In the midst of Ontario's current election campaign, a lot of people are making light of how much power the province's unions, or more specifically public sector unions, have. Indeed, day in and day out during this campaign, I've come across one advertisement after another sponsored by one of the public sector unions. At the same time, I've been bombarded by just as many ads attacking the power and influence of these same unions. I do take issue with the kind of clout that the public sector unions have in this province right now. However, I am just as concerned with folks who believe that we don't need unions anymore.
Do We Still Need Unions? The Short Answer is...Absolutely!
Every now and then I hear people saying that we don't need unions because we already have labour laws to protect workers. Uh, yes, that's true, but the reason we have those laws is because of unions. Anyone who knows their history knows that unions were created because there was no protection against worker abuse. Before unions, ordinary workers were not treated much better than slaves. They worked endless hours, earning meager wages that they could not support themselves on, let alone their families. Actually, many of them were lucky if they even got paid. They could also be ordered to do work in life-threatening situations without any safety precautions afforded to them. Hey, wait a minute, why am I talking about this in the past tense? This abuse of workers is still happening all over the world right now, as I am writing this. Anyone remember what happened to those poor garment workers who were burned to death in Bangladesh making clothes for Western companies, including Canada's Joe Fresh? And no, worker abuse is not limited to third world countries. It's still happening in the industrialized world, including right here in Canada. If you follow the news, you've heard all the fuss being made about Canada's temporary foreign workers program. Not only have there been allegations made by foreigners who came to Canada because of this program, but we're also finding out that big corporations have allegedly taken advantage of these to hire foreign labour instead of Canadians. Here are some examples of these allegations:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mcdonald-s-accused-of-favouring-foreign-workers-1.2598684
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Go+Public/ID/2450187011/
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/24/temporary_foreign_workers_program_has_boosted_joblessness_cd_howe_report_says.html#
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tim-hortons-breaks-with-franchisee-expands-foreign-worker-oversight-after-wage-theft-claims-1.2620672
Public Sector vs. Private Sector
Most of the worker abuse cases that we hear about in the media tend to occur in the private sector. This doesn't mean, of course, that no abuse goes on in the public sector. There is, however, a big difference in terms of who public sector unions deal with as opposed to private sector unions. Unions in the private sector deal with private businesses, usually larger ones. The Canadian Autoworkers Union once represented thousands of people working for big automakers, like GM and Ford before it merged with another union to create what is now known as UNIFOR. As we all know, big multinational corporations, like the aforementioned car makers, are for-profit businesses whose owners are often multimillionaires and even billionaires. This is not the case with the folks that public sector unions deal with.
Public sector unions deal with governments that are, at least in theory, controlled by, who else? The public. That is, every living, breathing taxpayer residing in the jurisdiction that the government in question has control over. In Ontario, our public sector unions deal with a government that is certainly not a money-making giant corporation, like McDonald's or Walmart. In fact, our province's debt and deficit have grown quite a bit over the last few years. And unlike the owners of big corporations, most of the folks that our provincial government represents are ordinary working people, many of whom struggle to make ends meet in today's sluggish economy. What I'm trying to say is that the folks in the public sector unions need to understand that they cannot deal with a government that is supposed to work for all of us the same way a private sector union deals with a big, multimillion dollar conglomerate that works only for its rich owners and shareholders. They have to realize that more money for them doesn't mean less money for some big shot corporate CEO; it means less money for Joe Shmo Ontarian to pay the rent and feed the kids because he has to pay the government more in taxes so that public sector union members can have bigger salaries, more vacation time and better benefits than most Ontarians can only dream of.
Yes, I understand that public sector unions represent some of the most noble professions out there. They're our doctors, our nurses, our teachers, our firefighters and our police officers, just to name a few. And I understand that it is only human nature to try and get as much as possible. Nevertheless, you folks in the public sector must be prepared to be reasonable when dealing with what are essentially fellow taxpayers represented by our government.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Everyone Deserves a Living Wage
To this day, people are always taught that working hard is the key to a better life. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. Indeed, what really bugs me nowadays is hearing so many stories about people working two or more jobs and still have trouble making ends meet. At the same time, I hear conservative-minded politicians saying that the best social program is a job. These are often the same people that say people who are poor are poor because they don't work hard enough, they're lazy, or they made bad choices. While these characteristics may be true of some poor people, there are many other poverty-stricken folks who work very hard, yet still can't find a way to get ahead financially. We often refer to folks in this situation as the "working poor".
Basically, the working poor are people who are employed, but who earn very meager wages and do not receive any other benefits from their work, such as paid holidays or health care coverage. I consider myself to be a conservative-minded person, so I do believe that there are people who are poor because they made bad choices in their lives or because they don't work hard enough. But I also recognize the reality that many people are simply caught in a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break. Take, for example, fast food workers, who last month waged a massive one day strike in several countries around the world, demanding better wages and working conditions (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/strike-highlights-fast-food-workers-plight-201451651741606709.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/us-fast-food-workers-demand-better-pay-20145155216322554.html).
I don't know how any rational person, conservative or otherwise, can say to people like these fast food workers that their jobs are the best social program when the wages they receive aren't even enough to pay for basics like food, rent and utilities. The fact is that for too many people, these low-paying jobs are a path to nowhere, which is why it's no wonder that some folks would rather sit on the rear ends and collect welfare than work at McDonald's for close to the same amount of money that they would receive through government hand-outs. If we want to break the cycle of poverty, and give people the incentive to work at the same time, we need to make sure that all jobs, no matter what they may be, pay a wage that folks can support themselves and their families on - a living wage.
Less than six years ago, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank, issued a report saying that a living wage in Toronto would be $16.60 per hour (see: A Living Wage for Toronto). Taking into consideration the cost of living increase since this report was published, this living wage would have to be even higher today. Up until the beginning of this month, the minimum wage in Ontario was $10.25 per hour. Anyone making this would still be living 25% below the poverty line according to the Low Income Measure (see: http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/experts/2014/02/15/make_toronto_a_livingwage_city_trish_hennessys_big_idea.html). Effective on the first date of this month, the minimum wage was raised to $11 - a good step, but still not enough for low-income earners to even climb over the province's poverty line. Obviously, we need to do better.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who don't want to see a living wage for all come to fruition. These include big business owners, but also small business owners who say they can't afford such a pay increase and claim that they would have to cut back on employees if forced to do so. In regards to big business, I don't buy this excuse at all. Can anyone seriously tell me that big multinational corporations like McDonald's and Walmart don't make enough money to pay their employees a living wage? What would happen to these big boys if they have to pay their workers fairly? At worst, their CEOs may have to fly first class on a commercial airline instead of flying in a private jet. Oh no! Boo-hoo!
As for smaller businesses whose owners don't make millions of dollars and don't own private jets or luxury yachts, I can understand how such a significant rise in labour costs could impact them. After all, I am a small business owner myself. So I believe that in certain cases, governments should help small businesses so that they can make the transition to paying their employees a living wage without incurring significant losses.
So do I think that the best social program is a job? No. I think the best social program is a good job - a job where someone earns enough to support themselves and their family. A job that doesn't force someone to make a choice between feeding the kids and paying the rent. A job that allows someone to break the cycle of poverty and work towards a better life.
I am not an economist, but I do know that an economy in which people make a decent living and have more disposable income is better than one in which people can't even afford the basics and therefore won't contribute to economic growth. In other words, a vibrant and productive economy is one in which people have good paying jobs, so a living wage just makes sense.
Basically, the working poor are people who are employed, but who earn very meager wages and do not receive any other benefits from their work, such as paid holidays or health care coverage. I consider myself to be a conservative-minded person, so I do believe that there are people who are poor because they made bad choices in their lives or because they don't work hard enough. But I also recognize the reality that many people are simply caught in a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break. Take, for example, fast food workers, who last month waged a massive one day strike in several countries around the world, demanding better wages and working conditions (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/strike-highlights-fast-food-workers-plight-201451651741606709.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/us-fast-food-workers-demand-better-pay-20145155216322554.html).
I don't know how any rational person, conservative or otherwise, can say to people like these fast food workers that their jobs are the best social program when the wages they receive aren't even enough to pay for basics like food, rent and utilities. The fact is that for too many people, these low-paying jobs are a path to nowhere, which is why it's no wonder that some folks would rather sit on the rear ends and collect welfare than work at McDonald's for close to the same amount of money that they would receive through government hand-outs. If we want to break the cycle of poverty, and give people the incentive to work at the same time, we need to make sure that all jobs, no matter what they may be, pay a wage that folks can support themselves and their families on - a living wage.
Less than six years ago, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank, issued a report saying that a living wage in Toronto would be $16.60 per hour (see: A Living Wage for Toronto). Taking into consideration the cost of living increase since this report was published, this living wage would have to be even higher today. Up until the beginning of this month, the minimum wage in Ontario was $10.25 per hour. Anyone making this would still be living 25% below the poverty line according to the Low Income Measure (see: http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/experts/2014/02/15/make_toronto_a_livingwage_city_trish_hennessys_big_idea.html). Effective on the first date of this month, the minimum wage was raised to $11 - a good step, but still not enough for low-income earners to even climb over the province's poverty line. Obviously, we need to do better.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who don't want to see a living wage for all come to fruition. These include big business owners, but also small business owners who say they can't afford such a pay increase and claim that they would have to cut back on employees if forced to do so. In regards to big business, I don't buy this excuse at all. Can anyone seriously tell me that big multinational corporations like McDonald's and Walmart don't make enough money to pay their employees a living wage? What would happen to these big boys if they have to pay their workers fairly? At worst, their CEOs may have to fly first class on a commercial airline instead of flying in a private jet. Oh no! Boo-hoo!
As for smaller businesses whose owners don't make millions of dollars and don't own private jets or luxury yachts, I can understand how such a significant rise in labour costs could impact them. After all, I am a small business owner myself. So I believe that in certain cases, governments should help small businesses so that they can make the transition to paying their employees a living wage without incurring significant losses.
So do I think that the best social program is a job? No. I think the best social program is a good job - a job where someone earns enough to support themselves and their family. A job that doesn't force someone to make a choice between feeding the kids and paying the rent. A job that allows someone to break the cycle of poverty and work towards a better life.
I am not an economist, but I do know that an economy in which people make a decent living and have more disposable income is better than one in which people can't even afford the basics and therefore won't contribute to economic growth. In other words, a vibrant and productive economy is one in which people have good paying jobs, so a living wage just makes sense.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Israel Needs to be More Israeli
A couple of days ago, news broke that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tried to convince Nobel laureate, Elie Wiesel, to stand for election to the Israeli presidency as the term of the current president, Shimon Peres, winds down (see: PM 'wanted Elie Wiesel as president'). I am an Israeli citizen and even though I live in Canada, I am still very proud of my Israeli identity, so I have a big problem with giving high Israeli government posts to outsiders. It's not that I don't like Elie Wiesel. In fact, I think he would make a perfect statesman and he has done a lot for both Israel and the Jewish people. But he is not an Israeli citizen, nor has he lived in Israel for any significant length of time, which is the reason I think he did the right thing and turned the Prime Minister down.
I had the same problem in 2005 when then Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon (blessed be his memory) and Netanyahu, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, decided to appoint American banker, Stanley Fisher to head the Bank of Israel. Fisher did an amazing job in the position and his qualifications as a fiscal manager were never in doubt. But like Mr. Wiesel, he was not an Israeli. Neither was Albert Einstein, who was sought after to be the country's first president. But of course, Israeli was in its infancy back then and few folks in the Zionist movement were born and raised in what became Israel, so back then I would have considered it okay to have outsiders in high-up government positions since almost everyone was an outsider. However, Israel is now 66 years old and the overwhelming majority of the country's population was born and raised inside the country, so I think that Israel is mature enough to have Israelis govern it.
In fact, from a hypothetical standpoint, if I was offered a high-up position in the Israeli government, I would have to turn it down, otherwise I would be a hypocrite. After all, even though I am an Israeli citizen, my citizenship is inherited from one of my parents, who was born and raised in Israel. I have never lived in Israel for any significant length of time, nor have I paid taxes there, done military service or voted there, so I don't think I should be entitled to rule over Israelis who have done all of these things.
Some people will say to me that since Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Fisher are both Jewish, it's okay for them to hold key posts in the Israeli government. But I think this argument is wrong because being Jewish shouldn't be enough to make you an Israeli. As I said my previous blog, Israel's Citizenship Laws: It's Time for a Change, citizenship is something that needs to be earned. It should not be an automatic entitlement just because someone happens to be Jewish. The only exception to this rule is people like myself who inherit their citizenship from their parents. This exception is generally made in countries throughout the world. Nevertheless, I believe that I and people in my situation have a moral obligation not to accept senior Israeli government positions until having contributed in some way to the state, and I don't mean through donations like many Diaspora Jews already do. I mean actually living in the country, paying taxes, working there and so forth.
In short, I believe that choosing our leaders is one case where Israel needs to be more Israeli. There are other cases as well. For example, Israel still maintains the old, pre-state Zionist organizations, such as the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund. The former deals mostly with Jewish immigration to Israel, while the latter deals with issues pertaining to land in Israel. Non-Israelis are heavily involved in these organizations and their influence has the power to affect the lives of Israeli citizens. This should stop immediately and the two organizations should be abolished or at least nationalized and put under the direct control of the Israeli government. It is for Israelis and ONLY Israelis to make decisions and policies on immigration, land management and everything else that effects us.
Israel must also protect its distinct culture, most notably the Hebrew language. When I'm in Israel, everywhere I go, I see signs that are exclusively in English or some other language, rather than Hebrew or Arabic. There are folks who immigrate to the country and won't even make an effort to learn the language. In fact, I remember a friend of my grandmother, who had been in the country for decades, but still couldn't speak fluent Hebrew. As I said, I have never lived in Israel for a significant period of time, yet even I am almost fluent in the language, so unless a person immigrating to Israel has some sort of learning disability, there's no reason they shouldn't be learning Hebrew from the day they get off the plane. Perhaps Israel should consider sign laws akin to those in Quebec (although I wouldn't be as extreme as the Quebecois are in enforcing such rules). I also can't stand the fact that many Haredim refuse to use Hebrew as their vernacular in favour of Yiddish. People, Yiddish is a language that belongs in the Diaspora. If you want to speak Yiddish and live like you did in the shtetls of Europe, then go back there! But just to clarify, I obviously don't care if people use languages other than Hebrew and Arabic in Israel. If I did, I wouldn't be writing this in English. My problem is that the Haredim suppress the use of one of Israel's two official languages so that they can go on living as they once did in the Diaspora, and this to me is wrong.
What I'm trying to say here is that whether it's choosing our leaders or protecting our culture, Israel has to be Israeli. Being Jewish is not enough.
I had the same problem in 2005 when then Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon (blessed be his memory) and Netanyahu, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, decided to appoint American banker, Stanley Fisher to head the Bank of Israel. Fisher did an amazing job in the position and his qualifications as a fiscal manager were never in doubt. But like Mr. Wiesel, he was not an Israeli. Neither was Albert Einstein, who was sought after to be the country's first president. But of course, Israeli was in its infancy back then and few folks in the Zionist movement were born and raised in what became Israel, so back then I would have considered it okay to have outsiders in high-up government positions since almost everyone was an outsider. However, Israel is now 66 years old and the overwhelming majority of the country's population was born and raised inside the country, so I think that Israel is mature enough to have Israelis govern it.
In fact, from a hypothetical standpoint, if I was offered a high-up position in the Israeli government, I would have to turn it down, otherwise I would be a hypocrite. After all, even though I am an Israeli citizen, my citizenship is inherited from one of my parents, who was born and raised in Israel. I have never lived in Israel for any significant length of time, nor have I paid taxes there, done military service or voted there, so I don't think I should be entitled to rule over Israelis who have done all of these things.
Some people will say to me that since Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Fisher are both Jewish, it's okay for them to hold key posts in the Israeli government. But I think this argument is wrong because being Jewish shouldn't be enough to make you an Israeli. As I said my previous blog, Israel's Citizenship Laws: It's Time for a Change, citizenship is something that needs to be earned. It should not be an automatic entitlement just because someone happens to be Jewish. The only exception to this rule is people like myself who inherit their citizenship from their parents. This exception is generally made in countries throughout the world. Nevertheless, I believe that I and people in my situation have a moral obligation not to accept senior Israeli government positions until having contributed in some way to the state, and I don't mean through donations like many Diaspora Jews already do. I mean actually living in the country, paying taxes, working there and so forth.
In short, I believe that choosing our leaders is one case where Israel needs to be more Israeli. There are other cases as well. For example, Israel still maintains the old, pre-state Zionist organizations, such as the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund. The former deals mostly with Jewish immigration to Israel, while the latter deals with issues pertaining to land in Israel. Non-Israelis are heavily involved in these organizations and their influence has the power to affect the lives of Israeli citizens. This should stop immediately and the two organizations should be abolished or at least nationalized and put under the direct control of the Israeli government. It is for Israelis and ONLY Israelis to make decisions and policies on immigration, land management and everything else that effects us.
Israel must also protect its distinct culture, most notably the Hebrew language. When I'm in Israel, everywhere I go, I see signs that are exclusively in English or some other language, rather than Hebrew or Arabic. There are folks who immigrate to the country and won't even make an effort to learn the language. In fact, I remember a friend of my grandmother, who had been in the country for decades, but still couldn't speak fluent Hebrew. As I said, I have never lived in Israel for a significant period of time, yet even I am almost fluent in the language, so unless a person immigrating to Israel has some sort of learning disability, there's no reason they shouldn't be learning Hebrew from the day they get off the plane. Perhaps Israel should consider sign laws akin to those in Quebec (although I wouldn't be as extreme as the Quebecois are in enforcing such rules). I also can't stand the fact that many Haredim refuse to use Hebrew as their vernacular in favour of Yiddish. People, Yiddish is a language that belongs in the Diaspora. If you want to speak Yiddish and live like you did in the shtetls of Europe, then go back there! But just to clarify, I obviously don't care if people use languages other than Hebrew and Arabic in Israel. If I did, I wouldn't be writing this in English. My problem is that the Haredim suppress the use of one of Israel's two official languages so that they can go on living as they once did in the Diaspora, and this to me is wrong.
What I'm trying to say here is that whether it's choosing our leaders or protecting our culture, Israel has to be Israeli. Being Jewish is not enough.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Time for the Government to Offload the CBC From Taxpayers
Recently, I received an e-mail from the Conservative Party complaining against CBC media bias against them and asking for a donation. I do agree that the CBC has a left-wing bias and I don't like it one bit. The CBC is funded by all Canadian tax payers of all political stripes to the tune of around one billion dollars a year, so when I see my tax dollars used by the public broadcaster to shore up the cheerleading squad for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, it drives me nuts. That being said, I think the CBC's bias is simply a product of human nature. The folks in the corporation know who supports them and who doesn't, so its only natural that they would support the Liberals and sometimes the NDP, because they know that with either of these parties in power, their budget will likely grow. They also know that under a Conservative government, their budget will shrink, as it already has under the current government. It's simply a matter of CBC staff trying to protect their jobs, and I certainly can't blame them for that.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the CBC, or at least some of its programming. I love Hockey Night in Canada and I'm a regular viewer of The National. I also love watching Kevin O'Leary on Dragon's Den as well as the occasional documentary program. And we all know how good CBC documentaries can be. The problem is that the best days of the CBC are long gone. The public broadcaster suffers from low ratings and has just recently been hit with the biggest bombshell of all: the impending loss of its hockey revenue after Rogers bought the rights to all of Canada's hockey broadcasts. Without hockey, it is very unlikely that the CBC can survive, let alone thrive, unless it receives additional financial support from taxpayers. But inasmuch as I and many others admire what the CBC does, I believe that our hard-earned tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.
I just think that the CBC's estimated billion dollar budget should go towards more important things, like health care and education. A billion dollars can buy a lot of great things, like hospital beds and MRI machines. It could pay the salaries of more family doctors, which are hard to find nowadays. Or perhaps we could use the money to help more university and college students pay their tuition. Basically, what I'm saying is that the federal government should spend our tax dollars on things like schools and hospitals, instead of George Stromboulopoulos and Heartland.
But what should be done with the CBC if the feds decide at some point to offload it in favour of bigger priorities? The first thought that comes to mind is privatization. The government would surely get a big, one-time financial boon for selling the public broadcaster, and I'm sure that the big boys at Rogers and Bell Media would be more than interested (as if our media isn't concentrated enough already). But outright privatization isn't the only option. Another way for the government to offload the CBC is to have the corporation adopt a PBS-style model in which the broadcaster would rely on donations from its viewers to keep it afloat. I kind of like this idea because it will force supporters of Canadian broadcasting to put their money where their mouths are and pony up for the programming that they feel so passionate about without making the rest of us taxpayers do so.
The CBC is indeed a national institution, but it has run its course in its current form, and it is ludicrous for the folks in the federal government to keep telling voters that they can't afford to help the provinces pay for things like prescription drugs and financial assistance for indebted students because they need to keep paying Peter Mansbridge's salary. Whether the CBC is privatized or left to its supporters to pay for, the feds should offload the public broadcaster from the backs of Canadian taxpayers as soon as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the CBC, or at least some of its programming. I love Hockey Night in Canada and I'm a regular viewer of The National. I also love watching Kevin O'Leary on Dragon's Den as well as the occasional documentary program. And we all know how good CBC documentaries can be. The problem is that the best days of the CBC are long gone. The public broadcaster suffers from low ratings and has just recently been hit with the biggest bombshell of all: the impending loss of its hockey revenue after Rogers bought the rights to all of Canada's hockey broadcasts. Without hockey, it is very unlikely that the CBC can survive, let alone thrive, unless it receives additional financial support from taxpayers. But inasmuch as I and many others admire what the CBC does, I believe that our hard-earned tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.
I just think that the CBC's estimated billion dollar budget should go towards more important things, like health care and education. A billion dollars can buy a lot of great things, like hospital beds and MRI machines. It could pay the salaries of more family doctors, which are hard to find nowadays. Or perhaps we could use the money to help more university and college students pay their tuition. Basically, what I'm saying is that the federal government should spend our tax dollars on things like schools and hospitals, instead of George Stromboulopoulos and Heartland.
But what should be done with the CBC if the feds decide at some point to offload it in favour of bigger priorities? The first thought that comes to mind is privatization. The government would surely get a big, one-time financial boon for selling the public broadcaster, and I'm sure that the big boys at Rogers and Bell Media would be more than interested (as if our media isn't concentrated enough already). But outright privatization isn't the only option. Another way for the government to offload the CBC is to have the corporation adopt a PBS-style model in which the broadcaster would rely on donations from its viewers to keep it afloat. I kind of like this idea because it will force supporters of Canadian broadcasting to put their money where their mouths are and pony up for the programming that they feel so passionate about without making the rest of us taxpayers do so.
The CBC is indeed a national institution, but it has run its course in its current form, and it is ludicrous for the folks in the federal government to keep telling voters that they can't afford to help the provinces pay for things like prescription drugs and financial assistance for indebted students because they need to keep paying Peter Mansbridge's salary. Whether the CBC is privatized or left to its supporters to pay for, the feds should offload the public broadcaster from the backs of Canadian taxpayers as soon as possible.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Ontario Election 2014. I'm Declining My Ballot, And So Should You
Election Day in Ontario is fast approaching. As with other elections in Canada, our choices are uninspiring to say the least. So whom should you vote for? Well, let's first narrow our choices down to the only three parties and leaders who have any chance of winning this election. There's our current Premier, Kathleen Wynne, and her Liberal Party, Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath's New Democratic Party. Do these parties and their leaders differ on how they would run the Province of Ontario? Certainly, but is one better than the other? Nope. In fact, for this election, I'm voting for none of the above. Here's why:
Let's start with our incumbent premier. She took the reins of power after her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, decided to pack it in, leaving a legacy of scandals, reckless spending and soaring debt. The jury's still out on how much Wynne had to do with the decisions that have turned Ontario from a have to a have-not province, but she was part of McGuinty's government, hence she is at least guilty by association. Re-electing her and her party will no doubt lead to more of the same. You know, sky-high hydro rates, ballooning deficits, record debt, and billions of our hard-earned tax dollars spent on damage control for scandals like the gas plant cancellation, Ehealth and Ornge. There will be benefits for some folks if the Wynne Liberals are re-elected, most notably the public sector unions and CEOs. So we can expect more happy union bosses and more senior civil servants making $100,000 or more a year. For the rest of us, however, it will mean less money in our pockets. Clearly, Ontarians deserve better.
Okay then, how about the alternatives? Tim Hudak and his Progressive Conservatives are promising to end the Liberals' drunken spending spree and bring order to Ontario's finances. Sounds good, right? Not so fast. Unfortunately, Hudak and the PCs view Ontario simply as one giant balance sheet and nothing more. So they have no qualms over balancing the books on the backs of Ontario's most vulnerable. Electing Hudak and the PCs would likely mean higher tuition for university and college students, bigger class sizes and less help for seniors who want to stay in their homes (see: Tim Hudak targets students, seniors, teachers for budget cuts). For those of you who remember the slash-and-burn years of Mike Harris, Tim Hudak is basically the sequel in waiting.
This leaves us with the last of the three fat-cats, Andrea Horwath and the NDP. But if you're going to vote NDP, you might as well be voting Liberal as it's become increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two parties. In fact, sometimes I don't know which of the two is the real standard-bearer of big government and union rule. Even Horwath herself seems to have trouble distinguishing herself and her party from Wynne and the Liberals. It's no wonder then that some have speculated about the possibility of the Liberals and NDP forming a coalition to govern Ontario should no party win a majority in the upcoming vote. But of course, this is what we've had since the last election. In other words, nothing would change.
To make a long story short, I can't bring myself to vote for any of the major parties because it seems to me that no matter which of them win, we all lose. But what other options are there? Voting for the Green Party? Voting for one of the fringe parties or candidates? Either way, you're throwing your vote away. So should you just stay home on election day? Perhaps. A low voter participation rate does send a strong message about the shortcomings of our politics. However, I and many others believe that voting is a civic duty and a fundamental democratic right that we should all exercise. Besides, there is a better way to send a message to our politicians. We can just decline our ballots.
There is a little-known part of Ontario's election law that permits voters to decline their ballots, essentially voting for none of the above (see: How Ontarians can make their vote count when their choice is "none of the above"). This provision allows such votes to be recorded differently than if a voter simply spoiled their ballot. Declining your ballot sends a message that while you would like to participate in the electoral process, you do not believe that any candidate or party deserves your vote. And this, I believe, is the message that our politicians need to hear loud and clear.
Let's start with our incumbent premier. She took the reins of power after her predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, decided to pack it in, leaving a legacy of scandals, reckless spending and soaring debt. The jury's still out on how much Wynne had to do with the decisions that have turned Ontario from a have to a have-not province, but she was part of McGuinty's government, hence she is at least guilty by association. Re-electing her and her party will no doubt lead to more of the same. You know, sky-high hydro rates, ballooning deficits, record debt, and billions of our hard-earned tax dollars spent on damage control for scandals like the gas plant cancellation, Ehealth and Ornge. There will be benefits for some folks if the Wynne Liberals are re-elected, most notably the public sector unions and CEOs. So we can expect more happy union bosses and more senior civil servants making $100,000 or more a year. For the rest of us, however, it will mean less money in our pockets. Clearly, Ontarians deserve better.
Okay then, how about the alternatives? Tim Hudak and his Progressive Conservatives are promising to end the Liberals' drunken spending spree and bring order to Ontario's finances. Sounds good, right? Not so fast. Unfortunately, Hudak and the PCs view Ontario simply as one giant balance sheet and nothing more. So they have no qualms over balancing the books on the backs of Ontario's most vulnerable. Electing Hudak and the PCs would likely mean higher tuition for university and college students, bigger class sizes and less help for seniors who want to stay in their homes (see: Tim Hudak targets students, seniors, teachers for budget cuts). For those of you who remember the slash-and-burn years of Mike Harris, Tim Hudak is basically the sequel in waiting.
This leaves us with the last of the three fat-cats, Andrea Horwath and the NDP. But if you're going to vote NDP, you might as well be voting Liberal as it's become increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two parties. In fact, sometimes I don't know which of the two is the real standard-bearer of big government and union rule. Even Horwath herself seems to have trouble distinguishing herself and her party from Wynne and the Liberals. It's no wonder then that some have speculated about the possibility of the Liberals and NDP forming a coalition to govern Ontario should no party win a majority in the upcoming vote. But of course, this is what we've had since the last election. In other words, nothing would change.
To make a long story short, I can't bring myself to vote for any of the major parties because it seems to me that no matter which of them win, we all lose. But what other options are there? Voting for the Green Party? Voting for one of the fringe parties or candidates? Either way, you're throwing your vote away. So should you just stay home on election day? Perhaps. A low voter participation rate does send a strong message about the shortcomings of our politics. However, I and many others believe that voting is a civic duty and a fundamental democratic right that we should all exercise. Besides, there is a better way to send a message to our politicians. We can just decline our ballots.
There is a little-known part of Ontario's election law that permits voters to decline their ballots, essentially voting for none of the above (see: How Ontarians can make their vote count when their choice is "none of the above"). This provision allows such votes to be recorded differently than if a voter simply spoiled their ballot. Declining your ballot sends a message that while you would like to participate in the electoral process, you do not believe that any candidate or party deserves your vote. And this, I believe, is the message that our politicians need to hear loud and clear.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Why I Hate Flying
I recently returned from a trip to Italy with my father and brother. It was an excellent trip, although it did have its negative aspects. For me, the biggest negative aspect of this trip was what is usually the biggest negative aspect of most of my trips: getting there and back, or more specifically flying there and back, because I don't like flying at all.
Long ago, it used to take months to get from one side of the world to the other in the old sailing ships, which were the only means of circumventing the globe until the steamship came into use in the early 18th century and cut the time it took to travel the globe from months to days. The emergence of air travel came around two centuries later and by the mid-20th century, jet propulsion became commonplace. Today, the sky is crowded with commercial passenger jets that move multitudes of people across the world every day. I am very grateful that unlike our ancestors, we don't have to wait days, weeks or months to get from one part of the world to the other. That being said, I still hate flying for a number of reasons which I will outline here by going through the typical air traveller's experience.
A lot of what I hate about flying is not flying itself, but all the things you have to go through when you fly. First, you arrive at the airport for your flight. In the post-9/11 world, this often means showing up at least three hours before your flight takes off. Waiting for you at the airport is often a long, seemingly never-ending lineup at the check-in counters, although thankfully there is now the option of checking in online, which can speed up the check-in process. But of course, you still have to check your luggage at the counter. When it's finally your turn to check your baggage, you may be in for a rude surprise. Your bag is overweight, which means you're automatically charged an extra fee. Got more than one bag? Well mister, that's gonna be another few dollars out of your pocket. In fact, you will soon be paying just to check in one bag on one notable airline (see: http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/05/porter_to_charge_25_checked_bag_fee_on_flights_in_canada.html)
Want to pick your own seat on the plane? Pony-up, buddy. I could go on about the extra fees that you have to pay in addition to your flight ticket itself, but I'm wagering that most of you reading this know the routine already, especially if you happen to be travelling out of Pearson airport, where the fees are so high that some folks drive down to the airport in Buffalo in order to avoid the insane extra charges in Toronto.
Once you've finally checked your bags, you get to stand in another long lineup at customs where the folks in charge yell at you and herd you like cattle into separate lines at each scanning machine. When you get to the scanning machine, you may have to spend some time removing a bunch of things from both your carry-on bags and yourself. Got a laptop? You may have to take that out and put it in a bin to go through the scanner separately. The same goes for your phone and any other electronic device. Travelling in or to the U.S.? You will probably be removing your belt and your shoes too. Remember, this is the post 9/11 world and we can't take any chances, which means more inconveniences and longer waits in line. Eventually though, you do pass customs, so what comes next? Well, for most people, it's sitting and waiting until your flight is ready to board. And if it's a busy day, good luck even finding a seat in the waiting area by the boarding gates. If you're in a good airport, you may be able to find something to eat or drink in a nearby cafe or airport restaurant, but if not, you're going hungry and thirsty. You should also note the time and energy that you may spend walking in an airport terminal. Depending on what kind of shape you're in and how the terminal is built, you may feel like you've just run a marathon after finally getting to the boarding gate.
Okay, it's finally time to board the aircraft, which means that you get to stand in another long lineup as passengers queue up for boarding. In some airports, boarding can be a more inconvenient experience than in others, especially if the airport is not designed for aircraft to be boarded immediately at the gate. In this case, you'll be shown onto a bus, where you'll be packed like a sardine with the rest of the general, unwashed public just as if you were on a Toronto subway during rush hour. This bus will take you on a short trip to your airplane, where you'll have to climb up a flight of stairs to get aboard. I pity the older, less healthy folks who have to do this and aren't entitled to assistance.
Finally, you're out of the airport and on your plane ready to go - sort of anyway. For various reasons, you may be stuck on the ground for a significant amount of time for things like refuelling, de-icing (think of flying during the winter in Canada), or just waiting for your plane's turn to take off. While you're waiting to get airborne, you may be sweating your butt off since an airplane can get really hot until it's in the air and the cabin pressure system is activated. But of course, you will eventually take off and be cruising in the air shortly afterward. Then it's just a matter of waiting to get to your destination.
While you're waiting to get where you're going, you'll likely be sitting in an airplane seat where you can barely move and must inevitably disturb the person next to you whenever you want to get up and go to the bathroom, unless of course you're one of those more privileged people in first class, where the airlines treat people like human beings rather than sardines. There's a very stark irony about travelling on airplanes. When you take a dog on an aircraft, the regulations usually state that the dog needs to be in a crate where it has room to stand, turn around and lie down whereas a human passenger on an airplane is lucky if he can cross his legs in his seat. In a few cases, the lack of room in airplane seats can be fatal (see: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/travel.html). Here's a pointer for those of you who want to avoid being stuck in an airplane seat without room to move: try to reserve a seat next to one of the plane's emergency exits where you'll have all the leg room you want. My brother and I did this on our way to and from Italy. As I said before, however, you will pay more to do this. You'll also likely need to show up at the airport earlier to beat someone else to your ideal seat, which of course means more time sitting in the airport waiting for your flight.
On most short-haul flights, like the one I took from Toronto to Florida a couple of years ago, if you want to eat but don't have any money on you, chances are that you'll be going hungry because the nickel-and-diming airlines stopped feeding us for free on short flights a long time ago. If you're on a long flight, you will probably get fed without having to pay. Ah, airplane food. You should have no trouble knowing when they're bringing the food out because you can smell the fetid stench a mile away. Yes, for those of you who have a lot of air travel experience, you know that airplane food has a smell that can make anyone nauseous. If you have a weak stomach, I would avoid eating airplane food altogether, if possible. I have a pretty strong stomach myself, but it didn't stop me from throwing up on my recent flight to Italy after eating the beef served at dinner. At least I wasn't feeling sick afterwards.
Aside from the airplane food, I would say the worst thing about flying is just waiting to get to your destination. As I mentioned in the beginning, people started off travelling for months on sailing ships to travel around the world, then the steamship cut those months to days, and finally we invented air travel, which allowed us to circumvent the globe in the space of hours. The problem is that since the use of jet propulsion became widespread, we aren't going much faster on passenger planes than when we started using jet engines on them about a half century ago. My recent flight to Italy was just over eight hours and the flight back over nine hours. I don't understand why we can make a computer that is many times faster and more powerful than a computer built just five years earlier, but we can't make planes that can take you from New York City to Tokyo in less than three hours and that are cost effective. There was of course the Concorde, which was significantly faster than conventional passenger aircraft, but it was shelved for safety reasons shortly after a crash killed over 100 people, leaving us with the same subsonic, tube-shaped airplanes that we use today and that haven't changed much in decades. I truly hope to see the day where I can go from one side of the world to the other in less than three hours. I would love to be able to fly to Europe, spend the day, and then go back to Toronto on the same day I left. But for now all I can do is dream about it.
Actually, I wish I could do some dreaming when I fly because it would make the wait more bearable. Unfortunately, I can almost never fall asleep on an airplane. Of course, no matter how long you have to wait, chances are that you will reach your destination safely, because inasmuch as I hate flying, the fact is that, in the words of Superman, "statistically speaking, it is still the safest way to travel." When you finally do land, you will likely spend at least another few minutes waiting to get off, and a few more minutes actually getting off. And again, if you're in one of those poorly-designed airports, you may be packed like a sardine onto a bus again to take you to the terminal. You may also be taking another long walk to customs where, depending on the airport's efficiency, you may be waiting a fair amount of time. Pearson Airport was once notorious for its poor management of customs. I came off a flight last year to find myself in a huge lineup at customs. The big problem at that time was that there weren't even separate lines for Canadian citizens and non-Canadians, so everyone stood and waited in the same line. And God help you if a visitor or new immigrant had a problem with their documents, because then you were in for a big time delay. Fortunately, Pearson now does have a separate line for Canadian citizens, equipped with self-serve machines that scan your passport and let you go in less than a minute. Unfortunately, they're still making us fill out those damned annoying customs cards when we come back to Canada. I once got some verbal abuse from an Air Canada flight attendant for not having a pen to fill it out. For some reason, whenever I go to Israel, where security is the number one priority, I don't have to fill out any stupid customs card, so I wonder, if one of the most security-savvy countries in the world doesn't need people to fill out these kinds of cards, why does Canada, or any other country for that matter? I would also add that in Israel's main international airport, they've had separate lines for Israeli citizens and non-Israelis for a long time while folks coming home to Canada were still standing in the same line with visitors and new immigrants.
Your journey through the trials and tribulations of air travel ends with collecting your luggage, and for those of you who have had the misfortune of having your luggage lost by the airlines, I don't have to tell you how aggravating it can be. My father once waited about a month for a suitcase to be returned to him after the airline misplaced it. And of course, losing your luggage isn't the only big mishap an air traveller can go through. I haven't even mentioned the other big headaches, like getting bumped from a flight or your flight being cancelled. I haven't mentioned these things because I wanted to demonstrate to those of you who are reading this the fact that even if your air travel experience goes smoothly, without you losing your luggage, getting bumped from your flight, or having some other major problem occur, flying and all the things that go with it can still drive a person nuts, which is why I hate it. Unfortunately, unless we end up being able to beam ourselves from place to place, like on Star Trek, or some other revolutionary invention comes along, we will likely have to spend more time putting up with air travel if we want to get to far off places.
Long ago, it used to take months to get from one side of the world to the other in the old sailing ships, which were the only means of circumventing the globe until the steamship came into use in the early 18th century and cut the time it took to travel the globe from months to days. The emergence of air travel came around two centuries later and by the mid-20th century, jet propulsion became commonplace. Today, the sky is crowded with commercial passenger jets that move multitudes of people across the world every day. I am very grateful that unlike our ancestors, we don't have to wait days, weeks or months to get from one part of the world to the other. That being said, I still hate flying for a number of reasons which I will outline here by going through the typical air traveller's experience.
A lot of what I hate about flying is not flying itself, but all the things you have to go through when you fly. First, you arrive at the airport for your flight. In the post-9/11 world, this often means showing up at least three hours before your flight takes off. Waiting for you at the airport is often a long, seemingly never-ending lineup at the check-in counters, although thankfully there is now the option of checking in online, which can speed up the check-in process. But of course, you still have to check your luggage at the counter. When it's finally your turn to check your baggage, you may be in for a rude surprise. Your bag is overweight, which means you're automatically charged an extra fee. Got more than one bag? Well mister, that's gonna be another few dollars out of your pocket. In fact, you will soon be paying just to check in one bag on one notable airline (see: http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/05/porter_to_charge_25_checked_bag_fee_on_flights_in_canada.html)
Want to pick your own seat on the plane? Pony-up, buddy. I could go on about the extra fees that you have to pay in addition to your flight ticket itself, but I'm wagering that most of you reading this know the routine already, especially if you happen to be travelling out of Pearson airport, where the fees are so high that some folks drive down to the airport in Buffalo in order to avoid the insane extra charges in Toronto.
Once you've finally checked your bags, you get to stand in another long lineup at customs where the folks in charge yell at you and herd you like cattle into separate lines at each scanning machine. When you get to the scanning machine, you may have to spend some time removing a bunch of things from both your carry-on bags and yourself. Got a laptop? You may have to take that out and put it in a bin to go through the scanner separately. The same goes for your phone and any other electronic device. Travelling in or to the U.S.? You will probably be removing your belt and your shoes too. Remember, this is the post 9/11 world and we can't take any chances, which means more inconveniences and longer waits in line. Eventually though, you do pass customs, so what comes next? Well, for most people, it's sitting and waiting until your flight is ready to board. And if it's a busy day, good luck even finding a seat in the waiting area by the boarding gates. If you're in a good airport, you may be able to find something to eat or drink in a nearby cafe or airport restaurant, but if not, you're going hungry and thirsty. You should also note the time and energy that you may spend walking in an airport terminal. Depending on what kind of shape you're in and how the terminal is built, you may feel like you've just run a marathon after finally getting to the boarding gate.
Okay, it's finally time to board the aircraft, which means that you get to stand in another long lineup as passengers queue up for boarding. In some airports, boarding can be a more inconvenient experience than in others, especially if the airport is not designed for aircraft to be boarded immediately at the gate. In this case, you'll be shown onto a bus, where you'll be packed like a sardine with the rest of the general, unwashed public just as if you were on a Toronto subway during rush hour. This bus will take you on a short trip to your airplane, where you'll have to climb up a flight of stairs to get aboard. I pity the older, less healthy folks who have to do this and aren't entitled to assistance.
Finally, you're out of the airport and on your plane ready to go - sort of anyway. For various reasons, you may be stuck on the ground for a significant amount of time for things like refuelling, de-icing (think of flying during the winter in Canada), or just waiting for your plane's turn to take off. While you're waiting to get airborne, you may be sweating your butt off since an airplane can get really hot until it's in the air and the cabin pressure system is activated. But of course, you will eventually take off and be cruising in the air shortly afterward. Then it's just a matter of waiting to get to your destination.
While you're waiting to get where you're going, you'll likely be sitting in an airplane seat where you can barely move and must inevitably disturb the person next to you whenever you want to get up and go to the bathroom, unless of course you're one of those more privileged people in first class, where the airlines treat people like human beings rather than sardines. There's a very stark irony about travelling on airplanes. When you take a dog on an aircraft, the regulations usually state that the dog needs to be in a crate where it has room to stand, turn around and lie down whereas a human passenger on an airplane is lucky if he can cross his legs in his seat. In a few cases, the lack of room in airplane seats can be fatal (see: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/travel.html). Here's a pointer for those of you who want to avoid being stuck in an airplane seat without room to move: try to reserve a seat next to one of the plane's emergency exits where you'll have all the leg room you want. My brother and I did this on our way to and from Italy. As I said before, however, you will pay more to do this. You'll also likely need to show up at the airport earlier to beat someone else to your ideal seat, which of course means more time sitting in the airport waiting for your flight.
On most short-haul flights, like the one I took from Toronto to Florida a couple of years ago, if you want to eat but don't have any money on you, chances are that you'll be going hungry because the nickel-and-diming airlines stopped feeding us for free on short flights a long time ago. If you're on a long flight, you will probably get fed without having to pay. Ah, airplane food. You should have no trouble knowing when they're bringing the food out because you can smell the fetid stench a mile away. Yes, for those of you who have a lot of air travel experience, you know that airplane food has a smell that can make anyone nauseous. If you have a weak stomach, I would avoid eating airplane food altogether, if possible. I have a pretty strong stomach myself, but it didn't stop me from throwing up on my recent flight to Italy after eating the beef served at dinner. At least I wasn't feeling sick afterwards.
Aside from the airplane food, I would say the worst thing about flying is just waiting to get to your destination. As I mentioned in the beginning, people started off travelling for months on sailing ships to travel around the world, then the steamship cut those months to days, and finally we invented air travel, which allowed us to circumvent the globe in the space of hours. The problem is that since the use of jet propulsion became widespread, we aren't going much faster on passenger planes than when we started using jet engines on them about a half century ago. My recent flight to Italy was just over eight hours and the flight back over nine hours. I don't understand why we can make a computer that is many times faster and more powerful than a computer built just five years earlier, but we can't make planes that can take you from New York City to Tokyo in less than three hours and that are cost effective. There was of course the Concorde, which was significantly faster than conventional passenger aircraft, but it was shelved for safety reasons shortly after a crash killed over 100 people, leaving us with the same subsonic, tube-shaped airplanes that we use today and that haven't changed much in decades. I truly hope to see the day where I can go from one side of the world to the other in less than three hours. I would love to be able to fly to Europe, spend the day, and then go back to Toronto on the same day I left. But for now all I can do is dream about it.
Actually, I wish I could do some dreaming when I fly because it would make the wait more bearable. Unfortunately, I can almost never fall asleep on an airplane. Of course, no matter how long you have to wait, chances are that you will reach your destination safely, because inasmuch as I hate flying, the fact is that, in the words of Superman, "statistically speaking, it is still the safest way to travel." When you finally do land, you will likely spend at least another few minutes waiting to get off, and a few more minutes actually getting off. And again, if you're in one of those poorly-designed airports, you may be packed like a sardine onto a bus again to take you to the terminal. You may also be taking another long walk to customs where, depending on the airport's efficiency, you may be waiting a fair amount of time. Pearson Airport was once notorious for its poor management of customs. I came off a flight last year to find myself in a huge lineup at customs. The big problem at that time was that there weren't even separate lines for Canadian citizens and non-Canadians, so everyone stood and waited in the same line. And God help you if a visitor or new immigrant had a problem with their documents, because then you were in for a big time delay. Fortunately, Pearson now does have a separate line for Canadian citizens, equipped with self-serve machines that scan your passport and let you go in less than a minute. Unfortunately, they're still making us fill out those damned annoying customs cards when we come back to Canada. I once got some verbal abuse from an Air Canada flight attendant for not having a pen to fill it out. For some reason, whenever I go to Israel, where security is the number one priority, I don't have to fill out any stupid customs card, so I wonder, if one of the most security-savvy countries in the world doesn't need people to fill out these kinds of cards, why does Canada, or any other country for that matter? I would also add that in Israel's main international airport, they've had separate lines for Israeli citizens and non-Israelis for a long time while folks coming home to Canada were still standing in the same line with visitors and new immigrants.
Your journey through the trials and tribulations of air travel ends with collecting your luggage, and for those of you who have had the misfortune of having your luggage lost by the airlines, I don't have to tell you how aggravating it can be. My father once waited about a month for a suitcase to be returned to him after the airline misplaced it. And of course, losing your luggage isn't the only big mishap an air traveller can go through. I haven't even mentioned the other big headaches, like getting bumped from a flight or your flight being cancelled. I haven't mentioned these things because I wanted to demonstrate to those of you who are reading this the fact that even if your air travel experience goes smoothly, without you losing your luggage, getting bumped from your flight, or having some other major problem occur, flying and all the things that go with it can still drive a person nuts, which is why I hate it. Unfortunately, unless we end up being able to beam ourselves from place to place, like on Star Trek, or some other revolutionary invention comes along, we will likely have to spend more time putting up with air travel if we want to get to far off places.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Jewish in the Diaspora, But Not in the State of Israel. It's Time for Religious Equality
Last week, I read an article about swastikas scrawled on a Conservative synagogue in Israel (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4519275,00.html). Many people's first instinct would be to blame this heinous act of vandalism on Israel-haters and antisemites. But they would be wrong. As the article implies, the culprits were likely fellow Jews who don't approve of the way the folks who attend this particular synagogue practice Judaism. It wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened in Israel, for inasmuch as Israel depends on the moral, financial and political support of fellow Jews in the Diaspora for its existence, many Israelis refuse to tolerate the way most Diaspora Jews practice the Jewish religion.
Israel has never made a legal distinction between different streams of Judaism and for most of the country's history, Israeli Jews have all been considered Orthodox by default. But in the latter part of the state's 66 years of existence, alternative forms of Judaism, such as the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements have made inroads into the country and there has been a growing demand, both by adherents of non-Orthodox congregations in the Diaspora, as well as the growing number of Israelis associating with non-Orthodox movements, for an end to the Orthodox monopoly on religious affairs in Israel. The fact that Israel neither respects nor recognizes the way most Jews in the Diaspora practice their religion hits a raw nerve with some. I can remember how upset my grandmother used to get when she talked about how the Reform Judaism practiced in the synagogue to which she belonged was not considered to be Judaism in Israel. I myself am not a member of a synagogue, but I still resent the fact that while Israeli leaders always travel around the world telling Jews in Diaspora communities how grateful Israel is for their support, they are still unwilling to recognize the way most of these Jews practice Judaism. And although non-Orthodox Jews who immigrate to Israel are generally recognized as Jews, heaven forbid if they try to get married by a non-Orthodox rabbi, because their marriage will not be recognized by the state. Oh, and for those of you who converted to Judaism under the auspices of a non-orthodox rabbi; sorry, but the State of Israel says you're still not Jewish, so you'll have to go through the entire conversion process all over again under the supervision of the country's Orthodox monopoly. Pathetic, isn't it? It's also just plain unfair.
So how should Diaspora Jews respond to the fact that the nation-state of the Jewish people refuses to recognize their ways of practicing Judaism? Should they withhold support for Israel until the country agrees to treat their alternative forms of Judaism equally and fairly? If we were any other people, my answer would be yes. But we're not any other people. We're the Jewish people and Israel is our best and only chance of preventing another Holocaust, so abandoning our support for it is not an option. Okay then, what other options are there? At this point not many, I'm afraid. The only piece of advice that I can give is to keep reminding Israel's leaders that since Diaspora Jews give them so much, the least they could do is give the millions of non-Orthodox Jews around the world religious equality in the Jewish homeland.
Israel has never made a legal distinction between different streams of Judaism and for most of the country's history, Israeli Jews have all been considered Orthodox by default. But in the latter part of the state's 66 years of existence, alternative forms of Judaism, such as the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements have made inroads into the country and there has been a growing demand, both by adherents of non-Orthodox congregations in the Diaspora, as well as the growing number of Israelis associating with non-Orthodox movements, for an end to the Orthodox monopoly on religious affairs in Israel. The fact that Israel neither respects nor recognizes the way most Jews in the Diaspora practice their religion hits a raw nerve with some. I can remember how upset my grandmother used to get when she talked about how the Reform Judaism practiced in the synagogue to which she belonged was not considered to be Judaism in Israel. I myself am not a member of a synagogue, but I still resent the fact that while Israeli leaders always travel around the world telling Jews in Diaspora communities how grateful Israel is for their support, they are still unwilling to recognize the way most of these Jews practice Judaism. And although non-Orthodox Jews who immigrate to Israel are generally recognized as Jews, heaven forbid if they try to get married by a non-Orthodox rabbi, because their marriage will not be recognized by the state. Oh, and for those of you who converted to Judaism under the auspices of a non-orthodox rabbi; sorry, but the State of Israel says you're still not Jewish, so you'll have to go through the entire conversion process all over again under the supervision of the country's Orthodox monopoly. Pathetic, isn't it? It's also just plain unfair.
So how should Diaspora Jews respond to the fact that the nation-state of the Jewish people refuses to recognize their ways of practicing Judaism? Should they withhold support for Israel until the country agrees to treat their alternative forms of Judaism equally and fairly? If we were any other people, my answer would be yes. But we're not any other people. We're the Jewish people and Israel is our best and only chance of preventing another Holocaust, so abandoning our support for it is not an option. Okay then, what other options are there? At this point not many, I'm afraid. The only piece of advice that I can give is to keep reminding Israel's leaders that since Diaspora Jews give them so much, the least they could do is give the millions of non-Orthodox Jews around the world religious equality in the Jewish homeland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)