Pages

December 19, 2008

DO NOT CALL the CRTC

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has been in the news recently, and my inner communications scholar was intrigued. This post was going to be about CANCON and the CRTC online, and the potential ramifications on net neutrality, but an interesting debate with my roommate today about another CRTC related issue prompted this post on the Do Not Call list instead. People often ask me what, in fact, the study of communications is, and both of these issues, along with many many others fall under the study of communications. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (the Internet; wind-up laptops aiding education in undeveloped countries; electronic voting, etc.) are constantly evolving and changing the way people communicate. Understanding and adequately regulating these interactions is vital in harnessing their potential for benefits to society. That is the importance of the study of communications.

So back to the Do Not Call List (DNCL). As of 30 September 2008 Canadians have been able to add their phone numbers to a national registry, which will prevent them from receiving phone calls from telemarketers. Unless, of course, those telemarketers happen to be: a charity; political parties; riding associations; candidates; newspapers; or organizations with which you have done business in the past 18 months. Also not covered are calls about market research, public opinion polls, or surveys, which the CRTC explains "are not telemarketing calls because the caller is not asking you to purchase, lease or rent products or services" (https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/cofi-fico-eng). This clause provides a neat loophole for companies to call you asking if you would like to answer a survey, after which they would progress to bombard you with their sales pitch. Some people have even found that they have received more calls from telemarketers. Some cell phone users had never received any calls until they registered their numbers, as the list provides a handy bank of numbers for telemarketers (why you would register a number that wasn't receiving calls in the first place I'm not sure).
There is clearly a demand for this service in Canada. On the first day the list was available, the website was overloaded and not everybody was able to register immediately. That much activity on the first day says to me that this is more than a nuisance and is on the mind of a lot of people. Four and a half million people registered in the two months following the implementation (about a seventh of Canada's population. In two months).
The DNCL is also clearly not working. Many of the phone numbers are displayed as a bunch of zeros, and are untraceable. The CRTC has received thousands of complaints, and has been able to do little about the issue. It has the power to levy $15 000 fines to those who break the rules, but this is clearly a difficult task, and one that is not slowing the tide of phone calls. Something must be done, whether it's increased scrutiny and swifter condemnation of offending parties involving the phone companies and the technology itself, or the further establishment of a Do Call List, where people can instead register to receive telemarketer's phone calls. Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa in the area of technology and law, has set up his own system called iOptOut (http://ioptout.ca/). Registrants with his system can have an e-mail sent on their behalf requesting to be removed from telemarketers' lists which would otherwise fit the exemptions.
The debate I was engaged in today was whether or not the list was necessary, and what was the nuisance/privacy factor involved with telemarketers. My roommate contended that it was easy to say no or hang up the phone when telemarketers call. It was not that big an inconvenience or an invasion of the private sphere, and was actually a legitimate form of doing business. I argued that calling people's private phone lines in an attempt to hawk stuff they don't need was an invasion of people's private time and space, as well as an aggravation and interruption. My house would receive numerous phone calls a week that when answered were nothing but dead air. An explanation I heard for this was the practice of companies using dialing machines to call multiple numbers at once. The first one to answer got the sales pitch, while the rest got nothing. This was an attempt on their part to reduce time wasted calling people who are not home. And we've all received phone calls once we've sat down for dinner. I believe both of these situations to be nuisances that are not reasonable expectations of phone-ownership.
He likened it to being approached at street corners by Amnesty International ("Can you spare a moment to save a life?") or Girl Guides selling cookies at your door. Yet both of these contain a fundamental difference to cold-calling. In the first scenario, you have left your house and entered the public sphere, where there is an expectation that you may be required to interact with other people. It is also easier to say 'no thank you' with a dismissive wave as you walk past than to move to and answer a telephone, and wait until they stop their initial spiel to say no. The second scenario is clearly different because it involves children in a community group, doing actual legwork to raise funds. I would be resentful of receiving random calls out of the phone book from Girl Guides, and be much less likely to buy cookies, however them walking around the neighbourhood shows some effort. This is also much less frequent than the sometimes daily calls.
I was dismissed as lazy for not wanting to get up from what I was doing to answer the phone, but this is not a fair assessment. It's not about the physical effort, but instead about the disruption and invasiveness. I should not have to screen my phone calls to avoid telemarketers. I should not have to feel rude about interrupting or hanging-up to avoid a sales pitch. I should not have to stop eating dinner to answer a dead-line that could have been an important call. These all become disruptive uses of my private technology, which are invariably different from pitches from the street-corner or the Girl Guides. It is also something the CRTC needs to do a better job of enforcing, lest it be left up to Michael Geist.
RM
The CRTC official Do Not Call List Website: http://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/
My Blog entries may also take a Christmas break (perhaps something the 22nd), but we will return in the new year.

December 17, 2008

On A Positive Note...


With all the negativity in the news in the last week involving the prediction of a deep recession, cheating university students, collapsing ski-lifts and the deaths of 6 Canadian soldiers I would like to, in the spirit of the Christmas season, try and find some light in the deep darkness of the Swedish winter.

After experiencing an earthquake here in Southern Sweden yesterday, a first for myself, I found myself musing over how strong our need to be with others actually is. We all want to share our experiences with others and when something remarkable happens the first thing we do is open our door and try to find something to de-brief with. In a time of year where people, religious or not, come together to share stories, a good meal and take part in a more than 1600 year old tradition, we also share in a common need to be together.

I’ve been reading a book by Jean Vanier called “Our Life Together: A Memoir in Letters.” Vanier is the founder of the L’Arche communities for the disabled that exist in over 30 countries around the world. In this book he outlines the humble beginnings of the very first L’Arche community in Trosly, France. Vanier is a man of faith that has an unbelievable belief in humanity and its capabilities, especially amongst those we perceive as the weakest in our society. He also shares in his words great wisdom and hope for all of us. One particular quote that jumped out at me while I was reading has stuck in my head for the past week. It seems in our daily routines we at times forget about the common humanity we share. Other people become nuisances that get in our way and cause us to wait in line at the store while Christmas shopping. Sometimes we need something to happen to shake us up (an earthquake works pretty well) and put things back in perspective. In a season where stress and darkness can reach our very hearts we all need to see the potential that even the dark has to bring about something great.

“On the eighth of July a third left on pilgrimage for Fatima. During the trip we encountered all sorts of difficulties. The brakes of the minibus driven by Thérèse needed repairs. We stopped at Guarda and that gave us an unforgettable evening at the house of some new friends. Three windshields broke with a deafening sound on Spanish roads. Marie Paule and Carole in the Deux Chevaux were the first vicitims; then there was Colleen and family and finally it was the Citroën D.S. with Dédé, who cried out. “How beautiful! How beautiful! It is just like crystal!” We spent two days in Bayonne with Anne Marie and Sister Monique, who came to our rescue. The oilcap on Alain’s car disappeared and with it quite a lot of oil! Have you ever looked for an oilcap in Spain on a Saturday evening? These episodes were always accompanied by joy and by encounters with new friends. That is where I began to discover the importance of welcoming the unexpected with openness, trying to see the positive elements in these events.”

Whether it is a friendly greeting or helping someone with a car-problem we all have opportunities every-day to meet people; people just like us. At times it is as if we don’t have any room in our lives for new friends and we would rather stay in our own comfortable bubbles. However it is these bubbles keep us in the dark no matter the time of year.
Maybe this year, in the midst of all the darkness and worries, we can try and see these problems from the outside and, in Jean Vanier’s spirit, see the potential these tribulations give us to be better people.

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from myself to all our readers!

Will Grassby
My blog entries will return on Jan. 3 along with a new format, weekly features and some other new surprises as well!

December 15, 2008

(Bus) Strike

I'd be lying if I said the new-urbanist in me wasn't just the least bit tickled by the plight of suburban Ottawaians during the current transit strike; but the environmentalist in me is equally appalled, so it balances out.

The City of Ottawa is currently embroiled in a six-day-old transit strike, that is looking like it could easily last until the new year. This, coupled with Christmas shopping and heavy snowfall has made for some very frustrated commuters.

The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), representing OC Transpo drivers, mechanics, and others associated with public transit in the city, have been on strike since last Wednesday. This call to the picket lines corresponded with the first big snowfall of the winter, which snarled traffic, and increased transit times ten-fold for some people, while stranding many without cars. Perhaps intentional, perhaps unfortunate, but that perfect storm left many unsympathetic to the striking workers. Making things worse is the picket lines themselves around the city, where they restrict access to certain parking lots, adding up to an additional forty minutes on to an already extensive commute, and resulting in more than one incident of drivers intentionally hitting picketers with cars.

At the heart of the matter isn't money, but rather control. Control over scheduling, that is. Without fully understanding the intricacies of transit scheduling, my understanding goes something like this: under the current system the city lays our the routes and times, and then the drivers get to select their desired shifts. The drivers with the most seniority get to select first. The real difficulty comes with many of these being split-shifts revolving around the rush-hours. Many shifts are only three or four hours long, and most are during regular commuter times. What the city wants to do it be able to schedule the drivers as they see fit into these slots, which could result in a driver starting their day at 8:00am and not finishing until 9:00pm, but with three hours off in between somewhere. This represents less quality/family time for the drivers, but $3.4 million in annual savings for the city (CBC, 15 Dec 2008).

Both the city and the drivers are represented by abrasive men to whom open-mindedness does not come easily. A self-made millionaire with no political experience rode a wave of rural-populism and a 'zero-means-zero' tax-increase message to Ottawa's mayoral chair in the 2006 municipal elections. Larry O'Brien has since quashed a light-rail public transportation plan; given himself and then rescinded that same pay raise; made disparaging remarks about homeless people; and been formally charged with bribery under the Criminal Code of Canada by the OPP for his actions in the election. He has also most recently lost a budget vote, and been forced to raise taxes a whopping 4.9% higher than zero. He believes he can run a city like a business, and has been looking to correct inefficiencies in the bureaucratic machine since is inauguration (not altogether a bad thing). However, I'm sure these pinko unionists concerned about 'quality of life' just grind his gears, and he can't afford to lose this strike battle too.

On the other side is André Cornellier; a seemingly militant unionist who would throw himself under a bus if it meant protecting his drivers (not altogether a bad thing). He recently fiercely defended a driver who left a young mother at the curb while he drove off with her two-year old on board after an argument about strollers. ("The mean bus driver took me away from mommy," said the tabloid Ottawa Citizen's front page.) Cornellier has recently offered up a couple of whoppers, appearing brash and unsympathetic, and not doing himself any favours. In an interview with CTV, the following exchange occurred:
CTV- "Will you be giving your membership an opportunity to see the offer and vote on it tonight before midnight?"
AC-"No."
*pause*
CTV-"Why not?"
AC-"Why?"
When asked about the delay caused by picketers, he said: "It's about... inconveniencing people. What's wrong with that?
For more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBIsGTlUT8&watch_response).

So now the city hangs in the balance. People are forced to find other ways to get around, and business owners are losing many customers at this vital time in a sagging economy. Freezing rain tonight, and calls for temperatures as high as 4°C Monday and as low as -9°C Tuesday, which will only result in icy slush, and we're all stuck watching two petty men duke it out (by duke it out I mean not talk to each other). I guess watching Harper try and save a measly $30 million at the expensive of the financial well-being of all of his opponents inspired O'Brien to try and save a measly $3.4 million at the expense of the contentment of oft-underappreciated employees who take a lot of abuse and make the city run. That said, calling a strike on the eve of the first big snowfall and right before the Christmas season, while being represented by a man who wears his callous disregard for everybody else like a badge of honour is not the best way to rally public sympathy. In the end really everybody loses, except for the cabs, and perhaps the new-urbanists. And this perfect storm is looking like it could go the distance.

RM

December 12, 2008

The Blog Journalists to Return Next Week

Due to the high volume of events here at The Blog Journalists this week, this Friday's edition will not be appearing. We will be back as usual next Monday.

Thank you!

December 10, 2008

(Bus) Safety

It is very possible that there is a person alive in Winnipeg today who would not be had Vince Weiguang Li been denied his knife of a Greyhound Bus in July of 2008. His horrible, tragic, unprovoked, and brutal murder of fellow passenger Tim McLean was not a rational act, and was a crime that likely would have been committed eventually anyways, and would not have been stopped by increased bus security.

And yet, an increase in security is exactly what Greyhound intends to do. Passengers in major terminals may now be swept by hand-held metal detectors, have their luggage checked, and may be required to store all luggage save for purses and wallets under the bus (CBC, 4 Dec 2008). Greyhound officials say that these measures are the result of a two-year safety study, and do not directly relate to any one incident. I am all for increased safety, but all that these measures lead to is an increase in security instead.

It is hard to argue that metal detectors and luggage searches that remove knives from buses will not lead to an increase in security. But at the expense of time, money, and personal freedom, these measures overpower the safety they look to ensure. Particularly concerning is the prospect of not being allowed carry-on luggage. I often travel with a newspaper, book, camera, snack, water, etc. and such a provision would make this impossible. The Greyhound is great because it is cheap and fast, and does not require reservations, however these security features put that in jeopardy, as wait times and costs would surely increase.

Knee-jerk reactions of increased surveillance and inspection are indicative of a time and place where a Prime Minister gets re-elected with a tough-on-crime agenda. We are constantly being warned about the threats to our safety, whether it's killers on the bus or terrorists sending signals across Swedish borders. Furthermore, the only way to stop these threats is increased surveillance and harsher penalties.

What these theories fail to address is the root of the problems, and instead they just exacerbate them by directing funding away from development and into punishment, and locking criminals up, together, for longer periods of time, with less effort directed towards rehabilitation. The justice system is supposed to serve three simultaneous purposes: punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Punishment is really simply a primal instinct for revenge, and does not serve a whole lot of purpose beyond satiating our desire to see this. I do not deny possessing these feelings myself, but in the grand scheme of justice and society, it serves the least purpose of all three. Deterrence commits the fallacy of assuming that all criminals are as rational as those making the laws. Vince Weiguang Li was clearly not deterred by any threat of capture. Most crimes have underlying factors (mental health issues; drug addiction; lack of social support) that cannot be fully understood by those on the outside to whom dislike for prison would be a rational deterrent. Perhaps the best example of harsher penalties not leading to a decrease in crime is the lack of correlation between the death penalty and a lower homicide rate.

That leaves rehabilitation, which can be tied together with prevention. Only by investing in discovering and addressing the root of the problem can crime ever really be effectively dealt with. This may seem like an obvious and vague conclusion, and not really offer any tangible direction on how to spend limited resources. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know that Greyhound drivers with metal detectors is not one of them. We are continuing to invest more and more in our infrastructure and our youth, and particularly with at-risk groups, and I believe this will ultimately prove to be the method that best quells the flow of crime.

RM

December 08, 2008

FRA-lagen: Sverige som övervakningssamhälle

Due to the fact I am writing a major test in Swedish next week and need practice writing for the essay section I am doing today's blog in Swedish along with an English translation which can be found directly below the Swedish version. As I am writing in a foreign language the content is simpler than a normal “Blog Journalist” blog and concerns an issue that is currently being discussed in Sweden, but one that has international consequences. I hope our English readers excuse these simplicities for this week and enjoy trying to understand the Swedish translation!

FRA-lagen

Sverige tycks som om det kommer att vara det strängaste landet i västvärlden när det gäller övervakning av elektronisk kommunikation. Den första januari 2009 en ny lag träder i kraft vilken har fått det informella namnet “FRA-lagen.”

FRA är en förkortning för försvarets radioanstalt, den myndigheten som kommer att hantera signalspaningen som legitimas av den nya lagen.

Lagen är mer en verksamhet som kommer att påverka flera lagar. FRA-lagen innebär att viss trädbunden kommunikation kan övervakas. Innan var det bara radiosignaler som kunde övervakas. Lagen kommer också att förändra sättet att personuppgifter behandlas.

Å andra sidan finns det stränga regler att FRA måsta följa för att använda signalspaning. Bland dessa regler är att FRA måste söka tillstånd för all signalspaning och de ska enbart få tillgång med dömstolens tillåtelse. Dessutom får de bara signalspana på trafik som passerar Sveriges gränser dvs. de får inte avlyssna når båda avsändaren och mottagaren finns i Sverige.

FRA-lagen är ett försök för att minska risken för utländskt hot och terrorism i Sverige. Lagen har mötts med mycket motstånd bland politiker samt vanliga svenskar för att lagen bryter mot deras personliga integriteten. Det finns många som är oroliga att denna lag bara är ett steg mot ett övervakningssamhälle inte olikt det som finns i George Orwells berömda roman 1984. Vissa kritiker kallar även lagen för “Lag 1984.”

Personligen har jag blandade känslor kring detta. Å ena sidan är det alltid bra att vara försiktig när det gäller terrorism särskilt i dagens läge. Å andra sidan är Sverige benägen att vara för försiktig. Klart att terrorism är en verklighet men varifrån kommer hoten just nu egentligen? Terroristattacker är väldigt ovanliga i Sverige och det verkar osannolikt att den trenden kommer att förändras.

Dessutom inskränkar FRA-lagen på den personligafriheten. Det är en mänsklig rättighet att tänka och säga vad man vill utan att ha någon som lyssnar på sig. Problemet är att den här lagen kommer förmodligen inte att användas på det sätt som ansågs och möjligheten för missbruk är stor. Sannolikheten att FRA kommer att hitta terrorister är låg och denna lag skulle kunna skapa en känsla av mistro och misstänksamhet i det svenska samhället. FRA-lagen skulle också kunna försämra förhållandet mellan Sverige och andra länder som inte håller av lagen och även väcka främlingsfientlighet för att lagen är baserad på misstro mot främlingar.

Avslutningsvis anser jag att FRA-lagen inte är lika farlig som många kritiker tycker men däremot är den tämligen onödvändig.

The FRA Law: Sweden as a Survellience Society

Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”

FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.

The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.

On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.

Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.

Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.

Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.

December 05, 2008

Politics, Again...

I was hesitant to post again about the Canadian political 'crisis' after the two previous posts, but it's just been so dominant in the news and has been developing so rapidly. There have also been some people who have made me really mad. So, let's call it a Canadian Politics theme-week here with the Blog Journalists, and hope that with this prorogation we can get back to talking about other things next week.

On Monday I posted about the legitimacy of a Liberal-NDP coalition, and how that would represent democracy in action for Canadians. I attempted to give a fairly balanced look early in the whole process without masking that I am, in fact, a (small-L) liberal. After following this story for the past week, and listening to the response from people, I can't tell if those opposed are wilfully blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid. I understand supporting the Conservative Party (I mean, I understand that people do support the Conservative Party), and I then understand that in supporting this party you would like to see them to continue governing. That makes sense. What angers me, though, is some of the comments these people have posted (Ottawa Citizen, cbc.ca, etc). A number of people are sobbing that: the people elected Harper so we should give him a chance (umm, we did. He blew it.); nobody voted for a coalition so it's undemocratic (we voted for all the members of the coalition. It's how the Westminster System works); the coalition includes and is pandering to separatists (this is just untrue).

Harper and the Conservatives were not returned with a majority government, so they are not allowed to govern as if they had one. One might even question the democratic principles behind wilfully crippling your opponents' finances even if you had a majority. Theoretically all members of parliament should at least attempt to gain bipartisan support for motions in the interest of national unity. Harper didn't have a majority, and he didn't even try. I have actually heard the argument that he should get his chance to lead. Well he did, and he blew it spectacularly. Give someone else a turn who has the confidence of the house.

The argument has been made that people did not vote for the coalition; therefore it has no right to lead. I will grant the very valid point that people seemed to resoundingly reject Stéphane Dion, so perhaps a different leadership option would have been better, but that doesn't really change the fact that Dion won just as many ridings as Harper did. I will concede that this is somewhat of a hollow argument, and in reality people do vote with a party/leader in mind. However, there is nothing undemocratic about what the coalition has attempted. In Canada, people never really vote for the Prime Minister or even for the government. The Governor General invites the party to lead who they feel has the confidence of the house. If this is lost, the Governor General has every right to name another party/group if they feel they have a reasonable chance of maintaining that confidence. Some people would favour another election, which would only cost time and money, and it is unlikely it would return vastly different results from what we have now. There has even been the suggestion that the Liberals and NDP would agree to not run candidates against each other in certain ridings in an attempt to unite that divided vote and topple Conservative candidates. They would continue, however, to be two separate parties. A coalition would never amount to an amalgamation of parties, but rather an agreement by two groups to co-operate (isn't that what democracy should be all about?). Ideally every single issue ever would be decided by referenda, but this is not reasonable, so we elect officials to vote for us. Democracy.

The coalition has always been between the Liberals and the NDP. What this means is the two parties would together form a government and share the cabinet positions. However, they would still not have enough seats to form a majority government, so they require the support of the Bloc Québécois. They refuse to recognize Québec as a nation, so the Bloc refuses to join the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition, however, because they are ideologically similar on many issues (for a great look at this, read Will's post from Wednesday: Canadian Political History). I'm sure Harper would have no issue accepting their 'sovereigntist' support if they offered it. He has instead been intentionally misleading the public to believe the Bloc to be part of the coalition.

There have been allegations from Conservatives of the undemocratic actions of the opposition, when in fact the closest thing anyone has done to subvert Canadian democracy is Harper's prorogation of parliament to avoid a lost vote. Not to mention his spying on the NDP and intentionally misleading the people. They have even resorted to name-calling (separatists) and rousing nationalism (members of the House chanted Harper! Harper! before breaking into the national anthem). (I am not kidding.) The opposition parties have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done what they are supposed to do as opposition parties in a minority government. Some will argue that by raising the prospect of defeat and forcing Harper to back off they have done their job, and perhaps that's what we will see happen with the prorogation. This may even be in the best interest of the Liberal Party, as they have a lot on the line in this coalition, and no strong leader or funds to fight an election. Perhaps some months with Harper on his guard will allow the Liberals to rebuild and become stronger, sooner. For now, we'll have to wait and see.

RM

December 03, 2008

Canadian Political History

Due to the unprecedented nature of the current political situation in Canada I have decided to turn my attention away from my usual international column to comment on Canadian politics. Seeing as I am currently in Sweden, I suppose this article could still be considered an international perspective.

To quickly recap the current state of affairs, the three opposition parties (Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois) have signed off on a agreement that, if passed by the Governor General (the Queen’s representative within Canada) next Monday, would see a coalition government taking over for the only seven week old Conservative government.
This move was sparked by a controversial economic proposal by Harper’s conservatives that according to the Toronto Star “contained little in the way of economic stimulus but proposed to take away the rights of federal workers to strike, clamp down on pay equity and, critically, eliminate public subsidies for political parties.”

Despite a last minute ad-blitz by the Conservative party to try and swing national opinion in their favour, it appears the best the Conservatives can hope for is for Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament and send Canadians back to polls instead of handing power over to the coalition. Jean has said she will not comment on the situation until she discusses things with the Prime Minister and that her door is open once she arrives back in Canada today from an abbreviated ambassadorial trip to Central Europe. Prime-Minister Harper will no doubt be waiting on her door-step asking if he can put a Conservative sign on her lawn.

What I would really like to focus on in this blog however is what became the most prevalent glob of muck in the mud-slinging affair that was the Canadian House of Commons yesterday; that being the suddenly essential Bloc Québécois.

The maybe soon-to-be former Prime Minister Harper and his possible back from the political dead successor Stéphane Dion went back in forth in the House yesterday with Harper accusing Dion of being in bed with the separatists and Dion defending himself saying that he has always believed in a united Canada.

The quote of the day was made however by the long time leader of the separatist Bloc Québécois party, Gilles Duceppe, when, referring to Harper’s past reliance on the Bloc to pass multiple budgets, he said “Let's say he had a lot less fear of the nasty separatists back then.”

One can see both sides of this situation and, in a way, both sides are right. Due to the relative number of seats the Bloc hold, the leader of any minority government has to rely on the Bloc for support in order to accomplish anything. In this sense Harper’s argument is moot because he is essentially saying that no matter what evil doings the ruling party is up to, it is worse to deal with the separatists. This is of course ridiculous, especially coming from a man who has also gone for a whirl with the Québec nationalists. At the same time, most Canadian’s would agree in maintaining a united Canada. The question is, at what point do you draw the line and say better the separatists than this guy?

Judging by the exceptional nature of the current economic situation and the partisan, hackneyed efforts of the Conservative government to address them, the coalition has performed the necessary duty of, regardless of the outcome of this situation, letting the Conservatives know they are not asleep.

I think it is also pertinent to note the irony of the Bloc Québécois in Canadian politics. If one did not know they were a separatist party it would be very easy to see them as the best suited party to lead the country. (Bare with me here…) They have the longest standing leader of any of the political parties in Gilles Duceppe, a man who is both charismatic and more bi-lingual than any of the other leaders. His party backed the Kyoto Accord, uncovered the Liberal sponsorship scandal and opposed the Iraq war. It seems the only reason Canadians have to dislike the Bloc is the fact that they don’t want to be part of Canada. I am not in any way a separatist, but with the way the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government have staggered through their terms, I really wonder if you can blame Québec and the Bloc for thinking Québec might be better off alone.

On a final note, if one were to ignore everything else that has happened, Stephen Harper will show his true colours tonight when he most likely will tell the nation that the best solution is to go back to the polls in order to establish a Conservative majority. If Mr. Harper were truly concerned with the Canadian economy do you really think he would put another $30 million election on the top of his agenda? Mr. Harper, you’ve already had your chance.

Will Grassby

December 01, 2008

The System Works

The future of this 40th sitting of the Canadian Parliament is unfolding as we speak. The Conservatives unveiled a financial statement last week, believing the leaderless Liberals wouldn't have the gall to defeat it. (This belief was probably justified after the Liberals supported umpteen Conservative motions in the previous sitting, while they HAD a leader.) They were, however, mistaken, as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois are so miffed they may vote to defeat the 40-day-old government and propose to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that they form a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. There are always many contentious points in any Conservative statement, but three in particular have raised the ire of the opposition: 1. The statement lacks significant economic stimulus; 2. They would eliminate the $1.95 tax-payer funded subsidy awarded to each party per vote received; 3. They would eliminate the right for federal civil servants to strike through 2011.

So taken-aback by the uproar, the Conservatives have scuttled backwards on the last two points, saying they would instead freeze the subsidy and campaign against it later, and would not disallow civil servants to strike. I suppose they still believe they have provided a significant stimulus... An incredulous John Baird even tried to defend the plan to scrap the subsidy by arguing that as the party that received the most votes, the Conservatives would stand to lose the most. While his math is bang-on, he has, of course, missed the point. While the Conservatives received about one-third of their funding from the subsidy, for the other parties it was a much higher percentage. The effect of losing it would cripple the treasury of smaller parites (Greens, etc.), as well as diminish the incentive to vote for a party you 'knew' wasn't going to win your riding.

But the damage may be too great for the Conservatives to undo. The Liberals and NDP have been meeting all weekend to hammer out details of their coalition proposition, not the least of which would be who would actually be the Prime Minister. If they defeat the government on a confidence vote, they would then need to convince Ms. Jean to allow them to try their hand at running the country. There is precedence for such a decision, dating back to the King-Byng affair of 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng invited Arthur Meighen and his Conservative Party to lead after Liberal Mackenzie King lost the confidence of the house, and Meighen did so gamely for almost three months, before the voters returned King for his second of three turns.

Critics and Conservatives will peg this option as undemocratic, but they would be wrong. Everyone currently sitting as an MP has been elected (remember? It was last month). Since everyone voted for the party they most wanted to win anyways, then this outcome would have had no bearing on their vote. What we would be seeing here is democracy actually working for the majority of Canadians. The reality of a divided left means that only 37.65% actually voted for Stephen Harper. (Since only 59% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, only 22% of Canadians actually voted for this guy.) It is fair to assume that the majority of the remaining 62% of the votes would have gone to the Liberals, NDP, or Greens before the Conservatives, so such a coalition would actually be representing the views of the majority. (I am sure there are some Liberal voters who would vote Conservative before ever voting for the pinkos, and some Québécers who would never vote for the Bloc.) The minority Conservatives, however, should not be allowed to run rampant their agenda through fearmongering of another election and the misguided belief in Liberal docility.

Most Canadians will agree that they do not want another election. Most Canadians will agree that they do not support Harper or his right-wing agenda. There is historical precedence and constitutional support for coalition governments. Therefore, it seems like a viable option, at least for a little while. Party politics, to a certain degree, is a bastardization of parliamentary government anyways, so parties being forced to work together may be a welcome respite. Many of the problems with minority governments will still exist, and the federal government would only survive with the support of a party whose main purpose is the destruction of that federal government, but such a coalition would still be a positive step for Canada and democracy. The NDP would be afforded 25% of the Cabinet positions, and the Bloc would not receive any, and the Prime Minister would still likely be a member of the Liberal Party. Stéphane Dion may be afforded his day in the sun after all (much to the chagrin of Edward Blake), or perhaps one of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Dominic LeBlanc would hastily be named. My choice may even be Jack Layton, as such a parliament would be destined to be short lived, he is a strong leader of his party, and he would be kept in check by the majority (of the minority) Liberals. Ignatieff seems the inevitable choice in a few years anyways, so why not give Jack a turn.

The outcome of all of this is yet to be seen (this blog will likely be out of date very quickly), but these rumblings represent a chance for democracy in action. The system, apparently, works.

RM

November 28, 2008

The Belief in Free Speech

This post is half in response to Russ MacDonald’s post “That’s Blasphemy” and half in response to the appalling terrorist attacks this week in Mumbai.

While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.

MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.

These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.

The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?

Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.

The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.

It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?

What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?

When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.

Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.

November 26, 2008

That's Blasphemy

The United Nations has recently comitted blasphemy, by ruling against sacred Free Speech. They recently backed an anti-blasphemy measure that was being pushed forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Combating Defamation of Religions was passed 85-50 in a key UN committee. While their decision is non-binding, it clears the way for Islamic and other nations to move forward on the issue. Pakistani Ambassador Masood Kham has stated that the OIC is looking to implement a 'new instrument or convention' on member states, which would be a binding resolution.

The OIC laments that Islam is often wrongly associated, particularly in the West, with human rights violations and terrorism, and this measure "underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional, and international levels (Ottawa Citizen, Nov 25, A1)." However passing laws that restrict freedom of speech is no way to change people's views on your human rights violations.

What this law does is shift the focus of protecting the rights of the individual to protecting the idea that is religion itself. People should be free to practice whichever religion they choose and say and think what they choose, and this is now at stake. Of particular concern is the inclusion of the term 'defamation,' which carries legal significance. In order for defamation to occur, the statement must not just be offensive, but also be false. That requires a value judgement of religious principles, and deciding that they are 'truth.'

At the heart of the issue is still the idea that a state can control the thoughts and will of the people, and this resolution (with UN backing!) sets that ideal back. Iran has even stated they are considering a draft amendment that would impose capital punishment for apostasy (renunciation of one's beliefs or principles). No state should have any business in who is thinking or believing what. Only when those beliefs descend to the level of inciting violence should the state have any reason to intervene. This resolution brings to mind the various European laws against Holocaust Denial. They have effectively made it illegal to believe something, which in itself is more terrifying than Holocaust Denial itself. It is also, theoretically, a law which you may not be able to avoid breaking.

I am not in favour of denying or diminishing the atrocities of the Holocaust. I do believe, however, that every person should have every right to hold such beliefs, and even share them with other people. I believe that every person should have the unalienable right to blaspheme if they so choose, and even flat out renounce their beliefs, without the fear of execution. These should be universal goals of human rights, and the United Nations should in no way condone measures that restrict these rights in any way. And for that, they have commited blasphemy, against the sanctity of Human Rights.

RM

November 24, 2008

How We Are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo

In yesterday’s (Nov.23rd) Svenska Dagbladet (“The Swedish Daily Paper” in English) there was an extremely interesting and discomforting article discussing the ravaging of the rainforest on the island of Borneo.

The island of Borneo is governmentally divided between the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei and is the third largest island in the world. As of today over three quarters of the lowland rainforest, a major source of biodiversity as well as endemic species, have been destroyed through logging, fire and the replacement planting of oil palms.

Mattias Klum, the source behind the aforementioned article and one of the world’s leading nature photographers, has traveled to Borneo a total of 35 times documenting and researching into the destruction of the rainforest. He paints a bleak picture and does not hold any punches titling his article “The Nightmare on Borneo.”

The problem is the ongoing replacement of rainforest by oil palms, trees that provide masses of valuable palm oil, a commodity that can be found in almost anything from shampoo and soap to chocolate, margarine and chips. These trees provide a needed fiscal shot in the arm for the economically challenged economies of Indonesia and Malaysia but also, as Mattias Klum reports, hold massive environmental and ecological consequences.

Klum describes the brutal and devastating way the rainforest is set ablaze, releasing over 1652 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air for each hectare burnt. Multiply that by an area Klum says is equivalent to the size of Switzerland and you have what he calls “One of the world’s biggest environmental problems.”

In the case of the Borneo rainforest it is, as usual, difficult to simply intervene and say “No…Bad!” The problem is that the people have come to rely on palm oil and forestry and would be jobless and living under extreme poverty if it weren’t for the jobs provided by these industries.

Does the reliance on consumption and the consequential environmental destruction necessitated sound in any way familiar? This is in no way isolated to developing countries. Our dependence on the destruction of the environment has become conventionalized and is engrained in the daily lives of people around the world.

The situation on the island of Borneo eerily mirrors the worries presented to the industrialized nations of the world in the recent so called finance crisis. Jobs will no doubt be lost and people will struggle to keeps their homes and maintain the now cliché status quo we call “quality of life.”
In this crisis has anyone stopped to re-think this seemingly universally accepted truism? Scientists have for years beat around the term “sustainable development” and warned that current levels of consumption are not possible to maintain. In a lot of ways the current financial crisis looks like it might act to force us into more sustainable practices. One almost has to wonder if there is a genius environmental activist pulling the strings.

When it comes to the rainforest in Borneo it is not just factory owners and dubious governments that are to blame. Unsustainable consumption and lack of regulation in developed nations is directly fueling the palm oil industry. Despite laws against destructive de-forestation there is, as of now, no way for consumers or manufacturers to know if the oil they are receiving comes from legal, government approved producers or illegal ones.

It is easy to pinpoint problems such as consumption and lack of regulatory bodies, but in what way can this message be relayed to the public and the people who actually have the power to make change?

Weeks after vast brown clouds of pollution settled themselves over parts of Asia providing visual confirmation of the atmospheric suicide we are committing one has to wonder what it will take to bring about change. Is there anyone capable of prompting the type of change needed to make a difference?

It is easy to reject responsibility while issues remain invisible and theoretical, but when these same things become visible they become for many actualized. We are all doubting Thomases and yes, seeing is still believing. In the same way that these perceptible brown clouds brought international attention back to the urgency for change, the pictures taken by Mattias Klum speak an indescribable story.

If we truly want the public and governments to take climate change and environmental problems seriously we need to make them visible for people and Klum does us all a service in this respect.

Once again here is the link to his report and pictures (in Swedish):

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/artikel_2083765.svd

November 21, 2008

Spoiler Alert

Elizabeth May and Ralph Nader have a lot in common. They're both from Connecticut, they've both run for leader of their respective countries on the Green Party ticket, and they've both been accused of stealing votes from their liberal counterparts. Their opinion of these 'stolen' votes, however, apparently differs.

A refresher for anyone who fell alseep in Grade 10 Career Studies and forgot to wake up before Civics started: Canada has 308 Electoral Districts spread out across the country, each with a weight of 1 in parliament. These districts are sized by population, so some (like my riding of Ottawa Centre) are only 35km², while others, such as Kenora (321 716km²), are bigger than the United Kingdom. Whichever party wins the most ridings forms the government. If no party gathers a majority of the ridings, then they must contend with a minority government and seek the support of the Members of Parliament sitting from other parties lest their government fall.

Things become dicey when you look at the number of candidates in each riding. There can be as many as five, six, seven or more candidates, often four or five from a 'legitimate' party (sorry, NeoRhinos). A party can win a riding with less than 25% of the vote if it is evenly divided. (If you consider that only 59% of Canadians voted, this equates to less than 15% of the population needed to get your 1/308th share of the Canadian government.) Under these circumstances, the issue of vote splitting will invariably arise. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister with only 37.65% of the popular vote. Multiply this by the 59% voter turnout, and less than one quarter of our population actually supported him. So the questions arise: Should I vote for the party I actually want to win? Or should I vote for the party most likely to stop the Conservatives? These questions are not new, and are not unique to Canada.

The American system, so I gather, is slightly different. Each state has a ballot with Presidential candidates, and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins that state. Each state is worth points based on population, and whichever candidate gets the most points overall, wins (kind of like basketball). This scenario again leave the door open for vote stealing. Looking at the infamous butterfly ballots from Florida's 2000 debacle, there are ten Presidential candidates, and even a Write-In spot (...if I get enough of my buddies to vote for me, then just maybe...). With ten candidates to contend with, the vote can be well split again, but the difference being that there are only two 'legitimate' parties (sorry, Boston Tea).

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election the Green party garnered 937 613 votes, but no MPs. Some would argue that this represents almost 1 million wasted votes, of which the majority theoretically would have gone to the Liberals (they were in cahoots, after all). This scenario likely cost the Liberals seats, and therefore sway in parliament. Elizabeth May was heavily criticized near the end of the campaign for appearing to suggest that in some ridings Green supporters would be better to vote Liberal to defeat the Conservatives. This suggestion may have cost the Greens votes, government funds, and David Chernushenko.

Ralph Nader has faced similar circumstances in drawing support away from the Democrats. Due to its 25 Electoral Votes (points), whoever won Florida in the 2000 American Federal Election would become the President. It clearly didn't matter who got more overall votes or anything like that. After numerous debacles including shoddy reporting, ambiguous ballots, and hanging chad, the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush had won Florida, edging out Al Gore by less than the number of people who voted for Nader. (The same is true about New Hampshire.) Theoretically Nader supporters would have supported Gore, and some Republicans even ran pro-Nader campaigns in an attempt to split the vote. Nader, however, has continued to rebuke suggestions of strategic voting, maintaining in his differences from and opposition to the Democrats.

So whose strategy is the best use of your vote? The problem with the debate is that there's no concensus. If nobody voted strategically, and instead voted for the party they wanted to win most, then the Greens and New Democrats would undoubtedly pick up votes and perhaps even seats at the expense of the Liberals. At the same time, if everybody voted strategically, and voted for the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives, then the Liberals would invariably gain votes, and likely even seats, with enough new votes to topple some Conservative candidates (They Conservatives won Kitchener-Waterloo by 17 votes). As it stands now, nobody is really sure which option is best, so everybody does their own thing. This only does the one thing that everybody can agree they don't want, which is benefit the Conservatives.

But there can really only be one answer, and that is to vote for the party that you want to win the election. If Ralph Nader were a Democrat, he wouldn't run against them. If you support Nader, why would you vote for his opponent? He even gave John Kerry the chance to encorporate some of his key issues into Kerry's failed 2004 Presidential campaign. When Kerry failed to do this, Nader went electioneering. By even garnering votes, these candidates are bringing the issues important to them into the spotlight. Elizabeth May participated in, and some argue won, the leaders debates this year. If nobody have voted Green in 2006, then Green issues would not have been represented this way. The Reform Party didn't win a seat in 1988, but increased their votes tenfold by 1993, claimed 52 seats in parliament, and in an ironic twist split the Right-Wing vote and vaulted Jean Chretien to a staggering majority. Without the third and fourth party options, our politics would be a bland choice between the lesser of two evils, and small party supporters would end up voting for parties who didn't represent them. That is no way to see democracy in action.

RM

November 19, 2008

Responding to Anarchy and the Somalian Pirate Attacks

After reading about the latest in the recent string of pirate attacks in the Indian Ocean I found myself brooding over these events and trying to understand them on a different level. The most recent pirate attack involved the hijacking of an oil-tanker holding over 2 million barrels of oil that is estimated to be worth about $100 million US.

With that being said is it at all surprising the reports of the US taking military action against Somali pirates began surfacing this afternoon? After all, oil is the currency of the Bush administration.

For just a second however, let’s take a look at this from a different perspective. While in no way justifying piracy, the fact is that Somalia is a country that has been emblematic for anarchy and was last year named number 3 on a list of the top failed states in the world. With no defined governing body and lawlessness abiding throughout the country, who is there to condemn these actions? In a place where there are so many have-nots and no authority to turn to, is it any surprise that groups of people band together and take what it is they need?

Of course these pirates are not the have-nots of the Somali society and they are both well-organized and equipped. At the same time however they are not necessarily the blood-thiristy, eye-patched buccaneers the Western world might be familiar with. In fact, these pirates originated as a response to illegal commercial fisherman that had mined the Somali waters of a previously rich tuna-stock. In an article that appeared in The New York Times in September after a Ukranian ship loaded with arms was hijacked, the pirates are quoted as having no idea that ship had any arms on board and saying that “Killing is not in our plans...We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger.” Now, I am not one to believe a pirate word for word and I doubt very highly that these pirates would go hungry if they had not hijacked this ship; however their disposition is hardly that of a group of people looking for a fight. The crews aboard hijacked ships are kept safe and even treated to fine cuisine purchased off credit from local merchants who know that more than fair reimbursements will arrive when a ransom is negotiated for the ship’s safe return. What’s more is that these pirates have been rumoured to be pumping money in the economy of local Somali villages and even funding schools.

Now let’s put this back in perspective. Pirates are thieves. They have moved beyond a reactionary group against illegal fisherman to a multimillion dollar criminal organization that puts every ship passing through these waters at risk. They affect the international economy and with this attack against the MV Sirius Star they have attacked well outside Somali waters. It has reached a point where attacks are almost daily with 11 attacks to date this month alone. Clearly something has to be done to restore aquatic security in the Gulf of Aden and the surrounding area.

An Indian warship yesterday destroyed a large pirate-ship and, although no official numbers have arrived, likely killed pirates in the process. Can this be justified?
Can these pirates, who have not been proven to be involved in piracy with violent intentions, be legitimately shot at and killed? In my opinion this is merely seeking to conquer lawlessness with lawlessness. The sinking of ships and killing of pirates will not solve the causal problem behind piracy. These pirates have made up their own rules in the lack of any others and until a stable government is in place in Somalia other people will continue to follow this example.

As an anecdote I would like to mention an ironic twist involving one of the hijackings by Somali pirates. The Ukrainian ship that was hijacked on Sept. 25 was carrying a load of tanks and other arms to Kenya which were likely going to be sold illegally to Sudan for use in the ongoing war in the Darfur region through which over 250,000 people have died. In light of this, despite the high profile pirates have gained in the news recently, one has to ask oneself if they are truly the greatest threat to humanity. Perhaps their prominence in the news is due to the threat they pose against the sustenance of Western dominance through the disruption of commerce. When seen this way it is a little bit clearer why the US is all of the sudden taking things more seriously just two days after 2 million barrels of oil became involved.

Will Grassby

November 17, 2008

A Real Pick-Me-Up

In the province of Ontario, 'carpool' is a legal term with legal ramifications. Introduced in the 1970s, carpools were an attempt to encourage working people to share rides to and from work, thereby reducing emissions and congestion, as well as encouraging all of the positive social benefits of people commuting together.

This issue has recently been brought to the forefront after a ruling by the Ontario Highway Transportation Board in favour of Trentway-Wagar Inc., against Ottawa-based website pickuppal.ca. The website is used to coordinate drivers who are offering rides with passengers who are looking for rides, thus again reducing emissions and traffic, as well as enabling drivers to share some of their fuel costs.

Trentway-Wagar, the company that owns the bus line Coach Canada, has a problem with this service. They (successfully) argued that carpooling only allows for people to commute to work, and PickupPal was therefore breaking the law. While I'm sure their primary concern was for the safety of people travelling with potentially bad drivers, PickupPal was also cutting into their profits by reducing the number of people riding the bus between large centres, primarily Toronto to Montreal. They argued that PickupPal was providing a transportation service, while at the same time not required to abide by the same regulations as the bus company, such as vehicle maintenance and driver capability. PickupPal was ordered to pay $2837.07 to the board and $8500.00 to Trentway-Wagar in fines.

In the end (as is often the case) it was a question of liability. It seems nobody is truly responsible for their own selves these days, and insurance companies repeatedly rear their ugly head. Dean Saul, a Partner with Gowlings transportation industry national group, says: "The big question that comes up is, what is the liability for the guy driving the vehicle in relation to the people in the vehicle? What insurance is he carrying for the people in the vehicle or is the insurance he is carrying valid if he has a collision and kills three people in another car?" The issue of insurance coverage in such a situation stems from the practice of people leasing vans and operating them as makeshift buses, turning a profit all under the guise of a carpool. What the legislation in combination with this ruling effectively means for people in Ontario, though, is that parents volunteering to pick up local kids for hockey practice or other such organized and non-work-related carpools may also be technically illegal.

It seems unlikely that parents will be pulled over on their way to hockey, and it should also be noted that the Ontario government is scrambling to update their legislation on the issue. However, the real issue at stake here is corporations, insurance companies, and government colluding to restrict 'unofficial' transportation and on a larger level interaction. Each person should have the freedom to accept rides with any other person, and accept any of the associated risks. However, any interaction between individuals without the influence of an official 'market' is seen as a threat to corporate hegemony.
This 'problem' has only been exacerbated by the Internet and other new communication technologies, and it is only growing. As people become less relient on centralized forms of communication, they are more able to interact on a private and personal level. The fact that anybody is even reading this is a testament to that fact. As this phenomenon continues and becomes more commonplace, legislation will slowly change to accept it, as has already begun with the carpool issue in Ontario. We can only hope this happens sooner rather than later.
Russel MacDonald

November 14, 2008

The Fear of Learning

If there is one place that a child should feel safe it is at school. Education is invaluable and every child should without any question be able to learn in a safe environment.

Why is it then that in the past week two there have been stories of death and violence involving innocent children in and on their way to school?

From last week’s school collapse in Haiti to this week’s violent attack involving the spraying of acid at a group of Afghani girls and teachers on their way to school in Kandahar, it is children who are taking the fall for the problems of others.

The attack in Kandahar is however more than just an attack on children. This was an attack organized by a cowardly group of men trying to prevent young women from going to school. These people can hide behind whatever religious or ideological guise they want but all they in actuality stand for is sexist misogyny.

The two questions that arise out of this are obviously: why are women mistreated in Afghanistan and secondly, and more importantly, what can be done?

The why is unfortunately the easier question to answer. Violent acts are always rooted in fear and the truth is that these men are clearly afraid of women. The scary part of this is that these attacks are far more systematic than they might appear from the outside. This was not a random act of violence but rather part of an orchestrated attempt to scare girls away from education. The sad part is that it seems to be working. According to reports out of Kandahar today the attacks have achieved their goal of frightening girls out of attending school. But why do groups like the Taliban not want these girls going to school?

Once again the answer is fear. The key to control over a group of people has always been to keep them uneducated. Educated women would no doubt learn new words like equality and women’s-rights. If women in Afghanistan ever learned these things they would understand that the Taliban’s Islamic costume is hiding a monster within.

In a way this event shows how far Afghanistan has come since the fall of the Taliban from power. These girls were, despite the violent act, on their way to school; a place they wouldn’t even come close to when the Taliban were in charge. When they were the status quo the Taliban were able to conceal their true character but since being ousted from power the Taliban have been reduced to their true essence. They are revealed through this act for what they really are; terrorists. This is beyond doubt an act of terrorism where the goal is to force people into an action through violence. So how is this stopped? Girls have been scared into staying home, so does this mean the terrorists win?

The way to stop terrorism is not to give in and give the terrorists what they want. Instead a way must be found to get these girls to school safely. There must be someone in Afghanistan that could do this; someone who’s primary interest is “fighting terror.”

Sound familiar?

Foreign troops from around the world are stationed in Afghanistan in the so called "war on terror", so where are they when blatant acts of terrorism like this one are taking place?

In a quote from Matthias Tomczak, the Australian convenor of the Support Association of the Women of Afghanistan (SAWA), he says that “one of the forces that actually are working against a solution are the foreign troops because they can't distinguish between Taliban and civilians and often hit civilians and people are afraid of them.”

The problem is clearly that the people who are supposedly fighting terrorism are equally terrifying as the terrorists. If the interest was truly in peace and eradicating the terrorists, protecting innocent civilians and denying terrorists from achieving their goals should be at the top of the list. Perhaps protecting these girls and making sure schools and the roads leading to them are safe would be a better, more peaceful solution for coalition troops than using the same violence and fear tactics used by the terrorists.

If these attacks were happening on American or Canadian soil, whatever necessary measures would be taken to assure the continued security and education of students. Why should Afghani students be treated any differently?




Will Grassby

November 12, 2008

Lest We Forget


This entry is going to stray from the political discourse for a moment of personal reflection, this the day after the Eleventh of November. It was ninety years ago today that The Great War came to an end. It was the war to end all wars, and it claimed the lives of some 67 000 Canadians. Scars were dug across Europe and soldiers were swallowed by the mud.


The early part of the Twentieth Century can be seen as a transition point in world history. There wasn’t a whole lot of exploring left to do, and the United States was establishing itself as a major cultural player. The Industrial Revolution had already gripped Europe, and Capitalism and Communism were emerging and conflicting ideologies. Gone were the days of Napoleonic conquering, and of 1812’s firing lines. Technology would go on to play a major role in the rest of the Twentieth Century, and World War I was a great display of this, with new weapons and tactics warfare had never seen. Machine guns and mustard gas, and eventually tanks, would litter the continent with death. Flanked to the sea, both sides dug in their front lines and waged a four-year battle of attrition and destruction.


This summer I spent some time travelling across Europe, and one place I am very glad to have visited was Vimy Ridge in France. This was the site of a decisive and strategic victory for Canada and her allies in April 1917 and it was one of the first sources of national pride and identity for our young nation. It was also the last place nearly four-thousand young Canadians ever saw. On the site today stands the most spectacular monument I have ever seen, and is inscribed with the names of the thousands of Canadian soldiers with no known graves in France.


That is the price of the freedom we enjoy today. And that is why we must never forget.


This may all seem very cliché. Every Remembrance Day we throw on a poppy and remind ourselves to not forget. But that’s just because it is so important. World War I was not the war to end all wars, and there are Canadian soldiers as well as other human beings from across the planet engaged in conflict, whether it’s in Afghanistan, Tibet, Rwanda, or anywhere else. Until the day when there is no more war this is the reality. So to those Canadians who laid down their lives for mine, and to those who risked theirs and safely returned home; to those currently engaged, and to the veterans of future wars: Thank you.

Russ MacDonald

November 10, 2008

A Broken Promise

The situation that is currently unfolding in Haiti (and when I say ‘currently unfolding’ I am referring to an ongoing phenomenon over the course of hundreds of years) is both sickening and unremitting. The collapse of the school La Promesse last week added to a string of events including four tropical storms that wiped out crops as well as the rising food prices that were the source of violence and a food crisis.

However according to Petionville's representative in Parliament Stephen Benoit the school that collapsed and killed 88 students and teachers in Petionville last week has apparently become nothing more than a symbol for the perpetual suffering that has become synonomous with “Haiti.”

In an interview yesterday Benoit referred to the school’s collapse as a “golden occasion to address this anarchic construction.”

Of course this event will draw attention to Haiti and the haze of corruption that hangs over the country but when did the death of innocent children become a symbol for moving forward? How will this event save Haiti where the inexorable violence of the past three centuries has not? (here is a link to an excellent article that chronicles a part of Haiti’s violent past: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n5_v57/ai_13705082)

The sad truth is that the more than 2 million people in Haiti living in abject poverty have no reason to believe this event will spark anything more than a couple more days of headlines in developed nations before something more important to them takes over again.

What makes this story even more dispiriting is that the school “La Promesse”, which translates to ‘The Promise’ in English, was a school that was supposed to be a source of hope for many Haitians and their children. Families laboured and saved in order to pay the annual $1500 tuition fee to send their children to school and give them a chance in a country where almost half the population is illiterate.

Try to imagine for a minute living in a place with nothing and without any hope for the future but for your children to go and have a chance for something better.

Imagine saving every penny you had for years to send them to a place where they would get this chance.

Then picture this hope, this “promise” collapsing in front of your eyes. The place that you had spent your whole life working to send your child to becomes their grave.

After all of that try and picture reading in the paper that your representative in parliament called this event “a golden occasion” for the future of Haiti.
The death of those children does not symbolize any sort of opportunity for the future of Haitians. If anything the collapse of La Promesse symbolizes the loss of those who provided Haiti with a dream for the future.

This is a desperate situation but I am not trying to paint a demoralizing picture. Hope is important and trying to find positives, although very difficult, is absolutely necessary in the process of alleviating the destitution in Haiti. I just don’t think trying to use the deaths of innocent children as a positive is constructive, especially for those families grieving the loss of their beloved.

Will Grassby

November 07, 2008

The Blog Journalists

Russ MacDonald and Will Grassby are "The Blog Journalists." We are as we like to call ourselves "Exploratory Journalists."

Will Grassby is a 22-year old aspiring journalist currently studying in Lund Sweden. He is finishing up a BA in English with a minor specialization in Philosophy. His journalistic interests include languages, religion, philosophy, environmental issues as well as politics.

Russ MacDonald is a 22-year old journalist currently living in Ottawa, Canada. He has a BA in Communications from the University of Ottawa

“The Blog Journalists” project began in late 2008 through a desire to take a more in-depth look at news from around the world.

Our goal is to encourage frank but scholarly discussions with diverse perspectives. As we develop the blog we will be adding weekly features as well as a discussion forum.

The blog will be updated 3 times weekly on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 17:00 ET (GMT -05:00)

To the Glory of...Reason? Response to "To Reason"

Interesting post Russ. I have now read Ms. Lakritz's original article and agree with your assessment. It is a one-sided article that simply breaths of reactionaryism.

Her attack on reason is of course laugable. Ironically it is her own reason (even if one disagrees with this reason) that motivates her to respond to the athiest students of the University of Alberta. The way she tries to make her point would be unacceptable in an elementary school.

All knee-jerk reactions aside, I think the place where she truly went wrong was where she decided to seperate God and reason from one another (despite her misinformed attempt to reference him, St. Thomas Aquinas would be spinning in his grave.)

In fact her characterization of reason as 'malleable' and a source of entitlement is a claim that, if taken seriously, would set the world of philosophy back somewhere in the neighbourhood of several thousand years.God is a concept that, despite what Christians, Jews, Hinduists or probably even the Scientologists would say, is itself malleable. The word God is merely a word and depending on who is doing the defining, it could mean any number of things. To one person God could be the creator of all things but to another it could be a less definable concept, something more abstract such as a code of morals the idea of perfection. Even the athiest must admit they have some sort of concept of God; after all, how could an athiest deny God without first having some sort of idea of what they are denying?

As a final note, I went to the University of Alberta website and stumbled across the university's motto which is proudly displayed on the university's crest. The Latin reads 'Quaecumque Vera' or 'whatsoever things true.' Personal beliefs aside, truth is the main goal. Reason is the tool we have to reach this goal. No matter what truths we come to as individuals, reason is the road there. Lakritz undermines the truth of her own article by ripping up this road.

Will Grassby

To Reason

A controversy has been brewing at the secular University of Alberta regarding their convocation speech, in which graduates were urged to use their degrees "for the glory of God and country."

This, of course, worked the university's Atheists and Agnostics society into a tizzy (what those Atheists are doing hanging out with the wishy-washy Agnostics in the first place I'm not sure). Rightly or wrongly, that debate has raged on.

This prompted input for Calgary Herald writer Naomi Lakritz, which was reprinted in today's Ottawa Citizen. [Oct 29] She defends the institution's inclusion of God by asking how atheists would prefer the line be rewritten, mockingly suggesting 'for the glory of reason.' (How about 'for the betterment of humanity', or some other relatively inclusive, happy-Utopian phrase?)

Ms. Lakritz goes on to mock reason (I kid you not), saying: "Reason is the altar on which (atheists) worship -- a narcissistic, no-stress, do-it-yourself approach, since everyone is free to put his or her own spin on how reason is defined. Reason is, in fact, so malleable that it's the ideal religion for these members of the Entitlement Generation who think the world ought to be rewritten in their own images."I may be wrong, but doesn't Christianity teach us that God created humans in His own self-image? That in the entire Universe, amongst all the stars and planets and lifeforms, human beings are the chosen ones by the Supreme Creator?

That to me seems more narcissistic than worshiping at the altar of Reason (Reason, I know! "The ability to think and understand and draw conclusions;" "Sanity;" "Good sense or judgement; what is right, practical, or possible!")I realize and fully appreciate that none of you may share Ms. Lakritz's views on narcissistic atheists or the Entitlement Generation, or her disregard for Reason (does that make her unreasonable?), regardless of your varying religious leanings, and for that I am grateful. I don't mean for this to be an attack on any one religion or expression thereof, or even the University of Alberta's speech, but rather just me venting about one individual's inflammatory bigotry, which I thought I'd share. Thanks for reading.

Russ MacDonald