Over the last couple of days I've been in a "discussion" about the Conservatives attacking Justin Trudeau for a comment he made regarding the deeply serious situation in the Ukraine. The discussion group has a policy of no "opposition bashing", because it is a group dedicated to finding ways to unseat Stephen Harper. That's why I was there, in fact - because to me Stephen Harper is the most frightening PM we have had in many years - he is a dictator. I've lived under a dictator once before in my lifetime.

I commented on that "discussion" that I thought Justin showed a lack of judgment in his remark. So, before we go further, here's the remark in its entirety:

"President Yanukovych has been made illegitimate. It's very worrying, especially because Russia lost in hockey, they'll be in a bad mood. We fear Russia's involvement in Ukraine," Trudeau said.

"Just because of hockey?" asked Guy Lepage, the show's host.

"No. That's trying to bring a light view in a situation that's extremely serious," Trudeau said.

Now, in the context of talking about a devastating situation in which many people were killed, he joked about the Russians being in a bad mood after the hockey, and then comments that he is trying to bring a light view in a serious situation. My opinion? He showed a distinct lack of judgment in that remark - an opinion held by some of his fellow Liberals - and *of course* the Conservatives are going to jump on that - he handed it to them on a platter. Someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of the country needs to demonstrate a bit more wisdom and judgment, in my opinion.

So here's the thing which makes me smile - I was told that suggesting Trudeau made a stupid remark - and I believe it was - was "opposition bashing". Hmmm - seems to me that as soon as we are expected to be un-critical of the opposition, we're being told we have to think alike - a kind of "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality. IF we are "rallying to unseat Harper" then we also have to able to say that we think the opposition may have made an error. Well, I've left that discussion, because clearly it wasn't a discussion, it was an expectation that we will all see everything the same way.

So here's my question: what's the difference between an honest exchange of opinions, and "bashing"?

Caring for Each Other

This week I had to go back to Toronto for some dental surgery. It was literally a flying visit: in Tuesday, surgery Wednesday, checkup Thursday, dinner with the family Friday and back to Corner Brook Saturday.

As I was going through the security line in Deer Lake last Tuesday, there was a woman ahead of me who was blind. She was travelling with a companion - a sister - and they could not both go through the security scan at the same time. The security staff very clearly asked her name, and spoke to her directly. He asked her politely if she would mind moving three inches to the right, so that she would be positioned right in front. Then, again using her name, he asked her to walk directly forward and assured her that his hand was outstretched so that he could guide her through. When he guided her to the other side, he then asked her to move two feet to the left where there was a chair for her to sit on while she waited for her sister. It was a moment of unbelievable grace - pure simple kindness and politeness. I almost had tears in my eyes watching, and commented to him after how beautiful it was. He responded "We have to do what we can for people who go through here, and it isn't hard to do it."

How I wish that had been the only security staff I saw. Leaving Toronto was a different experience altogether. One staff made a point in the line - even before we got into the room with the scanners - of pulling out people of other nationalities, particularly people of colour - so that he could run the little paddle over their hands, check their belt buckles and their shoes. The young black man in front of me had actually *passed by*, when he was called back to be checked. He asked why. He was told it's a random thing, and they were checking for chemical residues on him. He asked why it was only people of colour being checked. He was told they had the right to pull out anyone they wanted. He responded that it still would only be random if people of *every* colour were checked.

He was right. If they are going to check some, then really all should be checked. As I watched, it was clearly a useless exercise and he was clearly targeted because he was black, and for no other reason.

I have to hold up with optimism that moment of extraordinary kindness and grace at the beginning - because that is the way people *should* be treated - even if checking is necessary. It can be done with politeness and kindness, and a simple explanation.

I know that there are lots of clergy out there whose parishioners will ask why does the minister have to go to Conference, and take more "time off", when they already get so much "time off".

So this little blog is to lay it out for anyone who might not understand - that means clergy don't need to read this, 'cause I know you do understand...

Our national office of the United Church of Canada is the body which sets the terms of employment. There are certain standards below which a congregation may NOT go. They are: salary, vacation, study leave, housing allowances, and funding for study leave. Every minister, whether full or part-time, is entitled to "at least one month vacation" and this generally includes five Sundays. Note it says "at least" one month, not "at most". Study leave is three weeks including Sundays - whether you are full-time or part-time. Housing and study allowances are pro-rated, depending on full or part time. Every minister is entitled to a minimum of three-month sabbatical, following five consecutive years in any pastoral charge.

I have to repeat - these are terms of employment set by the national office. These terms cannot be changed either by the minister, or the congregation, or even the Presbytery, without a full needs assessment process leading to a change in the terms of call, and the permission of the District or Presbytery to do so. If a congregation should attempt to change the terms of call or appointment, they are legally liable for violations of employment and contract law.

Some congregations also give extra vacation following the Christmas and Easter weeks, recognising that the minister often puts in closer to 60 or 70 hours, rather than the 40.

Full-time is considered 40 hours per week. Many congregations don't realise that if the minister puts in a 60 hour week, he or she is entitled to take that time somewhere else. If the minister's day off falls on a statutory holiday, the minister is entitled to another day in lieu.

Many congregations don't realise that professional development (aka study leave) is a part of the work. If one is away on a professional development course, that person is NOT on vacation or taking time "off". He or she is still working, - working at improving themselves. That's why it's called "Professional Development".

I recognise that a lot of congregations don't like it. I recognise it from their laments about how ministers just aren't the way they used to be, and don't work any more. They don't recognise that the United Church of Canada still has the highest number of ministers on stress and burnout leave. They don't SEE what the minister is doing, other than Sunday morning.

And above all else, they don't recognise that this is their own grief speaking - grief about the end of one way of being, and the necessity to think about another way of being. And it's easier to aim at the minister than acknowledge one's own fear and grief.....most of us ministers know that. But we also know that you out there really and honestly don't understand what our work and calling is about.

I just throw this out there...because it's something which comes up in every congregation all the time.

Management Mistakes

A couple of weeks ago, postal workers in Canada went on strike. They do have some concerns, which need addressing, but as with everything I find myself looking at many sides of the issue.

There was a time when there were no unions. I can almost remember far enough back to a time when there were very few. They were needed, because without them, management had free rein to treat employees any way they wanted - and employees either had to work with it, or give up a much-needed job and perhaps end up taking welfare.

There are still people in our country who need a union. Right off the bat I can think of several - people in lower-paying service industry jobs who can barely hold body and soul together. Some of them go to work and live on the streets, because they cannot afford anything else. There are people who do have unions but still are at the bottom of the scale - hotel workers leap to mind. In my denomination, The United Church of Canada, administrative support staff need a union. (No, not the ministers - the admin support. The ministers are a whole other discussion.)

But then we have other unions - groups like the auto workers, postal workers, transit commissions. Many of them are represented by the Canadian Auto Workers Union, or Canadian Union of Public Employees. They enjoy good job security, good pay, good medical care, and good retirement benefits. So far.

About twenty years ago, York University professors were advised by their union reps to strike for higher pay and better benefits. Note, that these are already people who have a *permanent* position. They cannot be terminated until they retire, except for gross misconduct. They enjoy excellent salaries, and excellent benefits. The end result of that strike - over two months - was that the union settled for barely more than its original contract. Those who did not walk the picket lines received no income at all. Some professors actually lost their homes trying to stay afloat, and had to start all over again. My husband and I - with four children - estimated we lost over ten thousand dollars during that strike. What saved us was that I worked, and had a full-time income. The second time the faculty went on strike, my husband not only refused to stop teaching, he went all the way to the university senate to insist on his right to continue teaching *on* the campus. He won his case, and continued to teach, at York on campus. He felt that the strike was a mistake (it was) and that those who disagreed with the union should not be penalised. He argued that his contract stated precisely what his agreement for teaching was, and he had every right to meet the terms of that contract. He remains the only professor who has done that.

Just a few short years ago, teaching assistants and contractually-limited teachers at York University went on strike. They wanted better pay, and permanent contracts. In other words, they wanted tenure as teachers, prior to receiving a degree, and without going through the requirements for tenure. To give a teaching assistant a permanent position is guaranteeing them a job after they graduate. It can't be done, and shouldn't. The same for contractually limited employment. What was particularly odious about the strike was that TAs and CLTs already receive exactly the same benefits that the tenured professors do. The only thing they do *not* receive is a permanent position. Not only that, at York University they are the highest-paid teaching assistants and contractual teachers in the country.

Now we have a postal workers strike, and at the beginning I was not a supporter. In fairness, they were negotiating in good faith, and rotating strikes across the country ensured that the mail continued to move. Then Canada Post management decided to lock them out altogether. No good faith on *their* side of the table. So I now find myself supporting the postal workers, if only because I don't think management has made the right decision, and is working in bad faith.

Ticket and booking agents at Air Canada went on strike this week. Their issue - pensions and salaries. On the one hand, I know they really don't get paid well. Even the pilots don't really receive a decent wage for the work they do. Management, in my opinion, gets paid far more than they are worth and get paid for making bad decisions. Our airline can barely limp along, but because it is almost the only airline in the country, it is able to charge outrageous fares and get them, pay huge salaries to management, and chisel the front-line workers.

OK so this is a rant and there are all kinds of issues here. The economy is rapidly changing, and the real truth is that most people will never be able to command the salaries or benefits which are being commanded now. Bargaining for better and more security isn't going to work so much any more. Yet we see management taking a larger and larger share for itself, telling its workers they need to cut back, tighten up - and NOT doing it themselves. We see our politicians and leaders padding their own bank accounts, and willing to stomp on unions.

I don't know what the answer is.....I am not a great fan of unions, and I think they throw their weight around too often, too much, and are getting greedy. At the same time I see the managers treating them with disdain, and I see lots of attempts at union-busting too.

I guess I come down squarely in the middle - or squarely all over the place. Unions are necessary to some extent, but when they start holding ordinary people hostage in an attempt to gain all they possibly can, their time has passed. Some changes are needed. I am not advocating the end of unions - but today's economic factors are far different than they were even twenty years ago. *Everyone* needs to start looking at things differently.

Collaborative, collegial, or Lone Ranger....

When I was in Scarborough Presbytery, before the change of structure in Toronto Conference (well, even after), there was a lot of discussion about why - all year round, every church wanted a "perfect pastor" who did everything well; why were we all beavering away in our little silos, all of us doing exactly the same thing week in and week out.

There was a small group of us - interestingly pretty much only women clergy - who came together to share services and collaborate on activities. For a while it worked. Then, once again, every congregation wanted to do its own thing, have its own activities - and little by little my clergy colleagues got "too busy" to collaborate. I do have to say that, compared to the guys, it was close to a dream come true. Not quite, but close.

Now, I am in a new conference with new colleagues. - and although there has been a lot of talk about collaborating, it's rapidly vanishing into the mists of "what might have been" because one of us is "too busy with the congregation."

There are five United Churches here, two of which are not really able to continue to function. Yet none of the five can afford to function independently of the others; we need each other, in more ways than some may wish to admit. My own congregation wants to collaborate, wants to do more things together - so do a couple of the others, but it isn't going to happen, at least not in the near future.

There are too many Lone Rangers in ministry - too many who need to be in charge, who need to set the pace, and others have to come along behind. Recently a colleague said to me "Well, I'm too busy now for that date, so it will have to be this date. It would have been nice to have you there, but if not, that's all we can do."

Lesson learned. I will continue to work for collaboration and true collegiality, but I am not sure I'm going to hold out much hope. We just don't do that well - at least not yet.

So this is how democracy dies......

This week, in the news, came the revelation that the Government of Canada is now to be called the "Harper Government" in official documents. This is appalling, frankly, although not at all surprising from this particular government. While countries in the Middle East and northern Africa are pushing for more and more open democracy, even willing to risk their lives for it, the Prime Minister of Canada quietly and dishonestly chips away at our democratic system, setting himself up as a dictator. He has no respect for the electoral process, or the people of this country who might NOT have voted for him - like me. Despite the fact that he is elected to serve ALL the people of this country, he treats everyone with disdain and is convinced of his own rightness in everything. He exalts himself, even over the Governor General, who represents the Queen in this country. There is a word for this - it's called megalomania.

As an ordained minister, I can usually find a couple of Scripture passages which will fit just about any occasion. The Book of Daniel says "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god........"; and from Matthew 23: "The greatest among you will be a servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." This is pretty clear, in my mind. Raise yourself above others, and eventually you will be brought down.

What I can't get my head around is how Canadians are sitting quietly by and allowed this gradual erosion of our democratic system. We should be screaming from the rooftops, demanding that "The Harper Government" listen to the people. But democracy no longer exists in Canada. It has been replaced by an extreme and dangerous right-wing ideology which punishes those who speak the truth, and rewards those who keep their mouth shut and do what they are told. The "Harper Government" had as its platform transparency and openness in government. Instead we get secrecy and behind-the-scenes manipulation, and by and large we sit here and let it happen.

I used to be proud of being Canadian, and proud of our status in the world as peaceful and neutral. I can't do that any more.

There is a scene in Star Wars, where Senator Palpatine has become Chancellor, and his true colours finally begin to emerge as he consolidates more and more power to himself. Padme comments "So this is how democracy dies. To the roar of approval....."