Gay or Straight–Moving Away From Labels

The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. - Chief Joseph

I'm not an activist; I don't look for controversy. I'm not a political person, but I'm a person with compassion. I care passionately about equal rights. I care about human rights. I care about animal rights. - Ellen DeGeneres

Some years ago, I had a secretary who had an annoying habit of taking work that was error-free and filling it with errors before sending it on to clients.  I asked her often why she did this and her response constantly was an excuse of “the spell checker is wrong”, “I thought I could do it better”, etc. and I had noted warnings to her (and in her HR file) that this behavior could not continue.

She was also routinely late completing mundane tasks and so one day out of curiosity, I checked the Internet access logs for the company and found that she surfed porn sites for an average of 20-30 hours per week from her office computer.  As someone who doesn’t like to censor access to information, I had mistakenly assumed that my team could self-regulate in regards to the use of office equipment during company time – she was the only one in all my years who violated that assumption.

One Monday morning when I came into the office, I noticed that a lot of our servers had been dismantled and left as they were.  Going to the building security office and reviewing logs and security video, we were able to ascertain that she had signed into the building with a false name and had people accompanying her for reasons that were never explained to me.  These were the people who had dismantled our servers (also for reasons unknown to me).

This was the last straw and I arranged to have her employment terminated.  I also mistakenly assumed that this was the end of the matter even though she protested during the termination process that the previously noted concerns were not sufficient for termination.

So imagine my surprise a few days later when an attorney contacted me to make arrangements for the out-of-court settlement which I was told I would be forced to sign.

“After all”, the attorney said, “my client represents many minorities.  She is African American, a woman, a single mom and gay.  You are also violating her freedom of expression by telling her that surfing porn sites during business hours is not permitted.”

After he had finished his spiel, I calmly said “Look – I fired her for the reasons I explained to her.  I don’t care about her physical attributes, her orientation or anything else.  I pay her to use her abilities to fill a need in the company and to stretch and grow as a person.  If she has no interest or ability to do that, she can’t work here.”

We had a testy exchange, after which I told him to go ahead and file a lawsuit against us and I would bring her performance (or lack of) data against his sensationalist, unrelated, opportunistic agenda.  I went on to tell him that I believed that he was leveraging her minority status for his own gain and that he didn’t give a s*&^ about her as a human being.

I never heard from him or his client again.

Today I saw the Department of the Interior invite the LGBTQ community on Facebook to tweet photos of themselves in US parks with the hash tag #ImOUTdoors, promoting their sexual orientation.

The invitation took me back to the woman who I had fired many years before, where the reason for her termination (poor performance) took a backseat to other attributes of the individual that had no bearing on the job that she attempted to perform.

And then I thought about humanity and the challenges we face globally today.

I wonder if we spent more time celebrating each human as a miracle, individually and collectively, instead of focusing on why we are so different, then we could move on to the greater things that we can and must accomplish together.  We should also focus on the things that matter within our respective mandates so that such focus produces a result commensurate with our mandate and potential.  For the Department of the Interior’s promotion, sexual orientation appears to be the prominent theme, with the beauty of nature playing a secondary role.  However, according to Wikipedia, their primary role is stated as follows:

The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) is the United States federal executive department of the U.S. government responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources, and the administration of programs relating to American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, territorial affairs, and insular areas of the United States.

I think this promotion strays from their mandate.  As I poked them today on Twitter, I didn’t see a similar promotion for Black History Month.  How would it read, I wonder.  Would it be viewed as a racist promotion?   Probably.

The Bottom Line

The uniqueness of humanity is truly a miracle. We must make sure that the rights of everyone are protected morally, ethically and legally.

When we strive to work together, with our uniqueness protected in these ways, then there is no limit to what we can create together.

However, when we focus instead on our individual specialness for no reason that moves us forward as a species or when we promote a specific subset of humanity as “special and unique” beyond that which is necessary to protect their rights, then we set ourselves up in little camps and fiefdoms.

And once we have done that, I think divisions and cracks appear in humanity, weakening our ability to tackle the real challenges that we face in the world together in the areas of the economy, the ecology, war, disease, hunger, poverty and other key areas. 

Many who claim to be oppressed should look at people who are really oppressed and then maybe they would find a new cause to embrace that furthers humanity.

LGBTQ or straight, white, black or any other color, Christian, Muslim, atheist or other belief, male or female and other labels we like to apply to ourselves are often used to either claim victimhood or claim superiority over others.

Neither approach, victimhood or superiority, helps us to be better as individuals or as a society.

I think we need to focus more on what we can achieve together while we make sure that our rights as individuals are protected and not be used as exclusionary promotions that promote specific people.

I also think that in our hurry and blindness to be politically correct and socially sensitive, I wonder if we realize that our haste to promote one group as “special” always slights other groups, creating an irony of reinforcing differences that we are trying to get rid of.  To that point, the more we try to highlight everybody’s uniqueness, the more uniqueness will surface demanding to be recognized and we will never catch up.

This is exacerbated by some people like the attorney I mentioned, the media, politicians or opportunists like the divisive Al Sharpton and others who use such divisionary “stuff” to serve their own needs under the guise of serving someone else’s, oftentimes using venomous, confrontational, divisive, bullying language to accomplish their alleged task of bringing people together.

As my gay cousin and friend Paul said today:

“Most of us do not care and we think those other protests are stupid. I want to tell them to shut up and go be mature. Those are only the vocal ones. They don't speak for all of us, just like no one person or group can speak for all the straight people.”

We are a miracle and the things we create are nothing short of miraculous when we apply ourselves appropriately and collaboratively, celebrating and leveraging our uniqueness and protecting the rights of others while not exploiting our uniqueness to diminish others or promote ourselves at the expense of others.

How about we celebrate and embrace that more?

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – The Necessity For Calm, Respectful Dialog

Some people are offended by my personal policy of always asking for respectful dialog that embraces everyone.  Those people who are offended by a call for calm, respectful, data-centric dialog often carry agendas other than or in addition to the one that they are promoting and should be examined closely before being embraced as a “voice” of any specific community.

Calm, respectful dialog often carries the day quicker, more effectively and more fairly, something that is sometimes secondary in priority for those with ulterior motives.

The Real Problem With the LGBTQ Debate in Alberta

One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say. - Bryant H. McGill

I remind myself every morning: Nothing I say this day will teach me anything. So if I'm going to learn, I must do it by listening. - Larry King

The Twitterverse is alive with rhetoric in Alberta in the last few days as Bill 10, the Gay-Straight Alliance Bill, was put on hold by the Alberta Government and once again, misinformed and malformed brains demonstrate how one goes about putting the Twit in Twitter.

And while some people lament about how their rights are being crushed while others complain that some people have too many rights already, a darker issue quietly (or not so quietly) rides the undercurrent of the debate.

The darker issue is found in the lack of respectful dialog - the ability to discuss and debate one’s point without driving it down someone else’s throat, the ability to not condemn someone for daring to disagree (or not agree, which is subtly different) and the ability to avoid the temptation of using a difficult issue as a tool to conveniently promote one’s own agenda as some politicians are doing right now.

If you are pro-LGBTQ, recognize that if someone doesn’t support your cause, that does NOT automatically mean they are against you as some claim.  If a legislator doesn’t want to enact a bill immediately because of the complexities contained therein, know that thousands of children aren’t condemned to be beaten in the dark recesses of the playground as you imply.  You should also use data appropriately without exaggeration or wilful distortion as I requested in Bullying and the REAL Crisis In Alberta (and elsewhere) and The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda.

If you are anti-LGBTQ, recognize the needs and sensitivities of others, recognize that their past may have been difficult because of their orientation and recognize that if someone feels threatened in any way, they will promote their needs with vigour and passion.  Also recognize that if there is an imbalance in the rights of others, then such imbalances must be corrected without question, complaint or hesitation.

And for both sides, remember that there are other serious things happening in the world that must not be forgotten lest a small victory be won but the war be lost in terms of larger issues that affect all of us.  Beware also the politician who often couldn’t care less about the people but who seek to leverage contentious issues for their own gain.

Judge not lest ye be judged … well … except in the case of some politicians.

The inability of people to be able to dialog respectfully, the unwillingness to be able to listen (not just hear) before speaking and the inability to be able to reflect on what the other person is saying while not merely waiting for them to stop talking so that a counter-argument can be offered immediately are all turning every important dialog into another opportunity to walk all over others who disagree with them.

What kind of example are we setting for our youth – that (s)he who shouts loudest or threatens the sharpest carries the day?

And so when it comes to demanding respect as one promotes an idea, such respect starts with earning it and giving it no matter what side of a debate someone finds themselves on.  If one leans towards the tactics of bullying in order to accomplish one’s agenda, then one deserves much less respect than is being requested.

In fact, in such situations, the person demanding respect by intimidation deserves none.

The Bottom Line

A time is coming when the ability to passionately but respectfully debate and solve serious issues will be a critical skill to have.  If during this time, we haven’t acquired the skill, the ability or the will to discuss difficult issues with data, respect and understanding, then it won’t matter what we are arguing about and we will all go down together.

In the meantime, I think we need to take the time to practice a more civil form of dialog (sprinkled with passion) in order to make the world a better place.

Maybe the LGBTQ debate provides such an opportunity.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS In negotiation and debate, don’t assume that everything you demand will be given to you nor should you assume that you can get away with giving away too little.  By the same token, do not demand too little nor give away too much.  Somewhere in all of that, there is a balance that works for all.  Only through fair and respectful debate, with knowledge, wisdom and data to back it up, can the balance be found.

Addendum – An Example - December 17, 2014

John Carpay, a Calgary lawyer, had this to say in a National Post op-ed last week - Parents — even Alberta ‘hillbillies’ — have a right to make choices about their children’s education.

The article triggered this comment by Kristopher Wells to which I responded (click on image for larger version):

Which then produced this response from a bystander:

Which led to this conversation (click on image for larger version):

And this (click on image for larger version):

Too bad … another opportunity for two sides to understand each other comes to a crashing halt.

Their loss.

I personally prefer to seek allies over antagonists and if an alliance is not possible, I would rather leave someone neutral rather than antagonize them.

Unfortunately, not everyone shares such a belief nor the belief in respectful dialog.

Bullying and the REAL Crisis In Alberta (and elsewhere)

I can prove anything by statistics except the truth. - George Canning

Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination. - Vin Scully

In a very brief interaction with a CBC personality this morning, where he indicated that low turnout in a by-election in Newfoundland spoke poorly of the Government’s chances in the next general election, I suggested that it was impossible to infer a trend from a single data point / event.

After I said this, I thought back to my post yesterday, The Problem with the LGBTQ Agenda, and I gave some thought to the data being shared by pro-LGBTQ folks seeking to make legislative changes to protect against homophobic bullying.

Here is what I came up with:

1. 3.5% of students self-identify as LGBTQ. (Source: Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services’ presentation to the Alberta School Boards Association Conference – November 22, 2011.  Presenter: Dr. Kristopher Wells – University of Alberta)
2. 1 in 5 of those same students report being harassed or assaulted (Source: Same as previous point)
3. 64% of students in general report being bullied at school (Source: Stop a Bully campaign, citing a University of British Columbia survey)
4. 47% of parents report having a child who is the victim of bullying (Source: Stats Canada)
5. There are approximately 717,000 student-aged (high school or younger) children in Alberta (Source: Stats Canada)

Moving from there, we could roughly (unscientifically and without regard to localized variations) interpret that:

1. Approximately 25,000 students in Alberta self identify as LGBTQ
2. Approximately 692,000 students in Alberta do not self identify as LGBTQ
3. Of the 25,000 students who self identify as LGBTQ, 1 in 5 report being harassed or assaulted – approximately 5,000 students
4. Of the remaining students, reports on being harassed or assaulted range from approximately 325,000 to 422,000 cases (depending on statistics applied).

And with this information, pro-LGBTQ supporters in Alberta are suggesting that bullying is a phenomenon that is mostly targeted against them and therefore legislation must be drafted to prevent the phenomenon that is more unique to them than anyone.  Meanwhile, the statistics suggest that the problem is far larger (statistically and literally) in the non-LGBTQ community.

Even Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman was swayed by a misunderstanding of statistics, making the hateful accusation in Question Period yesterday that for the Alberta Government to not pass pro-LGBTQ legislation was proof of the Government’s “homophobic legacy”.

Tough words … and unfair, unnecessary and misinformed.

The LGBTQ community are correct in their assertion that there is a crisis in Alberta (and I would posit, around the civilized world).

Here is where I see the crisis.  For starters, either too many people:

1. Do not know how to read statistical data and accidentally misinterpret it
2. Intentionally misrepresent it for the sake of their own personal or professional agendas and actually bully people with it under the guise of ending bullying
3. React to the statistics presented to them without bothering to verify the data, including legislators who should know better before passing legislation (it didn’t pass in this case) without understanding the downstream effects of it.
4. Are not aware of how easily their emotions are evoked by inaccurate data (accidentally or wilfully).

And because we have a crisis in statistics gathering, interpretation, manipulation, presentation and understanding, the real crisis, bullying in general (which, by the way, extends well into our adult lives) is lost in an argument over who feels most affronted.

The truth is that bullying and intimidation are an insult to humanity and ways must be found to honor all people and not just specific groups.

Meanwhile, I have a new motion for the Alberta Legislature to contemplate, based on this information:

Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive. - George Bernard Shaw

Apparently, and I’ve just come to this shocking discovery, statistics also show that 100% of people who breathe will eventually die.

How can we have not seen the obvious crisis from these statistics?  Until the Alberta Legislature addresses these more heinous, obvious issues in our society, I’m going on a hunger strike (while holding my breath).

I’m being silly for a reason.  If I need to explain the reason, then we have another crisis developing that I won’t get into here.

In the meantime, in a quick survey conducted in the coffee shop I wrote this in, 100% of people questioned agreed with everything I said in this post.

It’s a statistic and so it must be right.

Right?

The Bottom Line

I think we need to honor the issues that affect all humans, recognizing all people as divine and deserving of every right, equally and without differentiation.  The longer we wait to figure out who is the most affected in any given scenario, the longer everyone is affected – potentially to their detriment and to the detriment of society.

I also think that this blog post will anger some people who prefer emotion over data or who find some data to be inconvenient unless cherry picked to suit their needs.  While data that is appropriately identified, selected and referenced rarely lies or misrepresents, the same cannot be assumed for those who would use this data.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS

Those who lead, whether in business, politics or for causes in general, need to be careful how their intentions to reduce bullying are perceived.  Oftentimes those who claim to be against bullying use bullying, demeaning words, taunting and other intimidation tactics themselves in order to manifest their own personal or professional intentions.  Such could be said about the insults hurled at the Education Minister for not giving certain people what they demanded in regards to Motion 503 or for Liberal Leader Raj Sherman in labelling people who expressed a counter opinion to Motion 503 (which is permitted) as being automatically homophobic.

To those people, I ask:

1. In such situations, do you believe that people will follow what you say (promoting anti-bullying) or emulate what you do (using bully tactics to achieve your objectives)?
2. In such situations, do you believe your actions solve the problem or merely shift the problem somewhere else, especially when one rationalizes that such actions are “ok for a just cause”?

Are you sure?

How would others answer these questions on your behalf?

---

Addendum – When Data Becomes Inconvenient - April 10, 2014

The very people who were using stats yesterday to promote their intention and whose stats I cited in this post informed me today that the use of statistics is invalid when it comes to correcting social injustice.

It is curious that when the same data in a different context suddenly looks weak that people who previously cited the data rabidly suddenly insist that the same data is irrelevant.

Speaking of data, Greg Clark of the Alberta Party went as far as to suggest this:

Suggesting that defeating the motion could damage a province’s prosperity (without citing the evidence) is unsubstantiated fear mongering.

Data that is convenient as a hammer to drive one’s agenda can often become an inconvenient weapon to weaken one’s own case.

For this reason, data should always be chosen wisely.

---

Related Posts:

• The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda – April 9, 2014
• Bullies, Pink Shirts and Attaboys – March 16, 2013
• Lip Service–The Solution to Everything – November 19, 2012
• Mitt Romney, Bullies and Red Herrings – May 11, 2012

---

The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda

Sales are contingent upon the attitude of the salesman - not the attitude of the prospect. - W. Clement Stone

I like to think of sales as the ability to gracefully persuade, not manipulate, a person or persons into a win-win situation. - Bo Bennett

In Alberta this week, Motion 503 was defeated in the Alberta Legislature.  The motion, with an eye towards allegedly protecting LGBTQ children, reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to introduce legislation, like Manitoba’s and Ontario’s, requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations, using any name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive, welcoming, and respectful for all students regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

As is typical with such emotionally-laden subjects, the ignorant, the unintelligent and the misinformed quickly piled onto social media with many being unable to calmly, intelligently or respectfully discuss why the motion should pass or fail.

In fact, people on both sides of the debate were happy to bash each other incessantly, both wasting their own time as well as the time of the people whose feeds were overrun by their ignorant diatribe and yet, neither side seemed able to make a good case for or against the motion.

The most curious theme of the Motion 503 supporters was along the lines of it being necessary to provide a safer environment for LGBTQ children in schools.  Being a data guy and someone who is strongly committed to the future of our children, when I hear that a safer environment is necessary, this implies that a threat exists and so I innocently tweeted the following:

It was a fair question (yeah, I know that I misspelled LGBTQ as LBGTQ by accident – people who are easily offended can stand down now). 

I honestly wanted to know what the pending or imminent threat was or is.

In the aftermath of a respectful question from someone trying to understand what the imminent threat was or is, I received social media communication along the lines of everyone knows what the issues are, everyone knows what the threats are, we all have seen the proof, blah blah blah. 

But in EVERY situation (bar none) when I asked for “the proof”, whether it be in the form of a file, a report, a link, ANYTHING, the conversation quickly turned into taunts and insults – using emotion to deflect the conversation away from the lack of data or at least data that they were citing as “proof”.

I even had a professor at the University of Alberta tweet this after I repeatedly asked for the proof he claimed to have in-hand:

He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) actually produce the proof he kept citing.  Even when I went to his U of A website bio page, many of the links he cited for research were in fact dead links.

I wish I had him for a prof for all the papers I have written over the years (and still write).  In the references section, I could simplify my Life by having one line:

Google all the references yourself.

Some data was offered …..

In fairness, one person offered a presentation that boldly stated “1 in 5 (21%) of LGBTQ students report being harassed or assaulted.”

Since context matters, I asked a few people:

1. How does the alleged study define being “harassed or assaulted”?
2. Did the alleged study point out how many non-LGBTQ students felt that they had been harassed or assaulted (for comparison purposes)?

Context matters.  I know some people who feel harassed every time someone gives them “a dirty look”.

My questions produced accusations that I was trying to confuse people or trying to bury the issue in complexity and then those people commenced to crap all over me as well.

And to me, therein lies the entire problem with the LGBTQ conversation.

As a person of influence, as a person who believes and champions the fair treatment of all people and as someone who needs data when “proof” is cited, I often ask for additional information.

I don’t ask with an intent to refute someone or to tell them that they are wrong.

I ask with the intent to understand.

When I understand something and it is sold to me in a very convincing way, as someone with a very large, influential network, I can be a very powerful ally who will then promote this same message to others.

And yet oftentimes, people without data or who are relying purely on emotion get nervous when someone asks for the proof that they cite (which they often don’t have) and they quickly jump to the conclusion that this person must be trying to discredit them.

In doing so, they go out of their way to create an antagonist (and a powerful one) when they might have had a powerful ally in their corner instead.

The Bottom Line

The message from a person trying to sell an idea to others must resonate with the target audience and it must be consistent.

When people, under the guise of demanding respect for others, don’t know how to offer respect when trying to sell their message, it’s no wonder that their “sales pitch” runs into complications or resistance.

My message to parts of the LGBTQ community is this.

The message you promote must be:

1. Data-filled (as much as is realistic).  Don’t tell people to go search for the data.  If you have proof, offer it.  Don’t cherry pick data that is useful for your purposes or intentionally use data out of context since this will cause you to be discredited once you are discovered.  You are trying to convince them – make it easy for them to be convinced.
2. Emotion-less (as much as is realistic).  Don’t chase people away with excessive emotion.  Over zealous people, whether in politics, religion or any other cause, can frighten people away or encourage them to resist.
3. Varied by target audience.  There is no “one message fits all humans” model
4. Open to scrutiny.  You ask questions of others.  Expect and embrace the same in return.
5. One that resonates.  To influence the mind, you must touch the heart and not stab it.  Stabbing it has a tendency to create more enemies than friends.
6. Respectful and understanding of the feelings and opinions of others.   You don’t want to be stepped on, intimidated or insulted – neither does your target audience.

I say “parts” of the community because within my significant network of gay friends and colleagues, the vast majority get embarrassed or angry when they see how their lifestyle is being portrayed by others who claim to be representing the entire LGBTQ community.

And doing it very poorly, at least according to my friends and colleagues.

When the elements of a cohesive message are brought together, the vast majority of people won’t need to be convinced – they will easily convince themselves.

And for those who are not convinced, the last time I checked, we still live in a democracy where differences of opinion are not only allowed but welcomed and encouraged.

Well … unless I’m not entitled to that opinion either.

Respect and the welcoming of diversity are not things that can be legislated.

They are also not limited to being learned and protected in the schoolyard.

But until we learn to stem the tide of disrespect that is taught in the home, in the media and entertainment industry and in other places as well (and, in fact, modeled by some of our business, religious and political leaders), we will always have problems typical of a society lacking in respect and civility.

To our detriment.

As for me, I am not anti-gay at all.  However, to the LGBTQ community, I ask that you stop trying to make me otherwise.  I resist disrespect no matter what the reason it is shoved down my throat, even if the cause is a fair and just one.

There will always be people out there who resist your message, whether it be through intolerance, ignorance or because they have a right to a different opinion.  In such cases, remember the rule of the 4 SWs and move on.

Some will, some won’t, so what, someone’s waiting

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

Addendum – Making the Data Fit the Problem - April 9, 2014

Some of the people I dialogued with yesterday were suggesting that the primary problem (by far) of bullying these days are as a result of homophobic people assaulting LBGTQ individuals.  Again, they had no data to back this up but spouted it as the ever-constructive, dialog-encouraging, “only idiots don’t know this” type message.

In my blog post Mitt Romney, Bullies and Red Herrings (written 2 years ago), I described my own personal childhood experiences with bullying where bullies (many of them gay) dry humped me into humiliation whenever they could get the chance (sorry – there is no gentle way of describing this).

I pointed out that in that blog post that these boys had been victims of sexual and physical abuse at home for years – at the hands of broken parents who themselves were victims of abuse in their own childhood.

The sexual orientation of my bullies had nothing to do with why they were abused or why they had become abusers.

However, some people in public and private dialog suggested that the abuse my abusers had experienced was irrelevant and that their abuse of others was “merely them exercising their right to stand up to the abuse they absorbed as LBGTQ students”.

This is the type of opinion that prevents constructive, solution-seeking dialog from occurring.  Not knowing who these kids were, the people offering their opinion did not know that the kids who bullied me were in fact some of the most popular kids in the school.  The abuse they absorbed at home was some of the most insidious abuse that children have ever had to face and which children continue to face today.  The terrible pain they absorbed was expressed in their intimidation of others.

The opinion of some of the people I interacted with yesterday also suggests that revenge is a justifiable reason for bullying, even if the target of the revenge was not the original antagonist.

I would posit that if we embrace such a model of justifiable revenge, constantly attacking those who have affronted us while constantly defending against those whom we have affronted, we will spend the rest of our days fighting each other in an every-tightening death spiral of tit-for-tat.

Intolerance, anger and confrontation are never the solution for intolerance, anger and confrontation.

Well, that is unless some feel the need to be angry or feel affronted for the heck of it or for a different reason.

In such situations, maybe it is not justice and equality some are fighting for.  For those people, the cry for justice makes for a convenient banner to hide behind or to lob grenades from for reasons unrelated to the cause that they allegedly champion.

For some politicians and business leaders, it becomes a useful leverage point, a means of promoting their own agendas on the backs of others whom they may or may not even care about as long as they get what they need.

And so the dialog gets murkier – and the people who want and deserve basic rights and freedoms get lost in the noise of a dialog that is more complex than it should be.

A final thought. 

The afore mentioned professor at the U of A is now supporting a resolution to have the Minister of Education removed from his portfolio for not supporting Motion 503:

The philosophy of “do it my way or else face dire consequences” is not conducive to promoting a cause or encouraging dialog and in fact, may make some people view “the cause” as a source of intimidation or bullying and not as a just cause.  The motion followed the parliamentary process and was defeated – this is the way it works in our society.

People who act as this professor is acting are often quick to cite bullying when they perceive it as coming in their direction but less so when they are the antagonist.

Maybe for some, their projection becomes their perception and thus their reality  – that their need to bully heightens their sensitivity about receiving it.

Maybe.

Whatever the reason, “my way or the highway” rarely works.

“Educated” people should know better – but then again, education does not automatically cure people of intolerance or ignorance.

---