Segacs’s World I Know

The Gazette’s Allison Hanes weighs in on the Andrew Potter debate:

We live in the age of the digital lynch mob, where our slightest missteps get magnified, stupid remarks snowball and ill-considered words live on in infamy. Potter is not the first to be scorched by the blowback from this vicious cycle.

[ . . . ]

The modern tools that are supposed to foster societal discussion have a tendency to drown out dissenting views and become echo chambers of outrage. It is regrettable there can no longer be criticism without consequences, that ideas can no longer be challenged without resulting in a chill effect.

I agree. I also thought Andrew Potter’s column was ill-researched, ill-advised and lame. But I don’t think he deserved to lose his job over it. Everyone — academics especially — should have freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to sometimes be wrong. And if you’re wrong, people can call you out for it. And you can admit you’re wrong and learn from it. That’s how we all get smarter. But to silence voices just because we don’t like what they say? That hurts all of us.

I’m not so concerned with Potter in particular. By most accounts, the guy is a jerk. But in what happens the next time a professor says something that people don’t like?

The “pile-on effect” is one of those unfortunate consequences of social media that is hard to keep in check.

Campaigns like “Let’s Talk” are all well and good when it comes to ending the stigma and launching a conversation. But it’s not enough to just talk about mental health. We urgently need to fix our system to provide better access treatment, prevention and education.

The Globe and Mail’s #OpenMinds Series has some practical, common-sense solutions that should be implemented:

• Expanding access to publicly funded therapy
• Using technology to deliver therapy into the homes of Canadians
• Teaching the next generation about mental health
• Giving youth early access to good clinical care
• Providing affordable housing to those who need it
  

I agree with all of these. And I’d add a few:

1. Healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction. But the Federal government DOES have the power to amend the Canada Health Act to include mental health. (No doubt the provinces would push back about it being an unfunded mandate, but studies show that these solutions would actually *save* the government money in the long run.) Amending the Act would rightly recognize the importance of mental health and would pressure provincial governments to provide better access to care across the country.
2. Resources (funding, support groups, education) for caregivers are notably absent from this list. This is a big gap in our existing system. Being a caregiver is an enormous responsibility, and people with loved ones in their lives battling mental health problems need all the help they can get.
3. Many people are afraid to seek treatment for mental health problems because they fear losing their jobs if their health issues become known. Both employees and employers need more education about their existing rights. And where loopholes exist in the laws, these need to be amended to ensure that nobody ever has to worry about being fired due to mental illness.
4. We need to do a better job training police on how to deal with people with mental health issues. There are too many horror stories of people being killed, harmed, or shuffled into the criminal justice system when what they need is treatment, not enforcement.

According to the CAMH, mental illness costs the economy an estimated $51 billion per year, and affects an estimated 1 in 2 Canadians by age 40. Nearly 4000 Canadians commit suicide each year. There’s no doubt that we have a mental health crisis in this country. And it’s in our power to fix.

Let’s do better, Canada.

This article in the Washington Post really gets at the crux of the difference in outlook between liberals and conservatives:

Chaffetz was articulating a commonly held belief that poverty in the United States is, by and large, the result of laziness, immorality and irresponsibility. If only people made better choices — if they worked harder, stayed in school, got married, didn’t have children they couldn’t afford, spent what money they had more wisely and saved more — then they wouldn’t be poor, or so the reasoning goes.

[ . . . ]

Since the invention of the mythic welfare queen in the 1960s, this has been the story we most reliably tell about why people are poor. Never mind that research from across the social sciences shows us, over and again, that it’s a lie. Never mind low wages or lack of jobs, the poor quality of too many schools, the dearth of marriageable males in poor black communities (thanks to a racialized criminal justice system and ongoing discrimination in the labor market), or the high cost of birth control and day care. Never mind the fact that the largest group of poor people in the United States are children. Never mind the grim reality that most American adults who are poor are not poor from lack of effort but despite it.

Conservatives believe in a meritocracy; people who get ahead do so because they “deserve” to, because they’ve worked hard and pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps. The flip side to that is that poor people or the less successful are seen as also “deserving” of their failure, because they’re lazy, stupid, or otherwise unworthy.

Liberals tend to believe that success and failure are mostly based on factors completely outside of one’s control: Systematic and structural factors that set some people up with advantages that allow them to succeed despite themselves, and others with such insurmountable odds that it would take a miracle to defy them.

As usual, the real truth lies somewhere in between the two. A lot of our success or failure *is* structural and outside of our control. And our choices and actions do matter, but they’re not the only things that matter. I think so many people struggle with the notions of systematic discrimination and privilege simply because they don’t want to let go of feeling like they’re in control of their own lives. I get that. I really do. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to attack people for being poor, though.

Alain de Botton has a good TED talk about this, which is worth a watch if you have a few moments.

BCCLA has written a clear, easy-to-understand guide for Canadians about issues that are far from clear or easy to understand:

The first thing to remember if you’re a Canadian travelling to the United States is that you do not have a free-standing right to enter the US. Many Canadians have been crossing the Canada-US border regularly and without incident for years, but it’s important to remember that US officials have no obligation to let you into the country and can deny you entry for all sorts of reasons that may seem arbitrary and unfair.

[ . . . ]

Until another case comes along, we simply do not know whether the CBSA’s powers include compelling people to provide passwords (though we certainly know that CBSA acts as if they have this power), or whether it is constitutional to arrest someone for refusing (though we know that people have been arrested in these circumstances).

In short: We have very limited privacy at the border, even coming back into Canada. This is an issue that hasn’t been clearly decided by the courts yet. Until then, there are fuzzy guidelines, which may or may not offer some degree of protection. But, if in doubt, leave your devices at home.

And, memo to the federal government: We need to do better. Please address this through legislation, rather than waiting for it to end up in court.

It’s time to stop pointing out all the ways that Donald Trump is turning the US into a fascist state at worryingly break-neck speed. Fascism is here.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Let’s look at history to see what has worked to successfully fight fascist / totalitarian regimes.

[continue reading…]

Steve Bannon has admitted that Trump’s choices for his cabinet were deliberately set up to destroy the agencies that they were appointed to lead:

In the clearest explanation for why nearly all of Trump’s cabinet choices are known mostly for despising and attacking the very Federal agencies they’ve been designated to lead, Bannon explained—in very clear language–that they weren’t appointed to lead these agencies, but to destroy them:

Atop Trump’s agenda, Bannon said, was the “deconstruction of the administrative state” — meaning a system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts that the president and his advisers believe stymie economic growth and infringe upon one’s sovereignty.

“If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”

I mean, it HAD to be true, right? But to actually admit it? You’re an antisemitic scumbag, Mr. Bannon, so maybe you don’t know the definition of the word “chutzpah”… but that’s pretty much it.

Charles Taylor admits he erred when he authored the Bouchard-Taylor recommendation to restrict religious symbols among public servants in positions of authority, saying that “times have changed”:

In 2008, Taylor, along with sociologist Gérard Bouchard, signed a report that called for a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of coercive authority — police, judges and prison guards.

Opposition parties quickly demanded the ban extend to teachers and daycare workers, “something we had not at all envisioned,” Taylor wrote in an open letter published Tuesday in La Presse.

He cited the controversy over the Parti Québécois’ 2013 Charter of Quebec Values as having created the “stigmatization” of certain sectors of Quebec society, particularly the province’s Muslim community, and blamed the controversy for attacks ranging from hateful comments to physical assault on Muslims wearing a veil.

Taylor said times have changed and he no longer endorses the recommendation.

Admitting that is the first step. But it will take more than an open letter to undo the damage. People still clinging to the idea that we need to find a “consensus” misunderstand that, in a democracy, minorities should never be compelled to conform to the tyranny of a majority.

Don’t like hijabs, kippahs or turbans? Fine, nobody’s forcing you to wear them. You are free to wear what you want and believe what you want. But stop telling other people what they can wear or what they can believe.

Bill 62 is bad legislation and must be scrapped.

RIP, America.

One of the more positive effects of what’s been happening lately has been the coming together of the Muslim and Jewish Communities towards a common cause:

A photo of two kids — a Muslim girl and Jewish boy — rallying for the same cause alongside their dads, warmed the hearts of audiences across social media.

Both children are pictured hoisted high above the crowd on their father’s shoulders, holding handmade signs. Seven-year-old Meryem looks across at Adin, 9, who is smiling back at her. Her father, Fatih Yildirim, is holding a sign saying “empathy.” Adin’s father, Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Appell, has a sign with a message about the past — “we’ve seen this before never again.”

For what it’s worth, I spotted a significant number of Jewish people at last night’s Montreal vigil to support the Muslim community in the wake of the Quebec City attack, too.

Just a few years ago, this sort of unity between our two communities would have been almost unheard-of. I think the turning point — as far as I can remember — came when we marched side by side to protest against the Charte des valeurs. Thus proving that when the issues are important enough, we can unite and find common ground.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t still big issues to tackle. But I think we’re all looking for nuggets of hope this week. This is one.