How About Anti-Fascist Legislation Before It's Too Late
I was going to post this as comment on What a Wife, but it really deserves its own space. A few years ago I read a piece by a woman whose husband had come home from work one day to announce that he wanted a divorce, that he was in love with another woman, and he wanted out of his marriage with her so he could be with his new love.
She hadn't seen it coming and was in shock. The shock evolved into a depression. Eventually she wrote about it. What struck me was her observation about kids and divorce. So many people had said to her, "At least you don't have kids - that will make it easier" that she began to wonder - is that true? And came to the conclusion that it wasn't. That divorce without children was harder on the person who was being left behind because you didn't ever have any excuse to see the other person again, to mix it up a bit, even to argue.
There was no contact because there was no reason for any unless you became a stalker or something.
After I wrote my piece yesterday, I got to thinking about that and the society we live in where it's supposedly all about the kids (or, at least, if you're a parent, you have to PRETEND it's all about the kids). Because I know couples who probably interact MORE in divorce than they ever did while married. And it's because they have kids. We have managed somehow in our assumptions that divorce is too easy in this country, to gloss over the fact that people are often so desperate to get out of marriages they don't want to be in, that they will divorce KNOWING they will forever and a day have to deal with their ex over their kids.
Divorce is THAT worth it, for some people. Well, 50% of some people, anyway.
It's just the way it is. If you have kids with someone, there IS no divorce. Not really. There's just a long period of not living together in holy matrimony while you figure out how to make THAT work without everybody losing their shirts in legal squabbles over - of course - money.
Speaking of money, banking has really not evolved much in this country, eh? I mean, for all the bells and whistles, it's pretty customer unfriendly. Still. Now, I'm a real security nut so I'm willing to pay a certain amount of my income to keeping the system relatively free of fraud, etc. But I've noticed that no amount of banking fees can protect us from everything. And yet, they do go up, don't they. It's not like the bank doesn't have the use of our money all the while we're stashing it with them and they're paying peanuts in interest on it, either, is it.
But it all comes down to what you're willing to put up with, I guess. I wouldn't even add this issue to my soapbox except I realized the other day that I was always exceeding my flat fee for a certain number of banking transactions because, not only is online banking counted as a transaction (and just try paying bills by phone nowadays), so is a transaction involving a teller on account of the teller will ask you to swipe your card before she (and it's almost always still a she, isn't it) will allow you to access your account.
Which brings me to the anti-terrorism legislation and Stephen Harper's bizarre reference to an MP's father-in-law who is a witness or somesuch to the Inquiry into the Air India disaster.
I ask you - do you really trust this man to be our Prime Minister? Because I don't. I find him unbelievably... untoward. I believe him to be systematically altering the, well, system. In a bad way. In a way that leads to fascism. Why Conservatives can't see this is beyond me. Perhaps they are stupid.
By the way, I lauded The Agenda for being neutral chic yesterday on my blog. Well, last night it featured Ezra Levant in full attack mode, so I take it back. I watched it with just one eye open and I squinted even then. Honestly. Obviously, I'm a fan of Alan Borovoy because I believe SOMEBODY has to keep an eye on civil liberties and free speech. It can't be me. But I wanted to punch Ezra Levant in the face because of the way he kept talking over everybody else as if the feed from Calgary only worked one way and he couldn't hear the others talking.
Free speech? Gawd. Maybe if we all get to punch the free speecher in the face later. And I'm even A-Okay with the Danish Cartoons being published. In fact, I think the Globe & Mail should have published them. Of course, so does Lewis Laptham and he'd disagree with Ezra Levant on pretty much everything else civil libertarian - as would I - so I guess I'm solid on that one.
I was even struck by how closely aligned against my views both the Muslim lawyer and the CJC spokesthingy were on free speech so I can safely say I'm not a tribalist because their views and mine left me feeling pretty everyday Canadian. Everyday Canadian apparently being the NDP's latest replacement for average Canadian. Or ordinary Canadian. Still, I would have supported the CJC spokesthingy if he'd punched Ezra Levant in the face, so... It's not like I'm THAT much better'n the tribalists-at-large, I guess.
Anti-terrorist legislation by its very name is wrong, sinister, and destined to expand. We can't trust Stephen Harper not to behave like a Latin American Strongman one minute, a Senator McCarthy disciple the minute after that.
I really wish he had no power over my life at all.
