If I Have Nothing to Hide, Why Would I Need to Lie?

It has been awhile since The Blog Journalists have been in action, but a recent event in Canadian News has re-kindled my journalistic fire...and boy is it blazing over this one.

The report last week that the CRTC is weakening the blanket ban on false news to now only cover "any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health, or safety of the public." is a decision that could destroy the integrity of the Canadian media. One could even put forth the arguement, as some already have, that lax regulations such as these (the American version of this law is more stringent than the one proposed by the CRTC) can create an enviroment of distrust that can lead to violence such as the horrific shootings in Arizona this month. I am reluctant to blame events such as the one in Arizona on the media because, as we know, random acts of violence do happen. On the other hand, the media* is the lifeblood of our society. When pure, it serves as a source of truth that flows through us all, reinforcing democracy. In the same vein, if polluted with pathogenic stories that serve the interests of a select few however, it is not a stretch that body of our society would start to decay. This change in regulation threatens to turn us into media junkies with dirty needles full of addictive half-truisms sticking out of our arms; being told what others want us to hear instead of what is true. It sounds extreme, but watch a half-hour segment on FOX News and you'll know what I mean.

(*I dislike lumping all media together like this because when we hear this label we often think of just television or newspapers, but there are so many different media and platforms for us all to have our voices heard, epecially since the advent of new media through blogging, podcasting and social media.)

We would all like to believe it will not happen; that nothing will change; that even if little wisps of untruths started to float onto our screens, that we would see them; that they would scream out to us, or at least come with a disclaimer read at the end "Stories shown on this program may not be entirely accurate representations of what may or may not have actually happened." Yet we know that it will not be like this. To our eyes, nothing will change. We will never know.

Ultimately, anyone who wants to be a journalist whether independent or working for a major media corporation, should be bound to the pursuit of the truth. Of course everything is tinted by our own beliefs, but this should only affect our opinions on a subject, not the actual facts at hand. People that think this regulation will not change anything and that all media outlets will put the search for the truth ahead of their own agenda should not be deceived. If I have nothing to Hide, Why Would I need to Lie? If they don't have a reason for lying, why would this regulation be changed? The CRTC cited that the current sweeping regulation is in conflict with our Charter of Rights and wouldn't hold up in court. My question is, why don't they take this issue to court then? Why are they trying to slip this regulation through as if it is nothing at all? If they were truly concerned about what was right, a careful analysis of the entire issue would be made and all the appropriate democratic steps would be taken.

Under the new CRTC regulation, I might be tempted to make a bold accusation as to who I thought might be behind these changes. It stinks of the same type of behind-doors decision making that has led to a number of controversial, but relatively hush-hush political decisions in Canada over the past five years. Proroguation of Parliament. Senate stacking. Massive negative-ad campaigns. Decisions to cut off funding to political parties hidden in with other bills, essentially paralyzing the opposition.

I won't point fingers though. It won't do any good. The people of Canada are the only ones to blame if this regulation passes. If we don't take note of the issue, condemn it and do all we can to stop it, we cannot complain.

So here it is, your chance to do something: www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

Write to the CRTC and tell them this is wrong. Tell them you want the truth and that anything less is unacceptable. Tell them that if this regulation is against the Charter of Rights, it should be discussed democratically in court, not changed without the slightest regard or consult of the people it affects.

This is about our country, our families and our lives. This is crucial. This is about the most precious thing we have: the truth.

The Legislation of Discrimination

I have recently been applying for a number of jobs, with various levels of government and other institutions. A number of these jobs, and particularly those of the federal nature, have declared themselves to be equal-opportunity employers, and have cheerily invited me to self-identify as a woman, an aboriginal, a visible minority, or a person with a disability. I am confused as to why I am being asked this, since the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or for pardoned convictions. Part I, Section 7.b) states:

It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)

Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.

Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)

Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:

Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.

I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.

Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)

If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.

There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.

I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.

Russ MacDonald