Dr. Leslyn Lewis

Everyone, meet the latest entry into my personal rogues’ gallery–and this one is the Member of Parliament (MP) for a region in Ontario, Canada, named Haldimand-Norfolk (with which I am more familiar than I want to be), which gives context to a post from her Facebook account, which somehow made its way into my feed, as I don’t follow Lewis.

I’m entering Dr. Lewis in my personal rogues’ gallery because she’s decrying Bill C-16, which clearly indicates that the government is acknowledging, and possibly clamping down on, coercive control in interpersonal relationships–as it’s posted in Lewis’s Facebook post. But here’s what Lewis had to say about it:

‘Do you think the government should criminalize everyday interactions in your home with your family? If not, you should read Bill C-16.

The bill creates new offences (Criminal Code Section 264.01), which are deeply concerning for normal, loving family interactions, based on a “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,” even when no violence, threats, or illegal acts occur.

It criminalizes a pattern of otherwise lawful and often common behaviour that may later be perceived as threatening by an intimate partner.

That means ordinary family interactions could be re-interpreted as criminal after the fact.

Examples include:

– Asking a spouse where they are after they said they’d be home

-Expressing concern about excessive drinking

-Disagreeing about finances or spending

-Asking a partner not to give children junk food

– Raising concerns about time away from family

– Setting household boundaries or expectations

These are not crimes. They are part of marriage, parenting, and shared responsibility.

This does not diminish the seriousness of coercive control in genuinely abusive relationships. But criminal law should target clear abuse and violence, which are already addressed in law.

Bill C-16, as written, opens the door to police intervention in the homes of ordinary families.’

With these remarks, Dr. Lewis has made it clear that she has not read Bill C-16–or all of it (or she has and only half-understands it)–part of which, I repeat, she has included in her Facebook post. Though she states in her post that her comments do ‘not diminish the seriousness of coercive control in genuinely abusive relationships,’ the ‘points’ she’s made don’t even show up in the part of Bill C-16 that she’s included in her post. My response can only be, “What the actual fuck?”

As I’ve mentioned, though, Dr. Lewis is the Member of Parliament for an Ontario, Canada region named Haldimand-Norfolk, which is known for being a conservative stronghold, and she is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada (no surprise, since nearly all of Haldimand-Norfolk’s Members of Parliament–that I know of–have been members of the Conservative Party of Canada).

But this latest escapade…

Full disclosure: I grew up in a violent environment, in which I’ve constantly had to walk on eggshells around those who were supposed to take care of me until I was able to take care of myself. Ergo, I am more familiar with domestic violence and its effects than I want to be–and it’s a huge reason why I’ve been single and child-free my entire adulthood, and remain so to this day. Also, knowing as I do about Sarma Melngailis‘s story, I have to wonder how and why anyone with even the tiniest iota of empathy would object to a bill like Bill C-16–which acknowledges and attempts to address the issue of coercive control. But the Conservative Party of Canada, from where I’m standing, doesn’t have a history of empathy or compassion for those who don’t fit their view of humanity, especially under the leadership of the likes of Pierre Poilievre and, during his time as party leader, Stephen Harper. As well, I’ve spent just over five years of my life in the Haldimand-Norfolk region, so I know the general prevailing social attitudes and political atmosphere there–so Dr. Lewis fits right in, and no doubt represents that region well.

I don’t know Dr. Lewis’s personal history, so I don’t know if she’s ever been in an abusive, violent, or coercively-controlling relationship, so I don’t know why she’s trashing and misrepresenting Bill C-16, to the point where she’s fear-mongering to convince the Senate and the House of Commons to vote against it–and the public to convince them to do so–even though the bill itself sounds reasonable. But given that Dr. Lewis is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada–and how that conservatism has expressed itself in recent years, especially under Poilievre…

Given Pierre Poilievre himself has stated he wants society to return to what he’s called ‘the merit principle’ to justify why he wants to do away with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in Canada, I have no doubt that Dr. Leslyn Lewis is merely parroting the Conservative Party’s thoughts about Bill C-16, and the powers that be acting to prevent coercive control and clean up the messes it leads to…or, at the very least, the Conservative Party agrees with what she’s said about the bill.

As far as what Dr. Lewis said about ‘police intervention’ in ordinary families’ homes…I have no doubt that wouldn’t be a problem for Dr. Lewis or other members of the Conservative Party if police here were entering private homes for the same reasons that ICE in the United States does–again, her comment about ‘police intervention’ in her post about Bill C-16 is not just fear-mongering, but hypocritical as well.

As for Bill C-16 itself, all I can say is–from what I’ve read of it–it’s about damn time…even if it does, at best, just address the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you wondering why I am paying attention to anything Dr. Leslyn Lewis or any other member of the Conservative Party says, Dr. Lewis’s comments about Bill C-16 and, through it, the government’s attempts to curtail coercive control and the havoc it wreaks–along with comments and statements so many other members of the Conservative Party have made–put people in danger if those in power act according to those comments and statements, and not empathy.

Dr Lewis’s post: https://www.facebook.com/LeslynLewisCPC/posts/pfbid0LTChBL3cLdR8D9uqVxJ1CDFBhcrDf8MW93Tzze8FYCABjGCYnHfoR98M3YnV8pnml

Downton Abbey: Belated Initial Impressions

Within the last few weeks–I don’t remember exactly when–I’ve started watching Downton Abbey on Netflix…more out of curiosity than anything else; now, I have some thoughts.

As fans–and people who’ve started watching this series before I have–know, Downton Abbey is set in England between 1912 and 1925; it begins with the aftermath of the sinking of the Titanic, and the backstory is that Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham, married an American heiress, Cora Levinson (played by American actress Elizabeth McGovern, who I first learned about upon seeing the cover art on a video version of the 1988 film She’s Having a Baby),to obtain money to keep up Downton Abbey, but eventually fell in love with her. However, the Abbey is entailed because Lord and Lady Grantham only have daughters (three of them: Mary, Edith, and Sybil), and, since the heir presumptive supposedly died in the Titanic disaster, the estate will go to a cousin, Matthew, a solicitor from Manchester in the event that neither Mary, Edith, nor Sybil have a son.

On the outside, the Granthams seem kind: for instance, Lord Grantham has his old Boer War batman, Bates, come to Downton Abbey to be his personal valet; he’s about to let Bates go, as Bates has a leg injury from the Boer War–even though the injury doesn’t fully interfere with his duties–but, at the end of the first episode of the first season, he changes his mind and keeps Bates on. In the third episode of the first season, Lady Sybil finds out Gwen is learning how to be a secretary via a correspondence course, and encourages her to the point where she shows Gwen a posting for a business looking for a secretary, and tells her to apply.

Then there’s Violet, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, portrayed oh-so-convincingly by Dame Maggie Smith, who’s the voice of those folks at the top who are afraid of change–though she’s in the process of appealing to Cora to make sure the eldest Crawley daughter, Mary, gets the Levinson fortune, if not inherit Downton Abbey. Overall, though, it seems to me the Dowager Countess, who was born into the British aristocracy, yearns for what she considers the ‘good old days.’ For instance, upon learning that Gwen wants to leave service–and Downton Abbey–and become a secretary, the Dowager Countess states that, if she was in Gwen’s position, she would rather have stayed at Downton Abbey as a maid than ‘work from dawn ’til dusk in a cramped and gloomy office’–in short, she believes she knows what’s best for Downton Abbey’s servants better than they do, and that places like Downton Abbey are the best places in the world to live and–for those not born into nobility and/or generational wealth–work.

Now, on to Matthew Crawley, the new heir presumptive of Downton Abbey.

Matthew is a lawyer from Manchester; his father, who was a doctor, is now dead, and his mother, Isobel, was a nurse. At first, Matthew is reluctant to accept what comes with the position of heir presumptive of Downton Abbey, going so far as to insist on doing things himself, such as dressing, eating, and drinking, instead of letting his appointed butler, Moseley, do those things for him–it took a conversation with Robert for him to start letting Moseley do what he was assigned to do. Apparently, Matthew is cut from a different cloth from the aristocratic Crawleys–likely because, unlike the aristocratic branch of the family, he actually had to work.

As far as Matthew’s mother, Isobel, goes, as someone who trained as a nurse, almost immediately upon moving with Matthew to Downton, she started volunteering in the Downton Cottage Hospital, and even offered advice to the doctor there about how to treat a patient with a particularly difficult ailment, advice which she felt qualified to give because of her nursing experience. The doctor was reluctant to take the advice at first–and even Violet intervened to stop the treatment advised by Isobel–but eventually, the patient does get Isobel’s advised treatment, which works. Isobel’s attitudes are in stark contrast to those of the members of the aristocratic branch of the Crawley family, and her actions have started bringing her into conflict with Violet, Cora, and possibly Robert as well.

But at least Isobel and Matthew aren’t portrayed as bad people, even given the political bias of the show’s creator, Julian Fellowes (more on that later in this post).

Three episodes in, and I get the impression that the Crawleys want to seem kind to everyone in their lives, starting with and including their servants, but it’s apparent they’re reluctant to except change, and want to do everything they can to hold on to their familial/collective position and the power that comes with it. The Crawleys greatly benefit from kyriarchy, and, though they do things to help their servants improve their lives, they don’t want to do anything that would cost them their positions–individual or collective–in early 20th-century society. In other words, the Crawleys are more or less like any other aristocrats and rich families of the era they lived in.

I’ve only watched three episodes, but, so far, I’m getting a nice window into the lives of early-twentieth century wealthy, aristocratic families in England and their members, and everyone in the orbit of those families–as well as societal attitudes at the time and in that geographical area. I’m fairly certain I’ll have more commentary on Downton Abbey as I watch. And I’m well aware that the series was written by Julian Fellowes–more properly known as His Lordship Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Baron Fellowes of West Stafford–and that he a) was born into landed gentry and b) is a Conservative peer, so his political views would colour the tone of whatever he writes and helps to create, and that includes Downton Abbey, ergo I have a sense of what to expect as I watch this series. But, as I mentioned, I started watching Downton Abbey out of curiosity, and I’m riding that train to its final destination–no doubt offering commentary here and likely elsewhere as I go.

New Year’s Day: Tabula Rasa?

It’s New Year’s Day 2026, and I’m driven to conclude there’s actually no such thing as a clean slate.

Let’s think about this: When we want to do better for ourselves and those around us, the more thoughtful among us tend to look to the past–our past deeds, our past mistakes–for lessons to learn and carry forward.

January is named for the Roman god Janus, the god of beginnings, gates and doorways, transitions, time, duality, passages, and endings (Wikipedia); he is portrayed as having two faces, looking in different directions–because of this, it is often said that one face is looking forward, the other backward. So New Year’s Day is not only a time of celebration, but also of reflection.

Then there’s the concept of New Year’s resolutions.

As for me personally, I’m carrying a lot of last year’s events into this year, and I’m thinking about everything I did last year so I can learn from it and apply those lessons to this year. But, as usual, instead of resolutions, I’ve set goals; setting goals makes it easier for me to stay the course, and forgive myself if I slip up. Ergo, in my case, there actually is no such thing as a clean slate–but at least I can learn from my past, and do better going forward.

As the Scottish song goes, Auld Lang Syne.

New Year’s Eve: A Good Swift Kick in the Year End

It’s the last day of 2025, and I’ll say it again–Worst. Year. Ever. At least for me.

That’s not to say that nothing good happened in my life this year: I’ve figured out how best to tell the story within my current novel; I’ve planned some of a novel series I want to write; I’ve added some new interests and goals to those already-rather-lengthy lists; I’ve reconnected with my family (though I still think the physical distance between me and them is a good thing)…actually, that’s about it.

On a lower note, I haven’t planned my finances very well, so I’ve obliterated my savings just to survive–and I’ve still had to hit a member of my family up for money so I can pay my rent for next month. I hope I can land paying employment next month, but my hopes are, right now, by no means high.

Looking at the situation, though, employment/finances are my only problem right now, though that does influence other aspects of my life, which are otherwise positive.

Admittedly, there are some things I could have done differently during the course of this year–though there is no way of knowing whether doing so would see me in a different, never mind better, place at this moment remains to be seen.

But I’m determined to do much, much better in 2026…come what may.

The Great Frustration/Biting Bullets

I don’t know how to begin this post, but I have no doubt the majority of people reading it will, to one degree or another, relate to it.

Since I got laid off last November, I’ve been navigating the job market, both solo and with the help of a government job-search agency; despite my best efforts and having an employment counsellor, it’s almost the end of the year and I still haven’t managed to find work; the situation is so bad I had to ask my mother for money so I could cover my rent for next month. I got lucky there; I don’t know how lucky I’ll be next month if I don’t find any paying employment by the end thereof. In any case, the experience of having to ask anyone for money is humiliating–my self-respect is six feet under right now.

I was on Employment Insurance, but that ended in July; the message I received from that agency had a tone of finality to it, making me feel like I couldn’t renew my claim. So, since the end of July, I’ve had to make two withdrawals from my Registered Retirement Saving Plan (RRSP) just to, you know, keep living. I can count on both of my hands the number of job interviews I’ve had, and those interviewers/employers who didn’t ghost me told me they had decided to go with another candidate. It’s difficult not to get discouraged under those circumstances. In fact, while I was out today to get some food, I felt suicidal, and I almost cried; the only thing(s) stopping me from taking my own life are my plans for next year–which involve livestreaming myself writing yet another draft of my current novel (mostly to prove that I’m the one writing it, and not using artificial intelligence–thus revealing my game plan), drawing more often than I do, resuming crocheting and knitting, getting back to cooking and baking…and landing a survival job, even if it’s part-time. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

But yeah, as dictated by capitalism, I spent the last couple of weeks feeling like complete crap–even though the world’s wealthiest people (among the most prevalent examples I can think of right now: Galen Weston, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and every big-name tech bro) are sitting on billions of dollars and not giving a damn about those of us on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder struggling just to survive, thus they should be the ones feeling like complete crap.

Meanwhile, I have to figure out my financial situation going forward, especially if I don’t get paid employment.

That said, I will try to have myself a Merry little Christmas–and for those of you in the same, or a similar, boat, you do the same…but, if you feel you can’t, I, for one, will understand.

Verdict: 2025–Worst year ever.

Wicked: An Analysis

I’ve seen Wicked: For Good recently–and Wicked last year–and, like no doubt so many others, I have some thoughts.

In the original Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West was just a straight-up villain–but that was in the days in which society at large saw only in terms of black and white when it comes to good and evil, and believed whatever the powers that be said. But in Wicked (inspired by the novel by Gregory Maguire), the Wicked Witch of the West, named Elphaba Thropp, has a sense of justice, evidenced chiefly through how she helps the speaking Animals (in one instance, she frees a lion cub from a cage), which contravenes the rule of the Wizard of Oz and those who enable him; the Wizard is a power-hungry ruler who has no problem harming or suppressing the innocent–case in point, the Animals–or lying to the people of Oz if it means he can keep his position, and Glinda (whose birth name is Galinda Upland), becomes the Wizard’s main propaganda tool, under the direct authority of (in Wicked: for Good) Press Secretary Madame Morrible–who, in one memorable scene from Wicked: For Good, tells Glinda to “Do what you do best–smile, wave, and shut up”; Glinda desires popularity, and actually has no innate magical power (it turns out the bubble she travels in–which the Wizard created–is a feat of engineering rather than magic), but ultimately she does actually have some good in her, as she welcomes the Animals back to Oz after the Wizard leaves with Dorothy and Toto (after she tells him to).

Given what I’ve seen in both Wicked movies, I’ve started thinking that the original Wizard of Oz story is, in and of itself–where Elphaba/the Wicked Witch of the West is concerned–a bit of propaganda (even if author L. Frank Baum didn’t intend for it to be so). And that’s the major message I’ve taken away from both Wicked movies–the dangers of buying into government or any other propaganda, especially if it’s invective against vulnerable populations, and that those in power will demonize anyone who goes against them if they can’t get them on their side. Elphaba tries to expose the Wizard of Oz as a fraud, but Madame Morrible, on behalf of the Wizard of Oz, thwarts her, while official propaganda slams her; when Elphaba goes into hiding, Madame Morrible tries to smoke her out by creating the cyclone that brings Dorothy and Toto to Oz and results in Nessarose’s death, then convinces the Wizard to see Dorothy, Toto, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Cowardly Lion, telling him that they are “visitors we can use.” In the first movie, Elphaba discovers the Wizard of Oz actually has no power and wants to use her and her magic to solidify his position; the Wizard himself admits it, and exposes his own modus operandi to both Elphaba and Glinda, and, in the second movie, tells Elphaba that people believe his and other lies because they want to, and that’s why Elphaba can never really expose him. Glinda tells her that the best way to get her message out is to get on the Wizard’s side, but Elphaba objects.

Then there’s the matter of Nessarose’s shoes. Nessarose receives them from her father, who has always adored her, and favoured her over Elphaba–I believe that’s because Nessa is actually his daughter, whereas Elphaba is the product of an extramarital affair on her mother’s part; regardless of the different ways Nessa’s father treats them, Elphaba is protective of Nessarose, even if she no doubt resents having to put Nessa’s needs and desires before her own, and at her own expense. When Dorothy’s house lands on Nessarose, killing her, Elphaba wants Nessa’s shoes because–in her words–they’re all she has of her. Glinda reveals her own tendency towards pettiness and spite when she responds to Elphaba calling her out for giving Nessa’s shoes to Dorothy, referring to Fiyero running away with Elphaba when he was going to marry Glinda; Glinda also reveals, in the first movie, that she can be obnoxious in certain situations, such as when she repeated corrects Dr. Dillamond’s pronunciation of her name (Dr. Dillamond is the one who first pronounced her name as ‘Glinda’).

Despite the fact that they’re supposed to be on opposite sides of the ledger–and they clash more often than not–Elphaba and Glinda still care about each other, even though Glinda still obfuscates when a Munchkin asks her if she and the Wicked Witch of the West were friends. Glinda, in both movies, is self-righteous, especially in her role as the Wizard of Oz’s propaganda tool, while Elphaba actually tries to bring justice to Oz, even as Oz’s mainstream press demonizes her and Madame Morrible proactively acts against her. Even so, Glinda achieves Elphaba’s aim of making Oz a place where all creatures can feel safe.

Ariana Grande-Butera perfectly portrays Glinda’s girlishness, self-righteousness, sweetness, and momentary pettiness and situational sweet obnoxiousness, and Cynthia Erivo effectively channels Elphaba’s sense of justice and feelings that come from being misunderstood and misrepresented (how appropriate that a black actress has been cast as Elphaba/The Wicked Witch of the West in this context). Jeff Goldblum is more than convincing as the Wizard of Oz–the carny and the politician, thus demonstrating the overlap between the two–and Michelle Yeoh is chilling as propagandist and witch Madame Morrible. The minor actors and extras are no less effective in displaying the outrage against Elphaba and demand for her life, and thus what they’ve been convinced is justice–and demonstrating how frightening a populace can be when it fully believes the lies those in power (especially when the people have no other source(s) of information at their disposal), and descends into mob mentality.

Wicked and Wicked: For Good demonstrate that it is possible to bring politics into a creative work and still tell a good story and be entertaining as well as informative–though I doubt the people who cry “leave politics out of it” will enjoy it very much, if at all. Writers Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox (first movie) Stephen Schwartz (second movie), and Gregory Maguire show, through their writing, their ability to simultaneously tell a compelling story and deliver an impactful message–and one relevant for our times.

Remembrance Day

It’s that time again–a time for ruling classes all over the white-dominated West to pay lip service to honouring the soldiers and veterans who have fought in wars perpetrated for their interests and glorify those wars. But it turns out–when you consider the conflicts the white-dominated West continues to get involved in and all of the shit going down in our own backyards–even after the determined promise after World War One of ‘Never again,’ humans as a species–especially those in society’s upper echelons–have learned absolutely nothing.

Let’s take stock:

Here in Canada, Indigenous rights still aren’t being respected, despite all of the talk about reconciliation and the fact that Canada has a Truth and Reconciliation Commission; Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has made his own ‘criticisms’ (which are actually attacks) on the idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) while crowing about the need for people to get ahead on their own merits (another post for another time); and Vancouver’s current mayor, Ken Sim, still believes that he can do whatever he wants and ignore any criticism or attempts to hold him accountable that come his way. Meanwhile, Alberta’s current premier, Danielle Smith, seems to be making a mess of that province, starting with the education system, and how the Government of Alberta is treating its teachers and students. None of these aforementioned points may have anything to do with Remembrance Day, but they’re actually starting points for so many problems that led to World War One in the first place–people feeling disenfranchised and powerless to determine their own destinies, thus leaving them vulnerable to any propaganda that, in the short term, makes them feel better.

In the United States, Donald Trump has won a second term as President, and he and his White House cadre are hell-bent on bringing to the U.S. the ‘divine right of kings,’ with Trump as absolute ruler…and U.S. citizens at all socioeconomic levels are either enabling or protesting him and the other thugs currently occupying the White House. Speaking of thugs, the verbalized purpose of the existence of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to curtail illegal immigration, but ICE agents have been indiscriminately rounding up anyone and everyone–regardless of citizenship and immigration status–who don’t even appear to be WASP–and commit other heinous acts. Bigotry–against race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identification, ability, etc.–is allowed to run rampant, and women are facing rollbacks against the rights they’ve gained within the last century. I know I’ve said this before, but the next President of the United States–provided the individual cares enough–is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up once they’re sworn into office.

Now we go onto the international stage–and I’ll start with the Israeli government vs. Palestine. The Israeli government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, is still determined to wipe what’s left of Palestine off the map–and the ruling classes of all Western nations insist on enabling them to do so. Greta Thunberg recently participated in a flotilla to bring aid to Gaza, and the Israeli government put her through hell for it; at the end of her ordeal, she stated there is a genocide happening in Gaza. For the last decade or so, Europe has seen a resurgence of racism–chiefly Islamophobia–and, in recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has started a conflict with Ukraine in an attempt to bring that nation under his control, while being a dictator to people in Russia. And I have a feeling I’m barely scratching the surface.

And yet, on this day, we’re all encouraged to pause and remember the sacrifices veterans have made, and soldiers make, for the ruling classes by fighting wars the ruling classes have started for their own profit, power, and prestige–while the rest of the year those same ruling classes treat soldiers, current, retired, and dead, like expendable pieces of meat. Stating the painfully obvious here, but the ruling classes will always do what’s in their own best interests–and paying lip service to honouring the veterans and soldiers who fight in wars that further those interests makes them look good…even while the world burns.

Bruce McAllister

I was scrolling on Threads today, and discovered a couple of posts including a video of an Alberta Next panel, in which moderator Bruce McAllister admonished seventeen-year-old high-school student Evan Li for asking questions about Alberta’s education system–namely, the province funding private schools and the upcoming teachers’ strike–then suggested his parents ‘turn him over their knee,’ after making comments about how Li was speaking and cutting his microphone mid-sentence.

This irritated me on so many levels.

First of all: a public figure and former politician–in public–advocating child abuse against a high-school student, and for saying something he didn’t like, and not in line with the United Conservative Party of Alberta‘s party line…I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but that a public figure would be so blatant, and in public, about advocating corporal punishment/child abuse…all I can say is, McAllister and Alberta’s UPC have nothing to be proud of here.

McAllister also had the temerity to tell Li that he wasn’t ‘making sense.’ Maybe not to McAllister; however, I thought Li made perfect sense in asking about the state of Alberta’s education system, at present and going forward. As far as I’m concerned, McAllister’s response is just another instance of adults finding ways to not listen to children and youth and take them, their issues, and their concerns seriously, even if said issues and concerns apply to society at large.

I’d also like to point out the complete condescension and disingenuity of McAllister saying he “applauded” Li’s coming to the event to speak, but didn’t like the way he was speaking…

But I can’t say I’m surprised or shocked to see the arrogance of someone from Canada’s Conservative Party–or anyone adjacent to it–on such open, blatant display; these people clearly think that they can get away with anything and everything.

But I have to give the people in the audience kudos for supporting Li, especially after McAllister stated his parents ought to turn him over their knee; I heard a female voice, speaking into the microphone, that what McAllister did and said to Li was ‘rude’ (more than once) and ‘disgraceful,’ accompanied by a chorus of ‘boos’ from the general audience. And I have to at least nod my acknowledgment to everyone in Internet comments sections who praised Li for speaking truth to power, and decried the way McAllister treated him. And Li himself deserves some praise for the way he handled his mistreatment, and for speaking out after the fact, and continuing to speak up for teachers, students, and others in Alberta who are negatively affected by the decisions of Alberta’s provincial government. Like so many have stated, Li and his actions are a light in the darkness of our times.

I don’t live in Alberta, but McAllister’s treatment of Li in that joke of a ‘town hall’ really sticks in my craw, and I hope he faces severe consequences for it; I know Danielle Smith won’t dismiss him from his position, but I hope the good people of Alberta will continue to hold McAllister to account for his atrocious behaviour towards Li.

I know this post is more than a tad disjointed, but it’s urgent, and I need to get my views on this situation out there.

Peter Thiel

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” — H.L. Mencken

‘But as sure as God made black and white/What’s done in the dark will be brought to the light’–Johnny Cash, ‘God’s Gonna Cut You Down,’ American V: A Hundred Highways, 2006

While the world pays attention to the current Jackass in Chief Donald Trump and his crony Elon Musk and his toadies and their headline-grabbing antics (especially Trump’s), a shadowy figure works behind the scenes to ensure that nothing can stop their reign of terror, nor contain it within the borders of the United States of America. That individual, ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, trans, non-binaries, and intersex folks, and everyone else on the gender spectrum, is PayPal founder and tech bro Peter Thiel.

Thanks to a recent YouTube short, I’ve learned about a speech Thiel made, in which he vocalized his dream that “you could unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with you through technological means” (in other words, he wants to use technology to bypass democratic processes and dominate society), calling technology an “incredible alternative to politics”–which it shouldn’t be; rather, technology should work with politics, and emphasize and respect human rights. But, then again, Thiel and his family lived in South Africa–in which he lived in a community ‘known at the time for its continued glorification of Nazism’– and modern-day Namibia in the time of apartheid, so I’m not surprised that he wants to do away with democracy and turn the world into a right-wing fascist dictatorship, as evidenced by his co-founding of the organization named Palantir. A self-proclaimed conservative libertarian, Thiel has ‘made substantial donations to American right-wing figures and causes,’ along with helping Hulk Hogan fund his lawsuit against Gawker (the documentary about the case, ‘Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press,’ is on Netflix).’ Now, I realize Thiel could have changed his politics and worldview, but he chose not to; I believe that’s because he benefits from the worldview he did adopt–namely, that technology should replace, rather than be used in conjunction with, politics, especially if it’s used to push the agendas of the rich and powerful.

Just when I couldn’t be more frightened for my neighbours in the United States–especially those not in the ruling class–or the world…

Peter Thiel has long operated in the shadows. Now it’s time to bring his dastardly deeds–and beliefs–into the light…especially given the danger they pose to the world, democracy, and human rights.

Sources:

https://www.techpolicy.press/when-we-are-no-longer-needed-emerging-elites-tech-trillionaires-and-the-decline-of-democracy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-BQhXdCs8Y

https://www.advocate.com/peter-thiel/peter-thiel-model-jeff-thomas

https://theconversation.com/when-the-government-can-see-everything-how-one-company-palantir-is-mapping-the-nations-data-263178

‘Illegal Aliens’

Thanks to YouTube–and its airing of an advertisement telling so-called ‘illegal aliens’ that ‘their time is up’ or some such garbage (voiceover by United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem)–I have now found the wherewithal to comment on the issue.

First of all, I’m going to echo what so many commenting on the issue of immigration have said for as long as I can remember: The Native Americans/American Indians/Indigenous people never asked the pilgrims/Puritans for their documents when they disembarked The Mayflower. I’m fairly certain my English and French ancestors didn’t have to show the Indigenous people here in North America their documents when they arrived; in fact, I’m fairly certain they didn’t even have documents–they just landed. I am sick to the back teeth of white people grumbling about ‘immigrants’ coming to ‘their land’ and ‘taking what’s theirs’–never mind that people (chiefly men) from England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands (that I know of) stole land from Indigenous peoples here and herded those they couldn’t kill into ghetto conditions–euphemistically calling such places ‘reserves’ or ‘reservations’–outlawed their traditional practices, and forced their children into residential or industrial schools to strip them of their cultures, punish them for speaking their native languages–and forcing the European languages (chiefly English) on them–and in all ways abuse and humiliate them and rob them of their humanity (‘kill the Indian to save the man’ or something to that effect ); the hypocrisy of any and all rhetoric about ‘illegal aliens’ is just boggling to me–and I don’t know if should be surprised that said hypocrisy is lost on those who spout it. For those of you who cry that immigrants–documented or not–are coming into ‘your’ country and taking everything that you claim is yours: Are they forcing you into ghettos? Outlawing your traditional practices and way of life, and forcing theirs onto you? Taking your children away from you and forcing their cultures and ways of life on them, while punishing yours and dehumanizing them? Forcing their languages onto you while forbidding you from speaking yours? No? Then do us all a favour and zip-it.com. I’d also like to take this moment to point out that American–and possibly international–history’s first ‘anchor baby’ is Virginia Dare.

I get the feeling that immigration laws–here in Canada and in the United States–skew white and wealthy in terms of who’s allowed in, and under the so-called ‘right’ circumstances–and the ‘documents’ requirement is just another manifestation of white supremacy, and the moaning and wailing about “illegal aliens” has a bent of white fragility to it.

There’s also a scapegoat notion to the issue of ‘illegal aliens’ (and immigrants in general). For as long as I can remember, white people (including quite a few I’ve known) have blamed immigrants–documented or not–for all of our failures in life, instead of taking even one iota of personal responsibility (the irony being that so many in this camp are no doubt also personal-responsibility apologists…or at least buy into personal-responsibility rhetoric).

Another bit of hypocrisy and irony I would like to address is that families of immigrants who Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is ‘arresting and detaining’ are being separated. To the ‘family values’ crowd, I have to ask: What ‘family values’ are you espousing? Just because the families ICE is fracturing aren’t white doesn’t mean they’re not families and they don’t need to be kept together–especially if they’re not actually doing anything wrong.

But the cognitive dissonance of conservatives and reactionaries sometime boggles me, and always gets under my skin.

I would like to add that Kristi Noem deserves what Trey Parker and Matt Stone (also known as ‘the South Park‘ guys) did to her–and she should consider herself lucky if that’s the worst thing to ever happen to her.

The moral of the story: America–hell, the world–is a place of immigrants, and has a history of immigration, human settlement, and conquest, and there’s nothing any of us can do to stop it, regardless of our individual positions in society–and no amount of demonizing people who immigrate to one country or another will change that, ergo any notion that we can prevent immigration anywhere is pure delusion. No one owns any of Planet Earth’s land, nor the nations that occupy it, so we can either accept immigration and new people coming to the places where we live and settling down, or we can whine about it and make the lives of the newcomers a living hell–or at least uncomfortable. I prefer to do the former–at the barest minimum, doing the former makes me look like at least a semi-decent person.