The aftermath of the January 8 Tucson gun massacre has garnered two interesting and significantly opposite reactions about gun rights and public safety. As the finger-pointing punditry from both the left and the right quieted down, the American public has once again been given a chance to ponder. As they had asked in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shootings, and then again after the incident at Virginia Tech in 2007. What should be done to make sure these heinous crimes never happen again ?
On the right of the political spectrum, the reaction has been on the side of their own personal safety. Republican congressman Peter King (NY) has proposed new legislation making it illegal for people to bring guns 1,000 feet from all government officials. Highly unrealistic, of course since you wouldn't have any idea on who you may run into at any time of the day. Suppose you are carrying a licenced firearm and you happen to bump into your local councilor, entirely by accident. Does that mean you have committed a federal crime ?
A host of other Republican public officials from both federal and state levels have even put forward their intention to carry their own weapons as they go about their business of public service, in the guise of protecting the public interest. But who are they fooling ? When you see a Republican senator or congressman walking up the steps of the Capitol armed with a pistol, would you think their pistol is representative of your interest ?
The best the other side of the political fence can offer is a token timid comment or two on the need for "further discussion" on the issue of gun control. The cowardly Democrats simply refuse to show much of a spine, much less take a practical stand on public safety, despite mounting appeals from a reasonable public who are tired of speculating when and where the next mass killing involving crazies with automatic weaponry would occur. Perhaps worried about their own political skin, particularly those blue dog democrats who can't afford to lose the support, both in terms of votes and money, of gun-loving constituents in their own backyard.
So, we have Republicans on one side, in typical scatterbrain manner, assessing the very latest gun tragedy in the United States as a call for arms, more specifically, a signal to arm themselves. In keeping with their reactionary thinking process, they have decided to wage war on guns with their own guns. At the very least, they came up with something, no matter how ludicrous it may sound to a person who actually thinks. The Democrats are pretty much obliged to do nothing. Thinking that the tragedy will open up a Pandora's box for republicans and conservatives elsewhere for their "vitriolic rhetoric", these "vanguards of liberalist freedoms" have clicked on cruise control and have decided to hegde their bets on any legislation regarding gun safety regulations and maybe wait to cash in on a later date, preferably perhaps on Election Day.
Meanwhile, the public asks once again. As they had after Columbine and after Virginia Tech: "What needs to be done?".
Six people lost their lives needlessly on the morning of January 8, 2011 in Tucson, Arizona. One was a community outreach worker engaged to be married next year and still at the prime of his life. One was a federal judge who, after attending a church service decided to visit an old friend before coming home to his family. Two were elderly women who just happened to be there at the supermarket and thought to stay a while and watch an event billed "Congress on your Corner". One 76-year old gentleman died trying to protect his wife as the bullets started to fly in all directions. And one was just nine years old. Excited to finally meet her congressional representative and perhaps, holding a dream close to her young heart of someday being in the same position of serving the people in her own community.
They died because a madman was allowed to purchase an assault weapon, capable of ending human life, without so much as a minimum restriction.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
BIGOTRY
Bigotry as it is defined in most reference dictionaries is the attitude or behaviour of intolerance towards those who are different from oneself. Taken in plain context, it is synonymous with sectarianism, narrow-mindedness, illogic and partisanship fueled by hatred. Most adult people and those who have acquired at the very least a secondary education, who are level-headed and open to reason know what constitutes bigoted behaviour. It is simple enough to understand. If one person makes undue judgement on another person by virtue of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation that is different from him or her, it is therefore, bigotry. The only people, with the obvious exception of young and innocent children of course, who fail to understand the characteristic of this offensive behaviour are the bigots themselves. That's not to say that bigoted people are too stupid to understand a simple characteristic behaviour, although by most accounts, bigoted people are for the most part, ill-educated or at least lacking the ability in the most simplest form of logical thinking. There are well to highly educated people all around the world who display, sometimes even openly an intolerant point of view. But the real question is why. Why is there intolerance ? What is the root behind it ? And how do we get rid of this divisive and potentially dangerous form of discriminatory behaviour ?
As an Asian immigrant living in Canada, I have had first-hand experience in discrimination. On the very evening that I arrived at Toronto's Pearson Airport. Walking up to a customs booth, a caucasian male customs personnel asked for my Philippine passport. Without looking at me, he asked standard questions pertaining to entry in Canada, then perhaps seeing all my papers were in order, he flung my passport back to me, hitting me on the chest, a rather unprofessional way of handling the business of a Canadian customs officer. It so scandalized an elderly caucasian gentleman standing behind me that he said something to the officer in protest on my behalf. Then, to comfort a newcomer to the City of Toronto, he patted me on the shoulder in assurance, as if to say Canada and Canadians were not representative of the vile action of this customs officer. And the gentleman was right. Canadians, to a large degree are a very tolerant and moderate people. Toronto itself, with it's bustling multi-cultural makeup, is a very welcoming place for newcomers to the city. The city and it's citizens, whatever the background or ethnicity, seem to live in the codified liberalist ethos of "Live and Let Live". Of course, as with everything in life, there are bad apples in the mix. After all, there is no such place as Utopia. And Toronto is far from perfect. But for such an imperfect city, it is a good place to live and exist, where you can value the economic, social and political freedom it offers if you are willing to do the work that is needed to attain them.
Of course, race is not the single determining factor in discriminatory behaviour. Far from it. Although it is probably the most common and obvious form, given that human beings are inherently tribalistic in nature. I would be remiss if I don't admit to the fact that I treat my fellow filipino migrants here in Toronto in a different way. There's almost an instantaneous bond whenever I meet someone here from my homeland. Even if they happen to be complete strangers. Not that I have contemptuous feelings about people from other races. Of course not. I take people at full face value. It's just that there is a higher acceptance value when there already is a built-in commonality between people. So is tribalism a good excuse for discrimination ? Of course not. Preferential treatment is one thing. Discrimination based on hate is another.
Take the Tea Party movement in the United States. While it started out, just mere weeks after the advent of the Obama administration as an anti-tax plank (hence, the historical reference to the Boston Tea Party), financed by capitalist billionaires like Steve Forbes and the Koch brothers of Minnesota, it has quickly morphed into a completely different entity. Acting like an anti-Obama magnet due to it's well-financed machinery, it has attracted virtually every hard line group opposed not just to the Democratic Party, but principally to Barack Obama himself. The Tea Party as it is constituted now, is a broad coalition of right-wing to extreme right-wing groups, from social and religious conservatives to the so-called "fringe elements" ( racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes). Front and center to this fringe group are the "birthers", headed by it's self-proclaimed king, Andrew Martin. This group was the first to latch on to the conspiracy theory about Obama's birthplace. They argued, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, thus making him unqualified to be President of the United States. A recent survey done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors fringe right-wing groups all over the United States, show that a great majority of membership to the advocacy of "birtherism" comes from extremist right-wing hate organizations and other white-supremacist groups.
So what does that tell you ?
Aside from the fact that there must always be valid and vocal opposition to any ruling party or leader, there should be boundaries in political alternatives. Judging simply on the basis of race is condemnable. I am not a particularly big fan of the U.S. president myself. I see him as another cookie-cutter politician funded by the same corporate sponsors, as have all the recent presidents of the past 30 years. But I do admit that he shown tremendous political courage in trying to at least have a more serious discussion on a number of social issues like health care and financial reform. To accuse him of having an overtly socialist agenda is a valid political point (despite the hyena-like laughter coming from actual left-wingers like me). To say that he is a "secret muslim who hates America" or that he is a "kenyan-born communist" is just simply racist and dismissable hate-mongering. And this example shows me the exact value of bigotry. Nothing.
Yet, as I have stated in the beginning, bigots are oblivious to the fact. They cling to these hateful ideas as their reality. I once asked a bigoted acquaintance what his definition of equality was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. But I do know how bigots like him think. Racial bigots measure equality by the color of a person's skin. Religious bigots count only the people who adhere to their own religious principles as worthy people. Extremist right-wing social bigots think that people who don't subscribe to their venomous philosophies are vermin. To bigots who hold the virtues of intolerance, equality only serves a purpose if that purpose fits into their own agenda.
But the real definition of equality is spelled out in very clear terms on every fundamental law of every democratic country in the world. The Constitution of The United States points out at the very beginning that "All men are created equal and free". Free to speak, think, choose and decide for themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extend the same rights to it's citizens. And in both cases, those freedoms are guaranteed and protected by the full force of the law, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.
So why is it so hard for bigoted people to understand the constitutional and legal aspects of equality and individual freedoms ? Is it just willful ignorance ? Or is it a matter of clinging to their own prejudicial views of how they see the world, no matter how absurd and unrealistic that view is ?
The very foundation of hate comes from a simple factor. The sense of fear. Bigots hate because they fear. Afraid of people who look, think and feel different from them. So if you are a racist, you are simply afraid of a person with a different ethnic background than yours. If you are a sexist, you are simply afraid of women. If you are homophobic, you are simply afraid of homosexual people. So what does that make you ?
The right to think, feel and exist are the most natural of intellectual and emotional freedoms that are guaranteed under the fundamental law as an individual's most basic right. As I have stated earlier, I take people at face value. Rightly or wrongly. Whatever the race. Whatever the philosophy or principle. I see a commonality with my fellow man. I see him as the same human being as me, deserving of the same right to exist as I do. If someone ends up abusing me or violating my individual right to exist in this world, the laws that govern me as a human being and as a member of a democratic society would apply. That is my protection as an individual. So, as I have said many times in many different blog entries, I have nothing to fear.
Bigots on the other hand are consumed by an overwhelming fear of the unknown that they have no desire to understand. And by giving in to their natural tribal instinct, they let themselves be governed by a different sense of reality. The reality of their own sense of fear. And this fear causes them to hide under what they see as their own means of protection. God. Guns. And by hiding under the veil of religion and violence, they feel their own sense of empowerment. The power from fear. Which means only one thing. Bigots are nothing but cowards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2011, 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner fired a substantial round of ammunition from a semi-automatic pistol into a crowd gathered for an event at a Tucson, Arizona grocery chain. In the aftermath of chaos amid the violence, five people died on the scene, including long-serving U.S. District Judge John Roll. A sixth victim, nine-year old Christina Taylor Green was pronounced dead on arrival at a Tucson-area hospital. All in all, 18 people were shot and wounded, among them was U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona-8th District). Law enforcement officials believe that Congresswoman Giffords, a centrist democrat was the intended target of the gunman. And the event at the local Safe-Way supermarket parking lot was a constituent forum that she was hosting.
Giffords, who had just narrowly won her third term of office in last November's congressional elections, has long been a target of the right-wing fringe. Her outward support for stem cell research, immigration policy overhaul, same-sex marriage and last year's contentious health care reform bill had put her most notably in right-wing crosshairs. In Sarah Palin's political action committee website, Rep. Giffords' name is prominent among the target list. In the past year, she has received death threats and her local district office had been vandalized on a couple of occasions. In media interviews during the past year, she has expressed apprehension about the overtly violent rhetoric that is being utilized against her by political opponents. That at some point, it could lead into unintended and potentially harmful and serious consequences.
At an early evening press conference, some six hours after the shooting incident, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik acknowledged that indeed, extremist political rhetoric may have played a significant role in the violent attacks. In pointing out that the gunman had a history of threat-related offenses and suspect mental stability, the sheriff was prompted to appeal to the country at large to tone down the political vitriol. Saying that the politics of hatred and fear may have serious repercussions, especially in the ears of the weak and narrow-minded, Dupnik said that "The State of Arizona had become the mecca of prejudice and bigotry and that the hatred had all but poisoned the political discourse". Shocking words from a senior law-enforcement official who had served for more than 50 years. In his closing statement, Sheriff Dupnik had this to say:
"hate speech may be free speech, but it's not without consequences".
In a democratic and free society, all ideas deserve to be heard. Constructive ideas should be deliberated upon, to bring out the best possible outcome for the best possible reason. Destructive ideas such as hate, intolerance and bigotry should be vociferously objected to and opposed at all times and must be pointed out for the poison that they represent.
As an Asian immigrant living in Canada, I have had first-hand experience in discrimination. On the very evening that I arrived at Toronto's Pearson Airport. Walking up to a customs booth, a caucasian male customs personnel asked for my Philippine passport. Without looking at me, he asked standard questions pertaining to entry in Canada, then perhaps seeing all my papers were in order, he flung my passport back to me, hitting me on the chest, a rather unprofessional way of handling the business of a Canadian customs officer. It so scandalized an elderly caucasian gentleman standing behind me that he said something to the officer in protest on my behalf. Then, to comfort a newcomer to the City of Toronto, he patted me on the shoulder in assurance, as if to say Canada and Canadians were not representative of the vile action of this customs officer. And the gentleman was right. Canadians, to a large degree are a very tolerant and moderate people. Toronto itself, with it's bustling multi-cultural makeup, is a very welcoming place for newcomers to the city. The city and it's citizens, whatever the background or ethnicity, seem to live in the codified liberalist ethos of "Live and Let Live". Of course, as with everything in life, there are bad apples in the mix. After all, there is no such place as Utopia. And Toronto is far from perfect. But for such an imperfect city, it is a good place to live and exist, where you can value the economic, social and political freedom it offers if you are willing to do the work that is needed to attain them.
Of course, race is not the single determining factor in discriminatory behaviour. Far from it. Although it is probably the most common and obvious form, given that human beings are inherently tribalistic in nature. I would be remiss if I don't admit to the fact that I treat my fellow filipino migrants here in Toronto in a different way. There's almost an instantaneous bond whenever I meet someone here from my homeland. Even if they happen to be complete strangers. Not that I have contemptuous feelings about people from other races. Of course not. I take people at full face value. It's just that there is a higher acceptance value when there already is a built-in commonality between people. So is tribalism a good excuse for discrimination ? Of course not. Preferential treatment is one thing. Discrimination based on hate is another.
Take the Tea Party movement in the United States. While it started out, just mere weeks after the advent of the Obama administration as an anti-tax plank (hence, the historical reference to the Boston Tea Party), financed by capitalist billionaires like Steve Forbes and the Koch brothers of Minnesota, it has quickly morphed into a completely different entity. Acting like an anti-Obama magnet due to it's well-financed machinery, it has attracted virtually every hard line group opposed not just to the Democratic Party, but principally to Barack Obama himself. The Tea Party as it is constituted now, is a broad coalition of right-wing to extreme right-wing groups, from social and religious conservatives to the so-called "fringe elements" ( racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes). Front and center to this fringe group are the "birthers", headed by it's self-proclaimed king, Andrew Martin. This group was the first to latch on to the conspiracy theory about Obama's birthplace. They argued, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, thus making him unqualified to be President of the United States. A recent survey done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors fringe right-wing groups all over the United States, show that a great majority of membership to the advocacy of "birtherism" comes from extremist right-wing hate organizations and other white-supremacist groups.
So what does that tell you ?
Aside from the fact that there must always be valid and vocal opposition to any ruling party or leader, there should be boundaries in political alternatives. Judging simply on the basis of race is condemnable. I am not a particularly big fan of the U.S. president myself. I see him as another cookie-cutter politician funded by the same corporate sponsors, as have all the recent presidents of the past 30 years. But I do admit that he shown tremendous political courage in trying to at least have a more serious discussion on a number of social issues like health care and financial reform. To accuse him of having an overtly socialist agenda is a valid political point (despite the hyena-like laughter coming from actual left-wingers like me). To say that he is a "secret muslim who hates America" or that he is a "kenyan-born communist" is just simply racist and dismissable hate-mongering. And this example shows me the exact value of bigotry. Nothing.
Yet, as I have stated in the beginning, bigots are oblivious to the fact. They cling to these hateful ideas as their reality. I once asked a bigoted acquaintance what his definition of equality was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. But I do know how bigots like him think. Racial bigots measure equality by the color of a person's skin. Religious bigots count only the people who adhere to their own religious principles as worthy people. Extremist right-wing social bigots think that people who don't subscribe to their venomous philosophies are vermin. To bigots who hold the virtues of intolerance, equality only serves a purpose if that purpose fits into their own agenda.
But the real definition of equality is spelled out in very clear terms on every fundamental law of every democratic country in the world. The Constitution of The United States points out at the very beginning that "All men are created equal and free". Free to speak, think, choose and decide for themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extend the same rights to it's citizens. And in both cases, those freedoms are guaranteed and protected by the full force of the law, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.
So why is it so hard for bigoted people to understand the constitutional and legal aspects of equality and individual freedoms ? Is it just willful ignorance ? Or is it a matter of clinging to their own prejudicial views of how they see the world, no matter how absurd and unrealistic that view is ?
The very foundation of hate comes from a simple factor. The sense of fear. Bigots hate because they fear. Afraid of people who look, think and feel different from them. So if you are a racist, you are simply afraid of a person with a different ethnic background than yours. If you are a sexist, you are simply afraid of women. If you are homophobic, you are simply afraid of homosexual people. So what does that make you ?
The right to think, feel and exist are the most natural of intellectual and emotional freedoms that are guaranteed under the fundamental law as an individual's most basic right. As I have stated earlier, I take people at face value. Rightly or wrongly. Whatever the race. Whatever the philosophy or principle. I see a commonality with my fellow man. I see him as the same human being as me, deserving of the same right to exist as I do. If someone ends up abusing me or violating my individual right to exist in this world, the laws that govern me as a human being and as a member of a democratic society would apply. That is my protection as an individual. So, as I have said many times in many different blog entries, I have nothing to fear.
Bigots on the other hand are consumed by an overwhelming fear of the unknown that they have no desire to understand. And by giving in to their natural tribal instinct, they let themselves be governed by a different sense of reality. The reality of their own sense of fear. And this fear causes them to hide under what they see as their own means of protection. God. Guns. And by hiding under the veil of religion and violence, they feel their own sense of empowerment. The power from fear. Which means only one thing. Bigots are nothing but cowards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2011, 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner fired a substantial round of ammunition from a semi-automatic pistol into a crowd gathered for an event at a Tucson, Arizona grocery chain. In the aftermath of chaos amid the violence, five people died on the scene, including long-serving U.S. District Judge John Roll. A sixth victim, nine-year old Christina Taylor Green was pronounced dead on arrival at a Tucson-area hospital. All in all, 18 people were shot and wounded, among them was U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona-8th District). Law enforcement officials believe that Congresswoman Giffords, a centrist democrat was the intended target of the gunman. And the event at the local Safe-Way supermarket parking lot was a constituent forum that she was hosting.
Giffords, who had just narrowly won her third term of office in last November's congressional elections, has long been a target of the right-wing fringe. Her outward support for stem cell research, immigration policy overhaul, same-sex marriage and last year's contentious health care reform bill had put her most notably in right-wing crosshairs. In Sarah Palin's political action committee website, Rep. Giffords' name is prominent among the target list. In the past year, she has received death threats and her local district office had been vandalized on a couple of occasions. In media interviews during the past year, she has expressed apprehension about the overtly violent rhetoric that is being utilized against her by political opponents. That at some point, it could lead into unintended and potentially harmful and serious consequences.
At an early evening press conference, some six hours after the shooting incident, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik acknowledged that indeed, extremist political rhetoric may have played a significant role in the violent attacks. In pointing out that the gunman had a history of threat-related offenses and suspect mental stability, the sheriff was prompted to appeal to the country at large to tone down the political vitriol. Saying that the politics of hatred and fear may have serious repercussions, especially in the ears of the weak and narrow-minded, Dupnik said that "The State of Arizona had become the mecca of prejudice and bigotry and that the hatred had all but poisoned the political discourse". Shocking words from a senior law-enforcement official who had served for more than 50 years. In his closing statement, Sheriff Dupnik had this to say:
"hate speech may be free speech, but it's not without consequences".
In a democratic and free society, all ideas deserve to be heard. Constructive ideas should be deliberated upon, to bring out the best possible outcome for the best possible reason. Destructive ideas such as hate, intolerance and bigotry should be vociferously objected to and opposed at all times and must be pointed out for the poison that they represent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)