I’ve wrote about the issue a few times already and still haven’t quite settled my position. Still, I won’t deny the rush of pleasure I felt when hearing that France’s lower house has passed a bill banning the burqa.

In a near-unanimous decision, the National Assembly voted 335-1 to ban the Islamic face coverings in public.

The legislation imposed a $185 fine or citizenship lessons — or both — on women caught outside their homes wearing the full-face coverings known as a burqa in Afghanistan and a niqab in North Africa. It set a fine of $38,000 and a one-year prison term for anyone convicted of forcing women and girls to wear such veils, reflecting a widely shared conviction here that Muslim women are forced to cover their faces by their fathers or husbands.

The bill is supposed to also pass easily through the upper house, but before being enacted into law, the bill will also be submitted to the Constitutional Council to ensure it meets commitments to human rights outlined in France’s constitution.

Surveys have shown overwhelming support for the ban, as well. A survey by the Pew Research Center conducted in April and May showed 82 percent of those questioned support the prohibition. In addition, the survey found that 71 percent of Germans, 62 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Spaniards would back similar bans in their own countries.

While I think that law can have an important educational effect on changing norms in a society, there will be enforcement issues, as noted by a BBC article on the ban:

Initially there will be a six-month period where women who wear the full-face veil are stopped and told about French laws and the reasons behind them. But after that period a police officer could tell her to remove the veil or risk a fine.

Clearly, in some suburbs of Paris with strong Muslim communities it would be very sensitive to order a woman to remove her veil. It will also be hard to prove that a woman is wearing a veil against her wishes.

Another risk is that the ban will create martyrs. Frederic Lagache of the police union said to me today: “Our concern is that some people will be manipulated by extremists and cause trouble on the streets when we stop them.”

Already a businessman has offered to set up a fund to pay any fines incurred by women.

There are also likely to be a series of legal challenges.

In far less controversial legislation, Ottawa may soon consider adding honour killings to its Criminal Code. Yesterday, Canada’s federal government affirmed its position against the practice, declaring such “barbaric cultural practices” as “heinous abuses” with “no place in Canadian society.”

Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women referred to:

“honour crimes and to the subjugation, oppression and repression of women and girls wherever it happens.

“Repression, oppression and violence to maintain a family’s honour may even happen because a girl wants to wear westernized clothing, date a boy who may not be from her own religion or culture or simply wanting to wear make-up.”

These comments come on the heels of a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which documented at least 15 honour killings in Canada since 2002, and issued 14 policy recommendations to the Canadian government to stop the crime.

Here’s hoping.

Bookmark It

In a promotional push to become the restaurant for V-Day, Mildred’s Temple Kitchen in Toronto is marketing itself via it’s toilets – encouraging patrons to consider having sex in its bathrooms. According to the promotion, the restaurant hopes to make it to the list of “101 places to have sex before you die.”

On its website, Mildred’s asks: “Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom? “Check out Mildred’s Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture.”

According to staff:

“We’ve always had little trysts in our bathrooms,” says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. “We’re taking it to the next level on Valentine’s weekend.”

Apparently the restaurant has also hired a “French maid” to be stationed in the restroom and ensure things are kept clean (“She’ll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies.”). As for those of us whose first thoughts were to health code violations:

Toronto’s Public Health food safety program manager said the restaurant wasn’t breaking any laws as long as there’s no intercourse in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean.

“As far as bodily fluids, it’s pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there,” said Chan, slightly undercutting the erotic value of the venture.

Apparently the place is totally booked out for Valentine’s Day and CANFAR is donating more than 900 condoms to the restaurant to promote safe sex.

Bookmark It

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I came across this editorial at the National Post on the decline of Women’s Studies programs at Canadian universities, authored by “the editorial board.” In what I can only call one of the most inflammatory pieces to be published in a national paper, the editorial board says:

Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Forgive me if this post is not so articulate as I’d like it to be as my head feels on the verge of exploding. All I can wonder is if this editorial board at the National Post made up of pre-historic neanderthal jackasses? Or just a bunch of Tony Abbotts? The article essentially argues that these programs, whether they be named Women’s Studies or the more inclusive Gender Studies, are evil.

Following a flurry of comments to the contrary, the National Post then published an editorial from the anti-woman woman Barbara Kay, who claims that these courses are “political activism, not academic scholarship.” Kay claims:

And if there is any nook or cranny in this nation where equality of opportunity is not available to women, I would welcome the enlightenment and be the first to insist that be rectified. On the other hand I can certainly show Ms Stewart and Ms Giroux-Bougard many instances of inequality of opportunity for men, such as university appointments, where equity codes privilege the hiring of women. It is not equality of opportunity that Women’s Studies is championing, though, it is equality of outcomes. In other words, Women’s Studies is merely the politically activist arm of the feminist movement, which is nothing more today than a lobby group for women’s interests, not at all a movement interested in true equality between the genders.

Perhaps even WORSE than the Post’s article is the response from Canada’s liberal magazine Macleans, in which the author identifies herself as a female, but “I don’t call myself a feminist; I believe that most of the work on that front is done and I feel alienated by extremists who continue to decry the inherent chauvinism at the basis of our society.” To that, I have to say, Erin Millar, you are a saboteur, with your misguided adherence to liberalism. You undermine and trivialize the challenges still facing women. Liberals deny that the root of the problem is the very structure of our society, built on patriarchy, reinforcing men’s domination of women, other men, and all of nature.

Allow me to turn to Denise Thompson, author of Radical Feminism Today, who, in her book, articulates the argument for the necessity of this “political activism” thus:

“Feminism aims to expose the reality of male domination, while struggling for a world where women are recognized as human beings in their own right…. …it is through exposing male domination as domination that feminism poses its major challenge, since social domination operates most efficiently to the extent that it ensures compliance by being disguised as something else, and not domination at all. It has been the task of feminism to tear away the masks behind which male domination hides its true nature, and expose it for the dehumanizing system it really is.”

The more that liberal feminists and self-proclaimed “liberated women” deny the effects of this structure, the more undermined women’s rights are. Women’s Studies/Gender Studies courses are important because nowhere else does are we encouraged to question the structure of our society. Equality under the law is not the same as equality. According to Catherine Mackinnon:

“We’re now in a stage where people want to believe that there is equality. They’d rather deny inequality than face it down so that they can actually live it. My task is to support their belief in that equality while at the same time unmasking everything around them that is making it impossible for them actually to live in it.”

She goes on to answer the question of “Are Women Human”:

“If women were human, would we be a cash crop shipped from Thailand in containers into New York’s brothels? Would we be sexual and reproductive slaves? Would we be bred, worked without pay our whole lives, burned when our dowry money wasn’t enough or when men tired of us, starved as widows when our husbands died (if we survived his funeral pyre)? …”

So don’t tell me that feminism has done it’s job and Women’s Studies programs have no place in Canadian universities. The misogyny espoused by the National Post has no place in such a self-professed and self-congratulating liberal country.

Bookmark It

An Ontario dairy farmer has made huge strides today in the fight against forced pasteurization. A ruling from a Newmarket justice of the peace made today found that Michael Schmidt’s raw milk operation does not violate the province’s milk-marketing or public-health regulations.

You may remember Michael Schmidt from a LMB post nearly two years ago on the pasteurization conspiracy, which described Schmidt’s legal battle to provide raw milk to demanding customers. The ruling is being heralded as a big win for the growing food-rights movement that is distrustful of industrial farming techniques (and rightfully so, it would seem).

Today’s ruling means that raw, or unpasteurized, milk produced by Mr. Schmidt’s cows – heritage Canadiennes bred near the town of Durham, Ont. – can legally be distributed to the small network of consumers who have bought “cow shares” in exchange for access to the animals’ unprocessed milk.
…
The Schmidt case, which began when his farm was raided in 2006, has captivated food-rights academics and advocates in Canada, and around the world, who argue the court’s decision will ripple well beyond the raw-milk community. At its crux, they argue, the case is really about the extent to which consumers should be free to buy foods, however rarefied, and whether constitutional rights stretch as far as the grocery basket, farmer’s market and the people who own shares in – but do not live on – food-producing farms.

Although many US states have decriminalized unpasteurized milk sales, in Canada it is still illegal to sell raw milk because of concerns of E. Coli contamination. However, this law does not extend to cheeses made from raw milk, which are legal provided the cheese is aged for at least 60 days. Similarly, in Australia raw milk for drinking purposes is illegal in all states and territories, as is all raw cheese. This has been circumvented somewhat by selling raw milk as bath milk. An exception to the cheese rule has been made recently for two Roquefort cheeses. There is some indication of share owning cows, allowing the “owners” to consume the raw milk, but also evidence that the government is trying to close this loophole.

But why are people so interested in unpasteurized milk?

Raw-milk advocates claim that it is more nutritious than pasteurised dairy. According to Real Milk Australia, a Melbourne-based group lobbying to make raw milk legal, pasteurisation eradicates vitamins, minerals and enzymes that make dairy easier to digest and less likely to trigger allergies.

According to Realmilk.com:

Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose – which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Joanne Hay, editor of online magazine Nourished, started drinking raw milk six years ago and claims: “I’ve seen it do miraculous things with the health of my family.” She also claims that the consumption of raw milk cleared up asthma, eczema and tooth decay problems in her three children.

I’m inclined to be pretty distrusting of government regulations aimed at controlling our behaviour, so I see this ruling as a pretty substantial win for the “back to the basics” approach to living. And anything that could undermine the “food industrial complex” is a good thing in my books.

Bookmark It

A University of Montreal study that sought to compare the views pornography-viewing men held about women to the views of non-viewing men had to be aborted after the researchers were unable to find a single man that had not viewed pornography. According to lead researcher Simon Louis Lajeunesse, the group had originally intended to use men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography, but “we couldn’t find any.”

Unfortunately, the researchers continued with their study, with some problematic results. Firstly, though, some of their more interesting findings:

It was found single young men viewed porn for 40 minutes three times a week, compared with those in committed relationships who watch it 1.7 times a week for 20 minutes.

Researchers also found that 90 per cent of pornography was taken from the internet, while only 10 per cent came from video stores.

Young boys first watched pornography when they were just 10 years old but they quickly discarded what they found offensive.

The study found that men watched pornography that matched their own image of sexuality, and quickly discarded material they found offensive or distasteful.

The problem comes from the ultimate conclusion that Lajeunesse comes to, which is that:

Pornography hasn’t changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible. Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don’t want their partner to look like a porn star.

Aggressors don’t need pornography to be violent [...] If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation.

The logic of this argument is so fundamentally flawed, that I’m surprised this person has a degree and a post as a researcher. I have a really hard time approaching this issue rationally, as it is so emotionally-charged for me. I can tell you the facts: that pornography viewing DOES affect men’s attitudes and behaviour towards women. Pornography is at it’s core misogynistic and destructive towards women. Allow me to rely, instead of on my own rational argument for being anti-porn, on the words of Robert Jensen from his book Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity:

In a society in which so many men are watching so much pornography, this is why we can’t bear to see it for what it is: Pornography forces women to face up to how men see them. And pornography forces men to face up to what we have become. The result is that no one wants to talk about what is in the mirror. Although few admit it, lots of people are afraid of pornography. The liberal/libertarian supporters who celebrate pornography are afraid to look honestly at what it says about our culture. The conservative opponents are afraid that pornography undermines their attempts to keep sex boxed into narrow categories.

Feminist critics are afraid, too — but for different reasons. Feminists are afraid because of what they see in the mirror, because of what pornography tells us about the world in which we live. That fear is justified. It’s a sensible fear that leads many to want to change the culture.

Pornography has become normalized, mainstreamed. The values that drive the slutbus also drive the larger culture. As a New York Times story put it, “Pornography isn’t just for dirty old men anymore.” Well, it never really was just for dirty men, or old men, or dirty old men. But now that fact is out in the open. That same story quotes a magazine writer, who also has written a pornography script: “People just take porn in stride these days. There’s nothing dangerous about sex anymore.” The editorial director of P layboy, who says that his company has “an emphasis on party,” tells potential advertisers: “We’re in the mainstream.”

There never was anything dangerous about sex, of course. The danger isn’t in sex, but in a particular conception of sex in patriarchy. And the way sex is done in pornography is becoming more and more cruel and degrading, at the same time that pornography is becoming more normalized than ever. That’s the paradox.

First, imagine what we could call the cruelty line — the measure of the level of overt cruelty toward, and degradation of, women in contemporary mass-marketed pornography. That line is heading up, sharply.

Second, imagine the normalization line — the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture. That line also is on the way up, equally sharply.

If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized? In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn’t we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?

As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it’s the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals’ rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a stri kingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.

The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn’t be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyper-patriotic nationalism, white supremacy, and a predatory corporate capitalism.

Next, I’ll leave you with this trailer from a documentary I watched, presented by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women on Wednesday night. When a montage of ‘throat-fucking’ scenes were displayed showing women literally choking on penises, it was too much for me. If this is what men think of me, then the world is a far sadder place than I think most women realize.

For more information:

• The Price of Pleasure (2008) – a film by Chyng Sun
• Anti-Porn Activist Network
• Sign the Anti-Porn Pledge
• Sex, sexual violence, and the sex industry: Some thoughts for boys and men – an article by Robert Jensen
• The Not For Sale Media Project

Bookmark It

The Muslim Canadian Congress, a progressive grassroots organisation representing Muslim people in Canada, has recently asked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ban the burka (veil), arguing that it has “no place in Islam” and “no place in Canada.”

President of the MCC, Farzana Hassan, claims:

“In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burka marginalizes women.”

Many Muslim women in this country are being forced to wear the loose robe and veil by their husbands and family, setting them apart from other Canadian women who are living freely, she claimed.

Hassan acknowledged the Koran preaches modesty, but “it doesn?t have to be that you have to cover your face or you have to wear a virtual tent wherever you go. This is not a requirement of Islam or the Koran.”

Hassan blamed extremist Muslims for its rising popularity in Canada. “To counter this trend, we are asking for a ban on the burka,” she said.

In a 2007 article written for the Globe and Mail, Hassan and founder of the MCC, Tarek Fatah, argued against the supposed requirement under Muslim scripture that women must cover their heads. They claim that what was historically a practical attire that suited a particular climate has been distorted by Islamists:

this supposed symbol of modesty has assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia.

.

Interestingly, this comes at the same time as the Grand Imam of the world’s largest school of Sunni Islam, called for a ban of the burka in female-only classrooms and residences.

Though the hijab has been popular in Egypt for some time, the niqab has only recently gained traction and is becoming increasingly popular on the streets of Cairo.

The government has shown concern over the trend. The religious endowments ministry issued booklets against the practice, saying the niqab is not Islamic, and the health ministry wants to ban it among doctors and nurses.

The move has apparently outraged some female students, who claim the ban is unconstitutional.

Indubitably, the same claim would be made if Harper were to take the MCC’s request to ban the burka seriously. However, I think the much graver insult to rights is the marginalization of women under any fundamentalist ideology. What is it about religion and subordinating women that they are so closely related? Men and power, of course. The argument for the ban is that women are pressured or forced by families and their communities to comply with these ridiculous notions of modesty and behaviour regulation that men are not equally held to. This pressure means women in religious communities are often not making the free choice to participate in their own subordination. Because it is subordinating and because the choice is not a free one, the law should provide for the guarantee of equality and prevent that subordination.

The argument against the ban is that some women do really want to wear it and choose to do so freely. I think the question of whether they should have the freedom to make this decision is not too dissimilar from the ethical conundrums doctors face of “to what extent do individuals have the right to participate in activities that are bad for them?” Do individuals suffering from whatever that psychological condition that causes them to believe one of their limbs doesn’t actually belong to them have the right to amputate it? Should women have the right to have vaginoplasty to replicate whatever those things are that are seen in pornography?

My problem with the niqab/burka/hijab is the imposition on children, who clearly don’t have the capacity to choose for themselves whether or not to participate in their own subordination. I’m not quite sure about the banning of the burka for all women in Canada just yet, but I do think there is a lot of weight to the argument that hijabs should be banned for anyone under the age of 18.

Bookmark It

Oh where do I begin with this one? Earlier this week, a judge in a Burnaby, BC court offered a man accused of drugging and raping a woman he was serving while working as a bartender in a nightclub a nine-month conditional sentence after determining the man was not ‘dangerous’, but that he had rather exploited an ‘opportunity’:

in October 2006, a woman in her 30s woke up in Alves’s bed, bruised and bleeding after an evening at a downtown Vancouver nightclub.

The married woman — who cannot be identified — said she had no recollection of meeting Alves the night before.

Medical testing confirmed she had had sexual intercourse and found traces of alcohol and sedatives in her system.

The woman told the court her will to live had been drained because of what happened to her and that she was unable to feel safe or to be intimate with her husband.

In sentencing, the B.C. provincial court judge said Alves was not pathologically dangerous but had committed a crime of opportunity.

The judge ordered that Alves be placed on the sex-offender registry for the next 20 years but that he not spend time in jail.

Not pathologically dangerous?? When charges were first laid against Alves in 2007, it was for four counts of rape using the exact same MO. As Dammit Janet! explains, these other counts were dropped, likely as the case dragged on.

So what’s so bad about this case? I dunno, the fact that a woman drinking in a bar is now considered an “opportunity”. This seems dangerously close to victim-blaming. Had she not been such a floozy, hanging out in bars and consuming alcoholic beverages, the bartender wouldn’t have had the opportunity to drug and rape her.

What else constitutes opportunity with rape? Walking alone at night? Agreeing to go on a date with a man? Having a vagina? What man in his right mind could resist those opportunities??

Interesting little tidbit noticed by Dawgs Blog: the judge who made this ruling has not been mentioned in the press. Why is that?

Bookmark It

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A prime minister walks into a town in the far north. Ahead of his arrival, his team of hard-working, knowledgeable staff send out press releases, in which the people of the town are referred to as “people with unwiped bums.” Duh-dun ching!

Oh, no, you’re right, that’s not a funny joke. It is a funny anecdote though!

Demonstrating just how unimportant Canada’s aboriginal population is to politicians, the PMO mistakenly spelled the capital of the northern territory of Nunavut, Iqaluit, with an extra u: “Iqualuit”. The error may seem minor, but the translation goes from meaning “many fish” to meaning something that the office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut has gracefully translated as “people with unwiped bums.” I think it’s probably even more insulting than that.

Of course, the PMO was “apologetic” and quick to point out that they’re not the only ones who make the misspelling:

“Hopefully this unfortunate typo, which we have corrected, will inform the greater public that there is no [extra] ‘u’ in Iqaluit,” said Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas.

“We obviously strive to have the highest possible standard in terms of spelling and grammar… When typos do occur, and we notice them, we either issue a revised advisory or immediately correct it.”

He pointed out that many media outlets, including The Canadian Press, have misspelled Iqaluit with an extra “u.”

That’s right, distract attention from yourself and if you go down, take whomever you can with you! Not like they’re a significant voting bloc anyway.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn’t hear, Harper’s in Nunavut as part of that whole arctic sovereignty campaign. If you’re interested, a story on how that money could be better spent.

Bookmark It

Last week, a female member of Ontario’s provincial parliament had her witness testimony overruled by the presiding judge in the case against Ottawa’s Mayor Larry O’Brien because she has a vagina.

Judge Cunningham, who has been on the bench for 18 years, said in his ruling, dismissing the charges against O’Brien:

“During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer.”

And the not-so-subtle subtext of this statement is that women’s puny brains can’t handle thinking about too many things at once, and therefore women who have any other commitments in their lives beyond their careers cannot be relied upon to remember facts correctly.

The stresses indicated in Cunningham’s reasoning are no more significant than those that any other given person deals with in every day life. That this particular MPP travels from Ottawa to Toronto for her role as a parliamentarian is hardly significant – the only parliamentarians who don’t travel for work are those who happen to reside in and represent the capital region. And how many of her male colleagues have wives and young children? Would their testimony have been weighed equally?

The MPP in question, Lisa McLeod, has said since the case, “I didn’t know truth had a gender.”

Now, in fairness to Cunningham, he was not the sole gender discriminator in the courtroom. It was actually the defense counsel that had brought up McLeod’s family situation in an attempt to discredit her testimony. Sadly, the judge agreed with it.

To this, Paula Arab, for the Calgary Herald, laments:

The judge may not be a sexist pig, but the defence used a sexist argument, and Cunningham agreed with it. The judge missed a great opportunity to stamp out sexism in his courtroom with a more thoughtfully-worded ruling. Instead, Cunningham opened the door to the further discrediting of witnesses who happen to be also working moms. I can hear it now: She’s too busy to know what she’s talking about.

I thought an interesting point in the Globe and Mail article should be noted. These small-”l” liberals who believe women’s equality is achieved in the obtaining of “male” positions in society do not recognize the systemic nature of women’s subordination. David Small, someone the G&M refers to as “veteran strategist” who is “helping two women in Ottawa win nominations” commented:

“it’s very discouraging when women are trying so hard.” (emphasis added)

That’s just fucking patronizing.

Bookmark It

Canadian Governor-General Michaelle Jean has been touring the Arctic this week, likely as part of the conservative government’s ambitious agenda to exercise Arctic sovereignty. Apparently she’s causing some waves for, as one journalist so succinctly puts it, “a day when she gutted a freshly slaughtered seal, pulled out its raw heart and ate it.”

Hundreds of Inuit at a community festival gathered around as the Governor-General knelt above the carcass and used a traditional blade to slice the meat off the skin. After repeated, vigorous slices at the flesh, the Queen’s representative turned to the woman beside her with an enthusiastic query: �Could I try the heart?� Ms. Jean then grabbed a tissue to wipe clean her blood-soaked fingers, and explained her gesture of solidarity with the region’s Inuit hunters.

So now a bunch of hippy urbanites and animal rights activists are up in arms over Jean’s apparent display of support for Canada’s much-maligned sealing industry.

Rebecca Aldworth, the director of Canadian wildlife issues for the Humane Society of the United States, said Ms. Jean’s performance in Rankin Inlet �was yet another cynical attempt by the Canadian government to blur the lies between Inuit subsistence hunts and the industrial scale slaughter of seals for their fur which is conducted almost entirely by non-aboriginal people in Canada.�

Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical treatment of Animals (PETA) said: �The Canadian Governor-General’s sick PR stunt is a predictable, if revolting, attempt to save a dying industry.�

But wait a minute… who brought up the seal hunt? Here was Jean displaying cultural sensitivity and an interest in learning more about one of Canada’s indigenous cultures, whom she is meant to also represent, among with the majority culture. She nor anyone present brought up the controversial seal hunt carried out in Labrador and Quebec every year.

In fact, it is this dangerous conflation that has led to such ridiculous antics as Scottish comedian Billy Connolly crying while an Inuit family he was using for his travel show hunted seal.

The problem is that people have gotten it into their heads that seals are somehow more beautiful and thus more deserving of life than those other, ordinary animals that are okay to kill and eat. I don’t want to hear one more whining foreigner telling me how sad it is that people hunt seals in Canada while they sit in their leather shoes and eat chicken nuggets from McDonalds.

No, Michaelle Jean was not in Nunavut to support the annual seal hunt. In fact, she’s made it part of her personal mission to push the federal government to establish a university in the Arctic to advance the social position of the Inuit living there.

But Ms. Jean says the region needs more. She points to the University of Tromso, which serves Norway’s Sami aboriginals, as an inspiration for Canada.

Tromso’s medicine, law and geology faculties are the kind of programs, she says, that could inspire more Canadian Inuit to pursue an education. The high school graduation rate in Nunavut is the lowest in Canada, at a mere 25 per cent.

With so few university students in the North, Ms. Jean suggests opening up the school to students throughout Canada and breaking it up into smaller satellite campuses throughout the Arctic.

Several town councillors applauded the Governor-General at a round-table meeting for speaking up in favour of the idea.

Bookmark It