I have a constant fear and being a step dad doesn’t help to ease that fear.  It’s a fear that I’ve actually had since I was a small boy which makes it all the more irrational but such is life.  I have lived with a fear of this thing for almost as long as I can remember being alive and while perhaps not as irrational today as it was during my childhood, it is as ever present as one could imagine.

I fear being labelled in the public eye as a rapist, a child molester or any kind of sexual offender.  Beyond financial losses, physical harm to my person or any other type of spurious assassination of my character, I sincerely fear being labelled in the public as a sexual deviant as perhaps the worst thing that could happen to me beyond death and should this thing ever come to face me, I can’t help but wonder if I would wish for the latter.

It is perhaps with this in mind that while I have yet to voice any kind of opinion regarding WikiLeaks, their public face Julian Assange or their choice to release a large sum of unedited, classified American military documents that has endangered a great many people, I can perhaps sympathize with Assange’s recent ordeal handling charges of rape and molestation.  Assange has been, without trial, cast into the public sphere as a rapist and even if only just for a few hours, the damage has been done and certainly there are people now in the world who will think for certain that this man is a sexual deviant, more so seriously, a violent one.

In a recent story I saw on Saskboy’s twitter feed, a story about Assange being cleared of the charges that resulted him being labelled as a rapist.  It’s important that stories like these are published if some one’s reputation has been tarnished but this story is in fact terribly incomplete.  In part, it reads,

Assange — who has denied both accusations — is still suspected of molesting a woman on Aug. 13, but molestation is not a sex crime under Swedish law

I begin to wonder why on earth molestation wouldn’t be a sex crime.  Certainly when a detractor with their own biases sees this, molestation is nearly as bad as rape if not equally as bad depending on what molestation may mean.  So again, I wonder why on earth molestation wouldn’t be a sex crime in Sweden.

And so it goes that translating Assange’s criminal charges remaining (still yet to be tried in any court) may have been a second priority for English speaking journalists.

Assange has been charged with something including the word Ofredande which literally translates into molestation/harassment.  The reason this isn’t a sex crime is because it’s possible that this type of thing is merely a charge of harassment which could be anything from inappropriate comments to being overly persistent when some one denies your advances.

I’m not here to defend Assange but I think (especially in regard to this type of subject) that a person’s public character is not something to be dealt with in a flippant fashion.  being publicly named in the media when you have yet to face thr courts can be devastating to one’s public character and things like this foggy translation and non-specific wealth of “details” don’t help matters.

Think what you may of Assange and his organization but to accept that some one’s character be so terribly tarnished on speculation is at the very best, malicious and barbaric.

So it appears to be that the Saskatchewan Communications Network, our province’s government funded television station, has been sold off by the Brad Wall, Sask’ Party Government.  The buyer claims to have all the intentions in the world to run the station according to its original vision while adding new content to build a wider consumer base.

It’s interesting that this was done so suddenly.  everything the Sask’ Party government has done recently regarding the SCN seems to have included very little public consultation or even consultation with the folks over at the SCN.  Also, I haven’t really been subject to much discussion on the issue so admittedly, I’m not overtly well informed on this though I wish now that I were.

On its face, I see this as a positive move.  I don’t believe that government should be in the business of maintaining media networks and so I hope that the SCN in its new form does well and provides a cornucopia of new content for the consumer.

I often call myself a Jew because in technical consideration of my ethnic heritage, I am.  My family is a Jewish family though hardly an observant one in large part.  It was when I was about 19 or 20 when I quite inadvertently found out I was Jewish when visiting my Grandmother for the first time since infancy.  It had simply never come up as a point of discussion between me and my converted Buddhist single mother.  It was as much a shock to me to find out that I was Jewish as it was for my grandmother to find out that I had not ever been told.  I should say that this doesn’t mean I don’t consider myself a Jew.  I do indeed consider myself to be Jewish and relished the close knit Jewish community in Toronto during my time there.  It’s honestly a privileged to be a part of so incredible a community full of so many kind people.

Now, even though I’m Jewish, I am perhaps more vulnerable to the label of “self hating Jew” than those who have had more foreknowledge of their heritage than I.  It doesn’t help that I am non-observant on the religious side and often quite critical in my views of Israel and the history of that entire region.  When I look to the Middle East and that area in particular, I think it has been a dark and disappointing black mark on the history of humanity as a whole.

In my eyes, there is no legitimate dispute resolution in this area of the Middle East currently underway and whether it be Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise, none of the players in the Israeli-centric Middle East conflict are viewed positively by me.  whether driven by ignorance fuelled by poverty and religion, ideology fuelled by greed or megalomania or otherwise, I am not in favour of Middle East policies from most any nation currently involved.  As is clear here, this includes Israel.

So why blog about this now?  Well, I’m becoming concerned about the propensity for media and individuals alike to jump on critics of Israel’s domestic policy as anti-semites.  It’s always been a problem of course.  Israel has done very little to make any type of distinction between policy criticism and criticism of Judaism.  Israeli leadership has very often used this to their advantage calling on critics of a nation as critics of an ethnic and religious group.  It is possibly one of the most disingenuous types of argument one can make on the world stage and rightly offends a great many people.  No one likes to be called prejudiced when they are likely not.

John posted recently on his blog about Helen Thomas being hurled from the White House Press Corps for making remarks that many viewed as strongly anti-semitic.  I didn’t view them that way and though I wasn’t surprised at the virulent outrage that followed her statements, I was expectedly disappointed.  At first glance, Thomas’ comments did seem very strongly biased against Jews in particular but it’s so easy to remember that this is frankly because Israel bills itself as the world’s Jewish state.  I should say here that as a Jew, I do not see any reason why I should ever exercise my right of return under Israeli law and identify as an Israeli. I have no desire to associate myself with the state of Israel in its current form.

Thomas said that the Jews should “Get the hell out of Palestine” and continued shortly after by saying they should go back to “Poland, Germany [...] and America and Everywhere else.”  Perhaps it’s the identification of Poland and Germany as a homeland that got everyone’s knickers in a twist but on it’s face, I don’t think those views are anti-semitic.  There is a valid and very spirited debate around the world as to whether or not the Jewish state is even legitimate in how it was established.  It was the British that essentially created Israel and began the Jewish state, forcing one group upon another.  It was like tossing powdered garlic on an exposed ulcer.  But this blog post isn’t about history, it’s about the debate of that history and our perception of it.

So in short, I don’t believe that Helen Thomas expressed anti-semitic views and her later release of a statement insisting that she regretted her comments were almost certainly (I think) a result of public pressure.  In this case, I think that the label of antisemitism and the public outraged resulting from such a label set a tone for debate that left Thomas no choice but to recant or face endless condemnation rather than dissenting discussion.  This does not strike me as an attempt at seeking the truth but rather a mission to make some one express themselves in a manner that makes us more comfortable.  Shielding ourselves like this does not help us develop intellectually.

Perhaps responding to the public momentum created by Helen Thomas’ remarks, a Canadian New Democratic Member of Parliament has recently been under the gun as well being called an anti-semite.  Libby Davies, deputy leader of the New Democrats in the House of Commons has been attacked as anti-semitic after making comments supporting a boycott of Israel and indirectly questioning the very legitimacy of the Israeli state.  In the video of her comments, she actually goes on to say near the end of it that people are often afraid to speak to their views because criticism of the Israeli state often results in accusations of being anti-semitic.  Lo and behold, Libby Davies is being accused of exactly that.

Now I don’t necessarily support a boycott, divestment from the state of Israel or sanctions and I’m not actually opposed to a two state solution despite my position that the legitimacy of Israel is indeed a valid point upon which to cast doubt.  I think the debate needs to be clear and honest but with so much ideological emotion involved in the debate, it hasn’t come close to being that.  You have multiple sides to the argument and fractured view points on those sides.  some are motivated by reason, some by a particular interpretation of history, some by an interpretation of a religion and others by simple prejudice.  Ah yes, it’s not like antisemitism or racism in regard to Arabs doesn’t exist, it simply doesn’t wash over all view points as some may assert.

I get awfully saddened when I observe the debate regarding Israel.  I stopped attempting to really get into that debate because I found constantly, a want to argue motivation, religion and ideology rather than historical evidence, facts, moral grounds or what is simply fair to the people in the region outside the context of religion.  There is so much incredible suffering and ill treatment of people going on in the Middle East within this conflict and, as mentioned above, I don’t find any one particular player to be morally superior to any other.  I see mountains of ignorance, greed, hatred, violence and essentially the worst attributes of humanity at play in this region.  I see very little peace, love, consideration of neighbours and so on.  I have to wonder if it’s not just a hopeless thing of which to think.

I am Jewish.  I strongly believe that I have a right to identify myself as such.  I am not anti-semitic nor am I inclined to racial discrimination against Arabs or any other ethnic group.  I am saddened by the States of Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and others who participate in the massacre of what could possibly be referred to as stable living.  It is in this region that I see so little hope for normalcy and honour.  Again, I fault no one for being Jewish, Arab or otherwise, but rather I fault so many for being horribly ignorant and ill-minded in causing so great an amount of needless conflict and suffering over so many years.

The fact that the debate of Israeli statehood has been so mired in bias from all sides is a very sad commentary on the human condition of our times.  It is why I remain largely an observer of the debate and not a participant.  It is why I am so concerned about those who do participate, that they must tread lightly and avoid complete and honest intellectual positions that may help us all to understand this situation that for some is so many unfathomable miles away and for others, so unimaginably close.

All I want is for the people of this embattled region and those around the world to simply step back, take a breath, attempt to look into the eyes of their fellow human beings with whom they have so much in common and be honest with each other.  Sadly, I don’t think that’s about to happen any time soon.

There has been some hay made of a “FOX News North” type of news network coming into the Canadian media realm with former Harper communications man, Kory Teneycke, an integral part of managing the new venture.  When I heard the news, I actually shot off a facebook message to Teneycke asking if there would be any room for a libertarian minded pundit.  predictably it didn’t get any response but in hindsight, perhaps that’s not such a bad thing.

I was exceptionally put off by the following quote from Teneycke from this Canadian Press story.

To the pot heads who keep sending me crazy, profane emails: I hope  Marc Emery enjoys group showers as much as he enjoys pot. Three cheers for the DEA.

You know, there is a great deal of debate about whether or not marijuana legalization activist, Marc Emery deserves time in prison or  extradition to the United States.  I’m of the mind that he deserves neither but I don’t mind hearing an opposing viewpoint.  There is something more than simple dissension in Teneycke’s quote though and that’s the disgusting and malicious implication that he would be happy in knowing that some one may be raped in prison.

That’s actually quite horrible isn’t it?  I mean, you can wish prison time all you want upon some one for committing a crime I suppose.  To me, even that’s far too common a mind set but wishing forced sexual violation on some one?  Whuu?

Is it any wonder that people like myself grow increasingly annoyed and leery of newspapers when they edit out pertinent facts in a story, for likely no other reason that to drive an agenda?

I’ve blogged here and there about the case of Canadian seed seller, Marc Emery and his extradition to the United States for selling viable marijuana seeds to Americans.  The LA Times recently picked up the story as Marc plead guilty in an American court and proceeded to edit the ever living hell out of the journalist’s draft after she had expressed with great confidence that such a thing had never happened to her in her entire journalistic career.  Guess there’s a first time for everything.

In this Cannabis Culture blog, it’s explained that the LA Times decided that a press release (unusually removed from the DEA’s website) that explained a political motivation behind Emery’s arrest, the fact that he paid taxes on his earnings and that Health Canada sent medical marijuana patients to him were all unimportant facts.  None of these facts that were included in the journalists initial draft were included in the final article put to print and if a paper were doing a story on this topic, one has to wonder who decided that these facts weren’t important to the context of the story.  Certainly, the fact that the press release put out by the DEA after Emery’s arrest expressed clear political motivations for his arrest and then afterwards, that it was removed from the DEA’s website in an obvious attempt to whitewash it from history was important all on its own but it was edited out?

Yes.  The LA Times, just as much of the dead tree media today, is irrelevant and agenda driven.  Why would anyone want to read agenda driven journalism when its being marketed as a factually driven information source?  Isn’t opinion editorializing supposed to be called editorializing and opinion based writing rather than news journalism?