Bambi already celebrated Easter (with the majority…) but today she wants to send her love to her parents as it is their Greek Orthodox Palm Sunday, along with a prayer she loves dearly.
Bambi’s parents are the most open-minded people she has ever met in her life. Spiritually rooted in their faith yet open to the world, namely to all faiths, non-faith, or whatever else. They even easily forgive those with close-minded ideologies, even when the latter want to kill loved ones. For them and for Bambi, what matters the most in life is: RESPECT (self- and respect for others). Respect is the best antidote to injustice, discrimination, civil conflicts, racism, etc.
Anyhow, to conclude this post, Bambi is happy you survived the pandemic (fully vaccinated for a while) and your Beirut port surrealistic explosion that destroyed your apartment and store… to be able to live this significant week filled with beautiful Byzantine chants. Enjoy :)!
Those who know Bambi since childhood recall that her nickname is “Bambine“. Yes, she is an Armenian deer deep in her heart, today/tomorrow more than ever.
Remembrance is a duty, not just to honour the 1 million victims (may their memory be eternal), but to learn from history in order to say and truly mean: Another genocide in our world… never again!
To conclude this post, here are three songs that Bambi would like to offer to all her friends of Armenian heritage, if she may. The first one is by Mr. Ghassan Rahbani (in both Arabic and Armenian). It is about the Armenian genocide that took place from about April 24 (1915) to 1917. The second is by the late Mr. Charles Aznavour (a French song performed by Ms. Nana Mouskouri, along with French artists, to raise funds after the devastating Armenian earthquake of 1988). Finally, the last song is by Mr. Patrick Fiori whose father is French-Armenian (in French).
Bambi posted in the past about Saudi Arabia’s membership in the UN’s Human Rights Council (another similar joke ?, except that it is not funny :(!).
Today, it is the turn of Iran to secure “membership” in the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). If this is a joke, it surely has a bad taste.
These “elections” within the UN tell us something about who controls such international organizations. It tells us also about all the political and business shenanigans in our world.
Does anyone genuinely care for women’s rights abroad?
To conclude this post, today is a sad day for women all over the world, not just in Iran… This day is an insult to the intelligence of Iran’s women (and all their fellow citizens).
Dr. Gad Saad, from Concordia University (Montreal, Québec), was about to become a target of cancel culture (ie., an attempt to silence him). The Jewish Public Library showed courage when facing the mob. His talk will take place at the end of this month, as scheduled. Bravo.
No one should be silenced in a free society, including Dr. Saad, whether we agree with his ideas or not. Instead, what would be more enriching in life is to debate and exchange ideas. Plus, if someone does not want to listen or debate, an easy solution would be to simply avoid reading his book or attending his talk, etc.
To conclude this post, at 5.36 minutes from the start, Dr. Saad’s wise words resonated with Bambi: “With every loss, every cancelled deplatforming that is instantiated, a small piece of our freedom dies”. Indeed, when freedom dies, the end result can be very ugly, as both Dr. Saad and Bambi happen to know very well…
Does it make sense to divide Québec into two categories
of citizens, francophones (majority) versus anglophones (minority)?
Does it make sense to weaken Québec like that and to
attack its culture and cultural choices?
Today it is this societal choice (as a reminder, Bill
21 came after 10 years of a public debate on reasonable accommodations).
Tomorrow, what would it be? Will they tell us that protecting
the French language is racist or discriminatory ??
Why can’t our federation (politicians, judges, media,
etc.) understand that there are two main cultural approaches to secularism:
Multiculturalism and secularism (laïcité), like many European countries (Québec’s
version is much milder than the French one). Both have merits and both have potential
flaws. What Bambi likes about the former is that it works… but only up to a certain
point. Then, perhaps a lucid re-commitment to unity would be needed to avoid any
excesses. What Bambi likes about the latter is the universalism underlying it (e.g.,
the French Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). Both provide protection to
(religious or non-religious) minorities in different ways. Not better, not
worse. Just different.
To come back to Bill 21, Bambi is not a lawyer to understand
the legal justification behind this judge’s odd decision of today.
Bambi only understands that the same laws must be above
all citizens, for fairness.
Plus, what kind of message will we give to newcomers
to Québec? You can teach in this school with your religious symbol on, but not
in the other one, perhaps in the same neighbourhood? Does that make any sense?
As Bambi wrote in an earlier post: “why would a
Muslim friend from Nova Scotia
quickly express respect of Québec’s choices when Bambi told him about this
forthcoming bill (his veiled cousin was considering immigrating to Québec from
Lebanon)”? Why not the media and this judge from Québec? Is he impartial,
one cannot help not to wonder? Or is he convinced that this is wise conclusion?
This story is making Bambi think of a conversation she
had yesterday with a wise loved one in Beirut who told her that he hopes he is
wrong, but there seems to be an attempt to divide the Lebanese judicial system
(everything else is already sadly divided, they both joked).
It is sad to see us going down this road in our Canada:
More divisions in our society. Bravo to Québec for clearly saying: Non merci.
There will be an appeal.
To conclude this post, contrary to Dr. Amir Attaran’s tweet on this matter: No, the nation of Québec is not “backwards”. How sad yet not surprising to see this clever lawyer/professor being so disrespectful of La Belle Province. Once again, Bambi will repeat that he has the right to be impolite toward Québec or not liking it. As shown below, despite all his unkind remarks, Bambi has defended his right to freedom of speech.
To conclude this post, if she may, Bambi would like to offer this Lord’s prayer in Aramaic (Jesus’ language) to all those mourning today and/or tomorrow.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental value of our democracy. But the protection and well-being of our citizens, too, is a pillar of our democracy. Then we can’t say we’re just going to deal with freedom of expression, but we no longer care about the safety and well-being of our people”. – Steven Guilbeault
«La liberté d’expression c’est une valeur fondamentale de notre démocratie. Mais la protection et le bien-être de nos citoyens et de nos citoyennes aussi, c’est un pilier de notre démocratie. Puis on ne peut pas dire on va juste s’occuper de la liberté d’expression, mais on ne se préoccupe plus de la sécurité et du bien-être de notre population».– Steven Guilbeault
Mmm, do you see the possible slippery slope, like Bambi? Our federal Minister seems to be adding to freedom of expression limits that can provide our government with legal authority to “silence” citizens if they say anything that could be perceived by anyone as being triggering.
For fun, think of Bambi’s earlier post on the Evian water in France. Let’s imagine that this story happened in Canada under the new legislation. Does it make sense to you that had Evian been a Canadian brand, it would be hypothetically forced by law to stop its social media advertisements about water on the first day of Ramadan or on Yom Kippur or on Good Friday or on any other day if someone declares water “offensive” or if someone feels unsafe just by the sight of a bottle of water or a choice of word describing it or the use of H2O formula, etc. :)?
Now, let’s think of more serious cases. For example, disputes between neighbours or community members or, worse, cases of online (and offline) mobbing, or of conflicts between two political parties, or whatever else. if someone pretends to be offended by an online comment, word, or dot, that is written here or there, the proposed bill on (online) “hate speech” could serve to silence someone to supposedly protect another party. Who would be the arbitrator? Will this interpreter of the law or decision maker be independent and impartial?
Think of situations where religious people will get offended by online pictures of gay parades? Or this group of people offended by prayers of religious citizens? Are we going to have a hierarchy of offences and who would determine this?
Think of cases of limitations or attacks on freedom of expression like what happened to Mr. Ezra Levant and one of his books? Or Dr. Jordan Peterson and his new book? Or Québec’s Prime Minister for having suggested Dr. Mathieu Bock-Côté’s earlier book in his reading list? These are just recent examples that Bambi posted about. It could be anyone really or any reading or song, etc. Today, it maybe this public figure or any citizen. Tomorrow, it can be someone else. Who knows? One day someone may try to use this new law against Mr. Guilbeault himself or one of his colleagues? Would this be acceptable? Of course, not! Bambi would be the first to denounce this. Indeed, no elected politician (or regular citizen) should be silenced in a democracy for having expressed an opinion (not even Mr. Trump or Lebanon’s politicians, including those pro-Hezbollah or pro-this or pro-that).
Imagine also our increasingly centralized governments (today the Liberals are in power. Likely tomorrow too? However, one day, it will be the turn of another party). Can someone guarantee to Canadians that the proposed legislation will not be manipulated in the future (political shenanigans or moves to silence dissidents)?
Think of the excesses of big tech companies in the United States. Think of other excesses elsewhere in the world. Is this what our politicians envision for our country? Perhaps they are too excited by their idea that they do not see this risk? Could it be?
To conclude this post, why does the Honourable Mr. Guilbeault seem to be so keen on changing the parameters of freedom of expression under his new proposed legislation of “hate speech”? We already have laws that protect citizens from calls to violence or from defamation. Isn’t this enough for our Minster of Canadian Heritage? Why should we risk changing our “heritage” of democracy… paradoxically in the name of more democracy?
Third, those so-called offended observant Muslims can simply avoid reading the tweets of Evian (same simple logic in life for anyone “offended” by any ad, song, concert, book, article, etc.).
Another healthy idea for them would be to drink Evian after
sunset (it is highly recommended to drink water during the Ramadan fast to avoid
dehydration).
Fourth, Evian representatives did not go distribute bottles of water to people leaving mosques after the morning or mid-day prayer. Had they done that, or had they made fun of people’s religious beliefs, this would be truly offensive and unacceptable.
To conclude, from this story, we see that the endemic political correctness has also hit France. Bambi cannot help not to wonder the following: (1) How will this company’s ridiculous apologies help increase its sales or improve its brand image? and (2) In what ways does this story promote tolerance or improve the living-together (“le vivre ensemble” in French)?
