Flying on to Syria

According to a couple of polls, the majority of Canadians support the government's intent to expand and extend their armed incursions in the Middle East (ipsos). All I can say is - they have not asked me for my thoughts on this topic.

I am a pacifist. By that I mean that I believe that the use of physical force to resolve an issue is always the worst alternative. I can appreciate that there are times when it appears as if there is little choice. I suspect that if I had been alive and living in Europe in 1939, the only conceivable choice would have been to go to war against Germany. The time to make different choices was well before1930-31 when the world could have done something to negate the pressures that were developing that eventually produced Nazism. However our willingness to invade the airspace of a foreign country (Syria) that is over 9,000 kilometres away and that has not attacked us (or any of our allies) is grossly inappropriate. To do so without the support of the UN or Nato is illegal in any world court and would, I suggest, put  Canada's reputation as a peace loving nation in serious risk. It perhaps makes us vulnerable to being charged with war crimes. Any rationalization for this act can only be found in hyper exaggerated rhetoric.    

We are going to bomb sites in Syria where someone suspects that there are ISIS terrorists. We are going to do so without any consultation with the Syrian government. We are engaged in this activity without any real understanding of the long term consequences. At the end of the day the best that we will have achieved is the destruction of some terrorists. This act will only serve to strengthen the dictator who controls Syria with an iron hand and who is alleged to have used poison gas to control the population. This is the same dictator who less than 18 months ago was being condemned by the western world. Some western countries have been supporting the citizens who were in armed rebellion against this dictator. This is the same leader who has caused such civil strife that the Syrian refugee situation is only second to the Palestinian refugee crisis. The UN is preparing a list of names from the Syrian government to be potentially charged with crimes against humanity.  Why would we want to do anything that might help him?  At worst our intervention will cause more pain and suffering and, will enable those who thrive on chaos to establish control over that region.

There are other things that we could do. We could do as Sweden has done and take in some refugees (Sweden with a population of 9.6 million has taken in 14,700 (Sweden) refugees in the past 2 years). In spite of our government's promise to do so, it appears as if Canada with a population of 33 million people had pledged to take in only 1,400 refugees. We have not yet met that goal. Or Canada could take the money it is spending on planes, gas and bombs and instead provide food for those who are starving. We could try to provide stability to the region so that those who live there can get on with their lives and be in control of their own destiny. Or we could start a worldwide movement to stop the sale of guns and bullets to terrorist organizations.

Someone is selling the guns etc to the terrorist. They can only function because they have more guns than those who they are trying to dominate.  Why don't we just stop the flow of arms. It is difficult for me to believe that people don't know where the arms are coming from. Canada's arms industry is relatively small. I am sure that all of the sales go to recognized governments (although I am sure there are some who have rather poor human rights records). But does are we doing enough to ensure that those guns etc. stay in the country we send them to? I suspect not.

War is wrong. War that is poorly planned, that has no realistic/well defined goals and that is almost guaranteed to cause more destruction to the people of that country is not only wrong, it is immoral. We need to find another way.

Omar Khadr's Bail Hearing

Today a 28 year old man is in court seeking bail. He is asking to be released while he appeals his conviction in an USA court of killing a soldier when he was 15 years old. I do not know if he was guilty or not. I have no way of knowing if his guilty plea to that charge was the result of overwhelming pressure, exhaustion at being in Guantanamo Bay for so long or just a realization that pleading guilty was the least painful alternative. But what seems clear to me is that he has been treated in a fashion that under almost any other circumstance would have been deemed cruel, unusual and counter-productive. Our Canadian government, at the highest level, are continuing to do all that they can to insure that he remains incarcerated for the maximum time. I am not too sure why.

Even if it is assumed that Khadr did throw that grenade with a clear knowledge that it would kill someone, and that at age 15 he fully understood the consequences of that act - in any court in Canada, he would not have been tried as an adult. He would never have receieved a life sentence, in an adult prison. Canadian legislation ensures that children (as defined by law) are treated differently than adults. The law accepts and understands that a child's must be held to a different standard than adults, and that when they commit a crime that the "punishment" they receive must be focused of rehabilitation as opposed to simple incarceration. Furthermore, Canada along with many other nations, have accepted the possibility that children who are exposed to passionate rhetoric and who are faced with limited life choices, do engage in war-like activities. And that these "child soldiers" should not be treated as adults and punished, but should be treated with care and therapeutic interventions. For Omar Khadr, Canada has not followed these rules.

Regardless of whether Omar Khadr intentionally killed someone, he has been in jail long enough. There is a family who are prepared to accept him into their home and treat him as a family member. He has a plan of what to do with his life and it seems reasonable. There is no suggestion that he plans on escaping to another country or that he is a committed and hardcore member of al-Qaeda. It is time, regardless of what the US appeals process says - to let him live in the community. With supervision and support, but free to start to experience what life in Canada can be like.

The consequences if he is not released on bail could be considerable. Not only is his incarceration costing a minimum of $100,000 a year, but it seems to me that if the US court overturns his conviction, then the possibility of him suing the Canadian government for inappropriate incarceration is quite likely. Personally if I were him I would also consider suing the Canadian Government for their abysmal support of a Canadian citizen when he was first placed in Guantanamo Bay.

Canadian Government - admit you may have made a mistake, stop fighting the bail hearing and get on to some things that might give us better value for our money - such as dealing with climate change, lack of safe water in northern First Nation communities, number of Canadian children who go to bed hungry each night etc. etc.

Why Do We Need Universities?

In the past few months there seems to be an unusual amount of news about Canadian universities - much of it not very good news. From the stories of the misogynistic Facebook pages at Dalhousie, the strikes at U of T and York, the numerous reports of professors plagiarizing others' work, and to the lack of either transparency or accountability, Canadian universities appear to not be doing their job. Furthermore there are serious accusations that the universities are not preparing young people for careers in the real world and that they are failing to provide reasonable job opportunities to within its own hallowed halls.

I would suggest that if universities are failing in their jobs, it is because their job descriptions have profoundly changed and no one has told them. Universities use to know what they were suppose to do. They were a place where professionals such as doctors, lawyers or engineers went to memorize complex information or a place when rich kids went when they didn't know what to do with their lives. Only a relatively small handful of very bright people went to university to study to become an academic. For most a general arts degree was a very significant accomplishment. Students who could afford it went to university to what was frequently called a liberal arts degree. When I went to university (I don't mean to sound like an old fogy) every student had to take two sciences, one language (other than English), one history and I think either a sociology or a psychology. It didn't matter what we wanted to be - UNB were determined that we would have a broad base of knowledge. Certainly in the mid 1960s when universities were expanding and therefore their standards were lower (how else would I have got in) - it was perfectly okay to go to university to "find yourself". Except for the above professions, very few occupations (including teaching)  required a degree and almost none required an advanced degree. It was even argued by some that "the true purpose of education is to produce citizens". (Archbishop of York)

Universities in 2015 have only two purposes. One is to train a workforce. There is no need for frills or general information courses - students are there to get a piece of paper so that they can get an entry level job. In the rush to produce as many students as possible in the most economical fashion, universities don't have the capacity or time to teach people how to think critically. I suspect that while employers say that they would like their new employees to be able to think, what so many of them mean is that they want the staff to think like them. The second function of universities is apparently to train enough graduate students so that there will be sufficient numbers of TAs to do the marking and later to become PhDs who will teach part time.

There is a third purpose that really has very little to do with learning at a university. The staff working there need to generate enough funding, generally through research grants, to pay their salaries - so that they can do research. Those professors are not working at a university, they are working in a research factory.

It is not surprising that universities are failing. They are poorly equipped to train people to work in the real world if for no other reason than most of the professors never have (worked in the real world). Universities are letting students in when everyone knows that in many of the professions there are already too many people with degrees who are under employed. Universities bureaucracies and the funding mechanisms are too cumbersome to generate programs that are meaningful and available when needed. But most importantly of all universities were never designed to quickly train people in job specific skills. At their best, universities were able to give young adults the time and the opportunity to learn how to think and to write critically; to be able to analysis data and to come up with their own answers.

It quite frankly boggles my mind that so many graduate students are apparently frustrated and angry that there are not more jobs for them at the university level. If they had just talked to their professors in their second or third years or if they had just read one of the myriad of articles they would have realized that there could not be enough jobs for all of them. But for them to do that - they would need critical thinking skills