Anti-Semitism? Indeed

A couple of days ago apeared in the news (“Filmmakers protest uncritical view of Tel Aviv at Toronto film festival”, Haaretz) that some Canadian filmmakers threatened to withdraw their movies from The Toronto International Film Festival to protest the screening of Israeli movies at the festival -a celebration of the centennial of Tel Aviv- that, according to them, “will show Israel in a positive light instead of creating a critical forum in which to discuss the occupation”. One of the protesters, the movie director John Greyson, complained about “the business-as-usual atmosphere advanced by the choice of Tel Aviv as a young, dynamic metropolis, in a celebration free of confrontation with less pleasant parts of Israel”, for example, what he refers to as “the brutal occupation”.

Somewhere else, I have labeled this protest an anti-Semitic one, which prompted, in turn, some complaints by a friend. He defines anti-Semitism as “the un-principled hatred directed towards Israel and Jewish people based on nothing other than bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance”, and doesn´t think “one can accurately claim that any of the protesters cited in this article are endorsing or promoting anti-Semitism.”

I share entirely my friend´s definition of anti-Semitism, but also reach the oposite conclusion in this case. I´d like to add I´m particularly careful when using certain loaded terms, and “anti-Semitism” is one of them. Therefore, I was not careless when I chose to use it. I also share the emphasis my friend places in the distinction between the legitimate criticism of human rights violations by a country and the condemnation of a country or people as a whole. My own position is very critical towards many Israeli policies, the occupation of The West Bank and the meddling of the Israeli army in the daily life of Palestinians in particular, but this is not the point.

I call these Canadian filmmakers anti-Semitic because their protest reveals hostility and prejudice towards Israel per se.

As an example, let´s think of a film festival outside Canada which was to screen movies by Canadian filmmakers celebrating, say, the vibrant dynamism and multiculturalism of the city of Toronto. Then let´s think of several other participants in the festival protesting against those Canadian filmmakers showing a positive image of Canada when what they should be doing, say, is showing in their movies how evil the participation of Canadian troops in the international mission currently being carried out in Afghanistan. Wouldn´t we think this would be a paranoic protest? Wouldn´t we say these two facts -a vibrant Toronto and the Afghan mission- are not related? Wouldn´t we take it as an unespecific critique and a total disregard of the many good things going on in Canada and, therefore, a censure of the whole country? Moreover, what idea these Canadian filmmakers have of an artist´s freedom to create? Should all Israeli artists devote their energy and time to criticize endlessly the occupation of the West Bank, otherwise they will not be accepted as artists? So, portraying daily life in Tel Aviv means approval of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians? What should be the recommendation, in turn, regarding the Palestinian artists? That they are not free to display whatever they want in their artworks, that they must always show how “brutal” the occupation is, otherwise their works will no be taken seriously? This is exactly what the Case of the Toronto Film Festival and Israel is about.

Often, a very ill-conceived position regarding justice consists in (a) defining strong and feeble individuals or groups, according to our particular ideologies; then (b) side in all places and cases with the feeble and against the strong, thus defined. This complacent attitude may show others how religiously we adhere to our ideologies, but is not likely to be  of service to those we claim to help, and certainly is misguided as a principle for justice. Sometimes, it can also even bear extreme prejudice, and the Canadian filmmakers protest is a good example of it. As my friend says, it´s important to distinguish between a legitimate critique and unspecific, generalistic condemnations. Anti-Semitism may easily sprout among this kind of prejudiced protests against what should be mere movies bearing no relation to what is being objected against. However, some people are always ready to see what they want to see, and not what actually is out there.

Photo: Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, 2009 © Loudsoul

Let me be multidimensional

As any other higher education institution in North America, the university that currently harbors me is swarming this week with thousands of new students arriving for the start of the academic year. A walk around the crowded campus allows one to perceive the multicultural, multiethnic nature of this country, as young individuals of all races, languages and cultural backgrounds move around getting ready for classes and the needs of student life. All over the place, one may find official university posts or companies offering a variety of administrative or commercial services or organized groups of students trying to get fellow students involved in a wide range of voluntary activities. Among these, I have not failed to notice an extraordinary profuseness of groups basically defining themselves by means of one communitarian trait or another. Let´s see… we have religious groups (”Ambassadors for Jesus”, “Christian Students Association”, “We are Jewish”, “Korean Campus Mission”, “Muslim Students Association”, “Sikh Students Association”…), national origin groups (“African Awareness”, “Asian Canadian Cultural Organization”, “Bangladesh Students Association”, “Gado-Gado Indonesian Student Association”, “Kababayan Filipino Students Association”, “Persian Group”…), sexual orientation groups (“PrideUBC”, all kinds of GLBT groups…), disability groups, and so on. It is quite common some (though not all) of these groups try to appeal to students as if they were essentially unidimensional beings, whose life lacks any meaning if their overriding characteristics -ideally only one per person- are not nurtured. In other words, what some of these groups are saying is “We are Catholic, or Gay, or Jewish, or Chinese, or disabled, or Muslim, or women, or African Americans, or conservatives, or progressives, or Canadian… and only that. So, if you are like us, you necessarily see the world through that specific trait, and it is only natural for you to join us. We are your (homogeneus) community”.

Somehow, we humans have always tended to surround ourselves with people like us. This seems to be a natural -that is, instinctive- trend. However, it is paradoxical that nowadays that we human beings have cut ourselves off so much from the restrictions of nature (instinct) to embrace a dynamic social life (culture), are lately strongly reproducing those restrictions to an open and fruitful interaction among us by stressing that which is suposedly distinctive in us and that fundamentaly differentiates us from others. It is a sign of our communitarian times that we apparently are valuable as humans by means of belonging to a group (and to that group only), as if one of our many attributes as individuals was clearly predominant over the rest of them. Thus, according to this widespread view, it is nearly unnatural, for example, to be feminist and not to hate men; to be gay and Republican; to be Jewish and support Palestinian demands; to be an intellectual and enjoy American Idol; to be progressive and firmly defend free markets; to simultaneously love haute cuisine and McDonald´s burgers; to be a devout believer but favour a radical separation between church and state; to love your mother tongue and the landscapes that saw you growing up and not being a nationalist; to be Chinese and Spanish and black… In other words, it is unnatural to act differently than the group you supposedly belong to and which gives meaning to your existence.

Why, nowadays that freedom is the paramount social value, cannot we have multiple affiliations and unlimited contradictions? Why -what a truism- cannot we be valued just as individuals, regardless of the many families we may belong to in a given moment? Why is it so difficult to be naturally multidimensional?

Photo: ‘The flickr portrait gallery hall of excellence 2007′ © amsterdamned

Identity and immigration priorities

1

The Spanish opposition conservative Popular Party (PP) made public last week its proposed measures on immigration policy as part of its program towards next month´s general election. As it is usually the case in Spain, these propositions were welcomed not with the ensuing debates and discussion such an important issue deserves, but with a cacophony of accusations and contempt from the leftist parties, which in turn triggered new accusations and contempt from the PP. Nothing new under the sun…

The new measures proposed by the PP are twofold. First, a legally binding ‘Integration contract’, whose signature will be mandatory for all new immigrants. Among other prescriptions, this integration contract stipulates immigrants will have to respect the law, pay taxes, and find a job -all of this being already in effect-, but also to learn Spanish and abide by the Spanish customs, without further specification on the latter, though party officials hinted at the prohibition of genital mutilation and the equality between sexes, both of which are already enforced. Failure to comply may result in the immigrant being expelled from the country. The party justified the measure on the need to ameliorate the integration of immigrants by way of them adhering to core Spanish values -”which must be clearly stablished by society as a whole”-, thus improving social cohesion. The need for society to decide in which cases should we all be morally and legally bound and when differences and diversity should be respected was also mentioned.

The second measure consists in the introduction of a new scheme to give out temporary visas and working permits based on a ‘points system’, aiming at facilitating the arrival of high skilled and experienced workers. Along with prioritizing immigrants possesing certain skills or having the high capabilities the Spanish labour market is in need of, those individuals coming from countries “with which we may have special or historical links” would also be favored. According to one leading Spanish newspaper the PP would actually like to toughen immigration policy giving preference to foreigners arriving from Latin America -catholic and Spanish speakers- over those coming from the Maghrib -muslim and Arab speakers-. Also, temporary and working visas would be awarded according to the following criteria: (a) Knowledge of Spanish; (b) Professional skills; (c) Knowledge of the Spanish legal system; and (d) Knowledge of the Spanish culture.

On the left camp, the governmental Socialist Party (PSOE) deemed the announced proposals xenophobic, reactionary and discriminating; the socialist Vicepresident considered they favor rejection and racism, and showed contempt for immigrants, for equality and for diversity; and the post-communist United Left (IU) added they were racist, classist and islamophobic, and that the PP abhors diversity and religious pluralism.

Do measures like those proposed improve immigrants integration and social cohesion, as the PP claims, or else they embody racism and contempt for other cultures, as the left asserts? At this point it would be interesting to look at how other countries are coping with immigration and diversity, and one such interesting comparation, if not the most appropriate, is the Canadian case.

Canada has, right after Australia, the highest proportion of foreign-born population in the world (19,8%). In the five years preceding 2006, the year for which we have the latest available figures, Canada’s foreign-born population increased by 13.6% (the equivalent rate for the Canadian-born population was 3.3% for the same period. Immigrants born in Asia and the Middle East made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers, followed by those born in Europe (16,1%), Central and South America (10,8%) and in Africa (10,6%). In 2006, just three metropolitan areas -Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver- were home to nearly 70% of all recent immigrants. 70.2% of the foreign-born population is allophone, that is, has as mother tongue neither English nor French. If aboriginal languages are included, one out of five Canadians does not have any of the official languages as mother tongue. Regarding religion, in 2001 Catholics and Protestants made up nearly 70% of the population; another 15% has no religious affiliation, the rest was Othodox, other types of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and other, in varying percentages.

Commensurately with this astonishing level of diversity, Canada faces enormous integration challenges, and the country has engaged itself in a ceaseless debate on the core values of its social and political system, trying to stablish what being Canadian really means and what this notion of citizenship, if any, implies for the Canadian legal system. Both liberal institutions granting rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and multiculturalism play a relevant role in this debate, the most important one Canada faces nowadays as a nation.

The current Canadian immigration policy is based on the idea that immigration prompts the country’s growth, its prosperity and its cultural diversity. The system also aims at families´reunion and the protection of refugees. Permanent residence is usually granted according to a point system based on several selection factors, such as educational level, abilities in English or French, working experience, age, arranged employment in the country, or potential adaptability (having studied in Canada, having relatives or having previous work there). Immigrants are also subjected to a proof of funds, that is, they must show they are not going to be dependent on the state after their arrival. Residents and citizens may sponsor relatives to immigrate in the country, and it is worth noting that -on a very progressive note and besides dependent children, grandparents, siblings and other relatives- not only spouses but also common-law or conjugal partners are eligible. Finally, let us mention language proficiency and knowledge about Canadian culture plays an important role, but only when applying for citizenship. Broadly speaking, the system aims both at matching the needs of Canadian labour market with both the skills and flows of newcomers, and at facilitating integration by means of a non-restrictive, non-ideological and objective set of selection criteria, and also helping families reunite.

The Canadian immigration system has worked reasonably well, is the result of successive approaches to immigration and integration policies throughout decades, and commands a high degree of approval among the Canadian population and the agreement of all political parties. Sure, there are challenges and integration issues in Canada, as mentioned before, such as social tensions regarding some cultural practices or the consecuences of a certain degree of permanent low income among recent immigrants, but, overall, the system has worked efficiently and allowed for the great numbers of newcomers mentioned above to settle successfully in the country -access to citizenship is easy, in international terms, as permanent residents may apply for it after three years, and about 85% of those eligible get naturalized- and share the wealth its arrival has contributed so much to trigger.

Going back to Spain, what does the Canadian experience tell us?

It is strongly advisable for a country subjected to high immigration rates to open a public debate on identity issues, as comprehensive as possible and including immigrant groups. Our society, as those of many other countries, is becoming increasingly multicultural, and cannot do without trying to stablish which is our minimum set of core values, those our legislation must embody and protect, and citizens and residents comply with. However, this is not an easy task, and different parties in the debate may feel the temptation to try to impose their views, resorting either to an elusive concept of ‘ancestral national culture’ -empty and dysfunctional in the face of accelerated social change- or to a multiculturalist notion of citizenship, which relativizes values and may lead to a ghettoization of certain groups and entrenched discriminating practices inside ethno-cultural communities and among them.

When making public their immigration policy proposals, the Popular Party spokesmen mentioned the need to address this debate on core values, and rightly so, but perhaps an electoral campaign is not the best moment to raise the subject, which calls for a quiet, comprehensive and long-term reflection, nor political parties should be its (only) stirring agents, as many other social forces, institutions and individuals ought to have a say in the disscusion.

By choosing to bring up immigration and integration issues just before a general election, the Popular Party looks like he is not so much interested in opening a debate on these extremely important questions but on gaining some political advantage by means of playing with the emotions of voters. Also, the criteria it advanced for stablishing priorities among residency claimants seem to be very subjective and hastily assembled, though consistent with a certain conservative notion of Spanish culture, as if its definition enjoyed an overwhelming consent and needed no further discussion, which is just the contrary of the non-biased reflection mentioned above. Whereas having certain professional skills and at least a working command of Spanish may increase immigrants´chances of finding a job and integrating, it is difficult to grasp how favoring certain countries of origin over other countries or regions -out of culture, religion or historical links- will benefit the Spanish economy. This arbitrariness also reveals an static idea of Spanish culture, insusceptible to change and frozen in time, and it sends the message as well that Spain is an open country not for those wanting to come here to live, respect the laws, progress and contribute to its wealth, but only for the ones who will not challenge the supposedly immutable essence of Spanish ‘culture’.

On the other hand, the socialist government and the rest of the leftist parties are wrong in criticizing the stablishment of priorities in the immigration policies and of certain rules newcomers must observe, since it is perfectly legitimate governments choose which people are entitled to form part of their societies, and doing so in a non-discriminating, open-to-all and reasonable manner is a proper way of conducting public policy.

The reaction of the left lays bare the fact it does not really know how to address the identity and multicultural issues we are facing. Or else, worst still, as in the case of post-communist or post-marxist parties and movements, they know perfectly well, following their desire of detonating the pivotal institutions of our open societies. Regarding integration and identity, it is worth recalling cultures are dynamic and are subjected to constant change; they are not ‘stock’ but ‘flow’, to borrow the language of the economic science. However, we must give sound arguments and reasons to defend or criticize the elements making up a culture and, if we care at all for human rights, rule out any relativist temptations, which prevent us from exercising a rightful critique of cultural practices. Let us not fool ourselves: criminalizing genital mutilation and arranged marriage but leaving intact many other forms of abuse in the name of diversity -something post-marxist movements and even a part the socialdemocratic left support- only shows our selfishness and our disdain for the fate of the individuals we supposedly care for. Avoiding a debate on what constitutes the foundations of our freedom -those deserving uttermost respect on the part of citizens, residents and visitors alike- and, moreover, doing so out of a supposed ‘respect’ for the customs dear to minoritarian ethno-cultural groups also being a part of our society, only demeans our legitimacy to speak for the oppressed and the abused in those groups, and exposes the degree towards which we yield to a sort of post-colonial remorse -conveniently transmited through generations-, and also the fact that we are paradoxically shameful about the accomplishments of our civilization.

Far from being an exercise on ‘neo-colonialist’ imposition and ‘contempt’ for diversity and pluralism, to judge by the left´s initial reaction to the Popular Party immigration measures -the point not being how good or ill-conceived they are-, vindicating the very values and institutions that make us all equal before the law and grant us, among many other things, the freedom to engage in the cultural practices of our election or the abandonment of them, is the only way of organizing a multiethnic, multicultural and diverse society for the good of its members. For all of them, current and prospective.

Photo: School friends, 2007 © Woodleywonderworks

It wasn´t me, mummy!

Last month, a canadian woman won a lawsuit she had filed against a man. It was a very special lawsuit, since she was suing the dealer who sold her the drugs she overdosed with. The woman, Sandra Bergen, now 23, bought from Clinton Davey some crystal meth in Biggar, Saskatchewan, in 2004, and then smoke it with him. She had consumed the substance before, and claims she was addicted to it back then. After smoking it for a while, she felt very sick, and wound up in hospital, in a coma. She eventually got out of it and decided to sue her dealer. She accused Davey of knowing “the drug was highly addictive and harmful” without letting her know, and of intentionally wanting to “inflict physical and mental suffering” to her. She also named as a defendant the person who supplied the drugs to her dealer. In the pre-trial examination process, Davey refused to reveal who provided him with the drug and, facing the threat of a contempt-of-court charge, he agreed to have his statement of defence struck, de facto admitting his liability. That lead to Sandra Bergen legal victory. A future trial will determine the amount she will be awarded in damages. According to her statement of claim she is seeking more than $50,000.

Leaving aside some paradoxical aspects of this legal process (i.e.: may an individual be accused of breaking an implicit contract -“you give me something which I will enjoy and will not hurt me and I will give you money in exchange”- when the whole transaction is illegal, to begin with? I would really like to hear from any legal expert regarding this question), the case exemplifies perfectly well the extent towards which freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Freedom entails choosing among different courses of action and different possible outcomes, hence the need to assume responsibilities for those choices. Mrs. Bergen wants to be free to consume crystal meth, knowing such behavior carries some risks linked to the frecuency and amount of the drug comsumption, to her own physical condition in relation to the drug´s effect, and to the substance composition. In any case, no one forced her to buy and consume the drug. If she was not sure about the mentioned circunstances, she should not have bought it. However, she did it, voluntarily, and claiming she was addicted to the drug does not change the fact that it was a voluntary act. Addiction does not really exist, since any comsumption habit may be stopped (all of a sudden or in a short period of time, depending on the substance, doses and lenght of comsumption) if the consumer chooses to do so. When the undesired outcome materializes, Mrs. Bergen refuses to admit she is the only responsible for it, and starts looking for someone else to blame (her dealer, his supplier), seeking compensation.

If so called recreational drugs were legal (actually, drugs have always been legal except for the past 80 years, the years of the prohibition crusade), they would have to display an accurate description of its components and detailed administration instructions. Failing to do so would result in the banning of its commercialization, and frauds would be prosecuted. However, governments have chosen to keep the production, distribution and consumption of drugs illegal out of paternalism and other reasons, thus effectively making children out of us adults when it comes to making an informed choice about which substances we want to consume. In this day and age, it is not us who decide what we wish or is convenient to put into our bodies, but our governments, which restrict our freedom and our responsibilities in our supposed best interest. Needless to say, many adults are only too happy to relinquish as many responsibilities for their actions as possible.

As in the case of the woman who sued Starbucks Co. because she scalded herself when spilling the coffee she had just bought at one of its stores, and many other such examples (obese consumers suing McDonald´s after years of happily visiting its restaurants or lung cancer patients proceeding against the tobacco companies which provided them with so many smoky pleasures come easily to one´s mind), Mrs. Bergen´s case conjures up the tender image of a child who mischievously breaks his favourite toy. With weeping eyes, he will run to his mother, denying the evidence and pointing the finger at something or someone else instead: “Please mummy, fix it! It wasn´t my fault! I didn´t do anything…!”

P.S.: Besides her legal victory, and the money going with it, Mrs. Bergen´s story has yet another happy ending: she got a job and a purpose in life. Now she tours the country speaking of her experience for “38 cents a kilometer or airfare” and “$250 honorarium (negotiable)”, “in order to educate whom ever, where ever” about the dangers of drug consumption!

Photo: ‘Black Opium’ cover, illustrated by Robert Maguire © The Book Palace

Fireworks

When I saw the Chinese team beat the Spanish one -Spain being a world power if we talk about fireworks-, though in my opinion the exhibition of the latter in the ‘Celebration of Light 2007′ at English Bay had a livelier rhythm, I thought China will achieve whichever technical goal it sets for itself in the future. Really, they can, and they will.

Photo: Fireworks in English Bay, Vancouver, Canada, 2007 © Loudsoul

Wreck Beach

At last, a sunny day in this odd summer in Vancouver. Let´s go to the nearest beach, which in this case is Wreck Beach. A glimpse of what you may find there: a beautiful but never-ending stair-trail to descend to the beach itself, so steep that is equally exhausting to go up or down. Half of the people completely naked (it´s a nudist beach, what did you expect?). Among the nudists it´s difficult to distinguish any Asians (why?). Some old tattooed hippies coming directly from Berkeley in the 60´s or the movie ‘Easy ryder’. Some young hippies playing the guitar. Lots of people smoking pot while a policeman in shorts walks among them (I don´t know what for) apparently as relaxed as the smokers are, though it may well be for different reasons. Many families. Many UBC students. Naked surfers in the water, but no waves. A few dogs. Some swans and cygnets (black, not white) progressing so slowly in the water they seem just to be floating near the shore. An Asian beauty with a red umbrella. All kinds of stuff to be sold: fast food, cold drinks, colorful sarongs, massages, any kind of drugs, offered to you by naked dealers (I mean the drugs, not the mentioned goods and services). A multiethnic crowd, as multiethnic as the city of Vancouver itself. Lots of people speaking Spanish with a Mexican accent. Lots of people speaking Chinese… I don´t know exactly with which particular accent, since I don´t understand a word. A surprisingly clean sand. A liberal atmosphere, thought it´s not easy to find the right words to express why it is so. Or maybe it was just the smell of marihuana affecting my judgement. Finally, some very nice people you may have met last Saturday evening, kindly inviting you to sit with them in the sand to enjoy the amazing sunset while having a beer. Yes, it was a very nice afternoon at Wreck Beach.

Photo: Wreck Beach, Vancouver, 2007 © Loudsoul

Liquid sunshine

Rain, and then more rain over the Vancouver region. Last saturday we had a great sunny afternoon, so Wreck Beach was crowded. Since then, nothing but grey, cloudy skies and rain. Affectionately, locals call this weather ‘liquid sunshine’… Here we all long for a real sunshine, though. I can´t help thinking of the Spanish blue skies and long sunny days during summer…

Photo: Rainy day, UBC campus, Vancouver, 2007. Photo © Loudsoul