Reading Too Much In

The recent release of the latest (and presumably last) Harry Potter novel has spawned all sorts of attempts at analysis which try to read far too much into a story that is pure escape literature.

While I can understand some degree of interest and curiousity being express with respect to what one can only describe as a societal phenomenon that has spanned the globe, we should be cautious about treating it as anything other than a pop culture moment. To apply much more than basic literary criticism to the Harry Potter books is granting what is obviously no deeper than your average Star Trek episode far too much intellectual credibility.

Perhaps the best example of the insanity that has come to surround the Harry Potter stories is expressed by Wingnut Daily, whose writers are getting themselves thoroughly tied up in knots over the dark evil of the "occult" in these books:

Wohlberg's new book "Exposing Harry Potter and Witchcraft: The Menace Beneath the Magic," asserts that "Harry Potter" purchases are often accompanied at the sales counter with materials on Wicca. Increasing numbers of young readers also frequent Wicca websites, cast "Love and Money Spells," and practice "white magic."

You know, I remember hearing those same kind of idiotic criticisms levelled at Dungeons and Dragons when I was in Junior High school. I think magic is something that many people find appealing, especially in adolescence. Who wouldn't give almost anything to make the pain and angst of our adolescent years go away (or turn that Math teacher that nobody could stand into a toad?)

Magic, at least on this world, isn't "real". Nobody accomplishes anything by incantations (at least that can be proven demonstrably) - whether those incantations are meant to boil a cauldron of water, or bring favor from some arbitrary sky-being.

Arguably, what many religions call prayer is little different from the ritualized casting of spells that many claim is an expression of "evil".

Many people I know scratch their heads and stare somewhat in askance at the near hysteria of the claims of the fundamentalists when they speak of Harry Potter (or Tolkein, or Dungeons and Dragons...). But, when you step back from it for a moment, it starts to make a little sense.

The fundamentalist claims that not only is "God" an absolute reality, but also that this same being had something to do with the writing of the Bible/Q'Ran/Pentateuch {pick your faith}. This grants a "reality" to an unknowable that is perhaps slightly irrational when framed in the context of our world. There is no way I can know the truth value of either claim, as they are statements of faith, not fact.

Looking a little further, it's not hard to see how if one accepts the claim that some meta being called "God" is real, that one might similarly be willing to believe that there is some "real" truth value to the kind of magic described in the Harry Potter books. Neither is demonstrable in any real sense in this world, but if you are willing to assign an absolute truth to one unknowable, credulity will similarly allow you to assume that magic is equally real.

More seriously, I think we have to ask ourselves if the hysteria around Harry Potter ultimately is about adults who have forgotten the imagination of youth, and the dalliances and explorations of those years between 11 and adulthood. Worrying that a piece of escape literature is exposing someone to evil is just plain silly - unless you happen to assign a reality to it that isn't really appropriate.

Activist Clergy

In the last few years, we've seen an increasing level of religious figures engaging openly in the political dialogue of their respective nations. (Or, in the case of Pope Ratz, all nations)

Whether we are talking about Bishop Henry in Calgary, Pope Ratzinger's various declarations, or Bishops demanding "reviews" of a nation's laws on Abortion.

I do not for a moment wish to argue that being a member of the clergy means that one does not have a legitimate interest and voice in politics. Far from it.

However, the clergy enjoys a unique, and privileged position in many Western countries. We grant Churches exemption from taxation, a privilege granted to no group that acts as a political lobby. In a nation where no official religion is recognized, this privilege is extended to any organization that can describe itself as a "church". By definition, a church's clergy are privileged people - given unique access to a regular platform for influencing the views of a great many people.

To what extent should we grant clergy the right to use their position as influential public figures as a platform from which to engage in political activism? We've seen Bishop Henry in Calgary make some pretty awful statements in the past, and others have attempted to influence our politicians through what I have come to call "spiritual blackmail" - such as denying communion to a politician who doesn't legislate according to what the Church demands. (It is not the denial that is significant, it is the often public statement of that threat/punishment)

Churches are not neutral parties - and in fact they can be amazingly rigid and (by modern standards), bigoted. One example is the anti-semitic overtones of Catholic Tridentine Mass recently "reapproved" by the Pope should concern many in a society that claims that all people are equal.

The Latin, or Tridentine rite contains a prayer that is read on Good Friday calling for the conversion of Jews. The U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League has criticized Benedict's decision, calling it a "theological setback" and a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

The 16th-century mass is traditionally delivered by a priest in Latin with his back to the congregation throughout the service.

How lovely. In essence, we have a pope here who is approving the revival of a pattern of prayer that is politely described as hostile to another faith. Coming from this particular pope, I'm hardly surprised by that revelation, but I don't think it reflects anything positive either.

When religion can foster conflicts and grudges that are ages old, and we already grant Churches a significantly privileged status in our society, should we allow them a free voice, or perhaps it is time to start demanding to "follow the money", and whatever percentage of their resources that is spent on political lobby/activism becomes taxable just like any other political lobby. (For example, I would argue that Bishop Henry's "pastoral letters" of a couple of years ago, and the distribution thereof would represent political activism. The costs of that activism come out of Church coffers, and whatever that cost is becomes taxable income.

Timing Is Everything

Like Ralph Klein, Stephen Harper seems to think that the best time to do things is when Parliament isn't sitting.

This week's examples: Appointing a new commissioner to the RCMP, and
Announcing capital spending

CTV has an even better summary of HarperCreep's behaviour during the summer recess.

(Say ... What's he going to wear to Stampede this year?)

Of course, we can hardly blame PMSH, can we. Every time he opens his yap in Parliament he shows us exactly what kind of arrogant, partisan "leader" he really is. While Parliament is sitting, his polling numbers sink steadily...why? Because in Parliament he has to speak. Of course, in his amazingly tactless way, he comes out with such gems as this:

But "not all the money went to this ungrateful NDP government in this province," he said. "In fact, for every dollar that went to them, about $2 or $3 went to the people of Saskatchewan.

What a way to win friends and influence people.

If Parliament's not sitting, he can make all the appointments and announcements he wants, without having to actually be accountable to the public.

PMSH: Little Dictator

We used to joke about Jean Chretien as being a "dictator" at various times. Then we encounter Prime Minister Harper: PM leaves combative premiers out of the loop.

So...what's the message coming from Mr. Harper here? If you don't do it my way, I'll shut you out. This is almost exactly the tactic that PMSH has taken with the Parliamentary Press Corps. Like other micromanagers, Harper is not only thin-skinned, but disastrously thick-headed.

In this case, we find Harper unable to find a way to engage in negotiation or dialogue, so he resorts to the tactics of junior high age children who retaliate against those who they dislike with the "cold shoulder".

Harper has made it clear that he has no respect for anyone who disagrees with him, Canadians owe him an equivalent amount of respect come next election.

Perhaps Oliver Stone's quip about Iran applies here:

“I have been called a lot of things, but never a great satan,” Stone said in the statement. “I wish the Iranian people well, and only hope their experience with an inept, rigid ideologue president goes better than ours.”

TheoCons: Getting The Facts Wrong

Over at Lifesite, we find the locals getting their knickers in a twist over one of the recipients of an Order of Canada award:

OTTAWA, Ontario, July 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, the same man who flouted Canadian law by illegally "marrying" a homosexual couple in 2001, and who subsequently pushed homosexual "marriage" on Canada through the back-door of the judicial system, has now been awarded the highest honor that can be given to a Canadian civilian.
...The award given under the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come as a shock to social conservatives and Catholics since Hawkes, in addition to flouting the law on marriage has attacked the Vatican. In an affidavit before the Supreme Court of Canada Hawkes bashed a Vatican document on homosexual unions and statements by Catholic bishops on the same as "expressions of hatred that should not be tolerated in our society."

Okay, I can get that the people behind Lifesite are TheoCons, and probably don't think too highly of anyone who supports equality rights.

But, you think this bunch of thick-witted fools could actually get their facts straight. First of all, the Order of Canada award is not a "political" award per se - that is to say, the PMO has little or no say in the matter. On the nominations page for the Order of Canada, we find reference to an Advisory Council. While the Governor General's website is somewhat oblique about who is on that council, a bit more digging turns up a rather nice list on Wikipedia:

The task of the Advisory Council is to evaluate the nominations of people to the Order and see if the nominated people are worthy enough to be accepted into the Order. The Governor General of Canada makes the appointments to the Order based on recommendations from the Advisory Council. The Secretary General to the Advisory Council announces the decision of the Advisory Council to the Canada Gazette and to the public about any appointments and dismissals from the Order.

The Advisory Council, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, includes the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Chairperson of the Canada Council for the Arts, the President of the Royal Society of Canada, and the Chairperson of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. As well, five members of the Order are part of the Council for a maximum three-year term. If the nomination involves a non-Canadian, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be invited by the Advisory Council to evaluate the nomination.

The current members of the Advisory Council are:

1. The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada (Chair)
2. Dr. Patricia Baird, O.C., O.B.C.
3. Dr. Patricia A. Demers, President, the Royal Society of Canada
4. Mr. Tom Jackson, O.C.
5. Ms. Karen Kain, C.C., Chair, the Canada Council for the Arts
6. Ms. Judith A. LaRocque, C.V.O., FRHSC (hon) Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage
7. Dr. Daurene E. Lewis, C.M.
8. Mr. Kevin G. Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet
9. M. L. Jacques Ménard, O.C.
10. Mr. J.E. (Ted) Newall, O.C.
11. Ms. Bonnie M. Patterson, Chairman of the Board, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

Looking at this list, one might imagine that although the politicians have some influence in the process, it's fairly limited. It's highly unlikely that Harper's minions had much to do with Rev. Hawkes' nomination in the first place, and by the looks of the structure of the advisory council, would have had a hard time squashing it on the basis of whatever petty partisan arguments they might have.

If there is a fundamental point to be made, it is that the Order of Canada is not, and should not become a vehicle for partisan politics at any time. It is external to the topics of daily political squabbles, and to drag it into the realm of the 'House of Commons' politics is somewhere in the realm of offensive to the very idea of the Order itself.

Conservatives: Choosing Ideology over Law

It would be something of an understatement to say that George Bush's Supreme Court appointments have been controversial. The argument has been made repeatedly that Bush is trying to stack the SCotUS with right-wing ideologues sympathetic to the neoCon view that courts should be extremely limited in what they do.

Someone took some time to review recent SCotUS rulings, and it's not a pretty picture - especially for a country that supposedly has a "rule of law":

In a weeklong flurry of eye-popping judicial activism and ideological triumphalism, the court shredded some basic legal doctrines and moral principles that have guided this nation’s conscience for more than a century. Nothing could have done more than last week’s rulings to focus our collective attention on the meaning of democracy and justice.

That's from the opening paragraph. It gets worse, much worse:

Of all these decisions, the most appalling was the last major ruling of the session, Parents v. Seattle, outlawing public-school integration plans in Seattle and in Louisville, Ky. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the court all but overturned Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation ruling that was arguably one of the moral high points of American public life in the 20th century. In his decision, Roberts blithely claimed he was actually upholding Brown, whose purpose, he wrote, was to achieve a “colorblind” society rather than to advance racial justice, as most of us supposed.

By his logic, government is barred from doing anything that acknowledges race — even if it is intended, as in the current case, to advance racial justice. Kennedy, in his separate concurrence, allowed that there might be a legitimate program somewhere to advance racial justice, but he left Americans guessing about just how to find it and, in effect, strongly discouraged from trying.

The reading of the decision left the court’s so-called liberal wing — John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — literally slack-jawed in rage and shame. The normally unflappable Breyer, who authored the liberal dissent, spent 20 minutes at the bench passionately denouncing the court’s ruling and, by implication, its overall direction. “It is not often in the law,” Breyer declared, “that so few have so quickly changed so much.”

If you step back from this a moment, you quickly realize that in the minds of neoCons, anybody who asks for their rights to be protected and recognized in law is asking for "special privilege". Of course, most of the neoCon crowd is wealthy, privileged and often white (usually at least 2 of the three), and would never have experienced significant discrimination aimed at them in their lives.

It's bad enough in the States after ~7 years of BushCo damage, but let's not be smug and naive about Canada. This country's CONS have long complained about "activist courts", and more recently Harper has all but admitted to trying to stack Canada's judiciary with ideologues sympathetic to his perspective.

Remember, this is the same PM who has directed the bureaucracy to implement an arguably illegal no-fly list, and has spent huge amounts of money protecting Rob Anders - by bending and breaking his own party's rules. Just how much respect does this man have for law, rights and your freedoms? (not much)

Flouting The Law

In a "Our Standards Don't Apply To Us" move that mirrors PMSH, we find George Bush commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

I suspect that this would have been an outright pardon, except that there are some limitations on pardons that could have landed Bush, Libby and Cheney in even more hot water.

Bush claims "to respect the jury's verdict" in this case, but that Libby was being punished to harshly. (Odd, considering the media reports suggest that Libby's sentence was well within normal guidelines for such an offense)

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic.

Why yes, there is a certain air of Marie Antoinette in Bush's petulant actions. To my eye, it smacks of complicity in Libby's actions within the White House leadership - the very people that because of their position and responsibilities should be held to a much higher standard, not a lesser standard.

Of course, ever since day one, the Bush/Cheney administration has been all over protecting their own - to the extent of refusing to testify at legislative inquiry unless they are allowed to skip taking an oath. Now we see a president step forward and rescue one of his own from the horror of being imprisoned - even when all of their other attempts to cover up and subvert have failed.

In this case, I'm not at all sure who is aping whom. Is it just the natural behaviour of the current Rethuglican leadership, or have they picked up on the smug arrogance of PMSH and his crowd that continually play the "our standards don't apply to us" game? Either way, Bush's actions are a slap in the face to the American public.