Not In China

I'm not one to watch the Olympic Games in the best of times, but I made a point to tune out anything to do with last year's Tokyo Olympics because I felt that it was wrong to have such a social event in the middle of a global pandemic.

I feel the same about the Beijing Olympics but I'm doubly against these games because of the atrocities being committed by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, on top of the myriad human rights offenses against other Chinese citizens. As a Canadian, I am further disgusted by the political games that kept Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig wrongfully imprisoned for nearly three years.

There are many reasons to dislike the Chinese government and to snub the Olympic Games.

That said, China is a beautiful country and the people I met, when DW and I visited in 1998, were kind and lovely. Last week, for the Chinese New Year, we ordered food from a local Chinese restaurant to help celebrate the beginning of the Year of the Tiger.

But I will never set foot in China as long as human rights continue and genocide is committed against a minority group that have made that country their home.

When The Conqueror Virtual Challenges app introduced a new route, late last year, I had reservations in joining it. The challenge follows the length of the Great Wall, a 3,513.1-kilometre trek that starts in Laulongtou, in the east, and ends in Yangguan, in the west.

I wondered that, by being in China, even virtually, was I going against my word to not set foot in China again?

The answer is of course not. My vow is against the government, not against the country itself.

Years ago, when I saw the division between Americans in the United States, I vowed to never set foot in that country again. People be crazy over there, I told myself. I've kept that promise but I did join the virtual challenge to travel Route 66, from Chicago to Santa Monica. I told myself at that time that the US has a lot of beautiful sights and while I won't see them in person, there was nothing stopping me from seeing them, virtually.

Sadly, most of Route 66 is a boring trek that passes shopping malls and flat, featureless landscapes.

I visited the Great Wall in 1998, realizing a dream that I had since elementary school. In participating in the virtual journey along the Great Wall, I'm revisiting that dream.

I can still speak out against the Chinese government while virtually travelling one of the great wonders of the world.

I started my virtual journey yesterday. It's only a coincidence that the beginning of this challenge is happening during the Beijing Olympics. The majority of the trek will be after the games are finished and I won't be following them, anyway.

Photos from the street view at the beginning of the wall, in Shihebi.

It took me 147 days to complete Route 66, which is longer by about 150 kms. If I can do this trek in 140 days or fewer, I'll be happy.

Stay tuned.

Québec Values Must Be Human Values

Wasn't it former Québec premier and leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ), Jacques Parizeau, who said that the last referendum on sovereignty was lost because of "money and the ethnic vote"?

And wasn't it former leader of the Bloc Québécois and successor to Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard, who once said that women belonged in the home? That Québec should be kept French, and white? He has been quoted as saying, "We're one of the white races that has the fewest children."

Funny, I thought Québec was a society, not a race.

And now, the PQ has drafted a charter that would see a ban on all religious symbols and clothing in all government and public services, including education.

"To maintain social peace and promote harmony," the Québec government says.

How can a person's right to religious freedom, which is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights, be prohibited under the guise that it "will contribute to integration and social cohesion"? How it "will benefit all Québecers, including newcomers" who "will be best served by a state that treats everyone the same"?

This proposed charter opens a can of ugly, rotting worms. Some religions have symbols which can be omitted from dress, such as a necklace with a cross. But a hijab, for example, is a symbol of a culture, as well as a way for a Muslim woman to adhere to her beliefs. Whether it is worn out of her choice, as a celebration or as a strict adherence of her values, isn't for anyone to judge.

It certainly isn't for a political party to judge.

The Parti Québécois isn't a political party that exists for the benefit of all Québecers: it's a party that exists for the benefit of racist people who want to keep Québec white and French.

I was born in Québec. I work in Québec. Yet, I feel ashamed to call myself a Québecer, because I'm not that kind of Québecer. And I'm hoping that none of my family, friends, and colleagues are that kind of Québecer.

I'm sure that the PQ wouldn't think of me as a Québecer.

All Québecers need to speak out against this charter that a racist political party is proposing. The PQ cannot stomp on religious freedom under the guise of creating a level playing field. That notion is laughable.

A Québec society, as with a Canadian society as a whole, must be open and free, allowing the expression of religious rights, in a respectful manner.

Québec values must be human values.

Lovers & Haters

Are you a lover or are you a hater?

I'm not a religious person but I firmly believe in the axiom that is held in all realms of faith: treat a person as you would like to be treated.

I'm not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination, but I try to be a good person. I try to treat people in a respectful manner, to behave towards them in a way in which I would like them to reciprocate.

I've been following the news coming out of the United States on the same-sex marriage bill, and I've seen photos, of both sides, of people waving signs condemning gay marriage and others bashing the gay-haters.

From what I see, there's a lot of hate going on.

While I can understand the frustration of the supporters of gay rights, I think that they should firmly focus their attention on support for the people who are looking to have equal rights bestowed on them. Gay rights are human rights, and that kind of thing.

I, being a supporter of same-sex marriage, join in the frustration that is directed at those who are opposed. I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage will affect the day-to-day lives of the men and women who are waving their signs of hatred and condemnation. Signs that talk of a "gay agenda."

What agenda? Do these folks live in fear? Fear of what?

I have friends who are gay. Some, I've known since high school; others, I've known throughout my adult life; few, with whom I've been friends for only a short time. These wonderful people are just like any of my straight friends: they love to laugh, they are smart, insightful, caring. They enjoy a good drink (I have few friends who don't drink), a good book, a great movie.

The only thing that differentiates my gay friends from my straight friends is their sexual orientation. And their unexplainable love for Madonna.

I'm a lover: I love my friends. I love them for who they are. I wouldn't change anything about them.

With so much hate in the world—war, cruel regimes, Democrats versus Republicans—I believe that if two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and be contributing members to society, who are we to complain that those people are the same gender?

To those who would want to spread condemnation and hatred, look to the Golden Rule: treat people—all people—the way you want to be treated.

Are you a lover or a hater?