on which side of the fence we find ourselves, we need to work at respecting the rights of others and honoring the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot “live and let live” only when the manner of living falls into line with our worldview. To do so runs the risk of swapping one form of intolerance for another.

I found heaven in a cap gun: an Easter memory

"That Easter morning, the mysteries of heaven and the realities of human existence came together for me..."

Better than Christmas

As a child, I liked Easter morning as much as Christmas morning.  In some ways, it was even better than Christmas morning. Easter lacked the element of doubt that was embedded in Christmas. Unlike Santa Claus, who was intimidating with his long memory of naughty and nice children, the Easter bunny was a happy-go-lucky character that dropped its chocolate eggs indiscriminately. 

Our Easter bunny was always generous. Typically, along with our basket of treats, the Easter bunny left my sisters and I a small gift - something like a slinky, yo-yo, or matchbox cars. Perhaps there was something more "girlie", like barrettes or hair bands, but those things were never very interesting to me. 

Had I died and gone to heaven?

One year, the Easter bunny outdid itself, and the memory of that Easter stands out vividly in my memory. That year, as was the custom in our home, four beautiful baskets were lined up on the kitchen counter. I took a quick look at my basket, and my heart leaped for joy; I thought I had died and gone to heaven.  There in my basket was a cap gun and a cowboy hat with a red whistle. I was incredulous because despite incessantly begging for a cap gun for weeks, my parents had steadfastly refused to purchase one. 

I was chomping at the bit to try out my cap gun, but before I could don my cowboy hat and strap on my holster and gun, we had to go to Mass, which, in my little mind, was certain to be long, tedious, crowded and stuffy.  Fortunately, I had a new Easter outfit; my pride in wearing it lessened the agony of waiting until after Mass before I would be free to run around the neighborhood, blowing my whistle and shooting off my cap gun.

Once home from Mass, I shucked my pretty, feminine Easter bonnet for the cowboy hat, strapped the holster and gun around the waist of my dress, and bolted out the door, my little sister in pursuit, to test the whistle and gun. Before long, as was typical for the two of us, my sister and I were fighting, arguing over whose turn it was to shoot off the caps. While my mother put an end to our bickering by insisting that I put my fabulous cap gun away, I stubbornly wore my cowboy hat in protest until we sat down for brunch.

A love far beyond naughty or nice

It may seem odd that my fondest memory of the Easters of my childhood revolves around a cap gun. There were, after all, a host of meaningful, annual traditions (the Good Friday fast, coloring hard-boiled eggs on Easter Saturday, baking hot cross buns for Easter morning, Easter hunts, and family dinners) that characterized my family’s celebration of Easter, and while they are firmly fixed in my memory, none of them evoke that blissful moment when I first laid eyes on my cap gun.  It was then that I became consciously aware of the sensation of joy.

My parents’ Easter gift to me was perfect, and that day my joy was complete.  Although I was too young at the time to articulate my sensibilities, that Easter morning, the mysteries of heaven and the realities of human existence came together for me in the gift of a shiny steel cap gun and a straw cowboy hat with a red whistle. Those two simple toys were symbols of a love that had nothing to do with being naughty or nice. The joy that I felt that Easter morning because of the unexpected gift was a moment of grace; I was in the presence of a  divine love that delighted in me more than I could ever delight in a cap gun, and not even a spat with my little sister could diminish my happiness nor tarnish its memory.