Intolerant...And Damn Proud Of It

Years ago, at work, we had a situation where we were all rounded up like cattle, on very short notice to meet with a VP from HR from my company, as well as from our client's company. For sure, the 60-70 of us thought that the end was near, that we were about to lose our jobs. Well, if it was going to happen, at the very least let it be quick, and at the very least, we are all doing down together. So most of the staff shuffled into a large conference room in the office. Those who were at remote sites would dial-up and go on speakerphone. Then there was myself, who wasn't remote, but I wasn't in the office either, since I was...on vacation...but somehow was tipped off as to an important meeting, so in between changing my son's adequately soiled diapers, I dialed into the conference call. My wife also was exceptionally curious as to how they were going to tell us that we all got the corporate axe.

I was initially relieved when I heard the VPs say at the outset, "no one's losing their job today." But just as quickly, they moved on to the topic at hand and indicated, "Today, we called this meeting here because we want to talk to you all about diversity." Oh Lord, I thought, this is what this is all about? More politically correct winsome crap about racial and ethnic and cultural and (egad!) sexual orientation and how it all blends in to make the work environment a slice of utopian pie? Ugh. I know many companies have annual, if not more often, policies regarding all this kind of stuff (our biggest competitor is notorious for it, based on my conversations with a friend, a very senior IT guy, who worked at this other company for only two years, only to realize it was politically correct social engineering at its finest. He quit this IT behemoth to start work at a company of around 20 people.

Anyhow, the VPs quickly turned their attention to the matter at hand. Before I proceed further, let me provide some context here (and I'll make sure I am as vague as possible here to not provide any identifying information that can land me in the middle of litigation. I worked with a fellow who was probably in his fifties. He was a pretty senior guy, been with the company for something like 30 years. Close to retirement. Was a biker looking dude - that's all I'll say. Anyhow, the big news that day was that this guy, who was married to his wife, had decided that he was more comfortable as a woman, so he decided to get a full sex change done, so basically in a couple of weeks, he would come back with a different name, dressed like a woman, use the woman's bathroom, and in essence, all the staff, from management to end-workers, were expected to obviously not harrass this fellow in his new identity, but also to address him as a woman. I remember that there was instant response with several people who either did not feel comfortable with this voice their displeasure, and there were also several other people who objected because it was "against their religion", whatever the hell that means. Even one person indicated bluntly, "In my country, we put people to death for this!" I did pipe in and mentioned that no one should be forced to be accept this if it was against their faith or personal convictions, and the HR VP said to me, in front of the whole group, "well, you'll just have to work that out." Damn right I will. It didn't take too long for me to just that.

When I got back from my two weeks vacation, I remember walking into the office and lo and behold, before I even sat my keester into my office chair, I was greeted by the fellow who had undergone the sex change. Now, I am generally not a belligerent nor a cruel person. I am not the most patient person, I admit, but neither do I have a short fuse. However, as my wife can attest, I do stand behind my conviction, sometimes to the point that I am viewed as stubborn (which is fine with me). I also have general training in courtesies and social graces. Not to mention, I do have some Christian conviction from the Spirit that would keep in check any form of outburst I may be tempted to employ. In this case, the person said, "Hello, Jeremy." In between shock and well, more shock, I replied back, "Hello." The person knew me previously and had a sense of my view on these things, so he didn't ask me to comment on his new look. All he said was, "let's go into this corner and talk." OK, I said, let's go. So we talked for a good hour, standing on our feet, as I, out of pure curiosity, asked the person my natural questions about how a sex change worked, where the hell he came up with the 15 grand in order to get his wiener chopped off (apparently the operation was around 2 hours - not sure about the reconstruction part). To his credit, he answered all my questions seriously and with the level of detail that I needed to know, nothing more, nothing less. He said to me, "I know this is hard for you to accept," at which point I responded, "Yes. To be honest, I know that the company doesn't want me to address you as a man anymore (apparently, I could have been reprimanded for doing so) but you know that I am not comfortable with this, so how's about I just address you as "you" or by your title and last name or something. This wasn't really a request on my part - no one can force me to do something against my convictions (I could have easily made a case for reverse discrimination here, if I so felt inclined). He hesitated and then said, "well, you can always just treat me like a colleague." I was planning to do just that, since ultimately, I do have to work with him, and as long as he doesn't push his lifestyle on me at work, I don't see why we can't continue to have a cordial working relationship.

Since that time, I have noticed that every year, we seem to get some sort of mandatory readings on diversity, tolerance and what not. Even if I didn't, we are innundated with this from the media (print or broadcast or airwave-based). It's as if this is the be-all and end all solution that would somehow bring forth a new age of peace and understanding amongst all peoples.

Well, as long as I continue to draw breath in these here lungs, I will visibly fight any notion for people to be forced or coerced, whether it be through guilt or shaming, to be "tolerant". Even the pure definition of the word entails setting aside your own convictions to "stand" or "endure" something. In other words, being "tolerant" carries with it a need to suppress what you naturally believe for some other viewpoint that somehow is considered more intelligent and contemporary. Unfortunately, people who stand up to current worldly ideals, who stand out from the crowd and say, "no, I do not believe this is right", are viewed as "ignorant" and "uneducated" and "unenlightened". I will be happy to bear these labels, since I am not ever willing to sell out my own convictions in order to appease the masses, which are widely influenced by politically correct, socialist-driven agendas.

Take for instance, the current state of multiculturalism in Canada. I don't bother delving into this in great detail, since I have already covered this topic in an earlier post in April 2007 (just do a search and you'll find it). While I can, to a degree, tolerate multiculturalism (no pun intended), where I draw the line is when I am being pushed other ethnic group or cultural group or faith group's opinions as somehow having more intrinsic worth than mine. At the very least, any concerns that people have about multiculturalism are strongly suppressed. A friend of mine, who is Burmese, whose wife is Filipino (for the sake of clarity, let's consider them Asians) moved into a brand new house a few years back, after moving out of their old place, and spending some time living with his or her parents (I don't remember which), while they waited for their place to be constructed. A year or so later, they had a brand new, beautiful home, in a new neighbourhood. I went to visit him and congratulated him on his new home. While I was over, he grabbed me (no, not in that way), and took me out back where he was barbecuing and wanted my opinion on something. I found it strange that he didn't want either of our wives to hear this, but hey, I didn't concern myself too much with that. Anyhow, he told me that after six months of living there, he was planning to move again? Why, I said? He mentioned in a quiet whisper that his neighbourhood was slowly becoming a muslim one, with muslim families moving in left right and center and a mosque was being built nearby. As a Roman Catholic family, he was not comfortable with acknowledging that he wasn't liking the demographics of his neighbourhood, since people have been telling him, "you just need to be more tolerant". I told him, he doesn't need to be more tolerant, he needs to do what is comfortable for him and his family. If he doesn't want to live in a muslim neighbourhood, that's his prerogative. But unfortunately, these days, anyone who seems to want to speak out against ethnic ghettos, cultural dislikes, etc., are viewed as a bigot, racist, or whatever. I think if you continue to force viewpoints and worldviews to others who don't share them, you will in fact be creating a bigot or racist in the future. Unfortunately, the vocal politically correct socialists out there do not subscribe to the fact that gee whiz, people are in fact different, so stop trying to make everyone the same!

This was no more evident than the latest reports of a B.C. commentator indicating that those coming to Canada should adapt to Canadian culture and if you don't like that - then leave - and is also echoed by what is perceived to be a strong and controversial statement by a Quebec mayor indicating that immigrants coming into Canada should leave their cultural or religious dress at home. I know what she is getting at here (the muslim hijab and and also the burka (sp.), as well as the turban, and from the principle of it, I agree with her. Hey, people can wear whatever they want, but when you insist on wearing a hijab while playing on a girls' soccer team, or insisting on going to the voting booth with your freaking face covered...I mean, that's enough. Or refusing to unwrap your turban at airport security. I'm not talking about turbans in the RCMP - I am not generally against that, although I'd prefer the police force to have a standarized uniform of dress. What I don't like are people (and I am convinced that they are only a small segment of the ethnic community, who don't speak for everyone else) who seem to think that their cultural norms and dress should trump the cultural norms of their new country. If I were to go to a foreign country (for instance, like Singapore) and bitch and moan about not being able to chew gum or walk around with my zipper undone - they'd just tell me to cart my arse out of their country. I'd have to respect that, since there are pre-existing laws and customs that I need to abide by. No different than if my wife and I were to go into a muslim country and their custom requires women to cover their faces. I am not muslim, but since I am in the other country, I need to respect the existing culture and ways of doing things. It should be no different for those coming here.

Last year, out of curiosity at what obviously was an effort to try to put a more calming face on muslims, came this ridiculous concept of a TV show in Canada, called "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The whole thing was centered around a small rural town in Saskatchewan (I believe) in which a muslim guy was married to a Caucasian lady and it was basically muslim life in on the prairies. My wife and I tuned into this, and it was rather silly, actually. The lead actor for the male role, I really like, since he starred on the show 24 before, so it was a waste of his talent to use him in what is clearly socalist propaganda. In watching the show, you tend to forget that the wife is a white woman and there is zero focus on any of her ethnic cultural customs - the focus was more on the muslim faith and lifestyle. If you were a muslim, I'm sure you'd find some of the jokes funny. But as a Canadian born again Christian, I just didn't get it. It realy seems like after September 11, in the subsequent aftermath many muslims in Canada and the U.S. were unfairly targeted and persecuted and in some cases, killed (all of which I think is disgusting and I hope they used the full extent of the law to capture the cowards who were obviously prejudiced enough to paint all muslims with the same brush), the media has really made a concerted effort to try to give islam a more kinder, less extremist face. Problem with that is that they are not acknowledging that, just like there is a problem with crime and poverty and out of wedlock single births in the black community, there are extremists who are in the islamic community. My other concern with the media's efforts to be more "inclusive" and "tolerant", that it ends up focussing on the differences of people, and that simply widens the social relational gap between the races. I'm not saying forget the differences, but what is the point of highlighting them?

There is probably no bigger "tolerant" issue in today's society than that of the whole issue of homosexuality. In a mere 10 or 15 years or so, it seems like homosexuality has become so common place, that is is widely accepted as even fashionable or cool. If you're looking at me to affirm homosexuality, sorry people, you've come to the wrong guy. I am not one of those brainless fundamentalists brainwashed "Christians" who will one-trick-pony you with lines such as "ewww, it's wrong, it's disgusting, it's unnatural." While I agree with the root beliefs that spawn those comments, I really refrain from name calling and writing people off, since that is not what Jesus would have done. Again, I don't need to get too deep into this topic, since I've already dedicated a blog entry on my opinions on homosexuality already, and I don't need to be redundant here. Needless to say, even though homosexual thought, worldview and opinions are prevalent throughout many forms of media these days, that does not mean that people who have a problem with it should simply cave in and accept it as a viable lifestyle option (sorry folks, I don't subscribe to homosexuality being natural - you may say then, who would choose to be a homosexual if they knew how they would be treated, but I'd counter with who would choose to be a pedophile, a bank robber, a murderer, etc., even though they know the consequences - people make choices in this life, and sometimes they make choices that make their life tougher). Of course, the favourite retort word to throw into the faces of those who express disagreement with homosexuality is to call them "homophobic". Do people actually read their freaking dictionaries, or if they did, do they understand word definitions? Homophobic means to be afraid of homosexuals. That label gets liberally (no pun intended) applied to anyone who voices dissent towards homosexuality and its subsequent worldview. I know homosexuals, I have worked with homosexuals, I have had a homosexual boss, I found out after college that my college roommate was a homosexual. I am not afraid of any of these folks. I vigorously disagree with them as to their choice, and I ain't adopting it as my own - but I am not afraid of them. But being called homophobic carries a lot of stigma societally (as if being called homosexual doesn't?), so while it's a misnomer of a label, no one likes to be tarnished with it. But even if you are, who cares? You're just expressing your view. That is allowed in this country, even though the ultra left-wingers will have you believe that the only palatable view is theirs. Don't buy it, people.

Another interesting topic - married vs. common law. I make it a deliberate point to never refer to person's common-law "partner" as a "husband" or "wife". A colleague of mine corrected me a few years back when he and his girlfriend, who were common-law, had a child together. I asked him about his child and said, "he looks a lot like your girlfriend" to which he corrected me, "it's my wife", to which I responded, "sorry, I thought you weren't married", to which he replied, "we're not." So I said, well, my understanding of husband and wife are through marriage. He said that Quebec law (and many Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws) indicate that if you live with x-amount of time with someone, they are equivalent to husband and wife. That's fine if that's what Quebec law says, but that doesn't mean that I should go against my convictions and regard it as a genuine marriage. It is not. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Take abortion (yes, I know, I'm touching all the sensitive topics tonight). It's legal in Canada. Doesn't make it right to do. It is legal in Ontario for a woman to walk around with nothing on, her boobs flapping in the wind. Doesn't make it right, and judging by the fact that the vast majority of women don't walk around naked, just because a law is passed doesn't make it sensible either.

Finally, there is everyone's favourite topic, a throwback from the 60s and 70s - good old feminism. Here, there is a plethora of words to throw at anyone who doesn't subscribe to the basic tenets of feminism, which ultimately come down to trying to make people believe that women and men are equal in ALL respects, completely ignoring the fact that men and women were created with clear differences, and I'm not just talking penis vs. vagina here. Yes, I absolutely agree with employment equity when it comes to women and men. I absolutely agree with equal opportunity for education, jobs, career advancement, etc. But let's face it - any man or woman who is married can tell you, their wife or husband is very different from them. As a general rule, women tend to be more relational, enjoy talking and just being with others. Men prefer to be doing things with one another, all the while the conversational level is kept minimum, or at the very least, kept to business-like topics (ie. no heart-to-heart discussions based on feelings and emotions). There have been marriage counsellors like Emmerson Eggerichs, whose book Love and Respect is perhaps my most recommended relationship book of all time to anyone who is married or is dating. It clearly shows that while there are differences between men and women, these differences are not a master/slave type of rank difference, but rather complementary differences. However, the feminist agenda does not allow for such talk and it pushes that these differences be eliminated. But even if you look at a lesbian relationships (I don't know of too many, but I have talked with a lesbian lady at work and have met her "partner"), there is still clearly that "man/woman" role, as much as it will be argued otherwise. Of course, anyone who are argues for common sense traditional male-female roles is viewed a misogynist, sexist or worse.

These days, there are a lot of things which the socialists out there really want to push - if you disagree with them, you're labelled intolerant, which basically means you do not blindly subscribe to left-win socialist agenda. Given the fact that I can either go against my core belief system and personal convictions and be considered a champion of diversity, or to do what is unpopular and raise questions about things, only to be labelled "intolerant"...well, in that case all I have to say is that I'm intolerant...and damn proud of it.