I hope you had the opportunity to listen to the Agree or Disagree: The Podcast interviewing Terry Lo and I had with Kelly Hofer. He describes himself as the Gay Hutterite Activist. You can hear the conversation here.
When I was thinking about this interview, I did some thinking on a few things. One if the things was the issue of homelessness.In the above CBC article, it is estimated that 25-40% of youth homeless identify themselves as LGBT. I posted a question on this topic on Facebook yesterday. We had a good discussion about it.
The other thing I was thinking about was an article from Rolling Stone.it discusses the rise in the amount LGBT teens being homeless because they were disconnected from a religious family. You can read that below.
There is a lot of information here, but it leads to the question. Do we need more exclusive LGBT exclusive homeless shelters? Do we have the resources to provide the specific needs around this? Or, are homeless shelters currently able to provide this now?
When it comes to partner’s exes, this can be a complex issue. Some relationships have a deeper and longer history than others. But, more and more, this is an issue that has to be contended with. As well as tough to handle. Which can lead to more complications.
I’m sure some of you will have some experiences to share about this. Is there a healthy way to deal with your partner’ sexes?
The above petition is addressed to Mayor Naheed Nenshi of Calgary.
It states this.
“We ask for legislation to be passed making it illegal to post or display graphic or disturbing images or messages within view of motorists on city roadways.”
The petition is started by Nicole Brass.They need 3,133 signatures and are a little over half way there! As of this writing,there was 1,867 signatures.
At the crutch of this issue appears to be the images displayed by the Canadian Centre for Bio Ethic Reform. Over Crowchild Trail SW, there is an image titled “Abortion Kills Children” and a picture of an aborted fetus. I’m sure you can respect the decision not to post it.
While I understand and respect the decision to bring this forward, I think there are some holes here. The biggest hole being who sets the standard on what is a graphic or disturbing image? What someone sees as graphic and disturbing might not be for someone else. I can, and to be fair, clearly the petition does too, think of other images that would be disturbing. It’s just who sets the standard,
The other part of this is “within view of motorists on city roadways”. There has been some concern that the CCBR signs are causing accidents. I haven’t seen an official report on this. If you have, feel free to share it.
But the question is would you sign the petition. If you have signed it, why did you?
If the title of this video from CTV News bothered you, you are not the only one.
Many of you were.
This was not the title of a blockbuster movie with a Hollywood star coming to save the day and kiss the love interest at the end. This was a real live incident involving the loss of loved ones whose spouses will never feel their embrace again.
Yet, if you watched CTV News, this was the title they went with.
Now, it is not just CTV News that should feel some brunt here. The news coverage on this also included the following.
Videos of the actual shooting of one RCMP officer. These were shared and re shared on Social Media.
The use of the hashtag #monctonshooting
Rumours and conjecture of the actual suspect Justin Bourque.
When I say news coverage, I’m going to include the Social Media presence on this. After all, many of you followed the coverage on Social Media. So, there is responsibility there too.
For the most part, and I know some of you won’t like to give them credit, but CBC news handled this the best. They attempted to stick to the facts, and tell the story.
However, it doesn’t dismiss the feeling many have. That the incident in Moncton was sensationalized.
Yesterday on my Facebook and Twitter, I asked for some feedback. I asked about some of the topics people felt should be discussed after the incident last week in Moncton. This is the first of a few we will discuss. This one has come up in a few threads.
This picture above is Justin Bourque.
He is of course, the suspect behind the tragic shootings last week in Moncton that killed 3 RCMP officers and wounded 2 more.
Now, some of you, as a matter of fact, I might go so far as it say many of you do not think we should be using the suspects name. Some of you think that using his name will give him more power and attention that he doesn’t need.
It also for some ignoring the actual victims of the incidents.
There are other of you that think we should identify the suspect. We should name them, and give a face to the person suspected of being responsible. That it’s not giving any glory, but stating a fact.
It gives a face to the person who is suspected of attacking the victims.
It’s certainly gives an interesting dynamic to the conversation. Whether or not we should be using the suspects name. And if that gives an impact to the story and where we turn our focus too.
What do you think? Should we use the suspects name? Or, not?
In the midst of our eyes and hearts impacted by what is going on in Moncton, this story might have fallen under the radar.
It is also a reminder that June 6 is the anniversary of D-Day the Allied invasion A turning point in World War 2.
Time and time again, we say we honour our war veterans for the freedoms we enjoy. We say that we are grateful for the sacrifices they have made for us. Every November 11 in Canada, we take a moment of silence for them.
And yet, it takes this long for us to take the steps to support the veterans in need? We still have veterans who need to go to a food bank!
The above link is a story from CTV News. A House of Commons Committee has unanimously decided to go forward with this. However, if you listen, there is a concern that there are actually getting less than they were before.
Currently, disabled veterans receive 75 % of their gross income. Under the new policy, they will get 85 % of their net. It actually adds up to less for the veterans,
So, two questions.
The first one is does this policy help seriously disabled veterans?
The second one. Why is it tough for us to support our veterans?