This is a toughie...

Recent news from out West gave me some pause this week. A number of Canada Post employees in British Columbia refused to deliver a piece of what they called homophobic literature.

Mr. Mooney, of the postal union, said the booklet is a diatribe against the gay community, blaming homosexuals for the demise of Western civilization. Postal workers wanted to take a stand against the distribution of the material. "We have a lot of gay members in the work force. I have a gay brother; most of us know someone who has died from AIDS," he said. "Maybe your son died of AIDS and you are going to get this. It is so offensive."

Which is certainly fair enough. Extremists like the Rev. Sterling Clark, who authored this document are reprehenisble. Personally, I'd lock him in a room filled with Queer Life aficionados and force him to watch reruns until he dies.

But on the other hand, this, at least outwardly bears some congruence to a recent U.S. controversy where some pharmacists refused to fill birth control prescriptions. To my mind, that one is pretty obvious-- it's your job, and if you don't like it, find another. It's not up to you to make moral determinations about other people's choices. This part is particulary stupid:

Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions. "That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.

Well actually pal, it isn't the same thing. While I'll go with abortion as an extremely murky area, birth control isn't. That you're making a straightfaced comparison between a birth control pill and murder hardly inspires me to take you seriously.

But I digress. My point here is, if it is going to be argued that a professional serving the public must fulfill their duties regardless of their particular qualms about it, then how are the posties any different? I'm as left as they come, but the principle of it stands, regardless of the fact that I sympathize with the job action in this case. What if a group of screaming Ayn Randers at the post office in my local neighbourhood decides to stop sending around "socialist" literature of one type or another?

In any case, here is what complicates it even more-- is Clark's diatribe hate speech? The NDP certainly thinks so.

"This hate mail would never meet the standards of any newspaper, TV or radio station in Canada. Yet Canada Post, I would point out, says that it meets their standards. Why do they have such low standards, and why don't they have a policy against this?"

Not having read the original document, nor being a judge, I can't say if this is hate speech for certain, though it would never appear on any message board I moderate. I suspect it is, which rather changes things. Nevertheless, the ethical situation is a difficult one. Do the posties get to decide? Why has Canada Post decided it isn't? Do they have a website? (They don't, I looked. But I'm sure the opinion is easily found elsewhere) Is every ISP who allows a Canadian to see this opinion guilty of disseminating hate speech? What trumps here-- professional occupation (to deliver mail, to dispense birth control, to deliver a web page) or individual ethics? Or some government decision of what is or isn't suitable?

You see? Clark is a dick, but this is a pretty serious precedent to set. And remember, prevailing political winds can change pretty quick. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility for this to get turned around on lefties who are feeling pretty smug just now, thanks very much. We on the Left ought to think about it pretty carefully before going with it.

Only rarely am I glad no one reads this. This post might be one of those times. *s*

Why Multiculturalism works.

It is with some dismay recently that I have been hearing from those close to me that part of the problem with Canadian society is that Muslims aren't integrating enough. They must, the theory goes, adopt our values. They came to Canada, so they must be Canadian, or damn the lot of them. What seems to have spurred a fair bit of this recent anger is the recently foiled terrorist plot in the Toronto area. Note to those sure that this proves the Muslim=terrorist theory, let me simply point out that you're known by the company you keep.

There are a number of problems with this hypothesis, among them the assumption that you can force someone to integrate who doesn't want to, and that even if you do force integration that the end result is "a citizen like everyone else." I never can follow why applying a number of stereotypes to a group, and then ostracizing them is supposed to produce integrated citizens. One might want to query the gay community about that.

In any case, this sort of thing goes hand in hand with the thesis that multiculturalism is destroying the idea of a Canadian identity, and that immigrants aren't learning to be Canadian. One might wonder if the news that at least two Muslims were essential in exposing the plot will be repeated as often as that hoary old myth. Both, outraged by the idea of terrorism on Canadian soil, infiltrated the group and their information led to the arrest of the others. In fact, because they felt integrated, because they were loyal and wanted to give something back, they were central to foiling the plot.

"He really felt, as a loyal Muslim Canadian, like he owed Canada something, to give back to it," said a close friend and former business associate who, for security reasons, can't be named. "And it's not surprising to see that he did that for the cause of Canada."

It's always easier to go with the stereotype of course; why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous? Not to mention that the idea of defining terrorists as primarily Muslim is highly selective. Terrorists are known by their deeds, not their skin colour. No matter how you spin it, as a righteous jihad, or a crusade for freedom, killing civilans is wrong.