Canada Wakes Up and Recognizes Unconstitutionality of Prostitution Laws

Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel struck down three sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to adult prostitution as unconstitutional. These sections are:

S. 210(1) Every one who

(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house

(b) is found, without lawful excuse in a common bawdy-house, or as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction

S. 212(1)(j) Everyone who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

S. 213(1) Every person who is in a public place or in any place open to public view, stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

To put this into plain English:

The communicating law under s.213 emerged in 1986 as a response to conservative cries of "not in my backyard" with respect to the visibility of on-street sex work. The communicating law made it illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, which inversely resulted in the retreat and displacement of street-level sex workers having to retreat to poorly-lit back alleys where they could be picked up by the likes of Robert Pickton and murdered... from zero sex workers reported missing or killed before 1986 and s.213 to at least 60 missing in Vancouver alone (many more nation-wide) post s.213 after I think it's safe to say the government dropped the big one when they passed this law.

Sadly it's taken almost 25 years to change, and a lot of people close to me (including my wife!, the Pivot Legal Society, and the wonderful ladies and gentlemen involved with FIRST), have worked around the clock for years to strike that section down and provide safer conditions for people working in the sex industry, meaning off the street and into indoor settings (regardless of one's moral stance on selling sex). So, this is a strong preventative measure, I'd say, and a progressive step in a country not generally regarded as a leader in practices of safe sex work.

Soundbytes and Bird Feed: "News" in the 21st Century

Define irony: Samantha spends 3 hours a day logging onto Perez Hilton for the latest celebrity smut, criticizing so-called "entertainer" and their demands for privacy, then gets noticeably disturbed and disgusted when her preferences in footwear are openly criticized, mocked, and related to her upbringing by her friends on Facebook.

On the afternoon of February 18th, 2010, Canadian singer/songwriter Gordon Lightfoot was driving to a dentist appointment when the radio station informed him that he had died. Twenty-two minutes later, CanWest Media pulled the story, indicating that he was in fact alive and well and their information sources were unreliable; and uncertainties exist as to whether the "source" had in fact been a Twitter post... in those 22 minutes, however, a cascade of Facebook and Twitter updates across the country lamenting the loss of a national folk icon percolated the virtual universe. People were sad and entire country turned their heads, only then to stumble over their previous sentimentality with anger towards CanWest Media -- as though they themselves had somehow been victim to a media panic, like Stanley Cohen's "moral panic" on steroids, which just as quickly was rectified in the social networking community as it had originally emerged.

It's fascinating how we acquire knowledge in the fast pace of 21st century Western life. Rather than reading books or multiple-perspectives from archives of news articles, the 140-character soundbyte has become the end-all of information and communications. One could have presented this evolution as a "media porn fantasy" in the 1980s; that ultimately it really never is the story, the facts, the point of view or even the truth (whatever that may be) that needs to be considered but the shock and awe of a concisely worded soundbyte. Surely few cultural critics would have predicted that "knowledge-as-slogan" would actually come to be reality at all, let alone to manifest in the form of non-threatening baby blue cartoon birds on computer screens.

Information sharing in mass media has moved beyond the facade of reputable journalism to the point of grassroots information sharing becoming contagious gossip -- which may be all that so-called "news" ever was in the first place. Major publications have now turned to using daily Twitter feeds as "fact finding" for entire news columns. Whereas once journalists had to hit the pavement to find real-life sources and inside scoops, they know live in an insular bubble where they never have to leave their computer chair let alone speak to another human being to produce a story. Whilst admirably news "from the people" holds a long-standing value amongst critical oral and traditional historians, and the value of non-corporate media outlets is firmly entrenched amongst those seeking multiple perspectives (though coverage of the anti-Olympic efforts in Vancouver may suggest otherwise), the question emerges: have we reached a place where we are no longer relying on trustworthy sources to screen information? Michelangelo once said, "I didn't create David, I only took away what was not David." The role of the publisher was historically one of filtering out the noise to present what consumers felt was the best possible product. Of course, many vested interests affect what come to be excluded from popular consciousness, which is a dangerous and disgusting process, but I can't help but feel that our tendency for gossip has truly morphed any reputable quality of journalism into nothing but the high school cafeteria.

So what is true anymore? Maybe Tweeted news is not a media porn fantasy so much as a post-modern orgasm. It's most certainly shattered our traditional notion of celebrity, which I for one think is a wonderful sigh of relief -- it illustrates how absurd the concept is; one needn't do anything extraordinary to have their benign activities be deemed newsworthy. All they need is an email address and a Facebook account and everyone they know can snicker at them. Our vicarious sensibilities have been displaced onto everyone and everything rather than just those individuals that corporate media deem publicly fair game for ridicule. Although I still wonder when we're just going to give it all up and start living our own lives.

Though the Gordon Lightfoot incident does ruin my plan to Tweet "Robb Johannes is dead" as a publicity stunt. What would The Boy Who Cried Wolf say to all of this?

"Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story." - Bob Whitaker

Since When is Not Eating Meat an Act of Defiance?

Rebellion is only tolerated to the degree which it will not challenge established thought patterns and ways of life. Thus, not making it "rebellion" at all.

****

I'm vegan. A vegan is someone who does not eat meat and/or animal products. Prior to recently becoming vegan, I was vegetarian for 10 years. A vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. And yes, "meat" includes fish. I have no idea where that delusion comes from. A pescetarian is someone who still eats fish. I used to prefer to use the term "hypocrite," but these days I don't think that's entirely fair.

Living in Vancouver for a long time, I found a very veggie-friendly community, covering the broad spectrum of vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, and tourist. A "tourist" is someone who most of us know, or who at least in the context of speaking to a vegetarian, will say, "Yeah, I was vegetarian for 2 years, I couldn't keep it up" (as though every person alive will ultimately fail as they did). Tourists usually are doing it to follow the latest health fad they read about in Shape magazine, or feel that cutting meat out of their diet will help them to lose weight. Well, it will, but if you don't research your decision and learn more about your own biology as a human being, you will develop the stereotypical "vegan" look: rail thin, gaunt, and pasty, or "heroin chic" as it's been sometimes called.

I became vegetarian 10 years ago at a time when it wasn't as "popular" amongst celebrities and, henceforth, non-famous people. It was a struggle because at the time there wasn't quite the same range of vegetarian options in the supermarket (in those pre-Yves days), but because I was doing it for political, cultural, and social (though ultimately personal/ethical) reasons, I held my ground and through learning about daily vitamin and mineral requirements, protein, digit-by-digit alternatives, and just the general and basic requirements to maintaining a healthy body, I was able to successfully transition and have never looked back.

I am surprised and amused that still, after all these years, upon revealing that I am vegan, I am faced with genuinely concerned looks or morcels of fear and/or confusion (as though fear is somehow not entirely of that which we do not yet understand). Of course, the responses are always incidental to being in a dining situation. I'm not one to wear a "Meat is Murder" t-shirt; I keep my dietary choices to myself and don't claim that meat-eaters are morally bankrupt, nor do I need to be lumped in with so-called "activists" who blow up meat factories -- vegetarians like that give the rest of us (vegetarians and activists) a bad name. Vegetarianism is a proclamation of passivity and non-violence. Why would I firebomb your restaurant if I found out the sweet potato fries are cooked in animal fat? Though I must admit, instilling a healthy fear amongst restaurant waitstaff when I drop the "V"-bomb is rather amusing but at least it ensures vegan-friendly dishes and cooking methods. But naturally then comes the classic line: "So... what do you eat then? How do you survive?" Well, for one, I'm honouring a cultural history in India of vegetarianism, where my family has existed for centuries and centuries. Go to certain parts of India, order beef, and get mad or call them "hippies" when they tell you beef's not on the menu. Do it now, I dare you! The assumption that meat is "essential" to a human diet not only discounts an entire nation's history and is, frankly, severely ill-informed and borderline racist, it also dismisses the millions of years that humans lived prior to agriculture and mass production, during which time meat was not a primary source of protein or nutrients in a human diet. Furthermore, if a life had to be taken for consumption, very strict procedures were followed around ritualistic sacrifice, use of the animal, and acknowledging its place in the cycle of life, never seeing it as a means to an end or a pawn in a game of human domination of the planet. Genesis 1:28 isn't necessarily a directive to destroy and exploit all non-human life in the interests of human expansion -- in spite of what some archaic Biblical "scholars" may try to impose.

The thing that throws people for a loop is that they expect me to look like a starving Ethiopian baby because I am vegan and, surprise surprise, I don't. I have muscles, broad shoulders, and a strong cardiovascular system, and do not fit into the preconceived formulas of what people think a vegan looks like, and the over-dependence we have on animals and animal products in our day-to-day diet. I eat very well, have developed an even greater appreciation of diverse ethnic foods in light of not being able to rely on simple meat and potatoes. More so, pretty much everyone I know absolutely loves coming over for a home-cooked vegetarian meal, meat-eaters or not, usually saying, "Wow, if I ate like you guys (meaning my wife and I), I could totally be vegetarian." Thus we face the reluctance to become vegetarian on the ground of, "I like the taste of meat too much." My response, always: "Give me an hour and your favourite recipe and I'll make a vegetarian version that will satisfy you equally, if not more, especially in the long-term. It's not the actual meat itself that you like the taste of, it's the spices, the seasonings, and the treatments -- you can make anything taste the way you want it to if you cook it properly. And your B-12s, proteins, and irons can be easily supplemented without having to pop a million pills."

Whilst I normally try to explain the massive range of wonderful food options I have available to me as a vegan, I am often received with glazed eyes and judgment (and frankly, I get kind of bored of answering the same three questions over and over again -- and do you really care why I stopped eating meat when you live under a worldview that treats anyone who does not as a malcontent and only tolerates "rebellion" until it actually forces you to introspect and examine your own patterns of thought and way(s) of life?)... so, I'm pondering just stopping the sugar-coating, cutting to the chase, and saying: "A vegan is someone who does not eat meat or animal products. Humans, on the other hand, don't fit into that category because modern science, philosophy, and religion have taught us that we are in a class above animals. So, as a vegan, I get my protein from a freezer full of unsuspecting murdered Catholic school boys. But I'll call it 'soy' if that's more PC."

Though I suspect that would probably alienate people (and vegetarians/vegans are already marginalized enough socially). Keeping the open invitation to dialogue open is, as it always has been, the way to go. Such as asking the question to meat eaters: "What is it about my vegetarianism that offends you so much? Why does it mean so much to you to eat meat that you feel the need to ostracize me, or try and pick apart every so-called 'inconsistency' in my point of view or way of life?" Do I come up to you and say, "If you're not gonna eat human flesh, you may as well not bother eating meat at all"? No, I don't, because I'd be a jackass if I did and you'd never hold a conversation with me at a party. Yet, it's perfectly fine coming from the other side, and you wonder why I may walk away after a few minutes (and then it's me who's the asshole?). Frankly, eating meat is just as much of an ethical standpoint as not eating meat; it's just not seen as such because meat-eating is the "conventional" practice in this culture. Lest we begin a discussion of rebellion, counter-culture, necessity and deviance, and other concepts too grand to comprehend in a 140 character Tweet.

So come chat with me next time you see me. I promise I won't bite (like a good vegan). I may nibble though.

"Don't criticize what you can't understand." - Bob Dylan

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

** Please note that the point of view expressed here is that of one vegan in a band of 3/4 meat eaters.

Robb's Favourite Albums of the Decade (2000-2009)

So I've started to realize that the decade has ended, and it feels like a relative non-event (seriously now, without the scare of Y2K, what could possibly be a more amusing follow-up rollover?)... Given my lack of religion, the holiday season is generally what I call my R&R time and I've taken a few moments to put together a list of 25 of my favourite albums that were released in the first 10 years of the new century:

1. Air Traffic - Fractured Life
2. Bright Eyes - Lifted (Or the Story is in the Soil, Keep Your Ear to the Ground)
3. The Cure - Bloodflowers
4. The Dandy Warhols - 13 Tales From Urban Bohemia
5. Dawntreader - Santa Fe Stalker
6. Editors - The Back Room
7. Elbow - Leaders of the Free World
8. The Februarys - Brighter Side of Things
9. The Feminists - She Could Be
10. Ben Folds - Song for Silverman
11. Green Day - American Idiot
12. David Gray - Lost Songs 95-98
13. Idlewild - The Remote Part
14. Idlewild - Make Another World
15. In Medias Res - Of What Was
16. Jet - Shine On
17. The Killers - Sam's Town
18. Michael Franti & Spearhead - Stay Human
19. Modest Mouse - Good News For People Who Love Bad News
20. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - Nocturama
22. Oasis - Don't Believe the Truth
22. Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam
23. Sleater-Kinney - The Woods
24. Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
25. Hawksley Workman - Lover/Fighter

...of course I'm surely missing several but that's what a first scan of the record shelf has brought me. Perhaps best concert experiences should be another list to consider. But for now, that's all she wrote.

Love and rockets,
Robb

Video Kills?

Well hello, my cheeky wee monkeys (credit due to Craig Ferguson)... yesterday we shot the video for "Don't Blow Me Away" at a circus school in Toronto. We all have hidden talents we never knew of, most notably Marcus' ability to hula-hoop like Shakira. And of course, bets were on the table as to how quickly I'd have to be taken to Toronto East General Hospital for climbing and swinging from trapeze equipment in breath-holding capacities. Sadly for those with money on the table (but happily for me and my flesh and bones), no one was injured. Even when I belted Mandy with a Swiss ball as she attempted curtain acrobatics. Even Chris got up from behind the drumkit and took a few stage dives. I know, it's only rock 'n' roll....

It's an interesting time in the midst of the YouTube generation; whereas previously bands needed major label support and, consequently, wads of cash, just to produce a video -- let alone have it played on network television, or seen at all. Now, anyone with a video camera can upload a video to a YouTube or Vimeo channel, and potentially get a million plays. And why not? It's not as if MTV or MuchMusic actually play music videos anymore. At the same time, it increases the amount of noise to be filtered through (as do sites like MySpace), which can be overwhelming and translate into apathy. But for those so inclined, it's all part of the fun digging up some gold nuggets -- like hitting up a used record store and not realizing that what you find may change your life.

We have out last two shows of 2009 this week. it's been the busiest and thus far most rewarding year in Paint's life, and I attribute it almost entirely to Mandy, Marcus, and Chris for making it feel, perhaps for the first time, like a band, with every synergistic piece in place... if the world doesn't explode in 2010, I'd say it only goes straight up from here.

Best to you and yours,
Robb

"Shut Up and Scream"

When the CBC interviews a passing Hamilton steelworker on the sidewalk on their opinions of same-sex marriage, do viewers say "Shut up and go to the plant"? When CNN visits a Carolina housewife to ask her what her views on Roe v. Wade are, do viewers tell her to "Shut up and tend the house"? Generally not -- because the steelworker and the housewife are citizens of the democratic nations in which they live, just like everyone else; they account for part of the populous. In a system of democracy, politicians do not have a monopoly on the right to speak on political issues (though they've tried to drill that into citizens' heads for generations). Rather, their purpose is to voice what the constituents they represent feel is important to them.

So why is it that when a musician takes a political stance that so many onlookers so quickly say "Shut up and sing" as though somehow an artist is less of a citizen than the plumber or the doctor? Seemingly the days of Leonardo and Michelangelo, the great artists and philosophers (who were also commercially-viable entities) have long been erased, or romanticized, in Western consciousness as relics of an age passed when art was far from commodity, and artists themselves were often the first to comment and observe cultural and political dynamics; their cultural criticism was held in high regard for its unconventional wisdom and insight.

Admittedly I'm the first to cringe when anyone speaks publicly on sensitive political issues, musician or otherwise, because of the stakes involved in advancing the position amidst generalized public perception. However, I can't help but wonder what it is about musicians specifically that warrants "Shut up" calls from onlookers with so much more frequency. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Stipe are both in the business of entertainment, so why should one's political stance be elevated over the other's due to their so-called "legitimate" claim to speak on political issues. One wears a tie, the other has a mic stand -- they're both still citizens.

Historically speaking, art (and music in particular) has been intricately connected to political resistance and counter-revolution, from the days of slaves passing esoteric messages of liberty through song, to Bob Dylan delivering messages of change through folk songs, to Public Enemy warning us to "Fight the powers that be." Artistic revolution is almost inherently politically subversive; it becomes a catalyst, or a subsidiary of cultural change which does not bode well for those invested in, or standing to benefit from, the maintenance of the status quo. Fittingly, any artist, like any other citizen, would be demonized for challenging the dominant political position -- it is merely the relationship between art and powerful cultural revolution that inspires a more heightened opposition to their voice.

I highlight that an artist who challenges convention, for the right-leaning Arnold Schwarzeneggers and Ronald Reagans of the world are rarely instructed to "Shut up and act." Yet, the left is constantly at war with its public image and the legitimacy of its position when art and artists go political.*

Few words have ever rung more true than Joe Strummer's adage: "You have the right to free speech, unless you're dumb enough to actually try it!"

Bigger cages, longer chains?

Should artists "Shut up and sing," or "Stop whispering, start shouting" -- as any citizen in a democratic system is entitled to, whether we agree with their position or not?

Be well,
Robb

* An obvious exception to this would be Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil, who is now Australia's Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts -- but Australia has proven again and again to be the progressive black sheep of so-called "Westernized" nations.

A Distant History....

Well, I must say it's been quite the journey seeing all of our photo archives up on Flickr. To think that Paint as we know it is the product of so much refinement over years of, at best, sporadic communion and the slow process of trimming and narrowing the vision... it feels like the 2009 lineup here in Toronto has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the first one of 2001 in Vancouver. I know the one thing that's probably changed the most is me from the humble beginnings of Paint as a folk-based political entity when I was 18, to the introduction (cheered along by Matt Laforest) of vintage tube amps, distortion pedals, screaming electric guitars, and a general "wall of sound" more true to my inner noise... Maybe it's not such a bafflement after all when I take the journey Paint has gone through in tandem with my own personal journey into adulthood: the band in its various incarnations represents different stages in my young life, like choosing awful outfits and hairstyles; attempting to tease out existential questions like, "What's it's all about?"; seeing the inside of some of North America's harshest and most violent prisons and urban settings as a social activist; and, ultimately, stumbling through most of it with the assistance (or crutch) of whatever easy cure I could get my hands on -- and now through the lens of clear eyes and commitment to my wife and what is, in the inner circle, referred to as "Paint Toronto."

Can You Hear Me? is a loud record, yes, but so basic in its melody and structure. I doubt there are more than 6 chords on the entire album. As much as I wish this sound and vision had been discovered right off the bat, I hardly doubt I would appreciate it as much, or feel that I earned it, had I not gone to hell and back to see it become what it is now... Enjoy the photos!

All my relations,
Robb Johannes

A few Inches....

Not referring to the size of Luke's penis (although admittedly we did have to sit him on a booster seat and put him right up front in our recent press photos to make him look like a regular-sized human). The new record, Can You Hear Me?, was shipped off yesterday to the pressing plant for hard copy CDs, and the day before for mythical digital distribution... We're very excited. Although I've not slept in nearly a month now, pouring hours into the album artwork, layout, and overseeing the last few inches... It'll be worth the wait. I assure you.

In the meantime, we await for the end of the garbage strike in Toronto -- never is a statement more clear of how badly citizens need a service than having to smell uncollected waste melting in the humidity of the first days of summer. Part of me hopes it goes on forever to remind everyone just how significant such workers are, but at the same time my lungs are probably telling me to quarantine myself.

Garbage and a new record. We wait for them all....

Our new record will make you deaf

Well, hello.... so, it's been quite a process making this new record (which is likely to be called Can You Hear Me?). It was initially something that began as a demo which I was going to take with me to Toronto to shop around to labels and have something to pass along to musicians to form a Toronto chapter of the band while Matt, Paula, and I kept writing songs together. After playing back the dailies of the first couple days at Maximus Sound, however, there was a sonic character to first couple bed tracks (I believe it was "A Gentle Art" and "An Evening to Myself" but I could be wrong on the latter) which captured the energy we had been pouring into the songs as we wrote and performed them in and around Vancouver... So, the nucleus of a new record was born and we approached the remainder of the sessions with that general mindset.

We tracked and tracked for about two months, during which time I got married(!) and started to get things organized to move to Toronto. I think two days after I laid down my final vocal, I was on a one-way plane out of Vancouver with no furniture, no money, no set plans -- just a beautiful wife, a bunch of guitars and records, and a safety in knowing that if the plane went down, my last vocal tracks were on Claude Laforest's hard drive!

After the New Year, we shipped the tracks to EchoPlant Sound, where Ryan Worsley finished a few vocal tracks with Paula and went straight into mixing.

Mixing long-distance is strange; every record I'd played on up to this point usually involved everyone in the band sitting in the studio with the engineer for days and weeks hammering it out. This time, Ryan would mix a song in Vancouver, email it to me in Toronto, I'd make notes, pass the notes and songs along to Matt and Paula in Vancouver, they'd add their two bits, we'd send it all to Ryan, and he'd go back and work on the songs again. Every song has been fully mixed three times now, a couple (like "After") have had a couple extra passes.

As we're now in April, it seems like all the songs, shy of a few small tweaks, are done. All I can say is, "Wow," and "Holy freaking f*ck, these songs are LOUD!"

Of course, it's easy to lose perspective on things when you're totally hoiled up alone listening to mixes -- so the songs have been let loose on a few close colleagues to make sure that everything sounds as great as we think it does, and affirm that we're not losing our minds.... THEN, and only then, will mixing be complete.

But that doesn't mean it's over then by any stretch; there's still artwork, mastering, packaging, etc., etc., and the new lineup in Toronto has to get out and start rocking the faces off audiences.

Though you might like to know all this in the meantime.

Love,
Robb

What a drummer SHOULD look like....

Alas, Matt Laforest has reverted back to his original Homo Habilis state now that I'm not around to class him up every few days.... Please send him sympathy, pretty soon he'll be receiving government benefits. The definition below says it all: "Handy Man."

Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man", "skillful person") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.^[1] The definition of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964. Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo (except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans; however, it had a reduction in the protrusion in the face. It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).

Homo habilis has often been thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis.