Falling into gayness: discovering queer community as a person with a disability

I have thought a lot about a constructive role for persons with disabilities within the Canadian urban gay community. I have spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, which is about as sexy for a gay man as it sounds. Just as gay people are constructed as outside straight nature, I am somehow beyond gay nature. The tension within my personality between my intellectual aspirations and bodily constraints creates an interesting place from which to begin helpful critique and dialogue. And I think my answer, partial though it may be, can act as a bridge to build dialogue with HIV-positive people and trans individuals, both of which, though in their different contexts, struggle with issues of legitimacy within the gay community.

When communities function well, every member within that community thinks about how to bring experiences he has had to that community, even as he also learns from others. I was a member of a program for gay youth who want to be sexual health leaders in the community. After the program had officially ended for the day — thereby releasing the organization of any legal liability — we decided to go out for drinks. Foolishly, I was paying attention to one of the group members more than  driving my wheelchair — among other things — because we were talking about teen romance fiction; and so, I drove off the sidewalk, overturning my chair, and getting a few scrapes. I was easily righted, and while I was horrified at showing stupidity and vulnerability to a group in which I had an uncertain place, they were equally horrified for my well-being.

Characteristically, the two group leaders embodied two necessary components of an effective reaction, and this is not to say that either of them do not have the other part. While the first one seemed to feel more pain than I did and hugged me, the other person immediately and rationally cleaned the scrapes. And I took great pains to deny that there was a problem, since I have a complex about being “an imposition” to begin with. Despite my ridiculous protests, however, it did feel extraordinarily good, perhaps even life-changing, for other gay men to recognize that I was hurt; — the first one with more visible empathy, and the other, by calmly and methodically fixing the problem. And I obviously extended the concept of “hurt”.

A few days later, I was having drinks with another member, and I said, “I wasn’t even in that much pain… Okay… I’m lying; it hurt like a… But he [the first group leader] was so upset… I made him cry… That’s like kicking a puppy… I felt terrible… And you guys were already walking slow!”

“GIRL I KNOW; it is like kicking a puppy. And I understand how you feel about making people overtaxed, but you have to let people know if you’re hurt. I know not all people want to help you all of the time, but some do at least some of the time. You have to trust people’s good intentions: otherwise you’re not being honest with them or yourself!”!

This is really good advice, and, like most good advice, it is extremely hard to follow. But I think we should. Being gay, at least in part, means you learn to be tough, and being disabled and gay, unfortunately, means you have to be even more tough… Sometimes. But not all of the time. Prejudicial attitudes toward persons with disabilities, particularly in the gay community, are alive and painful, but I’m not going to dwell on the too much. Often, I am excluded just as much on what people think, as I am by the barriers pose by what I think people are thinking. And I believe that sometimes my experience as being an anomaly within the gay community mirrors how many of us, myself included, sometimes relate to society as a whole. Pain is very real, and so too is vulnerability. Perhaps the most important interpersonal need human beings have, sadly lacking for many of us, is to be seen as valuable people, not in spite of but because of our differences. As I reflect on where I have been and where I want to go, as part of the broader discussion of where the community has been and where we want to go, it is important to think about pain as a possible source of strength, but only if we see healing as an everyday and ongoing practice.

Every person, and especially every gay man, has his own unique forms of trauma, which he deals with in his own way at his own pace. We need sensitivity, rationality, caring, aesthetic sensibilities, sexual expressiveness, resolve and many other qualities besides, if “the movement” is going to continue to transform society, as it has done in the past. Even as I myself repudiate what I have said by being a completely cruel, especially to women, and self-obsessed sassy queen on the regular, I think my disability combined with excessive pursuit of same-sex love, gives me a glimpse, however incomplete and temporary, of what many of us know already: the purpose of being gay — if one can even find one — is to explore  the infinite ways one can relate to other men as a man, emotionally, intellectually, erotically, physically, and to push these relationships to their limit; such that, for brief moments, the world becomes a bit more bearable than it was before.(Un)fortunately the relationships I seem to be best at, because of happenstance, are ones involving dependency and caring.

This is a simplistic generalization, but many gay men — including most definitely myself — have a lot of difficulty with this, in part, because of our trauma and gendered existence. I repeatedly heard “boys don’t cry,” when that’s all I wanted to do. This is also the case for the current generation of young gay men who didn’t have to face the immediacy of the early HIV-AIDS crisis. I’m not saying that caring is the supreme value; sometimes I hate it. But if my very limited experience as a gay disabled man has taught me anything, it  is that caring must and often does exist as an important value alongside others which we cultivate, particularly as part of an oppressed group.

Despite being constantly under suspicion, in my heart of hearts I know that I belong in the gay community because just as a sassy bitch exists inside of me, a disabled person is a big part of every Homo and every human being. Gay men do get hurt; at some point gay men do have performance issues and body image problems, and they do die. The only way I think life is worthwhile, however, is if one is willing to fall from time to time and have others, ideally, of course, young gay men, pick one up when this happens. Perhaps this is one of the very many valuable lessons contemporary gay culture can appropriate from Christianity. But, curse the gods again, not all of us are attractive. We are perpetually working on this problem, nonetheless, for better and for worse.!

Putting your middle finger up God’s “rectum”: genderfucking, disability, and querying (gay) masculinity

A strange thing happened when I put on makeup, and admitted to liking this, while having no desire to become trans. Aside from minor subversion of the normal for its own sake, I like it because I can imagine that the people who often stare at me in public are doing so because of the makeup and not because of my disability and all its attending unpleasant drama. On the whole, this experience, along with a deep and intense exploration of sexuality and gender generally, has been positive. But what I can’t get over is the fact that some gay men are still so obsessed with masculinity to say that drag queens and, by extension, feminine guys and transgendered people make it more difficult for normal gay people. There is no normal person, much less normal gay men. Once you opt out of the heterosexual social contract, you make it deal with the devil; and — whether you like it or not — you are a rebel with a cause. So we need to quite literally fuck (against) assimilation.

Though drag queens were the first to stand up to the police in the Stonewall riots, it is unfortunate that ableism, misogyny, racism and transphobia are still highly prevalent among Canadian gay men. In fact, I often wonder, in a chicken and egg like scenario, whether my internalized inferiority on account of physical disability was a consequence or cause of my male homoerotic sexual orientation. Unfortunately, to this day, I am preoccupied with “the Platonic male form” — an Adonis -like body, free of flaws,  erotic precisely because it is hyper- able. It can climb trees, lift weights, start bar fights, strata lovers and fuck them endlessly. It knows all the moves to access hitherto untapped resources of pleasure. It never fails or shows weakness. It pursues pleasure, and it repels pain effortlessly. Indeed, it wasn’t any particular man I fell in love with that first revealed my gayness, it was that body — the feeling of activity and power I had been keenly aware of lacking since earliest childhood.

From very young,  I came to believe that women were no fun. The exception to this was, of course, when my mom wasn’t preoccupied with the intense amount of care I needed at a young age, and adopted a “more masculine” attitude. Often misinterpreting caring for needless restriction, women were associated with the medicalized parts of my life. What I needed to do to overcome my disability, the humdrum parts of existence, such as school, my stretches, speech therapy and the like. In short, I disliked the necessary and loving activities that made me different and separate from  other children. Yet, by contingent arrangements of parenting, when I was with men, I experienced more freedom; truthfully, this dynamic, unfortunately, continues to this day, because the institutional care of the disabled is dominated by women, who — rightly or wrongly — impose  innumerable restrictions on my life in the name of efficiency, equity or related abstractions. In such contexts, it is a great struggle not to be misogynist. When you add to this considerations of internalized homophobia, and the fact that, like many gay men, I was taught that the worst thing for a boy to do was show signs of femininity, it becomes a Herculean struggle. And this struggle is further exacerbated by  the connection between misogyny and internalized ableism. Even then, however, there seem to be an escape, since both my parents have always been implicitly aware that gender is a humorous performance. For this reason, this is not a struggle, however difficult at times, I intend to lose.

Though rationally I cannot hold this view, and, for obvious ethical reasons, it repulses me, I am influenced by the classical Aristotelian model of sexual difference, whereby “the male” form is considered the fulfillment of human development — women and cripples our less perfect instantiations of it. We are soft, whereas “the male” is hard; we are dependent whereas he is independent. He fucks ;we get fucked. Greek philosophy, and by consequence the Western imaginary, is influenced by anxieties over fucking and disability in more ways than we can possibly imagine.

 I will never get rid of my childhood fantasy entirely, nor do I think it is particularly all that terrible to fantasize about beautiful naked men wrestling while covered in oil, but I now realize it is a fantasy. Judith Butler’s greatest contribution is to help us recognize that sexualities and abilities are tragic comedies, insofar as their performance is characterized by a fundamental lack. We are never fully what we perform. Now, my favorite insight of Lacanian theory is that there has to be a distance between us and our fantasy life. Otherwise the comic nature of our existence can turn nightmarish exceedingly fast. Let me be blunt, fascism, like the kind offered by Mussolini or Hitler, is both a comic and terrifying instantiation of the political enjoinment coming from homoerotic desire (The Party was in love with Hitler, and I’m sure German soldiers secretly jerked off to photos of their leader) and able-bodied normativity. It is no accident that these things are connected. Indeed, Mussolini and Hitler are particularly instructive, since they were the exact opposite of what they were imagined to be: Hitler was not an ideal Aryan, nor was Mussolini especially masculine, despite the patriarchal performances of his party.

There is nothing wrong with a healthy appreciation of masculinity, and I’m not saying these things are equivalent in scale. Yet in the sometimes ludicrous tribalism of Grindr and the over aesthetic and sexualized nature of some parts of gay culture do we not see the dissipating shadows of this homoerotic and hyper- misogynist able-bodied fascism; and are we, at times a very disenfranchised group, willing to endorse its racist, and for gay men especially, ironic eugenic implications? Are we, who have been excluded from capitalism’s full privileges until relatively recently, willing to accept the complete commodification of sexuality and our identity as a target market?

The reason sodomy is a hot button issue is because it exposes the authoritarian nature of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. God is the creator of humankind, so he should be the one on top. Men are more perfect than women, so they should always be penetrating. To have sex with the man, in any form whatsoever, or to behave like a woman in any way, subverts the proper hierarchy of submission and domination in God’s heavenly schema of nonconsensual sadomasochism. The disabled gay men is, by dint of this taxonomy, twice feminized yet never truly woman or man — his cock, regardless of functionality, being placed in perpetual suspicion. To use Lacanian terminology, he has a penis, but the tenuous way he holds onto the symbolic power of the phallus is made more obvious, inasmuch as his masculinity is more queer. For this reason, I find overzealous attempts to masculinized disabled men (e.g. Rick Hansen) rather pathetic and unhelpful. In order to gain masculinity, we replicate the same discourses that oppress us in the first place, and the same holds true for gay men who believe it is appropriate to rank each other in an imagined hierarchy of gender. This is a narcissistic fantasy predicated on the pursuit of an imagined body and an ideal embodiment that does not and could not ever exist.

Political and psychological benefits notwithstanding, the truth is I don’t think it is possible to separate sexuality from gender, at least in the current context. However much we may strive against archaic conceptions of fucking, and rightfully so, to assume genders is to take certain ascribed and , if one is lucky, chosen positions — both literally and figuratively — in relation to sexual activity. Likewise, sexuality is not a given, but, instead, emerges as a semi-designed and semi-autonomous system for the contemporary regulation of social behavior. Human beings are not free, nor are we determined; instead, we exist in contexts of greater degrees of agency/constraint.

To put this somewhat crassly, even if one does not butt-fuck, and even if one is a stallion when topping or a power-bottom, we have not yet escaped the shadow of sodomy. I don’t think this is a bad thing, in fact, as an atheist and a feminist ally, I think the community sometimes would do well to remember the adage of gay liberation, appropriated from second wave feminism — the personal is political. We still need to view subversive sex as an emancipatory act; for, even in our present age of “tolerance,” to admit to liking all sorts of man-sex is to put your middle finger squarely up the rectum of the  patriarchal and ablest conception of the divine. I have nothing against sexual subjection; I, however, insist that it be by choice.

I don’t know whether I am a masculine guy or feminine guy. I certainly exhibit behaviors from all over the gender map. But, if feminine guys are guys who are open to challenging gender expectations, intuitive, nurturing, well groomed, caring, thoughtful, sensitive, expressive, less aggressive, talkative, good cooks, into arts and culture and less violent. And masculine guys are  protective, courageous, physically and emotionally capable, striving to be rational, methodical, goal oriented, passionate and spontaneous, I don’t see any reason why I cannot and should not demand all these things from partners and friends, nor why any of these qualities attached to gender. They are not a marker of gender as such. Rather, they are markers of maturity and complexity, and form and important web of resources that the sophisticated person draws upon at any given time.

One final point is that I don’t think a gender fluid stance questions the experience of trans people. First, I’m not suggesting that in order to be progressive one must be equally masculine and feminine in all times and all places. Clearly, this would be impossible, since certain individuals have stronger orientations toward certain behaviors than others. Second, no one, whether or not they are sis or trans, can fully embody any gender, any race, any class, any sexuality or any ability level. Third, I suspect that taking a more relaxed approach to gender and sexual embodiments may make it easier for trans identified people, who are often subject to intense questioning, if they do not embody their gender orientation correctly, by expertly using external and always heteronormative signs.

It’s time, though this process can never be complete, for many people in gay culture to move beyond an implicit understanding of sex predicated on ancient Greece and the Bible. Not only is this ignorant based on what we know about gender and ethics, it also irrationally limits the expression of pleasure, creativity and intimacy for no benefit. I’m trying not to be the crippled gay boy who longed for the perfect able, youthful and invincible male body. I am grown now, apparently, and, therefore, I must — as St. Paul says — “put away childish things”.

On the moral bankruptcy of Aristotelian theory of tragedy and disability

On the moral bankruptcy of the personal tragedy theory:

Towards a Brechtian model of disability politics

I am frequently confronted with a question that I can no longer ignore. People often ask me whether or not having an acquired or congenital disability is worse. And sometimes they outright tell me that having an acquired disability is worse, since I never knew what it was like to walk; and, owing to this fact, I don’t know what I’m missing. Let’s tackle this on three fronts.

First, anyone with the political backbone will tell you that the personal tragedy theory of disease is not helpful. It simply causes the process of narcissistic disavowal in the able-bodied majority, allowing them to legitimate the systemic oppression of those with nonnormative abilities. I would find it repugnant to participate in this unjust arrangement of society by legitimating the personal tragedy model. I’m not going to deny that sometimes I’m pissed off at the vicissitudes of fortune, as is everyone, but I’m considerably more angry at the social inequality I experience on a macro and micro level. It is not nature that creates the problem of disability, people,, including myself, do, and it’s about time we start taking responsibility for it. God knows we fight against everything else God’s patently absurd impotence is responsible for. I have absolutely no patience for the sentimental claptrap that says disability is a meaningful experience. It isn’t. It’s terrible, since life can be terrible. If you make a meaning out of it, it is only through a tremendous act of will to survive and thrive. If we think that tragedies have value, we would also have to do some comically odious intellectual gymnastics to find some significance in the pandemics that ravage our world. This naïve romanticism limits our ability to fight disease effectively and look at the underlying social causes. Some people may want to live in a fantasy land of intrinsic justice, but I don’t.

Second, I did have an accident: it happened to be earlier, but if we are using a tragic model, it was still unfortunate. It’s true; I did not have the pleasure of normative ability, so I don’t know the extent of that privilege. By the same token, however, persons with acquired injuries have benefited from a system that privileges able-bodied approximations for some significant portion of their lives. Conversely, I have never had the luxury of profiting from that system of oppression. Even so, I DO have a conception of what able-bodiedness is like. Unfortunately, the ideal is everywhere we go. How could I not have a conception? How could I not feel loss, when virtually everyone around me, from early childhood to the present, has something I do not and makes that fact known constantly? Moreover, during crucial years of upbringing, unlike many persons with acquired impairments, I had to endure tremendous stigma and underestimation on account of my nonnormative ability. While oppression in the present is, indeed, caustic to self-development, tremendous stigma in childhood is devastating. No wonder then that people with congenital disabilities often have different ways of being in the world, and often appear less normal to the able-bodied majority — they have simply been oppressed longer. This is not a mark of ontological difference; it is a mark of unjust social privilege. To be sure, I have not survived a single catastrophic event, but my life can be interpreted as coping with catastrophe; and so too can most people’s. Why we single some people out as survivors and others not says more about us than the object of study. The rhetoric of survival is not ethically permissible. If a person gains credit only for surviving a disease like cancer or some kind of accident, it implies that this person is somehow more worthy of life than those who did not or that she is somehow innately more meritorious than those who experience greater difficulty.

Again, my point is not that one is worse than the other. Instead, it is important to illuminate that you can use whatever rhetorical strategies you like. The persuasive tactics people often use only have power because the congenitally impaired are constructed as fundamentally other. We are essentially, not accidentally, tragic. The only reason my disability is important is because of circumstances I did not control. I do not relish it; I am not proud of it, per se. I would happily fix it, if this were possible. I say this, even though I recognize that it is a vital part of my life. This does not mean I am bitter or that I hate myself. It simply means that I am a pragmatic person, who loves life and wants to experience it to the fullest.

Third, as undeniably unpleasant as my disability can be, it seems insignificant compared to the other problems that human beings around the planet face daily. In some small way, I am grateful because, at least in part, it assuages my guilt for being European, and, therewith, profiting from a system of exploitation that has no intrinsic legitimation. Even so, this does not exonerate my culpability in the system. It seems hypocritical to care excessively that I’m in a wheelchair, when we live in a world where it is commonplace for children to be blown to pieces. I’m not cynical; I’m a realist. God is not coming back; no one is going to save us, so it’s time we go fucking balls deep in the excrement of life. That’s our only  chance of making it get better. Things don’t get better without action. Wake up! 

All things are nothing next to our inevitable and complete that destruction. We need to stop fabricating meaning in misfortune. It is not healthy. And in the long run, it creates more misfortune. Manufacturing the category of congenital and acquired perpetuates the narcissistic fantasy that disability is something accidental to the human condition. I’m sorry to say it isn’t. You will be disabled. You will die. Eventually, very few people will remember your accomplishments, and all that will matter are those moments where you decided to help people in need, regardless of their ability. You did this because you understood them as creatures who experience suffering and are, thereby, worthy of concern. Think about that, for that’s a lot more productive than having me entertain this narcissistic question. When I meditate upon tragedy, it is useful to consider Brecht. He opposed the Aristotelian model of| purgation and relief. Instead, his model of tragedy encourages distance, which asks the audience to critically examine the circumstances that produced tragedy, thereby, becoming mobilized for political action. It’s time we repudiate Aristotle in favor of Brecht. Perhaps then people will see this as a nonsensical, as well as morally bankrupt, question.

The gay question and the rhetorical power of martyrology in human rights discourse

The Gay Question:

A Personal Reflection on My Sexuality As Embodied Religion

Problem for Reflection:

Though much has been written about the often acrimonious, though increasingly less so, intersection between Christianity and gay male identity in postindustrial society, little research has been done, especially within the field of religious studies, analyzing much of the Christian tropes that structure contemporary gay rights discourse. The following is a personal reflection on what I, as a white sis-gendered, Canadian male of relative prosperity, experience gayness as. Though not intended to be universal, or in any way to repudiate the insights afforded by queer theory, I have found that my personal reflection on this topic may reveal the underline martyrology that often structures the arguments of LGBTTIIAAPQQ rights advocates and their opponents. And I think this may suggest that we ought to cut the Gordian knot of persecution discourse, so as to advance the dialogue in a more productive direction. I extend my apologies for being rather heated in my discussion.

Positive Aspects

Though I can’t speak for all queer persons, my experience of being gay is something like this. To be gay is to live in a context where sexuality is an essential part of one’s identity, and the means by which one can create a subject position in the context of suffering. It is something that makes me so happy, I find it immensely rewarding, and of which I am very proud. Paradoxically, despite the fact that it has caused me excruciating pain, I consider it my best character trait, because it has help me develop all the other virtues I like about myself. I am happy to witness it in public, evangelize it, and — if necessary — I would freely choose martyrdom rather than renounce it. It is significant for me because of how I connect to the transcendent, and it is intimately married to my core beliefs.

 It’s about transforming the shame one experiences for homoerotic desire into an affirmation of the positivity of sex and the sanctity of love. As a political strategy, being gay is about removing certain oppressive power dynamics from sex and love, so that we can build a world that is more loving and more egalitarian. In this respect, it’s about turning “sexual deviance” into a positive ethical position. It is not an accidental part of who I am; it is an essential part of who I am, particularly in my ethical relationships with others and the transcendent.

 There is no Connor essence apart from it because it is impossible for me to imagine my subjectivity beyond the history that has shaped my life. Even when I tried to suppress it, it blossomed out of me like a lotus flower.  The truth about ourselves is revealed beyond our control. It seems to be disingenuous or against my nature to act any other way, and when I have done so it has led to destructive behavior with harmful consequences for me and those I love. Sometimes, though not always, I feel more fortunate because it allows me to see and understand different aspects of what it means to be human. It also makes me a better scholar because I have to practice self-doubt. Because I have experienced the pain of persecution, I am loath to cause suffering in others, and being gay has helped me develop a fascination with and acceptance of diversity. I feel I am less squeamish about sexuality and the body than a lot of my contemporaries because I’ve had to interrogate the Manichaean underpinnings of Occidental thought.

Being gay is linked to human flourishing. It can be conceived by many, including myself, as a particular way of life, encompassing many different and unique cultural forms, often not located in straight culture. It can even be a type of language. And it can be a way to build profoundly immoral or moral communal relationships with others. It can be a history as well as an aesthetic sensibility. This is not to say that, like everything else, it is not a product of historical accident. Just because a phenomenon is contingent, it does not follow that it is either completely malleable or meaningless. Life is not that simple!

 So long as it is not harmful to others, I want human beings to be happy, since there has been enough suffering in the world. For whatever reason, I am happiest when loved by men. I don’t seem to be able to live  as good of a life without male companionship. It inspires me to write poetry, compose essays, commit virtuous acts, endure physical pain, experienced trust, experience sexual desire, let go of fear, etc. As you know, I have a very strong platonic bias, so rather than complementarity, I value sameness, insofar as I long for a philosophic partner who I can also have sex with. I think sometimes, though not always, same-sex relationships can be more egalitarian and compassionate because there seems to be less masquerading. When I’m around men everything is in color; for everything makes sense to me. When I’m around women for too long, or I have to deny my sexual orientation,  a heavy fog comes over me. I love to touch men. I love to be near them. I like the way we smell, and I like the way we give hugs. I like the way we struggle with emotions. I like the way we feel, and I like our strength. I want to be with other men all the time. I think we can be the most beautiful things in creation, like walking works of art. Men are more complex than a philosophical puzzle”. I enjoy our candor, and sometimes even are socially constructed machismo, ability and aggression, if properly exercised. I enjoy the roughness and gentility of men. We men often don’t know ourselves, and it is the profoundest joy of my life to help men access emotions often denied them because of the way heteronormativity works.

Like anyone, I experience a lot of lust. Nevertheless, I desire to have sex with men because I want to give myself over completely to them, open myself to them, sacrifice myself for them, unite with them, let go with them, feel ecstasy with them, cry with them, be fragile with them, explore my flaws with them, know that I’m alive with them, and, most of all, fall asleep with them exhausted in my arms. I desire to live with them, so that I can sacrifice myself for them. I want to support them when they’re sick. I want to raise children with them. I want to volunteer with them. I want to be incorporated into their family. I want to make a home with them. I want to support them in their careers. I want them to help me understand the meaning of life. I want to share my secrets with them. I want to swim with them. I want to travel with them. I want to die with them holding my hand and I want them to remember me when I’m gone. I am grateful for the work that has been done, but there is still a lot to do.  Nonnormative ways of being in the world are not adequately cherished or understood by society. Gay men are not a monolith, and it is impossible to know “what gay men want”, but a good starting place is understanding them from where they are, even if they don’t conform to what others may deem acceptable.

Experience of Social Stigma

Being gay is never to take the process of recognition by others as human beings for granted. It is to identify consciously as a second-class citizen. It is like having a giant question-mark over one’s head all the time, especially when I grew up. Sometimes, as much as it can also be a very happy experience, it is like carrying around a giant millstone on one’s neck made up of rage and resentment at injustice; and you have to guard against turning suffering into a general desire for vengeance, because frequently you are not precisely sure who, if anyone, is your enemy. It is to live, consciously or not, in protest against the ghosts of moral horror and censoriousness conjured by the dying embers of sodom’s condemnation, even though you may not perform anal intercourse. It is to live partially outside the “general public”. Theologically speaking, it is often to be guilty until proven innocent.

 For me, homoerotic desire brought fear, isolation and confusion. For years I felt deceptive and untrustworthy, even though I wasn’t living much of a lie. You have to negotiate when to disclose and when not to, lest you be perceived as “promoting a gay agenda”. And you have to deal with the trauma of the quest for your humanity being considered an agenda. Some people find you to be a fascinating novelty, while others wish you would vanish; few people who are not like you understand you. You have to develop defense mechanisms, since you have been exposed to bigotry. You live in fear of violence, and so you learn to distance yourself from people, lest they hurt you. You are constantly aware of persecution, and willing to use the law to protect yourself because you feel attacked, outnumbered and outgunned. And you’re aware that many countries believe that your existence is the sign of Western decadence, even as you are also often portrayed as the sign of Original Sin.

If that fails, people claim that you contravene some pleasantly ahistorical Natural Law, and, if natural law does not fit the bill, they use evolutionary biology. These things are also used to enable well-intentioned heterosexuals to make you in their own image, a timeless idol of their conception of sexuality and gender. Often, of course, they understand neither; for there is complete ignorance about topics that are meaningful to you, including from healthcare professionals involved with your well-being. Moreover, there is less access to the services you require to keep you healthy, while you are also blamed for the spread of infection. There are fewer social supports for you, especially when you become elderly. If you ever need care, you will likely be dependent on persons from cultures where your existence is often viewed as abhorrent. And the irony of this, of course, is that you are the one who apparently makes so much of sexuality, while their unacknowledged fantasies about you does much more to support the current system of sexuality.

 You feel exhausted because you never know when you will have to defend yourself; or, if you are fortunate, when your family will have to defend you. As accepted as you may feel, from time to time, you probably feel guilty about disappointing your parents. And you care what people think, while you also have guilt because you are not supposed to care what other people think, always maintaining pride and strength, fitness and perfection. And you are supposed to be able to repel anything hateful that happens to you with a sassy and upbeat remark. And because of this pressure, you are more likely to have mental health issues, and have contemplated suicide.

 You don’t understand why society is the way it is, but you recognize that you are not part of the dominant group: most of the messages you see through media don’t reflect your experience. You feel constantly judged, and so you learn to control your behavior because what you experience as natural much of society deems mildly repugnant or inferior. You feel the need to justify your sexual orientation, since you have been made to feel like you have some sort of handicap. People often imply that everything you do either is a response to pride or shame. If you like something that fits with the stereotype of what gay people like, you are often mocked. But you are also mocked if you don’t conform to the stereotype. You are encouraged to integrate. You are told that you are equal, even though you don’t feel that way. No one acknowledges their uncomfortableness with what you do in private because those things are not considered essential to who you are. You have to struggle against disgust with your desires from yourself and society

.

You are aware of being part of the movement that allegedly fights against the weight of tradition. People say that you are indicative of innovation and decadence. You have few role models and you have to fashion them from a tradition that is constructed as excluding you. People who claim to love you sometimes believe in a God that would condemn you to an eternity of suffering for loving another man. This same God, apparently, created HIV for the same reason. And if you get HIV it’s your fault for being promiscuous.

Now with the advent of same-sex marriage, there is pressure to adopt an institution that has excluded you for millennia. Some people do not respect your way of doing things, or that there may be multiple and non-heteronormative ways to live a good life. And people who are supposed to accept you claim the moral high ground on account of their belief in a benevolent God. And you are expected to tolerate their barbaric, ignorant and irrational beliefs because they are sincerely held, though they come from a place of violence and hatred. The Bible becomes a weapon against you, and it acts as a sanctimonious shield blocking any charitable or sensible conversation. The public debate about “homosexual activity” seems to be endless, even though logically there should be no debate because no moral issue is at stake. Nevertheless, no matter what you do, there always seems to be another argument against you, a slightly different form, because some ideologue, who doesn’t know you, decides that it is appropriate to pronounce on what she thinks you do in the bedroom

Conclusion: Openness and Deep Equality

Though there is much I admire about those constructed as women, I could not form a successful romantic partnership  with one, while also being honest with her or myself; nor would chastening my desires excessively bring me to anything approaching the state of grace that is my best hope for a more meaningful life. To act in any other way than as a gay man would cause me to fight futilely and hopelessly against my best hope for redemption; and, in doing so, I would surrender all that that redemption has to offer to the world. That would be a rejection of grace. Moreover, it would constitute an apostasy every bit as serious and unethical as renouncing one’s faith under political pressure. I would rather experience perpetual torture than worship a God who would torture people for love or sex, and any person with a backbone ought to feel the same way. Fortunately, if there is a God, it is completely illogical to suppose that she/he is like that. Nor is it ethical for a human being to behave that way either.

So excepting any person, evil or good, straight or gay, conservative Christian or militant atheist, requires us to recognize the whole humanity in them already, and that they can achieve redemption and atonement from where they are, not where we want them to be. It is time to work for a better way forward, for the sake of everyone, since neither party is likely to disappear anytime soon. I hope that some Christians will begin to see the religious elements of being gay, and some gays will understand the Christian narratives even in seemingly secular gay rights struggles. I hope that we can unite under a common vocabulary, and not be like the people at Babel when we talk in court. I don’t know what Christians want, but, as hard as it may be, gays have to extend the olive branch and attempt to recognize their dignity, even though it may be unfathomable why they oppose as. Otherwise, we may “win” the fight with religiously motivated or secular opponents, but we run the risk of crucifying an essential component of our humanity in the process through recourse to the discourse of martyrdom and a Manichaean worldview. Though Christianity is to blame for much persecution, and the celebration of sexuality has contributed to the depreciation of certain forms of the Christian worldview, the problem is much wider than the mythology of the culture wars suggest. Let’s work for redemption, as opposed to persecution. This

Stop Para-Transpo Booking Policy Changes; Fight for Equal Access to Transit for All

Saturday, September 4, 2015

To whom it may concern:

            First, I would like to express my satisfaction with and gratitude for Para- Transpo. Despite its problems, I am a very satisfied customer. I recognize and appreciate everything every member of the team does to get me where I need to go, and I can honestly say that it is my favourite thing about living in Ottawa. Notwithstanding my praises, I am writing to express concerns in the matter of proposed changes to transit service delivery. There seems to be much confusion and rumour regarding what proposed changes are being considered and the extent to which this may or may not affect regular users. I was grateful to have the opportunity to fill out the customer survey, thanks to the accessibility measures that its designers provided; and it appears as though management is considering a variety of options. I, therefore, being a satisfied customer of goodwill, invite the reader of this letter to consider the following in any just deliberation about changes to the service.

            I am a person with quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy. This means that, among other things, I use a power-wheelchair and have difficulty navigating around the city, owing to an impaired sense of direction. Though I am physically able to take conventional transit (weather permitting), I choose not to because I am unable to secure my wheelchair with the safety belt independently, and bus drivers refused to help me with this task owing to time constraints. Were I to take the bus, therefore, it would not only be dangerous for me, it would also be dangerous for other passengers. In fact, one of the reasons I stopped taking conventional transit is that gravitational force propelled me across the bus several times, even though in all other respects I am properly positioned.

            I moved to Ottawa and have stayed here, against the betterment of my career, on account of is its undeniable accessibility. Though there is much work to be done, Ottawa is a world leader. Alternate forms of transportation are an essential part of that leadership role. I am 25 years old, and I use transit like any other 25-year-old would, regardless of ability. I visit friends; I go to bars; I work, I volunteer; I go to appointments; I attend religious services; and, most importantly for me, I attend school and participate in extracurricular activities. In short, as for anyone else, access to transportation is a crucial tool for the achievement of actualized personhood and participation in society as an equal citizen before the law. Indeed, the reason we have alternate forms of transportation is because courageous persons refused to accept inequality in the provision of public service. And this story is analogous to the example of Rosa Parks, who realized that discrimination in transit directed against African-Americans was not acceptable. Though ability equality requires more effort, in the sense of conscientious governmental action, it is no less laudable or legally mandated. The courts have consistently maintained a commitment to substantive equality in the area of disability rights; and this means that justice should outweigh costs to redress systemic inequality. Second-class citizenship on transportation should not be permitted, even in times of economic hardship. If society were to do this, we would run the risk of trivializing fundamental democratic principles for transitory monetary benefit.

            It is because of my commitment to such values that I am currently pursuing a doctorate, after which I desire to attend law school. To do this effectively I usually reserve a day in advance. It is not always possible to anticipate when I will have to travel to campus in order to attend a meeting and/or execute many of the other functions incumbent upon me as a teaching assistant and the researcher. Hence, any extension of the booking practice from its current form would severely impact my ability to do my job. It would also constitute a disproportionate burden anathema to the original intention of paratransit, which was the emancipation of the disabled.

            While I recognize that the service has grown and many people have difficulty accessing it; and I also recognize that I am just one person, my story is not wholly unique. It is no doubt important to prioritize medical appointments, and I recognize that every one of my desired leisure activities may not be accommodated for the sake of others. But surely a meaningful life such as I want to live, and, with hard work, am entitled to live, encompasses more than medical appointments. I am not a person defined by his physical challenges alone. I have goals which I need help to achieve. If liberalism promises me something to the effect of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then five-day in-advance bookings or an overly stringent hierarchy of priority could impede this considerably. It is difficult enough to get a booking as it is, even when one has the privilege of calling at seven a.m. A system of advance bookings will likely make it impossible for anyone who requires a small measure of flexibility in scheduling to use the service, which already requires considerable patience and affability of clients in the face of unpredictability

            In a just society there would be greater money for alternate transit; unfortunately, we do not live there. Granting this fact, instead of changing booking policy, there should be greater restrictions placed on those eligible for paratransit, greater efforts to make conventional transit more accessible and an assessment of wages for drivers. It’s not a stretch of imagination to infer that the greater power of the driver’s union has meant the decline in unionized labour being employed by the city. My opinions are liable to accusations of self-interest. Here are, therefore, four reasons why I believe that they are philosophically defensible. In truth, I have no other choice but to take alternate transit, both because of neglectful snow removal practices and refusal of assistance on the part of conventional transit bus drivers. Conversely, some, though not most, riders may have a choice. Second, I am still in the prime of life, and, as such, I bear other responsibilities and aspirations. Many other users have had the enjoyment of regular transit and a regular life for decades, whereas this is my reality now and will continue to be in the future. Third, greater restrictions on alternate transit of whatever sort will inevitably lead to greater difficulty finding and keeping fruitful employment. We should be moving toward the goal of further participation, but what I hear of proposed changes will only mark a further retreat from that goal. Fourth, it is unjust to make either the disabled or the elderly bear the brunt of economic austerity or union politics. We bear enough social injustice as is: our lives do not require any more difficulties. Why should the disabled and the elderly experience these hardships, with ever-increasing transit expansion? There is no equity in that state of affairs.

            Doubtless, many will say that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few, but such utilitarian arguments are far less palatable when one is a member of the few asked to sacrifice his hard-won, and I hope someday to demonstrate by my betterment of society, properly exercised independence, liberty and equality before the law. As the reader deliberates about change in this sensitive topic, I humbly ask her/him to consider my story and arguments. Every time persons have sacrificed justice for expediency, they have been remembered with sadness and derision. The legacy of disabled people has been one of injustice with constant setbacks, in which able-bodied people and persons with disabilities alike have become apathetic to inequality. I hope my reader as he/she deliberates will be on the side of justice rather than apathy. Justice is everyone’s hope for the best life possible. Regardless of ability, it is everyone’s due. Booking restrictions of too stringent a kind are unjust; ergo, management should not pursue them, instead seeking other avenues for economizing  service

Sincerely,

ΚονῶρΣτῆλε

Connor Steele

Liberalism and the logical suicide of anti-euthanasia politics: a response to Taylor Hiatt

taylor cbc interview

I write to you, as the catechism advises me I ought, as a nonbeliever of goodwill, who is more than willing to engage with those who believe on questions related to the truth and public policy. With great respect for your gentle personality, daring, charm, authenticity and achievement, I am writing to expound you to my position on why abortion and euthanasia are to remain and be made legal, respectively. As the feeble rhetorician, and in the even more bamboozled and bamboozling logician, I would not presume to think I have any chance of persuading a woman of your wit and tenacity with my meager skill. Yet, this was, I think a good exercise, since it has exposed more sharply the points of difference that make our conversations interesting, as well as galvanizing my convictions considerably. I, therefore, bag you to indulge me, particularly at the points where — à la Socrates — my love of the truth is perhaps placed too far above the courtesies dictated by friendship and admiration :-)

We live in a pluralistic society, and if you are as committed to that, in theory and in practice, as I am, then you ought to recognize that the only basis for a criminal law ought to be a form of negative utilitarianism. That is, that is we ought to reduce as much harm as possible. In the famous phrase, my liberty ceases when my fist hits your face. Believe me, as I sure you know, it’s hard enough to get persons, who are far more emotional than rational, to agree on this basic principle, but it’s our best shot at creating a stable society, in the current pluralist context. For, as Isaiah Berlin points out, some values really are incommensurable and moral decisions really do imply moral loss. Any tradition of natural law, allegedly written on the human heart, from the beginning of creation, comes from a historically conditioned setting with intrinsic propositions, which not all cultures share.

Sure, from the perspective of 3000 feet, I’m sure that human values may share similar characteristics, but universal must we make this natural law, before it loses all meaning. In addition, the tradition of natural law has lost much credibility, because it’s so heavily indebted to ideologies of gender, power, class, race, and ability relations, which we, as marginalized persons must not and cannot accept. Consider, for a moment, how much monstrosity figures in the theology of St. Augustine/the New Testament and the negative consequences for persons with disabilities, racialized groups, LGBT people etc. I’m sure we can debate the meanings of these terms within the Western tradition, but the fact is, an increasing number of Canadians, come from different heritages altogether, though they may have been affected by our colonial dominance. This being the case, the foundation for law cannot be religious, unless coincidentally religious precepts benefit public utility. Only then can we have what liberal theory calls “overlapping consensus”. This is not to say that citizens cannot or should not disagree about ethical questions strongly and/or publicly. Indeed, this is the foundation of healthy deliberative democracy. Nor am I saying that persons are not entitled to have religious views, but theology, so long as I live and breathe, shall not serve as the basis for Canadian legislation.

The liberal state can promote values through education, insofar this campaign would reduce specific unsolicited harm toward individual from another human being; or this may apply to can apply to himself, insofar as it is presumed that being a more rational way they would want better for himself. This is the principle Volenti non fit injuria, especially clear in criminal law especially in the case of crime, in which punishment ought to be justified in terms of public utility. The state, with restrictions, may act in the place of a guardian, if the individual has forfeited her right to be considered as a fully rational agent by harming other person, and if her punishment is necessary to prevent further harm. Not every question of moral importance, however, is under the purview of law.

 Undoubtedly, while we ought to eat, how we ought to spend our money, and who we ought to sleep with are very important moral questions, but as Henry David Thoreau says, “law never made man a wit more just”. The best we can do it try doing sure that person have the right to pursue their goals in a way that is not harmful to other persons, even when we might disagree with them strongly. If we were to impose by law a common opinion expressed in law that provided little room for disagreement, on issues of bioethics for example, in which there are many different factors considered for making an ethical judgment, we would run the risk of imposing what is called “a tyranny of the majority”. History has shown that visitors perhaps one of the worst power arrangement for humankind’s intellectual and moral development. It is for this reason that Queen Elizabeth I was right “not to make windows into the souls men”. This is the job of the prelate not a politician, for those responsible for salvation not government administration.

Liberal theory is inseparable from liberal economics. A person’s primary possession is his body, and he therewith has the right to to dispose thereof as he sees fit, as well as the capital he may accrue through labor, so long as he does not injure his fellows, either through direct omission or commission of (potentially) malevolent actions. Liberal theory, therefore, has at its core the rejection of Christian teleology, born of Aristotelian metaphysics, particularly Thomas Aquinas’ theories about law and property ownership. For Aquinas, all law should work toward the common good (human flourishing which has the highest fulfillment in worship of God). Because of their belief human beings do not have the absolute rights over property, least of all their own bodies, because they merely rent what they use from God, who, as the supreme ruler of the universe, has dominion over everything. (See also John Locke’s argument again suicide). It is for this same reason that Augustine has such a problem with suicide; for it constitutes murder and theft. By destroying yourself, you destroy something that you do not own — you are alienated from yourself insofar as you are alternately subject to God. I refused to accept a theology in which human beings are properly or slaves.

 While this may be true for Christian, Jews Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, as well as some Hindus and while they may be the opinion of the majority, this does not mean that their position is based on logical argumentation, and/or empirical evidence. The prevalence of an opinion is no guarantee of its validity. What factual evidence can we use in public policy, in order to determine that the universe is in such a hierarchical and harmonious relationship, with God running the show? Empirical observation would seem to suggest the opposite! Moreover, if one examines how we conduct politics, with a few glaring exceptions, things have gotten, as theology has become an irritating backseat driver in political deliberation. We cannot accept the metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, and his subsequent political theology, because it is not demonstrable from our experience (see David Hume an Inquiry concerning Human Understanding).

We must — you say — then have recourse to the categorical imperative: “act, such that you can will your action become a universal law”. But this again does not hold. Setting aside for a moment problem with end debate within Kantian ethics, remember that my argument is not that euthanasia is moral; rather my burden of proof is merely to show that in on the legally permissible. Undoubtedly impracticability of the society in which legislators tried to enforce the Kantian imperative; Kant himself knew that this was an impossible task for the legislator.

What is also comes down to is the very important issue of “freedom of the person” under the charter and the right of freedom of conscience. If we imagine “an original position” in which disinterested parties are deliberating about the makeup of their future society, I don’t think I’m in partial spectator, as difficult as this is to imagine, a situation in which a person — without theological bias — were content to a possible scenario where he might be compelled to suffer indefinitely, in order to be the discomfort of other people. If John Rawls is correct in suggesting that an ideal state of things is one in which are actual legislation and the “as if” construction of the original position reach a kind of “reflective equilibrium” in which there is a balance between the two positions, it would seem to me our current legislation is not just. It prevents free exercise of autonomy, in many cases promoting unnecessary suffering, and this is born of a false correlation between assisted suicide and the state of disabled people.

 This, by the way, is not supported in countries that have assisted suicide. In fact, it has been shown to alleviate anxiety about disability and illness, and to be an option taken by very few. If, because we are liberal country, suicide itself is not illegal under the criminal code, to not allow persons who require assistance to end their lives to procure assistance it amounts to disability discrimination, prohibited by the charter and other documents. If the attendant model is to work properly, persons with disabilities must be able to procure services, allowing them to execute practices meaningful to their lives, otherwise we run the risk of letting religious and/or moral scruples of the able-bodied restrict our personal liberty. Are the disabled to stop masturbating, lest, for example, dealing with its consequences be offensive to attendants. Heaven forbid we practice BDSM!

The whole “disabled people need protection from the able-bodied majority, in case they kill us for being different discourse” is the wrong way to go about things. By saying over and over again that our lives have meaning, we are, in fact, begging the walking man to affirm that they do, rather than acting as though they do, or ignoring the preposterous notion that they don’t. By resisting assisted suicide from this perspective, we get into the ideological discourse of Jesus’ injured sheep who can serve as objects have compassion and moral exemplars for the rest of humanity that I find absolutely nauseating and tiresome. I have better things to do with my time than provide “the walking man” with the fetish for his narcissistic fantasy of pity and redemption.

No one should have to be an uncle Tom for the walking man, and I think the movement would be better off taking inspiration from Malcolm X rather than the Bible. This is could be one way in which a person if she so chooses, could enact the agency over her own body, liberating it from the oppressor “by any means necessary. My ongoing problem with your anti-euthanasia & antiabortion politics is, therefore, the following: while you are without question, a very admirable person and a competent disability rights advocate, your politics, at least in this respect, seem antithetical to disability liberation. Insofar as you systematically seek legal sanctions which would restrict persons’ abilities to exercise freedoms over their own bodies, are you not seeking to handicap people through the legal system; and, furthermore, does this not contradict the express aim of disability politics. You will rightly point out of course that this is because there are theological, and consequently, higher order values at stake. But then this raises the broader question of whether full liberation can be had within the context of “walking man’s religions”? And to that question I may respond that an analogous situation to Malcolm X, when disillusioned as he was with the “white man’s religions”, he joined the Nation of Islam.

But surely, you will now tell me, you are not making a theological argument, and this is not about religion, I am simply protecting “life”. Clearly, everyone can get on board with endorsing a concept so innocuous and positive? Well, simply put, no. The only reason you make the very fact of existence sacrosanct comes from theology, and it has more frightening implications then you realize. There is more to life than simple existence, and to compel someone to live, who does not want to, and is in pain — purely on the basis of one’s own theological scruples — amounts to sadistic and sanctimonious cruelty. You may say that life is meaningful because every person shares the image of God, but this is the presupposition I do not share, even if you desire to to give it transhistorical & transcultural validity. I’m not denying you have the right to persuade a person not to end her life, I’m not even saying you don’t have the right to protest how disabled people are treated in a contemporary culture vis-à-vis euthanasia and abortion; you, however, don’t not have the right to enforce your personal view by law. It is condemnable! It is the same logic that prevented attempted to prevent sodomy for hundreds of years, and it is the same logic that attempts to prevent women from wearing whatever the hell they want in public today, whether they have particular cultural traditions or not. If given the choice between liberty or death, I would choose death.

You protest again: it is never a rational to choose death, so the state is acting appropriately, when it prevents an individual from committing suicide, since no rational person would choose death over life, but this argument is so obviously absurd, it’s almost not worth refuting! I will do it anyway. If it were true, there would be no legitimate reason to go to war, since human beings under bad conditions would have no reason to risk their lives. All forms of life would be preferable. There would be no there would be no need to have virtues, because there would be no qualitative differences between types of lies live. This is the absolute paradox of crypto-Christian pro-life and anti-euthanasia politics. On the one hand, you endeavor to protect bare life as such, while on the other, Christianity has at its core of the tradition of bastardized virtue ethics based on the myth of martyrdom, which clearly implies a separation between living well and existence as such. I don’t understand. Perhaps just a paradox?

If I were Christian, or, perhaps better, when I was Christian, I would have found it an extreme insult to my personal dignity, if anything communist regime took over Canada and forcefully to deny Jesus at gunpoint. Expecting to be martyred upon my refusal, instead, they locked me in a mental institution and put me on all kinds of drugs, until I learned to comply. I ask you, which of these scenarios is more totalitarian? And yet, it does not the same logic apply? Surely, there is equal, if not more, evidence for preferring death to life, in some circumstances, than subscribing to the doctrinal claims of the Catholic Church, some of whose teaching is mysterious by definition. By using this example is clear that in certain cases a person can determine her life is not worth living, to her, at least, any more, if we also accept that it is perfectly rational, at least in some circumstances, for a person to sacrifice his life, based on the truth claims of Christianity, or any number of causes, which might not have nearly as much intersubjective validity, if one were to ask an impartial spectator..

           
No doubt, we can agree that the disabled need extra care to live meaningful lives. Moreover, we can agree that the contemporary response to disability-impairment is most unjust, and the fear of becoming disabled and/or ill is caused by inadequate healthcare and an ideology of health and youth, which are both caused by consumerism, and a general term toward narcissistic personality disorder. We can also agree that there needs to be extraordinarily better palliative care, and that we could have the resources to achieve it. By no means should a disabled person or any other person feel that her should or must end her life. Given the level of opulence we have achieved, this state of affairs is simply unacceptable, but if she has a desire to do so, it is not your place to stop her. Nor is it anyone else’s. By trying to stop euthanasia, or whatever you want to call it, you are not defending the rights of disabled people; you are taking away an opportunity for those who want to make choices. Even if they may be disagreeable, cowardly, or, in the case is Steven Fletcher, poorly argued and blatantly discriminatory towards people with intellectual disabilities, and, thereby, disgusting. It’s true that decision is not reversible, but so are many surgical procedures, many of the more complicated varieties of which have higher mortality rates then we realize. People do crazy things, when they want to live meaningful lives, and the great thing about life is yours the only one that gets to write your story.

To be clear, Taylor, you are fantastic person, and I commend you for being politically active. Your commitment to the truth is exemplary. And I truly have tried to be, as the catechism says, a nonbeliever of goodwill , always ready to engage in dialogue. I have no absolute answers; I only have suppositions with varying degrees of probability. Catholicism is a beautiful ideological system and the aesthetic consequences of Christendom, for me at least, are unparalleled. Human beings can believe whatever they want, and even tried to persuade others of what they believe and why they believe it. Otherwise, human existence would be rather boring. I will you been conceded that there is more of an ethical argument to be had over abortion, but you can’t use religion to force another person what to do  what you want with his body, if it does not affect you directly, and that is what you’re doing when you actively try to prevent euthanasia.

 Moreover, think it somewhat problematic that first, at least on Facebook, you get near universal positive feedback because no one takes the time or is too scared to disagree with you. And, understandably, most of your friends, as is natural, share your views. Second, having and disability, as such, does not give you extra credibility on issues and ethics, at least I have some formal training in ethics and political theory. Third, these are not disability issues in themselves, and furthermore, there are much more complex versions than the ones you and, Steven Fletcher would suggest within the disability community, if that means anything. Fourth, your portrayal of able-bodied normativity was extreme even for me, who disability politics are quite far to the left. We will never get ambulatory persons on our side with such invective. Last but not least, while you spread fears of a resurgent Holocaust (by the way, kudos on your “everything culminates in Hitler argument”; that is always very rhetorically effective), it is almost impossible to find a washroom that is adequately accessible, the vast majority of disabled people living absolute poverty, access to services dwindle constantly, and hate crime are on the rise. So congratulations on the effort, but without reason your rhetoric will become “a whirl of sound and fury signifying nothing”.

Sheep or Wolf: Natural Law and the Latest Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I am ashamed by Canada's stands on the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and call on everyone to lobby for a better Canada and a more peaceful world!

This is not about being pro-Israel are pro-Palestine. I've always maintained the right for an independent Jewish nation, but the Palestinians also have a right to self-determination. This kind of "two sides to every story" relativism is by far the worst cultural consequence of the Enlightenment: the authentic end of this relativism is Heidegger's endorsement of national socialism. We must make ethical decisions based on some concept of natural law, which preserves the priority of intersubjective reason and human dignity. There are ethical decisions, whose validity, not only relies on contextual realities and will, but also comes from apodictic reasoning. No one with a conscience can condone the indiscriminate use of force against civilians, which violates numerous sections of the Geneva Convention. No one can condone unjust imprisonment for personal gain, or retribution which does not match the offense. This violates the form of international jurisprudence in effect since the Middle Ages.

The failure of some, particularly on the left, to approach this crisis wisely is symptomatic of our inability to articulate moral questions with inappropriate language. Alastair McIntyre likened this to this situation of flowers for Algernon, in which the characters only have bits of science but not a coherent system. Without this language, it is impossible to conduct science. Without an analogous language, it is impossible to conduct ethics. Thankfully, we have such a language, articulated  by those who worked on the universal declaration of human rights. It is time we use that language in righteous condemnation of Israeli actions.

 The international community should not and must not be a war of all against all!  By such actions, Israel forfeits the friendship of the international community and proves itself to be willfully defiant of both positive and natural law, and it is worthy of the strongest censure. I am not pro-Israel. I am by no means pro-Palestine; I do, however, decry detestable offenses to human dignity, which harm perpetrator and subject alike. Punishment , as such, looks to the moral good of the person being punished. This is pure vengeance and Israel has no claims to moral superiority or legitimacy, nor does anyone who supports it. Coincidentally, it violates the norms of rabbinic law. I implore my well-meaning "postmodern" colleagues: Rfject relativism and denounce murderess tyranny. I ask those on the left, to put aside deconstruction and the ethics of the inaccessible other for just a little while, and to consider that in this case, Aristotelian-Thomism may be the better option. Who is more revolutionary, someone who defends the weak or someone who beats on the starving for personal gain? History has given the answer. Be revolutionary! Fight for ethics; be constructive not deconstructive!