Guns and Rights

There has been some discussion lately as to whether or not Canada should forbid the ownership of hand guns. The debate is driven by the increasing number of deaths occurring mainly, in urban areas done by young people killing other young people, defending or taking control of specific areas for the purposes one assumes, of selling drugs etc. I suspect that many of us would not mind terribly much if the killings were limited to dark alleys and if the only people being hurt were only those who were involved in these "turf wars". However they are happening in busy, well populated areas, in broad daylight and other people are getting hurt. Clearly the politicians need to be seen as doing something.

The debate (both here and even more so in the USA) hinges on whether or not law-abiding citizens should have their rights violated (by losing the right to own certain types of guns) so that perhaps there might be fewer deaths caused by mal-adjusted individuals. While the debate in the USA is hampered by the fact that within their constitution is the "right to bear arms" statement, in Canada there is no such provision. Blessedly, our "founding fathers" were not infatuated with the sound of musket shots rattling in their ears and therefore never even considered making have a gun a right, if not an obligation. In fact if anything, owning a gun in Canada should be conceived as a privilege, not a right. A privilege that is earned - just like driving a car is a privilege that is earned and one that can be taken away if circumstances warrant it.

The far right of the gun owners club likes to argue that any attempt on the part of the government to restrict the use of hand guns is an attack on rural people's life style by urban dwellers. While it is true that many urban dwellers do not hunt or that they do not have any recent family history of hunting. It is also true that they may have a limited understanding of a culture that celebrates an annual gathering of the (mostly) male members of a club to go out an hunt their winter's meat. However, the banning of hand guns is not an attack on rural values or lifestyles. To the best of my knowledge relatively few farmers hunt for food or protect their livestock with a hand gun. I suspect that far more hand guns are registered in Toronto than in the rest of Ontario. Banning hand guns is not an attack on traditional values. It is, if anything, an attack on new values that are destructive to the community.

There are all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the possibility that young people engage in such criminal activities - in what use to be called juvenile delinquency. Government funded programs such as recreational activities for teens or safe places they can go can be useful to effectively reduce gang membership (Reducing Youth Violence: The Role of Afterschool Programs). Providing supports to schools and to families specifically in communities that are under pressure ( - Canadian Psychological ) has also been proven useful. To the best of my knowledge banning hand guns has never been proven to prevent violence. Violence is a social issue that needs to be dealt with by making people's lives better.

I appreciate the fact that the government would like to be seen as doing something, but band aid fixes are not the answer. If we truly would like to see a reduction of people shooting each other then not only do we need to restrict their access to firearms but we also need to enhance their opportunities to make positive life choices.

Winners and Losers

It may be my imagination or maybe it is just that I am turning into a crotchety old man who only looks to the past because things seem to have been easier back then, but it feels as if our world is turning more and more into a place where there can only be winners and losers. That is - every discussion or issue has a right side and a wrong side; that if someone wins an argument, it means that someone else has lost it; that there is no way of resolving a discussion by coming to a mutual agreement; that it is not possible anymore for both sides to feel as if they have gained what they needed to.

There is no doubt that the leader of the nation to the south of Canada has done much to perpetuate this ideology that there can only be one winner ( and therefore everyone else must be a loser). His most recent comments about the NAFTA discussions stated very clearly that if he did not get everything he wanted, the deal would not happen; that the USA would win what it wanted and he did not care if Canada lost. It may be that Trump's limited vocabulary or any awareness of some of the nuances within the English language exacerbated his stance. It maybe that he is unable to express something in any language other than in black or white terms. Regardless, while he may be the most public figure perpetuated this dogma of winners and losers, he is not alone.

Fundamentalist groups at either end of the political spectrum have always articulated the belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Such groups have never accepted that there is room for any compromise. For most of us, most of the time - we knew such extreme groups were on the fringe and ignored them as often as possible. However, what appears to have changed in the public's psyche is that such extremes are not seen as extreme. Even mainstream, well-speaking, political and community leaders talk publically about winners and losers. Most recently similar language (of absolute winners and losers) was used by the opposing sides of the Kinder Morgan pipe line debate after the latest findings of the Federal Court. In fact, part of the not-so-gradual transition to a win/lose society may be a result of the increased tendency to arbitrate our disagreements in court.

By definition, courts are an adversarial process. Civil courts were created to find a winner and a loser when there was no other way to decide who was right. But civil courts were never meant to be the first line of defence but rather they were meant to be used when every other option had been explored. It feels as if our society has shifted to " I will sue you" as our method of choice of getting someone's attention (see blog of June 27/18 - Lawsuits and the Unfairness of Insurance). By embracing this singular strategy of getting what we want from someone, we have allowed our thinking, our language and our society to ignore the possibility that in some discussions/debates, it is possible that both sides may neither be total winners or losers. We have allowed debates to be polarized so that there can only be two sides. We have created an environment where the only option appears to be aggressive; where we are not only allowed to be, but expected to attack the other side.

Perhaps I am a crotchety old man who looks too fondly at the world I grew up where it was acknowledged, at least by some of us, that there were very few things that could be looked at through black or white lenses; that many of the issues had a multitude of sides and therefore that the solutions were complicated and multi-faceted. But I can't help but think that such a view allowed us to be just a little bit more civilized to those we disagreed with.

Strange Comments and Questions at The Market

I spend about four and a half hours each week spinning at the market. I spin in part because it is a way of attracting notice when perhaps normally people would not notice me; I also spin because I would be incredibly bored if I had to stand/sit there for four and a half hours and do nothing. If I am not going to make a lot of money being there - I might as well get some work done.

For the most part, I enjoy interacting with the public. Spinning allows me to do so in a non-commercial, hopefully non threatening way. Some people are kind and interested in what I do, many are very flattering in their comments - they seldom buy anything but it is nice that they say nice things about my work. Praise does not buy my food, but it does make me feel good and that is just as important. But I do hear some strange comments or I am asked the same questions over and over again.

Frequently a parent walks by, notices what I do and forces their young child to look at me - usually saying something like "your grandmother use to do that" or "isn't that cool" or " that is how you make wool". The child, of course could not care less and has a vacant stare on his/her face desperately trying to find something more interesting to look at (there is an opposite of this scenario when the young child really wants to stay and watch but his/her parent drags them away). I am never too sure if the parent wants my input to their mini lecture - I frequently have an overwhelming urge to yell out " I am making yarn...... the sheep make the wool" but I don't. It seldom seems worthwhile to correct a parent in front of the child.

On a few occasions I have been told that it would be faster to use a machine or that spinning is a dying/dead art and that no one does it anymore. My favourite, at least in terms of leaving me speechless was "spinning is for women".

People do have lots of questions such as "are you a farmer?", "do you spin dog hair?", "why don't you use natural dyes?", "what animal do you get your sheep fur from?" and "does you foot ever get sore?'. I answer each of these question with as much detail as I think the person can bear and always as if it is the first time I have heard the question. However, the question that I get asked on the most consistent basis and that irritates me the most is a variant of " do you ever get your beard caught up in your spinning?". I have been asked this question at least two times at every west coast market I have attended (I do not remember being asked this question nearly as often at the Peterborough Market in Ontario). The question would be almost understandable when I am spinning grey wool - but it happens regardless of the colour I am spinning (including yellow and red); it is almost always asked with a smile or a laugh. I think the people are making a joke. I think they think they are the first person to ever ask that question.

It would be tempting to just assume that the people who ask this question are just ignorant yokels from somewhere in the back country or even more likely that they are American, but alas this is not true. I have had the question asked by well dressed polite people from various parts of the world including England, Australia, Germany, the USA, Columbia and just a week ago I was asked this question by a young lady from Japan wearing a kimono. In spite of speaking very little English - she managed to get out the question -"do you spin your beard?" And she did it with a small smile.

I have decided that it is an international phenomena. I might as well get use to it - it clearly is not going to stop being asked. Maybe I should ask the UN or the World Trade organization for some assistance in doing so research on this. Do Peruvian women get asked if there long hair gets caught up in their work, do rug weavers from the Middle East get asked if their beards get tangled up in their looms or is it just a western phenomena?

Food for thought......

Orcas and Pipelines

The big news this week, or at least the big news for some folks in BC and Alberta was, of course, the announcement that a Federal Court of Appeal had ruled that the approval process for the pipeline was insufficient both in terms of how the government engaged in dialogue with the First Nations communities and in the fact that it had not adequately dealt with the issue of how increased tanker traffic would affect the orcas. Not surprisingly - some of the individuals/organizations involved in this process have declared an absolute victory over the forces of darkness while others have declared an almost end to the world as we know it. The reality is that neither end of this reaction continuum is accurate.

There is no doubt that historically the Canadian government (along with private corporations, provincial governments, municipalities and any other sort of non-native organization or structure) have woefully failed to engage with First Nation communities on issues that affect them. In this particular case the government should have done so much more to create a meaningful dialogue. However, at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the federal government - the courts have continually increased their expectations; the definition of a "meaningful dialogue" has dramatically changed in the last decade or so. None-the- less- the federal government needs to find a better way of doing business and the courts have rightly told them so. On the other hand, everyone needs to understand that sometimes a "meaningful dialogue" does not mean that everyone agrees. In previous court cases it has been decided that the federal government has the right to make decisions on behalf of the country as a whole - even when that decision displeases a relatively small group of people. "Meaningful dialogue" means both sides listening to each other, sharing of ideas and solutions, honestly looking for resolutions to disagreements and ideally coming to a compromise or consensus. It does not means that a small group always wins.

I am less in agreement with the court (like they care what I think!) around the issue of the orcas. To suggest that increased tanker traffic might affect that particular pod strikes me, at best, to be narrow minded. It also panders to the human tendency to anthropomorphize animals we think are cute or noble. While an increase in tanker traffic may be the cause of some of the orcas' distress/inability to thrive, there might be other causes as well including the number of large cruise ships that sail up and down the BC coast line, the number of whale watching boats that continue to motor in areas known to be used by orcas and other large sea mammals, the amount of sewage that is dumped into the sea by Victoria and other municipalities who do not process their waste, the amount of plastics that end up in the world's oceans, the lack of attention to our rivers and streams that produce salmon (orcas mostly eat salmon) and the fact that humans continue to catch salmon for our personal use. To stop the construction of a pipeline because it might have an effect on a small group mammals and to do nothing about resolving all of the other issues affecting those mammals seems like a waste of paper the decision was written on.


A question to all of those who are celebrating. In the wee dark hours of the morning I hope some think about the fact that the most progressive, most environmental aware Albertan government ever - will now lose the next election to be replaced by a right wing, social conservative, pro business government, that 33 First Nation communities who were anticipating receiving significant income from the pipeline, will now not get it, and that, perhaps worst of all, oil will continued to be shipped by the most dangerous and least efficient/effective way - by rail. If the federal government finally learns how to negotiate in good faith then perhaps it will all be worthwhile. But I doubt it that will happen anytime in the near future.

A Minor Sadness

I am sort of sad. I am not saying that that I am clinically depressed or even that I am profoundly sad - I just feel a little bit down. For as long as I can remember at some point in mid to late August I get to feeling this way. I however, have noticed that this feeling of loss, of something being unfinished has started to happen earlier and earlier each year. A few years ago I realized that the start of my malaise coincided with the arrival of the first advertising flyers announcing back-to-school specials. This year, the first of these flyers arrived stuck in-between the pages of my semi-weekly free newspaper the first week of August. Summer has seemed to be particularly short this year.

It is easy to see why a person still involved in school would start to miss the loss of freedom with the threat of having to return to school. Similarly for those few lucky few (such as teachers) who have the summer off, any signal that fall is approaching could, understandably bring a sense of sadness and/or a feeling of loss of freedom. But my last experiences with school were fun - I looked forward to going back to school in the fall (although at the graduate level - there really was no summer off). I don't think I ever really disliked going to work and certainly my last years of working were fun and challenging. So why do I continue to experience some minor blues when reminded that summer will come to an end.

One could perhaps argue that my minor melancholy is more related to the weather, or at least to the reminder that the warm weather is about to be gone and that soon it will be cold for months and months. While it may be that my sense of loss or sadness is partially related to my younger self's memories of cold winters in Quebec and later in central Ontario, I like fall - the cool crisp mornings and the extraordinary colour of the leaves of the hardwoods. Besides I now live in balmy (almost) British Columbia where it may rain a lot but it is seldom really cold and one almost never has to shovel snow.

It is accepted within the medical/psychological literature that smells can trigger memories, that a smell of something can trigger powerful recollections and emotions of the past. While I know of no similar research on the topic, clearly visual cues such as seeing advertising flyers can have a similar effect.

What a marvellous thing is our brain - I wish I understood mine better.

Priorities??

A week or so ago I did a blog on wondering out loud how people make decisions or rather by which criteria do people identify priorities. A few days later I came across an article about Esther the pig. Now it is clear that I am not up on all current events and therefore I had never heard about this semi famous pig. She has been on TV, has her own web page, had a book published about her and can be contacted/seen on all of the usual social media sites. Who knew that she was a celebrity?

The story I read in the National Post was about the fact that this pig needed to get a CT scan done to determine what was wrong with her back. At the veterinary clinic attached to Guelph's rightly well known vet school, there was no CT scanner big enough to accommodate Esther's considerable bulk. Esther's owners decided to raise money to buy a CT scanner so that that Guelph would have one, not just for Esther but also for other large animals including horses. In a short time, they easily raised over $500,000 (American) to buy the machine. While I would never argue that those who are responsible for an animal should ever do anything to cause suffering and in fact should do whatever possible they can to help the animal heal, I have to wonder why it was so easy to raise money for a scanner so that a six year old, 650 pound pig can have her back examined (it turns out that she has a cancerous tumour). I suspect that there are hundreds of parents who are struggling with the cost of supporting a critically ill child - and it is almost impossible to raise sufficient funds to do so; there are countless number of people who have experienced traumatic injuries and can not get sufficient assistance and there are literally thousands of children in Canada, who go to bed hungry most nights of the week - but we can raise money for a pet pig to get better medical care?

It is hard not to question some people's ability to decide what is truly important.

A few days later I heard part of a discussion on CBC where a lawyer and a animal rights activist were discussing the right of a horse living in Oregon to sue its former owner for pain and suffering. The horse (named Justice) thorough its "guardian", is suggesting that because it was neglected it developed some ongoing health problems and therefore its former owner should pay all of the associated medical cost. While it makes sense that that owner pays for the medical cost, I am not so sure about the court allocating monies for pain and suffering. I am even less sure about suggesting that animals have all of the same rights as do humans, including the right to sue if their owners do not perform as they should.

It would seem to me to be a slippery path to stand at the top of if one suggests that all animals have many if not all of the same rights as do humans. I would love to live in a world where no animal was killed for sport or for food, where all animals (including those I do not like such as rats) were treated with respect, where all animals could live in safe places where they could live full lives; however even more importantly I would like to live in a world where our resources went to ensuring that no humans were ever killed for sport , vengeance or a piece of land, where no child ever went to bed hungry and where all could live in peace. In a world full of infinite resources with all people being ethically motivated, perhaps all is possible. but in the short term - it does not seem likely.

Quite frankly, I would be quite delighted if people stopped raising and killing (ethically or not) animals for food.

Sewage

I always find it somewhat curious as to how humans determine what is important and what is not; what things grab our curiosity and our passion. How do we determine which issues are so important that we will put our life on hold to do something about them while other things seem to be completely irrelevant?

For example when an orca carries around her dead baby for days and days - it is newsworthy. People, certainly on the west coast, get upset and start to demand that someone do something to ensure the health of the remain orcas in that pod. Thousands and thousands of dollars are spent to find ways to deliver antibiotics to one of the other young orcas who appears not to be thriving. On the other hand while a casual observer from another planet would perhaps assume that all humans would be concerned about human rights and that any violation of such rights would be immediately and vigorously protested, clearly that is not true. It might be equally assumed by the same visitor that issues of poverty and starvation would be quickly addressed by the population at large. Again for the vast majority - we do nothing.

Every once in awhile, some political party or other special interest group does a national poll to determine what our priorities are. While the results vary according to how the questions are posed, what is being talked about on various media outlets and how the economy is doing, the environment has been in the top three or four priorities for the last ten or so years. If one lives on the west coast it would be easy to believe that that protection of the environment is always at the top of any list. And rightly so - it is difficult to imagine the human species existing in its present form if we do not do something to protect the planet.

If those polls in any way accurately reflect what people feel or think - why doesn't the public rise up and do something about the amount of raw sewage that is pouring from our toilets into our lakes, rivers and oceans? Why do we spend countless thousands of hours of energy protesting a yet-to-be- built pipe line or the clear cutting of some very old trees but express no concern with what we are doing today with our bodily waste. Surely that is our responsibility. How we dispose of our sewage is a fixable problem - well within our grasp yet we spend our time bubbling with angst over the lives of sea mammals who are not thriving because of a lack of food and just maybe the amount of human generated pollution in their ocean but do nothing to fix the most obvious problem.

CBC reported in 2916 that " 205 billion litres of raw sewage and untreated waste water spewed into Canada's rivers and oceans last year" (CBC); earlier this week the same media outlet ran another story stating that " over one trillion litres of raw sewage leaked into Canadian waterways between 2013 and 2017, including 215 billion litres in 2017 alone" (CBC). To make things even worse almost none of that discharge is illegal. The convoluted arguments defending these practices are mind boggling. Take for example the city of Victoria whose sewage is discharged with minimal screening directly into the ocean a kilometre away from the city and fifty meters down. It has been argued that because that the pipe discharges the city's waste into the Juan da Fuca Strait it is quickly dispersed and therefore no harm is none. Diluting the poison does not solve the problem - not when you are dumping millions of litres a year.

While it can be argued that some sorts of pollution are the result of a complex change of interactions with our environment and therefore are hard to eradicate, the dumping raw sewage into lakes, rivers and oceans is a simple chain of cause and effect. It will take money to fix the problem, to build the infrastructure but it can be done. Given the fact that at least in BC this fall is municipal election time, perhaps we should start to demand that we clean up our local waste before demanding that others clean up theirs.