"Life Means Life"

Continuing his journey down pathways that are almost too dark to be considered "conservative", Mr Harper this week made a big deal of his plan to incarcerate certain types of murders for 35 years before they can ask for some sort of parole. He made the announcement in public (as opposed to in Parliament where he could be asked questions). During the announcement there were a number of family members who have been impacted by a loved one being murdered. Nice trick - so sensitive.  There are so many things wrong with this obvious and quite frankly obscene pandering to the ultra conservative that it almost defies discussion.  However, I think there are three separate issues that concern me the most.

One: as demonstrated with Mr. Harper's concern over terrorism, it is important that one needs to be sure that there is a problem, and if so that his solution is the correct way to fix it. It boggles the mind that the Prime Minister appears to be incapable of looking up some basic facts on the Internet or failing that having someone to do it for him. He seems to have lots of staff around. Surely one of them could do that. Unless of course he neither asks or accepts advice?

Here are some facts. All were found by going to the Statistics Canada website (Stats Canada).  It may have taken me fifteen seconds to find the one page that had all of this information. The data is for 2013 as Statistics Canada has not yet released the figures for 2014. The homicide rate in Canada is the lowest it has been in 44 years. 87% of the homicides were committed by people who were known to the victim.   Furthermore 20% of the murders were committed by an intimate partner. Perhaps surprisingly, 20% of the individuals accused of a homicide are suspected of either having a developmental disability or living with a mental illness.  Not surprisingly 75% of the accused were under the influence of either alcohol or illegal drugs at the time of the murder.

The Huffington Post on March 4/15 discussed the most recent data available from  Correctional Service of Canada: "658 convicted murderers were released on full parole between January 1975 and the end of March 1990. Of those, five were convicted of committing a second murder — three of first-degree and two of second". While I would agree that any murder is terrible thing for a family to deal with, the fact that only .0075% of all paroles committed a homicide suggest that the present system seems to be working. My bet is that those who demonstrate no remorse or who have demonstrated a dangerous pathology don't get out. Clifford Olson, Robert Picton, Paul Bernardo or Russell Williams are not getting out time soon (except for Olson who died in prison)

So Mr. Harper - what is the problem you are fixing? There are fewer murders now than at any time since you started primary school, people who kill usually know the victim (sometimes intimately), they are frequently drunk or stoned and when they are released after serving their time over 99% of them do not commit another murder. It seems to me that there is not much of a problem.

Could there be any other reason why you decided to raise this issue now? You have had four years to slip this revision into one of your omnibus bills. If I were a cynic I would wonder if you are trying to deflect attention from the economy or the environment........ more tomorrow.

Cheering for a Politician??

It is difficult these days to find something positive to say about a politician and especially difficult to find any redeeming qualities in a ruling political party. It is almost as if politicians, when they get elected, either immediately get infected with foot-in-mouth disease or else get inoculated with some vaccine that makes them both more arrogant and more stupid. I am sure that 90% o people who get elected for the first time have good intentions of doing what is best for their constituents.  Somewhere in between their homes and their new office in the legislative  many newly minted politicians seem to forget that they need to listen to what everyone is saying - not just those with the loudest voices or the deepest pockets. Sometimes that means doing things that will make them unpopular.

The Liberal government has been floundering as of late. Not only have they not dealt with the gas plant closure scandal that they inherited, but there is no indication that they have a plan of how to deal with the Ontario deficit. While there is no sense that the province or the government is actually bouncing from crisis to crisis, there is that subtle perception that the captain of the ship is still not too sure how to use a compass or any other device to help her find her way.  If they have avoided staying out of the public spotlight it is only because they are avoiding saying anything at all. They have also been lucky because the Conservatives are in the midst of a leadership campaign and perhaps are not as focused as they might normally be.  However twice in the last week or so Kathleen Wynne has announced policies that have been courageous and needed.

The new sex education curriculum is finally out - probably about ten years too late, but it is out. It is a courageous and bold document in that it certainly goes where others, including I suspect parents, have frequently been afraid to go.  It appears to be a solid plan that starts in the primary grades and goes on through to high school. As opposed to some curriculum changes that are lacking a clear vision of why the change is needed - Wynne appears to realize that children need to understand not just the stuff about plumbing but also need to start to have an ongoing conversation about relationships. It is long overdue. I can appreciate that kids want and need to learn different things at different times from some of their peers. We all know that children mature at different rates. That is always going to be a problem. One can only hope that teachers and parents are sensitive to this issue. I understand that some of the topics are uncomfortable for some parents. Some parents think they will do a better job than a teacher, or at least will be more effective of inflicting their values upon their children. But unless their children are going to live in a bubble for all of their lives - let them participate in the school and then please have more conversations with them at home.

My only concern about this new process is that I hope there are sufficient funds for teachers to get some training and support before the new sex education curriculum is in the schools.

The second thing that the Wynne government did was to announce a comprehensive strategy to deal with sexual violence and harassment in our society. Not only will there be new legislation that, amongst other things, will make it the law that employers deal with sexual harassment in the workplace in a timely fashion but also the public will be exposed to a series of public awareness commercials etc that will re-enforce the concept that we all are responsible for stopping harassment and abuse in our society.

Some of the ads may make some people uncomfortable. Good - they are suppose to. It is well past time for all to be actively engaged in stopping behaviours that as Ms. Wynne says "are learned behaviours, which means that they can be unlearned — or better yet — never learned in the first place."(Canadian Press)

It is not often that I can cheer for a politician - but today is a good day for people in Ontario.

Moose, Skinheads, Terrorists, and Racists

There was a post a few days back on Facebook that said that Canadians were far more likely to be killed by a moose than by a terrorist.  The implication was that it would be - in terms of making the world safer for Canadians, a far better use of our tax dollars to focus on the problem of moose wandering on our highways than to increase police powers to search out terrorist. Perhaps a bit of a silly comparison but there may be other, better examples of how to more effectively ensure public safety.

Daniel Gallant, who  is a reformed Canadian neo-Nazi suggested on the CBC website that Canada's focus on de-radicalizing certain groups is far too narrow. He argues that there are other groups in Canada that are perhaps more dangerous and certainly more active than any "Islamic terrorist" cell. Gallant was an active member of a neo-Nazi group and according to his testimony he assaulted visible minorities and people of the Jewish faith every single day for a year. He did it in a fashion that not only was abusive but also was also in some cases life threatening.  One of the questions that was raised in the article was why the Canadian Government does not label this type of organized racist attacks as terrorism? Why do so-called Christian, paramilitary, right wing groups get a free pass on their activities or at least get away as being seen as small time criminals or misguided youth? Why aren't the full powers of the police being used to stop these types of organizations?

There are numerous main stream media reports as to the extent of right wing groups in Canada (Montreal Gazette, CBC, Winnipeg Free Press, Yahoo/CBC etc.). There have been numerous examples for years. The racism has been destructive and it has been blatant. And yet our government (I am becoming less and less comfortable using those two words "our government" as it bears little or no resemblance to any of my values) refuses to see any sort of organized right wing  groups as being responsible. For example there are numerous reports from the underground press (Mediacoop) and to a lesser extent from the mainstream press that the individuals arrested as part of the disrupted St Valentine's Day plot to attack a Halifax Mall had links to a Neo-Nazi movement. Mr. Justice Minister Peter MacKay however said that the folks were just "murderous misfits" and that " the attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore not linked to terrorism," (CBC). Really?  If the individuals had had ethnic roots in the Middle east - Harper and MacKay would have been screaming "terrorist" and using the plot as proof that we needed more intrusive police surveillance. The government needs to expand its definition of terrorist.

We, by focusing on one very small group who have a somewhat distorted vision of the world and what their religion requires of them, are ignoring the exact problem that is in fact encouraging the radicalization of our Canadian youth. Picking on, and allowing other groups to pick on a minority will only re-enforce the oppressed group's opinions as to how accepting Canadians can be. For example when a leader of a country questions someone's clothing in terms of whether they deserve to be a Canadian - it re- confirms the fact that freedom of religion is only a right if you believe what he believes.  When isolated youth are allowed to join a paramilitary group that has a stated goal of re-claiming a homeland for "white" people, and when the government does not argue that their behaviour is in fact interfering on an ongoing basis with the lives of Canadians, a logical conclusion is that some people are not really welcome here.

If we were really serious about getting rid of terrorism, we would start with our own home grown terrorists.

Tilting at Windmills

Four families in southern Ontario are facing a $340,000 legal bill that they say is unfair (Globe and Mail). The four families tried to convince a judge that a windmill turbine farm proposed to be developed close to their properties would lower the value of that property and one assumes more importantly, negatively affect their health. They lost that case. Then they lost the appeal. The wind turbine companies are arguing that the families should pay their legal bills. It is, in civil cases, quite normal for the loser to have to pay the winner's legal costs. By doing so the court insures that frivolous cases are less likely to appear before them. The family are arguing that the companies are rich and can afford to pay their own bills. They also state that forcing the losing side to pay the legal bill will, in the future, scare people from taking things to court when they feel it is legitimate to do so.

I must confess that I find my feeling in this case to be quite conflicted. On one hand I can appreciate that it might be disturbing and annoying if there was a clear view, from my house, of a wind turbine farm less than a kilometre away. While the court said that there was no proof that property values would be lessened, I am not sure if I would purchase such a property. Despite the fact that the scientific community is unclear as to the potential health effects of living near a turbine farm, it is conceivable that some people would be affected by the noise. I think there is a valid argument to be made that such installations need to be positioned so that they inflict the least possible harm.

On the other hand, is this proposed installation and the resultant court case just one more example of NIMBY (not in my back yard)?  No one wants another nuclear plant built anywhere, but especially nowhere near people. No one would support another coal or oil fired generator. And apparently no one wants a number of windmills whistling in the wind anywhere near their house. Hydro electricity, while it may be the least polluting of all electrical generation systems, significantly disrupts the environment and the lives of people who live in that area. The people in that area have the right to protest.  I also suspect that many of the people who complain about having any sort of electrical generation plant built near them are also some of the same people who moan about the health dangers of being near low frequency electromagnetic fields generated by transmission lines. For those people the paradoxical desires to live nowhere near a hydro generating station and at the same time to disagree with the development of transmission lines corridors seems somewhat absurd.

In Canada our rate of use of electricity has since 2005, risen (indexmund). There is no reason to believe that we will reduce our consumption. In fact given the ever increasing number of devices that we all need to charge daily, it seems far more likely that our rate of consumption will increase. The electricity needs to come from somewhere. Either we find ways of producing it close to our major industrial/urban areas or we use large tracts of land to inefficiently and expensively move that power to those industrial/urban areas.

I believe that the individual should have the right to fight against the decisions of large corporate entities. I further believe that there are times when such actions should be supported by the state. Not because the state believes in the case but rather because the issue is important enough to be tried in public, in a formal setting. I think it is entirely possible that the cost of such litigation, unless it is supported by a third party, will become so prohibitive that people just stop trying. But I also think we need to accept that sometimes, some people are going to have to make some compromises in terms of creating a perfect life. Sometimes we need to accept that the greater public good supersedes our personal desires.

 Of course if we had government funded, legislatively supported environmental reviews that were effective and efficient maybe we would not need a court to decide. Or we could just start to use less electricity which would not solve the problem but it would somewhat alleviate it.