Bambi just read an interesting and informative article entitled “How to keep your pets calm in a big storm” by Mr. Aaron Beswick in the Sackville tribune:
Without having any pet living under their roof, she
can easily imagine that they would be made anxious by the noise of the wind,
the feeling that a storm is passing by or even just approaching. Just like
kids. Just like us.
Mr. Beswick’s article brought some childhood memories
to her mind.
Made nervous by loud shelling noises, her neighbours’
dog used to run to the shelter with them. Sometimes he would scratch the floor
for minutes in a row until they managed to calm him down.
As a child, Bambi used to take care of wild cats on
the street, thinking to herself that, as humans, we are caring for each other,
but who does care for them? That was before becoming allergic to cats later in
life.
At one point in time, she was feeding and trying to
nurture two adult cats and, eventually, their 7 kitten. She called the adult
cats Nancy and Roy (imagining them to be siblings), only to discover a few months
later that Roy was pregnant– almost at the same time as Nancy (mmm—Clearly
then, Roy was not a male cat. Silly Bambi ?).
Eventually, all these cats died at once (but that was a different story).
Another cute cat sadly lost an eye and a tail during a
round of shelling and a bomb explosion respectively. He (she?) remained alive
and even reproduced, after learning to run to a shelter so fast, even before the
(human) neighbours.
Bambi was serious about helping those cats to the point
of throwing food to them from the balcony. After her parents risked their lives
to do groceries, Bambi did something stupid: Her mom opened the fridge a few
hours after returning home. To her horror, she didn’t find neither the freshly
bought ham nor the cheese. Why? Well, Bambi threw all the food to the street cats
from the balcony!
Another time, and this was a freaky memory, she and her family were escaping to the Beirut airport. They were driving fast under snipers’ shooting, along with shelling here and there. Bambi’s dad asked his kids to lower their heads whilst driving fast on that particularly dangerous highway. It was like a movie scene… Bambi, the youngest child, saw an injured cat and started to beg her dad to save her. Her loving dad stepped out of the car fast to help the cat. She learned years after the truth about this cat: Her dad found it already dead (likely injured by a driver saving his/her life). He pushed the unlucky cat to the side of the road and returned running to the car. He told Bambi: “She will be fine there; her mom will take care of her”. Bambi’s own mom was not impressed by her spouse’s (risky) behaviour. Perhaps this is what parents do, out of love, to try to bring a glimpse of normality and humanity into absurdly violent situations?
Many years after this incident, when Bambi was 24 (=
last year ?;
that was a joke), she made a trip to the Middle East to visit. Her parents invited
her to (the island of) Cyprus for a weekend; Cyprus is 20 minutes away from Lebanon
by airplane. A weird experience happened there: Just like a dog, Bambi felt an
earthquake coming a few seconds before it occurred. Her parents thought that
their youngest daughter was being weird by sharing that she feels something big
about to happen. She warned them twice about it. Indeed, a few seconds later, a
major earthquake took place in Turkey ☹.
Bambi’s hotel room had tiny damage in its walls. This is how big that earthquake
was (90 people died and about 240 others were injured).
Bambi does
not pretend to have any psychological explanation to the strange story above.
She admits that she is a deer. Perhaps for a few seconds, she had been a sensitive
dog.
In this section, there is even an article on Mr. Maxime
Bernier vs Greta. My question is simply: Why?
Why are we using our kids (along with Greta, the passionate young activist) in this indoctrination machinery?
Bambi was not a fan of Mr. Harper’s era. She has never
voted neither for him nor for his party. However, she cannot help but to recall
how he had expressed a wise idea back then: reducing the funding to the CBC. It
turned out that he did not have the courage to proceed with this. Someone will
have to do it one of these days, Bambi is thinking now.
This is no longer journalism. This is propaganda.
Bambi had wished that our tax money would fund research for real energy-efficient solutions to environmental problems.
If we continue down this path, our kids’ critical
thinking would be in danger, not just ours ☹.
Well, after this sad discovery, Bambi continued her
tour of the media. She came across an interview or chat between Mr. Bernier &
Dr. Gad Saad. Food for though… It is refreshing to see two independent minds
chatting, whether we agree with them or not, on some or all the topics.
Thank you to Mr. Bernier & Dr. Saad (he is Lebanese-Canadian, cool ?).
“The young environmental activist Greta Thunberg arrived to New York yesterday, after sailing across the Atlantic on a “zero-carbon” boat. She comes to our continent to attend the UN World Climate Summit in late September.
We cannot blame a young girl for being aware of social issues, let alone blame her for being a committed activist. One can even ignore certain contradictions in the speech of the one who candidly seems to be the voice of her generation.
Except that…
Except that I put a stop to a huge public relations operation, which exceeds this girl and seems to be meant to take us for idiots (“des nonos”, in French). Greta arrived by sailboat. Some media relayed that she made a trip with “zero carbon emissions”, without any nuance.
Let’s be serious here: this racing yacht was built with highly polluting materials. It was not initially designed to serve to bring food to poor people, but rather to practice a form of sailing race for multimillionaires. The sailors who accompanied Greta will return by plane and another crew will arrive in New York, also by plane, to take charge of the boat return trip home.
Even wackier, the young activist says she does not know how she will return back to Sweden. Let’s play the riddle game! Oh yes! I think she will take the airplane to return back home.
She does not say it now. Her father knows it. Her public relations managers know it. Does she know and lie to preserve her image? Or do we keep her in ignorance about it? Either way, there is a DEEP unease.
All others will fly
Everything is absurd in this sailing story. First, the total operation will have generated more travel by plane than if Greta had made a simple return trip with her father in a seat in economy class.
Then Greta attends a summit where hundreds of participants from around the world will be travelling by plane. To develop her logic of boycotting the polluting aircraft further, it would have been necessary to demand the end of these international meetings and to suggest holding them by videoconference.
As genuine as her activism is, Greta is trapped in her logical cul-de-sac. To go on a sailing trip, she had to associate herself with the wealthy family of Princess Caroline of Monaco. They too take advantage of her image big time. This solution is in no way accessible to ordinary mortals.
Greta amplifies the problem that is at the heart of climate change. Politicians, companies, organizations, all are fully exploiting the climate change card to improve their image. Meanwhile, there are few concrete and applicable solutions for ordinary people.
I cannot wait to see the number of journalists who will be at the airport on the day of her return flight…”
Bambi wishes Greta safe travels, regardless of her mode of transport back home: “Ha en trevlig resa” Greta. Remember to take good care.
Bambi had wished that our English-speaking and French-speaking Catholic nuns would have come together to denouncing child abuse cases by some priests around the world.
Instead, they chose to go public for other reasons,
promoting divestment from fossil fuels, the forthcoming UN climate meeting, and
the Paris Accord.
How odd Bambi finds. In her mind, nuns usually pray
and do good deeds from time to time. Not politics or economics usually (she is
saying this whilst also being concerned about the quality of our environment
and the impact of changing/warming climate conditions).
The only good part of their call to action was perhaps
seeing them sharing some actions which they take for the sake of the environment.
For this, we do not need to look as far as congregations in Québec or elsewhere
in Canada. Across her street, Bambi can see her conscious neighborhood equipped
with solar systems and with energy-efficient ideas. This is likely the good influence
of some genuine environmental local initiatives that she salutes.
Bambi was made particularly curious by the last paragraph of the French article above (in which there is a video to the news from the TVA channel). She had the idea of searching the net about the pope. This is how she googled the website of the Communist party of Québec (whose former leader, Mr. André Parizeau, is now running in the federal election with the Bloc Québécois). She discovered an interesting post about the communist ideology of the Pope signed by Mr. Parizeau himself (http://www.pcq.qc.ca/Dossiers//Autres/Archives/page_article.php?article_id=2625), entitled “Even the Pope calls for the fight against capitalism”.
In the text by Mr. Parizeau, we can read the following (translated) paragraph: “… In a gesture that contrasts with all his predecessors, the new Pope Francis has outright called on the peoples of the world to mobilize and unite to fight against capitalism and to work for the establishment of a new world order, which is no longer based on the constant search for more profits by some, against others; but rather based on the search for the common good.”
To come back to the article/video in the Journal of Montreal, signed jointly by the “Agence QMI et Agence France-Presse”, it is written: “…. François salutes the young activists of the climate cause, saying that they deserve concrete action rather than “neglected commitments for partisan interests and convenience”. The pope added that all eyes should be on the UN climate summit scheduled for September 23, calling on governments to “significantly accelerate action” to contain global warming, in line with the Paris Agreement of 2015. “May God (…) give us the courage to do good without waiting for others to start, without waiting until it is too late,” he pleaded”.
Interesting all this. No clue what it means precisely.
In her mind, all this Paris Accord matter seems to be a globalist form of communism.
It reminds her of an interesting article written by Dr. Bruce Pardy, a Professor of Law at Queen’s University, in the Financial Post in May, 2018 (https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/let-the-paris-climate-deal-die-it-was-never-good-for-anything-anyway). The article is worth reading as food for thought. Perhaps today more than ever. It is entitled: “Let the Paris climate deal die. It was never good for anything, anyway. Opinion: Paris is a climate fairy tale. It has always been more about money and politics than the environment”.
Without being an expert
in environmental studies or economics, Bambi can appreciate the intelligent
piece by Dr. Pardy.
She is sure the Holy
Father is well-meaning, so are the nuns for sure. However, we must think with
our rational brains and not our idealistic ideology. Communism has not worked.
History has demonstrated it. Why is it still so appealing in 2019?
As a conclusion to this
post, Bambi would like to borrow Professor Pardy’s own words: “If human action
is not causing the climate to change, Paris is irrelevant. If it is, then Paris
is an obstacle to actual solutions. If there is a crisis, it will be solved
when someone develops a low-carbon energy source as useful and cheap as fossil
fuels. A transition will then occur without government interventions and
international declarations. Until then, Paris will fix nothing. It serves
interests that have little to do with atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases”.
Ms. Sophie
Durocher’s article focuses on parity (women vs. men) in arts and it starts as
follows: “I just found my new hero. His name is Alberto Barbera and he is the
director of the Venice Film Festival, one of the most prestigious film
festivals in the world. When he was criticized that there were only two movies
produced by women of 21 movies in competition this year, he replied that he
would have selected more movies made by women “had more women submitted good
movies”. In other words, I do not care about your quotas, my only criterion is
quality. Oh my God, I love this man who makes fun of political correctness!”.
Well,
in arts, in politics, in businesses, and in other domains, quotas have been used
as an instrument for the sake of justice. Some argue the latter is necessary to
help rectify under-representation of a target group. In the example above, it
is about gender inequity in artistic creation, namely movies. The underlying logic
is that a system of gender parity quota would help ensure parity fast (a form
of positive discrimination for the sake of equality of outcomes). But the
question is: Is parity (always) a good idea, to begin with… and is it so at all
costs? Why are we obsessed with the equality of outcomes when we know that each
success journey is unique in itself? Why don’t we focus our energy more on the
equality of opportunities rather? And, most importantly, what about quality or competence
(= excellence, etc.)? Shouldn’t this be our concern number 1 before anything
else in any competition: People’s sex or gender, colour or accent, place of
birth or religion is not what is at stake here.
Bambi
can of course understand that quotas in politics may be tempting to achieve a
true representation of the population. The question that could beg itself then would
be: Can’t we offer supportive conditions to women who have a potential for
political success in order to encourage those of them who want to jump into
politics? Wouldn’t this be enough to ensure a high calibre of politicians,
whether they are women or men?
Do we really need to have an imposed (or self-imposed) parity to the point of perhaps sacrificing competence for the sake of that parity? At which point do we accept that a certain person X may be more competent than a person Y, even if Y would fill a quota or, even, a genuine concern for parity?
I will give a totally different example related to a system of forced quotas. In Beirut (Lebanon) where Bambi was born, there is a political quota system to fill positions in public service; this system is based on someone’s religion (the latter is most important grouping there). This religious-based tribal system is well disguised in the democracy that apparently seems to work there. From time to time, some would question this system or its unfairness (as there could be manipulation within it by this or that group). Indeed, history has shown that no one wins when one group tries to impose its power on the rest of the groups, regardless of the group in question. However, generally speaking, Lebanese power is well-divided; All the politicians seem to enjoy their piece of the cake of power.
To give a personal fictional example, had Bambi been a resident of Lebanon and interested in politics, she could never become neither the Speaker of the Parliament (held by a politician born in Sierra Leone because his Lebanese parents happen to be Shia Muslims), nor the Prime Minister (held by a politician who must be Sunni Muslim), nor the President of the Republic (a position held by a politician who must be Christian-Roman Catholic, precisely “Maronite”). Bambi can only be nominated as an Ambassador or hold a Ministry usually held by Christian-Greek Orthodox politicians. Do you get the idea?
In relation to gender and not religion per se, it seems that perhaps the most prestigious public service position in the country is held by a woman (bravo!): Interior Minister. In the past, the Head of the General Security has been a very competent woman (now retired). However, despite this, the vast majority of politicians are men. Despite many advances, the country is still characterized by patriarchy and by an apparently modern form of the religious tribalism mentioned above (yet as democratic as the country can be). Let’s not also forget that Lebanon still has its internal and external challenges (related to heavily armed powers in the country itself and in the neighbourhood).
Bambi
wonders: Do we want Canada to become like Lebanon where a forced system of
quotas was implemented to keep everyone happy and avoid strife? Is this the
ideal that we aspire for?
Related to the topic of gender parity quotas, Bambi recalls how last year, it was decided by the media (I believe in the UK’s BBC) that a quota would be imposed to ensure more female experts on TV panels. She remembers having thought to herself: Why? Isn’t this determined by the area of expertise usually rather than the person’s sex? Knowing this, she would wonder to herself the next time she sees a panel of women whether they have been chosen for their expertise or just to fill a quota? She personally finds this insulting, although other media professionals, would not understand her logic.
Same
for any other topic like health-related ones. If Bambi needs an urgent surgery
of some sort one day, she doubts that she will think of the sex/gender of the
surgeon. She does not care if the surgeon is a man or a woman, a francophone or
an anglophone or whatever else. All what she would care for would be competence
(once again)!
Plus,
if we apply this logic to all the domains, Bambi is afraid that we would end up
with a mediocre society where the standards of competence are lower.
To come back to Mr. Alberto Barbera, she does not know much about him to decide if he is also her hero (like Ms. Durocher’s hero). Maybe he is not a sensitive man in real life. Who knows? However, he seems to be a courageous artist who did not hesitate to say enough of political correctness: In this edition of the competition, it turned out that the best movies were submitted by men. Live with it. Bambi feels like adding, perhaps next year, the outcome would be the exact opposite. Who knows?
To conclude, Bambi finds it reassuring to read those words of common sense from the current Venice Film Festival Director as well as from an accomplished female journalist from Québec, Canada. The excellence of the end product (whether it is a movie, a painting, or a written piece) should be the main concern/criterion in determining success. Hopefully not politics… and surely NOT (absurd) political correctness.
When Bambi first read this article in the Global News, (https://globalnews.ca/news/5809545/tareq-hadhad-ppc-billboard/), she had the reflex to clean her *middle-aged* eye glasses, as she likes to call them ?. She honestly thought the article was by the CBC, not the Global news. You will see why in the following paragraphs.
The
article is entitled: ‘Very hurtful to see,’ Peace by Chocolate founder says
of anti-immigration billboard in Halifax”. Note how this title omits the
word “mass”. Do journalists or title writers think we are that stupid to be
able to discern, whether we agree or disagree with the topic?
Mr. Hadhad has been here for 3
years only and he already speaks the language of the Canadian establishment
(i.e., video from 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4nJwLBllDM
), except that he is funnier, Bambi has to admit ?.
In the article above, he even
allows himself to get *triggered* like this new trend in our society (a real
product of his Canadian or Western times); what an exemplary integration!
In the Ted Talk video above (from
last year), I find it surprising how an Arab businessman (entrepreneur) seems
to insinuate that earning money is a bad thing… So why is he in business then
if it is not to earn a living, to begin with?
Yes, of course, for giving back
to society and for being kind, just like people who have been kind to him and
his family. This is a BEAUTIFUL message. Full of humanity. Bravo also for being
grateful but no need to lose one’s soul in the process…
Mr. Hadhad comes from a country
that is tragically torn between a dictatorial ruling party and extreme
religious freaks. He also comes from a country that SADLY has seen its
population being massively displaced (over 1.5-2 million in the neighbouring
Lebanon).
In Bambi’s humble opinion, he
should know better about:
1.
The
danger of censorship in society (regardless of the message, whether we agree
with it or not).
2.
The
challenges of *mass* immigration in the world to both the migrants themselves
and overwhelmed host countries like Sweden or Germany where many of his fellow citizens
relocated. Of course, and thank Goodness, Canada is not Germany; I agree with
him that we do not have mass immigration. We are a cold country, we have oceans
around and… whether we like it or not, we are somehow protected (for lack of
better words) by the United States; Except when our Prime Minister invites
people to illegally cross the border to our country (to distinguish himself
from the vulgar Mr. Trump). We may not have mass migration (yet) but we are
heading towards it, with 350K immigrants per year (instead of 150K or so) in
the next 4 years.
Plus, not
all our Syrian newcomers are as skilled/resourceful as him (bravo again for his
chocolaty success!). MANY families are and may remain dependent on the
Government for a living for years to come.
3.
Governments
come and go (maybe not in Syria though)… but countries stay. My piece of free advice
for him as an older immigrant (who has voted for the Liberal party almost all
her life) would be to remember that countries are meant to stay. For that, we
need smart policies, including a good immigration plan like what we had in the
past.
To conclude this post, coming
back to the billboard question, Bambi wonders the following:
Why did this company remove its
billboards? Because a few people, including Mr. Hadhad, complained? Why is it
that spineless?
Plus, who gets to decide what
billboards to keep and what to remove? Certain ads may make sense to some
people. Other billboards to other folks for different reasons.
Can’t we ignore those we dislike
whilst driving or walking?
In a democratic country, all
politicians should be able to express themselves on any issue, especially when
it is as important as immigration. This is the essence of a free society.
It is up to us the citizens to
decide for whom to vote…or not. We are smart enough to do so. We do not need
censorship.
I thought I left censorship behind
when I immigrated to Canada.
Where is our critical sense in Canada? Some words of wisdom from Roula Azar-Douglas (out of Lebanon)
1. Bambi’s introduction:
As Bambi always did since her childhood, she reads ALL the news by ALL journalists to develop her own ideas about what is happening. She reads news analyses by authors she does not agree with, even before reading those she would agree with. This is what Bambi has learned to do during, and after, civil war in her birth country. This is what she will always do, especially in times of what seems like increased thought police, in our (supposedly still) free country. This is what allows her to build an understanding of matters or to challenge her own ideas.
2. Mr. Richard Martineau’s story:
One Canadian journalist I happen to
read sometimes is Mr. Richard Martineau from the Journal de Montréal. Yesterday,
I read that some readers, likely *triggered* by one of his articles are now
circulating a petition asking for his resignation. In other simpler terms: Censoring
him.
Bambi will not get into the details of Mr. Martineau’s controversial article
because this is not the point of this post. His paper is entitled “They
speak in the name of whom?” and seems to focus on society’s relationship
with identity groups/margins.
His paper starts with the following: They speak in the name of the people they are supposed to represent in as much as I speak for white heterosexual men of 58 years old in Verdun. You know why? Because “THE women” does not exist. There are only women (meaning no single type). Same for THE blacks, THE Muslims, THE old” («ils parlent autant au nom des gens qu’ils sont censés représenter que je parle au nom des hommes blancs hétérosexuels de 58 ans nés à Verdun. Savez-vous pourquoi? Parce que LES femmes n’existent pas. Il y a seulement DES femmes. Idem pour LES Noirs, LES musulmans, LES vieux, etc…»). (https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/08/18/ils-parlent-au-nom-de-qui).
Mr. Martineau’s article ends by telling the story of his gay friend who does
not agree with the label that they wish to stick on him: LGBTQ+: “they want
to put us all in the same basket. But, me, I am a man who have sex with men. I
find talk of non-gendered or pansexual people ridiculous. Their struggle is not
mine. How can we defend diversity when speaking in one voice?” («on nous met tous dans le même
panier. Or, moi, je suis un homme qui couche avec des hommes. Les affaires de
personnes non genrées ou pansexuelles, je trouve ça ridicule. Leur combat n’est
pas le mien. Comment peut-on défendre la diversité en parlant d’une même voix?»).
Why are we trying to silence Mr. Martineau? Why can’t people accept that
people have the right to their opinion, even if it differs from theirs? People are
free to (fully?) agree or disagree with society’s “orthodoxies”. Why can’t we
accept that some people (like the journalist’s gay friend) do not recognize
themselves in defined groups?
I will give a different example to illustrate my point. Sometimes, Bambi is being asked if she is “Christian Lebanese” (many think she is Muslim because she is Arab). She sometimes replies: I am Lebanese. Yes, I happen to be Christian (although I could have been Muslim, Jewish or whatever else). Why? Because I refuse to see myself only through a spiritual lens or, worse, through a religious-based identity-lens. I have faith in my heart, but this is a personal matter. This is just one aspect of whom I am; it is no one’s business. I am Canadian period. I am Lebanese period. This is how I see myself. I also happen to be a Quebecer. I am also a proud New Brunswicker for over 11 years now (after having lived in/enjoyed Ontario too).
For me, a country is larger than us. It is above us all. As Gibran Khalil Gibran
wrote in the Garden of the Prophet in 1934: “Pity the nation
divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation“. This beautiful
quote was meant for Lebanon. Sadly, it now applies to Canada more than ever…
Extreme views on any issue, including multiculturalism, can easily become a dogma
or political orthodoxy. This is especially the case if we do not allow ourselves
to question this vision, which has merits up to a certain point. However, beyond
that point, it may lend itself to a tragic reality like the one denounced by Gibran
(in the Middle East, some identify with their religious fragments or *tribes*
more than their country). This is a possible risk even in Canada or in any place
(no one is immune), especially if we do not have a high enough opinion of our nation/civilization/ourselves
anymore.
To come back to Martineau’s article, and as well said by Bambi’s own sister,
Ms. Roula Azar-Douglas who investigates equality between men and women. Please
hang on to the rest of this post to get to know her ?:
“Each woman is unique. Same for men, they are diverse too”.
3. Mr. Mathieu Bock-Côté:
As explained by Mr. Mathieu Bock-Côté (https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/08/24/au-nom-de-la-tolerance), our society’s obsession with (group) identities can become illogical: What does a person with a black skin born in Cuba have in common with someone whose parents where raised in Congo? Why do we insist on putting people in groups? Why do we forget about the role of culture in all this?
Some insist on seeing one group as the marginalized or victims. Other see another group as the mean offenders… But who did not go trough adversity through his/her lifetime, in one way or in another, at one point or another? In her personal life, Bambi refuses to play the victim game. Bambi has too much dignity to play this game and hopefully enough compassion in order not to fall into the trap of becoming an abuser (power trip of some sort). Instead, Bambi prefers to either change or leave a situation or to modify her own mindset.
In the case of censorship against Mr. Martineau (or against anyone else), the so-called fight for tolerance turned into an absurd intolerance, calling for a form of professional or public killing… ironically “in the name of tolerance”, like in the title of Mr. Bock-Côté’s article cited above. We may or we may not agree with a journalist. Why can’t we tolerate his/her different opinion?
One must add that Mr. Mathieu
Bock-Côté knows what he is talking about. He has ironically published a book entitled
the *Empire of the politically correct*. Because of that, we also tried
to silence him a few months ago. Many public figures in Québec came to defend him,
including other journalists (bravo) and even Mr. François Legault, the Premier
of Québec. For me, it is particularly alarming when this suffocating political
correctness is also being observed in a province/culture where citizens are known
to be more direct in their communication style (than the rest of Canada). Quebecers
usually speak their mind and allow others to do so.
4. Mr. Steve Fortin:
Related to Martineau’s saga, I enjoyed
reading an article by his colleague Mr. Steve Fortin, denouncing this censorship.
Mr. Fortin often does not agree with Mr. Martineau. Yet, he defended his right
to freedom of expression (https://www.journaldequebec.com/2019/08/21/les-censeurs).
I think of Mr. Fortin even more highly now. In Bambi’s humble opinion, this is how
it is supposed to be in a so-called free country. Everyone has the right to the
expression of his/her opinion. This is the least. We should all refuse to see others
being silenced in front of our eyes.
5. Ms. Roula Azar-Douglas’ wisdom:
As promised above, I would like to introduce now some wise words by Roula Azar-Douglas, Bambi’s own sister (I hope you are still reading to discover her ?). Azar-Douglas is a journalist, writer, and a researcher (she is a PhD candidate in Human Sciences, namely in Information Sciences). She was recently interviewed in Lebanon and what a clever interview (the questions as well as the deep yet direct/simple answers)! The interviewer is a journalist (Ms. Hasna Bou Harfouche) who chose some excerpts from Azar-Douglas’ latest novel entitled “Le jour où le soleil ne s’est pas levé” (The day the sun did not rise). In this interview, Douglas shared her reflections on multiple identities and life/death issues.
Here is one of the citations from Azar-Douglas’s book chosen by the interviewer
(the original French precedes Bambi’s free and hopefully not too bad translation):
«Chacun de nous est l’enfant de ses propres expériences,
de son vécu, de cet avant que l’autre ne connait pas. Et il n’est pas toujours
facile de se montrer à nu et de se débarrasser des carapaces construites au fil
des années»
Original quote by Roula Azar-Douglas
Each
one of us is the child of his/her experiences, of the lived experience, of this
earlier past that the other does not know. And it is not always easy to get
naked and to get rid of the (protective) shells built over the years.
My translation,
Roula Azar-Douglas
The interviewer’s last question to Roula Azar-Douglas
was: “As a researcher on the equality between men and women, what is your message
to the oriental [she means Middle Eastern] man and woman”?
Azar-Douglas
replied as follows:
“This
is a tough question because when I think of the oriental woman, I wonder who she
is? There is no single type of an oriental woman. I am an oriental woman. You (pointing
to the journalist) are an oriental woman. All the women who are watching us are
oriental, whether they are married or single, with children or not, veiled or not.
So, with our diversity all of us as oriental women, I will try to find a message
for this group of women who are different from one another. This message would
be what my life experiences have taught me. It would be perhaps in contradiction
with what we have been taught as children, that loving oneself is selfish (versus
being altruistic). I will tell the oriental woman to love herself. Loving oneself
is the first step to be able to love the other. Loving oneself is the first step
to defend our rights or to get our rights. I will tell all these ladies, with
all their diversity, even including those who do not agree with me on some topics:
Love yourself and work on your own convictions to get what you want.
To the oriental men who are also diverse, I will give a joint message to men and women. Again, this is not a lesson because I do not have any answer. I am a human being who think about matters and try to offer pieces of answers here and there. I will tell him or tell them all work on your critical thinking. Do not have pre-prepared answers to issues or circumstances in the country. Do not take for granted what someone else has told about how things should be. Think for yourself, according to your rational thinking and convictions, using your own brains”.
Azar-Douglas also talked about the important economic role
of women in society, etc. (here is the entire interview in Arabic: http://bit.do/e5x4B).
Roula Azar-Douglas’ published two beautiful novels (the first one, entitled «Chez nous c’était le silence» addressed the issue of domestic violence and the last one is a tragic yet beautiful story about death/dying, which is filled with life, love, and hope. This latter novel is now a finalist in a French-competition called Prix Hors Concours. It was recently chosen, among international books, to be taught to students in French high schools that participate in in the Prix Hors Concours competition (comparative literature).
Roula, to you as my sister, Bambi will allow herself now
to insert a personal note here: I so much enjoyed beginning my day watching your
interview. Bambi is proud of her eldest sister, “ma grande”, as I
like to tease you ?.
I miss you and I miss Rania, my other talented sister. Yes, I may be biased by family
love… but I know how to recognize talent, even in closer ones.
6. Bambi’s conclusion:
Bambi
admires Roula Azar-Douglas’ talent in reaching out to BOTH women and men. No
wonder why she is highly respected by all, nationally and internationally.
She
lives in a society where patriarchy (truly still) exists, despite Lebanon’s
modernity in many ways (this is why when I hear the word patriarchy in Canada,
I smile to myself ?).
Sadly, she is also geographically not that far from where there is a *real* “rape culture”, a term also still widely used by many Canadian contemporary feminists. I am referring to ISIS practices in Syria or Iraq… Mind you, there are also executions committed against gay people in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan. Where are our Canadian activists, including those readers who ganged up against Mr. Martineau, to also defend their rights to life!?
Despite all this, Roula Azar-Douglas is a courageous and smart journalist/activist. She has depth, nuance, and subtlety in all the languages she communicates in.She is a feminist in the true sense.
She advocates
for women’s rights without putting men down or turning them off. On the
contrary, she extends hands, building bridges and friendly allies in a genuine
way.
In
Bambi’s mind, most men only want the best for their daughters, sisters,
mothers, spouses, friends, etc. They aspire for a just equality too, in their
own ways.
Together,
everyone can make the world a better place for all!
Mr. Lutes is also a student
researcher with “RAVEN (Rural Action and Voices for the Environment)”,
which “is an activist research project working with rural champions for the
environment in New Brunswick”.
Ironically, RAVEN is funded by public funds, *partnering* with agencies from both the provincial and federal governments.
From their website (https://raven-research.org/about/),
we can read the following: “Our partners are the NB Media Co-op (NBMC) and the
Joint Economic Development Initiative (JEDI).
RAVEN was launched in September 2018 with secured funding until 2022 from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the
New Brunswick Innovation Foundation (NBIF), and with in-kind contributions from
the project partners NBMC and JEDI as well as Frictive Pictures, a New
Brunswick film production company.
RAVEN is an associate member of the New Brunswick Environmental Network, an
umbrella network linking more than 100 grassroots and other NGO organizations
across the province”.
Mmm… What kind of weird country do we live in where Governments (through people’s tax money) fund initiatives like this one to ruin one if its now formerly vibrant sectors of the economy?
I do not know if I should
smile or cry, thinking of where Canada has headed. Why are we doing this to
ourselves? Is capitalism that bad? Crony capitalism and wild capitalism are not
good… but why would capitalism in a socially-oriented country be bad?
Without a free market in my birth country, my dad (= parents) could have not lifted us from low-income to the middle-class through his innovative entrepreneurship. He is a decent self-made man. My hero!
Wouldn’t it have been more productive and constructive
to fund research on renewable energy?
In the article above, it is written that faculty members of Mount Allison University are very supportive of Divest Mount A. False. Some of the faculty members are VERY supportive. Others, like myself, are unsupportive. Yet others do not care either way.
Why am I not supportive? Well, although I may be wrong, I doubt that the removal of fossil fuel investments from a university endowmentwill make a difference for oil firms (it would only lower the university’s endowment).
Same for pension plans. The article below explains it better than I would, although I tried on many occasions to explain my point to colleagues.
The article in question is entitled “Fossil fuel divestment doesn’t damage oil firms, just pension funds” and this is exactly Bambi’s take on the issue.
Bambi thinks that any divestment of any pension plan
should be perhaps made optional: Those of us who want to divest and live poorer
in our older age can do it. Those of us who prefer to pass would remain “free” to
chose where they wish to invest their pension funds.
This being said, Bambi is by principle against the idea of imposed boycott. Bambi prefers personal boycott, if we must. Regardless of the topic or issue. This applies to all issues in her mind. Do not boycott politicians you do not like. Do not boycott food from countries that have occupied yours (I have said so many times, if I do so, I would end up eating only “poutine” ?). Do not allow yourself to impose boycott on arts, on institutions, etc. Boycott yourself, if you wish.
Our Canadian public companies may not be perfect (does
perfection exist?). They surely remain MORE ethical than other oil companies
elsewhere.
Until we find a better, realistic, sustainable alternative to oil to heat our houses, fuel our airplanes and cars, this is all what we have.
However, innovations in vehicle technology (i.e., hybrid cars) are promising—even if our province’s electricity is too expensive to make such choices. In contrast, bravo to Québec; it seems to be the province with the highest number of electrical cars on its roads. I must add here: bravo to our current federal government. Its “purchase incentive program for electric vehicles” may be one of its rare good achievements, according to Bambi’s non-expert citizen opinion; if only for that, Bambi does not regret her past vote…even if her forthcoming one may be different.
Below and first, I will share Ms. Dorval’s translated letter to Leo, her one-year-old son (the original French appears in the link above). Second, I will share a comment to this letter by a reader of La Presse, Mr. Patrick Friset (his original French will follow the English translation). Third and finally, I will share some personal thoughts.
1. The translated letter of Ms. Dorval:
“My love Leo, you’ll be 1 year old tomorrow. You were born during the heat wave last summer, and there was a thunderstorm in the afternoon after we came back home after your birth.
It was a powerful and unreal moment to hold you in my arms. This period is a little vague in my memory, but I clearly remember being so touched by your great vulnerability. You have been dreamed, desired and eagerly awaited, and you are loved deeply.
We decided to have a child on a background of the end of the world. It was a painful decision, not fully enlightened, and totally biased by our deep desire to have a child.
To be honest, we did not realize the seriousness of the situation when I was pregnant with you.
We were obviously aware of climate change, but it still seemed a distant reality. It might be for the next century. We would have time to change our way of life, to find solutions, to raise the next generation in a healthier world than we have been taught. I would like to say that we did not know, but in fact we were also a lot in denial.
At the edge of the disaster
Your birth coincided with the tabling of an alarming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was then that the magnitude and imminence of the catastrophe first appeared to me. I did more research, read reports, articles. I learned that in my lifetime, half of the wildlife on Earth has been eradicated, and to date, a million species are on the verge of extinction. Eighty percent of the world’s forests have been razed. Temperature records are continually being broken around the world and unprecedented forest fires are raging. Glaciers are visibly melting, threatening to raise the level of the oceans. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise sharply.
At the dawn of your first birthday, no week goes by without ever more alarming new reports being published. All the reports basically tell us that we still have less time than we believe to avoid a point of no return and a catastrophic runaway climate.
Seventy years, then 12 years, then 18 months. Time flies. One must act. Radical actions are required immediately to give us a chance to avoid the worst. But at the time of writing, the media is talking about it as a news item, our elected officials are busy attacking ethnic and religious minorities, and everyone continues to live as if nothing had happened. Metro, work, sleep.
Of all the things difficult for children to explain, this climate crisis and widespread inaction will certainly be the worst of our time. How did we get there?
I started a few months ago to live an invasive anxiety. Insomnia, tears, emotions, skin issues, difficulty thinking of anything other than a dark future. I am sometimes unable to enjoy the moment or fully appreciate the happiness of seeing you grow up without fear at the same time. I always have that little voice, as soon as I look into the future, which adds “if we’re still here.”
My anxiety symptoms seem to me a perfectly healthy response to the impending end of the world. I still asked for psychological help, if only to be functional in society and with my family. The doctor who saw me told me that eco-anxiety is more and more widespread, especially among young people. She advised me to start psychotherapy and to act to defend the environment.
In 2019, the effects of climate warming are already affecting us in Quebec in the form of floods in certain regions in the spring, longer and more intense heat waves in the summer and gray and rainy winters. But we have been largely spared so far from the kind of disasters that are already affecting other populations around the world. Ironically, they affect the ones who have often contributed the least to the destruction of the world (I am thinking in particular of island states, vulnerable groups, indigenous nations and other species).
Leo, the future worries me and the present revolts me. But I do not regret having given birth to you. We made the bet that your life would be worth living despite everything. Plus, the world would be better with you than without you.
Your existence is the testimony of my faith in the resilience of the living and the power of social movements – great ones are coming and are already under way.
As a mother, I live a lot of guilt for not being able to guarantee you a healthy environment to grow up in and maybe have your own family someday, if you want.
What can I promise you
I do not have control over everything, but I can make you some promises. I will pursue daily choices to reduce the impact of our family, although I recognize that individual actions are not enough and have never been enough. I pledge never to hide the reality, and to give you the education and the tools necessary so that you use your privileges wisely, that you are resourceful, critical, responsible and guided by compassion.
I will resist as best I can the destruction of the world by civil disobedience. And finally, I make the promise to be for you the best possible example of courage, militancy, faith in humanity and respect for all living things.
This letter is addressed to my son, and I will give him as soon as he is old enough to understand. I chose to share it in the meantime, because at the point where I am, I need to open my heart and make my coming out of eco-friendly. In addition, making my promises public will oblige me to hold them. It’s a personal manifesto. I also hope to reach out to others, start conversations about the environment and mental health, build networks of activism and support, and make another breakthrough in collective denial, perhaps. Thank you for coming here”.
—Geneviève Dorval—
2. A comment by a certain Mr. Patrick Fiset
English translation:
In each era its end of the world
“In 40 years, when your son will visit you with his own children, perhaps you will have realized how much your current state of mind is overshadowed by the hysteria (or delirium) amplified by the media and conveyed to excess by those who have an interest in doing so.
There is no better tool for manipulating the minds than building a surrealist dogma around a proven truth that no one can deny under pain of being called climate-skeptic.
The most disturbing is to see young adults consider anarchy, civil disobedience, no longer children, despair to the point of excessive punctuation rhetoric deadly speech of the end of the world.
Before the 50s, it was the fear of the priest and hell. In the sixties to eighties, it was the spectre of the post-nuclear apocalypse and the fear of communism that served as a scarecrow.
Here, it is climate change that feeds nightmares. In each era its end of the world”.
—Patrick Fiset—
Original French text:
À chaque
époque sa fin du monde
“Dans 40 ans, quand votre fils ira vous visiter avec ses propres
enfants, peut-être aurez-vous réalisé à quel point votre état d’esprit actuel
est excessivement assombri par le délire ambiant largement amplifié par les
médias et véhiculé à outrance par ceux qui ont un intérêt à le faire.
Il n’y a pas de meilleur outil de manipulation des esprits que de
construire un dogme surréaliste autour d’une vérité avérée que personne ne peut
nier sous peine de se faire traiter de climatosceptique.
Le plus inquiétant est de voir de jeunes adultes envisager l’anarchie,
la désobéissance civile, de ne plus faire d’enfants, de désespérer au point de
ponctuer à outrance le discours de rhétorique mortifère de fin du monde.
Avant les années 50, c’était la crainte du curé et de l’enfer. Dans
les années 60 à 80, c’était le spectre de l’apocalypse post-nucléaire et
la peur du communisme qui servait d’épouvantail.
Là, ce sont les changements climatiques qui alimentent les cauchemars. À
chaque époque sa fin du monde”.
— Patrick Fiset
3. Bambi’s personal
thoughts:
To begin with, I admit that it is both generous and courageous of Ms. Dorval
to share a letter to her son with us all. When we publish any comment, we can
expect that some readers would agree (or applaud!), yet some others would read
with a grain of salt (or negatively criticize!).
First and foremost, I am usually VERY skeptical of any movement that wants
to convince me that the world is going to end. I will explain in the following
paragraphs.
For having grown up in a crazy civil war for 15 years where risk of death was statistically imminent every second, I think highly of parents, like mine, who knew how to protect their kids from the insanity around. Many parents learned how to conquer their own fear (sometimes with the help of anxiolytics). Why? Because remaining calm and rational during periods of heavy shelling, or rounds of violence, is crucial to keep children psychologically safe. Children learn from their parents how to react during stressful times. Plus, children need to remain children in order to grow up in a secure and confident way. Yes, our family can make the whole difference. Children can grow up feeling secure despite the craziness in the world, including their own risk of dying or seeing their loved ones killed in front of their eyes. Even during those 15 DARK years of civil war, my mom managed in protecting us from her own fear, as much as she could. As for my dad, he remained the most optimistic man I have ever known. For instance, I recall how I used to ask him about our family finances, worried to see him going to his store to sell HiFi and electrical appliances, ironically during times of constant power outages. My dad used to answer me: “Thank God, things are good”. To come back to my mom, I will never forget her silent tears after the sudden death of her sister, ironically in a shelter. This happened in heavy shelling during the (Syrian) occupation of Beirut. Yet, my mom tried her best not to transmit to us, my sisters and I, her sadness and despair.
Why am I sharing all this? Basically, I am trying to say that the world
never ends, even when it ends to us for a second when we learn the death of a loved
one, even when we see the bodies of neighbours killed under our balcony. We
feel hopeless and angry, all at once. We feel sad. We may even feel guilty for
having survived. Why us and not them? Why them and not us? This absurd and random
life moves on… and, yet again, the world does not end. I have news for you: The
world will not end, even with our own death! So, no, I do not buy the end of
the world in 12 years. As Mr. Friset wrote “before the 50s, it was the fear of the priest and hell. In the sixties to
eighties, it was the spectre of the post-nuclear apocalypse and the fear of
communism that served as a scarecrow. Here, it is climate change that feeds
nightmares. In each era its end of the world”. As far as I am concerned, I
prefer to remain calm and carry on with my life.
Second, I am skeptical neither of climate change (both natural and men-made), nor of the critical need to protect our environment. I just question trendy psychiatric novel entities such as ecoanxiety (or solastalgia). The concept may be a sexy entity to politicians, to journalists, to radical environmentalists, to professionals benefiting from other people’s psychological misery and/or to organizations relying on government’s funding, etc. However, I question ecoanxiety as an objective and distinct clinical entity: What are its signs or symptoms? Do laboratory studies show us it is distinct from other anxieties or other syndromes? Any identified natural history or distinct family history?
Third, what worries me the most is dogmatic thinking. We can see the latter in religions or “non-religious religions”. In this case, generations of youth have been radicalized in their environmentalism, at younger ages. I am thinking of all those “youth-led” school strikes (and adults convincing themselves that kids are our world leaders). Related to this, I recall how as a teenager I once wanted to skip school because of my involvement with the Lebanese Red Cross. At the time, we had received emergency materials from Switzerland. I recall having tried to convince my parents to allow me to skip school to distribute these materials to shelters in Beirut. My parents refused. My mom, a trained nurse with the Red Cross herself, understood my passion. Yet, my parents told Bambi: “no; not during school time” (especially after having been out of school for weeks or months due to a round of heavy shelling). At first, Bambi was frustrated. She even tried to pretend she was sick (she overheated a thermometer ?). Thinking back, Bambi thanks her parents for their wisdom: Any volunteerism can wait after school hours.
Fourth and last, Ms. Dorval had a child and does not regret it (good for her!).
However, I heard comments from former female graduates of Mount Allison University
and other schools who are now in their mid-to-late twenties that they do not
want to have children because of ecoanxiety. I urge these young women to think
twice before taking drastic decisions that would mess their fertility up. As a
47-year-old woman who does not have children (after three miscarriages), I have
a piece of free advice to them: Having or not having children is a PERSONAL
matter. It is your OWN choice. No cause, even one that claims that the wold
will end, is worth such drastic decision. Do not let anyone’s ideology, or your
own related dogmatism, dictate your personal fertility journey. Remember that
your ovaries will know your biological age.
Life is beautiful. Please, do not spend too much time and energy trapped in “eco-dogmatism”
(or any other form of dogmatism).
