This makes me happy (and also sad): BC postal workers walked off the job to protest what they described as anti-gay pamphlets they were expected to deliver. Since I can’t shake the hands of these folks who risked “disciplinary action” to show their displeasure with churchly homophobic rhetoric, thought I’d post it here.
Plus: How summer camps get Native culture wrong. Also: Kate Bornstein, how to build a bonfire, get inventive.
Save time and money. Get Shameless delivered straight to your door.
Sign up for e-mails about big Shameless news and events. We won’t give out or sell your address to anyone.
Shameless is an independent magazine with a very small budget. In addition to purchasing a subscription or back issues, you can support us through donations.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
seven comments
The courage of these workers warms my heart. Thank you.
Posted by Hannah
October 26, 2006, 4:43 PM
I support the motives of the postal workers, but not necessarily their actions. Why? Try replacing "BC" with "rural Kansas," and "anti-gay" with "pro-gay."
If the pamphlets are hate speech, they are hate speech and should be ruled as such. But while I believe the postal workers are in the right, they are federal workers and have an obligation to uphold freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's the same thinking behind the ACLU defending KKK members in certain cases (insert suitable oft-used Voltaire quote here).
Posted by Wesley
October 26, 2006, 5:15 PM
Hmm, that's a good point. I was incredibly moved when I read about how Salman Rushdie wrote to the British government to insist they *not* ban a propaganda film slandering his name (depicting him as a lecherous drunkard etc, and ending with his beheading) because he didn't want *any* kind of censorship to happen in his name. So the movie played, to empty theatres.
Augh... I have more to say, but it will have to wait until it's not 3 AM.
Posted by Anna
October 27, 2006, 2:21 AM
At the same time, no matter where you work, you shouldn't be subjected to an offensive/oppressive/damaging work environment or, in this case, homophobic material. Freedom of speech is important, but I think there is somethig really admirable about resisting dominant and harmful discourse in a show of solidarity such as walking off the job. Arguing that postal workers should just swallow their dissent and do their jobs doesn't take into account what ideas and messages circulate and in whose interests, nor workers' agency. There is power in the ability to print and mail messages (and usually lots of money involved), and postal workers demonstrated their agency by refusing to deliver them. In the case of the film about Rushdie, he is an influential person who was able to speak out and, while he showed support for the film's right to be shown, managed to convince people not to see it, and it played to empty theatres.
Posted by Nicole
October 27, 2006, 8:23 AM
I was JUST reading about worker's agency (and the responsibility to decide whether or not to take orders that might come with it) yesterday!
Check this out:
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/beam102...
Roderick T. Beaman asks exactly where along higher-ups and lower-downs we should draw the line between prosecution for crimes/sins-against-people that they should've known better than doing and letting them get away with the statement, "Orders are orders."
He challenged us to come up with reasons that we set this line somewhere in the middle.
Sounds like you're implying, Nicole, that you'd set it all the way at the bottom, below all employees, so anyone taking orders has a moral responsibility to consider not following them.
Posted by Katie
October 27, 2006, 8:50 AM
okay, here is what I was going to say last night - Although maybe my citizen's brain agrees that federal workers should uphold the right of any damn yahoo to say and print what they please, this story still made my fighter's heart want to cheer. Hooray.
Posted by Anna
October 27, 2006, 10:53 AM
I agree with Nicole that we shouldn't promote free speech across the board, without thinking about the message itself, which plays an enormous role in the debate. I know that opens up the whole "isn't it subjective what people should and shouldn't say" hoopla, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "no!" I think people should be able to express whatever ideas they want - but they need to express those ideas in a manner that is not hateful, hurtful or dehumanising. In the article Anna links to, it doesn't sound like the pamphlet was worded in a kind way. In the same way, if someone wanted to distribute a pamphlet that said, "All people who hate gays should be institutionalised so that we can cleanse them of their hatefulness" - while you could describe that as a "pro-gay" message, I would not be against postal workers who refused to distribute that.
Posted by Thea
October 27, 2006, 11:33 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.