22 years ago: A massacre in Montréal

Late in the afternoon of December 6 1989 the man, armed with a rifle and a knife, walked into one of the classrooms at the École Polytechnique engineering school (Université de Montréal.)^[1] He ordered the (approximately forty to forty-five) men to one side of the room and the nine women to the other. When the students did not immediately respond to his demand he fired a shot into the ceiling. Then he ordered the men to leave the room. The man told the remaining women that they were "une gang de féministes" and said "J'haïs les féministes [I hate feminists]."

The man then shot all nine of the women, six fatally. Exiting the classroom the man went up and down the halls of the École Polytechnique demanding "I want women." He went in and out of rooms, he went into the cafeteria and he shot one woman through the closed and locked door of her office. When the man heard one of the women he had shot crying for help he returned to where she was lying took out his knife and stabbed her to death.

The man injured ten women, four men and killed fourteen women.

Finally, the man shot himself

The initial response of the Canadian public was horror and anger. Why did this happen, people asked. And others answered, Why are you so surprised that something like this finally happened? The Montréal massacre (as the event became known) seemed emblematic to many of the endemic levels of misogyny in much of Canadian life. Women came forward with stories of the verbal (and sometimes physical) brutality in Canadian universities in general and engineering schools in particular.

The man had left behind him notes and letters that indicated that he believed that the only reason he had not been accepted into engineering school was because open slots were being taken by women. Yet even with the statements he made and the writings he left behind there was a backlash against seeing the man's actions as anti-feminist. Some who resisted that interpretation looked for some clue in the man's childhood. Others framed any emphasis on societal misogyny as anti-male. Barbara Frum (famous in her own right as a television journalist in Canada and, yes, the mother of that David Frum) claimed that to say that the man's actions were a hate crime was to "diminish" their horror. Yes, Barbara Frum argued that it would diminish the death of fourteen women if we were to acknowledge that they had died because they were women.

The following summer I sat in a science class at a different university and listened to the (male) Professor apologize that both his Teaching Assistants were women "they make us give places to women these days" he explained. I can't remember the rest of the lecture that day. I stayed after class and approached the Professor, "don't you think it is a bad idea to complain about being forced to give assistantships to women after what happened in Montréal last year?" I asked. "Typical woman," he answered, "over reacting to everything."

As I left the classroom I noticed another student had also remained behind--a sad looking woman. We made eye contact as I passed her, "thank you," she said, "I don't think you were over reacting at all."

In memory of my fourteen sisters:

• Annie St-Arneault
• Annie Turcotte
• Anne-Marie Edward
• Anne-Marie Lemay
• Barbara Daigneault
• Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz
• Geneviève Bergeron
• Hélène Colgan
• Maryse Laganière
• Maryse Leclair
• Maud Haviernick
• Michèle Richard
• Nathalie Croteau
• Sonia Pelletier

---

^[1] For those who don't know the details of the Montréal Massacre Wikipedia is a good place to start.↩

Unintended consequences: Democracy and the waiting room

Canadian health care story/question.

Earlier today I spent some time in a doctor's waiting room. I had arrived rather early (sometimes all the traffic lights do go your way) so I settled down with my ereader to while my time away. Waiting rooms are interesting places which can vary radically in the emotional dynamic from day to day. Sometimes there are anxious young parents (or at least anxious parents with young children) who feel guilty that their child may bothering other people in the room. Sometimes there are people who are clearly worried that the news the doctor is about to give them may be bad. There is usually someone who carries with them the aroma of tobacco smoke and next to whom no non-smoker wishes to sit.

Last time I was in that waiting room an elderly woman came in, clutching a plastic bag full of medications. I could hear her wheezing as she went to the receptionist and then I heard her reply that she was too confused right now to remember her own postal code. The receptionist took what information she could get and the woman sat down next to me. She was clearly disturbed and worried so I smiled and said a few words to her and soon she calmed down enough to tell me why she had come in for an "urgent care" visit. Her regular doctor was on maternity leave and so she had never been to this doctor before (which is why they didn't have all her information on file). Her seasonal asthma had flared up, her inhaler didn't seem to be giving her any relief and she was afraid she wouldn't be able to fly to visit her ailing mother if the problem wasn't brought under control. Soon she was telling us (me and spouse) about her mother and the hospital she was in and how much nursing had changed since she had been in training. And as her panic subsided, her breathing became easier and her respiration quieter. In a few minutes my name was called and I left her talking to spouse. My own visit was short since I was just getting the results of some lab tests and as I came back out they called her name and she smiled at me and waved as she went, in her turn, to see the doctor.

Today someone in the waiting room asked me about my ereader and in the course of the conversation I learned that she was an administrator at a heath care unit in a neighbouring community. The waiting room was unusually quiet for that time of day and she was musing about the problems of predicting patient loads. Then I got called back to see my doctor and when I came out she was no longer there.

As I drove home I began to think about the democracy of waiting rooms. Most of us will find ourselves, at one time or another, waiting anxiously in a room full of other people waiting anxiously. Waiting rooms are, for many of us, one of the few places we spend time with people from very different walks of life. What goes on in those waiting rooms tells us much about the society in which we live.

For example: I was in a doctor's waiting room in the US when a man came in who wanted to see the doctor. They would not schedule an appointment for the man, not because the doctor was not accepting new patients (he was) but because the man had no insurance. What he had, instead, was cash. He was willing to pay upfront to see the doctor. His request was denied. Until he could prove he had insurance he would have to go emergency at the nearest public hospital. He pled "but it isn't an emergency. It will take all day if they see me at all. I just want the doctor to...." I heard no more for the receptionist wasn't interested in what the man wanted or needed done. He had no insurance.

For example: I was in a room in emergency at a hospital in the US. My doctor had sent me there for a series to tests to rule out the worst case explanation of the wheezing/tickling in my lungs. I had been wired up and tested for one thing, blood had been drawn to test for something else, I had just had a CAT scan and now I was waiting to see the doctor. Through my door I could see a bedraggled elderly couple--her sitting on a stool and him the floor. She was crying and I gave them some tissues and learned that they had been waiting for 8 hours sitting on a stool and the floor. They were poor, from out of state and had no insurance. I sat in my private room (I had excellent health insurance through work) and waited in comfort for reports on my tests. They sat in the hall and finally someone came by and did something that looked and sounded painful to the suppurating lesion on her arm. Then my doctor came in, told me that there was nothing wrong, all the tests were negative and I was free to go. I checked out, paying a copay that was probably more money than that bedraggled couple had to their name.

Like most Canadians I have complaints about the short comings of our health care system--but the most important thing is that for the most part Canadians are all in the same boat. Canadians who are comfortably well off receive, for the most part, the same care as Canadians who are not. If there is a shortage of doctors wealth won't buy your way into a doctor's practice. If there is a shortage of rooms at the hospital wealth won't buy you a bed a poorer person can't lie on. When my American friends say, in condemnation, "you can't buy your way to the front of the line" I nod my head in agreement and approval. Because when you can't buy your way to the front of the line you are highly motivated to make sure that that line is never very long.

Nobel Peace Prize Winners, part one. Lester B. Pearson may have saved the world

Copyright © The Nobel Foundation [1]

Lester B. (Mike) Pearson was the 14th Prime Minister of Canada (from 1963 to 1968). He was also a First World War Veteran, a diplomat, an academic, a semi-pro athlete, a politician and a passionate advocate (and partial creator) of U.N. peacekeeping missions.

He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for the role he played in defusing the Suez Crisis. From the Award Ceremony Presentation Speech by Gunnar Jahn, Chairman of the Nobel Committee:

Never, since the end of the last war, has the world situation been darker than during the Suez crisis, and never has the United Nations had a more difficult case to deal with. However, what actually happened has shown that moral force can be a bulwark against aggression and that it is possible to make aggressive forces yield without resorting to power. Therefore, it may well be said that the Suez crisis was a victory for the United Nations and for the man who contributed more than anyone else to save the world at that time. That man was Lester Pearson.
....snip....
During the Hungarian Revolution Lester Pearson spoke at the emergency special session of the General Assembly. He strongly advocated that an independent international authority should «enable all the Hungarian people, without fear of reprisal, to establish a free and democratic government of their own choice». «Why», he asked, «should we not now establish a suitable United Nations mission for Hungary when it has been agreed to form a United Nations authority in the Middle East?»[2]

Pearson was an always civil yet very effective negotiator who managed to get a tremendous amount done as Prime Minister without his party ever holding the majority of seats in Parliament. The Medical Heath Care Act of 1966 brought universal health care to Canadians. In the same year the Canadian Pension Plan was established.

Tens of thousands of Canadians live healthier, happier lives because of the work of Mike Pearson. Pearson worked to stop the bombing of Cairo and supported the right of Hungarians to control their own country.

A diplomat, a negotiator, a supporter of peace, an architect of universal health care and pension plans.

A good Canadian, a good citizen of the world and, therefore by the standards of LaHaye and Jenkins (Left Behind) an antichrist.

[1] "The Nobel Peace Prize 1957". Nobelprize.org. 4 Sep 2011 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1957/

[2] "The Nobel Peace Prize 1957 - Presentation Speech". Nobelprize.org. 4 Sep 2011 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1957/press.html

And today I am feeling very Canadian

 

The way that Canadians have responded to the death of Jack Layton has struck me as - - very Canadian.

Jack....for that is what he liked to called....was never our Prime Minister. He was never a member of the federal cabinet. He was only the leader of the Official Opposition for a few short months.

He was given a state funeral. He lay in state first in Ottawa and then in Toronto.

His funeral was held in Roy Thomson Hall. The Toronto Symphony Orchestra performed. Richard Underhill of The Shuffle Demons played a haunting rendition of Into the Mystic.

The first blessing at the funeral was given by Shawn Atleo (national chief of the Assembly of First Nations) in an aboriginal language. He concluded that blessing by giving a white eagle feather to Olivia Chow (Jack's widow.)

Rev. Brent Hawkes, explained that he was wearing his academic gown to officiate at the funeral in order not to give precedence to any one religion. Later on in the service Hawkes made reference to his own husband, John.

There were readings from the Bible. There was a reading from the
Qu’ran.

Stephen Lewis gave a rousing eulogy that spoke often about the causes that were most important to Jack (aids, gay rights, violence against women, homelessness). Lewis reminded the audience that Jack's last letter to Canadians was a manifesto for social democracy.

Steve Page (of Barenaked Ladies) sang Leonard's Cohen's Hallelujah.
Martin Deschamps (soloist and lead singer of Offenbach) with Bernard Quessy performed Croire.
Lorraine Segato (Parachute Club) performed Rise Up
Julie Michels and the Choir of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto performed Chet Powers' Get Together

The funeral is available on demand from the CBC website.

Today I am feeling very Canadian. We are geographically large and numerically small country. We are a people of many languages, religions and belief systems. We break into applause at the rallying cry "for social justice."

Today I feel I am a citizen of no mean country.

Jack Layton (1950-2011)

Leader of the New Democratic Party, 2003-2011

Leader of the Official Opposition, 2011

Jack Layton was born into a political family. His father, Robert Layton, was first an activist for the Liberal party and later in life became a Progressive Conservative and finally served as a member of Brian Mulroney's (federal cabinet) cabinet. His grandfather was a cabinet minister in the Duplessis (Quebec provincial) cabinet before the second World War. His great grandfather, Philip Layton, fought during the 1930s for pensions and other rights for the disabled and the blind. His great, great uncle was of one of the founding fathers of Canada.

Just a few months ago Jack Layton led the federal New Democratic Party to its best result in electoral history. The NDP swept past the Liberals to become the official opposition. Layton had been been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2009 but seemed to be winning the (short term) fight against cancer when the recent federal election was called in 2011. On the campaign tail he often appeared to be in pain although he almost always managed to be cheerful on the hustings.

On July 25th of this year he announced that he was taking a temporary leave due to a newly diagnosed (and different) form of cancer. He died the morning of August 22, 2011 -- at home with his family.

Last Saturday Jack Layton wrote a letter to Canadians be with shared with them if he was unable to continue his battle with cancer.

In it he wrote

It has been a privilege to lead the New Democratic Party and I am most grateful for your confidence, your support, and the endless hours of volunteer commitment you have devoted to our cause. There will be those who will try to persuade you to give up our cause. But that cause is much bigger than any one leader. Answer them by recommitting with energy and determination to our work. Remember our proud history of social justice, universal health care, public pensions and making sure no one is left behind.

to all Canadians: Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one – a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world’s environment.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

In this Canadian's opinion Layton's letter (which has been made publicly available) deserves to be read in full.

This is the vision I look to in the people who lead my country. All else, the elections and the party platforms, should be nothing more than a heated discussion as to the best way to achieve that glorious vision.

A better world for all of us to live in.

On the inside looking out

 
I wouldn't say I surprised when various American news broadcasts described the outcome of the recent (2011) Canadian election in a way that was so simplified that it was misleading. However, I had not expected the particular way in which the coverage would distort the realities of Canadian politics. The New York Times piece on the election results, Conservatives in Canada Expand Party's Hold, discussed them without ever mentioning, Jack Layton, the man who lead the New Democratic Party (the new official opposition) to win a record-breaking number of seats. In the same article Michael Ignatieff, leader the Liberals, is mentioned three times (excluding the still incorrect corrections at the bottom of the piece.) Similarly The Washington Post article,
Harper says he won’t move Canada hard to the right after winning coveted majority in election does mention Jack Layton by name but does so in the second half of the piece and devotes far more time talking about Ignatieff than it did the very surprising success of the leader of the NDP.

It was after reading an article about the Canadian election in Slate.com Worthwhile Canadian Candidate: Michael Ignatieff may want to be prime minister too much for Canadians to give it to him. that I finally realized which presumptions/stereotypes that Canadian public's rejection of Michael Ignatieff was being filtered through.

First: Canadians are just like Americans except they like to play hockey, say "eh" and "aboot." Verities of American politics can be applied at will to Canadian politics.

Second: Separatism is a strange thing that has something to do with the fact that they speak French in places in Canada but Canadian regionalism isn't really important because they are just like Americans except for the fact that they play hockey etc...

Third: Oh, and they have these "left leaning" parties and some of them even have "socialist" roots but a conservative is a conservative is a Republican so delving any deeper into the party platforms (what! conservatives in Canada back socialized medicine!) isn't really necessary.

Fourth: People who live outside of Canada and become well-known in the United States should be recognized by Canadians as ambitious not expatriate.

Fifth: Canadians who don't immediately warm to a Harvard intellectual who spent more than 3 decades out of the country and came back and almost immediately ran for the leadership of his political party are parochial, credulous (falling for the Rovesque tactics of the Conservatives) or suspicious of ambition.

Sixth: That someone from the "outside" (if they are an American) can better understand/judge what is good for Canadians than can Canadians.

Lest these suggestions come across as simply another case of Canadian "touchiness" I would point out that all the things which annoy me about the American coverage of Canadian politics also annoys me about Canadian coverage of the politics of other countries. Just as American news writers and editors understanding and evaluate Canadian news through the filters of their prior concepts so do Canadian news writers and editors understand and evaluate other countries through prior concepts/stereotypes. As citizens of democracies we are called upon at regular or irregular intervals (depending upon one's electoral system) to make decisions and judgments that should be made out of knowledge rather than ignorance. We should be reacting to the reality of the world around us not the phantasms created by "common knowledge," media steroetypes and fact challenged news delivery systems.