My admiration for Governor General Michaelle Jean has risen exponentially ever since I saw the video of her crouching over the body of a freshly killed seal, helping to eviscerate it, and then eating a piece of its raw heart (Warning: the video is graphic!) There was no squeamishness or hesitation there. She was impressive.
And so the debate began. Animal rights activists and seal hunt opponents strongly denounced our Governor General. A PETA spokesperson called it a "sick PR stunt", "a predictable, if revolting, attempt to save a dying industry." The fact that the European Union ban on commercial sealing products is unrelated to the rights of indigenous persons to hunt seals for their own domestic use seems to have been lost on the critics. There was nothing in the Governor General's act of respect for Inuit culture which could be taken as a statement of support for commercial sealing.
Supporters thought the Governor General was "marvellous" and "professional". She was showing class and courtesy by respecting the Inuit people of Rankin Inlet by participating with them in a celebration of their culture and traditions.
So where do I stand? First, I am the last person to criticize our Governor General for eating raw seal heart. I will eat anything. For example, in Peru I ate a whole long haired Peruvian guinea pig, despite the fact that back in Canada I used to have one for a pet. (Its name was Papua). I eat sushi, liver, brains, kidneys, heart, intestines... you cook or prepare it, I will eat it. I have never eaten raw seal heart (I don't think), but if it ever hits the sushi counters, I probably will.
Second, I find the negative reaction to the Governor General's act ethnocentric and hypocritical. How many times have Canadians read, with mouths watering, about fancy state dinners where delicacies such as B.C. salmon, Nova Scotia lobster, Alberta beef, Saskatchewan bison or venison, or Brome Lake duck were on the menu? There is no outcry, just jealousy. Does one think that these animals cheerfully volunteered to jump into ovens or boiling pots of water so that they could participate in the dinner? What is it about raw seal eaten in its traditional way by the people of the North which made this individual display by our Governor General so revolting to some? And where is their respect for multiculturalism, diversity, and the promotion and maintenance of indigenous cultures and traditions, which I assume they support?
Third, despite my diet, I do love animals and abhor acts of animal cruelty. To the extent that the animals which I have eaten have been subjected to inhumane conditions or treatment prior to them becoming part of my meal, I acknowledge my indirect, and therefore wrong, participation in those acts. The ethical treatment of animals is important, whether or not you are a vegetarian.
Good on you, Governor General!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteThe last two posts are interesting in contradistinction. A recognition of the strength of diversity in the GG post, a questioning of its value in the SCOTUS post.
I am not man of the law as are you, nor am I an intellectual. I am a humble, if successful, man of businesships, and occasionally, of politics. I can categorically state that in business, one needs to constantly break down rigid thoughts and see new perspectives. I hire from different backgrounds on purpose, to make the group, the company, stronger. I always hire the best person, of course. They must be highly qualified. But if they have a perspective - be they gay, over 65, from a different culture, whatever - they will add significantly to my decisions. I need not make the argument in politics as it is clear that a diversity of backgrounds means better representation and better governance.
So I ask you, humbly, this: as a human endeavour, made by mean and women who occasionally have feet of clay, can the interpretation of the law benefit from a diversity of experience?
Sincerely,
Peter N. Okoye
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you're not supporting the PETA boycott of maple syrup, which is intended to publicize the seal hunt?
Ron
Ron,
ReplyDeleteI heard about the boycott of maple syrup. I assumed it was meant as a punitive measure against Canadians to retaliate against us for our GG's actions.
Inane, no?
Lew
Yes Peter. Diversity on the bench is good. I think I stated this in my posting. The only potentially problematic statement made by Judge Satomayor was that Latino women would make wiser decisions than Latino men. But even this I find to be a bogus criticism, if you look at the context of the talk. She will be confirmed; as she should be.
ReplyDeleteLewis, I'll wager you she won't be.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/republicans-sot.html
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/GOP-Family-Feud-on-Sotomayor-Heats-Up.html?corder=reverse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/opinion/30blow.html?_r=1
Looks like Lewis won the wager, Fakirs.
ReplyDeleteBack to the post - I agree. GG was a guest and graciously accepted the hospitality offered by the host. I can't explain the hub-bub either but am fully supportive of her actions. Perhaps people wanted her to somehow 'pardon' the seal like the POTUS does on an annual basis?