"OUR DEEPEST FEAR IS THAT WE ARE POWERFUL BEYOND MEASURE"

Last week on Wrights Lane I wrote about the human tendency to identify oneself with the question "Who am I?"

Something I ran across in my ongoing study recently has prompted me to elaborate just little further. 

Everyone has something they're naturally good at, something they're passionate about. But somewhere along the way of our busy lives, we may have lost track of our sense of direction and purpose. Our priorities and interests may have shifted over time, and we feel stuck with the uncomfortable feeling that things are "out of control". We are left wondering who we really are, where we are going, and what we might be missing out on.

It doesn't have to be that way. We always have a choice. The choice to see a situation from a different perspective. And more often than not, we have the capability to actually influence and shape our reality. It all starts with self-awareness, determination, and a courageous first step.

Not to stray from my topic, but almost daily were hear and read quotations in the form of pronouncements by the sages and philosophers of ancient times as if they continue to have the corner on all wisdom and things spiritual, leading me to ask what made those thinkers of 2,000 years ago more knowledgable and insightful than the creative and articulate thinkers of today?  Answer: That's a difficult one to answer since we don't have any points of reference which we can use to compare IQ across millennia. Having said that, the predominant theory is that intelligence, as opposed to IQ, hasn't changed greatly over the last few thousand years. This is not to be confused with the application of intelligence, which has of course been increasing exponentially, as evidence -- the following.

We have great thinkers today...We do not have to delve into the past for sage advice and wisdom. I quote the wonderfully profound words of Marianne Willimson who I would rank among the greatest minds of our time, particularly as it applies to how we think about ourselves:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are Powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are ALL meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make Manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our Own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own FEAR, our presence automatically Liberates Others." 

How powerful are those words!

Marianne Deborah Williamson (born July 8, 1952) is a modern-day spiritual teacher, author and lecturer. She has published 11 books, including four New York Times number one bestsellers. She is the founder of Project Angel Food, a meals-on-wheels program that serves homebound people with AIDS in the Los Angeles area, and the co-founder of The Peace Alliance, a grassroots campaign supporting legislation to establish a United States Department of Peace. She serves on the Board of Directors of the RESULTS organization, which works to end poverty in the United States and around the world. Williamson also produces the Sister Giant Conferences, highlighting the intersection of spirituality and politics.

She has been taken up by those seeking a relationship with God that is not strictly tethered to Christianity." Williamson bases her teaching and writing on a set of books called A Course in Miracles, a self-study program of spiritual psychotherapy, based on universal spiritual themes.
Books.  Labelled recently as a "self-help guru", she has sold more than three million books.

The above-mentioned quote from her book A Return to Love, "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure," is one of the most oft-quoted passages of our time.

As an aside, it is also curious that newly-elected South African President Nelson Mandela used Williamson's full quote without due acknowledgement in his inaugural address two decades ago.  It goes without saying that we'll be hearing more from this remarkable woman, in fact she will still be quoted centuries from now, I'm sure.

I totally accept Williamson's philosophy. The outer world is a reflection of the consciousness that we hold. It is all the situations, circumstances, relationships, experiences, and what we have and what we do not have in our lives.

And the good news is that when you shift into oneness with your inner self, the Divine within you, the more the outer world will reflect the shift. It will be easier to move forward, and to know your path.

There is a lot of negative energy and craziness in this world, but we can all learn to live with inner peace. If your intention is strong and comes from the deepest part of you, it will happen. Outwardly, nothing changes; peace comes from making changes inside you.

Is inner peace within reach in my 80th year?  Trust me, I'm working hard on it because I believe deep within me that it is possible. I'm almost there...If only circumstances of life would stop interrupting me as the clock continues to click away and the days dwindle down........

LET ME THINK NOW...WHO AM I? OH, I GET IT...I AM ME!

Who am I?  I've asked myself that rhetorical question more times than I can count and invariably the resultant mind picture is not a pretty one.  Could it be that I am too honest with myself?...Too honest, or realistic, for my own good.

Many of us are guilty of  the old defeatist rationalization: "I don't know who I am, but I do know that I was the same yesterday as I am today and undoubtedly will be tomorrow.  The more I think I've changed, the more I stay the same...warts, wrinkles and all."

Really, in retrospect, why do we put ourselves through the futility of such an exercise?  Lets take a closer look.

The question of "who am I" suggests that there is actually a plausible answer, almost as if one's being was a fixed thing. The irony is that the more you seek to identify who you are, the more fragile you are likely to feel about yourself. There may be an inverse correlation between the question being asked and the ease with which you experience your life. A wise individual may suggest that the emphasis should not be on discovering who you are (what is buried beneath) but on facilitating the emergence of what you'd like to experience.

Rationally, our identity should be seen as an ongoing process. Rather than a static snapshot, we should embrace a flowing sense of self, whereby we are perpetually re-framing, re-organizing, re-thinking and re-considering ourselves. How different would life be if rather than asking who am I?, we contemplated how we'd like to engage life?

Common sense tells me that as we engage the deepening complexity of understanding ourselves, we fare much better if we devote thinking to the unfolding process of life. Witnessing our thoughts, not reacting out of old habit, and becoming present enables us to better craft our lives, or what is left of it. As such, the identity that we seek fires the wave of life, enriched by the flow.

At the other end of the identity continuum are those who claim to know themselves very well. This other extreme also signifies a fragility about one's identity. To know yourself so well leaves no room for growth. Even more, it suggests a deep vulnerability that is being defended against, as if it were too dangerous to take a closer look.

It is perfectly reasonable to seek a deeper sense of self. To become intimately aware of your thoughts, feelings, hopes and fears is obviously advisable. The key, it seems to me, is to engage your sense of self as malleable, more like a willow tree than a sturdy oak. The willow is flexible and survives the storm as it bends with the wind, whereas the more rigid oak is the more likely it is to crack.

The universe purportedly exists in a state of flowing potential. And it is essential to understand that we are indeed part of that universe. The goal then is to access that potential, keeping the parts of our identity that continue to serve us well and shedding the old, habitual pieces that constrain us. This process is known as positive disintegration which permits us to find balance between the extremes previously discussed and enter into a relationship with self that commits to our personal evolution.

Positive disintegration was the brainchild of Kazimierz Dabrowski who emphasized the role of individuality and how important awareness and personality development are. Therefore, it is okay for everyone to be themselves; to have their own weirdness, to have made mistakes, to be unique, to enjoy the intensity of their experience and ability to be sensitive to the most subtle stimuli. The key is to follow what feels right.

From a personal standpoint, I don't think that I will ever truly have an answer to the complex question "who am I?"  I just know that "I am", so why waist time dwelling on the "who" of it.

The me that I am is made up of many things, some of which are unique.  No one else on God's green earth is like me and Dr. Seuss aside, that could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. However, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Reinhold Niebuhr.

Come to think about it, not knowing who you are is like living in the body of a stranger who you keep meeting for the first time and, more often than not, being somewhat pleasantly surprised. I rather like that concept!

Working with each evolving "me" will be an on-going life-enhancing challenge, as long as it is met in a way that is in keeping with the me I want to be.  Maybe you see it the same way too!

MUMS THE WORD, SO I ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

AN UPDATE FROM CANADIAN PRESS:

OTTAWA—Haitian-Canadian MP Emmanuel Dubourg travelled to Miami on Wednesday to try and counter misinformation which has driven thousands of Haitian asylum seekers to Canada in recent months. His trip comes as both the prime minister and Liberal cabinet ministers have sought in recent days to more forcefully address the major spike in illegal border crossings this summer, which has strained public resources and tested traditionally widespread support for Canada's immigration system.

Dubourg, a Liberal MP for a Montreal-area riding, was appointed last week to a newly established federal-provincial task force focusing on how to handle upwards of 7,000 people who've been stopped illegally crossing into Canada since June, the vast majority intent on seeking asylum.

In the last two months, many have been Haitian and Dubourg sees himself cast in the role of ambassador. He's already used his extensive connections with the Haitian diaspora and fluency in Creole for outreach there, he said.  The next step is to take it on the road.  “We have to go to the source,” Dubourg said Monday.

So he's going to Florida, to do Creole-language interviews and meet community leaders among Miami's Haitian diaspora. Not all those coming to Canada are from there, Dubourg said, but the city has more than 200,000 Haitians and a slew of influential media outlets.

The cold truth of Canadian policy, however, is that only about 50 per cent of Haitians who file for asylum in Canada receive it and the Canadian government has resumed deportations to that country.
“It's important to tell them that before they sell their things, before they take any kind of decision (to come),” Dubourg said.  “They have to know full well what can happen.”

The startling spike in arrivals and how the government is handling them has prompted anti-immigration groups to start mobilizing across the country. A protest — and counter-protest — were held in Quebec City over the weekend and other rallies are being scheduled in Canada in the coming weeks amidst criticism being levied against the Liberal government that they are losing control of the border.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered some of his strongest remarks on the subject in response to the weekend's events, when he said “entering Canada irregularly is not an advantage. There are rigorous immigration and customs rules that will be followed. Make no mistake.”

Earlier last week I commented on the sudden increase of asylum seekers from the U.S. taking the illegal entry route into Canada at crucial points along the border, particularly in Quebec (see item below).  At the conclusion of the post I sought explanations from readers on the sudden exodus into Canada, going so far as to request rational, unbiased and factual responses.

I cannot speak for Facebook, but I know for a fact that more than 90 individuals have viewed the item on my Wrights Lane blog, yet I have not heard from a single one.  This suggests at least one of three possible scenarios: 1) People cannot, or are reluctant, to comment on political issues if they are unable to call on biased opinion; 2) while the populace is divided down the middle on the acceptance of illegal immigrants, there is a general confusion on the matter and the implications for Canada, or 3) nobody takes me serious and there is little merit in responding to anything I write or feedback I solicit.

The answer to my original question, of course, lies in U.S. President Donald Trump’s tough stance on illegal immigration that has forced many undocumented immigrants to live in the American shadows and, subsequently, to seek illegal asylum in Canada.  The problem is, our Canadian government is doing nothing concrete to deter the practice of people entering Canada illegally. In fact, their silence on the matter — and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tweet in January welcoming all asylum seekers into Canada — has had the effect of encouraging the practice. And that’s most unfortunate

If only Justin had added the words "...providing they go through proper legal immigration channels open to them" and continued to stress that point. Entering Canada through unofficial border crossings is illegal, period. And the federal government should announce and reinforce that Canada does not condone such action. Otherwise, it undermines the very laws that we demand new Canadians follow when they settle here.

We either have secure borders or we don’t.

Of course once border jumpers have crossed into Canada illegally, it’s not a simple matter of arresting them and sending them back (at taxpayer expense) to the U.S. Under Canadian law, based on Supreme Court of Canada rulings, everyone in Canada has protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to seek a refugee hearing.

No matter what action is taken by the federal government to crack down on illegal border crossing, there will always be some leakage. But that’s not the point. The point is, there is a growing number of people crossing the border illegally and the federal government, apart from setting up temporary living accommodations and bringing in more immigration staff to process the thousands of entries, has done little to discourage the practice, nor are they trying to find solutions with U.S. officials.

There are many options, including revisiting the Safe Third Country Agreement, that Ottawa could be looking at to discourage illegal crossing.

Under the STCA, asylum seekers must make refugee claims in the first safe country they arrive at. Under the agreement, Canada heretofore has considered the U.S. a safe country. As a result, asylum seekers fearing deportation in the U.S. who attempt to enter Canada at controlled border crossings are turned away. That’s why they enter illegally. Perhaps it’s time to change that to promote a more orderly system that encourages people to seek entry at controlled border crossings while discouraging illegal crossing. The Canadian (I hesitate to say Trudeau because he does not make decisions in isolation) government has so far refused to even discuss revisiting that agreement.

Canada has a long-standing reputation for its welcoming immigration policies...Asylum seekers are nothing new to Canadian soil.  But a disregard for the rule of law currently on file is undermining our border security as we speak.

I am all for the humanitarianism that our welcoming Prime Minister is advocating, but as a country we can't have it all ways.

Nice guys uphold the law!...Even federal governments.  Canadians ask for nothing else!

WHY THE WAVE OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS ENTERING CANADA?

Three families that claimed to be from Burundi walk across into Quebec at the U.S.-Canada border in Champlain, N.Y., on Thursday.

I read in the Toronto Star today that the tide of migrants crossing into Quebec in search of asylum has grown into a rolling wave, as the federal and provincial governments face pressure to deal with thousands of newcomers who have arrived in just the past six weeks.  Newly released figures show the number of people crossing into the province has skyrocketed this summer. The RCMP intercepted nearly 3,000 people as they walked across the border in Quebec last month. A further 3,800 have come in the first half of August, the RCMP said.

That's a big jump from June, when there were 781 RCMP interceptions in the province. It's also more than 10 times the 245 people intercepted by police there in January.  And that's not taking into consideration countless other illegal entry points across Canada.

Speaking to reporters Thursday in St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau announced the government will open a new shelter for migrants in Cornwall, a city of 46,000 in eastern Ontario near the Quebec border. Hundreds of asylum seekers crossing from the U.S. have already been housed in Montreal's Olympic Stadium, as well as in emergency tents set up at the border by the Canadian military.

Garneau also said there would be 20 new staffers in Montreal to help process asylum applications and that there will be a ministerial task force, which includes Quebec's immigration minister, Kathleen Weill, her federal counterpart, Ahmed Hussen, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, to help manage the situation.  "There's no crisis, but it's a situation that is extraordinary," Garneau stated.

How can this borderline exodus be explained?  What is happening south of the border to warrant such an unusual phenomenom? I ask, knowing full well the disturbing answer.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Rational, unbiased, first-person fact-supported responses to the above mentioned questions are most welcome...And don't implicate the media for reporting fake news because that is a dead giveaway from whence you come.

AUSSIE MEN ASKED TO PROVE HOW BADLY THEY WANT A COFFEE

Oh boy...or Oh girl!...as the case may be":

A sign placed outside a café in Australia has created quite the stir. The “Handsome Her” coffee shop had only just opened when it was thrust into the limelight – but not necessarily in a positive sense. The female-owned and operated café put out a sign listing three “house rules”:

1. Women have priority seating.
2. Men will be charged an 18% premium to reflect the gender pay gap (2016) which is donated to a women’s service.
3. Respect goes both ways.

As is often the case these days, it didn’t take long for the backlash to begin. A picture of the sign went viral and generated a storm of criticism online. Detractors jumped on the 18% tax, calling it discriminatory against men and totally antithetical to the feminist movement.

Why Tax Men?

The café’s slogan is “a space for women, by women.” And they’re serious about it, says manager Belle Ngien. The tax, she explains, is intended to spread awareness about the wage gap between men and women. Why 18%? Well, an official study found that men earn an average of 17.7% more than women in Australia. Ngien and her coworkers simply want to even the playing field a bit by charging men more for coffee.

Ngien has reported that as of yet, no one has declined to pay the tax. Many patrons have even offered more. “18% is actually not a lot. Our coffee is $4, so 18% of that is 72 cents,” she explains. And that does not really surprise me...There will always be poor fool, patronizing men who will pay a "man tax" just to show that they are good guys and in the process win favor with the opposite fairer sex that is so necessary in meeting their macho needs.

Not Everyone Is Buying It

However, this explanation proved less than satisfactory for many online critics. They argue that it’s a classic case of reverse discrimination. Instituting a “gender tax” is not a step toward progress, they insist. If anything, it might actually make things worse.

I laugh to think about how Donald Trump would react if he ever found himself walking into Ngien's coffee shop.

TAKING TIME TO ENJOY OUR GREAT CANADIAN OUTDOORS...

I know it is difficult for some of us, but for the time it takes to read this post try putting aside political biases and concerns with the way our country is governed.  Take just a few minutes to clear your mind and to consider the often taken-for-granted benefits of living in the land called Canada.

A week or so ago I talked a bit about about the simple tranquility of sitting on my front porch on a warm July afternoon and enjoying looking out under a lush foliage canopy of maple trees casting shadows on an expanse of green grass as rays of the Lake Huron sun filter through, birds singing as squirrels and a baby rabbit scampered about.  Scenes such as this, and many more, are a constant reminder that the character of this wonderful nation is blissfully entangled with the great outdoors.

You have to look no further than to first and second generation Canadians to express what it means to live freely in a country abounding with natural resources and beauty.

To emphasize that point, 60 years ago Steve Galea's father chose Canada as the place where he would live out the rest of his life.  He left the old world for the benefits offered in the new one.  "My father came to Canada because he loved the thought of wilderness, prosperity and peace -- a place where he could raise his kids," Galea writes eloquently in the July issue of Ontario Out Of Doors magazine.  "He had lived through years of brutal bombings, horrible destruction and near starvation, all the while dreaming of better places."

Somewhere down the line, all our ancestors had similar experiences.  Whether by accident or good judgment, our forebears left discontent behind and gambled on hope.  They came to a fertile land blessed by broad expanses, limitless forests, countless waters and few people, given its immensity.

Due to the adventurous spirit of all who settled here, and the freedom provided, it was only natural that Canada became a nation of people who carry an innate love and appreciation of the outdoors.  "Show me a Canadian who has not slept on the floor of an old pup tent, paddled in a canoe, spent time at a cottage, sat by a campfire, fished with a red and white bobber, donned a back-pack, or marvelled at the incredible beauty of a clear night sky, and I'll show you a rare bird indeed," says Galea.

"We hold dear the idea that our waters are owned by all.  We cherish our wild areas and do our best to protect them.  Crown land and other progressive ideas have made this country the envy of the world."

He also points out that our national character was sculptured by rock, tree and water, and by diversity of the seasons, then adds: "But it was polished by practical ideas, that tolerance is a virtue, that old-country grudges have no place here, that peaceful resolution is better than war, and time outside does a person good."  Truer words were never written!

As nations go, Canada is still young...And with our youth comes the idealism that there can be justice and fairness and a place for everyone at our national table. I have reached a point in life where I am prepared to leave the fortunes of my home and native land to those who are younger, smarter and better positioned to govern our national affairs than me.  Each new generation builds on the previous and I have every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.

So, time is up my friend!  You can now go back to worrying about immigration policies, government spending and what is happening south of the border, if that is your inclination.

As for me...I'm heading out into that wonderful outdoors we just talked about.  My front porch, an easy chair, the birds and squirrels and Lake Huron sun beckon.  Think I'll take along a glass of my favorite Sauvignon Blanc while I'm at it.

I'll probably fall asleep eventually...and let the rest of the world go by.

Nuclear powers' life-saving Gamma Knife technology

SUPER GIRL: Nuclear technology has saved Jadyn Schill's life

For me, this remarkable close-to-home story qualifies under the category "You learn something new every day!"

Jadyn Schill, 14, is known as "Super-Girl" at Sick Kids’ Hospital in Toronto for her bravery in an ongoing, nine-year battle with cancer.

JADYN SCHILL
"I'm going to kick cancer in the butt!"

Having undergone the maximum radiation treatments that can be given to an individual and several years of chemotherapy, Jadyn recently underwent a technology known as Gamma Knife surgery. The technique uses High Specific Activity Cobalt 60 that will be harvested from nearby Bruce Power's nuclear reactors next year.  The non-invasive surgery concentrates on tumors, sparing the surrounding healthy brain tissue, killing cancer cells and shrinking tumors in a precise and powerful method that results in little after effects.

First diagnosed when she was five years old, her mother Christie took her to the hospital when she lost movement in the left side of her face. She was first diagnosed with Bell’s Palsy, but after an MRI, a tumour was found. She was subsequently diagnosed with Ependymoma, a rare brain cancer.

Jadyn’s mom says the teenager doesn’t really remember her life before cancer.  Despite this, Jadyn remains positive about her future.  “I just want to go to school like a normal kid,” she told the CBC last year. “...And try to get back into sports. I used to play soccer really well.”

Now, thanks to Gamma Knife Surgery, she's going to "kick" cancer just like she kicked that soccer ball.

View the following video to get a better feeling for Jadyn's story and her chance at a new life.

HOLY SMOKE! GLERGY TO TRIP OUT ON PSYCHEDELICS...FOR SCIENCE

Despite the lingering taboo surrounding drug use, researchers had little trouble finding religious volunteers to participate in their study.

I read the other day where researchers at John Hopkins University and New York University have convinced a group of religious leaders to try “magic” mushrooms in the name of science. The researchers will give two dozen priests, rabbis and pastors controlled doses of psilocybin, the active ingredient found in psychedelic mushrooms.

Their theory is that taking hallucinogenic substances will spur deeply religious people to have extraordinary spiritual experiences – somewhat akin to the “vision quests” undertaken in some Native North American cultures.

What next, you ask?

Lead researcher William Richards explains that the hallucinogenic drug naturally evokes spiritual imagery, even with laypeople:  “People see incredible things with their eyes closed that are often very, very beautiful,” including visions of Jesus. “That seems to happen whether people are of religious training or not. It doesn’t seem to be something that’s learned.”

However, the hallucinogen has never been administered to people with formal religious training before. Perhaps the visions will be even more intense – that’s what researchers are hoping, anyway.

Many religions frown upon illicit drug use, even if it’s “for science”. Certain religions like Islam and Mormonism ban all intoxicating substances outright. Although most Christians denominations take a softer line on the issue, you’d be hard-pressed to find a pastor or priest that would encourage experimentation with drugs.

Despite the lingering taboo, researchers had little trouble finding volunteers to participate in their study. On the contrary, members of the clergy were eager to partake in the hallucinogenic drug to help investigate his psychological hypothesis.

Some are commending these religious leaders for their brave foray into the unknown. But who knows, perhaps they’re just bored.  William Richards thinks that there is a very fundamental link between the effects of psychedelic mushrooms and the “mystical” experiences of religion.  He’s convinced that, far from being a sinful activity, drug trips can actually be a force for good. Williams thinks it will motivate clergy to pursue meditation and be more in-touch with their compassionate spiritual sides. “They know there is a top up on the mountain, and now they’re willing to hike up there,” he explains.

If the claims prove to be true, there actually might be a connection between the mind-bending drugs and the way in which people experience religion.  It’s certainly an interesting idea to consider. Should hallucinogenic drugs prove a reliable avenue to spiritual enlightenment, perhaps more people would consider experimenting with them.

But what would that mean for traditional houses of worship? If someone could get closer to God with a few mushrooms, why bother going to church in the first place? Sitting at home on the couch is certainly more comfortable than hard wooden pews.

Although there is plenty of hype surrounding this study, the experiment has its share of critics. Some people are skeptical that feeding drugs to religious leaders will produce any interesting results, and could cause lasting mental effects. Others argue that that religion is a strong enough drug on its own so what’s the point in adding more drugs to the mix?

I do not take this bit of news too seriously, but some wise apple recently contended that Eve did not really tempt Adam with a fruit of some description from the Garden of Eden, rather the actual product was in fact a mushroom.

All I can say to the religious leaders participating in the afforementioned drug study, is "be careful!"...The mushroom you experiment with may well be the Bible's forbidden fruit.

Sacraficial wine could pale by comparison.

MY FRONT PORCH, MY SERENITY

My view of Grey Street North from my favorite front porch vantage point.

Lucy waiting for me to join her on our front porch easy chair.

Is it just me, or have front porches become a thing of the past?

Being of the old school and appreciative of the best things in life that do not cost a cent, my front porch is what helps keep me sane.  It is a solice and a place to relax on the lazy, hazy days of summer and a comforter when the rigors of life threaten to get the best of me.  A front porch, for me, can be a place where life stands still for as long as you sit there enjoying the nature of your surroundings, mind wandering aimlessly -- reflecting one minute and projecting the next.

Whenever possible I take time to have my morning coffee on that blessed outdoor shelter that surrounds half of my house.   Same with lunch at noon.  There's also nothing like a glass of wine on the porch as the sun goes down in the small town quiet of the evening hours, with Lucy girl snuggled into my side on an old recliner that has survived four years exposed to outside elements. Generally, in most cases, we end up having a catnap.  It is not unusual for me to wait out thunder storms too, hypnotized by the beat of rain hitting overhead porch eves and the driveway pavement below.

More often that not as I gaze across a large expanse of green grass and shadows created by the warm sun filtering through a dense canopy of overhead foliage teased by a gentle breeze, my mind drifts back to my childhood in Dresden, ON, in the 1940s when alternate evenings were spent on our front porch on Sydenham Street and at my Aunt Hattie Sharpe's on nearby Hughes Street with cousins Jim and Norma.  Neighbors out for a stroll, would stop by for a chat -- Mrs. Ruttle, Mrs. French, Mrs. Henderson, Mrs. Hughson, Mrs. Henderson, Andrew and Dorothy Rigsby with daughter Margaret, Mrs. Tassie, Mrs. Craven, Mae Sharpe and the Tedford family (to name but a few).  More often than not, a treat of some kind would enter the equation before the night was over.

It goes without saying that porches are a bridge to my past and there is something comforting about that.

With the exception of an odd cursory wave exchanged with a passerby who happens to glance our way, Lucy and I sit alone these days.  I see a lot of cars, but rarely anyone I recognize.  It is like we have Grey Street North all to ourselves.  People are otherwise occupied doing what, I really do not know...Busy, busy, I guess! Porches, if in fact they do exist, are stoic and unused reminders of days when livin' was easy -- and more social.

But do you know what?...I really do not care.  I'll continue to enjoy my little bit of Heaven in peaceful solitude on my front porch.  This, after all, may be as good as it gets -- and it may not last that much longer.  I'm never that busy!

BEWARE OF THE TICK...

The Grey Bruce Health Unit has published its mid-season Tick Surveillance Map showing the distribution of Blacklegged ticks throughout Grey Bruce. Based on data from ticks submitted from humans and participating veterinary clinics, the map illustrates the widespread distribution of Blacklegged ticks throughout Grey Bruce. Blacklegged ticks are the known carrier of Lyme disease in Ontario, so this post could be of wide-spread signicance.

Of the 112 ticks submitted to the Grey Bruce Health Unit for identification, 55 (49.1%) were identified as Blacklegged. At the time of this report, none of these ticks had been found to be positive for the bacterium that causes Lyme disease and no human cases of Lyme disease had been reported. However, the widespread distribution of Blacklegged ticks means there exists a significant risk of exposure to Lyme disease in Grey Bruce. Note too that the absence of ticks at specific locations on the map does not necessarily mean they are truly absent there. Ticks may not have been submitted for identification from those sites.

The best way to protect against Lyme disease is to prevent tick bites.
• Wear light coloured, long-sleeved shirts and pants to spot ticks more easily.
• Tuck your shirt into your pants and pull your socks over your pant legs.
• Use bug spray containing DEET or Icaridin on your skin and clothing (always follow the directions on the label).
• Walk on cleared paths or walkways.
• Following outdoor activity, do a full-body check for ticks on yourself and your children.

If you find an attached tick, remove it with tweezers immediately. Removing it within 24-36 hours can help prevent infection.

PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN CANADIAN JOURNALISM

Jennifer Bieman, journalism's Greg Clark award winner.

I am always encouraged to see talented young people with solid investigative reporting and writing skills, breaking through in the field of newspaper journalism.  It augers well for an essential industry struggling to maintain credibility and profitability in an era of cheap online news, controversial social media sites and opinion writers ad nauseam.

It was interesting to learn that Jennifer Bieman, a former reporter with my old St. Thomas Times-Journal in St. Thomas, Ont., was chosen as this year's winner of the Greg Clark Award for early-career journalists. The Canadian Journalism Federation selected Jennifer for her proposal to explore how the Office of the Ontario Fire Marshall and its counterpart in Alberta, the Office of the Fire Commissioner, conduct investigations.

The Greg Clark Award, unique in Canadian journalism, offers working journalists a $5,000 stipend to spend a week gaining insight, gathering strategic information and meeting key decision makers on a specific issue or beat.  Jennifer is a graduate Lord Dorchester Secondary School in her hometown of Dorchester and also graduated from the Masters of School Arts in Journalism program at the University of Western Ontario. Previously, she worked briefly as a general assignment summer reporter at the London Free Press and news writer and editor at Sun News Network. She returned to the London Free Press earlier this month as a multi-media writer.

"Fires are an essential part of community coverage, and Jennifer Bieman provided a solid proposal that would explore an area that traditionally isn't given much attention," says Susan Harada, a jury

member and associate director of Carleton University's School of Journalism and Communication. "Bieman is right to note that coverage of fires often ends with the line, 'The Ontario Fire Marshal has been called in to investigate.' The project she proposes would provide insight into that process and a range of fire-safety issues. Her work will benefit any reporter, especially those with a regional beat."

With this opportunity, Jennifer plans to explore how these investigative agencies' findings shape legislation and how their recommendations impact fire-prevention strategies. She will also seek to understand the offices' role in emerging issues like fire prevention in First Nations communities or in homes of vulnerable populations such as low-income families, newcomers, seniors and adults with disabilities.

This award was created in memory of Greg Clark, one of Canada's celebrated journalists, a war correspondent, an avid outdoorsman, a humorist and a great reporter who excelled at storytelling.
Bieman was honoured by the CJF Awards at the Fairmont Royal York in Toronto, June 8.

Established in 1990, The Canadian Journalism Foundation promotes excellence in journalism by celebrating outstanding journalistic achievement. Signature events include an annual awards program featuring a must-attend industry gala where Canada's top newsmakers meet Canada's top news people. Through J-Talks, a popular speakers' series, the CJF facilitates dialogue among journalists, business people, academics and students about the role of the media in Canadian society and the ongoing challenges for media in the digital era. The foundation also fosters opportunities for journalism education, training and research.

The good news is that there are more Jennifer Biemans out there...The bad news is that with the closure of news rooms across Canada, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to find jobs -- and you cannot make a living on Twitter. 

Ye cannae shove yer Granny aff a Bus

Here's a different and fun version of "Ye Canna Throw Yer Granny Off a Bus", a one-act play which will be produced soon in Bruce County as part of an elder abuse public awareness initiative.

COMING SOON...

I am currently involved in an interesting program that will fill a public awareness need within Bruce County communities. "Ye Canna Throw Yer Granny Off A Bus" is a lively play with music that tackles the tender issue of elder abuse by identifying the emotional, financial, physical, spiritual and sexual aspects of the issue.

Elder abuse is sadly under-reported today. It is estimated that only 20 per cent of instances of abuse ever get reported and once abuse occurs, it is likely to be repeated. I will be reporting periodically on the progress of this travelling production which is funded by the Government of Canada and developed under the auspices of the Bruce County Museum and Cultural Centre.

RELIGIONS, NON-BELIEVERS CAN BE MORE ACCEPTING OF OTHERS' FAITH

A new study conducted by researchers in Belgium sought to find out how open-minded atheists and agnostics were compared their religious counterparts – and the results were surprising. There exists a common stereotype that people who are highly religious are unlikely to embrace other points of view or different belief systems. However, according to the researchers’ findings, those who hold strict religious beliefs are actually more tolerant than those who aren’t religious at all.

Nearly 800 adults from the United Kingdom, Spain, and France were selected at random to participate in the study. The participants first gave their religious affiliation, then answered various questions to determine how tolerant they were of other belief systems.

According to the researchers, the findings illustrated that religious believers “seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives.” At the same time, these respondents were quick to acknowledge that they were probably biased because of their deeply-held faith.

Atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, consistently denied being biased against other religious beliefs. However, their answers showed otherwise – this group displayed markedly higher rates of “subtle intolerance” than did the religious group.

After the study was released, criticism began to mount concerning the motives behind it. For starters, the research was conducted at a major Catholic university, spurring claims that the results were predetermined by the powers that be. After all, critics insist, it’s in their interest to paint secular people as close-minded. Claims of the Catholic university pushing a religious agenda were compounded by the confusing nature of some of the questions posed by researchers. Skeptics contend that the questions were meant to intentionally mislead participants into giving “intolerant” answers.

The study fundamentally challenges the negative stereotype of religious folks as “bigoted zealots” convinced that their path is the right one.

Despite these assertions, no overwhelming evidence has emerged to confirm that the study was biased. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the results are entirely accurate. What does this mean going forward?

For one, the findings fundamentally challenge the negative stereotype of religious folks as “bigoted zealots” who are convinced their path is the right one. If you ask the average person walking down the street: “who is more likely to be close-minded toward outside ideas?” chances are they’ll choose a highly religious person over someone who doesn’t ascribe to any particular set of beliefs.

But according to the study, atheists are not exempt from believing their worldview to be the only correct one. In fact, if the findings are accurate, they are even more guilty than religious people of assuming a “my way or the highway” approach.

In addition to measuring tolerance, this study also touches on a larger issue: which religion is the right one? It’s a question that humankind has been struggling with since time immemorial. Is there one all-powerful God? Or perhaps many different gods? Is it possible that religion is simply a human construct and there is no right answer?

We may never know. However, the study’s findings go to show that there is room for everyone to become more accepting of other belief systems.

TIME FOR SOBER REALISM ON U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS

It is a scary thought but do you realize that the United States and Russia possess nearly 14,000 nuclear weapons between them — more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal — and keep almost 2,000 on hair-trigger alert? It goes without saying then, that the extreme danger of nuclear war can be reduced only through cooperation between the two countries.  And we in Canada can only sit with crossed fingers and ultimate faith in an upholding of "the American way".

Currently, the era of cyber warfare has arrived without any of the agreed-upon rules that govern traditional wars or, for that matter, nuclear deterrence. There is now a rising threat of hackers breaching not only emails and elections but also power grids, strategic warning systems and command-and-control centers. For years, there has been discussion of the need to establish clear rules of the road for cyber warfare. Now, reports of escalating interference make it imperative that cyber weapons, like conventional, chemical or nuclear arms, be controlled by treaty. Again, however, this cannot happen without a more constructive U.S.-Russia relationship.

Given these significant threats, the escalation of tensions with Russia, rather than de-escalation, serves neither the American interest nor national security. This moment calls for diplomacy and dialogue, not moral posturing and triumphalism.

Needless to say, rebuilding a working détente with Russia will not be easy. It will take skill and persistence. Russian President Vladimir Putin heads an authoritarian government that tramples basic rights. U.S. President Trump has demonstrated that he has neither the temperament nor the advisers to sustain a coherent policy initiative. But the nations come to negotiations with the governments they have, not the ones that many wish they had. There is simply no other choice.

For Democrats, whose understandable desire to resist Trump has helped fuel the anti-Russia fixation, there is also another reality to consider. Focusing on Trump’s ties to Russia alone will not win the critical 2018 midterm elections, and it will not win meaningful victories on issues such as health care, climate change and inequality. Moreover, cold wars are lousy for progressivism. They strengthen pro-war parties and fatten defense budgets while depleting funds that could be put to better use rebuilding infrastructure and expanding social programs. They empower the worst forces in both parties and, importantly, close off space for dissent. This is as true in the United States as it is in Russia.

The bottom line is that opposition to Trump cannot become the same as opposition to common sense. Common sense dictates protection of democracy by strengthening election systems to counter outside interference. It dictates an independent investigation of claims of Russian meddling in last year's presidential campaign. But it also tells Americans that they cannot address many of their most urgent challenges — from Syria and climate change to nuclear proliferation and cyber issues — without the United States and Russia finding ways to work together when it serves mutual interests. North Americans in general do not have to embrace the Russian government to work on vital interests with it. And we cannot afford a revival of Cold War passions that would discredit those seeking to de-escalate tensions. Efforts to curtail debate could be a disservice to security in the U.S.A.

As editor of the Nation, a magazine with a long history of adopting alternative views and unpopular stances, especially on matters of war and peace, acclaimed commentator Katrina vanden Heuval correctly writes that she believes it is important to challenge conventional wisdom, to foster rather than police debate and to oppose the forces that vilify those advocating and pursuing better relations. And while arguing that both the United States and Russia have serious interests in maintaining a working relationship may not be popular, it also is not radical. It is simply sober realism.

IN DEFENSE OF TODAY'S POLITICIAN...SOMEONE'S HUSBAND, WIFE, FATHER, MOTHER, SON, DAUGHTER

During my time as News Editor and Managing Editor of three Canadian daily newspapers, I had the privilege of meeting and/or interviewing four Prime Ministers -- John Diefenbaker (PC), Lester Pearson (Lib), John Turner (Lib) and Joe Clark (PC) -- two provincial premiers, Saskatchewan's Ed Blakeney (NDP) and Ontario's Bill Davis (PC); in addition to a number of federal and provincial politicians who were noted party leaders in their day (including Robert Stanfield, one time Federal PC leader; Stephen Lewis, Ont. NDP leader in the 1970s, Attorney Generals Roy McMurtry, PC Ontario and Roy Romonow, NDP Saskatchewan and Canadian Solicitor General Bob Kaplan, PC).

While in all fairness I am sure they realized that I was a media lightweight in those days, they were all extremely forthcoming, treating me with utmost respect which, of course, was appreciated and reciprocated.

Without exception and allowing for certain personality traits, I found all of the foregoing to be individuals of character and principle, with brilliant minds and deeply committed to to serving their constituencies, country and respective provinces.  I have no reason to believe that anything has changed in today's politics nor that politicians have suddenly become the idiots, liars, dummies, crooks and laughing stocks we currently read about in the news and on the Internet.

While we must always try to counter politicians’ excesses and expose them individually, just as we would in the workplace with executive indulgences, we should not let the abuse of politicians become the national sport it now appears to be. The current frenzy is for demeaning every elected representative and we need to say ‘enough’.

Deriding politicians in print (whether on paper or on the Internet) has become par for the course. It has gone way beyond the satirical cartoon or the tabloid front page, both of which have their place in an open democracy. However, we need to understand when humour is replaced by clear malice and we need to stop that malice. Too often we portray our politicians as uncaring, vicious and vindictive when they are obviously not.

Be seriously honest now...how would you feel if you read somewhere that your character or heritage was in question?  Would you want to lash out in defence at the dozens of unwarranted insults coming your way on a daily basis?  Personally, I wouldn't last five minutes under those conditions. My skin is just not that thick.

We tend to forget that those in public life are people just like us...they breath the same air, they have families, they bleed red, they have feelings, they try their best to fulfill mandates...and, being human, they make mistakes from time to time, as do we all.  They do not win office, and stay in office, by hiding their light beneath a bushel and they understand that, try as they may, it is impossible for them to be all things to all people.  Damned if they do and damned if they don't is a fact of political life.

We tend also to take isolated cases of political dishonesty and indiscretion and forever tar with the same brush.

Of course, we might all have strong views about various policies, from the carbon tax to recent media reforms and the reported outlandish compensation package for accused terrorist Omar Khadr. Certainly, if we have something constructive to contribute to an issue, by all means we should express those views if we think someone in a position to give a damn is listening. But since when have we become so critical, hateful and mean-spirited in Canada?  Why all of a sudden are those who oppose certain political views considered delusional and ignorant, prompting bitter social media attacks?

Is it the American influence or have we naturally become so skeptical that we have lost respect for all things and all people? If our party did not form a government in the last election, let's stop being poor losers, politically speaking, and accept the will of the majority in this wonderful democracy of ours. P-C, Liberal, NDP, Green -- all parties exist to serve the best interest of Canadians in general with little to choose between them or their respective leaders. Remember that when you hide behind your computer and take social media liberty to engage in one-upmanship, directing insults and distasteful language, you are demeaning some one's character and hurting feelings....and contributing to a divisional Canada where no one ever really wins.  It is simply wrong on so many levels.

Our politicians deserve better from us than this. Collectively, they are serious, hard-working people who, unlike most of us, have been prepared to accept very serious costs to their own and their families' lifestyle for the sake of furthering the public interest as they see it. The public has a reciprocal obligation to show a measure of comprehension for the difficulty and complexity of the issues with which elected people must regularly deal. These issues touch us all, and if the penalties of public life ever become so great that first-rate people shun electoral politics, we will all be the worse for it.

Perhaps we are already starting to be the worse for it...and that is a shame!

Canada used to be better than that.

Yesterday we reported on Port Elgin resident Jane Mara Bernardi Thede (see item below) who was about to embark on her Canadian citizenship ceremony on Canada Day. The ceremony took place in Etobicoke at the Centennial Park Ski Lodge. Three Etobicoke MPs attended along the the Honourable Kristy Duncan, MP of Etobicoke North and Minister of Science Mandate Letter, who represented the Federal Government. "Everything was simple and kind of fun with the Town Crier and bagpiper dressed in period costumes. I love Canada and being a Canadian citizen is very important to make me feel more attached to Canada and the people. I never, ever, regretted coming here," commented Jane.

A CANADA DAY WITH SPECIAL MEANING FOR THIS COUPLE

Bob and Jane Thede epitomize serendipity. 
(With thanks to the Saugeen times)

Okay kids...Do you want to read another nice Canada Day story?

Well, here it is...

Sometimes, it seems as though two worlds are meant to come together and such was the case with Bob Thede of Port Elgin and Jane Mara Bernardi of Brazil.

Bob was born and raised in Bruce County as were several generations of the Thede family.  Jane was born in Brazil of Italian ancestry.  Their story, however, only begins in 2006 when Jane was traveling through Europe with her daughter. On their last night in Venice, her daughter went out with friends while mom went to the hotel dining room on her own.

With fate in the making, Bob had just arrived at the hotel that day.

Sitting alone at the table in the dining room, Jane and a "gentleman" made eye contact and, after determining that she was in fact alone, Bob made his way over her table and asked if he could join her.

"I thought he was American and he thought I was French," says Jane, "but I said yes he could join me. We talked for hours and found we actually had much in common and agreed to exchange email addresses."

The next day, Jane and her daughter continued their travels.  Jane and Bob however, continued their conversations through emails.

After returning to Brazil and having continued their electronic correspondence, Jane received an email one day from Bob asking if he could come visit her. "Oh my," she thought. "Now what do i do?" Her son advised her to say 'yes' and that, if it did not work out, she could simply end any correspondence.

One thing lead to another and the couple ended up dating for three years, back and forth between Brazil and Canada, until a decision had to be made.  After the three years of back and forth Jane, with a law degree and assistant to the Brazilian President of the Court system, decided to give up her career and follow her heart with a Canadian.

In 2009, the couple married and Jane applied for permanent residency in Canada. Unknown to many are the restrictions around receiving Canadian citizenship.  Foreign applicants must remain in the country for 1,460 days or four years consecutively. Any travel days outside of the country are then deducted from the total, which extends the qualifying time.

Therefore, because Jane traveled back to Brazil to spend time with her son and his family each year, the days deducted meant that her qualification time, even though married to a Canadian, added up to eight years.  During that time, she had to study and test in English, history and geography of Canada and prepare and submit many documents.

After the waiting period, Jane applied for her citizenship in 2016 and, after much anxiety, learned that her application had been accepted.  It was not only accepted but she was to be one of those receiving their citizenship papers on July 1st, Canada Day and on Canada Day's 150th anniversary Celebration of Confederation.  "What could possibly be better than getting my Canadian citizenship on this special day," Jane asks.

As you are reading this piece, Jane will have already received her Canadian Citizenship in a colorful ceremony at Etobicoke.

Today, incidentally, she is an active member of the Chantry Island Cham-bettes, a fundraising group of women in Saugeen Shores and, since they are both retired, she and husband Bob continue their world travels -- together.

Good for them!  

Stories like this make me feel good about life in general.  How about you?

OPEN BORDERS VS. CLOSED BORDERS...THAT IS THE QUESTION

Truth be known, I am perplexed and torn on the issue of immigration.  My Christian upbringing tells me that we should welcome newcomers to Canada with open arms.  On the other hand, while I oppose a fortress mentality, I am not so naive as to not understand that there are certain ramifications inherent in open borders.

Those on opposing sides of the political aisle as well as economists offer pros and cons for keeping borders open and also exercising caution on border policy.  Supporters of open borders say they help keep the balance of free trade going with other countries, allowing for the free flow of goods and services.

From a human rights standpoint, they argue that "free migration" helps to cut poverty around the world, allowing those who live in underdeveloped nations and who need work to move to places that have more opportunities. Typically, workers who move tend to send part of their income or wages back to families in poorer countries.

Opponents charge that in an increasingly dangerous world, open borders threaten national security. They also note that "large scale migration across open borders can result in demographic changes that can result in demographic shifts that change a country's political power structures in favor of the new demographic and against the existing people of a region or country."

Economists point to infrastructure deficit as large groups of people migrate to a new country but infrastructure is not in place to support them there.

Immigration issues and border policies have long been contentious issues in politics, but they are also creating a significant divide in the Christian community.

Many Christian houses of worship have embraced a “love thy neighbor” stance, arguing for benevolent treatment of immigrants seeking a better life. Some churches have even begun harboring illegal immigrants to prevent them from being deported.

However, there is a distinct sub-group of Christians who have taken the opposite position, throwing their support behind more stringent border policies that limit immigration to Canada and the U.S. Cracking down on immigration is not only in the best interest of the country, they argue, but it’s also in complete accordance with biblical teachings.

Time and time again, Pope Francis has been a champion for immigration rights. He advocates for relaxing immigration policies and moving in the direction of an “open border” approach. Just last week, in fact, the pontiff reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to protecting immigrants.

Francis’ views reflect a compassion-minded Christianity, an ideology shared by many within the faith that focuses on promoting goodwill and kindness — no strings attached. Indeed, this overarching theme of benevolence toward foreigners is present throughout scripture. To give just two examples:

• Exodus 23:9: “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
• Leviticus 19:34: “You will regard the stranger who resides with you as the native-born among you.”

Seems pretty clear cut, right? Well, not exactly.

“The Bible Supports Stronger Borders”

By its very nature, the Bible is interpreted differently by different people. In sharp contrast to the papal position, there are those Christians who insist the “compassionate” view is both naive and misguided. Not only do they disagree with the concept of open borders on political grounds, but these folks argue the Bible actually supports stronger borders.

To understand this point of view, let’s examine a few other biblical passages:

• Matthew 5:42: Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
• Deuteronomy 15:11: “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”
• Luke 10:25-37: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

On face value, these verses seem to advocate kindness and compassion toward everyone. Not necessarily, say opponents of immigration. First of all, they point out that such passages use the word “you” – a direct personal appeal to the individual. Thus, they should not be taken as policy recommendations for the government. Rather, they are instructions for how one should conduct themselves on a personal level.

Secondly, such verses emphasize proximity. “In your land,” “your neighbor,” etc. Proponents of tougher immigration laws argue these verses do not refer to people living in other countries oceans away, just those nearby. So while the Bible does call for generosity toward the needy, they believe we should focus on helping those already in the country before trying to solve the world’s problems.

Which View is More Compelling?

Where do you stand? Does following the teachings of the Bible mean helping others no matter what, or would Jesus approve of deportations and turning people away at the border as a matter of federal policy?

Above all, perspective is needed but there may never be consensus on this matter.

NEW THEORY: HITLER'S CONCENTRATION CAMPS PATTERNED OFF INDIGENOUS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS IN CANADA

I have written extensively about the injustices suffered by our First Canadian brothers and sisters in residential schools over the years and the subsequent apologies and reconciliation efforts initiated by the church organizations that operated the institutions.

It was with a great deal of interest recently that I learned of native-born Canadian and historical expert Baron Alexander Deschauer’s new, Concentration Camps of Canada book that examines the little-known fact that long before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, the Canadian residential school system aimed to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples by taking children from their parents. Abuse and exploitation were rife, and many children died during this time.

I had never before considered the Hitler concentration camp connection, or similarity. 

Unknown to most, and utilizing techniques that inspired Hitler’s concentration camps of  Nazi-era Germany, in the 1880s Canada waged a genocidal war against its Indigenous people. In his new book, Deschauer tells the fictional story of Migizi Baswenaazhi, a young Indigenous boy, who is taken from his home and placed into one of these harsh schools, where he’s assigned the name David Bass.

The inspiration for the book’s title is from Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLachlin’s 2015 lecture to the Global Centre for Pluralism, during which she stated that Canada attempted to commit “cultural genocide” against Indigenous Canadians. “Many individuals, Canadian or not, have no clue of the injustices visited upon the Indigenous peoples by the Canadian government,” says Deschauer. “I was one of those Canadians until very recently and hope that through Concentration Camps of Canada, I can further inform others of the injustices Indigenous people have endured and continue to endure.”

In an eye-opening and thought-provoking interview around the release of Concentration Camps of Canada, Deschauer discusses:

• The Canadian residential school system, which aimed to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples by taking children from their parents.

• What life was like for the wards inside these school systems.

• The Canadian government’s recent efforts to apologize to the victims of these residential schools of the past.

• How these institutions may have acted as a model for Hitler’s own concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

ABOUT BARON: Basic training with the Canadian Reserves, entering a monastery, and sleeping on the sides of roads while hitch-hiking through Europe are just a few of the moments from the life of Baron Alexander Deschauer. Sanity, university, and the need to earn a living led him to a B.Ed., BA, and LLB before embarking on an entrepreneurial life in London, England. Although he can order food, look for a toilet, and find directions in German, Mandarin, French, and Hebrew, he follows the wise words of Clint Eastwood — “A man should know his limitations.” — and now only writes in English.​ In his quest to better understand the world around him, he has written a number of books exploring existence (Revelation and Faust), capital (The Art of Wealth) and the complex interplay of will, luck, fate, and hope (his Man on the Run series).

AN UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT ACTION: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently asked Pope Francis to apologise for the Catholic Church’s role in what has been described as an act of “cultural genocide”.  Pope Francis is reported to be considering the possibility of an apology. The request for an apology is a significant landmark in a long campaign fought by One Young World Counsellor and human rights campaigner Senator Murray Sinclair over the damage caused by the infamous residential schools system.

The request for a papal apology came as Amnesty International announced that its prestigious Ambassador of Conscience award for 2017 was being given to Canada’s Indigenous Rights Movement, shared with the singer and refugee rights campaigner Alicia Keys.

Senator Murray Sinclair

Senator Sinclair was named as one of six individual indigenous rights activists chosen to accept the award. The One Young World Counsellor, who attended last year’s Summit in Ottawa and addressed a Special Session on peace and reconciliation, was chair of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which gathered stories of residential school survivors. The Commission produced a 2015 report which recommended ways for the country to come to terms with the legacy of the schools system.

“The evidence is mounting that the government did try to eliminate the culture and language of Indigenous people for well over a hundred years,” Senator Sinclair told Canadian broadcaster CBC, prior to the Vatican meeting. “As commissioners we have concluded that cultural genocide is probably the best description of what went on here…they did it by forcibly removing children from their families and placing them within institutions that were cultural indoctrination centres.”

Senator Sinclair told the Globe & Mail newspaper in 2015 that it was crucial that the Prime Minister personally secured the apology from the Pope. “That is a request that, we think, has got to come from the highest official in the country because it is almost a nation-to-nation request,” he said. “So I would hope that that request would be communicated at that level.”

In its 2015 report, the commission recommended that the Catholic Church issue a formal apology for its part in the residential school system. Similar apologies have been issued by Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches, who along with the Catholic Church helped run the schools as joint ventures with the Canadian government.  In the early going I sat on a Presbyterian Church in Canada "Truth and Reconciliation" committee.

In 2008, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of Canadians, calling it “a sad chapter in our history”. A year later, Pope Benedict offered a personal apology to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, Phil Fontaine, expressing his “sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church”.  But the apology was not accepted by the TRC as the meeting was private and the apology was not offered to the survivors of the school system.

ONCE A JOURNALIST, ALWAYS A JOURNALIST; CLEAN AND UNBIASED

A Facebook friend of long standing, and I, have been exchanging thoughts on what constitutes good journalism.

Right off the bat, I should clarify that I am an old-school journalist. Printer's ink runs through my veins. I came by my training the hard way, with the seat of my pants firmly planted in front of an old Underwood typewriter on a battle-scarred, institutional gray metal desk occupied by countless others before me -- rewrite after rewrite, learning from my errors which were plenty and developing a thick skin as a defense mechanism against an editor's sharp barbs and critiques.

My bible was always the Canadian Press Style Guide -- authoritative, principled, sometimes capricious, a mixture of sombre injunctions and practical rules. My friend, oddly enough, suggests that "journalists do not make the rules".  Of course they don't, but they sure as hell are required to live by them; otherwise risking losing their jobs. The fundamentals of good journalism are constant -- a sharp eye, an inquiring mind, a passion for accurate information and appropriate words...and working long hours any time of the day or night.

Now here's where the general perception of journalism goes a bit awry. Someone has said that the difference between a journalist and a reporter is a little like the difference between a police officer and a homicide detective; the second is just a specific instance of the first. While there are many different kinds of careers in journalism, a reporter's job covers a narrower scope and requires a specific skill set.

There is some controversy, however, about the precise definition of the term "journalist".  For the uninitiated, a journalists is somebody who gathers and disseminates information on public affairs, usually for a newspaper or periodical publication, a news broadcast, or for some other electronic form of distribution. While this definition clearly includes the role of reporter, other information workers such as editors, news anchors, publishers, columnists and opinion writers are also considered journalists. (My friend, incidentally, tends to give more credence to columnists and opinion writers, especially those who embrace his particular stance, or bias, on a given subject. He claims to enjoy differences of opinion which is perfectly understandable...To each, his own.  I, on the other hand, line up behind good straightforward news reporting from which I form my own opinions.)

It should be understood that a reporter has a more specific function within the realm of journalism. Reporters are usually engaged in the direct gathering and communication of public information, usually through primary information sources such as first-person interviews, news conferences and attendance at news events. The material they communicate is usually -- but not always -- limited to the facts they have gathered; editorializing or sharing opinions on the news is not considered part of the reporter's role.

More so than most other journalists, reporters must be able to develop and locate their own sources of information. They must be able to work quickly; usually reporters work under deadline pressure, and some must meet multiple deadlines per day. Reporters must be able to keep accurate notes and record information faithfully. As eyewitnesses to events, it is their perceptions that determine what readers will learn about the news.

Remember too, that reporter journalists are paid to deliver hard and fast news while commentators of all ilks, editorialists and opinion columnists to be specific, are paid to be entertainingly controversial within reason, often flirting with slander. Personally, I shy away from controversy if at all possible and I take unqualified opinion with a degree of reservation.  I would dearly prefer that journalism not be all-inclusive, but readily live with the accepted definition of the discipline.

I was initially paid ($40.00 a week) in 1961 to be a cub reporter.  It took a good 10 years for me to reach the stage where I was presumed qualified to be paid, in part, for my editorial opinions on a page in the newspaper designated specifically for that purpose. I never once lost sight, however, of my reportorial convictions of fairness and balance and expected the same of my newsroom staff once promoted to management.

The question of who is and is not a journalist has grown thornier with the growth of new information sources such as blogs and podcasts. Journalists were once defined as employees of newspapers, wire services or broadcast news organizations. But the advent of "citizen journalism" -- amateurs who witness events and write about them on the Internet or (heaven help us) impose opinions and biases of their own  -- has blurred the lines between the professional journalist and the mere bystander. The question is important, because journalists are provided certain protections, such as the right to conceal the identity of confidential sources, which ordinary citizens are not.

Ordinary citizens now consider that it is their right to say anything they want about public figures and situations in print and on social media and get away with it.  Regurgitation of another party's sarcasm, or hiding behind it, has become the accepted norm. In the public relations business we used to refer to it as having someone else chop wood for you.  It is my contention, on the other hand, that the core principles of ethical journalism provide an excellent base for everyone who aspires to launch themselves into the public information domain.  We all have a responsibility in how we use and present information.

Where I come from you simply do not demean someone publicly, including politicians, as lacking in morals, ignorant, disgraceful, shameful, dishonest (you add your own frequently used adjectives) for effect or without just cause just to buoy your own self esteem and sense of self righteousness. There are those who will argue that public figures are fair game but, I am sorry, it is personally distasteful and below my dignity. I lose respect for those who stoop to such a level.

If people would only realize that the most legitimate opinions can be diminished when accompanied by insults and derogatory remarks.  And don't try to tell me that innuendo and sarcasm expressed by Joe Blow from Kokomo ever held anyone to account. While entertaining to some, generally it only contributes to societal unrest and bitterness, even among friends.

There are hundreds of codes of conduct, charters and statements made by media and professional groups outlining the principles, values and obligations of the craft of journalism. Most focus on five common themes: truth and accuracy, independence, fairness and impartiality, humanity and accountability.

My aforementioned friend, who offers well-intended sage advice in urging me to relax and to enjoy the "free" expressions of others, forgets one thing...And that is that there is nothing enjoyable or relaxing in the expressions of others when they are biased, negative, misinformed, insulting, insensitive and downright mean.

I will take my old school communication principles to the grave with me...And if that makes me an unpopular, crotchety, behind-the-times former journalist in a misguided era of speech freedom and personality crucifixion -- then so be it!

When my easy-going, tolerant nature wanes; an attack mode has been known to click in.  And it is never pretty.