A week ago, outside the Alberta legislature in Edmonton, we had a rather un-Canadian event, eh?

            A crowd had rallied to protest Premier Rachel Notley’s proposed carbon tax. As former federal minister Chris Alexander spoke from the steps of the legislature building, the crowd – many of them bused in from Red Deer and Calgary for the occasion – began chanting, “Lock her up! Lock her up!”

            Clearly, they were mimicking the “Lock her up” chants against Hillary Clinton in the Trump presidential campaign.

            That’s just not what Canadians do. Eh?

            In fact, for most of our history, Canadians have defined ourselves as not being American.

            We’re known for apologizing even when the other person was wrong. We say “Sorry” when we bump into someone on the sidewalk. We line up politely for store doors to open on sale days.

            The late Peter Gzowski once ran a contest for the most Canadian expression. As I recall, the contest originated with a news story out of the States; a Japanese exchange student was shot and killed because he failed to understand the command, “Freeze!”

            Peter wondered what Canadian cops would shout under the same circumstances. It would probably begin, he mused, “Ah, excuse me, if you wouldn’t mind….”

Imitating bad manners

            The ultimate winner of the contest to define Canadian identity was (again, from memory), “As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.”

            But under no circumstances do we chant “Lock her up!” Chris Alexander, who hopes to lead the Conservative Party in the federal parliament someday, should have known that.

            Other political leaders – including several other prominent Conservatives -- immediately denounced the demonstration in Edmonton.

            Alexander now claims to have been mortified by the chant. He says he didn’t encourage it. But the video suggests that he was enjoying himself. He had shown that he could work up a crowd. Even if it was a pre-selected right-wing crowd.

Courtesy not so common

            I begin to sound my age when I lament these tactics.

            Particularly, I lament the loss of what used to be called “common courtesy.”

            Only it’s not so common anymore.

            Courtesy is, in some respects, superficial. You can be courteous to someone you despise. Courtesy doesn’t change your opinion of him. Or her. But as my mother might have said, “You don’t have to be rude.”

            Courtesy simply means showing some self-restraint in personal relationships. We can express our opinions, without resorting to name-calling, threats, and undeleted expletives. Personally, I support some kind of carbon tax – B.C. already has one, and it has certainly not hurt the province’s economy, currently rated the healthiest in Canada.

            But even if I disagreed, I don’t have to respond with threats. Obscene email and Twitter messages. Or graffiti sprayed on walls and doors of mosques.

            Our vocabularies contain more words than those related to fornication, excrement, and violence.

            I’d like to see more respect, certainly. The United Church added a line to one of its faith statements, “To live with respect in creation.” That single line acknowledges that we human are not separate from the natural world. We are part of it; we shape it, and it shapes us -- we need to be less cavalier about our treatment of it.

            But some differences are simply too deep to permit respect. I will never respect drug dealers, for example. Or con artists who bilk the elderly of their life savings.

Insidious effects

            I cannot, I will not, respect those who show no compassion for their victims. But I don’t have to scream imprecations at them. I don’t have to knee them in the groin when I meet them.

            But even if I can’t require respect, I can at least expect some courtesy.

            The “Lock her up” brigade are right about one thing. Practicing courtesy might weaken one’s fanatical commitment to single-issues.

            Shouting slogans – especially offensive slogans – entrenches single-track thinking. It buries other alternatives in a rut of habitual reactions.

            In truth, speaking politely might actually affect one’s thinking. Words and thoughts are intimately related. Obviously, what we say reflects what we think. But the reverse is also true – what we say tends, over time, to influence what we think.

            Courtesy cannot be imposed from above. It has to start with us.

            Do we want to move towards a country divided by extremes? Or do we want to move towards a society where we practice decency, compassion, and tolerance for differing opinions?

            If the latter, a good start would be to practice more courtesy.

*******************************************************

Copyright © 2016 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.

                  To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca

********************************************************

YOUR TURN

Last week’s column on author Stan Chung evoked some thoughtful responses. Stan himself responded: “That was a very well-written and humbling piece you wrote about me and my work. Thank you. I wish there was an online copy.”

            Stan’s comment gives me two opportunities.

            First, online copies of my columns are available again. Go to http://quixotic.ca, the new website set up for me by Wayne Irwin of ChurchWeb Canada, http://www.churchwebcanada.ca

            Second, if you want to order books directly from Stan, you can write to him at stanchung@gmail.com

One of Stan’s provocative sayings intrigued Tom Watson : “From my university days, I recall great philosophical discussions on the subject of free will. At that time it had to do with whether or not everything we did was predetermined by an omnipresent God who controlled our every move in order to effect God's will. Most of us recoiled against that notion. What was the purpose in being human if we didn't have the ability to think, to reason, to decide our own destiny?

            “I don't recall the church teaching us that we had complete free will. It was more a matter of aligning our will with that of God's.

            “Stan Chung's idea that we are shaped and determined by our culture, including our social and political mores, is right on target and something about which we haven't given a lot of thought. A friend and I have had quite a few discussions lately about ‘tribalism’ -- how we think and act in line with the imposed, or maybe self-imposed, expectations of our tribe. It's every bit as constraining and confining as is the church's imposition of God's will, just a whole lot harder to recognize and break free from.”

Sheila Carey lost touch with Stan Chung’s writings when she moved away from the Okanagan. After reading about him in my column, she downloaded an electronic copy of his new book from Amazon, which she is savouring in small bites: “Stan's thoughts need time to be digested, not swallowed whole.”

Frank Martens is also, “a constant reader of Stan Chung.  I love the way he gets down to the nitty-gritty of any topic and how he incorporates his own life into the subject. I often send his writings on to other people who don't subscribe to our paper. Thanks for the background on Stan, some of which I did not know.”

A woman who signed herself only as Jean had some comments on the previous week’s column, about dangerous drug use: “I read the comments on addictions. I find it interesting that alcohol addiction in medical language is now called alcohol misuse. Addiction implies a set of behaviors that are less helpful as a label than the word misuse. Misuse spans a range of behavior that implies functionality, where function is impaired. One of your readers talked about his chronic pain and how he needs narcotics in order to function. I like to consider all drug use through the filter of function… If I drink and drive, I am not functional; I am impaired but I am not an addict, although I am misusing the drug. If I drink 60 ounces per day, I am also impaired, likely functioning impaired, and likely addicted. The concept of addiction, [with] withdrawal syndromes, is less useful than that of impairment and harm.

            “Safe injection sites are harm reduction measures, and the evidence shows that they do reduce the harms of injection drug use.  Surely that limited goal is compassionate.  To judge whether a person is addicted, or misusing, gets in the way of actually helping that person to function. I know that drug use has many dimensions, but safe injection sites are one effective tool in a spectrum.”

Anne Hepburn had similar reservations: “In your article you, obliquely perhaps, referred to users of all substances as addicts. This is incorrect: not all users are addicts. Many are able to use substances as you quoted, safely and occasionally. 

               “Much of the danger comes from street drugs which are not guaranteed pure and safe.”

********************************************

TECHNICAL STUFF

This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.

    If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.

    To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.

    Unfortunately, the archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net have disappeared. The site was hijacked, and I haven’t been able to get it back I’m hoping to have a new website up fairly soon.

    I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca

********************************************

PROMOTION STUFF…

Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca

Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)

                  Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>

Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com

Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.

Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net