Sales, Terrorism and A Place to Belong

"Do you have a second?  I'd love to get to know you!"

Not something you'd expect to hear from a stranger on a sidewalk as the dark and chill of a fall evening settles upon the town.

The voice belonged to a bright-eyed, brilliantly smiled young woman, beautiful in a wholesome way. How could you say no?  How could you reject that extended beam of warmth and light as the cold lonely shadows of winter creep around you?

I offered her a light smile and shook my head no.  "I'm late for a meeting", I said.

"No worries!" came the cheery reply.  "Maybe when you come back."

The young woman in question was one of the amazing street marketers collecting donations and direct-withdrawal partners for Because I Am A Girl.  The agency they work for is a model anyone looking to hustle for donations should look to - from hiring to scripting to training to presentation, their team knows exactly how to hook in their targets.

My event was a Why Should I Care chat about Syrian Refugees.  How many should come to Canada? What concerns should we have about screening and whatnot?  What's really happening on the ground there - and what is the process involved for settling a New Canadian from a completely different cultural context?

Part and parcel of this conversation - especially in light of the Paris attacks - is the threat of terrorists sneaking in with a mandate to terrorize our society and destroy the fundamental freedoms that make us Canadian.  

And you can't talk about terrorism without touching on radicalization.

------------------

While our economy runs on money and we in the West tend to look at the world as a series of accounts rather than a societal system, the best salespeople will tell you that value is a personal thing that must be thoroughly understood if you want to close a deal.  Facts tell stories sell.  Don't tell me why I should care about a service, or product, or cause - tell me about why it matters to me.

Largely, this comes down to two things - a sense of empowerment and a sense of belonging.

Yes, there's the stuff you need - shelter, food, some comfort to make the days pass a bit more easily - but beyond all this, there's the need for that something more.

Powerful wealthy people don't keep doing what they do so they can afford another car or beach condo in the Bahamas - they could retire and, if they manage their money well, have all the good stuff others only aspire to and be content to the end of their days.  

They do what they do because the status that comes with their actions matters.

Likewise, people don't join and stick with political parties for the policy - policy positions shift over time and, as have been widely commented, all parties tend to act within the same narrow policy window that appeals to non-base voters.  You need to throw some meat to the base now and again, clearly, but by and large they're there because being a conservative, a liberal or a NDPer is part of their personal identity.  

Same holds true for Leaf fans or band followers or any other social tribe - brand, the empowerment that comes with that brand and of course, the basic of being part of a community matters.

Whether it's at the top of the power totem pole or in the pages of history or on the 50 under 50 to watch list or a church group or a terrorist group, what matters most is a place to belong.

"Do you have a second?  I'd love to get to know you!"

You matter to me - I give you status.  I could be your conduit to the place where you belong.

Belonging - that sense of being a welcomed and desired part of a community - isn't a key part of how we do things in Canada.  We're all about the hustle, means-of-production style; I've got the place, you gotta prove to me you deserve access.  And it's all transactional.

Yet we recognize that status and belonging matter when it comes to sales; if we want to make a sale, the key frame and cues will be about that, not the product or service or cause.

------------------

Part of the Centre for Social Innovation's secret sauce - the thing that has propelled it to the top of the co-working space paradigm and made it a model that is being copied around the world, with even government exploring its potential - is community, a place to belong.  What was Trudeau's winning line?  You can be part of the change through hope and hard work.  

Read anything about radicalization - it could be They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children or Friction or whatever.  At the base of the process are those two same things things that drive any sale - a sense of status and a place to belong.

A question raised at last night's WSIC chat - "what about the risk of these people bringing their culture in and taking over?"  It's a common undercurrent among anti-immigration arguments; they aren't part of this community and whatever they bring, be it bombs or barbaric practices, they are a threat.

They don't belong.

Imagine you are a first-generation Syrian Canadian.  Your parents, lacking Canadian Experience, have trouble finding work.  They start a business of some kind, but business itself fluctuates based on what's in the headlines.  On the news and in media, the only people who look like you are either bad guys or victims, but almost always rural and technologically backwards.  You have trouble finding work, but peers with the same (or less) education and experience than you do get ahead; none of them look like you.

The politicians say "terrorist" and speak of radicalization, and they know they're talking about you. On the subway, you feel the eyes of strangers assessing you as a threat.  

Your whole life, you've felt like you don't belong.  That you're unwanted, a cancer on society.  

Then a confident, clean-looking young man approaches you on the street.

"Do you have a second?  I'd love to get to know you!"  You matter to me - I give you status.  I could be your conduit to the place where you belong.

That's how it starts.  It could be a gang, it could be a recruiter for a terrorist group - but it doesn't have to be.

------------------

Last week, I attended a chat with Dr. Curt Rhodes of Questscope.  He's a white American man who has lived and worked with disadvantaged people in Syria for more than 30 years.  Both his daughters have "Muslim" names.  During the conversation, I asked about the soft element of community integration - status and belonging. Rhodes painted a picture with words of a young family arriving on Canadian soil for the first time, confronted with a whole new world of sights, sounds, people and colours that simply aren't present where they come from. 

As someone who's spent some time as a stranger in strange lands, I knew the feeling.

Then, Rhodes asked us to imagine (taking into consideration cultural differences) that someone was there to meet you, embraced you like a neighbour and kissed you on the cheek, then picked up your children and did the same.

Imagine, in other words, that Syrian refugees fleeing the homeland that is a place of belonging no longer touched down in a strange place and were given status as welcomed neighbour right from the beginning.

"It's like we're old friends.  They want to hear about me, they value me - I could belong here."

We talked a bit about how digital tools could facilitate the integration process, how Apps like iamsick.ca could help find familiar foods and doctors who speak native languages.  I through out the idea of Jane's Walks of welcome and community barbeques.

All these things - they can happen, if we organize, I said.

"Inshallah", Curt said.

------------------

Friends of mine - a married couple - are expecting their first child, a girl.  They are understandably excited.  They're going through the ritual of all expectant parents - getting bombarded with advice by family and friends, planning baby showers and visits and going through all the things they need to properly welcome their baby girl into the world.  

Part of that process is picking a name - conveying a form of status.  Who will their daughter be? What will be her name to the world, the thing that identifies both who she is and what her parents want her to represent?

Both parents are insistent on including a First Nations name, either as first or middle.  They have a lot of research to do and want to be respectful, but for them it's critical that their daughter reflect Canada's roots.  In some way, this is a way of giving status to a people who have consistently been devalued, stripped of status (in truly Orwellian status) and have been made to feel as outsiders on their traditional lands.

My friends are both New Canadians - he comes from Algeria, she from France.  Both embody, to me, what Canada is all about; the creation of community, a place of belonging.

------------------

I don't have to ask if you're busy.  I know the answer to that one already.  Busy is our default these days - it's why we don't have time for each other.  We're too busy for friends, too busy to communicate with our employees, too busy to give time (especially unpaid time) to causes.  

A customer service rep in a store, smiling and chatty when you just want to browse.

A stranger on the street, struggling with English, stops to ask directions - sorry, no time.

A cold-call asking for help - or even someone we asked for help, but turns out not to have what we want (or in the way we want it).

The homeless man on the street.  

"I don't have a second.  I could care less who you are."  You don't matter.  You don't belong here.

Our social model has steadily become an unsocial model.  Transactions have edged out relationships. Sales has taken over from engagement, messaging has replaced communication and empathy - reaching out - has given way to selfishness.  It's Objectivism - the exact opposite of community.

Yet in times of tragedy, we still turn to community.  In times of optimism, we still turn to community.

When it matters, we still long for community, above all else.  We want to be recognized; we want to belong.

Those who are most susceptible to radicalization aren't poor, or uneducated - they are those who feel excluded.

------------------

To me, Canada is an idea; at its best, this country is a social garden with space for everyone. Difference doesn't provide a threat to some standardized, impregnable Canada - that entity never existed.  Canada is ever-evolving, ever-adapting, ever adding new ingredients to the mix and becoming something greater as a result.

The idea of a wave of New Canadians settling on this soil with all the challenges and opportunities they bring is a gift that we can be prepared to accept.  

If we can find the time to get to know these New Canadians, they can get to know us.  Instead of risking apathy and radicalization, the furthering of silos, we can show the world a better way - a community of engagement.

The Canada I see is a place to belong.

It's not my Canada - it belongs to all of us.  We all grow it together.  In so doing, we create something stronger and more appealing than terrorist calls to burn the earth and live like kings on the ashes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and get to know me a little better.

I'd love to hear from you, too.

How might we make this place to belong, together?

CSI Takeover Day 2: Building Community One Potluck at a Time

"Want to join us and become gardeners of community?"

The man's eyes spoke of a deep frustration, almost a fear - the kind that sets in when hope seems lost, like the cold on a wet winter morning.

"Tell me - what is this place?  What will I find here?"

The man was a first-time visitor to CSI Regent Park.  Without going into too much detail, his personal story was heartbreaking; he had spent most of his life seeking to right social wrongs and fight against inequity, often against a system that punished him for his efforts.  He'd heard from a friend about this special place where things were different, where courageous conversations were encouraged and where change-making was a common bond of fellowship.

This man had come to CSI looking to find something.  It wasn't a career boost or a new model of workspace. It wasn't even the excellent customer service and "getting to yes" attitude for which CSI has become famous.  He had come looking for something far more basic, something far more essential than any of this.

At the edge of hope, the man had come to CSI looking for community.

No pressure, right?

I am a big believer in not setting false expectations; I've seen too many politicians fall as the towers of lofty promises they've built crumble to play that game.  Having said that, I feel pretty confident about the culture that CSI has built (and, as we'll explore tomorrow, others are also nurturing) and what it has to offer individuals and society both.

The gentleman and I had a chat out on the balcony; we discussed his life and his frustrations; we talked about the why behind CSI, the secret sauce that makes the CSI culture one organizations around the world are looking to capture and bring back to their own countries, like Social Innovation Prometheuses.  At the end of it all and after a walk around the building, I left him not with a promise, but with an invitation.

"To really see what CSI is about", I said, "come to salad club.  To see what makes CSI Regent Park a model of how to do big-C community right, come to the Potluck."

No lofty promises, no sneaky sales pitch.  Just an invitation.  I knew, from experience, it was enough.

What's the secret ingredient that makes the CSI Regent Park potluck an event so meaningful, so inclusive and inspiring that I would have faith enough to believe it might provide this man with what his soul clearly craved?

I'll share that with you in a moment - but first, here's how CSI RP Manager Shilbee Kim describes the potluck: 

We believe that a great community is like a potluck - it only works when everyone brings something to the table.

But we all know that potlucks don’t just happen. Someone needs to convene, there needs to be space and probably the most common question we hear is, “what should I bring?” For the last decade, our work in Community Animation has been to convene, create collaborative spaces and find creative ways to surface that last question. In the potluck analogy, asking what you should bring is commonplace, but in the real world we rarely ask. 

Imagine if we did! What would happen if we brought intentionality to connecting the needs and assets of the community?

The Centre for Social Innovation is collaborating with the Daniels Corporation and the Toronto Community Housing on a community building initiative for new, returning, displaced and existing residents of the Regent Park neighbourhood. Our vision is to convene a monthly evening potluck in the CSI space during which we share information about the neighbourhood and facilitate connections through our most popular Community Animation activities. 

The activities intend to surface the names, common interests, needs​ and assets of everyone in the room and are casual, fun and positive. The core objective is to build new connections and reinforce existing ones, ultimately to build social cohesion in the community.

All sounds great - but does it work?  

For me, the answer is a yes, plain and simple.  

This is the only reason I could, in good faith, look my new friend in the eye and encourage him to come and see the fullness of what CSI has to offer.  

I base my answer on personal experience - something I can describe to you, but is best experienced first hand. When you're that confident in what you belong to, it's not about sales - it's simply about extending the invitation to take a seat at the table.

You know what I mean?

But I promised to share with you the secret to community-building that is so deeply sought by people and corporations around the world, but seems so hard to find.

In truth, it's not as mystical as you might think.

Are you ready?

Don't look up.  Don't look down.  Look inwards.

Yes, I'm talking about you.  And you, and you, and that person next to you, and especially my new friend who walked into CSI looking for community.

There is no secret ingredient; there is no spoon.  There is only us, and what we bring to the table, and what we build together - much like a potluck, or an organization, or an ecosystem.  The whole is more than the sum of its parts, but its parts are what allow it to becoming something greater.

The stone in the soup that makes CSI a magical place of collaboration, innovation and change-making is the same seed that's being planted in government agencies by virtuous schemers (more on them tomorrow), in the private and not-for-profit sectors by a growing movement of people who believe that strong, engaged individuals create strong, dynamic societies.

It's not about the thing they bring that no one else can replicate; it's about empowerment.

Think about it for a second; the emphasis on animation.  The Do It Yourself culture.  The space design that fosters happy collisions.  The events, the "bring a penny, share a penny" approach to facilitation.

CSI has been intentionally designed as a place where people can grow into themselves, cross-pollinate with peers and have the resources, encouragement and confidence they need to catalyze great things together.

This is the big difference between the boss who says "follow me" and the leader who says "how might we make this even better together?"

That's what CSI is about.

I look forward to seeing my new friend out for the potluck - maybe not the next one, but I bet the one after that.

Who knows - maybe I'll see you there, too.  I hope I do; that would be awesome.



With special thanks to social gardener Shilbee Kim; she is a constant inspiration and the embodiment of leadership.

It's Not End Times, So How's About a Bit of Matzah?

I have little interest in engaging in conversation about who is at fault in this conflict or in polarized and heated accusations, nor do I propose that I have any solutions to the terrible suffering on both sides during this war.  But what I do know is that the "us" and "them" perspective is getting us nowhere.  And my sponsorship of the fesitval was my effort to think of ourselves as a collective "us" - those of us who just want peace.

Those of us who just want peace.

What, pray tell, is peace - and what is it for?

This is an important question to ask because - ready for it? - there are far too many people who don't want peace.  In fact, a health chunk of our leadership isn't interested in peace.

Peace is the absence of hostility.  Peace is respectful debate, empathetic communication and the ability to put the interests of the whole before one's own tribe, or one's own position and brand.  Above all, peace is patient.

Politics, as it functions in most circles of the world, is the absence of peace.  Politics is competition, forcing one's position, picking strategic fights, building coalitions and of course, about gaining and holding power.  

There's no time for deliberation in combative politics - that's all a bit too much like committing sociology. Life has winners and losers and to be the former, you have to make some of the latter.  There's no time to be nice when winning is at stake.  Every ounce of cognitive, organizational capacity has to be dedicated to beating the other guy.  That's the primary objective; when they're destroyed, you've won.

Some people are impatient, narcissistic, power-mad or just plain mean.  Others have life experience that makes them so.  Societies or community cultures can be shaped one way or the other - under threatening circumstances people of any given tribe are more likely to think "them vs us" and focus on end-states instead of pondering the dynamism of social living.

The aggressive, winner-take all types who tend to force their way into positions of leadership want it that way.  They don't want us to think, to understand, to connect - they want us to follow.  It's as simple as that.

Do political leaders and their supporters demonize their opponents and push the envelopes of acceptable conduct?  Of course they do.  They want an ideological war, because that's how they raise funds and score votes.   

Aggressive politics is on the same behavioural spectrum as flat-out war.  "Picking fights" with a union or a community group is no different than lobbing bombs at one region or another; the only difference is the severity, and the confabulation required to justify one's actions.

In all cases, collateral damage is just one of those things.  Survival of the fittest, etc.

Because really, that's what it comes down to.  War is The Heart of Darkness, the most basic instinct that evolution has developed for us.  In our ancient past, the world was always a threatening place; we weren't the dominant species, we didn't have tools or infrastructure, we would only have interacted with other human groupings in competition for resources or maybe to exchange mates.

We have lived the vast majority of our existence this way; it's more natural for us to stand against than it is to stand together.  

Back then, it mattered who the alpha was and that they were tough enough to keep the collective us safe. 

That's why we have Alphas in the first place.  It's why we will be inclined to respect tough, assertive people. We're programmed to.

That was then.  Now, everything has changed.

We don't have to live in perpetual fear any more.  The threats we face aren't lions or tigers, or shelter, or the dark.  By and large we even have enough food for everyone, if it were properly allocated; medicine has reduced illness to a pale shadow of what once it was.

What is the opposite of hunger and the dark?  What is the opposite of fear?

It's easy - bread and candles.  Community.

This is the lost lesson of religion, which isn't about end-times, isn't about supporting a deity who will punish our foes for us.  In its most basic form, religion is the antidote to fear - it is faith.  It has built common ground and a shared mythology that unites people, no matter where they come from, who their family is or what they bring to the table.

Religion builds common ground and invites everyone in, equally.  It has done this throughout time and across culture through the usage of bread, candles and the stories which we create and share together.

There is no breathing creature called Hamas any more than there is an island called Israel.  There is us, there is space, there is the light that brings us together and the darkness that keeps us apart and afraid.

So it is with this war, or any other.  It is not for me to say who has been more aggrieved than any other, nor who deserves justice more than their peers.  To me, that's a bit like saying one family is more entitled to a seat at the common table than another.  It can't work that way.

When we focus on what drives us apart, we lose, and those who crave the spoils of war win in goods what they lose of their souls.

When we focus on what brings us together, what we can build together on common ground, there are no winners, nor are their losers - there is community.

That's the big secret, the thing which eludes us when we forget how to look beyond ourselves or our tribes to something bigger.

Peace belongs to everyone.  Until we learn to live as though the whole were more than the sum of its parts, we'll never have it.

Break bread, people - dip it in some soup, tell a story, laugh.  

None of us is going anywhere any time soon, so we might as well learn how to live together.

Political People

Samara titled its poll findings: "By Invitation Only" - suggesting that Canadian political parties have become exclusive, members-only private clubs.

It might be even worse than that, though.  With their fierce, black-and-white classifications of the world into friends and enemies, right and wrong, the parties seem more like tribes than clubs.

A good piece by Delacourt, though I'm biased:

Our politics is becoming increasingly narrow in its focus, too.

Politics is selfish, tribal and focused on doing whatever it takes to win

So on and so forth.

But I think she's dead wrong on one point - a key point:

These people; they were different from you and me.

How many Team Canada jerseys did I see on the streets today?  How many people put on garb and makeup for athletic events in general?  Or do Cosplay, or dress like a hipster, or wear a pin for cancer awareness?  Why do we spend so much money on fashion in the first place?

Symbols matter; we see the world through the lens of symbols.  That's not something that sets us apart; that's something we have in common.  We also understand the world through identification - threat, benefit, no value.  That's basic biological hardwiring. 

The more competitive we are, the more we rely on these narrow frames; one group to belong to, another to define ourselves against.  There's nothing unique to political people about this.  It's innate to everybody.  By gender, language, ethnicity, sexuality, even music preference we're always creating "us" and "them" categorizations.

You put anyone under conditions of extreme, chronic competitive strain, they will distill the world down into zero-sum competition; with them, against them or in their way.

You see, there is fundamentally nothing different between us and political people - it's the competitive, time-sensitive and increasingly expensive pressures of political culture that makes them feel the need to differentiate from us.  It makes it easier to be manipulative of voters and vicious to their opponents - and controlling of their own teams.

We need to dehumanize people before we can treat them in inhumane fashion.  And that's exactly what politics does; this is why partisan politics is spiraling down the ethical drain and increasingly focused on micro-targeting key messages to key, targeted constituents.  It's not about growing the country equitably; it's about fighting over shrinking resources.

Which leads into the real nub of the issue here.  When "Canadians" start to see themselves as different than those "political people", it's not because they're trying to figure out why the behavioural differences; it's a subconscious way of dehumanizing them, allowing for less humane treatment back.

We can't say we weren't warned, though.

I shouted out
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me

The Solution to Stigma is Community

But people do care - a lot.

I love this story; it captures so many of the positive themes that are out there, waiting to be connected, that can only be connected when people get past what they can take or what others are getting and instead focus on what they can give.

Alvena Little-Wolf Ear made one of the toughest decisions a person can make - to get out from under bullying the hard way, but in the only way that solves the problem.  

She didn't walk away.  She didn't hit back or take our frustrations on someone else to build a reputation for toughness.

Nope.  She decided to build on her own strength and become a rock for others.

This is the kind of hero we like to hold up as a model - the kind that overcomes any obstacle to win in the final act.  But the truth is, not everyone can do what Alvena has done.  Not everyone is cut out to be a leader.

But when we have leaders - true leaders, the kind with visions and determination to help others - they can empower peers and complete strangers to follow in their path.

This is the kind of leader we need today; not the ones who rise above, but the ones who build community.

Community - What CosPlay and Politics Have In Common

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.

   - Martin Luther King, Jr.

There's a kinship with other costumers that forms over the course of a con.  The best part is that they always have your back and are the first ones to tell off rude punks who behave disrespectfully.  It's like being part of a big team that fights douchebaggery.  So actually, cosplaying is like being on the Justice League or the Avengers.

Political people love cosplay.  They just don't know it - or at least, may not admit to knowing it.  

But part of them does.

Politics is a multi-faceted jewel with more than its share of inclusions.  There is fowl play, high drama, lost friendships and enduring grudges.  Somewhere in there are legitimate differences of policy preference, too.

But for anyone who has been to a political event - an Annual General Meeting, perhaps, or a leadership conference - they are familiar with that something extra, that something special that shines brighter than any blemish.

There is something special about being part of a process, of belonging to something that's a bit bigger than any one person.  It's certainly true of political teams, when a sense of common purpose exists; while there are some politicians and operatives who see Parties and events as tickets to their own success, the vast majority are there for what they contribute to.

But it goes beyond that.  

I've been at leadership events where strangers representing different candidates will sidle up to each other for a picture and a pitch, all with a smile.  The same holds true for events where folk from different Parties find themselves together, shirted up and ready for action.  

Beyond the walls of the convention hall and without the uniform, these folk would probably never even think of connecting, but something about the space that gets created when we put on our political super swag suits changes everything.

More than that - there's this mentality that forms where people are simply less judgmental all around. 

Not every political enthusiast has a head full of campaign lore, knows Minister by name and is fluent on the latest policy debates.  Shockingly, there are some who come out just because they love the feeling of being part of the political process.  

And you know what?  That's fine.  While there are always daisy-downers in a crowd, looking to pick fights and rain on other people's parades for morale reasons (to weaken someone else's or to raise their own), for the most part people at political events are accepting.  It doesn't matter your accent, your education, your anything - other than a commitment to be part of that community.  

You may have lots to give, you may have nothing; you may be young, old, New Canadian, 6th Gen or First Nations - none of that sets you apart, it simply adds to the texture of the community.

Like cosplay, it's that commitment to being yourself, being respectful of others and adding value to the greater whole that matters.  

When you make the effort, the community returns it.  

Is there a lesson in this for would-be leaders, looking to unite people behind... something?  

I think there is.

UPDATE 4/Feb/2014 - Avengers Toronto, assemble!

There's this funny thing that happens to me somewhat regularly - I'll write about something like, say, community created through costume, and then I'll find out that it actually exists.  I could tell you exactly why that happens, but where's the fun in that?

The Social Media Community: With Great Power...

Secondly, there’s no denying that social media has changed the way we communicate, interact and, in many cases, do business—and, as such, content like tweets and Facebook posts now carry as much weight as other, more traditional forms of communication.

 

 

There's a fascinating picture emerging about how social media is rejigging the rules of social engagement that hopefully everyone is paying attention to. 

 

There's no question that tools like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr allow more information to be shared by more people to larger audiences almost instantaneously; this is both a good thing and a bad thing.  It's good in the level of coordination and social solidarity it provides - look at how platforms like Ushahidi make disaster relief coordination between individuals, organizations and nations around the world that much more seamless.  Smartphone Aps like Guardly add an extra level of security to women walking university campuses at night.  Rapid response just keeps getting faster. 

 

Look also at the amazing level of coordination and pro-social behaviour that happened in response to the Boston Marathon - citizens were tweeting their love and support, letting others know if blood donations were needed at hospitals and where worried friends and families could turn to learn if anyone they knew who was in the race was injured.  The bombing was horrifying and tragic, but the response was the exact opposite of what terrorism is supposed to produce - a sense of community and comfort instead of heightened feelings of fear and vulnerability.

 

I'd also argue that social media is leveling out the playing field between the haves and have nots in a manner similar to the influence of unions a century ago.  Connect the dots between various e-campaigns over the past decade or so; former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty backed down on increased restrictions for young drivers in response to a Facebook campaign.  Similarly, #TellVicEverything stopped The Canadian Harper Government's Internet restrictions Bill dead in its tracks.  A robocall push-poll by Porter Airlines rapidly led to a sharing of information between people called on Twitter; within a day, the who and what behind those calls had been exposed online.

 

Then there's Anonymous; where the existing political or justice systems fail to fill their public mandate, there is now a powerful entity watching the watchers.

 

This is where the power of social media starts to slide into darker territory, though, and where the need for responsibility comes in to play.  @Vikileaks was done anonymously (though it didn't stay that way) and was really a mini-terror campaign directed against Vic Toews.  Cyberbullying is a terribly invasive form of individually-targeted terrorism (which is essentially what bullying has always been).  Hacking and information bleeding happens all the time; though most of us are more familiar with the "OMG - you should see this pic of U going around" variety, these privacy breaches can be much more damaging - and also point out a major weakness in the institutions we are supposed to trust with our personal information.

 

Which is where the hacking of AP's Twitter account and the circulated story about White House bombings and a wounded President come in.  One single tweet, coming from a reputable handle in an age of rapid-response and information dissemination briefly threw the market - the engine of the economy - into a nosedive.  that was just one tweet; picture a more coordinated attack that hacks the social media accounts of multiple respected agencies (media, government, banks, whatever). 

 

Picture the Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast spooling out over social media, except with the story a nuclear explosion over a major city.  It would go viral in seconds; timed and coordinated properly, the average citizen would be left with conflicting information and no way of knowing what or whom to trust.  Call it Invasion of the Social Media Snatchers.

 

It's for good reason that governments and organizations are seeking ways to clamp down on Internet security; the potential risks posed by hacking are stupendous and horrifying.  What's more - as would-be terrorists realize they can do the terror-infliction thing without putting themselves in harm's way, the use of hacking, information theft and misinformation campaigns are only going to increase. 

 

How can we say this with certainty?  As I've written elsewhere - as Western governments increasingly use advanced military weapons like drones to do their dirty work while keeping their hands clean, those on the receiving end are going to look for any and every way to respond in kind.  It's a historical trend - when you can't fight a super power head-on, you employ creative, guerrilla tactics.  The guerrilla war is increasingly online.

 

You can try to clamp down on e-terrorism all you want; as history teaches us, building more complicated locks simply results in smarter criminals.  This is not a battle that will be won through escalation - the only way to end the conflict is to look at the root causes behind what informs and facilitates e-terrorism and information manipulation.

When you have governments that withhold the facts from their citizens and only spool out pieces of partisan rhetoric, the playing field is wide open for misinformation; people already don't believe government is being open and honest, so they are that much more likely to believe alternate sources.  The way to combat this risk is for government to be more proactive, transparent and frankly, honest about what they're doing, what problems are arising and to proactively engage with citizens for solutions.  That way, people feel they are part of the government process and are less likely to be swayed by alternate misinformation; they will also feel more comfortable turning to official sources for verification before jumping on whatever meme is circulating on a given day.

 

The second piece is just plain good PR - instead of picking fights with specific enemies to reinforce relationships with established partners, governments, Political Parties and all organizations need to build stronger relationships with a more diverse range of players.  Altruism, after all, is selfishness that plans ahead; you're less likely to face a sneak attack from someone who you have supported or collaborated with in the past.

 

Social media might not create information, but it does disseminate it rapidly between massive audiences.  Not only can average citizens from anywhere on the planet compete with talking heads for attention; Established Voices can be co-opted through hacking to devastating public effect.

 

That's power money can't buy.

 

With great power, however, comes great responsibility.  That responsibility lies on the shoulders of every person with access to a computer, but unless they have positive role models (like government) encouraging responsible use of the medium, we will simply be looking at an online tragedy of the commons.

 

If that's not a reason to rethink partisanship, negative attacks and reactive policy, I don't know what is.

 

Lazy Religion Tackles Gay Marriage: With Liberty and Justice for Most (Timothy Kurek)

 

I'm hardly an expert on Christian faith, but it does seem to me that much of what gets practiced by the main stream seems to cherry-pick from the message Christ tried to deliver.  In our anxiety about change and urge for expediency, have we turned to the golden calf for validation?

Lazy Religion Tackles Gay Marriage: With Liberty and Justice for Most

 

With liberty and justice for most... Wait that's not it. Some? A few? Oh no, it's liberty and justice for all.

 

I was raised in the Bible Belt, a hyper-conservative Christian who in the past few years has had his worldview crushed and rebuilt at the hands of experience. Where I once would have fought, and ardently so, against a same-sex couples right to marry, I have been blessed to meet and be live in community with the people I was always taught to shun. My beliefs changed and changed radically, and so I sit with bated breath as I wait to hear the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark court cases that have been going on the past few days.

 

Right now the United States Supreme Court is about to rule on both Proposition 8 from California and DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). It is a truly historical moment in our young country's life. It's the moment we decide if all really are equal, or if the only citizens allowed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are heterosexuals and those under the umbrella of main-stream Christendom. But what strikes me as I peruse my Facebook news feed or read the blogs of many of my friends and peers is the true lack of understanding about one crucial point. Same-sex marriage is not, in any way, shape or form a religious issue. Same-sex marriage is a matter of the state, and I am baffled by the fact that we live in a country that promotes itself as the greatest country on earth, a country founded on the principle of freedom, yet we are somehow still okay classifying "the other" as the lesser. Just how long will we allow there to be second class citizens? Did the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s teach us nothing? These are not criminals we are persecuting, or even non-citizens. The "other" I am referring to are upstanding, tax-paying, citizens of these United States, and these citizens are suffering at the hands of one of the most toxic entities in existence, lazy religion. A few thoughts about lazy religion...

 

Lazy religion is obsessed with arm-chair activism and other such movements that don't require effort, sacrifice or calling. With the age of the Internet, the true causes of Christianity are being shelved, only to be replaced by political motivations that stem from a poor understanding of government and a poor understanding of the Bible. Several years ago I watched as Proposition 8 passed in California. I watched as my Christian brothers and sisters sang and danced in victory, having "struck a blow" in the defense of "traditional biblical marriage." The problem? In the days following I also witnessed mobs of angry gay and lesbian patriots marching in most major cities.

 

They marched in defense of their California brothers and sisters, and marched because they had to. The pain of doing nothing after Prop 8 passed would have set the cause of equality back and further entrenched the nation in an archaic and unconstitutional mindset. But more than anything I think they marched for hope. While mainstream evangelicals celebrated a victory over an issue, they never understood that they were actually celebrating the oppression of millions of flesh and blood people. People made in the image of God, possessing the inherent dignity that their humanity affords. And for what?

 

Lazy religion is addicted to empire and control. It doesn't acknowledge personhood. James 1:27 tells us that pure and undefiled religion is this: to take care of widows and orphans in their time of need and to keep oneself spotless from the world. Jesus also defined our focus, to love God and to love our neighbors (the other) as ourself. Is it right then that our mindset should be to politicize individuals and who they love, and to want to dictate those individuals lives through the manipulation of the state? A friend of mind, David, spent 40+ hours a week during this last election volunteering at a call center, dialing numbers and asking voters to look at this issue from a different point of view. When I asked him why he was spending so much time politicking, he told me that he felt he had to for a time... And then I could hear his voice crack and tears began forming in the corners of his eyes.

 

"Tim, I'm sick of being looked at as a political issue instead of as a person, an equal." I've never thought about things that way until he said that. Lazy religion doesn't think in terms of people; it thinks in terms of abstract theological concepts and issue based stereotypes. It politicizes unique and beautiful individuals made in the image of God. Lazy religion has no place in this debate...

 

So as we wait for the decisions to be made, and as we walk through the rest of this historic journey toward equal rights for everyone (not just in this country but also all over the world -- Australia, I'm looking at you) it is my prayer that the stances taken will be rooted in grace and consideration for all.

 

We can all be bigots, but we don't have to be. We can disagree and argue this issue to its conclusion but in the end it is essential we remember that lives really are at stake, and as a man of faith respecting and honoring the image of God in the other is almost as important as the issues themselves. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, you can live out the calling of love intentionally and realistically, and respect the many journeys the collective "other" have walked.

The Communities and Walls of Tradition

 

To me, traditions are meant to create communities.  They do this, but as society evolves and grows, so too must our communities.  When traditions become walls that keep people out rather than bridges that bring people together, that's when they need revisted.  We accomplish this by pulling back the curtain of ascribed meaning to the core of our traditions - like bread and candles - and building anew from there.

 

Thanks to the inspirational Allie Fonarve for twigging me to this article!

The Trouble With Tradition

When "Values" Trample Over Rights

by Graeme Reid, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program

"Even if it's not possible, this is what I want." Ainigmas, a young gay man in Burundi, cannot tell his family about his sexuality and makes jewelry to express himself. © 2009 Martina Bacigalupo for Human Rights Watch

“Tradition!” proclaims Tevye the milkman, in his foot-stomping opening to the musical Fiddler on the Roof. “Tradition!”

Tevye’s invocation of the familiar as a buffer against the vagaries of his hardscrabble life rings true—after all, what is more reassuring, more innocuous, than the beliefs and practices of the past?

Which is why the resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) in September 2012 seems, at first blush, to be so benign.

Spearheaded by Russia, it calls for “promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind.” It warns that traditions cannot be invoked to contravene rights, and even mentions such bedrock human rights instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1993 Vienna Declaration, while calling for a survey of “best practices”—all in the name of “promoting and protecting human rights and upholding human dignity.”

By the sound of it, the resolution deserves a standing ovation.

But a close look at the context from which this resolution arose reveals that traditional values are often deployed as an excuse to undermine human rights. And in declaring that “all cultures and civilizations in their traditions, customs, religions and beliefs share a common set of values,” the resolution invokes a single, supposedly agreed-upon value system that steamrolls over diversity, ignores the dynamic nature of traditional practice and customary laws, and undermines decades of rights-respecting progress for women and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities, among others.

In countries around the world, Human Rights Watch has documented how discriminatory elements of traditions and customs have impeded, rather than enhanced, people’s social, political, civil, cultural, and economic rights.

In Saudi Arabia, authorities cite cultural norms and religious teachings in denying women and girls the right to participate in sporting activities—“steps of the devil” on the path to immorality, as one religious leader called them (Steps of the Devil, 2012). In the United States in the early 1990s, “traditional values” was the rallying cry for evangelist Pat Robertson’s “Culture War”—code for opposition to LGBT and women’s rights that he claimed undermined so-called family values. Today, it is familiar rhetoric of the US religious right, which has used the same language to oppose gay marriage and to accuse political opponents of undermining tradition and “Western civilization.” And in Kenya, the customary laws of some ethnic communities discriminate against women when it comes to property ownership and inheritance; while some traditional leaders have supported transforming these laws, many others defend them as embodying “tradition” (Double Standards, 2003). As one woman told us, “They talk about African traditions, but there is no tradition you can speak of—just double standards.”

International human rights law—including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Protocol to the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa—calls for customary and traditional practices that violate human rights to be transformed to remove discriminatory elements.

United Nations treaty monitoring committees, such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee Against Torture (CAT), have also stated that customs and traditions cannot be put forward as a justification for violating rights. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in June 2012 told the New York Human Rights Watch Film Festival, “In all regions of the world, LGBT people suffer discrimination—at work, at home, at school, in all aspects of daily life…. No custom or tradition, no cultural values or religious beliefs, can justify depriving a human being of his or her rights.”

But such authoritative statements have done little to dampen growing support among UN member states for resolutions that support “traditional values.” Not only did September’s HRC resolution pass easily—with 25 votes for, 15 against, and 7 abstentions—it was the latest in a series of efforts that Russia has championed in an effort to formalize an abstract set of universal moral values as a lodestar for human rights. In October 2009, for example, the HRC passed a resolution calling for the UN high commissioner for human rights to convene an expert workshop “on how a better understanding of traditional values of humankind … can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights.” And in March 2011, the council adopted a second resolution requesting a study of how “better understanding and appreciation of traditional values” can promote and protect these rights.

Tradition need not be out of step with international human rights norms and standards. For many people living in rural areas, such as parts of sub-Saharan Africa, traditional values interpreted in customary law may be the only recourse to any form of justice. Nor is the substance of the HRC resolution all bad. It does not, for example, necessarily indicate a global consensus (many countries, including some from the developing world, did not support it), and its text specifically states that “traditions shall not be invoked to justify practices contrary to human dignity and that violate international human rights law.”

 

But unfortunately, such language can seem out of touch with a reality in which “tradition” is indeed often used to justify discrimination and crackdowns on rights—especially those of women and members of the LGBT community, among others—and is easily hijacked by nations determined to flout the rights of particular groups and to quash broader social, political, and legal freedoms.

In such environments, “tradition” subordinates human rights. It should be the other way around.

Rights Curtailed, Rights Ignored

There are potentially negative implications for many groups when traditional values trample on human rights—but they are not always the same.

For women, upon whose shoulders the burden of upholding cultural norms and values often falls, traditional values can be a tool that curtails their human rights. Human Rights Watch has shown that such “values” are sometimes used to justify forced marriages in Afghanistan, virginity testing in Indonesia, “honor crimes” in Iraq, and marital rape in Kyrgyzstan. In Yemen, the abolition of the minimum marriage age on religious grounds in 1999 means that girls as young as eight are married off to much older men, some of whom rape their pre-pubescent girl brides without legal consequence (How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?,2011). In Bangladesh, unlike in neighboring India, even the most reasonable demands of Hindu women and women’s rights activists—such as divorce on a few grounds that include cruelty and abandonment—have been stalled for decades by critics of such moves, who cite “religion” (Will I Get My Dues … Before I Die?, 2012).

While many representatives in Yemen’s parliament agree that a minimum marriage age is vital to safeguarding young girls’ rights, they have been held hostage by a small but powerful group of parliamentarians who oppose any minimum age restriction on the grounds that it would lead to “spreading of immorality” and undermine “family values.”

For LGBT people, the traditional values argument may not just be used to limit human rights, it may be used to entirely negate them. That’s because the language of traditional values tends to cast homosexuality as a moral issue, and not a rights issue—as a social blight that must be contained and even eradicated for the good of public morality.

Public morality narrowly invoked, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes, may provide a legitimate reason to temporarily restrict some rights. But it should not be a smokescreen for prejudice or conflated with majority opinion, and it may never be used as an excuse to violate the covenant’s non-discrimination provisions.

It often is.

In 2008, for example, Human Rights Watch showed how vague and ill-defined “offenses against public morality” laws are used in Turkey to censor or close LGBT organizations and to harass and persecute LGBT people (We Need a Law For Liberation). A year later, the Philippine Commission on Elections invoked “morality,” “mores,” “good customs,” and “public morals” when it rejected an LGBT group’s application to register as a political organization. The Supreme Court of the Philippines rejected this argument in 2010, holding that the country’s democracy precluded “using the religious or moral views of part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.”

Similarly, several former British colonies, including Nigeria and Malaysia, use moral terms such as “gross indecency” and “carnal knowledge against the order of nature” in rejecting homosexuality, citing so-called traditional values embodied in laws that in fact only date to the relatively recent, and otherwise derided, colonial era. In the 2008 report This Alien Legacy, for example, Human Rights Watch highlighted the irony of foreign laws being exalted as “citadels of nationhood and cultural authenticity.” “Homosexuality, they [judges, public figures, and political leaders] now claim, comes from the colonizing West,” the report states. “They forget the West brought in the first laws enabling governments to forbid and repress it.”

In Uganda, Malaysia, Moldova, and Jamaica, where the state rejects LGBT rights, claims that homosexuality is simply “not in our culture” are ubiquitous.“All countries are ruled by principles,” Alexandru Corduneanu, the deputy mayor of Chisinau, said in 2007, after the Moldovan capital city banned a demonstration by LGBT activists for the third year running. “Moldovais ruled by Christian principles, and that is why we cannot allow you to go against morality and Christianity by permitting this parade.”

A Tool of Repression

Traditional values need not be at odds with human rights; indeed, they may even bolster them.

In Iraqi Kurdistan, for example, where tradition, custom, morality, and Islam have been invoked to justify continuing female genital mutilation (FGM) from one generation to the next, the highest Muslim authority issued afatwa in July 2012, signed by 33 imams and scholars, saying that Islam does not require FGM (They Took Me and Told Me Nothing, June 2010). Disappointingly, implementation of the Family Violence Law that went into effect on August 11, 2011, and includes several provisions to eradicate FGM, has been lackluster.

There has also been some progress in adapting or banning “traditional” practices that fail to respect human rights. The 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women Law in Afghanistan, for example, outlawed baad—the practice by which disputes are settled in the community by giving up women or girls as compensation for crimes—although implementation of the law has been poor. Several countries have also amended their laws related to family—the conduit of many traditions—to different degrees, illustrating the space for negotiation and constant change to improve women’s rights rather than place them within a static framework of unchanging “traditional values.”

Several recent legal cases, including in South Africa, Kenya, and Botswana (which voted against the HRC resolution), also show that rights-limiting traditional practices need not hold sway over inclusive, rights-respecting national law.

In 2008, for example, South Africa’s Constitutional Court found in favor of a daughter inheriting her father’s chieftaincy—in line with the country’s constitution and against a male rival’s claim that the Valoyi people’s tradition of male leadership meant he was the rightful hosi, or chief, of the 70,000-strong group. In issuing its ruling, the court noted that tradition is never static, and should adhere to human rights standards laid out in a rights-based constitution.

Kenyan courts ruled in 2005 and 2008 that, despite customary laws of particular ethnic groups favoring sons for inheritance purposes, daughters must have an equal right to inherit a father’s property. The courts noted that where discrimination is at stake, human rights must prevail. Kenya has since amended its constitution, enshrining women’s equal rights to land and property.

Meanwhile, Botswana’s High Court in October 2012 ruled in favor of four sisters who had fought a five-year battle with a nephew who claimed rightful ownership of the family home. The court ruled that the customary law upon which the nephew based his case contravened constitutional guarantees of equality for men and women. The attorney general had reportedly agreed that customary law was discriminatory, but argued that Botswana was not ready to change it.“Culture changes with time,” the court observed

But such examples are rare.

Too often, “traditional values” are corrupted, serving as a handy tool for governments in the business of repression. For Russia, which spearheaded the HRC resolution, the insertion of traditional values into the realm of human rights comes amid intensifying government repression of civil society and the media, and is part of a concerted effort to roll back the gains made by women and LGBT people in Russia.

In 2012, St. Petersburg became one of nine Russian regions to date to adopt so-called homosexual propaganda laws that outlaw creating “distorted perceptions” about the “social equality of traditional and non-traditional family relationships.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov justified the laws—which Russia’s Supreme Court upheld in restricted form in October—by arguing that LGBT human rights were merely an “appendage” to universal values. There is active debate about introducing similar legislation that cynically links homosexuality and child abuse, in Moscow and on a federal level.

And in 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction of lesbian activist Irina Fedotova for an administrative offense under provincial law after she displayed posters near a school in the city of Ryazan, southeast of Moscow, declaring, “Homosexuality is normal” and “I am proud of my homosexuality.” The court ruled that the “homosexual propaganda law,” which the city adopted in 2006, did not interfere with Fedotova’s freedom of expression, since “traditional understandings of family, motherhood and childhood” were values necessitating “special protection from the State.”

The UN Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors implementation of the ICCPR, begged to differ, ruling in November 2012 that the federation was in violation of the covenant’s freedom of expression provisions. “[T]he purpose of protecting morals,” the committee stated, “must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition.”

A Comforting Ideal

It’s no coincidence that traditional values—and the related push against LGBT rights—are finding an eager and broadening international audience at this time.

 

In some cases there’s a specific context, as in Russia with President Vladimir Putin’s broader clampdown on civil society and Russia’s efforts to roll back the mandates of the international human rights machinery while encouraging like-minded allies to do the same. In sub-Saharan countries, such as Zimbabwe and Uganda, the devastation of AIDS, economic crisis, and political instability have lawmakers scrambling to pass increasingly repressive legislation against homosexuality on the grounds that doing so is necessary to protect African culture and tradition in the face of encroaching foreign values.

More broadly, the current climate of political uncertainty, social upheaval, and economic crisis in much of the world has enhanced the appeal of the timeless universal essence that tradition is claimed to embody. In Uganda, as Human Rights Watch showed in 2012 (Curtailing Criticism), the government’s clampdown on civil society organizations is in part justified by an appeal to homophobia, amid increased political tension, escalating public criticism, and President Yoweri Museveni’s own political ambitions to serve another term after the 2016 elections.

Blaming one group for the ills befalling society is easy and appealing in the face of such instability. Gays and lesbians, who often live in secret due to laws and social prohibitions against homosexuality, are particularly easy targets for the moral panics that can erupt at a time of social crisis. In Jamaica, gay men in particular are seen as harbingers of moral decay, leading to public vitriol which often ends in violence, including a June 2004 mob attack on a man perceived to be gay in Montego Bay. The mob chased and reportedly “chopped, stabbed and stoned” him to death with the encouragement of the police (Hated to Death, 2004).

In Zimbabwe, where gays and lesbians frequently find themselves playing the role of “folk devils,” gay-bashing follows the election cycle all too predictably, with President Robert Mugabe raising the specter of homosexuality as a way to deflect attention from the country’s more pressing social, political, and economic problems. In 1995, as his regional stature was diminishing, Mugabe unleashed a vitriolic attack on gays, whom he said “offend against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society.” In 2012, Mulikat Akande-Adeola, the majority leader of Nigeria’s House of Representatives, was equally unequivocal when she supported a sweeping anti-LGBT bill when it passed its second reading: “It is alien to our society and culture and it must not be imported,” she said. “Religion abhors it and our culture has no place for it.”

Transformation, Not Rejection

The human rights movement is not opposed to the existence of customary law, religious law, and tradition; it is opposed to those aspects of them that violate rights.

As a result, the task at hand is one of transformation, not rejection—as reflected in international human rights law that calls for customary and traditional practices that violate human rights to develop in order to remove discriminatory elements. As the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women stipulates, states should “modify” the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women to eliminate “prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.”

“Culture changes with time,” Botswana’s High Court stated in itsOctober 2012 ruling in favor of the four sisters battling for their family home in the face of customary law. And that is precisely the point. Culture does change with time.

Evoking a static and vague concept of “tradition” not only fails to account for these shifts, it fossilizes society. The risk is that instead of advancing human rights and basic freedoms, the HRC resolution and its call for a “better understanding of traditional values” could be used as an excuse to bury rights under a mound of cultural relativism—threatening to roll back women’s rights and exclude LGBT people from a human rights framework in the process.

Graeme Reid is director of the LGBT Rights division