“Amazing how Jian G. has spawned a rebirth of puritanism in Canada,” Fred Langan observed the other day.
Yes, it is. A prolonged kiss on the cheek when respectfully saluting a lady on an innocent occasion has been mischievously misinterpreted. No doubt many of us now refrain from expressing our natural affections for fear of unpleasant accusations.
What is the reason? What is happening? Are suddenly all forms of intercourse sexual?
A former Speaker of the House has remarked recently that there is much less friendly socializing between members of the different parties in Parliament than there used to be. Could that have the same reason? Have relaxed friendly relations across party-lines become dangerous?
The answer is obvious.
We are all afraid of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Eric Koch’s new book, New Beginnings, was launched on September 20. The book is available from 
Knowing Mr. Langan as I do (not well), I will assume his opinion is simply mischievous. Mr. Ghomeshi’s (alleged) assaults have nothing to do with an “innocent peck on the cheek” or with a return to the past. Perhaps more time must pass before I will be able to see any humour in the situation. Or not.
And perhaps Eric’s post too is “simply mischievous” — i.e., deliberately provocative. Knowing him as I do (not well), this would not be totally out of character…
Newsflash: I cannot think of a more patronizing way to show “respect” than a kiss on the cheek. Oh, yes I can – a pat on the head.
PS Surely it’s news to no one that Harper is already screwing all of us.
Relaxed friendly relations between people of all gender and political stripes are to be encouraged. Assault and battery to get whatever we want is not. There is a clear distinction. But even flirting crosses a line when it is unwanted by the flirtee. Many people, especially women, want to be free from the male/female dance. That’s a hard lesson for many of us men to absorb comfortably and without some resentment. It feels like a loss, although to the women in question to have gender neutral relationships is liberating.
PERFECTLY PUT Mr. Schatzky - where the motivation for restraint is the consideration of the woman’s feelings and not the self-centred protection of the man himself!
(a great fan of kissing otherwise)
Tony is certainly right but if Fred’s point is essentially that there has been a societal change in attitudes about sexual behaviour the point has merit. His example, however, is unfortunate and obscures the point. Those attitudes needed to change in an enlightened society. I would not have thought that that puritanism was an appropriate description of the change. Nowhere is that evident than in Fred’s own “industry”. Cromwell would have been horrified by the daily occurence in the press of the “f-word” (there, I have been puritanical) and discussions of abortion. But the change is not exclusively a Canadian one and I’m not sure that it’s Harper’s doing.
As Tony Koch said, Mr. Ghomeshi’s (alleged) assaults have nothing to do with an “innocent peck on the cheek” or with a return to the past. Mr. Ghomeshi’s assaults have nothing to do with flirtation that may or may have not crossed “the line”. The reaction to it is not reflective of any puritanism! The new awareness, if any, is that one cannot consent to assault. Period!
I am not comfortable with the attempt at linking this with politics and fraternization of politicians.
Why oh why do I pine for civility and the art of salon.
When the public intellectual did not hide his/her talent for fear of being elitist; when the raconteur playfully proffered innuendo and we felt comfortable in our souls?
Civility is grounded in humour, hospitality, mutual respect and an abhorrence of cruelty. A place without Puritanism, new or old.