A throwaway line in a newscast caught my ear. Guy Ouellette, a member of Quebec’s National Assembly, had been briefly arrested by the province’s anti-corruption unit. Apparently they suspected him of leaking information on the unit’s investigations.
Of course, Ouellette, for about 30 years a member of the provincial police force, defended himself. He accused the anti-corruption unit of being corrupted by its own policies and powers.
He said, if I heard him correctly, “The culture itself needs to be changed.”
Now, I confess that I know very little about Quebec politics -- less, probably, than I know about what passes for government in Washington, DC. And I know even less about whatever goes on below the surface in government lobbying and contracting.
But Ouellette’s charge about the culture itself needing to change sounded remarkably like what I’ve heard recently from other sources.
Former RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, for example, apologizing for ongoing bullying, intimidation, and sexual harassment in his forces.
Or a series of high-ranking officers in the Canadian Armed Forces, talking about entrenched sexual harassment of its female members, and humiliation of new recruits.
Or David Vigneault, Director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service responding to a $35 million lawsuit by former CSIS members, alleging endemic racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Institutions move slowly
Paulson, in fact, took changing the RCMP culture as his mission, when he was appointed five years before. He seemed surprised at its persistence.
He shouldn’t have been surprised. All institutions tend to develop their own culture, and to protect it, even as society around them evolves.
Institutions act like a “heat sink.” Here in the Okanagan, we all know that the lake continues to grow warmer, after the sun has passed its highest seasonal intensity. And it stays warm, long after the weather has chilled into autumn.
In the same way, yesterday’s attitudes linger on like leaves still clinging to a tree.
You can see how Canadian culture has changed over the last 50 years or so. Traditional locker room humour has become unacceptable. So have racist epithets and sexist slurs.
I trace the first tremors of this social earthquake to the “politically correct” language that started in the 1970s. A few people recognized that many common terms -- from “man hours” to “manholes” to “mankind” -- ignored or belittled women.
Opposition to change
The first symptom of change was the ridicule directed at attempts to use inclusive language.
Ridicule is always the first weapon of denial.
But the new perceptions didn’t go away. Gradually, they grew. What had been a few isolated individuals, idealistic eccentrics, gathered momentum.
These new understandings didn’t extend only to women. Also to other races and religions. And to different sexual orientations.
The second weapon of denial is overt hostility.
It is evidenced, in Canada, by periodic vandalism of mosques and synagogues. More rarely, by selectively shooting women (L’Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal comes to mind) or worshippers (at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City).
In the U.S., it becomes painfully obvious in the rise of alt-right white-supremacist movements, now actively recruiting on university campuses.
But the existence of those reactions is itself evidence of the changes in social climate.
No one forced the new awareness onto people. It just happened, as “politically correct” sensitivity slowly filtered into our collective consciousness.
In a phrase popularized by Latin American theologians, we became “conscientized” -- made aware, awakened.
The third and fourth levels of social evolution are cautious acceptance -- tippy-toeing on eggshells, perhaps -- and finally astonishment that we ever thought differently.
Heads in a huddle
But we’re not there yet.
Especially not our institutions. Any institution -- a church, a charity, a service club, a professional association, a political party, a multinational corporation -- moves more slowly than individuals, because it is larger and more complex.
And so, even as pockets of consensus within the larger society merge into a critical mass, the institution itself hunkers down.
Organizations build cocoons around their traditional practices; they circle their wagons to repel invaders; they build firewalls against insidious ideas. Although individuals within those institutions may well change their attitudes, they feel bound by loyalty to their community, their corporate family. They split their lives, acting one way at home or church, another way at work.
When the world changes around them, they don’t see it happening, because they have their heads down in a tribal huddle.
And then -- to mix my metaphors -- the tide goes out, and they discover their ship high and dry on an unfamiliar shore.
Changing a culture takes time. It never happens with the stroke of a pen. Or with slogans of a politician.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 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
Two of you noted that in last week’s column about tax reform, I had left out several prime ministers who also failed to implement the Carter reforms.
Isabel Gibson commented, “Prime Minister Harper also chickened out on tax reform. It's too easy to use tax breaks to buy votes, I think. We'll get a simpler tax code when we, the people, actually demand it by not rewarding politicians and parties that do something else.”
Steve Roney wrote, “It is not fair, I think, to say that Dief chickened out on this. He appointed the commission, but by the time it reported, Pearson was in power. Perhaps he would have. We’ll never know.”
To be fair, neither Brian Mulroney or Paul Martin did anything either.
Other than that, Steve declared, “This time, I am with you. A simplified tax code should be a no-brainer. Complexity is waste, aside from the injustice. It’s a tough sell, because every specific tax break serves a particular organized constituency, who would turn out in force to defeat you as a candidate in the next election.”
Allan Baker quoted Thomas Piketty, in the conclusion (page 577) to his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century: “Those who have a lot of it [money] never fail to defend their interests. Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interests of the least well-off.”
To which Allan added, “Let’s continue to hope that someone in Ottawa, at some time, will summon the courage to implement the recommendations of the Carter Commission.”
David Gilchrist described benefiting from a loophole himself: “I agree that there need to be serious tax reforms.
“A strange set of circumstances resulted in my owning a small airplane in the mid ‘70s. It cost about $1000 for the annual mandatory inspection. But I found that I could rent it out to other pilots by selling them a block of hours (5, 10, whatever), to help defray that cost.
“I did my own income tax; but before I sent it in, a friend convinced me to pay an accountant. I found out that I could write off the whole cost of the annual inspection as long as i rented it out for one hour a year! -- and could fly it all the rest of the time for my own pleasure if I wished. It was great for me; but was unquestionably unfair.
“I can only imagine how much wealthier folk than me were able to profit by this kind of loophole!”
William G. Rogers wondered, “As Canada Revenue has already received tax information (T4 slips, T5s, etc,) and already know your status from previous years, why not compute the tax owed on that information and send everyone a bill. Individuals could then just pay or respond by asking consideration for charitable giving, health, etc. and all that could be worked out. Thousands of people would have no need to challenge their tax bill or would prefer to not challenge; it would save a lot of hassle, do a few accountants out of work, and government would get its money sooner. Perhaps too simple?”
Bob Rollwagen took Bill Morneau’s side: “Bill will get back to it once he lets the storm settle. If we investigate all our trusted MPs we would probably discover that they have similar tax deferral planning, at least the ones with enough family income to warrant the consulting costs.
“If the previous party in power had not reduced the GST by 2% for political gain, the current government would have lots of revenue. That 2% reduction did nothing but make the wealthy, wealthier because it impacted disposable income -- and you and I both know that over 50% of the population does not have much disposable income.
“Bill was on the right track. He was surprised by all sudden backlash of [those who] have made tremendous gains during the past decade and who might have to sell one of their hobby cars, downsize at the lake front property, or not take a second vacation to the continent. He realizes that taxes are a delicate issue. ‘Fake news’ and distorted facts really confuse the majority of voters.”
Two readers chose to take the bait offered in Bruce McGillis’s letter about rape, etc.
Bruce had commented, “Unless a woman is in high sexual heat, unwittingly drugged, or somehow threatened or possibly tied up, it is nigh impossible to rape her.
James Russell wondered “if that was a judgement based on personal experience?”
And Laurna Tallman wrote, “In revising the so-called ‘rape shield law’ Canada has adopted a paternalistic view of women as being primarily victims.... The playing field is skewed against the male. If the male is the person claiming rape, the playing field is tipped much further. In fact, statistics from U.S. studies indicate women are as often perpetrators of violence as men are. But the law has skewed the system against men, as we saw in the Gian Ghomeshi trial, where public opinion seemed to favour the women but where his defense attorney showed those women's testimony to be compromised in various ways.
“I had a career in theatre back in the early 1960s. I think I recognize the unwritten rules of sexual permissiveness in that right-brained sphere of ‘business’ (i.e., of theatrical performance and production) that allowed Ghomeshi to perform without adequate restraints in the entertainment world where he and some of his female friends were employed. The ‘open’ -- i.e., sexually permissive society -- that has developed since the prevention of pregnancy by various means has not encouraged widely accepted social rules for restrained sexual behaviour. The onus has been put on males to restrain their natural reactions to sexually provocative behaviour from women: revealing clothing, provocative language, predatory invitations, and so on. I do not think that situation is reasonable or fair to males.
“Women do play power games [too] and they use their sexuality as an instrument of power in those encounters. Furthermore, the refusal to acknowledge the inherent tendencies towards violence in women that can be exacerbated in those who have a sexual relationship with a male has undermined the position of non-violent males in the policing and court systems. That is horrifically unfair… The Centre for Families and Equality (CAFE) is growing by leaps and bounds in its efforts to redress these inequities embedded in our laws and in the false assumptions of some of our citizens, including lawmakers vulnerable to a virulent strain of feminism. If women want to be treated as equals they should be made equally to bear the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.”
I would welcome – but won’t promise to publish -- further letters exploring this topic. It’s all grist for my comprehension.
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
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.
My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
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…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
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 wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, 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://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom 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 tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet