(In)Securing Canada

General Rick Hillier is Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. This is not a household name or a familiar title to most Canadians. Years of watching American news coverage and "The West Wing" have made us more familiar with American counterparts, and certainly American language since 9/11 has served to mark a difference between our two nations. General Hillier's recent remarks about JTF2 forces being deployed to Afghanistan have changed that.

With heavy reference to terrorists detesting us, detesting our freedom, and to hunting down "detestable murderers and scumbags" with Canadian forces whose job is "to be able to kill", General Hillier has ensured that Canada joins the States in its misguided and dangerous characterization of the enemy. In his choice of rhetoric, he has increased the risk of terror attacks on Canada. There is a bull out there and General Hillier has waved a red flag in front of it. His timing is additionally curious, given the ground swell of opinion that the war on Iraq, in particular, has increased rather than decreased risk.

The lessons of millennia of man-kind waging war are so starkly obvious that it boggles the mind that powerful leaders such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair still operate under the assumption that bigger and better weaponry can defeat the "bad guy". Now General Hillier has demonstrated that he, too, operates under this illusion.

This is where emotional intelligence and military intelligence bump up against each other with a resounding crack. The wisdom of the former and the lessons of the latter have not been synthesized for a smart response to the trauma of being attacked.

In adhering to the view that enough aggression can overcome the other, a fundamental principle of how people operate is missed. This principle is evident in the earliest stages of development when a youngster "disciplined" with violence becomes the bully in the schoolyard. It is evident in road rage incidents where one act of harassment incites the other side to retaliate. It is evident in relationships where verbal assaults elicit an equal attack in response - out of defence. The key word is defence: a word one could wish General Hillier, as Chief of Defence, would have a deeper psychological understanding of.

Under threat, it is human nature to marshal every resource to defend. This instinct is hardwired into our reptilian brain. What we need to understand is that terrorists are also attacking out of defence just as the West is responding out of defence. The really wise and really brave thing to do is to recognize that response in ourselves and understand how it perpetuates violence. Just because it arises doesn't mean we have to act on it.

Bush, Blair, Hillier et al would have us believe that there is a clear and definable line between good and bad, right and wrong. It is a comforting thought and one out of which it follows that good can overcome bad - with military might. It is actually far scarier to think that there could be good in bad people and bad in good people, or more broadly, to consider an individual human instinct such as that of defence, as applicable to those who perpetrate acts of inhumanity. It is especially challenging when the "bad" appear to be so irredeemable as terrorists. Out of defence? The terrorists? Didn't they start it?

The prevailing picture painted is one of Muslim men sitting around saying: "Don't you just detest Western freedom? Let's really show them by bombing them - and while we're at it, ourselves. We'll make it a suicide mission". That begs a few questions about what is going on in people - for people - when they are prepared to kill themselves for a cause. Doesn't it suggest a level of desperation beyond what is captured by the oft-repeated phrase "they hate freedom"? If we apply what we know about human nature and our psychological make-up, we can hypothesize about the nature of this desperation.

Psychology works in a manner similar to forensics: there are clues and symptoms which set us on a path; followed backwards, the path sheds light on the scene - the scene of the crime or the formation of the event. These clues don't always show the specifics, as in: this particular hammer with the red handle. But they will suggest broadly: blunt trauma with a weapon such as a hammer. Unlike the rather simplistic notion that terrorists are motivated by a hatred of freedom, the path here suggests something much more complicated: the existential blight of meaninglessness. This is much more likely to be the foment for terror. Meaninglessness knows no international boundaries. In the West, however, it is buried for a lot of us under a level of affluence that can fund escape. We can keep busy working, working, working, or going to the clubs and renovating our homes and cottages and buying new cars and all the latest technological toys. Meaninglessness is still there; it's just conveniently out of our awareness and not driving our lives. If it pops up, it can be soothed.

The men who become terrorists have none of those outlets to either provide meaning, or to escape its absence. They have poverty, a social history that inures them to violence and a deep sense of being outside the fabric of life. Whether natured or nurtured, they are psychologically vulnerable. The result is both profound despair plus outrage at what is possible for others and yet denied them. Outrage at the West is quite different from a hatred of freedom. The former grows out of personal pain. When at the same time the West abuses its power in acts of aggression both military and economic, the equation grows: poverty + meaninglessness + domination = powerlessness + outrage + defence = aggression, backed by political and religious rationale. Note that the rationale follows the process, it does not initiate it.

The human spirit will rally to a cause in the service of belonging and making meaning. This is the fuel for terrorism. And as long as the combustible components are at play, there will be disenfranchised and deeply disturbed human beings who see solution in the killing of others. This is no t acceptable. No part of it is. This picture - allowing for a view of terrorists as part of the fabric of humanity - is not intended to be unduly sympathetic to the heartless and appalling acts of violence perpetrated by them. It is meant to shed light on the inter-personal and intra-psychic dynamics that underlie those acts in order that we may address them with intelligence, and in so doing, truly protect ourselves.

The lessons of war actually bear out our understanding of human development: violence begets violence. We know that. We also know the maxim that failure to understand history condemns us to repeat it. Why are we not acting on and with this knowledge? Has General Hillier not been exposed to the tenets of peace and conflict studies? Institutes focusing on the science and art of conflict resolution now abound in the world - including Canada. Any introductory level course will make clear that one does not start with the fighting words he chose. His words show that he has made a choice to fight. The Canadian Government has apparently made that choice - despite clear indications from Canadians that we do not want to go to war with Afghanistan or Iraq or any other country. They are sending troops with intent to kill, not intent at peace building, or to assist with democratic elections or to help with the repair of infrastructure required after the USA has ravaged them with war. Hillier has said, in effect: we're coming to get you. He might as well have placed a map of Canada in the bull's eye of their target.

General Hillier's - and the Canadian Government's - objective is certainly to keep Canada secure from terrorist attacks. Much of what General Hillier and his troops are trained in, contributes to Canada's well being. But words of aggression, and acts of aggression - this is a strategy based on an ignorance of great proportion because we actually know better. We may act like barbarians, but we have advanced as a species, have had this opportunity for learning many times before. The wisdom is there. Our security - and that of the world - depends on using it.

April is the Cruelest - And a Sad Spectacle, Too

"April is the cruelest month": for T.S. Eliot, Paul Martin, the Liberal Party and certainly for the Canadian parliamentary system.

Thursday April 21, 2005 held an unusual opportunity to alter the course of the crisis in leadership that burdens Canada. The Prime Minister took a bold step in addressing the Nation - took that step amidst the to-be-expected criticism of all opposition parties. For better or worse he had something to say to Canadians.

Stephen Harper responded immediately with: "We have just witnessed a sad spectacle". This was not his spontaneous and authentic reaction to Martin's actual words. This was his prepared statement, and it showed that he had decided in advance to attack regardless of what was said. He put his spin on Martin's words without having listened to those words. He was not alone, only first and most insulting; Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton also spoke from prepared scripts and that is what speaks volumes: they too had already decided not to listen or give a moment's reflection to the remarks. Ironically they validated the Prime Minister's use of television for his message - something they had vocally admonished - rather than trying to be heard above the din of the House of Commons.

The sponsorship scandal has been about Liberal Party ethics. Okay, let's talk ethics. How ethical is it to have the intent - the premeditated design - to be disdainful without even pretending to hear? There has rightly been intense focus on the corruption that was Adscam, but is it not a corruption of another kind for leaders elected to govern Canada to make it their primary task to obstruct government?

More than the news out of the Gomery enquiry, what was most discouraging that night was Mr. Harper's misuse of the opportunity. His sanctimonious rebuttal was offensive to the office he holds.

The Prime Minister laid out a response to the scandal and a proposal for how to proceed. By all means disagree and argue his points, but do so having heard and reflected on those points. To skip the listening part - how ethical is that Stephen, Gilles, Jack?

And yet honest engagement is not encouraged within our political system. Parties are driven to gain power. It is written into their job description to deliberately paint any action of the other in a negative light. So for example, the opposition leaders call Martin's act desperate, as if that was shameful. Of course he's desperate - and who's holding the stick? If they threaten daily to bring down the Government, the Government will take desperate measures. To criticize Martin for reacting in a logical manner to what they themselves have induced is a denial of their responsibility. While there is a political rationale for this, in relationship it is so fundamentally dishonourable that its rot goes far deeper than the alleged corruption within the Liberal Party. Not one of these so-called leaders is believable because his agenda is so ill disguised. Their behaviour is not so very different from the bully in the schoolyard who must belittle someone so that he can feel superior. In a system that fosters this, how could integrity be a component?

Since the minority government was elected a year ago the opposition has been looking for the opportunity to bring it down. Stephen Harper wants to be Prime minister and as soon as he feels he has a chance, he will force an election. Never mind the work of governing, never mind the cost of another election a mere year later, never mind the wishes of Canadians. His interests are self-serving and not served by collaborating on the tasks of running the country.

The Government is paralyzed and no doubt that is in part because of Mr. Dithers and no doubt many are displeased with Liberal initiatives, or lack thereof. But it is also paralyzed because the opposition parties want it to be. If the Liberal minority government is "teetering on the brink" as Jack Layton said, it is because the other parties would have it so.The minority government was also a missed opportunity to work with the principles of respect and collaboration that are the norm in other areas of our society.

This is the more complex ethical issue with which our leaders must struggle. By comparison, correcting the roots of unethical behaviour that was Adscam is relatively straightforward: it has to do with concrete rules and lines of accountability. Leaders actually understanding and modelling relationship seems a greater impossibility after April 21.

Mr. Harper is harping on corruption. By far the more important 'c' word is collaboration. It is how our parliamentary system ought to work and doesn't. If the system and the leaders within the system were operating out of sound ethical principles, they would demonstrate the intention of listening and the intent to collaborate, and abandon the costly game they're playing at the expense of Canada.

A sad spectacle indeed, Mr. Harper.

Shame On Us, Camilla

How many average looking people are behind the catty remarks about Camilla's looks? Far from reflecting badly on the (now) Duchess of Cornwall, the unrelenting attacks preceding her marriage to Prince Charles show the profound lack of empathy the rest of us are capable of. Strike empathy: perhaps empathy aspires to a level of humanity beyond us; how about simple human decency?

Leaders, public figures of the political and entertainment worlds, and certainly monarchy, lend themselves for public use. It is part of how we operate to ascribe meaning and motive to them and then judge them in this essentially made up context. We don't, of course, have direct access to them so are wanting in our understanding, but that doesn't stop us. Even those who author the words of greatest cruelty probably recognize the sting of their words. What would change - or not - in their behaviour if they were forced to read their columns or broadcasts directly to Camilla before they went public? Facing a real live person, they would surely see someone not unlike themselves in her vulnerability to being wounded by scurrilous remarks, to feeling pain at unfair and unjust attacks. This is empathy: the capacity to vicariously experience another's psychological state; to feel into another person. It is different from sympathy which is a "feeling the same as" state. Most of us don't feel the same as Camilla, but we can imagine how she feels. Or we could aspire to.

Failing to show empathy for Camilla does each of us a great disservice. While we gleefully succumb to the gossip and jokes even to the point of cruelty, we join the lowest common denominator. Would we treat anyone in our own circle with this disdain? If the answer is no, then to breach that ethic, even in relation to a figurehead, is a betrayal of our own "best practices". Being the object of our projection comes with the territory for the public figure. However, what they give us in lending themselves to our process is an opportunity to behave with responsibility in relationship. It is a relationship in that we have impact on the other and are presented with a choice about how to treat them: to find fault, criticize and blame, or to respond with some awareness that there is another human being involved.

I'm not suggesting that we like Camilla or approve of her or accept her as Queen. This has nothing to do with who ascends the throne, how we feel about adultery, Diana or for that matter, fox hunting. Everyone has their own feelings and position on these and many questions that might attach themselves to Camilla. To be empathic isn't an aspiration to sainthood. Go ahead and dislike her. Go ahead and sympathize with Diana. Other and personal feelings aren't in conflict with a little empathy for this beleaguered woman who seems to have carried herself with reasonable integrity while so much of her country and ours, has hurled insults at her.

We are a sorry and shallow lot when we succumb to a fairy tale mentality that sets beauty as a requirement in the judging of a soul mate; when we choose to understand Diana in her six or seven known affairs, but not Camilla and Charles for their one; to sympathize with Diana over the end of her marriage, but not with Charles over his being forced out of royal duty and archaic traditions to marry her in the first place (immature but a virgin, incompatible but beautiful). Do we really wish for him a vacuous marriage to a woman of a younger generation who shares not a wit of his interests and sensibilities, values or lifestyle, but who is beautiful? Is that the measure of our depth? If Prince Charles has found the wherewithal in himself to resist further pressure to live up to antiquated ideas - and perhaps through his experience teach this much-needed lesson to the rest of his monarchist set - why wouldn't we applaud him? Again, the point is not to confuse liking the man personally with understanding something universal in his struggle, a struggle that only be accident of birth is available to public judgement.

Classically speaking, no, Camilla is not a beauty. And on the other hand it can be argued that Diana was too young and too self-absorbed and too troubled to radiate true beauty. There wasn't the wisdom or the humour or inner substance to grow the lines that are perhaps not beauty, per se, but clearly have great appeal to Prince Charles. We don't have to see what he sees, but to refuse to see that he sees denotes a lack in us, not them.

Never Mind Random Acts of Kindness

There is a very short on ramp to the Gardiner Expressway eastbound at the CNE. Any city driver knows the importance of committing to the merger while on the ramp: that is to say that unless you are up to or approaching the prevailing speed on the expressway by the time the merger lane ends, you will be in big trouble. We've all seen the shy perhaps out of town driver who, lacking trust that they would be let in, slowed down in the hopes that those travelling at 90 k would find a way. That tactic having failed, there they are at a dead stop, end of the runway (so to speak), no momentum and of course no space big enough in the traffic to accommodate them going from 0 to 90.

I, however, do know these roads and have decades of experience merging, and there I was the other day committing on the ramp to increasing my speed in order to join in the not-too-busy-post-rush-hour traffic. And I came as close as I'd ever want to knowing the inside of a vice grip: me in the middle between an imposing current model Lincoln on my left and the concrete and steel rails on my right. The Lincoln driver took none of the options open to him to ensure we didn't collide: not adjusting his speed (up or down), not moving into the centre lane. Only my guardian angel and me hitting the brakes at the last moment allowed him to pass with a hair's breadth from my side mirror.

My adrenalin was pumping to flag my fear, and right behind that, my anger. What was he thinking that he would risk his own safety, that of his passenger, as well as the new vehicle of which he was no doubt fond, if not proud? I was outraged because I had no option and he refused to exercise his. There is no greater fuel to anger and rage than powerlessness: he could do something if he chose, he didn't, and I couldn't. It seemed only logical that he would accommodate me or my vehicle in his own interests, never mind the courtesy of road etiquette.

My first assumption in this early reactionary state was that he was one of those aggressive drivers who simply has to be first. He has to dominate the road. From that stance, he would see me and determine not to let me in, making sure I knew who was the alpha dog. This argument also supports other dynamics at play: male vs. female driver, sleek grey status car vs. red quasi-sporty car.

First the fear, then the anger, and then I settled down to the middle lane, steady of vehicular speed and of heart rate. At this point I became aware of another emotion: sadness. It felt a bit cruel that someone would need to do this, to play chicken with me. Why do we do these things? Treat people badly? I hadn't done anything to him, I wasn't driving badly, I'm not a bad person. Why wouldn't he, you, one choose kindness? Why not deliberately give the other vehicle a chance? Would the Lincoln driver have acted the same way if he'd recognized the car as that of his best friend?No, you can be pretty sure he would have adjusted to allow his friend in. Why is his friend, in this setting, any more worthy of that kindness than I am?

These are the roots of road rage, of course: from outrage springs the fantasy of retaliation. Fortunately, my inner process wasn't finished.

My questioning train of thought lead me to assumptions and the fact that his actions may have been predicated on these kind of assumptions: that I was aggressive, that the ramp was longer than it actually was, that it was for me to make this work (for me to adjust my speed down) rather than for him. Now, can you see where this is going? In my outrage I of course wanted this to be about him: he should have anticipated the driving needs of the moment: he's in the power position and therefore he should be the initiator of the act of kindness. But the flaw in my theory shows up under the heading of "assumptions". What did I bring to the situation? I assumed he knew the road and was paying attention, whereas in fact he may have been from out of town, having to attend to many things other than me. For that and other reasons he may not have known this ramp was particularly short; he may have thought I had - or we had - more time and space; he may have been caught by surprise as he was coming parallel to me and just didn't have the reflexes to do something about it.

So I'm left with my own desire to experience kindness coming back on me and requiring me to enact what I believe in. Giving him the benefit of the doubt becomes my act of kindness and yes, I choose to do this. It works for me both literally and philosophically. I feel better because I am released from anger and fear and sadness - all toxic emotions that I don't need to carry around with me all day. I don't have any possibility of resolving this confrontation with him, but it turns out I don't need him in order to release the experience. I can do it all by myself. And even if he did intend the opposite of kindness and was out to get me and take out his hard day on me, I still benefit because I haven't internalized something that doesn't belong to me. So never mind random acts of kindness, how about intentional acts of kindness?

What's Wrong With This Picture? Missing in Action: Moral Courage

Hearings for Private Lynndie England and six others from the Abu Ghraib prison are back in the news and the abuse by American soldiers of Iraqi prisoners is again before us. We are reminded of the acts captured on film that graphically depict the moral and ethical challenge facing the Western world today. As inquiry findings now begin to suggest "leadership failures", the initial White House and Pentagon response to the crisis hasn't altered much and makes clear the failure of moral courage in today's leaders.

The inability to apologize, the spin on American values, the reminder of the "truly corrupt regime" of Saddam Hussein - all these elements point to the dangerous blind spot in the perspectives of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the American Administration. Democracy is still being presented as the sole purveyor of values and God is still on our side.

As more videos show up and the trials of individuals unfold, what is missing from the picture? Answer: the systemic understanding that there are no "bad apples" without a fundamental flaw in the organization, and that half a dozen people can indeed represent the American Government. Others were standing by as apparently silent witnesses; those in immediate command failed to sanction the action of the few; leaders absented themselves from the scene and from the responsibility to know and influence the morality of those who were "serving" duty. The rush of commitment to punish the few caught on film dodges the many questions that are begging attention.

If the values of the armed forces do not sanction this humiliation of prisoners, what accounts for the gap in values that is so evident with these soldiers? Why is it that a soldier stationed back in the States was quoted defending these atrocious acts because "those guys are our enemies"? How many others didn't actually do anything but believe their colleagues' behaviour was justifiable?

For the sake of argument, if indeed these few soldiers do not represent the whole, it is difficult to imagine what is happening in the system that allows them the autonomy to enact something so outside the bounds.

Family and friends of the perpetrators were quick to defend these acts by saying "they were only following orders". What would have to happen to an individual's own morality in order to deliver such inhuman treatment by way of "following orders" - and to do so with a smile?

What the pictures show in stark relief is that good and "evil" (if we must use that word) are not so comfortably distinct as Mr. Bush would have us believe. The lines are blurred - lines that Mr. Bush has devoted his presidency to drawing hard in the sand. Evil if it exists is everywhere. It is in America as much as in Iraq. It is in Canada and the Canadian troops who were also "caught out" a decade ago when a Somali teenager died after being tortured.

If we are to elevate the suffering of the Iraqi victims to a higher purpose, we must be willing to see the true picture: that we are in danger of a most damaging hubris is we believe that we cannot, along with "the other", embody acts of barbarity or a baseness that is outside the realm of basic human dignity. To sit in judgement of the crimes of others without this simultaneous understanding of our own shadow is the basis on which we go to war in the first place. It is also at the root of other abuses of power as well as lesser breaches in ethical behaviour.

The abuse by the individual, the abuse by the corporation, the abuse by government and other systems all involve the same principles. And all are obscured and perpetuated by the pursuit of a simplistic approach to punishing the individual. We can repeat that pattern for eons - and we have. Put Private Lynndie England on trial, assign blame and sanction her and thereby miss the responsibility and culpability of the system within which she operated.

We all live and work in systems where these dynamics are at play. To view them only as relevant to the American Armed Forces is again to draw an artificial line between them and us. If we are to mature morally, it is incumbent on each of us to accept our imperfections even to the point of the "evil" within, tolerate the shame of that, and require more of our institutions, our leaders and ourselves.

'Gleeful' Begs The Question: How do we make room for accountability?

The Canadian Government sponsorship scandal is but one in a long list of failures in corporate governance. The list is growing - one suspects - in direct proportion to unprecedented public outrage. Enron, CIBC, Hollinger, Worldcom, even Martha Stewart: issues of corporate governance are not new. What is, is the entry into public consciousness of previously walled-off information. We are more savvy - more cynical some would say - and more willing to question authority.

Notice the degree to which issues of power and ethics - corporate and political - have entered popular culture. As readers we make Michael Moore a best seller. We pack movie theatres to watch nearly 3 hours of harrowing corporate abuse in The Corporation.

Everyday all forms of media lead with the latest details, or in the absence of details, speculation about wrongdoing. The headlines gleefully announce: LORD BLACK HUMBLED! And we the readers are equally gleeful in our response. We seem to relish the downfall of the powerful. Watch the Opposition during Question Period as they hammer away at the Prime Minister: there too you will see a startling delight on the faces of the Conservatives whenever they feel they've scored a point. (Of course the same pleasure would be evident on Liberal faces if they were the party in Opposition.)

Surely there is something wrong about all this glee. On the one hand we're genuinely distressed by misuse of power, misappropriation of public funds and cover-ups. But how does that square with self-righteous satisfaction? At first glance you'd think we were actually happy that our authority figures are screwing up.

And what do we want? Punishment, banishment, and a casting-out? Get the "bad guys" out of power, out of sight? Replace them with the "good guys"? Well, that presupposes that the lines are that absolute; identify an Alfonso Gagliano, send him off and it will all go away. As a symbol, there is no Denmark far enough away. Good guys with enough power, in a complex world with conflicting demands, can become bad guys; that is: they can and will err.

It is a primitive part of us that wants retaliation, and as an instinct it is utterly understandable. A wrong needs to be redressed, a conflict requires resolution. The question is: what does relatiation beget? Experience would suggest it begets defence, entrenchment and reciprocal retaliation. I suspect that what most of us are longing for is for someone, just once, to have the courage to stand up and say: "I'm sorry. I take responsibility. I will listen and learn and put in place practices that ensure ethical, responsible behaviour in the future." But let's try that on personally. How easy do you find it to withstand your own shame when you mess up? What's your instinct? Mine is to defend. When you tell me how bad or irresponsible I've been - especially when I've been working hard and my intent has been to the good - my first instinct is to provide all the reasons why you're wrong. And I don't think I'm alone in this. We are hard-wired for defence. The stakes are very high when career, reputation and livelihood are threatened. So by setting out to pillory miscreants, we actually reinforce that reptilian need to defend and thereby make impossible the owning of mistakes. And the greater the mistake, of course, the greater the defence.

Our political system supports criticism, not collaboration. Any effort at ownership is used to political advantage by the opposition parties. We long for that simple acknowledgement and yet our system makes it impossible. The Liberal Party itself continues to promise the punishment of those responsible. Heads must role in order to satisfy...who? The Canadian public? Frankly I'm not sure that that is precisely what the Canadian public is demanding. It is what the opposition parties are demanding in order to score political points. But let's not be naive; there but for fortune go the Conservatives, or the NDP, or the Bloc Quebecois. Any party with power has the power to mess up.

When we think of human development we tend to think in terms of individuals. But groups, communities, countries go through developmental processes as well. Those who have studied fields such as history or anthropology know this. If some of our illusions have fallen away, the hidden revealed, it signifies a new stage in our development. To see and observe with increased clarity is a mark of maturity. Acknowledging the body of evidence in front of us that organizations - be they business or government - are in ethical deep waters, is a requirement in our collective developmental process. Examples abound in stark relief. We are paying attention, asking questions and demanding that those in positions of authority act with integrity and honesty, and that they ensure ethical practices. We are demanding accountability and consequences, but there will never be enough rules and punishment to create the environment that fosters the very qualities we want embedded in that environment. Punishment and retaliation may promise to satisfy an instinct, but they will not further the requirement for restoration, nor will they raise our ethical consciousness.

My question is this: How do we begin to influence our collective environment in ways that promote this ethtical accountability rather than an entrenched defensiveness? How do we shift from criticism to collaboration? Do we even want to?