Discovering La Belle Olivia

Years ago, I decided that grief is, for the most part, selfish.  It's an acknowledgement that there is a void in your life that will never be completely filled again.  You regret actions not taken, words not spoken or potential not reached.  You have a list of things you'll miss about the person you've lost.  At its core, it is a change in our lives and we view the loss through the filter of how it will impact us.

Grief is for the living.

I've been very selfish recently, grieving a man I can't claim to know and only met once, however meaningful that single meeting was to me.

Canadians lost a gifted public servant on August 22.  Yes, we knew the Honourable Jack Layton, Leader of the Opposition, was ill, but we kinda learned to believe in miracles where he was concerned.  I know I'm not alone when I say that I really did expect another one and it's a struggle to get my head around the void he's left.

It's daunting to consider that the weight he carried as a leader has been returned to us.  The work we expected him to do is now in our hands, on our shoulders, and I've wondered if we are equal to the task. 

We aren't rudderless, really, as our shared values directed him.  What we lost was our standard bearer, the charismatic face of our principles that engaged so many with our message. 

I've been worrying that the momentum would ebb, because some people were engaged less by the message than the messenger.  Those who voted for Le Bon Jack, rather than the NDP, would drift away, seeking more familiar harbour.  I've been wondering what I can do to prevent that.

Then, I saw something that stopped me in my tracks, stilled such thoughts, shattered my heart and moved me into, then beyond, tears with the sheer poignancy of the moment.

It's a photograph by Chris Mikula of the Ottawa Citizen I'll try to reproduce here but if copyright law slaps me, it's here (hopefully forever). 

The caption:  "The family of Jack Layton watches as his body leaves Parliament Hill in Ottawa August 25, 2011 en route to the funeral in Toronto."

There are 17 people in the photograph, but I only noticed one.

On the red-carpeted stone steps, Olivia stands in front, alone, holding her own empty hands, gazing to her right.  Her step-children stand behind and above her, their attention on child or fiancee.  It seems the caption is incorrect:  She is the only one watching.

As I have too many times this past week, I melted.  My face burned with the shame of my selfishness as I imagined her thoughts at that moment; was she thinking of the many tasks before her?  Recalling memories that remain only in her heart?  Or simply repeating a mantra of "Keep it together.  You can cry later.  Not now, Olivia, not now."

Yes, we lost a leader, a spokesman, and that's rough because it means we have more work to do.

Olivia lost her husband, the man who shared her heart and life, who made her laugh and cry, finished her sentences, read her mind, fought with her and loved her and shared jokes with a glance.  They were supposed to grow old together, enjoy a houseful of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, recall long years of public service, write their memoirs and, finally, many years from now, leave this life quietly and peacefully, together, because that's the way all great love stories end.

For me – and my admittedly strong imagination – it's a powerful photograph that captures a moment of sadness, grace and sacrifice.

Throughout this week, many have commented on the warmth, generosity and composure of this remarkable woman.  She walked among mourners, accepted their grief, comforted and embraced strangers as if their loss were no less significant than her own.

As a Canadian Leftie, while I've always respected Ms Chow's ability as a strong MP in her own right, I have to admit I viewed her as part of a package, like a political "Bennifer" – one half of a couple that worked in the same field to accomplish the same goals.  Meeting the two of them a couple of years ago kind of cemented that, as people flocked around her husband for words and photos while she remained nearby, content to be on the edge of the spotlight.

It's shining on her, now, as she mourns a great, personal loss, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be to grieve in the spotlight, your picture taken a thousand times and posted in seconds for anyone to scrutinise.  What is it like to be in that place, knowing missteps will not tolerated?  To know that for every kind thought and word, there will be an opposing one spoken, tweeted, blogged, posted and texted about you, or the man who shared your life?  How do you find the strength to maintain composure, to be dignified and human, rather than cold and stoic?

I'm fairly confident that I would be a useless, teary, red-nosed, puffy-eyed puddle of goo, hideous with grief.  I know I'm not that strong.

Yes, Jack Layton was a great man, respected and admired by more people than he may have realised.  But, this woman that he loved, well, I think more of us have discovered why:  La Belle Olivia is pretty damned great, too.

Building Bridges: When words fail you

Watching CPAC's coverage of a panel discussion at the Couchiching Conference 2011: From the Ground Up: Civic Engagement in Our Times, I found myself squirming in sympathetic discomfort as a participant tried to formulate a question to Chief Ovide Mercredi.

I knew what she WANTED to say, but she was nervous and I could tell she was trying desperately to express too many things at once, and doubly pressured by a stated time constraint.

From my perspective, she was trying to say, "I am a young woman of colour, my attire labels me as Muslim; I understand being "Other." I am also educated and active and I want to help, so what can I do to help you and your people?"

It didn't come out that way at all, of course, as so many things we TRY so carefully to express fall out of our mouths in unhappy clots that bear no resemblance at all to our intentions. Dismay fills us and we blush, horrified by our failure and we babble on, hoping to redeem ourselves.  Oh, yes, I've been there.

Now, I won't claim to be an expert in body language, but Chief Mercredi seemed to withdraw, to steel himself, as I do when trapped by someone who clearly doesn't "get" me trying to prove otherwise and I don't know whether to lash out in frustration, search for another way to try to express a message I'm tired of repeating or just bolt.

I was raised to focus on similarities, not differences. From an early age, my mother read letters to advice columnists to me and asked how I would respond to their problem, before revealing Ann or Abby's reply. Granted, I often hated it at the time – how could I, a child, possibly respond to an adult having problems with another adult? My perspective was limited by my experience; my world was so much smaller. It wasn't fair to expect me to understand her pain and confusion and anger! But, it was a game I was impelled to play. I had to give an answer, any answer, before I was released.

While the game may not have been fair, it taught me to draw on my own experience to understand others – problems between spouses are similar enough to problems between school mates; problems between boss and subordinate are close enough to those between child and parent. When I was in the mood to play and considered the problem, my responses were often deemed by my mother to be equal to or better than those given by paid "professionals" – really, aren't most interpersonal problems, boiled down to their essence, fairly similar?  Otherwise, my childish need to be elsewhere responded flippantly just to end the game so I could go play at something less arduous, earning me maternal disappointment and frustration which occasionally lengthened the game. I didn't blow off answers often, as I just never knew for certain if I could get away with it. Sometimes, it's just easier to give people what they want.

Not surprisingly, this became my ingrained approach to understanding others. It isn't as certain (or arrogant) as "I feel your pain", but rather more like, "I have felt pain, so I will use that memory to relate to your response to pain." It's the best tool I have and it works rather well, overall and I can honestly say, "I can imagine how you feel." This is often the foundation for conversations with people who accept that statement as truth and proceed to expand my understanding with their experience.

The barrier to this is when the response is, "No, you can't! You aren't black/brown/yellow/red/male/Muslim/Jewish/deaf/blind/elderly (or any of the million things I'm not), so you don't know exactly what I feel!"

Well, I can't dispute that. I admit that my experience remains limited and, God willing, shall remain so. (Well, except for the "elderly" part.)

However, that does not mean I have not been hungry, lonely, hopeless, angry, frustrated, poor, different, unemployed, marginalised, attacked, teased, afraid, in mourning, slandered, exploited or in so much pain I longed for death because I could not imagine any other end to it.

I also understand how isolating and personal pain can be – whether it's physical, emotional, spiritual or psychological.  When you are experiencing that pain, it defines you, shapes and colours your world, for as long as it lasts. It belongs to you and no one else can really know what you feel, because it's yours and yours alone. The isolation increases with every person who tries to explain it from a perspective of ignorance. Unconsciously, you build walls to protect yourself and your pain and lash out at anyone who stumbles along and ham-fistedly tries to help.

I have viewed these attempts with scorn, my pain giving me a sense of superiority over those who have never felt it. I've embraced the anger of the injustice that I have to suffer when so many do not and their world keeps turning while mine remains mired in the muck of my pain.  It's all-encompassing and completely unreasonable, but if you have ever tried to reason with a woman in the middle of giving birth, you might have a frame of reference. (Not to mention a "What the hell were you thinking?")

So, here's a question: In the entire history of humanity, has anyone, anywhere ever tried to build a bridge when they didn't have the slightest idea of what was on the other side?

No doubt people have lived their lives on riverbanks who haven't cared what's on the other side because they don't need to know and it doesn't matter to them. When your needs are met and your life is full, who cares what's "over there"? Look where curiosity got Pandora, thank you very much.

I'm not one of those people. I want to know. I want to build bridges and understand and discover and expand my world.

In my limited, ham-fisted way, I will stumble onto your shore in my leaky boat and use my broken language to ask questions I pray won't insult you with their awkward ignorance.

My intentions are pure, even if my tongue can't express them well.

Teach me.

News of the World, Kai Nagata & the Omnibus Crime Bill

No, this isn't a game of "One of These Things Is Not Like the Others", 'though I'm sure to suffer from the catchy tune playing in a loop in my head for the next several hours.  Trust me, it's more like a game of Tri Bond. 

If you have been off planet, embedded in an Amish community or otherwise incommunicado over the past several days, UK's 168 year old News of the World is kaput, thanks to a phone hacking scandal of breathtaking proportions – thousands of people, from Royalty to families of soldiers killed in action to a young murder victim, were targeted – and the taint has spread to The Sun.

Fortunately, Rupert Murdoch's huge, international media empire – News Corporation – is being examined with a jaundiced eye by people everywhere, not merely those who felt that his papers were little more than sensationalist gossip and self-serving controversy.  The callous disregard of personal privacy rights in pursuit of exclusive stories to boost profits may be a systemic practice affecting other publications within the empire; we'll just have to wait to find out how deep this river flows.

(An aside:  I can't help thinking of one of the main arguments in favour of privatisation of public services:  That breaking a government monopoly allows for competition which drives costs down.  Take a moment to scan the list of News Corp's holdings here, bearing in mind that it is the SECOND largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue – Disney is the largest – and the third largest in entertainment.  It is like this in every industry you can think of – a small number of really, really big fish who have eaten all the little fish.  Not a lot of competition left any longer, is there?  So what remains to keep costs down?  Corporate benevolence?)

I could veer off to mention Murdoch's influence in American politics and huge donations to Republican interests, but I want to stay on topic here.  Some other time, perhaps.

Meanwhile, Kai Nagata had an epiphany, which he was kind enough to share with us here.  Among other things, he's mad as hell about the careful filtering, manufacturing and marketing of news and he's not gonna take it any more.

It's increasingly apparent that if you are seeking pure, unadulterated news, the Internet is your best bet.  Cyberspace is, essentially, an anarchy and you are free to explore at will, validating your personal opinions or expanding your horizon in a relatively unregulated frontier.  Sure, you have to be a little savvy to spot the truthiness cuckoos that nest with legitimate journalistic offspring, but the WWW will yield news items other media find unworthy, uninteresting or simply too difficult to sell or explain.  It's as close to self-regulating as any human endeavour can be.  The Internet treats us like reasonable adults capable of discerning right from wrong.  It's rather naive and endearing that way.

So far.

The Harper Government's Omnibus Crime Bill has raised red flags in some communities regarding the inclusion of the lawful access initiative bills, which give new surveillance powers to law enforcement and impose disclosure requirements on ISPs which must design their networks to facilitate surveillance.  Red flags rose a little higher over Clause 5, which deals with hate crimes.

To a layperson like me, the idea that my personal contact information could be handed over to police or that data could be captured and preserved to investigate charges against me without the judicial scrutiny of a warrant is a little unnerving.  Granted, a quick Google of my name will provide most of that info readily.  However, there have been occasions I have posted anonymously in order to freely state opinions or observations which could potentially land me in hot water if I did so using my given name.  (Nothing treasonous or illegal, I assure you, for what it's worth.)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: . . . freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication" which is limited only if it is reasonable to do so in a free and democratic society.

So, let me don my magnificent paranoia hat for a moment.  Say I blog anonymously about racism and, to illustrate a point, I include a link to an Aryan Brotherhood website. (If there is such a thing; I don't want to increase their hits by Googling to find out for sure.)  Someone reads the blog, clicks on the link, deems it hateful and informs law enforcement, which contacts my ISP, secures my contact info, then arrests and charges me with inciting hatred for posting the hyperlink.  Granted, the courts may not convict me, ultimately deciding that what I did was entirely within my rights, but how much time has passed between my arrest and the rendering of the decision?  Do I still have a job?  Did I lose my house?  My friends?  Did my family disown me in a fit of horrified dismay?

Most netizens regulate themselves to a degree – no one wants to be branded an ill-informed nutbar to be flamed from here to eternity (well, almost no one) – but what if your opinion could get you arrested faster than you can say "Hi, I'm here in Colombia to support the Trade Unionists"?  (If you don't get that, read this.  Then come back.  I'll wait.)

The News of the World scandal shone a light on the unfettered hubris of profit-driven journalism, Kai Nagata's "Why I Quit My Job" mourned (among other things) the dumbing down and marketing of palatable news bytes for the unwashed masses and the Omnibus Crime Bill threatens to silence the voices in the wilderness that, in speaking their truth, may be considered hateful, or simply worth monitoring.  Closely.

The truth may, in fact, be out there, but it may become much more difficult to find in the not-too-distant future.  Harper promised the passing of the Bill within 100 days of June 2.  The clock is ticking.

An Open Letter to the Conservatives Harshing My Mellow on Twitter

Dear Conservative Twits:

While I appreciate your need to defend the indefensible and the right to be wrong about the Right, insults and bitter retorts will not improve your credibility.  Just trying to help you out.

Experience and reason DO change people's minds and I can prove it:

I used to be an extreme right-wing Libertarian.  Oh, yes, I did.

I resented being forced to pay union dues.  I resented seniority.  I supported an unfettered free market.  I liked big business and small government because I believed that in the pursuit of profit, it made sense for business to do the right thing; government, on the other hand, was led by a desire to be re-elected to continue to feed at the trough.

One day I woke to realise I was wrong.  My skills were appreciated but my abilities were being exploited.  My boss loved that I worked unpaid overtime, took on duties way beyond my classification and ignored my rights under the collective agreement, but I received nothing in return, not even a little consideration when I suffered a serious medical emergency and had to take a short leave.

I started to do a little research into unions - their histories, their fights that led to benefits enjoyed by people all over the world whether they were union members or not.  Unions led the fight for human rights.  Business did not award legislated rights such as safe working conditions, hours of work, pensions, benefits, parental leaves, etc. out of the goodness of their hearts in the interest of providing a better work life for employes - unions fought hard for all this and more.

And they continue to do so.

No one likes to admit they were wrong.  I am especially inept at this, having had so few opportunities to do so. 

(Kidding)

However, in the face of over-whelming evidence, I had to cross the House on a personal level and shift my internal paradigm.

Finally, as a Christian who believes two commandments cover all God's Law -- Love God with all your heart and soul; Love your neighbour as yourself -- I had to conclude that an unfettered free market was not particularly loving to most citizens.  Either my personal political beliefs had to change or my spirituality had to; I couldn't retain both.

I chose my political leanings after a great deal of experience and research. I hope you did, too.

Thoughts on a Filibuster

Can I get a "WOW"? Just look at all those women! I couldn't stop grinning as woman after woman after woman rose and spoke. What happened to all the arrogant white dudes?  Oh, they're posturing and questioning.  I guess someone noticed as the past few questions have been lobbed by female CPC MPs.

Aside from the feeling that I might watch CPAC more often now, and that it was rotten to schedule this vote on St. Jean Baptiste Day, here are some random thoughts:

1. The Conservatives keep stating they represent the majority of Canadians and they have the right to send postal workers back to work, so they will.  However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

2.  MP Hoeppner stated 70 percent of Canadians want their mail.  Well, 100 percent of Canadians would like to retire with dignity.  One of the many things CUPW is fighting for is a fair pension for its current and future members.  Whether the majority of Canadians know it or not, they want exactly what CUPW is fighting for.

3.  PM Harper prorogued parliament twice, shutting down the entire federal government for months and forcing dozen of bills before the House to start from scratch.  On purpose.  Not once, but twice.  The first was from December 4, 2008 to January 26, 2009.  The second from December 30, 2009 to March 3, 2010.  This is considerably longer than the Canada Post lock-out, which is on Day 22 and has prompted Bill C-6 to force the postal workers back to the work they didn't walk away from voluntarily.  I would have to conclude Harper believes Canada Post is more vital to our country than the federal government.  Considering the priorities of the majority Conservatives, I'd have to agree with him.

4.  A number of Conservative MPs have read emails from small business people saying how much they needed Canada Post services.  One even said she didn't want to pay Fed Ex rates.  Will that convince the Conservatives not to privatise Canada Post services?  Don't be silly.

5.  The NDP Official Opposition was accused of holding Parliament hostage with the filibuster.  They were called "Pirates." Well, whatever you want to call it, I look forward to the Hansard transcriptions which will be on the public record.  Forever.  For future generations of workers, it will be clear who was responsible for eroding their rights.

6.  A number of NDP MPs shared valuable stories of the dedication of CUPW members.  Did you know many volunteered to ensure the delivery of CPP, Old Age Security, Veterans' Affairs and Canada Tax Benefit cheques, Quebec's Child Assistance, Pension and Income Security cheques as well as Alberta Pension cheques?  If it didn't affect you, you may have missed this display of CUPW's desire to go above and beyond in the service of the people of Canada.  Remember this the next time someone tells you unions are concerned only with their bottom line.  Plus, CUPW workers left the line to find a variety of live shipments -- including queen bees which, apparently, private delivery services will not handle; another reason NOT to privatise Canada Post!

7.  Harper's Conservatives toe the line.  His line.  It isn't a surprise, of course, but I am always disappointed when people elected to serve the best interests of their constituents choose to serve their Party instead.  I'm naive that way.  CUPW had engaged in rotating strikes which disrupted, but did not halt, mail service.  Canada Post responded by locking them out.  Harper responded by forcing them back to work at a lower rate than the last wage offer from Canada Post at the Bargaining Table.  Shame.

If Harper's goal was simply to return our Posties to work and get the mail moving again, he could have introduced a bill that forced Canada Post to unlock the doors and get back to the Table.  He didn't because it wasn't.  His goal was to make it clear he is in charge and, by golly, things are gonna get ugly every time someone forgets it.

As the clock counts down to the C-6 vote call, I know how it's going to end.  We all do.

But I have to send my appreciation to the federal NDP MPs who spoke so long and so well for working people.  I am grateful for their strong presence in the House of Commons.  Do do that voodoo that you do so well!

I also send my appreciation to my brothers and sisters in CUPW for your brave efforts to stand firm for all Canadian workers.

Happy Mother's Day 2011: To Valerie & Jillian with all my love

On Mother's Day, the treacle drips from sentimental prose.

You know I'm too pragmatic to contribute much to those.

As a mother and a daughter, too, I shrink from such display,

I much prefer to celebrate it every single day

With gratitude to my mother and especially to you

For the wondrous gift of making me a mother, too!

I celebrate with love, worry and with prayer;

With heartfelt faith in seedlings I have planted where

I hope that you will find them as you grow

And somehow, magically, you will always know

The words to say, the things to do

When motherhood drops in on you.

But I am certain, as my mother before me,

That you will fail – you will see! –

And many moments to give and teach

Will quickly fly beyond your reach.

I'd warn you not to grieve too much

The day your child slips from your touch,

But I cried the day that you outgrew

Your newborn clothes (I did.  It's true!)

The day would come, I saw it then,

You wouldn't need me ever again.

But a mother's role is not complete

Until it is rendered obsolete

So, tho' you're well and truly grown

And managing nicely on your own;

Tho' I'm proud of what you've become,

I'm afraid I'll always be your mom.

I will preach and advise and nag

Twice as much as I will brag.

No man will be good enough for you,

But I'll try to like him if you do.

And one day, perhaps, you, too, will know

Why I cling and won't let go.

What is a Trade Unionist? By M. A. (Tex) Hughes

Years ago, attended the retirement event for a long-time CUPE activist.  Paul Moist, CUPE's National President, spoke and included excerpts from the following.  He'd cited the author and I Googled ferociously trying to find a copy. No luck.  After a few emails were exchanged, Brother Moist provided me with a scan of the original document.  It was a single page, no idea what the publication was or when it was printed by CUPE Local 1326 (though it appears to have been some time ago) and the gender was primarily masculine.

To update it, I made it gender neutral, but the rest remains intact, as written, including the odd (to me) mixture of American and Canadian spellings.  Now, when someone asks you what a trade unionist is, you can send them here.  Be warned:  He sets the bar very, very high.  It is something for activists to strive for.

On the occasion of his retirement, after some thirty-eight years as a union member, union officer, representative of the National Union of Public Employees, and later the Canadian Union of Public Employees and a regional director, Brother M. A. (Tex) Hughes gave this reply when asked the simple question,

WHAT IS A TRADE UNIONIST?

In my opinion, a Trade Unionist is a person who has dedicated his or her life to the task of fighting for the betterment of all workers.  To such a person, an injury to one is an injury to all.  A gain for one is a gain for all and justice for one leads to a better chance for all to receive justice.

Trade Unionists are prepared to fight for themselves, but to fight longer and harder for others.  They are willing to contribute time, effort and money to advance the cause of the labour movement, and to do so without counting the cost.

There are no 9 to 5 Trade Unionists.  Days off, weekends and evenings away from family is a price they are prepared to pay.

The question posed by President Kennedy could have been, "Ask not what your union can do for you.  Ask, rather, what you can do for your union."  A real Unionist does not have to be persuaded to stand for union office or to accept committee work or become a Shop Steward.  And they do not ask to be paid for performing such work.  They do not use their union position to advance their career.  They will refuse to accept a promotion or an appointment if it means selling out to management or compromising their trade union principles.

The Unionist knows that sacrifices must be made if they are to live up to those union principles.  They are ready to pay that price, even if it costs their job, their chances for promotion, their popularity, the goodwill of their bosses or the support of less dedicated fellow workers.

No Trade Unionist will ever cross a picket line under any circumstances.  A picket line is sacred, whether it is legal or illegal, whether it is set up by their union, another union, a non-union organization or even a rival organization.

No unionist will ever go back to work while anyone in their union is still on strike, even if half of the other members crawl back; they will stay out until the strike is called off by a majority vote of the members.  Not even if they voted against the strike in the first place, will they sell out their fellow members.  They may lose their car, their home, their livelihood, but they will not scab.

The real Unionist will not allow personalities to dictate their actions.  They may dislike certain members or officers but will not allow this to prevent their working with them for the good of the union or from fighting for them if they need help.  They will not criticize or condemn their union or its officers in public, but rather work from within to correct the situation.  They will never disclose information that should remain within the membership.

The Unionist knows that any union is only as strong as its members and that each member must work to keep the union strong.  They cannot sit back and let others do it for them.  The member who refuses to act, who expects the executive, the representative, the National, or other members to carry the load is no trade unionist.  Real Trade Unionists do all that is required of them, then look around to see what more they can do.

The Trade Unionist knows that the labour movement was born out of desperation and frustration, in times when workers had no rights whatsoever; when it was a punishable crime to even meet with another worker to discuss wages or working conditions.  They know that earlier Unionists gave their lives -- even here in Canada -- to gain some rights for the workers.

They know that every right they now enjoy, every protective article in their collective agreement, every piece of labour legislation was obtained for them by dedicated Unionists, through untold effort and great sacrifice.  They know that others before them made those sacrifices, were fired from their jobs, black-listed for life, beaten up by company goons, ridden down by armed troops, imprisoned, deported and even killed.  Everything they now take for granted was paid for by others.  Because they know, they can never forget the debt which can never be repaid.

Real Trade Unionists will never be satisfied that everything possible has been accomplished, but if, on their deathbed, they can say, "I leave this world a somewhat better place for my fellow workers and part of that improvement was due to my small contribution," they can die in contentment.  There are many more union members than there are Trade Unionists.