Canada - A Divided Nation

My mom and I had a rather heated discussion last night about regionalism in Canada after having read this article in the Calgary Herald. If you are not up to following the link, I can tell you quickly that the article deals with energy prices, the issues surrounding the environmental implications of the continued development of the oil sands, and what (some) Albertans refer to as 'Alberta envy.' Basically, three former Alberta premiers - Peter Lougheed, Don Getty, and Ralph Klein - are in agreement that the economic windfall Alberta is experiencing (we're talking a projected surplus of $12 billion this year), brought on by the soaring price of oil, has made Alberta an attractive target for federal wealth redistribution schemes (i.e., the Liberal Party's 'Green Shift'). So, our conversation was really about the Alberta-ROC (rest of Canada) relationship, but by the end of our discussion I just couldn't get the larger questions about the regional, linguistic, and aboriginal divisions in this country out of my head.

The cleavages in Canada are complex. We have the Anglo-Franco divide which is the result of having two "founding" peoples, each with a different language and culture, and a history that seems to stubbornly prevent any lasting reconciliation. We have a First Nations population which, as a result of one poor or unjust decision after another, finds itself disenfranchised from the non-aboriginal Canadian population. And, just as significantly, although often neglected, is the deep, and sometimes intense, tension that arises out of the fact that Canada is just so darn big! The needs and interests of Canadians in each region from sea-to-sea are so divergent, that it seems there is no way to find a common ground between what works for those in northern British Columbia, and what works for those in southern Manitoba.

So now I'm wondering, can anything be done? Really, CAN anything be done? Because as I get older and, I suppose, as I become more alert to the implications of the divided nature of Canadian society, I really am beginning to think that a truly unified Canada is nothing more than a pipe-dream. Or, if there is a way to bind us together and overcome our differences, I sure can't see it. I am sort of wallowing in my pessimism right now, so I would love to hear if any of you have some fabulous idea of how we can create one "happy Canadian family." Any thoughts?

Kids and Internet Pornography - Should the Canadian Government Do Something About It?

So, this morning I'm at Turn Key grabbing a coffee, when the cover of Maclean's Magazine caught my eye. There on the front of the June 30th issue is a young boy, maybe 12 or 13 years-old, staring intently at a computer screen, with the words: "Our kids are growing up with porn. Shouldn't we do something?" Of course I HAD to investigate. . .

Now call me naive, but I had never really thought about children checking out Internet porn. It's not like it hadn't occurred to me that once in a while a child might stumble upon something inappropriate while online, and that there probably are some (older) teenage guys and gals who actually seek out a little cyber-smut, but I had no IDEA that children being exposed to Internet porn is a widespread and pervasive problem. The first article, "Guess Who's Watching Porn," cites a study by Columbia University done in 2004 that found 25 percent of 12- and 13- year old girls, and 37 percent of boys the same age, say they have "friends" (we all know what that means) who regularly view and download Internet pornography, while a report from the London School of Economics fround that 9 out of 10 children between the ages of eight and sixteen have viewed something that qualifies as online porn. Pardon my shock, and perhaps I am a bit of a prude, but I find that deeply troubling. Why? Well, I suppose it is because I am one of those people who truly believes that young people are influenced by what they see and hear (how could they not be?), but also because I am gripped by wishful-thinking and find it hard to accept that parents are so absent from their childrens' lives that they do not know what their kids are up to and are not taking measures to prevent them from what (I am certain) is harmful exposure.

That leads me to the second article, "Shouldn't We Be Fighting Back?" It seems reasonable to expect that the government might have a role to play in the regulation of Internet porn. I mean, think about it, the State works to stop kids from smoking and drinking, and, more relevant to this discussion, from watching R- and X-rated films, as well as violent or sexually explicit television, so why wouldn't it take some interest in minimizing the extent to which kids can access online pornography? In 1999, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decided that it would exempt the Internet from the standards it requires of mainstream broadcasters, but I think this makes little sense. I understand that the Internet is exponentially harder to control than the more "hard" forms of media, but there are a few things that might be done. One suggestion offered in the article is for the CRTC to require telecom providers to offer filtered Internet to their customers, so that parents need not be on constant guard. Another is providing Web filters in combination with a movie-style rating system. And the Australian Government has decided to implement "a plan to block out 'inappropriate' content at the ISP level (adult users can contact their ISP's to opt out)," so perhaps this is something that, depending upon its success, the Canadian Government can look to as an option. Really, I'm pretty out of touch with how the Internet works and what is or is not feasible, but I believe that a government that claims to be concerned with the welfare of it's young citizens must at least consider what it can do to shield them from online porn.

Any thoughts or ideas? Am I totally out in left-field here?

Do Children Need to be Saved from Their Racist Parents?

A friend brought this to my attention, thinking that I might have something to say about it because of my views on free speech. I'll admit, this was a tough one for me, but after thinking it over for a couple of days, I have finally decided where I stand on the issue.

So the basic story is this: the seven-year-old child of a white supremacist drew a swastika on her own arm. When the child went to school the next day, her teacher washed it off. When she went home, her mother drew it back on, this time with permanent marker. Then, the following day when the mother went to pick her daughter up from school, she was greeted by police and child protection officers who informed her that they were removing the child from her care. Shortly thereafter, they also seized her two-year-old son. Both children are now in the custody of the woman's mother, with whom she has strained relations, and she has been permitted (presumably supervised) visitation for two-hours a week.

Now, I think that it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that Manitoba Child and Family Services have actually removed these children from their mother's home simply because she is a white supremacist. We are told that, "Court documents say the parent's conduct might endanger the emotional well-being of the children, and the children might be at risk because of the parent's behaviour and associations." And also that, "Manitoba's Child and Family Services Ministry says its aim is to ensure the safety of children, and a parent's political views should have no bearing on whether a child is placed in care." Going off of my limited experience with child welfare issues, family service agencies will generally do all that is possible to keep a family together. Even in cases where parents are known to have substance abuse problems and there is documentation of physical abuse, the family service agency will often remove the children only temporarily, giving the parents many (too many, I think) opportunities to redeem themselves. This is why I have a hard time believing that in this case, Family Services really did remove these children just because their mother has abhorrently racist views. Instead, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to this story that the mother is conveniently omitting and that Child and Family Services is unable to discuss because the case is still before the court.

If we take the mother on her word, however, and accept her claim that "Apparently a swastika is an evil Nazi symbol and they felt the need to interfere in [her life] and to interfere in how [she raises her] children,” then of course I am concerned. While I hate the idea of any adult being able to feed an impressionable young mind with neo-Nazi filth, I can't accept it, on its own, as being a valid reason to separate a child from his or her parent. Lets face it, if family services got involved in all cases where parents say things that "endanger the emotional well-being" of their children, far fewer children would remain with their biological parents. And, let's be honest, I can think of many people I know myself (and I'm sure you can too) who would have grown up in care had the State been in the business of taking children away from parents prone to racist and/or discriminatory views. It is an unfortunate truth, but racists are not an anomaly in Canada.

As I said, I don't believe that we have the full story on this one, but let's pretend for a moment that we do. What do the rest of you think about a white supremacist's right to raise her own children?

Morgentaler - the Order of Canada?

So, it has been announced that Canada's "Father of Abortion," Dr. Henry Morgentaler, will receive the Order of Canada, this country's highest honour. For those of you who are not aware, Dr. Morgentaler is a general practitioner who, throughout the 70s and early 80s, performed abortions in his clinics in violation of Canada's abortion law. This law, set out in 1969, was, I think it is fair to say, a disaster. Essentially, it stipulated that a woman could only receive an abortion in a designated hospital after meeting with a special committee of four persons, three of whom had to deem that the abortion was necessary because the pregnancy threatened her health. While some might agree that the law sounds reasonable, it was inconsistently and unequally applied. Some areas of the country were without these "designated" hospitals; sometimes the committee process would take an unjustifiably long time (and time matters when it comes to abortions); different committees had different ideas of what was meant by 'health' (was psychological health also a factor, or was physical health the only consideration? And how significant did the threat need to be?); and some committees would only approve the abortion if the woman's husband consented, while others did not even require the woman to inform her partner. Dr. Morgentaler, being a pro-choice advocate, recognized the inequity of the abortion legislation and, after being charged in 1987 for illegally peforming abortions, he took his (or the) case to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court invalidated the 1969 law on the grounds that it unjustifiably violated section 7 (security of the person) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that time the Court challenged Parliament to come up with a better law, that did not violate the constitutional rights of women. Parliament has YET to do this, so Canada remains the only western nation to have NO abortion laws whatsoever (which means, yes, that a woman can legally have an abortion right through her third trimester - or a partial birth abortion).

I realize that abortion is a very delicate subject and, for that reason, I was hesitant to post on this issue. At the same time, I believe that in order to have a healthy democracy we must not shy away from dealing with the tough stuff. While Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada isn't exactly a political issue, you can be sure that it will bring the topic of abortion (a topic which is always right below the surface of political discourse) to the forefront. While I don't blame Morgentaler for Canada's complete lack of abortion legislation, many people do. Further, most Canadians believe that there should be at least some restrictions on when if not why or if a women should be able to have an abortion. Abortion is an issue which divides Canadians, so it seems that choosing Dr. Morgentaler to receive the Order of Canada, an honour which is supposed to be symbolic of Canadian pride and unity, is both insensitive and inappropriate.

Any thoughts?

CHRC Dismisses Complaint Against Maclean's

Well, good news on the free speech front: while the BC Human Rights Commission won't rule on the Canadian Islamic Congress' action against Maclean's for a couple of months yet (not sure why a decision like that takes a couple of months) the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to drop the case.

In their decision, the Commission first outlines the petinent section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsection 13(1), which reads as follows:

It is discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated,. . . any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited grounds for discrimination.

At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that to act upon section 13 would effectively limit section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:

2) Everyone has the fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

The decision goes on to say (in essence) that precedent has established that, while section 13(1) of the CHRA could legally be used to limit section 2(b) of the Charter, the Commission must use "caution and restraint. . . so that the limitation of free speech would be minimized to the greatest extent possible." Further, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Dickson is quoted as saying that, "it is important to recognize that expressive activities advocating unpopular or discredited positions are not to be accorded reduced constitutional protection. . ."

In the end, the Commision has determined that while "The writing is polemical, colourful, emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. . . . the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered in whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court. . . and taking into account that an interpretation of section 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a tribunal."

Council for the CIC said the decision came as no surprise "in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures. . ." I'm sorry, but did I read that correctly?? Inappropriate political pressure? Boy, have I been confused! I was somehow under the strange impression that Canada was a democratic country, and that democracy is premised on the idea of a government that is responsive to the will of the people. I had no idea that that will was subject to limitations on what is appropriate and what is not. The fact that the CIC has abused the legal process, attempting to have their "plight" heard in THREE seperate jurisdictions - they went to the BC Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which also dismissed the case - to me is inappopriate and appropriately has raised the eyebrows of the Canadian public who are forced to foot the bill!!

So, it looks as though democracy has dodged another bullet. I wish I could say I am relieved, but I know that the bullets will just keep coming, and I fear that, despite what they might say, Maclean's and other members of the media will take a lesson from this whole production and self-censor themselves in the future.

Dion's 'Green Shift'

I think most of us have come to the realization that something needs to be done to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Even if the damage done by our greenhouse gas production is irreversible, the bottom line is oil is a non-renewable resource. Once it is gone, it's gone - then what? I am a firm believer that people will continue to engage in behaviour for as long as the benefits of said behaviour outweigh the costs. So, it seems to make sense that people will continue to over-consume oil and its byproducts until they really have to pay for it. Apparently Liberal leader Stephane Dion shares this insight, which has motivated him to roll out his 'Green Shift' plan.

The basic idea behind the plan is contained in its name. Increase taxes on gas consumption, cut taxes elsewhere. There are a few points of this plan that, I think, are quite strong. First, I like that it isn't a "tax grab" (despite what Stephen Harper would like us to believe). In fact, Dion stands so firmly behind his claim that his plan is 'tax neutral,' that he says, if he is given the opportunity to implement his green ideas, he will invite the Auditor General to "look at the numbers and confirm this each and every year to Canadians." In line with this not being a scheme to raise more money for the federal government, the plan also seems to make economic sense. From my very rudimentary understanding of how taxation works, the least disruptive taxes are those which are indirect (which don't tax our incomes or savings). Technically (although not practically) these are voluntary taxes. Of course, we can't entirely abstain from the use of fossil fuels in Canada, but we can become conscious of the amount of these fuels that we use. I also like that the Liberals have considered that different groups will be affected differently by carbon taxation, like those who live in rural and northern areas of the country, as well as low-income families, and have worked these considerations into the plan.

There are a few points that I find puzzling, especially the idea not to tax gas at the pumps. We hear that the rising cost of gas, as it is, has people changing their driving habits, so perhaps that is all that is necessary. I don't know. But it does seem that more options exist in how we transport ourselves, than in how we keep our homes heated in the lovely -30 Canadian winters. At the same time, I know that many people could alter their heating/cooling habits. For example, my roommates like to keep our house warm enough in the winter that they can walk around in shorts and t-shirts, and cool enough in the summer that I don't remove my sweatshirt and slippers until right before walking out the front door!

Anyway, it seems to me that there is some real potential behind Dion's 'Green Shift'. I also think that it's rather bold of him. He might find that he's just committed political suicide, or maybe enough people in this country will decide they are finally ready to walk the walk and cease simply talking the eco-talk. I'm interested to see how this all plays out through the summer, and, in particular, during the fall campaign which looks to be inevitable.

Thoughts?

Continuing the Debate on the Representation of Women in Canadian Politics

Well, we had quite the discussion in our tutorial today! The topic was, "Should Parliament mirror Canada's social diversity?" Somehow (I am probably to blame) the conversation narrowed to a rather heated (again, my bad) debate about whether or not institutional changes are necessary and/or desirable to increase the number of women represented in Parliament.

Of course, I realize my views are no secret, but I would like to clarify, elaborate, and substantiate my position. First, I am not the raging feminist that I know I sound to be. I do, however, know that women are without adequate political representation in this country, and I do not believe any "organic" or "evolutionary" process will change this. I would also like to be clear that my argument is not really that women should make up half of all members of parliament. If that were to happen democratically, so be it, but I do not argue for half of the seats in Parliament to be set aside for women. Instead, I argue for a more equitable candidate nomination process and a change to the electoral system to facilitate this.

Basically, the reality is this: women cannot be elected to Parliament if they are not given the opportunity to campaign. In this way, political parties function as the 'gatekeepers' to government office. There is clear evidence to support the positive correlation between the percentage of women nominated for candidacy and the resulting number of women elected to the House of Commons. So, it seems that getting the political parties to nominate more women candidates is a necessary step to increasing the number of women overall in Parliament.

This is why I argue for electoral reform. While there are many problems inherent in the single member plurality (SMP) electoral system, one is that it minimizes the number of female candidates put in the running for election. The reason is, because the party has to choose a single candidate to nominate for a riding, they most often will choose a male candidate because, they believe, he will have the widest appeal. Also, the SMP system allows local constituency associations to determine for themselves which representatives to run, so even if a party, at its core, decides to be more open to female candidates, decentralization makes enforcing this nearly impossible.

So, I believe that a combination of quotas and electoral reform would be the best remedy to this problem. With a proportional representational (PR) system, the party creates a list of candidates for a multi-member riding, electors vote for the party, the party wins a number of seats proportional to the number of votes they received, and then appoints candidates to those seats from their list. Quotas could be introduced at this stage to ensure that half of all candidates on a party's list are women. I believe the PR system to be superior to the SMP system for many reasons, but one is that it usually results in a more diverse political body, more reflective of the varied interests of society (including minorities of all descriptions). Countries which boast the greatest representation of women in national parliaments use List-PR systems.

This is definitely a complicated issue and I do not pretend for a moment that this is the only thing that needs to be done to increase women's participation in the political process, but I think that this would be an effective start.

I hope to hear from some of you. . .

(P.S. I've posted some links which you might find informative if you are interested in exploring this topic more.)

To Speak or Not to Speak, THAT Really is the Question. . .

I have been debating whether I should follow through with my intention to discuss here on my blog the topic of free speech/hate speech in Canada. My dilemma has to do with both the complexity (in terms of the rules, regulations, laws, procedures, etc.) and heated nature of the issue. While I've investigated the Canadian Human Rights Act, I am by no means an expert on it, nor am I fluent in the functions of the various human rights commissions in this country, so if I get something wrong, please set me straight. Also, as I said, I recognize that the idea of hatred is inflammatory in so much as it arouses strong emotion. I want to be very clear that, while I've posted the link to Mike Steyn's article (yes, THE article) and the links to both his and Ezra Levant's blogs, I've done so only to encourage exploration and understanding and not because I share their opinions.

So, the story is this: Maclean's magazine published an excerpt of Mike Steyn's book America Alone in which he, more or less, argues that the end of the world as we know it is nigh as changing demographics result in the recession of western liberalism (that's classic liberalism folks, Steyn is a right-winger) and the spread of Islam. Consequently, Maclean's is up against the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and faces a variety of punishments should it be found guilty of spreading hate, not least of which involves (essentially) censorship of its further publications. While the complaint made to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is said to have been in response to Maclean's refusal to print a rebuttal to Steyn's article, what seems to be at issue in the proceedings is whether or not the article exposed the Muslim community to hatred.

Now, I've read this article and I encourage you to read it as well. After having digested its contents, my opinion is that it is a poorly written argument which has the power to offend and, while I don't agree that it is hateful (my mother always told me to be careful with the word hate), its tone is certainly contemptuous. Bottom line is, I found it to be distasteful, yes, but do I think that Maclean's should have exercised restraint and never given Steyn's words their space? No, not for a second.

Canada is a liberal democracy, for which most of us, I believe, are grateful. As such, we have a number of protected rights one of which, as it is expressly written in our constitution, is freedom of expression and, with it, freedom of the press. We are now seeing the inability for these freedoms to coexist with the prohibition of hate messages. While I am a BIG proponent of human rights and I don't like, and quite frankly have a hard time understanding, intolerance, I give primacy to the necessity of a free marketplace of ideas.

I leave it here, conscious of the length of this post and wishing not to bore my audience (if I have one), with the promise to follow up soon. . .

For Now. . .

Professor Leone suggested going at this blogging project with some sort of a theme, or from a particular slant. As such, I'm considering devoting my blog to a discussion on the status of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Canada. I find myself seriously troubled by the recent flurry of attacks on these essential tenets of a healthy democracy, and I would be interested to hear whether others share my concern. On that note, I've posted links to two other blogs: that of Ezra Levant (Western Standard) and Mike Steyn (Maclean's). I will have more to say about this, but both of these men have faced legal consequences for publishing their thoughts. And, while I disagree with almost EVERYTHING Ezra Levant has to say, I believe in his fundamental right to say it and I appreciate his unwavering position on the importance of free speech in this country.

As I said, I will post more on the stories of these two men, as well as the recent Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) scandal, and other issues which relate to this topic.

Can I do This?

I am entirely sans computer-skills, so if I mangage to fulfill this blogging requirement, it will be one of my greater accomplishments in life!

More to come. . .