When one applies for a summer job with the province, included in the application is the following:

“The Government of Ontario is an equal opportunity employer, and will not discriminate by race, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability.“

But when one cannot get into the Post Office to mail the application, it becomes evident that the discrimination is institutional.

The standards are not universal, either. Accessibility to public buildings (municipal, provincial and federal) varies from province to province and city to city. Victoria, BC, does very well when it comes to accessibility; Guelph, ON, does not. The rights of the disables are protected in the Charter of Rights, a federal document. Accessibility has to meet a universal standard, across the country, or those rights are simply words, nothing more. As a provincial issue, it is vulnerable to changes in budgets and governments, to disagreements between the municipality and the province, the province and the Federal government, and to funding mishaps. Therefore, accessibility and the rights of the disabled needs to be a federal issue, with a universal standard of accommodation for the disabled and  evaluated nationwide by a single set of standards. We have long ago accepted that every person in this country should be judged, not on race, religion, gender  or sexuality, but on their individual qualities. Ostensibly the same applies to the disabled, but it’s difficult for that to be proven when one can’t even get into the door.

Literally.

He struck me as smart, serious, a good speaker- and very, very depressing. He didn’t want to promise the earth, he wanted to be realistic- and I *get* that, really I do, but the thing is, people want to feel good about things. I appreciated the realistic view- but, frankly, it was a bit of a downer.

I asked a question, which can basically be summed up into: “Hi! Genocide! What will you do? “

It was longer than that, but I wanted to know what a Liberal government would do about the genocide in Darfur.

The answer? Whatever Romeo Dallaire thinks should be done.

Not. Kidding, and frankly, Mr. Ignatieff, thats a fantastic answer. Basically, he can’t forsee a combat mission, but he could forsee a mission to protect the refugees and people in their homes.

Good answer, I felt.

If he weren’t a separatist, I would lament his absence from politics today. We need him or someone like him (preferably a federalist) to step up and carry out the ideals to which he was so committed. Not, perhaps, sovereignty-association, but the idea that the people, ultimately, are the most important part of the equation of power- we need more of that nowadays.

Yargh.

Tomorrow at 11 am, Michael Ignatieff is going to announce whether or not we, the Canadian public, (or  you, Canadian public over 18!) are going ot the polls this summer. In purely selfish reasons, dear God I don’t want an election in the summer. I have to work outside during the day- I have no desire to get double sunburned in the afternoon and evening knocking on doors. Don’t get me wrong, if there is an election I will be there with bells on and am prepared to fight until we win, but stilll…

Do I think there will be an election?

I honestly don’t know. I keep waiting for someone to tell me, but I can’t seem to locate the Liberal mole from the 2006 election. If we do go to the polls, I can’t see it ending much differently than it began: we will doubtlessly have a minority government, we will still be in recession, and not much will change. If one looks back at voter turnout, the highest turnouts have been over real i ssues: The Flag, Free Trade, the Cold War, Conscription- you know, stuff that actually mattered.

The thing is, it’s not as though we’re at a loss for issues today. We’re at war, there’s a genocide in Darfur, America is growing protectionist, there’s a massive economic crisis, AIDS, cancer, and ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor, and people dying all over the world- but God forbid we should talk about that. Instead, it’s: ‘Look! The Leader of the Opposition was outisde the country for awhile and may even have written a book!’ or ‘Look! A Cabinet Minister’s DComm is incredibly incompetent!’

Hate to break it to ya, fellows, but we. Don’t. Care.

Talk about the issues (haven’t heard about the environment for a while, guys, hint hint.) and maybe we’ll listen.

Or you can continue on the hamster wheel path of Canadian Politics, where noone proposes policy and nothing is changed, with just the illusion of moving forward.

Now, as you may or may not know, during the American election, a lot of barriers were broken. Perversly, however, for the gay citizens of California, a lot of barriers returned. Gay marriage was repealed on the same day the first ever african-american US President was elected. Such is progress.

Now here’s the thing: The ‘family values’ crowd say things like ‘marriage is sacred’. Oh really? When more than 50% of marriages end in divorce? When there are women (and men) everywhere stuck in abusive relationships but because their religion prohibits divorce, God forbid (excuse the pun) that they should put their personal safety and that of their children above all else.

Marriage is sacred, huh?

Or the next one: ‘It’s against it in the Bible.”

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are a lot of things God seems to disapprove of. Just looking at the two sections of the bible where sodomy and homosexuality are prohibited, John 11 and Levticius- if we abided by the rules set down in those two lovely texts, we wopuld never cut our hair. We would never wear clothjes made o fmore than one fabric. We would frequently sell our children into slavery. We would throw stones at adulterers. We would never cut our hair. Um. My personal favourite: if a man dies, his wife becomes the property of his brother.

Kay, we don’t do that any more. Not even the most hardocre of the religious do. So why should we apply some sections of the  Bible to the modern world? The fact is, the Bible, regardless of who wrote it or why it was written, is a text of its time, and what was practical in 200 BC is no longer realistic.

Also, it’s an issue of personal privacy. Why should anyone care if a couple of lesbians in Lethbridge get hitched? How does it affect you?

I wouldn’t dream of banning prayer in the home, or communion, Confession, or anything else that is, to be honest, a private matter. It doesn’t affect me at all. Therefore, would it be too much to ask that the millions of mostly religious anti-gay marriage people extend the same regard to the rest of the world and, I dunno, leave everyone alone? Honestly, I fail to see why it should be an issue. It distracts from the real issue sin the world of poverty, homelessness, and, I dunno, maybe that war we’re in. Get a life, s’il vous plait.