Flemming Holm's Blog

The debate concerning freedom of speech and the Human Rights Commissions rages on.

I worked for the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission for six years and for the Canadian Commission for twelve years, and retired in 1991, so I have had some opportunities to consider such matters.

I value freedom of speech very highly, but there has to be some way of curtailing gratuitous offensive language.

It is pretty well understood that in the matter of race relations certain expressions commonly used in the past are offensive and insulting and their use has been largely eliminated in polite society. We have generally accepted the racial minorities’ own identification of the offensive words; they know better than do the rest of us which words are hurtful.

Surely the same principle should apply in religious matters. If for no other reason than common courtesy we should be considerate of the feelings of others and avoid hurting them. If we value our own freedom of religion, we will accord the minorities freedom of religious belief and practice and do nothing to hurt them or make them feel inferior, despised or unwanted.

If there was some worthy benefit to be gained by using offensive language it might be justified. But such practice is surely an attempt to elevate people who are already in a positions of power and to put down those who are disadvantaged or different.

One more factor. It is well known that there are tensions between much of “the Moslem world” and much of “the Christian world”. People of goodwill on both sides are trying hard to maintain peace. Printing the religiously offensive cartoons from the Danish newspaper “Politiken” is surely what used to be called “warmongering” or saber-rattling”. We don’t want war, but history teaches that there are extremists on both sides who might bring it on. Let us not fan the flames.

I highly recommend a fascinating history of how the role of government, attitudes towards social justice and economic development have developed and changed over the last 100 years particularly in the democracies of Europe and North America, given in a speech by Ed Broadbent at York University on Feb. 21.  I urge you to read it, and pass it on.

Broadbent quotes Franklin Roosevelt who said, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.  Necessitous men are not free men.”

In the 1970s both the American and the Canadian Psychiatric Associations struck homosexuality from their lists of disorders to be cured.

In 1979 a study of the scholarly literature on the subject of sexual orientation was carried out by a professor at Carleton University at the request of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The writer of the study summarized the results reached by more than 25 scholars who lived and wrote between 1900 and 1975, and referred to a number of others.

The books and articles studied overwhelmingly agree, and the author’s summary concludes, that each person’s sexual orientation is fixed before adolescence is reached. “Sexual orientation is as much an integral part of each individual as is race or gender. It can’t be changed. Neither homosexual experimentation, nor indeed heterosexual experiences by homosexuals detracts from this immutability.”

(As a friend of mine remarked to me, “You may teach a left-handed person to write with his right hand, but he is still a left-handed person.”)

The Canadian Human Rights Commission accepted the professor’s findings, and on its recommendation Parliament added “sexual orientation” to the Canadian Human Rights Act as one of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, along with race, ethnic and national origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction of an offence for which a pardon has been granted. Thus the change in the Act was made only after diligent study of the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists in many countries.

The Human Rights Act does not of course excuse or justify pedophilia or rape or any kind of sexual violence or exploitation; such actions are violations of the law (and of the sanctity of the individual) whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

It is sometimes claimed that gay individuals have been “cured” of their homosexuality. But scholars are agreed that some persons are bisexual, and can “swing” either way; it is these people who are said to have “changed” or been “cured” – they are bisexuals, not homosexuals.

Some people may feel disgust or aversion at the thought of gay sex. If so, it is their own problem. Such a feeling is not a sufficient ground for adverse legislation, or for the denial of equality to anyone.

I have seen no indication that gay marriage can threaten a traditional marriage, unless of course one of the partners has entered the marriage taking for granted that he/she was heterosexual, and later discovers that he/she is gay. In that case the marriage is in trouble anyway.

A good marriage is one of God’s most valuable gifts. It provides the individual with much needed stability, confidence, joy and moral strength. It encourages the development of a deeper love than would otherwise be possible. It promotes abundant living, for the children as well as for the adult partners.

That being so, it is unfair that gays and lesbians should be denied the full benefits of marriage just because they are constitutionally unable to enter into a satisfying sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. To that minority, homosexual partnership is just as meaningful as heterosexual partnership is to the rest of us. I have known a number of couples who were in loving, long-lasting and joyful homosexual relationships. Unfortunately a homophobic society places severe strain on them by its critical attitude.

Principles of fairness and equality demand that if heterosexual relationships can be legitimized by marriage vows and through recognition by church and government, legitimization of homosexual relationships should also be possible.

Some church bodies and some individuals oppose homosexuality and gay marriage on Biblical grounds, and quote verses in Leviticus 17 to 26 on the subject. But if we are to take Leviticus seriously today, we will stone adulterers, burn witches, put to death children who do not treat their parents with respect, avoid eating pork, refuse to wear cloth that combines yarn taken from more than one source, and carry out a number of other practices which none of us would consider appropriate or even Christian in today’s society. Why insist on condemning this one type of action while ignoring all those others? Can it be that we are not meant to apply Leviticus in “the Christian era”?

A careful reading of Genesis 19 shows that the sin of Sodom involved gang rape, which is surely a sin no matter whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. It was not a consensual sex act. And it was a serious breach of hospitality. Hospitality was much valued in Old Testament times, on the edge of the desert.

St. Paul also has something to say on the subject (very little actually – see Romans 1:27 and First Corinthians 6:9). But some Gentile sects in Paul’s day used male and female prostitution in their worship, and the Jewish Christians were concerned that the new church should not be polluted by such practices. At any rate there was no recognition in those days that homosexuality was a characteristic or orientation – no realization of such differences in people. It was seen as an act or practice only.

As far as we know, Jesus had nothing to say about either homosexuality or homosexual acts. But according to the Gospels he was continually breaking down walls, and including those whom others despised or at least left out: the Samaritans, foreigners, Gentiles, women, the poor, lepers, the blind, the chronically ill, those who wouldn’t or couldn’t keep the pharisaic rules (“publicans and sinners”). He incurred the hatred of the self-righteous by trying to remove the burdens and stigmas which they had laid on the disadvantaged. (Why did the congregation cast him out of the synagogue in Luke 4? Was it because he told of God’s mercy to Gentiles?) The New Testament tells us (John 1 and Hebrews 1) that Jesus is the Word of God; surely if we are marinated in his spirit we too will be inclusive and seek to relieve the burdens of those who are suffering through no fault of their own. “God is love”.

Paul nowhere claims that his teaching is equal to that of Jesus; in fact he points to Jesus as his leader, his superior. (See I Corinthians 1 and 3). He also says that we see through a glass, (in a mirror) darkly (I Corinthians 13:12); presumably he includes himself in the word “we”.

I take my cue from Jesus, not from Paul. Or Leviticus.

Finance Minister Flaherty has promised us tax cuts. The recent surplus, and projections for the future, make such a promise possible. And many people and corporations are happy. But we would prefer to see more compassionate and progressive use of the available funds.

We want the federal share of health care costs restored to former levels to make it possible to reduce waiting lists and provide everyone with a family doctor. We want to see equality in health care guaranteed – one system for all, no two tier system and no privatization. We want to see universal pharmacare, initially at least for preschoolers. As one newspaper columnist has said, our national health care plan is not broken; it is broke.

We want more emphasis on restorative justice and the prevention of crime.

We want to hear our political leaders inspiring and challenging a fairer distribution of income – there is no reason why any family should receive more than five times the income of any other family, particularly when there is so much poverty in Canada and throughout the world.

There is a growing poverty gap within our country and among the nations. We want to see it narrowed. And we want to see the stigma of poverty removed through the use of universal benefits.

We want more money spent on waging peace than on waging war.

We want to speed up the settlement of land claims and thus reduce the gap between the Native people and the majority, in order to promote justice and peace and to prevent the sacrifice of more lives, both Native and Caucasian.

We want government at all levels to take seriously the prospect of global warming and to begin preparation for the changes that are coming. We want the federal government to restore its support of home owners as they install solar and other modern forms of alternative heating. We want to see an end to the use of fossil fuels in all government buildings. We want the erection of homes on flood plains prohibited. We want a carbon tax imposed.

We want anti-viral medication made available to AIDS sufferers in Africa at cost or less. We want a recognition that clean drinking water is as much a human right as is clean air; to treat it as a commodity to be bought and sold by the wealthy and available only to those who can pay – that is triage and tantamount to genocide.

We want to see greater government assistance to university education, so as to provide the poor with equality of access to higher education.

We want to see affordable housing provided for the poor, and better provision for those who are homeless due to mental illness and similar disabilities.

Nearly sixty years ago Canada formally agreed that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 (1)).

We want Canada to take the Universal Declaration seriously.

If cancelling the federal government’s tax cuts will make possible one or more of the above suggestions, we will gladly forego our share of the surplus.

I understand that the Palestinian people are suffering enormous deprivation partly because the international embargo is crippling their economy.

It is bad enough that Israel is taking over much of the most valuable Palestinian property through the illegal “settlements”, is preventing the Palestinians from taking advantage of employment opportunities by building walls, and is lowering the water level in the Jordan by its industrial enterprises. While all this is going on, the governments of the world have cut off financial support to the Palestinian Authority, so that the Authority has not been able to pay its employees their salaries, garbage has been piling up in the streets of Gaza, and other normal government services are disrupted.

In the meantime the Western nations continue their support of Israel, put the blame for unrest on the Palestinians and call on them to cease their violence.

It is not surprising that some of the Palestinian people give way to anger, that mobs lash out at perceived enemies, that blood flows and bombs explode, and peace becomes elusive in the Near East.

I would urge the Canadian Government to resume its financial support of the Unity Government and to use its diplomatic clout to persuade Israel to treat the Palestinians fairly.

From the time of Joshua – about 1300 B.C. – to about 135 A.D. (some 1400 years later), the Hebrew people were predominant in the land. From Roman times until about a century ago (some 1900 years) the ancestors of the present Palestinians were predominant. On the basis of this view of history, then, each party has a long standing claim to the land – perhaps an equal claim. But some Jews, and some Christians, would hold that the biblical position of “ Chosen People” extends to the present time, entitles Israel to be pre-eminent today and excused from treating the Palestinians fairly. And some would even say that the sooner Armageddon breaks out the sooner Christ will return – so, bring on the Third World War!

In 1917 the British Government, as the occupying power, and under the pressure of the War, issued the Balfour Declaration, stating that the Jewish people had a right to return to the Holy Land and live there. Since there were many Jews living in Western Europe and in America, the Declaration received much approval and support in those parts of the world. And certainly the suffering of the Jews at the hands of “Christian” people through many centuries (culminating in the Holocaust) made the establishment of a Jewish homeland all the more appropriate. But apparently those whose ancestors had occupied the area for many centuries were not consulted.

I am not saying that Zionism is wrong. I am saying that the Palestinians have suffered much because of Zionism, and that they also have rights to the land. And I am saying that if we expect them to respect the rights of the Jews and to keep the peace, then we must also expect Israel to observe the same high principles. And Canada too must be even handed in its approach to the two parties.

The Hon. Judy Streatch, M.L.A.
Government of Nova Scotia

Dear Judy:

It was very kind of you to meet with our group at Grace McClung’s on May 25. I hope you got – and continue to get – some satisfaction on the subjects raised. I take for granted that for the most part our political representatives want to do the right and helpful things, but if they are to achieve their goals they need to know they have public support. I also believe that the wealthy and powerful can make their wishes known – but someone needs to make a special effort to speak for the common people. And you certainly gave us something to think about.

One problem you expressed had to do with letting the low income people know about the programs that were available to them. (Some people who are on low incomes tend not to do much reading. They may not have the necessary time nor education.) Some days after our meeting I was watching, on CPAC, a conference on medicare. I heard Tom Kent urge that the federal government should provide complete free pharmacare to all pre-school age children as a right, no matter what their family income. Then, he said, we could later raise the age limit to include all school children. Recognize the care of the children as a national responsibility, he said. It occurred to me that if all small children were entitled to the same benefits the word might get around better, a means test (always demeaning) would not be necessary, and the tendency to feel stigmatized because of poverty would be diminished. One might object that this would cause the tax burden to rise and that the wealthy could easily pay and would not need this benefit. Well then, we could retrieve the cost by increasing taxes on high incomes. We supply water, air, hospital beds, physician services and the protection of the law more or less equally and freely to all, as their rights as human beings and Canadian citizens, so why not prescribed medicines and other such benefits as well? This might solve your problem (and produce others.) Start provincially, and then, perhaps, involve the feds - as happened in the case of medicare.

As for the matter Grace outlined in her letter to you, that some employers seem to avoid paying benefits by hiring part-time workers, perhaps all employers could be required to pay benefits on all regular jobs, or on all jobs of over (say) 10 hours per week or paying over $80 per week. But if the barrier were set too low it would encourage the underground economy; I might try to avoid paying benefits to the boy who cuts my lawn once a week. The sooner the minimum wage is raised, the better.

Surely the two greatest and most shameful failings of the human race are war and poverty. It is a scandal that in this democratic and enlightened country some people have a hundred times the income of others; that speaks of discrimination and exploitation.

Anyone who accepts an income of a million a year while others are in want should be entitled to a stay in the hoosegow; or at least be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Everyone who can work should have a right to a decent-paying job, and anyone who cannot work should have a guaranteed income, large enough to live on. The climate of opinion needs to change before this can take effect, but there are many people who share this view.

(No, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of a communist party. But “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need” sounds good to me and should be approved by government and every CEO. It should be accepted as an ideal in an enlightened and mature democracy, whether or not it is enshrined in law. We in North America have for many years tended to be overprotective of our capitalist system because those who have the most influence over public opinion have wanted to be free to increase their wealth and power. Thus in the thirties and forties the CCF was vilified by big business as being communist.)

Foodbanks are not the answer to the problem of the poverty gap; they are evidence of the failure of society and of the greed of a few. The problem is systemic and cannot be fixed with bandaids. Atlantica is not the answer: as long as there is no common minimum wage among the participating states and provinces, we shall be forced to pay lower wages. The same is true of free trade.

A couple of generations ago Al Capp (creator of L’l Abner) had a character by the name of General Bullmoose who went around declaiming “What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the country”. I believe someone (Guess who?) had said that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. A trickle down economy doesn’t work to the benefit of the average joe or jill; too little trickles down – it trickles up instead – or pours up. The poverty gap is still growing, provincially, nationally, internationally.

One of the most important functions of government is to protect the vulnerable/poor against the rich. But it is difficult to compete with the United States as long as the Republicans are in power and are reducing the taxes on the wealthy. (By the way, I read some weeks ago that the Democrats would give away the farm to the poor, and the Republicans would give it away to the rich.)

While I have your attention I want to say that I have just gone through a pile of newspaper clippings that I had squirreled away, and want to comment briefly on a few of them.

Some headlines give me joy and hope:

“Welfare recipients get chance to attend university with no penalty”

“Raising minimum wage to $10 in 3-5 years proposed”

“Paying less than a living wage is exploitation”

“NSP salaries: private profit at odds with the public good”

Others raise disturbing possibilities:

“Private health care on the way?”

“A prelude to private health care?”

Private health care would mean higher costs. Of course. It is a matter of simple common sense. Produce and buy in bulk; one size fits all – up to a point. Cut out the billionaire who is trying to make his second or third billion; we don’t need to add to his profits. In the US the total spent on health care per capita is far above Canada’s total, and over 30% of the population there (the poorer third) has no coverage. We have room to expand and improve, while still staying under American total figures, and still maintaining approximate equality of service to everyone.

There was a little rich girl whose teacher required her to write an essay on a poor family. “She started, “This family was very poor. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children were poor, the governess was poor, the chauffeur was poor . . . “

It is not that the wealthy are bad or uncaring, but when one has spent his life in luxury, measuring success in terms of stocks and bonds and comparing oneself with other wealthy folk, it is hard to think in more realistic terms. The whole climate of thought is affected. In the Middle Ages there was an expression used in theological circles: Invincible Ignorance”. It is still alive today. We can never avoid it entirely.

Someone has said that the success of a civilization is measured by the way the most vulnerable are treated. In Luke 4:16ff. we are told that when Jesus was starting his ministry he went to the synagogue in his home town and read the lessons at the service. According to custom, the passage from the Torah was mandatory. But he was free to choose the reading from the Prophets, and picked two passages from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Three years later, according to the Gospels, Jesus was executed because he had championed the poor and criticized the domination (pyramid) system: he had criticized the greedy elite, and had interfered with the profits of wealthy business people who were exploiting the poor and who for business reasons had crowded the Gentiles out of “the Court of the Gentiles” – the only spot in Jerusalem set aside for foreigners to worship.

Some years ago, in Medellin, Columbia, a convocation of Roman Catholic bishops said in a statement that God had “a preferential option for the poor”. The term “Liberation Theology” is one that has great relevance for many people today. Its meaning is rooted in the escape from Egypt under Moses and in the realities of life for many millions of people in our world – including thousands of Canadians.

I spent eighteen years of my working life promoting “equality of opportunity” (Human Rights) a cause that was dear to the heart of Jesus.

Now you know where I stand.

The Hon. Peter MacKay,

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Government of Canada

Ottawa, ON.

Dear Peter MacKay:

I have heard on reliable authority that since 2001 more than 800 social activists in the Philippines have been assassinated in waves of state-sponsored terrorism. Most of these were human rights workers, clergy, lawyers, journalists and labour leaders who had dedicated their lives to the betterment of society. The country is much the poorer for the loss.

Myanmar has also been in the news again, with reports of similar oppression. And Zimbabwe is in a state of chronic disaster and growing chaos and poverty.

I realize that Canada’s power to effect change in such societies is limited. But there are ways in which we can exert an influence, along with other nations of good will. I remember hearing Wendell Willkie, during the American presidential campaign of 1940, saying that this was “one world”. Many people in later years have reiterated those words. The more peace and justice exist even in countries in distant parts of the globe, the stronger is the basis for peace and prosperity everywhere – including Canada.

Please make every possible effort to assist in the development of stable democracy in such lands.

While I have your attention, let me say that we have in our present Governor General an excellent ambassador to send abroad, particularly to the developing countries of Africa and Asia. With her personality, accomplishments and background, and with what she represents, she brings hope and encourages democracy wherever she goes.

With good wishes for success in your work,

Yesterday I saw Jeffrey Sachs on CPAC, and was most impressed. He is Special Advisor to Kofi Annan on the subject of the Millennium Goals, and is with the Earth Institute of Columbia University. He expressed most eloquently some thoughts similar to those that I have already come across in church circles, and have read in The United Church Observer and The Christian Century – both of them award-winning church periodicals. (Sachs has recently written a book entitled The End of Poverty. If he writes as well as he speaks, it is worth a read. He made much sense.)

Sachs told how the International Monetary Fund made large sums of money available to some African countries for bed nets to be used in the campaign against malaria, but on condition that the program be privatized and the nets be sold to the individual recipients, and not donated. But nearly all the people who needed them were living in deep poverty, and could not afford the $5.00 price (it would have meant not eating for a week or more). So the effort failed, the mosquitoes prospered, thousands of people died, and a scourge which could have been eradicated rages on.

I understand that the same mentality rules in the case of loans or grants given by the IMF and World Bank for the purpose of securing potable water for the people of Africa and other places. The money is available, but only on condition that the program is privatized and the individual recipient or family pays for the water. The great majority simply do not have the money, so have to return to the polluted stream. Again, disaster results.

As long as the decisions in such matters are made by people in plush corporate offices, who have never known want, either in their own lives or in the lives of their friends and relatives, I suppose such results are inevitable. The decision-makers must learn to listen to people who have had experience with poverty.

There was a little rich girl who was given an assignment by her teacher: she was to write an essay about a poor family. She started out: “This family was very poor. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children were poor. The chauffeur was poor, the cook was poor, the governess was poor . . . .”

Of course the decision makers are afraid that corrupt dictatorships in the Third World will misuse the assistance given. But there are other ways of ensuring fairness. And under privatization there is always the likelihood that some Black or Guite or Skilling will take advantage of the situation and exploit the poor. This is just as likely as a Somoza or a Duvalier depositing the profits in Swiss bank accounts. Corruption takes place in democracies as well as in dictatorships.

I am much disturbed by the tendency of our present government to follow the lead of the Republican government in the US. About a hundred years ago some Canadian leader (I can’t remember who) emphasized our membership in the Empire; if Britain went to war, he said, our Canadian response should be “Ready, aye, ready”. By 1930 we had won our independence. Now we seem to be falling, without thinking things through, into the same sort of allegiance to the US: an automatic “Ready, aye, ready”. Surely a greater independence, and perhaps a closer relationship to our European roots would be preferable. At least, we must think for ourselves.

It has been said of the Americans that the Democrats would give away the farm to the undeserving poor, and the Republicans would give it away to the undeserving rich. We Canadians seem determined to follow the Republicans – or to give our farm away to Walmart. Economic imperialism (by American business interests) rules much of the world, and governments have less and less power. No wonder, then, that there is bitterness and unrest in many places. If “free enterprise” means the freedom of the rich to plunder the poor, we do need to think for ourselves and not just follow the Republicans blindly.

American foreign policy seems to have been captured by three groups: the oil barons, the Zionists who believe that only they have a right to the Holy Land, and those Christian fundamentalists who believe that Armageddon must be fought before Christ comes back to establish his kingdom so the sooner the third world war takes place the better. The teachings of the Old Testament prophets that conquered people should be treated with respect and kindness, and that being God’s chosen people involves a high degree of moral and ethical responsibility are easily forgotten – by Jews and by Christians.

The Holy Land was occupied by Israelites for about 1500 years, from the conquest under Joshua until about 135 A.D., when they were scattered; then by Palestinians until the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration (1917). Since 1948 the Israelis (supported by the Americans) have shoved the Palestinians into smaller and smaller impoverished enclaves – much as we Europeans have done with the First Nations of North America. If we admit that the Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians, we must also admit that we have oppressed the Natives in Canada – a difficult admission to make.

On the basis of history then, both Palestinians and Jews have rights to the land, perhaps approximately equal rights. In an ideal situation, it should be possible for the moderates in both camps to work together to control the extremists. But the world is far from ideal.

Back to the matter of drinking water. Air and water have traditionally been freely available to all. They should continue to be freely available. Having to pay for either one can only result in inequality, with some people able to live and others dying of poverty. Both clean air and potable water should be in the public domain, not under individual or corporate or foreign control and therefore subject to exploitation. Nor should they be used as political cudgels.

Tragedy has already struck, with regarding to drinking water. Studies have shown that more than a billion of the world’s people do not have clean drinking water, and that by 2025 A.D. more than two-thirds of the world’s population will experience severe shortages.

We used to take for granted that whenever we used the water in the well it would be automatically restored in all its purity. That day is gone. Some of us have memories long enough to have seen the water tables drop and innumerable wells and brooks and rivers go dry. I have seen it happen in Nova Scotia and in Saskatchewan, and I know the same thing has taken place elsewhere. Desalinization will soon be necessary, and should be planned for. There is lots of water, of course, but it is increasingly seawater, polluted or salty or both.

If we continue to use and misuse our non-renewal resources, the days of the human race will soon come to an end. And if the poverty gap continues to grow, the poor will die first. We will have only ourselves to blame. We have the brains, the ingenuity, the skill, to turn the trends around. A Norwegian patriotic song says, of that northern and mountainous country, “Here is summer sun enough, here is fertile land enough, if only – if only – we have love enough.” Political will is needed.

It has been said that captains of industry seldom plan more than five years ahead. The same is true of politicians wanting to be reelected. Statesmen plan for the more distant future.

Many years ago I learned two aphorisms which I have tried to keep in mind on my way through life. One is: “Of the successful leader it will be said, ‘We did it ourselves’ ”. The other is: “We are so busy doing things to people and doing things for people that we forget to do things with people.”

Some fifty years ago when I was in Saskatchewan the provincial government was concerned about rural life and the rural economy. A series of consultations was organized, with a dozen or more mass meetings throughout the province. I attended the one in Assiniboia, along with several hundred other rural dwellers. In the afternoon we were divided into groups of eight, and each group was asked to list the half dozen most serious problems affecting agriculture and rural life. Over supper the steering committee collated the findings. In the evening we again divided into small groups, and each group was given one of the nine problems most often raised and was asked to try to find answers. (As I remember it, the question most often named was given to fifteen groups, and the ninth question was assigned to six groups.)

I can’t comment on the outcome of the exercise. I merely mention it as a way of “doing things with people”. An alternative might have been to establish a royal commission, with some high priced lawyers and successful business people who had never wielded a pitchfork or operated a combine. And could be counted on not to upset any applecarts.

I have some knowledge of the history of my native country. In Denmark, through most of the18th century, most of the land was in huge estates held by the nobility. Nearly all the peasants were for the first forty-five years of life bound to the estate on which they had been born. But the landowners found that farming was not as profitable as they would have liked, and many wanted to get out of it. Some of them read the French philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc., calling for opportunities and equality for the common people. The press was gradually given its freedom. And in 1788 (on the eve of the revolution in France) the government issued an edict ending the bondage in which the peasants had been held so they would be able to move freely and take employment where they could find it. At the same time many of the landowners, assisted by government, began to divide the large estates, and to make it possible for the peasants to buy the land at reasonable cost and start farming on their own.

The former peasants now began to take a greater interest in farming, and organized themselves into study groups, cooperatives and agricultural societies. The new opportunities produced optimism and an awakening throughout the country, and people clamoured for further government action to support their hopes and dreams. By the Education Act of 1814 each parish was required to have a school, and every child was required to attend. The Folk School movement sprang up, agricultural colleges were established and trades training was formalized. Literature flourished, and patriotic songs.

People took new pride in their country. In 1849, after much debate the king granted the people a democratic constitution.

Of course there was opposition. King Frederick VII, who died in 1839, is reported to have said, “We alone understand” (using the royal “We”). Many of the nobility bemoaned the loss of their status and power. Belief in “the divine right of kings” had been common throughout Europe. But in northern Europe it was coming to an end.

When barriers were removed and the common people were given the power and encouragement they needed, they rose to the occasion, and the golden age of Danish agriculture and industry began. The people were enabled to act for themselves without having to depend on the leadership of the oligarchy.

Much the same sort of development took place in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. But then the Americans forced/bought a “regime change”.

In Canada today there are many people in bondage – to poverty, illiteracy, hopelessness, poor health, limitations of many kinds. Hundreds of thousands of people who desperately want to be contributing members of society are caught in the poverty trap. 2000 years ago Seneca said that what people needed more than anything else was a hand let down to lift them up. In his time the Roman government was providing the poor with “bread and circuses”. Today we have food banks, which provide food for the body but impoverishment for the spirit.

The poverty gap is growing. One provincial finance minister is reported to have said, some years ago, “What Canada needs is more millionaires”. Well, Canada is getting them, and in the meantime more and more people are living in poverty. We espouse trickle-down economics, but more and more is trickling up. The poor are being squeezed, and if we squeeze a water hose not much water will flow through it. But if we raise the minimum wage and provide true freedom, the poor will take hope and contribute their enthusiasm and their support to society.

Government aid for literacy, I understand, has been cut. How are people to reach their full potential, how can they pull their weight in society, if they cannot learn to read? Many who are illiterate have learning disabilities and need special help. Give them a chance.

There is talk of scrapping the Canadian Wheat Board, despite its support by the great majority of western farmers. Like cooperatives and credit unions, it represents a movement of ordinary people, and a refusal to be dictated to by an oligarchy. Let us not “do things to people”, if we can “do things with people”. Listen to the grass roots.

Reinstate support for the Status of Women. Women do not yet have equality. Some years ago a study showed that taking into consideration time out for child rearing responsibilities, it was reasonable that women should, on the average, earn about 85% of men’s earnings. But in Canada the latest figures I have seen indicate that women working fulltime make less than 70% of men’s earnings. We still have a way to go.

Government efforts to support solar and wind power have been discontinued. We need to support such initiatives, for the sake of clean air and for the development of people. Don’t pay so much attention to the “captains of industry”. They have tunnel vision.

We need a practicable, workable environment policy, one that comes down hard on industry and forces the wealthy to pay their share. Not window dressing. Not cosmetics. Not a vague promise of “pie in the sky” fifty years hence, but results that will be evident in a year or two. Our government needs to recognize the reality of global warming. We are playing with our children’s health and with our grandchildren’s very lives. Of course big industry will object; the positions and wealth of the CEOs and board members depend on the profits they provide the shareholders.

I understand that there is still no avenue of appeal from decisions of Refugee Panels. Those panels are thus the only courts in Canada that have the power to condemn people to death without appeal – by sending them back to their country of origin.

There are tens of thousands of homeless people in our cities and in the rural areas. Many of them have mental or drug problems, or are simply so discouraged that they cannot raise themselves out of their condition. They need shelters, counselling and often medical help.

Strengthen public health care. Economies of scale make it reasonable that care can be given more cheaply under a public system than under a private one. And it is the only way of guaranteeing that everyone has equal access. If we open the door to private health care, we will have a triage system that will cost more and will benefit the oligarchy at the expense of the general public. Negotiate with the provinces to establish a common standard of entitlements across the country. Do what is necessary to make generic drugs available. We Canadians have been shown (in UN surveys) to be far more content with our country than Americans are with theirs. And a major part of the reason is that we are a more caring country and treat the disadvantaged among us better.

It seems to me that in the matter of the environment (and in other areas) the Harper Government has tended to throw out plans made by the Liberals just because they were Liberal plans. I think this is what happened to the Kelowna Accord.

Also, too much attention has been given to the oligarchy. I am far less interested in increasing Canada’s GNP than in securing the highest possible measure of equality for everyone. Is there any reason why any person should need a personal annual income in the millions while other families have less than twenty thousand? Ours is, as Harry

Bruce has said, a “culture of greed”. It is built on the assumption that if we put the sum total of human selfishness in one pot, add water and stir, we will have a gruel that will be maximally nourishing for everyone.

Another danger in listening too much to the millionaires is that they tend to have no appreciation of the reality of the poverty trap, and therefore blame the poor for their poverty. They are out of touch with reality.

I don’t mean to be totally negative. We had to do something about Liberal corruption, and electing a Conservative government seemed to be the only feasible alternative. At long last something is being done to compensate the Chinese Canadians for the headtax. And we are moving to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. Good and necessary moves.

But we cannot expect the market economy to produce equality of opportunity or to look after the effects of global warming. Human selfishness will trump these goals every time unless government protects the vulnerable.