Preston Manning and Physician Assisted Suicide

I have a respect for Preston Manning. He speaks with passion about which he believes. He appears to be a honourable man who has clear values and has been able to stay true to those values. I just think he is wrong about most of what he believes. This week he did an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail in which he said:

                "The highest duty of the state is to affirm and preserve human life rather than sanction the                  taking of it. From this perspective, the recent decision of the Supreme Court facilitating  

                 physician-assisted suicide is both regrettable and open to challenge." (Globe and Mail)

Mr. Manning is an educated man. He must have know when he wrote the above that either he was deluding himself or he was ignoring history.

The state has never demonstrated any interest in affirming or preserving human life. Unless that life belonged to the rich or powerful elite. The Magna Carta - the document signed in 1215 that is so often touted as being the start of western democracy is at best a document that entrenches the rights of feudal lords to maintain control over their possessions, their estates and their serfs (Magna Carta). For the last 890 years not much has changed in the western world. The state for almost all of that time has consistently undervalued most of human life. One only needs to look at the countless wars over the centuries- many of which were fought to support (or defend against the need for) expansion of commercial interest, or to be reminded of the slavery that was inflicted upon generations and generations of Africans or to recognize the cultural and physical genocide practiced upon the Nations that existed in North America before the coming of the Europeans to become convinced that the state, as opposed to preserving life has in the past blatantly disregarded the life of anyone who was powerless.

In more recent times our state has gone out of its way to ignore the value of human life. The Canadian Government has for example allowed various waters to be polluted so that people living around that water became permanently disabled and then refused to do anything about it ( The Canadian Encyclopaedia), underfunded a school system so that the children cannot get an education (Vancouver Sun), has done little to prevent up to 600,000 children in Canada either going to bed or getting up hungry (TVO), and the list could go on and on. In fact there is little proof that the Government of Canada values life, unless of course it suits its purpose.

Mr. Manning suggests in his editorial piece that people need to reach out to their elected representatives to make clear to the MPs that they do not want a law that allows for physician assisted suicide.  That is their right. But before they do, please get the facts right. They are asking the Canadian Government to do something that it presently does not do. If, for the first time in a long time, the Canadian Government is going make a decision about protecting the sanctity of human life - I have a long list of things that need to get done. Mr.. Manning  - give me a call.

Undercover Agents or Entrapment Agents?

There are two separate trials happening, one in Victoria B.C. and one in Toronto, Ontario. Other than the fact that both trails are about people planning on use bombs to kill, maim or otherwise disrupt the lives of Canadians they would appear to have little to connect them. Except for one other thing.....

The young couple from BC were drug addicts, living a marginal lifestyle, had few if any resources or supports and the male at least appears to have a mild developmental disability. Did they attempt to build a pressure cooker bomb? Probably yes. Were they self converts to radical Islam? It seems likely. Did they parrot all of the phrases of such converts? Again it seems that they did.

The two men on trial in Toronto appear to have been perhaps more intellectually competent and clearer as to the rational for their actions. Their plans were not any more practical or in fact achievable. One of individual had been to Iran. The suggestions is that he met someone there and perhaps even got some minimal training (which if true leaves one to think that if that is the level of training available - we don't need to worry). While they had numerous plans including creating a volcano in Yellowstone Park, cutting the VIA rail tracks with military grade lasers and poisoning soldiers none of the plans came close to fruition and in fact the pair could not agree on what to do or even about security.

The one thing that ties trial of these two "terrorist cells" together is the fact that they both had an uncover agent working with them, supporting them and assisting them in their conversations and planning. For the VIA Rail bombers - the FBI undercover agent met them because he arranged to sit beside them on a airplane. He nurtured the relationship between himself and the two men.  He was there when they talked about all of their absurd, wildly impractical ideas. As of yet, less is known about the role of the undercover agent in the Victoria trial but certainly the word " entrapment" has been used by the young couple's lawyer (CBC).

It seems to me that given the thousands of dollars spent during the undercover phase of both of these investigations, the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent during the trials, appeals etc. and the cost of incarceration for the four individuals when they are convicted (federal male prisoner (2004/5): $87,665 per prisoner/per year & federal female prisoner (2004/5): $150,000-$250,000 per prisoner/per year (prison justice.ca), there has to be a better use of that money.

What would have happened if, instead of an undercover agent intentionally engaging with these fledgling terrorist groups and assisting them however marginally with their plans, if someone had made contact with them and re-directed them? What would have happened if a hundred thousand dollars had been used to assist the couple in Victoria to find alternatives to their addiction/life style or support needs? What would have happened if that money had been used to hire a one-on-one worker for eighteen months? Would it have changed their lives? Would a new vision of what could be possible for them reduced their potential frustration and resultant pseudo-militarism? The answer is of course, no one knows. Because no one tried it.

It is perhaps less clear how a proactive social agent could have engaged with the two men on trial in Toronto. But it is clear that given their lack of direction, there were significant holes in their thinking. A skilled support person could have easily provided alternatives to help the men become engaged in a positive way in their community. Why for example were they not introduced to a skilled Muslim negotiator who could gently and subtly discuss another way of interpreting the Koran?

Of course people argue that there are insufficient funds to do that kind of intervention. That is not true. We have the money - it just depends upon how we decide to spend it. We can either spend our tax dollars on helping people find solutions to their anger or frustrations.  Or we can spend our on ensuring that people who are struggling and who may be leaning towards deviancy, are pushed even further along that path.

We need to decide.

To Boycott or Not - That is the Question

As I was doing my quick scan of what silly items that had been posted on my Facebook page - I noted one asking me to boycott Nestlé. I almost ignored the "news item" on the assumption that it was a continuation of the long standing protest objecting to Nestlé's offensive insistence that its baby formula is better than mother's milk. However, it was not about that. It was about the fact that Nestlé had negotiated a deal to buy millions of litres of water from the B.C. government for $2.25 for every million litres (sumofus). The request on Facebook was to follow the link to sign a petition.

I need to believe that except for either the most hard core conservative or for the most rabid fans of Ayn Rand that Canadians understand that selling public water for a minuscule fraction of what its market value is - is absurd. In fact the selling off of our water to anyone for any cost is absurd. It clearly makes no sense to allow a corporation to take water out of the ground so that they can make a huge profit on it.  The only question should be how to stop it.

Companies such Nestlé have withstood boycotting for decades. I doubt if their bottom line has been significantly affected in any measurable way. It certainly has not radically changed its operational stance or long term business plan.  It is hard to think of a single company that has changed how it does business solely because a relatively small handful of individuals have said they won't buy a specific product. Boycotting is a way of making folks who have a choice as to what to buy or use feel like they are doing something. People can now buy a bottle of water for the same price from some other company and say - "I am doing something for the environment". Bull crap!!!! Similarly signing an on-line petition will have little or no affect upon any Canadian government, all of whom have shown no interest in listening to the public. Signing an on-line petition will have exactly the same effect as me writing to Stephen Harper... it makes me feel good for a few hours.

Buying bottled for most people, for most of the time is wrong. In Canada we are blessed in most communities (unless you live in a Native community) with drinkable water. Use it.

Boycotting is a process by which we expect to manipulate corporations to act in an ethical fashion in spite of the fact that we as individuals frequently do not. Why are we surprised when large (and small) corporations look for ways of making money? Do people really expect companies to make ethical decisions that will cost them money? If there is a market for products or services (even if those same companies have created that market) why are we surprised that some multinational rushes in to fill that void? How can we have any of those expectations when we, as private citizens, do not demonstrate at least a hint of ethical behaviour? There is only one way to stop the extraordinary depletion of good, clean water sold in plastic bottles. Stop buying it. Not just from Nestlé but from every company. We should not expect them to change their ways unless we are prepared to do it as well. And do it first!

 People seem to spend a lot of energy moaning about how terrible the multinationals are. But we continue to use their products. Whether it is people driving their near empty mid-sized SUVs (see they say - "I am not driving a full size SUV") while complaining about the horrendous scar upon landscape that is Fort Mac, or people who use all kinds of paper products and live in houses constructed of wood (including exotic woods from soon-to-be denuded tropical forests) complaining both about the cost of lumber and about clear cutting or those who moan about the lack of decent jobs while shopping at the Wal-Mart or the Dollar Store, we expect someone else to make the difficult decisions.

It is time we stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for our own actions. We need to stop blaming companies for the choices that we make.