Category: Opinie

Hamas and Palestinians. Israel and Palestine. Is revenge a nation-builder?

Bogumil Pacak-Gamalski

O, how righteous we all are! Especially our governments, which pronounce urbi et orbi on our behalf of total outrage of yet another Intifada in the Gaza Strip: our full support for Israel, its people, and armed forces.  Loud condemnation of the terrorist military organization, Hamas.

Let me have a different voice, dear democratic governments of the Western World. My governments, as I am a citizen of that democratic world. Which gives me the right to voice my opinion.

There is no excuse whatsoever and no words of horror can describe the events that happened during the bloody, murderous ride by Hamas on Israelites.  I will not even try to convey my outrage and most of all – my profound sadness.

And this is where the similarities end.  The words that follow below are very different from words most of you would expect from me.  Which also means that you don’t know my writing as well as you might think. Or don’t know it at all.

One more caveat: anyone who might call me an anti-Semitic or Jew-hater is not even worth my response. There is hardly a group of people in the world, which I respect and admire more than Jews. Ancient people, Wanderers of the World since time immemorial. People, who were subjected to many pogroms in the last thousand-odd years. People, who during the 2 world war were condemned to die, to disappear from existence, to be annihilated. Yet – they survived.

But – another paradox – Jews and the state of Israel are not exactly the same. Modern state (any state) must be judged by its policy, its constitution, and its actions toward minorities, toward people of any ethnic origin, who legally live in that state. And the State of Israel fails very badly on this scale. 

So, please brace yourself for my next sentence.

The moral responsibility for this brazen and terrorist action of the terrorist organization Hamas lies squarely at the feet of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the apartheid system of the state of Israel.

The cause of Hamas’s existence is the huge injustice that happened to Palestine and Palestinians a long time ago, at the end of the 2 world war, which at that time was under the British Mandate. Not that the British bear sole responsibility for this injustice – no, the entire powerful Western World bears that responsibility.

The old Palestine, which existed for thousands of years, disappeared. New borders of many Arab countries were realigned, and old Empires (Ottomans) evaporated.  Justly – especially in the wake of the horrible experience of the Holocaust and Shoah – the Jews were promised their own state.  Old Palestine was a vast territory, there was ample space for both of these historical People to establish separate, own states.  The goal still exists on … paper. In the UN.

The General Assembly some years ago gave Palestine an ‘observer state’ status. Of course, the shameless Security Council vetoed full membership rights. Let us not forget, that when the Jews established the state of Israel – the world called them ‘terrorists’.  But things have changed since then. The entire region soon became one of the most important parts of the world for the competition of spheres of influence and control by Western Powers and the Soviet Union. In that ‘proxy war’ Israel naturally became an indispensable ally of the SA.  With full support in arms and military technology. No matter what. Over time it became a nuclear power. Without much protest and condemnation of the Western World. A country that does not shy and did say many times that is ready to use it as a pre-emptive strike if necessary

Yes – it is a fully functioning democracy, a modern state. But not for all. Only for some. White South Afrikaners enjoyed freedom and rights, too. Just not Black ones.

What Israel has forced the Palestinians to endure (particularly since the 1967 War) is despicable. Indeed, Palestinians and most Arab states at the beginning did not recognize Israel as an independent state. But all of that started to change after the war of 1967 and definitely changed after 1978 (Camp David). Arab states recognized that Israel is not only very strong militarily – it recognize that in modern warfare just numbers do not mean that much anymore. And technologically Israel was epochs ahead of all, even huge Arab neighbors.

Unfortunately, what followed these wars, was a low but steady move to occupy huge swaths of land that did not belong to Israel.  Stealing more and more land from occupied Palestinian territories and building there, on stolen land, new towns and farms for new Israelis emigrating to Israel from other countries, mainly from the Soviet Union and Russia. These were not some empty lands – these were parcels and farms that belonged to Palestinian farmers, they had their homes there, their livelihoods for generations past. I can never forget similar families of older Palestinians (many of the old families were Christians), who were earlier thrown out on the street from their old houses in Jerusalem. I met them in Surrey with their symbolic old rusted big keys – a key to their lost houses in Jerusalem. They cried when they were recanting their stories to me. It was heartbreaking. Israel refused to give them the right to return. 

The entire tragic story of Palestine since the end of the 2 world war, is a story of two ancient People: one with the right and opportunity to establish their safe own state, and the other had that right taken away from them.   

Yet, three mortal enemies saw that peace was paramount. That only lasting peace of equal states and equal People can bring peace to Israel. That some stolen territories have to be returned before any people in that vast Middle East can live in peace and security.  These mortal enemies were brave heroes of their own people:  Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres of Israel, and Yasser Arafat of Palestine. None of them had clean hands themselves. Each one of them had indeed a lot of blood on it. All three were responsible for assassinations, unlawful killings, terrorist activities, and disregard for human rights. But all three knew that a solution needed to be found if any of these two Ancient People had a chance to coexist in peace. In 1994 Rabin, Peres, and Arafat got Nobel Peace Prizes for achieving what seemed to be impossible to many others. They had a vision beyond their own personalities and beliefs. Vision for their homelands, their people. The vision that embraced peace at last. Maybe not in their lifetime – but in the time of their children and grandchildren.

A year later Yitzhak Rabin was murdered for daring to dream of peace. His murderer was an ultra-orthodox Jewish xenophobe and terrorist Yigal Amir.

You see, there are always people everywhere, who become so poisoned with their patriotism, that they can’t stand the idea that others may have another patriotism for a different country, for different people. For these zealots, these people are mortal enemies that need to be annihilated, murdered murdered. These are the people of Hamas, people like that Jewish ultra-orthodox Amir. They are dangerous people, even more so if their ideas come from religious zealotry, such as Hamas and Yigal Amir. The rest of us just want to live without hunger and have decent jobs or plots of land to raise our own crops. And we are enemies of these people.

Hamas’s first enemies were Palestinians, who wouldn’t follow their path and hatred. Just as Amir’s first enemy was peace-building Rabin. But once you cross that Rubicon from decency to hatred and revenge – there is no return. Blood will follow you. Blood of your perceived enemies and eventually your own blood.

Hamas might have originally been born out of righteous anger and determination. You might not understand it being an Israeli, but it is the policies of Israel and certain politicians, who created Hamas. Of people like Benjamin Netanyahu. Xenophobe and opportunist, who would do anything to face his day in an Israeli court. And he will. Because blood will follow him.

If we all acted on our urges for revenge  – there wouldn’t be that many of us left on this planet. Justice and revenge are not different sides of the same coin.  They are totally different coins.

If you don’t force your own government, led by racist and probably a common criminal (like Trump in America), to stop the slaughter and extreme injustice you will lose your own soul, your own humanity. You likely will create dozens, if not hundreds little ‘hamases’ out of the same passion for revenge.

Chateau Laurier or tent?

Bogumil Pacak-Gamalski

Stroll through the streets of Halifax. Could have been Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal. The truth of it – it could have been any larger city in Canada.  Yes, architecture would have been different, street names and their layout, too.  Different parks and nature, maybe slightly an accent spoken by the majority. Maybe language altogether (Quebec, Arctic comes to mind).

It is such a vast country. Truly from ocean to ocean to ocean. And many mountain ranges, huge rivers. Traveled or visited most of it in the last forty years. I have seen it grow and expand in population in unprecedented numbers. Ever growing, ever more attractive, and open to thousands of new hopefuls from all over the globe. In a way – Canada is the envy of the world.

But with that important qualificator: in a way ….

It isn’t only the wide world that needs Canada. It is also Canada and Canadians that need the world, and it’s people. Who else does the cheap work in our country if not recent immigrants? Who else pays the salaries and otherwise makes up the budget of Canadian universities and university colleges if not foreign students? Yes – them. Not provincial or federal budgets. Recent studies revealed that the universities actually plan their budgets around the enormous fees they charge these students. It is their main source of income. How do they ensure that campuses and cities will house these students? They don’t.  It is not only a big business for universities. It is also a huge business for homeowners and renters, who rent their rooms or apartments to these students. three, four, five per room? Why not.  What were the words of the old movie “Cabaret”? O, yes: money, money, money!

Provinces and federal governments totally abandoned their responsibility for housing in Canada in the late 1970ies. All of a sudden the word ‘housing’ was renamed to ‘home ownership’.  And that is a huge change. Of course, it was and is a dream and goal of many young Canadians. But home ownership is also clearly the responsibility of private citizen, not of government. Yes, there were here and there a few tweaks in regulations to help save some bucks for people, who planned to build their dream home. To put away, let’s say – five or twenty thousand dollars in RSA or specially created savings accounts in banks.  Tax-exempt. Another miss moniker: they were not tax-exempt, they were simply tax deferred. Sooner or later you had to re-pay them back.  But in the meantime, the young taxpayer was happy because he had five or ten thousand dollars in the bank, that he could use to purchase the home. Who cares about later! Let’s buy us a home!  Totally obscured from the view and recognition were the families of poor Canadians, who couldn’t avail themselves of these ‘savings’. They were too busy paying the daily bills and rent for their apartments. Or scratching their heads about how they going to save a hundred or two hundred bucks for their child’s school trip next Saturday ….

It still worked somehow. Rents were expensive but were still manageable. Then suddenly something happened.  The bubble burst. It was not, as many tried to portray it, the result of COVID and disruption in business. The virus doesn’t give a hoot about the dollar and interest rates. Baloney. It had nothing to do with it. It was the result of simple mathematics, a simple economics. And greed. Greed of corporations, greed of existing homeowners, and creeping up rates of borrowing. All of a sudden an average or even small house (typical bungalow) in Vancouver or Toronto was not 300 000 dollars but 3000 000 dollars. The Condo was not 200 000 but 800 000. Older owners were happy. Their retirement worries were solved – they were millioners! Often with very small pockets of cash but sitting on huge investments.  New owners found themselves in a big crunch to pay the high mortgages. Two or three jobs were often not enough to pay for their dream.  But there is a solution: use our existing (although not paid off yet) home/condo as collateral and buy one more! Easy. Then we will rent it out for 50% more than the mortgage and this way it will help us with our original mortgage. Or even better: use it as an Airbnb.

In all of these unsustainable calculations the renters, people, who couldn’t or just gave up the unreachable dream of homeownership  – were left to their own devices. But the devices’ were no longer working. The system was broken. By wrong policies of all levels of all governments, by our own greed. 

We, Canadians (apart from homeownership) have one more dream and holly tradition: camping! In motorhomes, in relatively cheap motels. But most of all the holy grail of being Canadian: in tents on the shores of wild lakes, rivers, on the foothills of our majestic mountains, by wild beaches of our oceans.

That dream was not abandoned, not lost. It is well and very much alive. It even found new spaces to set-up a tent. Or tent community. In cities. In parks or downtown streets. From ocean to an ocean to an ocean.  What a majestic country and resourceful people we have!

Now, I know you could say angrily – why don’t they just find a job! These lazy bums! OK, you are right I suppose.  After all, I did and obviously you did too.  Wait a second though, it’s been a while since I applied for any job (had one my entire life) – but I seem to remember that when you apply you need a permanent address, phone number, even an account number as nobody pays cash anymore? Hmm. Ok, waiters, dishwashers, these simple, menial jobs for cash. But you can’t just show up unshaven, unwashed with layers of dirty clothes on your back for your interview on your first day of job, can you?  No, not in real life.

Suddenly governments, especially the federal government, noticed that huge problem. The wording even changed. It is no longer ‘homeownership’, now it is called simply ‘housing’. Yes – that is correct. Homeownership is a dream, hard to achieve but still possible. Housing is not a dream – it is a minimum necessity. It is a must to function in life. If you live in your own home – you have a housing. If you rent – you have a housing. If you live in a tent – you don’t.

Building non-profit or municipal rental properties is a must.  And taxpayer money should be spent only on solving this major problem. Expensive condos should be the worries of rich developers and people, who can afford to buy these condos.  Even those of you, who can afford expensive city condos (and I hope most of you can) – do you want to see from your balcony a row of tents under this balcony or in a nearby small city park?

When I came to Canada over forty years ago, I landed within weeks a job paying over 15 dollars an hour.  Rent for one bedroom in downtown was about $380. A nice two bedroom condo was between 50 000 and 60 000 dollars. A modest but comfortable 3 bedroom bungalow was 100 000 to 200 000 dollars. Today, forty years later, $15 an hour pay is not even legal minimum wage in many provinces. Just think of it. Something is terribly wrong with the picture. Unless you want the picture of Canada to be a tent of a homeless person.

 

Picture above are from Halifax, NS. The tents are in one of most popular and important part of historic Dwontown: the Grand Parade piazza, nestled between historic, original first Anglican Cathedral and City Hall. It also contains two importand Centotaphs commemorating the fallen soldiers in two world wars.

Did India assassinate a Canadian citizen in Canada?

Bogumil Pacak-Gamalski

India – vast subcontinent with thousands of years of rich history. An underdeveloped country with nuclear weapons, an active and successful Space exploration program, and many more very advanced technological achievements. With huge social disparities, hunger, and homelessness. You can get there very cheaply an excellent medical treatment/procedure. If you are a ‘medical tourist’ from Europe, North America or a rich person living in India (I am certain there are many of them). The hope of the West that it will act as a counterbalance to China’s ambitions.
Now this. News that stunned Canada. Canadian PM in our Parliament solemnly accuses India of a political assassination in Canada. Apparently, he tried to bring it to India’s PM Narenda Modi – a fervent Hindu xenophobe, during the G20 summit (9-10 September). But Mr. Modi would have none of it and snubbed Mr. Trudeau.
Hence, the stunning accusation of the assassination in Surrey of Canadian citizen of Indian ethnicity. Both countries are recalling high-ranking diplomats in both countries.
We, as Canadians, should be rightfully angry at India. No other country has the right and should never be allowed to conduct assassinations in other states. That is not Israeli Mosad hunting down Nazi war criminals decades ago. India is not supposed to be Putin’s Russia poisoning political opponents in other countries. India is a democracy, after all.
All of the above is valid. But is it the whole story? Does it have a Canadian background from years ago?
Yes, it does. It involves a terrorist act of terrible proportions. Hundreds of people were murdered. A full passenger plane went down by the shores of Ireland, en route from Canada to Europe.
I remember it well. I lived at that time in Surrey. Close to the temple and organization that was accused of that terrorist act. Remember the names of the accused. Remember the long, botched CSIS (Canadian version of FBI) and prosecutorial investigation. Remember the ‘no guilty’ verdicts exactly because of the botched investigation and prosecution. Yes, the poorest and the smallest (in importance to the plot) of the accused was sentenced: Iderjit Singh Rejat. The other accused, Talwinder Singh Palmer was found not guilty. Even though RCMP believed he was the mastermind behind the entire horrifying terrorist act. In subsequent years he met his fate when he travelled to India and Indian agents assassinated him.
There is one other name not mentioned here yet. A person everyone was talking about at that time. Ripudaman Singh Malik – a wealthy financier and businessman in the Surrey Sikh community. Especially the Khalsa Society, the leading Sikh Temple in North America. Widespread rumors were that he was the true instigator of that terrorist act. But no one would volunteer to testify against him. The only person in the huge Indian diaspora, who wouldn’t let go of the accusation against Mali was a popular Indian-language newspaper in BC and the host of his own radio station, Tara Singh Hayer. He was shot and paralyzed in Surrey in 1988. Ten years later he was murdered.
The terrorist bombing of the Air India plane cost the lives of 329 Canadians, mostly of Indian origin. The massacre could have been even worse – a second plane en route to Japan was targeted, too. That bomb exploded prematurely and only two airport personnel were killed.
Having said all of it, one must be absolutely clear. All of it is by any means an excuse for the inexcusable: an assassination of a Canadian citizen carried by a foreign state on Canada’s soil.
But it must be also stressed – a free Canadian of whatever origin can support any cause she/he chooses. Likewise, it can oppose any ideas, causes, actions, states, and even religions. But it can not support or organize violent organizations, or terrorist cells. It puts Canadians at risk. It puts Canada at risk, a country that invited you here.
Our intelligence agencies and law enforcement must pay attention to it and act, where evidence leads to such conclusion. Just ‘observing and gathering intel’ is not good enough.
Recalling all of it would not be completed if I didn’t mention why these horrible acts were done by these people. It was a response to the massacre in Punjab (a part of India, predominantly Muslim) in 1-10 of June 1984 . It was ordered by revered India’s PM, Indira Gandhi, after unsuccessful negotiations in order to arrest leaders of armed rebellion against India. As a result of protracted battle with heavy armed militias many Sikhs fighters and pilgrims were killed. The Indian army also suffered high casualties. Another fallout of these rebellion was the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own bodyguards, who were Sikhs. Often forgotten was also the plots and misleading information before the riots by Soviet KGB, that through secret channels (as planned by the Soviets) reached Delhi.

At the end a personal note from myself: a good democracy can’t function properly in any religious state by design. Not in Israel, not in Poland (formally a democratic republic, but a Catholic Church has there a huge power and sway), not in non-existent yet Khalistan, not in Iran or any of Muslim states, where Islam is constitutionally entrenched, not in India where current PM calls Hinduism a state religion, not even in the tiny Vatican, or in Buddhist states or any other religion. Whenever it does, it always means that some citizens are second-class only. I strongly believe in religious freedom. Yet equally strongly in the freedom from religion.

The success of the Polish film director in Canada’s premiere movie festival, TIFF.

by Piotr Jassem

“Green Border” movie poster (@Kino Świat)

I had a pleasure meeting Jason Gorber, a prominent Toroto-based movie critic, at the Green Border screening on Tuesday. Today, I have read his comment:

“A masterpiece from an underappreciated master of both big and small screen, Agnieszka Holland’s searing look at the refugee crisis on the border between Belarus and her native Poland is as profound as it is provocative.

The performances are astounding, the narrative horrifying, resulting in a story that’s deeply unsettling and emotionally raw.”

(below a Polish language version)

We wtorek, na projekcji Zielonej Granicy, miałem przyjemność poznać znanego krytyka filmowego z Toronto, Jasona Gorbera. Dziś przeczytałem jego komentarz:

“Arcydzieło niedocenianej mistrzyni dużego i małego ekranu Agnieszki Holland, jej wnikliwe spojrzenie na kryzys uchodźczy na granicy Białorusi z jej rodzinną Polską, jest tyleż głębokie, co prowokacyjne.

Gra aktorska wprawia w oslupienie, a narracja poraża, co skutkuje historią głęboko niepokojącą i emocjonalnie surową.

From “Pogwarki” editor: more reactions to Holland’s “Green Border’ reception on TIFF, follow the link to “New York Times” –https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/movies/toronto-international-film-festival-highlights.html

Of Lovers and Friends and friends and lovers

Bogumil Pacak-Gamalski

Of lovers and friends. Of the most unfortunate ones, who were friends and became lovers. Oscar Wilde once described that dilemma clearly. And trust me – he knew a thing or two about it. Yes, of course, I’m taking off that famous line from the Ballad of Reading Gaol. Yes, yes – that line: ‘Yet each man kills the thing he loves’, which is followed, by the end of that stanza, with: ‘The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!’[i].  The year was 1898, he was just recently released from prison in England. Went soul, heart, and financially broken to France, to try to re-established himself. Of course, too late. Just the Ballad remained, a shadow of a once proud, elegant poet, a member of society. With the misfortune of falling in love with some rich boy. Who, with tears or glee (who knows) sold him to the gallows trying to save his own skin (and father’s money, naturally).

Thus, boys and girls alike, for heaven’s sake – do not fall in love with your friends. Rather, become friends with your lovers.

Narcissus and Echo by John. W. Waterhouse

In the Prologue to the “Alchemist”[ii], Paulo Coelho writes beautifully the story of Narcissus’s death. Of course, Coelho would not have been such an amazing writer, if he had merely repeated the thousands years old story told already hundreds of times by others.  No, he added a sweet surprise at the end. So humanely grotesque (as all Greek gods stories were): when the goddesses of the forest came to the Lake, where gorgeous Narcissus drowned, they asked the Lake: Why do you weep? and expectedly the Lake replied I weep for Narcissus. The goddesses were understanding, they themselves chased the boy through the forest, trying to see his famous beauty, the beloved of Apollo himself. And they admitted to the Lake, with a hint of jealousy, that although they pursued the boy, the Lake alone could see his beauty the best.  At that moment the old story takes a different, shocking turn when the Lake replies: But… was Narcissus beautiful? A conversation ensues, as expected. The goddesses explained that obviously since Narcissus so often admired his own reflection in the Lake waters, the Lake must have noticed his beauty. The Lake paused, thought, and after a while replied: I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected[ii]. What an amazing twist to the old tale! I love writers and poets, who tell us: oh, come on! don’t be timid – allow yourself to dream, to tell the secret and true thoughts, and desires. Mirror, mirror – tell me if I am … . LOL  

Thus, be a friend of your lover. Avoid the terrible pitfalls of friends, who become lovers. There are really very few brave souls, who survived the utter honesty of true friendship in forming eroto-romantic union. Poor Andre Gide felt forced to explain his “Immoralist”[iii] by the timid (and so obviously false, LOL) words in the Preface to his little, yet so sweet book. Thank God at the very end he was able to utter the most powerful explanation in the history of art: To say the truth, in art, there are no subjects, which only sufficient explanation is the art itself[iii]. O! Little critics with overblown moralistic egos – be quiet already. You are not a philosopher but a scribe jealous of a writer.

The dilemma of choosing if a friend could be a lover was a paralyzing complexity for Jean Genet in his amazingly honest story of “Prisoner of Love”[iv]. More so even, because it is intertwined with the love and passion for the Palestinian cause.  Did he consummate his love for the Palestinian boy or was it just a Platonic passion? The powerful novel/memoirs, written in France (his last work, shortly before his death), were treated as not very important literary achievements. Au contraire, mes amis – it is one of his best. Powerful, very deep psychologically, insightful. This book and a little (in size comparison) booklet “Out of Place”[v] by great intellectual Edward Said taught me much more than any historian about Palestine and its tragic People ever could. But it is a different subject.

How can you write about friends and lovers without mentioning three amazing people: Polish writer/intellectual and modus vivendi of Parisian art circles – Konstanty Jeleński; his wife, famous Spanish-Italian surrealist painter Leonor Fini[vi] and Italian aristocrat, painter and diplomat Stanislao Lepri. All of them lived happily and joyfully in sexual and friendship union until their deaths. How did they survive all the pitfalls of such a union? I personally believed that that Jelenski and Lepri were the primary lovers most of all, and Fini was their artistic, crazy, and much senior femme fatale.

In 1995 Jelenski invited me to visit him in Paris.  But, when I finally arrived – his sprawling and beautiful apartment on rue de la Vrilliere was a circus in full swing. Leonor was just preparing her special exposition in the Senate of the French Republic.  Paintings were everywhere: on sofas, on beds, on chairs. And people were constantly coming and going. Friends from all over Europe. Poor Kot felt so bad, I had a chuckle. He quickly rented me a room in a small hotel nearby, on rue Croix des Pettits Champs. I was happy, telling you the truth. My gosh, I was young then, and Paris and her evenings and nights were so … appealing? Appealing, for sure, LOL. This way he had more time to concentrate on the crisis at hand (Leonor’s Exhibition) and I could concentrate on things (shall we say?) not only intellectual. Hmmm. After all – late evening walks along the Seine could be very  … exciting? Enough said.

But back to friends and lovers – Leonor, Konstanty (Kot or Kocik in Polish – sort of French un minou, which definitely would be a much more proper name for Jelenski, who was truly a very sweet guy), and Stanislao.  How did they survive for so long? Especially that at the beginning there was one more constant female shadow – a true femme fatale of their ménage à trois: Konstanty’s formidable mother. Madame Rena Jelenska de domo Skarzynska, from very old Polish nobility. Rena couldn’t stand Leonor. She didn’t mind at all (was actually fond of him) Stanislao Lepri. But that old crazy Spanish whore?! Poor Kot. Even more tragic because he actually truly loved both women: his mother and Leonor. But on the subject of staying together till death – I think that Kot, Leonor, and Stanislao could because actually, they all slept with each other (separately at the beginning, I assume) before they became friends. They were the happy part of the equation: lovers, who become friends.

Last but not least here is a more modern case of brilliant Irish novelist Colm Toibin in his multi-layered novel “The Story of the Night”[vii]. 

The novel is truly a masterpiece of combining so many complicated subjects and themes without losing for a moment the personal story of its protagonist – Richard Garay.  Richard leads many lives: English, Argentinian, artist, businessman, even (for a brief moment) politician. But most of all – gay in a very macho dominant male world of South America. Another constant is the presence of his dear friends: Susan and Donald.

The writer (himself an openly gay writer) does not shy from describing many of Richard’s lovers and one-night encounters. But it is the brief encounter of sexual attraction revealed by Richard toward his straight friend Donald that warrants mentioning. Encounter – which is important to note – planned by Donald. He ‘just’ wanted to check if, as he suspected, Richard was homosexual … .  No sexual encounter ever happened. But, yes – it couldn’t be denied that Richard was aroused and willing. Even the fact that the act itself was never consummated – it changed their friendship dramatically. In some way, it wounded it mortally.

Therefore, my dear boys and girls, please take it as the wisdom of almost god (meaning me, naturally). If you must experience the forbidden truth and fornicate, please choose a stranger rather than a friend. With a stranger, you have nothing to lose (other than your presumed virginity). If you are lucky the experience will bring you a lot of joy and satisfaction, at worst – it will be a disappointment (first times often are, nothing to be ashamed of). With a friend, the stakes are much higher and sometimes lasting lifelong bitterness or guilt.

And do read a good book before. Not really educational. A good literary book. Like one of these mentioned above.

[i] Selected Poems of Oscar Wilde including the Ballad of Reading Gaol, by Oscar Wilde; CreateSpace Publishing Platform, 2017; p. 56

[ii] „The Alchemist”, Paulo Coelho; pub. Harper One, 1993; p. 197

[iii] “Immoralista”, Andre Gide, by Wyd. Zielona Sowa, Cracow, 2006 (Polish translation by I. Rogozinska)

[iv] „Zakochany Jeniec”, Jean Genet; wyd. W.A.B, Warszawa, 2012; p. 486 (Polish translation by J. Giszczak)

[v] „Out of Place”, Edward Said; Random House, 1999

[vi] https://rynekisztuka.pl/2011/12/16/leonor-fini-i-konstanty-a-jelenski-portret-podwojny-w-warszawie/

[vii] “The Story of The Night”, Colm Toibin; McClelland&Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1997; p. 312

Ukraina, Rosja. Jakie granice?

Bogumil Pacak-Gamalski

22 lipca 2022 roku pisałem szerzej o Ukrainie w perspektywie historycznej: skąd się wzięła, jakie ma granice i skąd one się wzięły; jej skomplikowanym charakterze etnicznym, o różnicach miedzy Rusami, Rusinami i Ukraińcami. O tym jak powstawały narody i państwa narodowościowe w Europie, jak rodziła się tożsamość narodowa. O tle historycznym Rzeczypospolitej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego na ziemiach Rusińskich (ukraińskich). O tym, że wyznaczone siłą i bezprawiem przez Rosję Sowiecką w latach 40. i 50. granice obecnej Ukrainy niewiele mają wspólnego z autentycznym samostanowieniem ludów i grup etnicznych i że polityka Ukrainy sowieckiej  w okresie 45-55 i Ukrainy suwerennej od lat 90. była często oparta na przymusowej ukrainizacji innych narodów.  Generalnie można było wysnuć wniosek, że polityka Ukrainy po uzyskaniu niepodległości była nie tylko nacjonalistyczna ale wręcz szowinistyczna wobec innych mniejszości, szczególnie gdy mówimy o jej granicach zachodnich (Zakarpacie, Rumunia, tzw. Transylwania i Węgry).

Ukraina – refleksje trudne – Pogwarki (kanadyjskimonitor.blog)

Nie były to rozważania zbyt sympatyczne, ale historia ma to do siebie, że … była. Że miała miejsce. I że trudno ją zmienić. Opinii tych nie zamierzam korygować. Oparte były na faktach, jakie miały miejsce.

Wracam do tematu ze względu na szokujące dla wielu rozważania Stiana Jennsena,Szefa Personelu Sekretarza Generalnego NATO.  Otóż w ostatnich dniach, podczas szczytu NATO, Jennsen niefortunnie powiedział publicznie to, co było w kuluarach tajemnicą Poliszynela: że ostateczny kształt granic przy ewentualnym rozejmie, pertraktacjach, zawieszeniu działań wojennych, nie jest przesądzony. Nie oznacza to powiedzenia, że granice powinny ulec zmianie lub będą zmienione. Ale sugeruje (po raz pierwszy publicznie), że zmiany pewne mogą nastąpić.

Jedyną chyba możliwością uniknięcia nie tylko zmian po inwazji lądowej Rosji ale i cofnięcia zajęcia Krymu przez Rosję lata wcześniej,  jest militarna klęska Rosji i wynikłe z tej klęski pertraktacje pokojowe. Ja zakończenia wojny rosyjsko-ukraińskiej nie widzę w formie takiej Konferencji Pokojowej, ani w stylu jałtańskim ani w stylu Compiegne.

Aby do takiej Konferencji doszło, jedna ze stron musi być w sytuacji uznania klęski wojennej. Tego też nie widzę. Europa, Stany Zjednoczone nie pozwolą na klęskę wojenną Ukrainy. Zbyt wiele zainwestowały w tą wojnę i zbyt wysoka jest stawka.  Z wieloma oświadczeniami Prezydenta Zełenskiego mam kłopoty się zgodzić. Ale nie z tym, które jest bodaj najważniejsze (dla nas, Zachodniego Świata i NATO): jeżeli nie wesprzecie naszych żołnierzy niezbędnym uzbrojeniem by mieli szanse w zmaganiach z rosyjskim żołnierzem, to jutro wasi żołnierze będą zmuszeni te zmagania podjąć u waszych własnych granic.

Klęska Ukrainy nie musiałaby skończyć się formalnym zajęciem tego kraju przez Rosję. Ale najprawdopodobniej skończyłaby się białorusyzacją Ukrainy. Jakiś ukraiński Łukaszenko bez problemu by się znalazł. Są tacy w każdym kraju.

Niestety, jeszcze mniej realną wersją jest klęska wojenna Rosji. To wielkie państwo, o olbrzymim potencjale ludnościowym, ekonomicznym, złożach minerałów niezbędnych do napędzania machiny zbrojeniowej. Państwo w którym słowo ‘demokracja’ ma takie same znaczenie, jak prawda – żadne.

Machina wojenna i armia rosyjska nie jest tak kompromitująco bezradna, jaką wydała się nam w pierwszych tygodniach wojny rosyjsko-ukraińskiej. To była spektakularna dezorganizacja i brak myślenia strategicznego i taktycznego jednostek rosyjskich. Przypuszczam, że bardziej z powodów politycznych wpływów niż braku myślących wyższych oficerów.  Jak za czasów bolszewickich (do których Putin tak tęskni) decyzje podejmowali pewnie ‘politrucy’ a nie faktyczni dowódcy wojskowi.

Z drugiej strony Rosja była (i do pewnego stopnia nasz świat) kompletnie zaszokowana bohaterstwem, wytrwałością i dzielnością jednostek ukraińskich, jedności kraju. A na czele tego kraju stał człowiek, który, jak mało kto potrafił stanąć niezłomnie i zdecydowanie w obronie suwerenności swej ojczyzny – Wołodymyr Zełenski. Jakie znaczenie ma w czasach wojny przywódca kraju – nie trzeba przypominać. Kolosalne.

Ten czas zimy i wiosny 2022/23 przyniósł dowody i efekty niesłychanie dobrze zorganizowanej obrony i kontrataku wojsk ukraińskich. I trzeba zwrócić uwagę na fakt, że w początkowej fazie tej wojny Ukraińcy otrzymywali dużo mniej liczne i dużo starsze i słabsze dozbrojenie w sprzęcie wojskowym. Zważywszy, że ich agresor to była ta sama Rosja, z tą samą przewagą w sprzęcie, liczebności armii, zasobach ludnościowych i ekonomicznych – kampania zimowo-wiosenna wykazała świetne przygotowanie i dowództwo strategiczno-taktyczne Ukraińców.  

Okres późnej wiosny i lata 2023 doprowadził do wzmocnienia politycznego sojuszu NATO, Unii Europejskiej i Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec agresji rosyjskiej. A te sukcesy wojny obronnej Ukraińców i równie spektakularna kampania propagandowa Zełenskiego przyczyniły się do realności możliwej kontrofensywy ukraińskiej.  By tą kontrofensywę wzmocnić, by różnice w uzbrojeniu obu państw kombatanckich nie tylko wyrównać ale wręcz przechylić na rzecz strony ukraińskiej – Zachód rozpoczął poważne dostawy poważnego i nowoczesnego sprzętu dla wojsk ukraińskich.  Przez całą jesień ubiegłego roku Zełensky mówił o szykującej się zdecydowanej kontrofensywie i odbiciu zajętych terenów. Głównie na obszarach Zaporoża, południowo-wschodniej Ukrainy. Po kilkumiesięcznych opóźnieniach i przygotowywaniach kontrofensywę ukraińską rozpoczęto w czerwcu tego roku. Te opóźnienie umożliwiło dostarczenie Ukrainie większej ilości nowoczesnej broni i pocisków.

Niestety, dało to czas Rosji na przygotowanie bardzo silnie ufortyfikowanej linii obrony na prawie całej długości frontu. Fortyfikacje rosyjskie są logistycznie i strategicznie bardzo silne, dobrze zaplanowane. A jednostki wojsk rosyjskich które obecnie tam rozlokowano są o wiele lepiej przygotowane i w wyższej gotowości bojowej niż te, które uczestniczyły w pierwszym okresie wojny.

Generalnie można powiedzieć, że kontrofensywa ukraińska ugrzęzła w wojnie pozycyjnej przypominającej Front Zachodni w czasach I wojny światowej. Front przesuwa się w tempie przypominającym wyścig żółwi a nie kampanii zmechanizowanych sotni kozackich XXI wieku. I przy wysokich stratach ludzkich.

Dla NATO dodatkowym zagrożeniem jest niebezpieczeństwo, które niespodziewanie pojawiło się dosłownie przy brzegach Dunaju i Morza Czarnego. Mówię o Rumunii i Bułgarii, członkach NATO. Po odmowie przedłużenia umowy wysyłki zboża ukraińskiego z ukraińskich portów czarnomorskich i blokadzie tej trasy przez flotę rosyjską, Ukraina skierowała transport zboża przez dunajskie porty rzeczne w Rumunii. W ostatnich tygodniach Rosjanie zaczęli atakować ten transport. Niektóre pociski eksplodowały tuż przy granicy rumuńskiej. Co stanie się gdy zaczną wybuchać (czy celowo, czy przez zwykły minimalny błąd obliczeniowy nie ma znaczenia) już po drugiej, rumuńskiej stronie granicy? Gdy zginie choćby jeden Rumun? Jeden za wszystkich, wszyscy za jednego – to motto NATO nie może być stosowane wybiórczo. Albo wszyscy – albo nikt. Równie niepokojące były awantury rosyjskiej floty czarnomorskiej u wybrzeży Bułgarii.   Być może jest to zwykły szantaż Putina, próba wybadania spójności NATO i natowskiego stanu nerwowości. Nikt nie chce wojny w Europie, w której cała Europa będzie zaangażowana bezpośrednio.  Ale nikt nie chce też stwarzać wrażenia i precedensu typu: że tak, że wszyscy i jeden ale nie zawsze i nie wszędzie.

Zełensky po wielkiej turze wszystkich prawie stolic NATO i przyjmowaniu, w roli bohatera międzynarodowego w parlamentach tych krajów, przywykł do roli wodza-bohatera, gwiazdora stacji telewizyjnych.  Stał się kimś w rodzaju ukraińskiego Johna Wayna w Hollywood. Dziękował, pouczał, domagał się, sztorcował. I na ogół dostawał, czego się domagał. Kto nie kocha Dawida, gdy ten staje w szranki z potworem-Goliatem? 

I tu nastąpił jednak mały zgrzyt podczas ostatniej Konferencji NATO w której dyskutowano o przyszłości układu NATO-Ukraina. Bardzo grzecznie i dyplomatycznie dano mu wyraźnie do zrozumienia, że NATO to nie posłowie, którzy dużo mówią, bo mało mogą. NATO nauk na tym szczeblu nie lubi. Będąc mądrym politykiem Zełensky lekcje błyskawicznie zrozumiał i zmienił diametralnie ton wypowiedzi. Nie umknęło to jednak uwagi świata. I zgrzyt zauważono.

Dlaczego skupiam się na negatywach w tym opisie?  Właśnie dlatego, by zrozumieć kontekst wypowiedzi Stiana Jennsena na konferencji NATO. Wypowiedzi której w zasadzie nikt, łącznie z Sekretarzem Generalnym NATO, nie zdementował. Bo w polityce – odwrotnie niż w bitwach – nie zawsze ktoś jest przegranym, a ktoś inny zwycięzcą. Na ogół każdy coś dostaje i każdy coś oddaje. A rozejm to też nie Traktat Pokojowy. Rozejm to zgoda na to by przestać się po gębie okładać, bo zębów zaczyna brakować.

Dla Rosji i dla Putina ta wojna też staje się co raz bardziej droga i nieopłacalna. Nie tylko ekonomicznie ale i politycznie. Droższa, niż wartość jakiś dwóch małych prowincji na Zadnieprzu. Przypuszczalnie z pominięciem Krymu. Ale Krym, to już osobny temat.

Zupełnie osobnymi, mimo to związanymi silnie z tymi uwagami jest wyjątkowo brutalna, kryminalna rosyjska kampanii ‘ziemi spalonej’, terroru wobec ludności cywilnej. Nieustanne bombardowanie i ostrzał rakietowo-artyleryjski, naloty uzbrojonych dronów (nota bene to pierwsza duża wojna, w której drony militarne zyskały znaczenie poważnego sprzętu uzbrojenia armijnego i charakter broni prawie strategicznej), naloty lotnicze ma za zadanie nie tylko niszczyć potencjał przemysłowo-gospodarczy Ukrainy. Niszczenie wszelkiego rodzaju potencjalnego przemysłu zbrojeniowego jest naturalnym i uznanym aktem taktycznym w każdych wojnach. Tutaj mamy do czynienia z niszczeniem wszystkiego, co stanowi o mocy całej gospodarki, ekonomii ukraińskiej. Ze zwykłym terrorem wobec ludności cywilnej. Obiekty medyczne, sakralne, kulturowe są dla Rosjan celem identycznym, jak np. zakłady reperowania sprzętu wojskowego. A celem zasadniczym właśnie terror wobec ludności. Doprowadzenie do zmęczenia tą wojną ludności cywilnej. Widzę w tym szatański plan Putina dążący do osłabienia ducha niezłomności w ludności cywilnej. Do przygotowania jej właśnie do ewentualnych ustępstw, gdy do rozmów  rozejmowych dojdzie. Rozejmowych, nie pokojowych. Podejrzewam, że Rosja teraz sama dążyć będzie do rozejmu szybciej niż Ukraina.  Zanim Ukrainie uda się być może jednak ten front na Zaporożu przełamać i istotne tereny okupowane przez Rosjan przechwycić.

Podejrzewam, że konferencji rozejmowej Rosja teraz pragnie bardziej niż Ukraina. Nie bez znaczenia jest fakt spektakularnych i niespodziewanych ataków ukraińskich na tereny Rosji i jej miast.  Aż po Moskwę. Wbrew ostrzeżeniom państw zachodnich, by tego nie robili i wręcz zakazie używania sprzętu i amunicji dostarczanej Ukraińcom przez Zachód. Ukraińcy złamali te tabu i przeciwstawili się tym zakazom. Moim zdaniem bardzo słusznie. Innym spektakularnym niepowodzeniem Putina był bunt Armii Wagnera i wycofanie jej z frontu ukraińskiego.

Wszystko to – bez względu na publiczne wypowiedzi Putina – sugeruje, że Rosja skłonna będzie do pertraktacji rozejmowych bardziej niż Ukraina. Zachód też raczej jest do tego skłonny. Czy skłonni są Ukraińcy?  Czy Zełenskiemu uda się niezłomną postawę Ukraińców utrzymać i odmówić udziału w takich rozmowach? A jeśli dojdzie – czy uda mu się przekonać NATO do silnego wsparcia jego żądań? Nie wyobrażam sobie, by Putin zgodził się wycofać poza granice  rejonów Luchańska i Doniecka.

I w takiej perspektywie należy widzieć niefortunnie upublicznione wypowiedzi Jennsena.

Dziurawy brzuch. Mosty. I Trzaskowski.

Bogumił Pacak-Gamalski

Wywlokłem dziś swe zwłoki na Moje Kamienie. Napatroszony niczym przepiórka na świątecznym stole. OK, nie przepiórka a świąteczny indyk. Niech już będzie – stary indor. Napatroszyli mnie niezbyt atrakcyjnie, muszę powiedzieć. Nie kolorowymi jabłkami, śliwkami z żurawiną, a metrami jakiejś białej tasiemki. Zostałem więc tasiemcem. Lekarze w lokalnym szpitalu zamienili się w kucharzy. Kiepskich niestety w sztuce kulinarnej. Kręcili mi w brzuchu tak długo, aż wykręcili dziurę. Potem na ratunek zawołali jakieś Pogotowie Kulinarne i powiększyli dziurę tak, by można było włożyć tam ręce. Wypatroszyli mnie i wpakowali, co się dało.  Teraz – widać już po świętach – pakują tam zwykłe tasiemki. I obiecują solennie mi to robić przez kilka następnych miesięcy. Codziennie. Pytam nieśmiało: to po co tą dziurę drążyliście, skoro tyle pracy sobie tym nadaliście?  Naturalnie, zbywają to wzruszeniem ramion i porozumiewawczym mruknięciem oka – amator! Więc co potem, nie wiem. Może się znudzą?  Brzuch zaszyją? Albo powiedzą: o! pan pisarz, Pan Poeta! To może pan używać dziurę, jako portfela obszernego lub torby. Karteluszki różne, zapiski i zeszyciki może tam wygodnie zmieścić. No, niby jakaś logika w tym jest, trzeba przyznać.  Jak ma być miesiące, to trzeba się przystosować. Nie mogę tak po prostu obijać się o meble w mieszkaniu. Ostatecznie brzuch można zakryć gaciami kolorowymi, jedną ręką go przycisnąć, w drugą wcisnąć kijek-włóczykijek i na Kamienie, w trasy. Albo na most i siup!  Zwłaszcza, że mosty mam aż dwa pod ręką, zamykają niczym bramy granice Moich Kamieni. Ale na most zawsze zdążę  A powłóczyć się i patykiem poszperać jeszcze chce się. Więc na przekór wszelkim konowałom – Lato, lato, lato czeka, razem z latem czeka rzeka! Do widzenia wam canto cantare.

Dosyć macie o mnie? Nie dziwię się, ja też.

Pogadajmy więc o kim innym, o Rafale Trzaskowskim. Lubię tego faceta. Jest jakiś taki, no, jakby to powiedzieć – nie polski na polskich polityków patrząc. Chyba właśnie tak. Dlatego mi się podoba. Bez siermięgi, bez kosy, ba! nawet bez karabeli! Taki no, europejski, co? Jakby uosobieniem wszystkiego, czego, jako naród nie lubimy, prawda? Dlatego go lubię.  Pierwszego polskiego polityka od – bo ja wiem – chyba osiemdziesięciu laty, który mi się podoba.  Na skalę właśnie europejskiego państwa. Nie na europejskiej miedzy, ale solidnie wewnątrz.  Nie trochę tu-trochę tam. Niby Biedroń mógł kiedyś taki być. Miał zadatki. W Słupsku, jako młody prezydent miasta radził sobie nieźle. Będąc otwartym gejem, o zgrozo! Niestety, okazało się, że Słupska na cały kraj przerobić się nie da. To jednak tylko mała kaszubska mieścina. Może gdyby Wrocław, lub Gdański? Może Warszawa … . Ano właśnie – Warszawa. Stolica kraju. I prezydentuje jej nie kto inny, jak właśnie pan Rafał. I okazuje się, że nawet nie musi być gejem, jest zwykłym straightem, z żoną i dziećmi. Czyli można być straight  bez bycia tumanem. Chodzenia w Paradach LGBTQ bez uszczerbku dla tzw. tradycyjnej męskości. Ci, co zgrzytają na to zębami, coś dziwnie kruchą tą swoją orientację heteroseksualną mają… . Tak tylko myślę.  I wcale nie o to chodzi. Poboczny tylko to komentarz podkreślający jego inność.  Czyli zwykłą normalność europejską.

Gdybym miał  (dla przykładu tylko tą uwagę piszę) głosować na Tuska lub na Trzaskowskiego – bez najmniejszego zawahania się nawet głosowałbym na Trzaskowskiego.  Nie, no proszę sobie żartów nie stroić. Kogóż bym innego, miał jako przykład podać? Pana Andrzeja Dudę? Ja mówię o stosunkowo normalnych kandydatach i ludziach, którzy mają i kompetencje i szacunek wobec Konstytucji, wobec trójpodziału władzy, niezależnego sądownictwa. Zwykłe takie abecadło demokracji, rzeczy podstawowe. A wy mi tu o panu Dudzie. Dajcie spokój. Wiem, że Donald Tusk nie będzie kandydował na prezydenta – ale to jedyny obok Trzaskowskiego obecnie polityk, który mógłby.  Tylko Tusk to wczoraj, a Trzaskowski to jutro. Jutro Polski. Wczorajszych bitew się na nowo nie wywalczy. A nowa wielka się szykuje. Bez czołgów i bez samolotów.

Podział społeczeństwa jest już przerażająco widoczny. Jeszcze rok, dwa a może sami sobie zgotujemy nowy dobrowolny podział na Kongresówkę i Polskę północno-zachodnią?  W jednej będzie samodzierżawie i pleban, w drugiej jakiś Komitet Obywatelski? Granice jak wtedy, gdzieś nad małą rzeczką w okolicach Aleksandrowa Kujawskiego. Niemożliwe?  Historia uczy, że tak. Rów między nami już coraz głębszy. Niedługo ziemi nie starczy by go zakopać. A nawet jak zakopiecie, to będziecie dalej sypać, aż wyrośnie wysoki wał.

A może po prostu wybierzcie jednak Rafała Trzaskowskiego. Nic nie ma do stracenia. Za kosy i pałki zawsze możecie chwycić. A jak go wybierzecie, to może nie będzie trzeba. Spróbujcie. Dajcie sobie szansę. Słowo honoru wydaje mi się, że to facet normalny. Normalny facet w nie normalnych czasach. To się nieczęsto zdarza.

Pomyślcie. A ja międzyczasie pójdę dalej patykiem grzebać w różnych zakamarkach między kamieniami. Nie, nie tych na szańce. Zwykłych kamieniach na brzegach rzek i mórz, na polach i łąkach.  Trzymając się ręką za dziurawy brzuch. Mostów, póki co, będę unikał. Ale wy, jak je znajdziecie – to nie palcie. Mogą się przydać.

Google and Meta/Facebook – a threat to Canada?

There are sovereign states. Some are very powerful, with hundred or more millions of inhabitants. And the majority of states; the medium and small size. Some are poor, some are very developed, and definitely not poor.  Among the last category is Canada – huge in land size, but not in population or economic output.

And there are corporations. International, spanning the globe. No land, no natural resources, no population. But huge in profits. Mega corporations. Did I say ‘mega’?  Yes, mega in size and Meta in the name. Facebook for example. Or Google comes to mind also.  These corporations rely on the internet, there is business model is quite literally un in the cloud. You know, the internet cloud. Yet their earnings are kept in banks on Earth. Earnings that are bigger than many of the medium and small size countries.

We all know how important to our everyday life Google and Facebook become. Google is the main source of all our information. If you are not an academic (and even they use Google) – you ask Google all your questions. I mean truly, on every conceivable subject. It is you largest mall in the world containing information: about the average size of a penis to information about nuclear fusion.  It knows more about your family genealogy than your grandma.

Facebook has become what gossip in the neighborhood used to be, it is the largest gallery of pictures of your garden and the gardens of all Royal Houses in the world;  it contains links to articles from just about all the newspapers and magazines in the world. It also contains a lot of false articles about the so-called ‘Earth is flat’ theories. The conspirators’ myth, the anti-abortionists, the religious zealots.  All your escapades to exotic beaches in your and your wife’s collection of skimpy beachwear. Even you stupid faces, when you were dancing totally drunk and one of your friends took that photo. Remember? No to so much? Don’t worry – Facebook remembers.  Hey, some of the pictures I took and didn’t save anywhere are not lost, either. They are most likely somewhere in my old posts on Facebook, LOL.  Tsss…, don’t worry, I didn’t post any of the nudes I took of you at that party, remember?

Now, why do I write about Google and Facebook? As I said these companies make gazillions of dollars by providing free access to sources of information. Mainly newspapers and magazines. Magazines, newspapers, and public TV programming as we know is doing rather badly in recent years.  Hundreds of titles just evaporated. After all, if you can get free access to an article through these links on Google and Facebook – why would you want to pay for it? I do it, too. Used to buy every day at least one newspaper and some weekly editions, some monthly and quarterly journals, regularly. Now a lot less. A lot. And we need good, old-school journalism. Not some wacko’s opinions.  Sometimes not being informed is less dangerous than being fed false information instead of good checked and rechecked facts.

Our, Canadian Government recently introduced (not signed into law yet, but our prime minister promised today, that his government has every intention of adopting that legislation) new legislation that will require both of these internet giants to pay small dividends to Canadian newspapers for using their links to magazines for free. Both Google and Meta (Facebook) reacted angrily that they will not do it and will simply block Canadian content from their platforms. That is as plain ‘hostage taking’ as I have ever seen.

Google’s threat is less dangerous. Yes, it is by far the largest search engine, but hardly the only search engine available. If you want access to Canadian sources, you can easily do it through Yahoo, Mozilla, Safari, or simply Microsoft Edge browser, or Open Source browser. It is just a click away on your keyboard. Facebook is hard to replace and we are very used to it. At this moment I don’t think there is as popular and widely accepted other platform that offers the same services.

But is it right? Is it ethical? I don’t think so.

Vancouver’s Port shutdown

by Bogumi Pacak-Gamalski

Let me make a statement of personal nature at the very beginning: I always was and still am a big proponent of labor unions. It is the only defense of workers against the corporate greed. Technically, apart from an obvious owner everyone else is a worker. But when I use the term ‘workers’ I do mean employees below the senior management level, were the norm most likely is individual negotiations of pay and working conditions.

Having said that, I can continue to the issue at hand. Vancouver Port strike.

I have lived through one in Vancouver 2014. At that time the strikers were not Port employees per se, but truckers. But the effect and result were the same: the Port was out of business. Both governments (Provincial and Federal) worked together  day and night to resolve the issue. Tremendous pressure was put on both the Unions involved and the Port Authority. Shutting down second largest oceanic port in Canada (after the Montreal ports) is not the same as shutting down one – even large – factory or another however big or small business. Shutting down Canada’s gateway to Pacific is extremely dangerous. In a way – in itself it could shut down the aforementioned factories and businesses elsewhere in Canada.

It is very serious business on national scale and involves many international entities and partners. We are talking about international shipping lines, which either risk losing their cargo and clients or will choose another port of entry. In this case ‘another’ means eager US ports to the south of Vancouver. It also means that cargo intended for the US that was going to be shipped by trains from Vancouver to the US – will not get on time to the US. It means clogging Canadian railways with massively long trains full of containers sitting by the entrance to Vancouver. And we know that apart from Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa corridor we really don’t have a lot of railway tracks in Canada. One is blocked and the domino effect starts working.

From strictly financial cost it is a disaster for the country. Vancouver Port daily shipping and receiving of goods is worth 800 million dollars. Yes, that is an eight with eight zeros. It translates roughly to anywhere from 4.5 to 5.5 billion dollars per week. Billions.  Lost to the Canadian economy. The entire dental care insurance for children and seniors announced with fanfare by Liberals and NDP is worth 4 billion. The much anticipated and badly needed federal plan for affordable housing budgeted 4.5 billion … over the span of four years. Roughly the same we can lose in one week of the strike.

Jugmeet Singh, Leader of federal NDP,  in his interview, said that he is against any government intervention other than putting pressure on Port Authority to offer better package for strikers. He vehemently opposes any ‘back-to-work’ legislation. In some way I understand him. But Mr. Singh – do you realize how many much worse paid Canadian workers might lose their job anywhere in Canada due to that strike? Or have their paid hours seriously reduced? Do you understand that that strike and resulting shortages in many commodities on the market will in itself raise inflation and raise already extremely high prices for many things we buy everywhere? Of course, you do know that people, who suffer the most from high prices are the poor and lower middle-class workers, don’t you?

I am against back-to-work legislations. It is a sledgehammer used too often instead of an absolute last resort where the health or safety of others might be at risk. But in this case, all options should be open. The Federal minister already suggested the preferable (in this case) option of binding arbitration. The Union rejected it instantly. If there are no serious offers on behalf of the Port Authority that could be seen as reasonable, I think that the Federal Government (there should be the backing of the Provincial BC Government) would be right to offer that Arbitration again with a caveat, that if the Union rejects it, the legislation will be introduced. If the Port Authority rejects it, the Government should very plainly explain to them, that the Minister will seriously review all subsidies and taxations level of the Vancouver port and will find ways to make them more costly for the port. Sometimes plain talk is the best talk. [1]

[1] https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/07/03/bc-port-strike-canada-economy/#:~:text=The%20Canadian%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce,as%20much%20as%20%245.5%20billion.