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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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