Pro-Choice M312, M408 the second kick at the Can

The fight over Motion 312 is over and the count was 203-91 against. The 87 of the 91 votes for the motion were conservatives, including 8 cabinet ministers. Elizabeth May of the Green Party, all the members of the NDP and all but four Liberals voted against the M312. Of note was Rona Ambrose Status of Women Minister, who voted for the Motion. She has come under fire for siding with Pro Life MP Stephen Woodworth. I think it is a fair criticism. The purpose of the Ministry for the Status of Women is the advancement of women. It is reasonable to say that supporting a motion that is a thinly veiled attempt to open a path to abortion regulation and eventual criminalization, runs counter to the Minister's portfolio. Ms Ambrose's  vote may be excused somewhat if she was voting her constituents wishes. But if she was voting her conscience, she should have resigned position as Minister before the vote. How can Ms Ambrose properly represent women if she is conflicted.

Fast on the heals of the defeated M312 came M408.

M-408 — September 26, 2012 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — That the House condemn discrimination against females occuring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

This is a vote to condemn the selective abortion of females fetuses. How can that be a bad thing. How can anyone support aborting fetuses because they are female. So what we Recognized is a condition in which abortion is not acceptable. In comes Pro Life. They might say "if you agree that it's acceptable to limit a woman's choice in this instance, then how about...". That is the whole problem with the issue of Abortion. Pro Life wishes to end legal abortion, outright or a little at a time. Motion 312 was an attempt to create person hood for a fetus and a conflict of rights between the Mother and the fetus. Such a conflict would have to be addressed by the Courts, Legislation or both. The outcome would likely be an end to Legal abortion, or it's severe curtailment. The aim of Pro Choice is to preserve a Women's Reproductive Rights, and that must included abortion though it does not demand it. What a woman, unsure of whether she wants to be a mother, needs is support, information and compassion. What doesn't help is to be coerced, either to have an abortion or to keep the child. 

So the motion condemning sex selection is a trap of sorts. An attempt to suggest Pro Choice, Feminists or what have you are hypocrites. How the question is spat out "can you say you support women, only to allow their extinction in the womb". The Pro Life arguments will be rife with exaggeration, free of context and accusation. They will also be completely wrong. Wrong because Pro Life doesn't get what Feminists and Choice supporters are trying to do. 

I support Choice because a women must be secure in her body as men are in theirs. Part of that security is to be free of coercion. I'm not Pro Abortion, I'm Pro Choice. I accept that abortion is just one of the choices available. That brings us around to sex selective abortions. The CBC investigated fetal gender testing. Already pundits have staked out their positions decrying it's arrival in Canada. Many begin by quoting the down right awful incidence of selective female abortions in other countries. It is reasonable to believe it is happening here. The tools are available as are people who might desire to use them. The question is how many are doing it. From the Globe and Mail and article on sex selection in Ontario. Selected from the article is this point.

"During the study period, about 4,100 babies were delivered to Indian-born mothers who already had two or more children. Using the “normal” ratio of 1.05 males to female births, the number of baby girls expected to be born in that group would be 1,999; the actual number was 1754.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women."

Sex selective abortion if occurring at all, has yet to reach a point where it presents a real problem. This indicates that in Canada those pressures that lead to sex selective abortions are being mitigated. This is where the Pro life chatter fails as usual. Sex selective abortion results from social or cultural pressure or more intimately from the family's desire for a male child. It is coercion. The problem with sex selective abortion is not the abortion, that is the end result; instead it is the desire for a male child due to the implied superior value of a boy, that drives it. If you want to stop sex selective abortions you need to address why women are so devalued? Why a family doesn't want a girl? The Pro Choice position is about ending coercion of any kind. It is about listening to the woman, understanding what she needs and providing it with compassion but without judgement.

It is not a surprising revelation that sex selective abortions seem quite rare in Ontario, if they occur at all. It says that in Ontario and in Canada, quite loudly; where women have equality and opportunity; where women have value outside the womb,they will have value in the womb as well.  

Motion 408 is another Pro Life attempt to strip women of choice. The argument that it protects women is shallow at best, at worst it's the hypocritical one. How do you protect and value women by reducing their status and rights whenever pregnant. I still have no problem supporting women or their reproductive choices. 

There is no Debate, M312

Yesterday I was writing a piece on my twitter interactions with Pro-Lifers, about M-312.(scroll down) I was writing about  the debate, what arguments they made and my counters. I was trying to make the point that their arguments were invalid, filled with grand sweeping narratives, exaggeration,and repetition. I ended up abandoning the story because I didn't like the way it was going. I slept on it. This morning I know why the post didn't feel right.

Each time I answered a pro-life question or posed my own, I was legitimizing the discussion. That is the mistake I made.There is no legitimate debate, being secure in your own body and having the right to decide what is done to it, is not negotiable. Debate maybe enjoined on how best this right maybe exercised or expressed. Not whether it is or is not be enjoyed.

Is this a bad decision? I don't think so, because I'm leaving the field to the opposition, rather I'm denying them one more stage to produce their theatre. We don't seriously debate the health benefits of smoking, the efficacy of taking Mercury pills, or whether seat belts save lives. Over time these issues have moved to the margins, as have their proponents, or completely fallen away.

So I will consign M-312 and Abortion Rights to the same dust bin that houses Marriage Equality and The Right to Die. These issues share many similarities to the M-312. They were also proscriptions against acting, drawing legitimacy from Religious doctrine, passions and belief. They press(ed) the State for legislation to prevent others from exercising choice. Choices that affect only the parties involved, having no wider (legitimate) implication or concerns.

We must continue to oppose such men as Stephen Woodworth, and those people and institutions that follow his kind of thinking. But it is better done by withdrawing, the legitimacy that honest debate proffers. It is better to oppose and engage them with satire, polite ridicule and laughter.

Vote against Motion 312.

The Gun Registry is not Quite Dead.

On Monday of this week, Mr. Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard of the Quebec Superior Court rules that the Harper Government can not destroy Gun registry records. What was gathered in concert between the Federal and provincial governments can not be erased unilaterally.

The Harper government responded to the decision, stating

“I am disappointed with today’s ruling and will thoroughly review the decision,” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said in a statement.

“The will of Parliament and Canadians has been clear. We do not want any form of a wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.”

The above quote by Toews suggests that the Conservatives are likely to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada. When any government references the "Will of Parliament" especially in a Majority setting, it means the will of the government in power. I can see any Liberal saying the exact same thing after being confronted by the anti-gun registry protests and challenges. The Harper government will pursue the destruction of gun registry data because they think they are right, because a promise made, and they have a majority. 

The Harper Government's answer to the the ruling was not unexpected. They have spent 17 years working to get rid of that legislation, through three incarnations; The Reform Party; The Canadian alliance and finally the Conservative party of Canada. Conservatives are as deeply invested in the idea of a "scraped" gun registry as Liberal-Left was in implementing it. Stephen Maher's column "Let the provinces register firearms or not", pointed the underlying nature of the registry. It was an attempt to impose a single standard on a population with diverse needs and experience.

Until I read Maher's column, I hadn't thought about the Gun registry as an issue best addressed by the Provinces. I supported the Gun Registry and still do, not because I thought it would reduce Gun related offences. The protesters were right with respect that, legal gun owners were not responsible for the vast majority of gun relate crimes. After that salient point their position rested on the stridency of ideology. I supported it because it is useful to have information on weapons ownership. Not in order to confiscate them, but to keep track of them. Again not in order to humiliate Gun owners, to cast them as dangerous or turn them into second class citizens. It can be as difficult to argue the utility of such information to a gun owner as it would be the necessity of the Census to Good government, to a Libertarian. 

What Maher suggests is simple and it would have been good advice for the Liberals in 1995 as it would be to the Conservatives in 2012. Let the provinces decide. I most often favour nation wide standards and practices. I don't care much for asymmetry. Too much of that and all you get a patch work Canada. I support the notion that where ever you reside, your living conditions should be as similar as is reasonable to that of other Canadians. He argues that Canada is a diverse nation, her citizens are not uniform in experience, attitude or geography. In many cases a "one size fits all" piece of legislation is as uncomfortable as it sounds. In some cases it is better to let Provincial governments legislate because they benefit from proximity to their electorate and can be more agile in meeting their expectations.

It is a powerful argument. The only objection I can raise is how this effects the safety of citizens. It is imperative that no place in Canada be made substantially left safe due to a piece of legislation or lack thereof. Earlier I said that didn't believe you are much safer with the gun registry, than you are without, registering a weapon does not mean a crime can never be committed by the owner. There are very particular circumstances where it is important. Police knowing whether there are weapons present in a domicile they are making a call on is useful. Knowing if the subject of a Peace Bond has weapons is important. 

So I am left wondering whether it is reasonable to let provinces and their citizens decide the level of safety they are willing to accept. Lives lost will be be counted after the fact, and that is no comfort to the dead, lives saved will always be guesswork. 

I will fall back on pragmatism. Right now there is no gun registry. We have lost. As long as Harper perches in Ottawa, the registry is dead. It may never be resurrected on a federal level. owing to the contentiousness of the legislation. The court is all that prevents the destruction of valuable information. The only choice left is Provincial gun registries.Let Provinces respond directly to the needs of there own citizens. So at least some Canadians can benefit from what ever good there is in the Gun Registry. Over time more provinces are likely to adopt gun registries. This time not as a burden but as a needful tool.  I trust that good ideas survive bad ones fall away. 

In the meantime the Harper Government will fight as hard to eradicate the the Gun Registry information as the Liberals fought to get it collected. Harper will ignore that the Registry he fought against, as an unreasonable imposition, is little different than, from trying to make sure no one now can have a Registry. The Liberals ignored a small but vocal minority. Hard will oppose a large vocal majority. It would have been better if the Liberals had listened in 1995, it would be good if Harper listened now in 2012

                     

Office Of Religious Freedom

The Office of Religious Freedom, doesn't automatically bring to mind the Ministry of Truth, but i can't say the thought hadn't occurred to me. I don't automatically associate Freedom with Religion. I'm not going to compare The Harper government with Oceania. There is no comparison. What I'm thinking about is the nature of the Office of Religious Freedom. What it means. What it will do. What are the the benefits and potential entanglements.

In 2011 John Baird gave a speech where he mentions the announces the creation of the Office of Religious Freedom.  Baird says  

"The office will promote freedom of religion and freedom of conscience as key objectives of Canadian foreign policy."

That sentence tells us the basic idea of what objectives the ORF will pursue. It also let's us know that it will pursue these at the direction of the Foreign Affairs.

"The long history of humanity has proven that religious freedom and democratic freedom are inseparable."

"As Franklin Roosevelt observed on the eve of global war: “Where freedom of religion has been attacked, the attack has come from sources opposed to democracy."

''Where democracy has been overthrown, the spirit of free worship has disappeared. “And where religion and democracy have vanished, good faith and reason in international affairs have given way to strident ambition and brute force.” "

The next three exerts provide the justification for protecting freedom of religion. The relationship between democracy and religious freedom is obvious,but is it of greater importance than that of freedom of speech, freedom of association; both of which have had a troubled association with organized religion. I await an Office of Freedom of Speech.

So the Harper government is almost ready unveil the ORF that will identify religious oppression and direct foreign affairs resources to address these violations. But it seems clear that the ORF is not independent of, and will work in conjunction with and support the goals of the Dept. of Foreign Affairs. 

Promoting religious freedom and the religious pluralism which almost always follows it is a worthy goal. I see the benefits generated from freedom of belief, but problems as well.

A conflict between state interests immediately comes to mind. How will the ORF address the Tibetan-China issue. A religious problem within a political one complicated by economics. China believes Tibet is an internal issue, and has never wavered on this stance. Will the ORF declare China's position in Tibet to unacceptable? It would seem impossible to decide it any other way. Such a position is sure to anger China. It is a certainly that they would respond, negatively, affecting Canada and China's economic and political ties. So what then?Will the Office of Religious Freedom be instructed to walk softly or even remain mute on Tibet, to preserve ties with the Asian super power, at the cost of its objectives and integrity? It will fall further when we see Harper, as he must, use the ORF to censure Burma over its treatment of the Rohingya Muslims  minority or the plight of Middle east Christians. Deserving targets and safe to harangue and part of Canada's Foreign Policy arc. Such a circumstance would reveal the ORF as just another foreign policy tool used as needed to serve and further our interests.

The Office of Religious Freedom can only point out abuses in nations that have no mechanisms for creating such freedom in the first place. In the West the essential notion is that we have a right to believe as we choose. We may join any religion that will have us and leave at any time.This democratizing of religion has resulted in a multitude of beliefs. It is not the same in other nations or religions, and trying to force open their borders to our brand of religion, feels like trouble. It was democracy that made possible religious pluralism. We are attempting to bring it about in countries that are barley democratic or not at all. A cart before the horse. We would do better opening  an Office for Promoting Democratic Freedom.

I am an atheist. I don't like religion. I do like Democracy and I think it best when people are free from coercion and abuse, including the right to belief. I see in the Office of Religious Freedom a tempting tool, but not an effective one for change. It is a hammer to chip away at foreign governments, to undermine whatever moral claim to rule they might have. A tally of one more abuse among abuses, maleficent acts all, of the offending government, and all true. A list that sooner or later will serve as an excuse for regime change. 

 

Labour Day, Tim Hudak and the Right To Work

Labour Day seems a good time to look at Tim Hudak's position on Organized Labour. In June the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario presented a white paper "Flexible Labour Markets" as part of their series entitled "Paths to Prosperity".  It describes a need to modernize the rules regarding how Unions operate in the work place, among other things. In the United States they call it "Right to Work" and it's all the rage. Here is a cool website, National Right to Work, you can see how serious they are, their Header includes "Defending America's workers from the abuses of compulsory unionism since 1968". Satire is stunned into silence. 

The Pitch: Unions have too much power, and as a result, the economy, the employer and the employees suffer. The Solution: Change the rules that govern how unions operate in the work place. No more mandatory membership or mandatory dues, institute secret ballots and full disclosure of unions spending and revenues. Thrown in for good measure: Open Bid tendering, Fix the Labour relations board, it seems that it is not impartial or limited enough in scope, WSIB needs to face competition from private Insurers.

At first blush a person might mistake Hudak for a rights crusader, trying to get the Jack Booted of Union oppression off the neck of the freedom loving worker. A second blush should come at the recognition of your error. It is right that people should question things that are mandatory, so as not to impose an undue burden on a citizen. So Hudak say " let's look at mandatory union dues and membership", he find these to be an undue burden on the employee; and you know they might be for some. 

Membership and dues paying are at the core of a Union. Their strength is derived from the ability to speak for all employees, to withhold work if necessary. The dues go toward the maintenance of the Union, and goals the leadership deems necessary for continued prosperity of its membership. If membership optional, part of the workplace opts out, not of the benefits, just the risks and of the costs, the ubiquitous "free rider" of conservative nightmares. A divided work place certainly favours the employer, at least in the short term. Eliminating mandatory dues, will for one, reduce Union effectiveness, which in turn reduces the willingness of members to pay dues. Nobody likes to pay and get nothing in return. It also eliminates Unions as an effective political force. That's not a problem for Hudak since the Progressive Conservative are unlikely to see a dime from Unions.

Opening the Union Books. Who can argue with transparency. I can't, but the open books policy has little to do with the Hudak's concern for the ill used worker. It is a just one more way to attack Unions, fomenting descent within the membership. An attempt to turn members against their leadership. I will support any effort that gives a greater say in how money is spent, but not to the point where it paralyzes a Unions ability to act. I wouldn't handcuff government spending,(useless balanced budget legislation as a case in point)like that so I won't Unions. 

What Hudak offers is faux freedom for the worker, resulting in a weaker Union. Which shockingly give real freedom and increased power to the Employer. What of the salutary effect of this policy on the labourer and on the economy. Its a good, but sad thing that we can look South to see how the American experiment with "Right to Work" is going.

Twenty-three American states plus Guam have "Right to Work" laws. Well this admittedly anti-right to work site, and this one too. hey I gave you the Pro right to work site at the top so don't complain, says things aren't so good in those  "Free the Worker from Evil Unions States". In those states, workers earn less money, less is spent on education, higher workplace accident, lower standard of living. Hard to say those are good things unless you are a Running Dog Capitalist, and then likely you only say it to the like minded. Just so you don't think I'm hiding the good effects of  "Free the Worker from Evil Unions States" This articles speaks glowingly of some of the good things it has wrought. What you read is higher rates of economic growth, population movement to towards those states with RTW laws and something referred to as " accumulated growth in manufacturing income" I'll translate that; companies move to States where unions are weak or non existent, people who need jobs go to those states where there are jobs, what "accumulated growth in manufacturing income" is i don't know, the quotes are theirs. But I might offer that if they had meant to say people in RTW states made more money they would damned well have written it in big letters.

What I'm reading and don't see a lot of articles denying, what ever side of the issue you are on, is that RTW laws have the sole purpose of  eradicating unions. They create an environment favourable to business. A worker in the RTW states is worse off, not better. It is an odd effect that in a country where 70% of the economy is driven by consumption that such strenuous effort is made to redirect wealth from the many to the few. The reality that  people with less money spend less, has no apparent effect on policy like this.

This is what Hudak would like to bring to Ontario, under the guise of freedom. Hudak is Pro Business which shouldn't mean Anti-Labour but some how does. People need jobs. Those jobs need to be able to support a reasonable standard of living. Unions help in that regard but its tough going. Hudak seeks to make it harder.

I am hopeful that the citizen of Ontario can think through the concept of "Right to Work" and see it for what it is, an attempt to lower the standards for all But a few.  

Have a happy Labour Day

Poor Rob Ford

Rob Ford faces conflict of interest allegations. These allegations have could cost him his job as Mayor. If found to be in breach of conflict of interests guidelines he would face immediate dismissal. A lot of people have weighed in on that outcome. The Sun's Lorrie Goldstein  gave his opinion and so did Rick Salutin of the Toronto Star.

It is clear that Rob Ford broke the rules. He solicited money for a private charity using governed resources. He was found in breach of the rules and ordered to pay the money back. After he became mayor he participated in a vote to over turn that earlier order. That was a conflict of interest. He is now in jeopardy of losing his job.

What came next were the opinions. Then the private citizen and the public pundits chimed in on what poor Mayor Ford did and what should happen to him. If you distill out the the rapid, those screaming "no harm done", "he is guilty", "lefty plot","abuse of power", "abuse of procedure", "the very soul of democracy's a stake"(that said by both extremes), you get to the heart of the matter. Does what he did merit overturning an election result.

The moderates on both side, the place you go to understand an issue, have after deliberating on the facts come down on the side of no.

A conservative arrives at this conclusion by excusing Ford. Making it clear he did wrong(technically), but in comparison to other conflicts of interests this is really not that big and the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The liberal/Left tends to excuse Ford himself, he simply isn't a skilled or knowledgeable politician, he is overwhelmed by the office. The audience gets to chose between and incompetent Mayor or an unjust punishment.

It is not surprising the Liberal/Left chooses, to support the integrity of the electoral system. Maintaining that a  vote should not be overturned without due cause is a Liberal Democrat value. It would be wrong to kick Ford out for what he did. I didn't start there, but it is where I ended up. I favoured the old Rule of Law, at first,as conservative are fond of saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Initial reaction are not always the right ones. It is nice to be able to read cogent arguments, ones that make you think. I can live with the judge informing the Mayor that he acted wrongly, but not knowingly. Incompetence is a heavy burden to carry into a election.

The conservative have been entertaining to watch and read. The conservatives bent over backward defending Rob Ford. Suffice to say that the idea of personal responsibility barely, if ever rears its uncomfortable head. The sort of moderate, conservative,  mostly went for the "this is not Justice" defense.  They are right, but it's still amusing hearing them descend from the mountain to declare it. They almost sound liberal in their arguments.

The end result should be a suitably chastised Ford, who gets to remain Mayor to face the electorate in 2014.

It's Not a Lie if You Believe It.(Yes it Is)

The Republican National Convention ended yesterday with Mitt Romney accepting the nomination for President of the Untied States. No surprises there, he was always the front runner an out lasted his opponents, and it was a foregone conclusion months ago. The convention will probably be remembered more for Clint Eastwood's speech and for the number of lies and half-truths that were uttered during the 4 days in Tampa. Even a Fox News contributor had trouble with Paul Ryan's speech.

I expect conventions to be partisan. It is also assumed that some freedom will be made with the truth, shaded here an exaggeration there. The purpose of a convention is to package and launch the candidates, into the next stage of the election; especially where the there is no doubt on who will win that nomination. They are filled with feel good speeches about your nominee, and take downs of your opponent. 

This particular convention had all the shading and exaggeration expected, and the out right lies. The lies arrived at the convention having already figured into the campaigning that Romney done. I should be clear, these aren't disputed claims, that could either way, they are factual incorrect. All an honest partisan can do is explain that "yes the facts are wrong, but we think that's what he meant" or "sure that's not accurate but it's something he would have done if he could". 

The "We Built It" theme of the convention was drawn from a speech that Obama gave, where he utters the sentence "you didn't build it". The Romney campaign edited several sentences, the effect was the President seeming to say, you didn't build your own business. Red meat to a conservative. This was not the usual exaggeration. It was a lie. The speech, awkward wording aside, did not remotely mean what the republicans were implying. But that was the point. 

It is not unusual, for campaigns to high light sections of speech, remove context, and address only a single thought in a larger speech or action. Everyone does it , sadly. What happen here was a fictionalization of an event. It was different than a lie it was a new truth a crafted and more appealing truth. One that met their needs.That is a problem. If the present is so malleable that it can be made to mean anything, we are bereft of solidity. What was true today can with careful editing be false tomorrow. 

It was amazing to read about the lies and how they flowed without hesitation or self consciousness. As if you couldn't Google them, seconds after being spoken, to see the truth of it. The crowd wants to believe Obama is bad. The speakers deliver. Is this contempt for their audience or understanding of their base, perhaps the Republicans know that their audience isn't interested in the facts;or worse, that the places they go to find the facts, news,radio and Internet, can be counted on to publish the conservative version of the truth. 

The willingness to lie, and to be lied to, can not be good for the election process, or Democracy in general. It erodes trust which is the core of the compact between elected and electorate. 

I often wonder whether the political class wants an informed electorate or an ignorant one. There will be benefits and drawbacks for both. For me there is no choice. It is better to be informed, even if you don't like what you hear. 

Canada and Torture

In a CBC story it came to light that Public Safety Minister had authorized CSIS to make use information gained from torture.

In 2010 Public Safety Minister issued a directive to CSIS regarding the use of torture. 

"Public Safety Minister Vic Toews quietly told CSIS the government now expects the spy service to "make the protection of life and property its overriding priority" and may under exceptional circumstances share information based on intelligence that may have been derived from the use of torture. " 

In February of2012 he answered for it in the House of Commons,

"Information obtained by torture is always discounted. But the problem is, can one safely ignore it when Canadian lives and property are at stake?" Toews said in question period"

The policy remained in place despite its questionable value and possible violation of International agreements Canada is signatory of.

On August 24, 2012 it was found that the Harper government has also given RCMP and Border Agents the right to utilize information gained from torture.

In both cases the Harper governments cites the Exceptional Circumstances as the qualifier for use of information gained from torture. There is also this portion which states,

""The objective is to establish a coherent and consistent approach across the government of Canada in deciding whether or not to send information to, or solicit information from, a foreign entity when doing so may give rise to substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual," says the four-page framework.""

This indicates that the Harper government is willing to allow requests for information, under Exceptional Circumstances, that they know will result in torture. The Harper government has made it possible for Canadian agencies to contract out torture. In effect, if they need information on a possible bombing and have a name and a place, they can send a request to that jurisdiction, with the result of detention and torture or if all ready detained just the torture of a foreign citizen. 

It is not a free-for-all. The Harper government has proposed a mechanism for requests, considerations that must be made, chains of responsibility that can if needed end at the Minister of Public safety's desk. The end result with all the precautions and procedures and checks is that Torture has become an investigatory tool of the the Harper Government. It is for both Canada and Harper a low point, that I had never anticipated.

The Harper government is taking the position that the safety of citizens and property, let's not forget property, is paramount. So any Agency that feels danger is imminent, has the incentive to make use of torture. This presupposes that the person who has the information you really need is or can be detained and that through torture, has already divulged the details needs to prevent the danger or can be made to. The ticking time bomb scenario. And so the rot sets in.

This is fiction intruding on real life. Is it possible that the information you need to prevent disaster is a few cigarette burns and broken fingers away? Anything is possible. It is however, highly unlikely. 

Torture has a long history; its use as a tool of oppression on persons, peoples and movements; the use of torture in criminal proceedings to extract confessions, and prove guilt are well documented. As well  is the essential truth, that under torture a person will say whatever you like to make it stop. 

Authoritarian regimes use of  torture as a matter of policy, should be a red flag for us. Until recently we have accepted that being a little less safe is better than allowing men and women to have their bodies broken on our behalf. Let's not forget that, we are told by the Harper government that it is OK under Exceptional circumstances, to abuse others to remain safe. Think about that. Think about how many people will be tortured for information,even then it is not clear that you will even get what you need. It is only in the movies that you hit pay dirt on the first try, and it's only in the movies that you know that guy is a scumbag. In real life it's men; women and children that suffer; shop keepers; labourers; the poor and powerless; mixed among them a few dangerous people for sure. 

Democracies disowned the use of coercion; violent or otherwise, acknowledging that the cost was too high and the fruits too bitter. We turned instead to investigation and interrogation techniques that don't abuse the suspect or dehumanize the interrogator. Admittedly it is slower, but far more successful in countering criminal acts and uncovering the truth. 

The Harper government is wagering that Canadian citizens will make an accommodation with the idea that torture is OK if it saves lives. We have already accepted a little less freedom for a little more safety haven't we? We wait in lines at airports, we put up more cameras and have given increased powers to police and security agents,though without more oversight of these agents. Integrating torture into the investigators tool bag is only reasonable isn't it? Lives are at stake aren't they? 

There is a limit to pragmatism. Since 911 we have given up the high ground slowly, inexorably, we now find ourselves knee deep in the mud and wondering how we arrived here. This is it. There is and will be a cost to taking a position against torture. The cost will be borne unequally, of this I have no doubt. But what other option do we have? 

I Finally Bought a Bike Helmet

Last month I bought a bike helmet. It is the first bike helmet I have owned. This is unusual because I have cause to acknowledge that helmets reduce the potential for severe damage. I can credit the helmet I was wearing at the time of my motorcycle accident with protecting my head from impact with unyielding pavement and steel. 

So why so long the long delay? I can't say I was uninformed. I have read the reports and studies on bike helmets. In fact their is quite a lot of data out there, a casual search will bring you to proponents and opponents. Bike helmets laws have taken what appears to be a simple safety issue and turned it into a towering controversy. Read as much as you can, as much as is necessary to come to a decision you can be comfortable with. 

I had plenty of excuses for not buying a helmet, none of them credible. They are uncomfortable, they look silly, I will get helmet head, vanity can be dangerous. I thought I'd never get into an accident because I'm a safe cyclist. What finally brought me around to helmet wearing? I credit the Chief Corner with recommending Ontario enact a helmet law. (Though as the article states other jurisdictions are rethinking or removing their own helmet laws.) This had me thinking about my safety and head injuries. The more I thought about traumatic brain injury, the easier it was to dismiss previous excuses against wearing a helmet. When it comes down to it I'll take messy hair over brain damage. 

If i stop here I might get a smattering of applause for deciding to be safe, making a personal decision to be responsible for my own safety. 

I will instead go one more step and say I support mandatory helmet laws, with all the benefits and harms attached o such legislation. 

Helmet Laws are decried as nanny state legislation. It is considered an unwarranted intrusion into the life of the citizen. The citizen is responsible for their own safety and should be allowed to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. While this is primarily a Conservative/Libertarian view it probably has wider support. An entire piece could be written on the theory of personal responsibility, choice and government. I may do that in the future.

The level of intrusion does need to be balanced against the harm. For now i will just submit that a Government, has an interest in the safety of its' citizen. It can be indirect as with mountain climbing sports, ensuring that the equipment used meets a standard necessary for the safe enjoyment of the sport. It can be direct by mandating speed limits and seat belts. 

I don't recommend diving into legislation. Laws made in haste may be repented at leisure to paraphrase poorly a well know proverb. Any proposed Helmet Law needs to be studied and a decision arrived at free of ideology or special interests. 

In the mean time more Ontario should undertake to educate her citizens on the importance of Helmets as necessary biking equipment. Opponents may not like money spent trying to sway citizen to that point of view, but you can't take a position of personal choice without ensuring that choice be fully informed. 

I am left thinking that many will curse the government for making them wear a helmet. On the other hand those saved from permanent brain damage as a result of such legislation will not be among that group.

Bank of Canada+Focus Groups= Controversy

Edit: This is a link to Bank of Canada explanation and apology.

 Focus groups are there to help a developer understand how a product, design, or any number of things, may impact on consumer; to avoid damage to the brand, or help them better target the product or service to its intended audience. It generally isn't a bad thing, but you need to be careful what advice you take.

The Bank of Canada designed a 100 dollar bill. They sent that Bill design around to focus groups. Some of the participants thought the women on the bill looked Asian. Some people thought this was a problem; some because it seemed not to reflect what a Canadian is, which is kinda sad. Another group made a point  that it is not right to represent one ethnicity without representing all of them, which is sad in a whole different way. A third group thought the image of an Asian on the 100 dollar bill signified Canadian diversity it that was OK, which for me was OK too.

I don't know if the Bank intended for the person look Asian. The Bank of Canada says "it does have a policy of not highlighting specific ethnicities".  Though I read a comment that made an interesting point. Bank policy on not depicting ethnicity, means the default setting is European. On our money the people depicted are European looking, I won't complain much, when the scene depicted is historical and the participants are actually of European descent. Though if you want you can ask why they don't pick non-european events to depict.

One or two have labeled the Bank racist for alter the image of the 100 dollar bill, an unfair criticism. The Bank is at worst just timid, seeking not to offend one group and by doing so offend more groups. They paid too much attention to too what the focus group said, primarily i think because it dealt with the issue of race. The Bank of Canada was releasing a new bank note, they were not trying to start a dialogue on race. They took the middle path, in this case doing nothing different, hoping to avoid criticism, only to get hit by the train they were trying to avoid. 

What do I expect from institutions like the Bank of Canada? I expect them to lead from the front. No they don't have to be trend setters, it's a bank after all. But when the opportunity arose, in the case of an Asian looking woman on the back of a bank note, they should have embraced it. proudly declared "so what if there is an Asian looking woman doing science on the100 dollar bill. Asian women do work in science don't they?"
I missed opportunity there.