Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 3 of 4)

Brent Densmore returns for Part 3 of his series on sustainable development in the 21st century. Today Brent discusses the relationship between the car and surburban living and the need to reverse urban sprawl

To supplement the implementation of renewable resources, Thomas Friedman argues that governments should increase the current gas tax. This would serve two purposes: Firstly, it would promote the use of energy-efficient vehicles and secondly, it would raise money that can be used to invest in renewable resources. Friedman states:

“There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes, which would attract more investment in battery technology to make electric cars, which would hugely help the expansion of the wind and solar industries — where the biggest drawback is the lack of batteries to store electrons when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. A higher gas tax would drive all these systemic benefits”(Friedman, Thomas http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html)

While it is extremely difficult for any leader to raise taxes in his or her country, sometimes it needs to be done. David Miller, the Mayor of Toronto, recently raised home property taxes and added new fees for recreational activities in order to balance the budget (CBC.ca, “tax increase for Toronto”http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/02/10/tto-budget.html?ref=rss). This upset many Torontonian’s, as it should, but the public outcry wasn’t that bad. If people are willing to accept the above tax increases then I am sure they will eventually embrace a tax increase aimed at protecting the future of our planet.

In the early 1900s, Henry Ford introduced the first mainstream automobile called the Ford Model T. After years of improving the assembly line, Ford was able to produce automobiles quickly and cheaply, which enabled him to sell them at a reasonable price. As a result, many Americans could easily afford these automobiles which led to a major change in how one could live. It was no longer necessary to live within close proximity of your job; you could now live further away and still get to work without any difficulty. As demand for housing outside of the urban centre increased, the growth of suburban towns skyrocketed. This led to a massive investment in infrastructure; highways and bridges were built so that it would be easy to commute to and from the city.

The suburb was viewed as a great idea; they created thousands of new jobs and allowed people to live outside of the noisy city.

As the demand for suburban living increased as did car sales, which doubled between 1970 and 1995 (Rogers, Richard. Cities for a small planet. Boulder: Faber and Faber Limited, 1997 P. 36). As a result, our addiction to fossil fuels can be directly correlated to the rise in suburban living. In order to travel to and from your home in the suburbs, you have to drive your automobile. In the mid 1900s, oil prices were low and global warming wasn’t an issue. Today, oil prices and carbon dioxide emissions are higher then ever. It is no longer economical or environmentally friendly to drive everywhere. There must be greater use of public transit to offset high oil prices and reduce carbon emissions. Richard Rogers explains why it will be difficult to implement this when he states the following:

“The car has made viable the whole concept of dividing everyday activities into compartments, segregating offices, shops and homes. And the wider cities spread out, the more uneconomic it becomes to expand their public transit systems” (Rogers, 35).

Clearly it is time to move away from urban sprawl and focus on creating densely populated cities. Major urban centre’s will always be the most attractive for jobs and services, but if urban planners do a better job at designing small, densely populated cities, then we can decrease our dependency on them. If people are concentrated in fewer areas then it will be much easier to utilize public transportation. This would significantly cut down on the dependency for the automobile and therefore reduce our consumption of unsustainable energy.

Check back next week for the final part of Brent's four-part series where he will take a look at some real-world examples of successful and sustainable development and the need to act before it is too late. Part four will become available next Friday at 5pm EST.

The Atheists vs The Believers: 1st Period (Part 2 of 5)

This blog is a contiuation of a five-part series dealing with the argument between atheism and belief in God. Today we begin with the First Period of the metaphysical hockey game introduced last week in the "pre-game show."

The crowd has been anxiously filing into their seats and everyone is finally ready to go, so with no further ado: The opening face-off.

Lining up to take the draw are esteemed philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas and renowned evolutionary biologist, and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins. Aquinas is known for his attempts to reconcile faith and reason and is most known for his "Summa Theologica", a massive work that includes the well known "quinquae viae", or the "Five Ways." Dawkins is a prominant anti-creationist who in his book "The God Delusion" argues for the non-existence of God and points out religion as a major source of evil in the world. He discusses the "Five Ways" directly in "The God Delusion" and dismisses them saying: "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas don't proove anything...". Dawkins also argues that it is unimportant to study theology in order to disprove it in the same way "most of us disavow...the Flying spaghetti monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology..." With this in mind, it is clear that right from the opening face-off, this is truly going to be one hell of a match (figuratively speaking of course).

With the players ready to go referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice to drop the puck. The animosity in the air is palpable.

Dawkins looks ready, but Aquinas knows exactly what he wants to do. Years of research and philosophical training have prepared him for people like Dawkins who are willing to refute his arguments without even understanding them. Just as the puck is about to be dropped Aquinas looks out from under his helmet and says "If you don't believe theology is worth studying, why do you systematically try to refute the"quinquae viae" in your book?" With that said, and Dawkins slightly unsure how he should answer, the puck is dropped and Aquinas wins the draw back to McGrath. As he skates away Aquinas politely mentions that at no time did he ever call the "quinquae viae" proofs of God's existence but that it was rather people like Dawkins who gave it that appellation many years later.

Although there is no goal scoring yet, momentum seems to have shifted to the Believers after Dawkin's philosophical weakness being exposed early. As expected, the Believers have started out with a tight-checking style mainly stating their belief as they dump the puck in while waiting to pounce on a mistake by the Atheists.

The Atheists however play with scientific precision. Dawkins recovers from his early blunder, firing several well-aimed shots on goal, including the dangerous "flexibly definable God" argument. This shot implies that God can be seen as a "filler" in the increasingly few gaps in our knowledge left unexplained by science. With this promise of religion soon being rendered history by scientific progress, the Atheists gain new life. They are beginning to overwhelm to Believer's defence who are only able to try and deflect these shots wide of the target in the hope of making it to the end of the period unscathed.

Unfortunatly for the Believers, with a few minutes left on the clock, young Oxonian defenceman Alistair McGrath admits the validity of Dawkins refutation of the long-treasured Christian belief of "intelligent design", leaving him all alone on a break-away. At the last second McGrath reaches out and trips up Dawkins by saying intelligent design and William Paley's "The watchmaker" (which is a 19th century argument that argues that if one were to find a watch on a beach that would not assume it came to be on its own, but rather that there was a watchmaker who designed it; Paley goes on to infer that the world is the same and that it is too sophisticated and "intelligently designed" to occur on its own) is a 19th century argument that it is not representative of contemporary Christianity, but it is too late. The whistle blows and Immanuel Kant crosses his arms over his head. Penalty Shot!

The crowd is on their feet as Dawkins starts in. He skates out wide to the right side and cuts back in across the top of the circle, gaining speed and hoping to catch the Believers goaltender out of position with his favourite "there almost certainly is no God" manoeuver. It appears to work as the goaltender starts to follow Dawkins across exposing the bottom right-hand corner of the net. Dawkins fires and already has his arms in the air when out of nowhere a big, "Christian" goal stick slides along the ice and deflects the puck up over the net into the crowd. No goal!

Dawkins looks back, wondering how he missed a sure goal and sees Jesus standing in the crease, staring right at him as if to say: "you're going to have to do better than that."

Indeed it appears as if saying there almost certainly is no God proves nothing but the improbability of God, which Jesus defeated with an equally inprobable save.

After two more minutes or spirited (or perhaps "lively" would be a more appropriate term) but goal-less play the buzzer sounds and the first period is done.

0-0. A scoreless, but extremely entertaining period of metaphysical hockey leaves nothing resolved, but many interesting ideas to think about over the next week leading up to next Wednesday's 2nd period.

The Atheists hold a clear advantage in shots, outshooting the Believers 9-2 and were the stronger of the two teams over the 20 minutes. It looks like they may have to change their tactics a little bit to get through the tight checking of the believers and get their shots through to the net. Faith is proving a difficult defensive tool to get around and the experts are saying that if they want to break through with some goals they will have to stick to their strength of using fact based evidence instead of probabilities. In an interview with Athiest coach Jean-Paul Sartre, he suggested that perhaps the Atheists will be looking more towards their experience in the 2nd frame to try and get back to the "essence" of their ideology.

On the other side the Believers are not overly pleased or disappointed with the 1st period. They played to their strength and it didn't fail them, the score is still even. Believer coach Karol Józef Wojtyła commented that his team needs at some point to find some offence and emphasized the importance of the defence stepping up into the attack. Only time will tell if these coaches make good prophets or whether their words fall on deaf ears.

Either way, the 2nd period promises to be evilly exciting.

Check back next week for period 2 and the continuation of "The Atheists vs The Believers" at 5pm EST on Wednesday April 8th.

New Urbanism, Lansdowne Park, and Oddball Canadian Rules

The city of Ottawa is currently embroiled in a debate about the merits of two competing visions for new stadiums and pro sports in the city. The first group is led by Jeff Hunt, owner of the Ottawa 67’s, with his proposal of Lansdowne Live! The group’s proposal is to return CFL football to the nation’s capital, and play out of a refurbished stadium at Lansdowne Park, replacing the dilapidated Frank Clair Stadium with a venue that can support football and soccer, as well as feature practice fields for soccer and baseball, shops, restaurants, an amphitheatre, and an aquarium, along with living, shopping, and eating.

The second group is led by Ottawa Senators’ owner Eugene Melnyk, and his Ottawa Soccer Stadium proposal. He wants to build a soccer complex in Kanata beside his Scotiabank Place that will feature five open-air grass pitches and a 20 000 seat stadium with the capability of converting to a concert facility. He would bring an MLS team to Ottawa to play out of his building. It would be built to share parking with Scotiabank Place on city land currently used as a snow-dump. Both groups are cajoling the public and council to give them the rights and the funding to complete their projects, and only one can go forward in the near future.

The responsible politicians and the people of Ottawa can only make one decision, and that decision must be Lansdowne Park. For those unfamiliar with the city, Lansdowne Park is close to the downtown core at the crossing of Bank Street over the Rideau Canal, about three and a half kilometres from Parliament. The proposed site for the soccer complex is west of the western suburb of Kanata, almost thirty kilometres from Parliament down the highway. It would be akin to the Toronto Blue Jays playing in Ajax.

I admit that any business proposal including the third incarnation of CFL football in Ottawa in fifteen years is perhaps dubious at best, and it is too bad that the sports and stadiums weren’t switched. And from Melnyk’s perspective, I can certainly see his agenda of creating his own sports and entertainment zone by his currently standing Scotiabank Place, home to his Ottawa Senators. However, for the sake of the city and the public, a revitalization of Lansdowne Park must be a priority. There have been no indications from either group that they would consider working together, even though both stadium proposals could support both sports. There is, however, serious question about whether a city that twice couldn’t support a CFL team could simultaneously support a CFL and MLS franchise.

But the case for Lansdowne goes beyond sports. It is currently a 2km concrete square featuring a parking lot, a partially condemned football field, a small hockey arena, and the Aberdeen Pavilion. The proposed renewal project would incorporate this space as a vibrant, happenin’ part of the city. Easily accessible, it could be designed with public transit and walking in mind, without the need for vast parking lots and traffic jams. This past winter some of the World Junior Championships games were held at the site, and we were able to skate to the games via the Rideau Canal. Compared to European urban waterways, the Canal is relatively isolated from the city, which can be quite pleasant, but doesn’t offer the same level of interaction as it could, which could in part be rectified by a renewed Lansdowne Park.

Scotiabank Place was built in 1994 to house the Ottawa Senators, and is a stark example of urban sprawl, cheap land, and short-sightedness. Whereas Toronto’s Air Canada Centre is attached to the subway and in quick walking distance of the downtown core, hockey fans in Ottawa must bus or drive, and wait in the resulting traffic mess that occurs when 20 000 people are trying to get on and off the highway via the same ramp at the same time. Not to disparage soccer, but we do it because it’s hockey. I’m not convinced soccer fans would have the same zeal for their team; at least not the casual ones. Placing an exciting sport with cheap seats in a downtown stadium on a warm summer’s evening would create a far better atmosphere than thousands of people sitting in private vehicles on the highway, and I can imagine it would attract many more casual fans. I would never watch the Blue Jays if I had to do it in Oakville.

New urbanism and shifting values towards city living are growing trends. Ottawa must take advantage of the grand public spaces it has, and elaborate upon them to create a community that people want to be a part of. A new stadium and public space at Lansdowne would be more than a place for a sports team to play; it would become a year-round vibrant part of the city. New housing projects on the site and in the area, and on places like Rideau Street, and development of LeBreton Flats will all help to create the kind of city where people will want to live, work, and play. Creating another suburban highway project will play to the benefit of Mr Melnyk, and not do much for the continued revitalization of the city. It is for this reason that Ottawa must favour the Lansdowne proposal.

Russ MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 2 of 4)

Brent Densmore returns for Part 2 of his series on sustainable development in the 21st century. Today on the agenda are some of examples of how and how not to sustain growth with a specific emphasis on the intelligent management and consumption of natural resources during this process. Brent picks up from last week discussing the complications that arise in company compliance with environmental regulations.

One idea to ensure companies comply with new regulations would be to implement a government organization similar to that of the International Organization for Standardization. This new organization would compile a list of criteria that a corporation must adhere to in order to gain certification.

Once certified, the corporation would advertise that they are officially environmentally friendly and use it as a marketing tool. At the same time, the government would provide customers with a refund on products that are purchased from these companies.

This new system should provide enough motivation for corporations to adopt these practices because customers would be more likely to buy their products if they were to receive a refund.
When President Obama discusses green energy, jobs and technologies, he is referring to renewable resources and the many opportunities they would provide. Unlike past American Presidents, Obama has accepted that not only is his country addicted to fossil fuels but so is the rest of the world.

Harry Longwell states that “oil and gas consumption is essential to sustaining growth in the industrialized world and is key to progress in nations working their way towards prosperity” (Longwell, Harry. “The future of the oil and gas industry: past approaches, new challenges.” World Energy 5.3 (2002) 101).

This poses two problems: One, fossil fuels are the main contributor to global warming and two, oil is not a sustainable resource. A perfect example that these two problems have presented can be seen in China.

Elizabeth Economy summarizes this problem when she states that:
“ China’s rapid development, often touted as an economic miracle, has become an environmental disaster. Record growth necessarily requires the gargantuan consumption of resources, but in China energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country’s air, land and water” (Economy, Elizabeth. “The great leap backward?” Foreign Affairs 86.5 (2007) P. 49).

If our current and future economic growth is dependant on fossil fuels, what does that mean for us in the future? China’s example should be a warning to both industrialized and developing nations that sacrificing the environment for the economy will only get you so far. Economy goes on to state that:

“Although China holds the fourth-largest freshwater resources in the world, skyrocketing demand, overuse, inefficiencies, pollution and unequal distribution have produced a situation in which two-thirds of China’s approximately 660 cities have less water than they need and 110 of them suffer from severe shortages” (Economy, 50).

As you can see from China’s unfortunate example, it is essential that we start the transition process of to moving away from fossil fuels as our main source of energy and begin investing in renewable resources. The two most popular sources of renewable energy today are wind and solar power. While neither wind nor solar power can provide enough energy to cut fossil fuel consumption, by say 50%, they can still provide enough power to significantly reduce our dependence on oil and help clean up our environment.

In order for this to happen, it will require government investment to perfect the technology. In addition, they must provide substantial tax credits for corporations and households that chose to install and use this energy.

In Canada, there is a program called “ecoENERGY retrofit” which aims to provide tax credits and refunds to those who utilize alternative energy (“Natural Resources Canada”). This is an excellent idea but requires greater funding and publicity.

In addition, Walter Rosenblaum outlines further problems that are restricting the expansion of renewable resources: “…payback periods are too long for the average homeowner. Workers skilled in the installation and maintenance of small solar systems are scarce. In most communities, building codes are more an obstacle than an encouragement to solar system installation” (Rosenblaum, Walter "Energy, politics and public policy." Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1981. P. 46.)

These three problems can easily be solved by nothing other than commitment. An investment in the technologies would encourage individuals to learn how to install these systems, especially in today’s tough economic times. Amending building codes takes nothing but a bit of time and should not even be an issue.

Check back next Friday at the 5pm EST for part 3 of 4, where Brent takes an even deeper look at strategies for reducing fossil fuel dependence and the role that the auto industry and suburban living plays in this.

The Atheists vs The Believers - Pre-Game Show (Part 1 of 5)

Alright, here it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The debate between believers and atheists has gone on, unresolved, for so long that we here at The Blog Journalists have decided it’s time for a final showdown.

One game, winner takes all, losers are converted.

Hold on, one “game”? Isn’t this a several thousand year old metaphysical question? How will it be solved?

The answer is on the ice.

Over the next four weeks The Blog Journalists will be simulating the first ever (I am going out on a limb here to say I am very sure this has never been done before) metaphysical hockey game. Our worthy opponents are “The Atheists” who will face-off against “The Believers” for eternal glory (or, should we say in light of the unresolvedness of the competition at the current time, mortal glory….but with a chance of eternal glory!)

The match will theoretically be played at the centre of the hockey universe, The Air Canada Centre in Toronto (emphasis on “theoretically”; please don’t show up at the gates an hour and a half prior to game-time) and is being dubbed the most meaningful hockey game to be played in Toronto in a long, long….long time.

This game will differ from your ordinary hockey game as organizers (namely myself) have agreed to play the game one period at a time over the next several Wednesdays in order to fit The Blog Journalist’s schedule.

This week we will be providing a bit of expert analysis as well as revealing the tentative starting line-ups for each ideology. Next week it’s “Game-On!”

First things first, let’s meet the competitors, starting with the high-powered Atheists. The present team captain Richard Dawkins, authour of The God Delusion will play forward, a position that The Believers have called fitting, as they find him quite offensive. Dawkins will be flanked by a couple of Europeans (as if The Atheists needed anything else to get on Don Cherry’s hit-list), one who has earned the nickname “The Greek”, Epicurus, and grinder from Germany, Ludwig Feuerbach. On defence the Atheists had been hoping to secure a pair of top-scientists, but were unable to convince either Charles Darwin or Einstein to join their ranks, as they decided to take this one in from the stands along with the rest of the agnostics. Instead the Atheists will have to settle for the relatively green defender, authour Philip Pullman whose inexperience will be made up for by veteran Sigmund Freud. Rounding out the atheist squad is goaltender Karl Marx, who although is in theory is one of the best goaltenders around, to this point has been ineffective in putting this into practice. One more interesting news-tidbit surrounding Marx, he has also been quoted in the papers saying something about the need for drug-testing and rampant opium-use amongst The Believers, although there has, to this point, been no evidence to support these claims.

Now to take a quick run-through The Believers’ starting lineup.

On forward The Believers will be sending out a line being dubbed the “All-Saints” unit, composed of St. Thomas Aquinas up the middle with St. Anslem of Canterbury on the left and St. Augustine of Hippo on the right. The expectation is that this line will maintain a defensive, dump and chase style to try and neutralize the powerful Atheistic attack. The defense for The Believers will be the more contemporary pair of Oxfordians, Professor of Historical Theology Alistair McGrath, authour of The Dawkins Delusion, and Systems Biologist Denis Noble. This pairing has been known to work very well together historically and give The Believers a much needed youth movement on the blueline. If they prove to be too green, The Believers have “The Rock”, otherwise known as St. Peter, waiting in the wings. Finally, the easiest position of all for The Believers to fill was goaltender as it is well know amongst believers that Jesus saves.

Overall, The Believers have a more experienced team, with a number of their players being several hundred years old. Only time will tell whether this will prove to be a disadvantage and if their metaphysical stick-handling will defeated by the younger, more contemporary Atheists. Either way, their play is regarded by experts as philosophically sound.

There is no doubt in my mind (especially since I am writing this stuff) that this will be a tight game and that it will go down to the wire. If needed, there will be “sudden death” overtime, which as ominous as that sounds in a metaphysical debate, I promise you it does not imply any sort of death, but rather “next goal wins.” But you already knew that…

That about sums up this week’s pre-game festivities here at The Blog Journalists. Please don’t forget to return at 5pm next Wednesday for the first period.

Note: Two things I would like to mention. Number 1: this blog series is intended to work as a fresh look at a subject that is all to often bogged down by reactionaryism. My goal in this work is to present popular arguments, new and old, in an interesting to read format with a neutral view. I do not intend to offend anyone through this series and am in no way trivializing the philosophical importance of the debate or the belief or non-belief of any individual. In fact, I am trying to do quite the opposite. I am trying to promote the subject matter and the validity of both “ideologies.” I realize that I have taken a very Western/Christian approach to the debate and I must say that I regret this as I would have liked to have taken a broader approach, however I choose to stick within my realm of experience so as to not misrepresent any facts or groups of people due to my ignorance of the subject. If you have any questions, please either leave comments on the forum to promote discussion, or for private inquiries, please email: theblogjournalists@gmail.com

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