The Argument for Intelligent Design - Rebuttal

mosquitoes

The Canada Elections Act - CLARIFICATION

It appears that I have been duped into believing that the Prime Minister actually understood the legislation that his government proposed and passed.

The amendments to the act do not establish photo identification as mandatory.

Bill C-31 states:

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.

And for more certainty it states:

21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Elector to declare name, etc.

143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.

Proof of identity and residence

(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:

(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or

(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.

The Fifth Column apologizes. It should know better than to take Stephen Harper at his word.

The Canada Elections Act and "Reasonable Accommodation"

The Canada Elections Act has recently been amended to require photo identification of voters. Elections Canada, the body responsible for enforcing the Act, has ruled that "electors wearing face coverings for religious practices" do not have to provide photo identification when voting but can provide two pieces of "authorized" identification or be "vouched for" by another elector. Is this a reasonable interpretation of the act. Requiring photo identification becomes rather redundant if one cannot compare the photo to the elector.

What is "reasonable accommodation in these circumstances. According to the Globe and Mail a number of Canadian Muslim organizations have criticized Elections Canada's handling of the issue. "Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which says it is the country's largest Muslim organization, said Muslim groups were not consulted about the rule change. If they had been, he said, he would have told officials that the small minority of Muslim women - perhaps as few as just 50 of Canada's 750,000 Muslims - who wear the niqab would have no problem showing their faces to a female election worker to verify their identity."

It seems that all that was required was consultation with the people affected and a much more reasonable accommodation, one that does not conflict with the spirit, if not the letter of the law, could have been made.

Should Taxation Fund Religious Schools in Ontario

Ontario has two publicly funded school systems, one secular and one Catholic. According to the 2001 Census there are 3,935,745 people that identify themselves as “Protestant” and 3,911,760 people that identify themselves as “Catholic”. Does it not seem strange that the one religious group that gets public funding for its schools is not the group with the largest number of followers.

Of course it all goes back to history. At the time of confederation Ontario and Quebec had Protestant and Catholic school systems. “Protection of the Separate School system was a major issue of contention in the negotiations that led to Canadian confederation, due in large part to racial and religious tension between the (largely Francophone) Roman Catholic population in Canada and the Protestant majority. The issue was a subject of debate at the 1864 Quebec Conference and was finally resolved at the London Conference of 1866 with a guarantee to protect the separate school system in Quebec and Ontario.” ((Wikipedia). This was guaranteed in Section 93 of the British North America Act, now the Constitution Act. In Ontario the Protestant system evolved into the secular school system and now there is only one Protestant school board in Ontario with one school, the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board.

So we now have a secular publicly funded school system and a publicly funded Catholic school system but no public funding for the small religious groups or even the larger Protestant religious group. Does this not seem at odds with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit 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.

However the Charter also states:

29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.


In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this was not a violation of the Charter primarily due to the provisions of section 93 and 29 of the Constitution.

So we have what appears to be a case of constitutionally entrenched violation of the Charter.

The United Nations human rights committee says Ontario's policy of fully funding Roman Catholic schools, while denying full funding to other religious schools, is discriminatory.

The status quo is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the Charter, and cannot be justified by any logical argument. The only argument presented for it seems to be that “has always been that way” and to try and change it would be politically difficult.

However, such constitutional provisions can be changed and have been changed, even in the Roman Catholic dominated province of Quebec which eliminated funding for Protestant and Roman Catholic schools systems and established language based school systems instead. Public funding of religious based schools in Newfoundland has also been eliminated.

So what we essentially have is not a constitutional issue but an issue of public policy. We can continue the discriminatory status quo or we can either extend public funding to all religious schools or provide it to none. There is no other justifiable or logical alternative.

The current policy of funding Roman Catholic schools has not been without concerns, including the teaching of evolution in science classes and creationism in religion class; the teaching of Catholic sex education and the church’s attitude to birth control; as well as the churches attitude towards gays and lesbians and it’s statement that they are sinners for simply being who they are.

Extending public funding to every religious group will not only see public funding of extremist groups within the mainstream religions, such as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims but potentially funding of groups such as Witches and Satanists. Lest I be cited for fear mongering, let me say it is not the labels we need to worry about. I am more worried about the extremists within the Christian churches than I am about the Wiccans. I have heard the bigotry, whether based on race or sexual orientation spouted by some so called Christian churches and I do not want taxpayers funding such propaganda. I am not as familiar with the extremists in other religions but I have no doubt that there are extremist Jewish, Islamic and other groups whose teachings most Canadians would not be comfortable with.

How would this be done. Who would decide what was a legitimate religious school worthy of funding. Who would police the thousands of individual independent schools to ensure they were following the provincial curriculum and were not teaching bigotry or hatred. It would simply be unworkable.

I am one of the biggest promoters of multiculturalism and religious pluralism is part of that. Canadian multiculturalism is a wonderful thing. It allows immigrants to become part of Canada without having to deny or abandon where they came from. It allows them to bring their cultures into the Canadian mosaic. It is important that they keep their cultural institutions. But the school system should be an institution that brings us all together, a place where we can learn about each other, share our cultures together as Canadians, and learn Canadian values.

It is time for a single publicly funded secular school system in Ontario. It is almost enough to make one vote Green

My Referendum Quandary

What to do about the referendum. While i believe we need electoral reform I would prefer a preferential ballot system to a proportional representation system, as stated in a previous Fifth Column. My quandary is that if I vote yes in the referendum question and it is approved will it shut the door forever on a preferential ballot system and if I vote no and it fails will the likelihood of electoral reform of any kind be nil.

The answer of course is obvious. Looking at these questions rather than the ballot question itself is the same as strategic voting, which is what I believe to be the biggest problem with the current system. The simple question is whether I prefer the status quo or the proposed alternative. No other questions are on the ballot.

Much Ado About U of Nothing

Well this election campaign sure is taking the high road and tackling the big issues.

I was somewhat perplexed by Mister Tory's latest remarks. Having lived in Ottawa for thirty years I have never heard that expression in reference to the University of Ottawa, nor for that matter had I heard it during the four years I was involved in student politics and journalism at Laurentian University before moving to Ottawa. So, as I was wondering just who the "we" was that Mister Tory was referring to, I decided to search the net for the infamous phrase and other than news articles on Mister Tory's remarks all that Google and Alta Vista found was the same single reference on a listserv in 1992, referring to Carleton University students using the phrase.

So I guess Mister Tory can take heart in the fact the be belongs to a select group.

Does Your Family Need A Day in February

There is a long time between New Years and Easter, most of it cold, without a holiday break. It has been the subject of debate and proposals for years.

At both the federal and provincial level there have been numerous proposals and Private Members Bills to create a new February holiday from Heritage Day to Flag Day to Prime Ministers Day and even Family Day. Indeed a recent poll by SES Research that found that 70% of Ontarians support a new holiday in February.

It is probably a good idea. It is the sort of thing that calls out for an all party agreement, not the sort of thing that should be used to buy votes in a provincial election.

Is Kayaking Better Than Canoeing

As a long time canoeist who has just got into kayaking I have had to reluctantly face this question. To me kayaking was a second choice but I am finding that it has many advantages over canoeing.

When we had our kayaking lessons I learned how to lift my kayak up and dump the water out while in the water, after rolling the kayak and filling the sitting compartment with water. This is something I would never be able to do with a canoe, nor could I re-enter the canoe while in the water which I was able to do with a kayak.

Out on a very stormy day on the Ottawa River, I was thinking that I would be very nervous (scared silly) if I was out in a canoe, but the kayak just bounced around on the heavy waves and I was actually able to paddle into the waves and make much better progress than I would struggling against them in the canoe, all the time worrying about being swamped.

The kayak seems to move faster and easier and even require less water than a canoe. The paddle stroke is very intuitive and even seems more efficient than paddling a canoe. The kayak seems to be sinkproof, and so far I have not managed to dump mine unintentionally, except once when getting in. I even feel a lot more comfortable taking the camera out in the kayak, in a suitable waterproof container, knowing it will not end up on the bottom of the lake or river.

The only disadvantage seems to be the inability to just turn around and sit the other way to paddle out of a narrow stream.

So I guess I will have to admit to being converted, but I can still take solace in the fact that a kayak is considered to be a type of canoe.



Postscript: You will notice that it has become a challenge to keep up the blog posts during the summer with visitors, travel and outdoor activities, but I will try to do better.

A Trip to the Chocolate Factory

You may have noticed I missed a couple of weeks posting to my blog. We have had visitors for the last two weeks and I have neglected the blog.

My daughter was up from Toronto York University visiting and we went to visit the Hershey Chocolate Shoppe in Smiths Falls. The factory shoppe is a chocolate lovers dream come true and the prices are better than retail and they throw in a free chocolate bar or two with every purchase.

However, the Hershey Chocolate Factory is closing while Hershey is opening a new plant in Mexico.

This is just another example of how the capitalist market works. But sometimes we forget that it works that way because we let it and we let it because we have lost our sense of community. We would rather buy cheaper chocolates than provide jobs for our neighbours. Not all of our money goes to low wages, of course. Besides high profits, much of it is paid to high paid advertising gurus to convince us to buy products in the first place.

Communities across North America complain about the impact Wal-Mart will have on their local businesses . If local people care about their local businesses all they have to do is continue to shop at them. So why do we not do that. Why do we all flock to the huge Wal-Mart instead. Why do we watch local clothing and shoe factories close while we buy cheap goods from abroad. Are we that greedy. Do we just not care.

Much more than money and jobs is at stake here. If we rebuilt our sense of community I have no doubt that the results would astound us, mental health problems would decline, crime rates and vandalism would decline, quality of life would improve and everyone would be happier and feel more secure.

We can start by saying “hi” to our neighbours next time we walk down the street. If indeed we do walk down the street and not drive to the corner store, if we have one. But that is another whole column.

Is The War on Drugs a War on the Poor

Canada’s ideological Harper government has decided that the best way to fight crime and the drug problem is to emulate the policies of the country with the biggest crime and drug problem rather than follow the lead of countries with lower crime rates and less of a drug problem.

Despite the romanticism of the sixties left with marijuana and psychedelic drugs the dependence on drugs for escape, recreation or creativity is never a good thing. We can debate whether marijuana is no worse than alcohol or whether tobacco is worse than marijuana or whether the new marijuana is worse than the old marijuana till the cows come home.

The bottom line is that natural highs are always better than artificial ones. Getting high on life is better than getting high on drugs (or money or status, etc.).

That all being said, the criminal justice approach to the drug problem, and in particular the zero tolerance approach of the United States that the Harper government wants to emulate, is clearly a failure.

It is very clear that how we treat drug users depends very much on social class.

Although caffeine is clearly a drug, we do not treat it as one because it is the drug most widely used by all classes. People who use coffee do feel dependant on it and do report withdrawal symptoms when unable to feed their habit. Coffee drinkers and other caffeine users use it as a drug, as a stimulant, whether to study or to work long hours. But it is not classed as a drug by society because of it’s wide use, particularly among decision makers.

Alcohol and tobacco are two more example of drugs used by masses, including the middle and upper classes that are treated differently than drugs primarily used by the poor.

Alcohol is the major social drug of our society, Alcohol is a social drink, but it is also used as a drug to alter ones state of consciousness, whether to reduce inhibitions in a social setting or to just get “drunk” That altered state of consciousness can lead to a reduced ability to reason and to impaired physical functions. The biggest impact of this has been the carnage on our roads due to impaired driving.

There have been attempts to ban alcohol consumption such as during the Prohibition period in the United States, which proved to be an unsuccessful as the current War on Drugs.

Smoking was the other dominant socially acceptable drug habit in our society. It is becoming less so as fewer people smoke, and particularly as fewer people in the decision-making higher and more educated classes smoke. The decrease in smoking came as a result of learning of the health risks. However we can clearly see that legislative restrictions against smoking only came about after there was a trend to stop smoking among the decision-making wealthier classes. Once smoking became a habit of the poor, rather than everyone, it became acceptable to legislate against it.

Criminal sanctions are reserved for the drugs of the poor, the so-called hard drugs. These are drugs that victimize their users. These are drugs that destroy users lives and eventually kill them. Yet our government’s approach to the drug problem is to further victimize and criminalize those addicted to drugs. While the aim of the approach is supposedly to target those making money from the drug trade the zero tolerance approach makes no distinction between victimized and victimizer. The American approach is a massive failure yet our government still wants to emulate it.
Have we not learned that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

It is not that we do not have lessons to learn from. The history of our approach to alcohol and smoking has shown us that criminalization does not work and that education does.

Our approach to impaired driving did involve increased criminal sanctions as a necessity because, unlike hard drugs where the main victims are the users themselves, impaired driving kills innocent third parties. However the transformation of impaired driving from a socially acceptable practice to an unacceptable one was mainly the result of education and the changing of social attitudes.

The massive reduction in the percentage of people smoking is clearly the result of massive public health education campaigns. We see that reflected in the fact that smoking rates decline as education levels increase.

So how do we apply these lesson to the drug problem of the poor.

First we need to examine our motives. It is clear that our motives for the War on Drugs are to address the problems drug use causes for the wealthier classes and not it’s impact on the socially marginalized poor. We are not concerned because these drugs are destroying lives and killing people. We are concerned because the addicted victims of these drug problems turn to crime to feed their habit. We see the crime as the problem because it’s victims are middle and upper class.

It is this motivation that causes society not to care that the War on Drugs only revictimizes the worst victims of the drug problem, the addicts. It seems that only the secondary victims, the middle class victims of the crimes count. Of course tackling the real problem and helping the real victims is much more difficult than fighting a war against them. More importantly these victims acre marginalized in society, have very little economic and social influence and have virtually no political power and very low voting rates.

Their very social marginalization and poverty is what makes them easily susceptible to the lure of drugs as an escape from their lives of desperation. Although the War on Drugs supposedly targets those that victimize them, the zero tolerance approach of its implementation fails to distinguish between the victims and the victimizers. More importantly the criminal justice approach of the War on Drugs fails to address the underlying social conditions that make them vulnerable to victimization.

We need a multi-pronged approach to the problem. I do not pretend to have all the answers but I do know what some of the things that need to be done are.

First we need to recognize that drug addiction is primarily a social and medical problem.

We need to find innovative ways to reach the youth in poor communities to educate them about the risks of drug use without preaching to them about how much better middle class society is than the world they live in.

We have to reach those that are addicted and provide them with the resources to overcome their addictions. Reaching them is the most difficult step. These are people that see the social establishment as the enemy, because it treats them as the enemy.

That is why harm reduction programs, such as needle exchange and safe injection sites, that reach out to these victims are so important. Not only do they save lives by reducing HIV and Hepatitis but they bring the addicted into contact with those that truly want to help them overcome their addictions.

More importantly we have to provide these desperate people with the help they need when they ask for it. All too often the window of opportunity when someone is ready to seek help is very short. Telling them they have to wait weeks or months to get into treatment is no better than refusing them treatment. We must be willing to provide the treatment resources necessary to allow people into treatment immediately. The long term costs of not doing that are much greater than the short term costs of doing it.

However, the most important thing we can do to reduce the number of addicted persons is to address their desperate social conditions. A true War on Poverty would be the most effective War on Crime and War on Drugs that ever could be.

We need to shift our emphasis from going to war against the victims of drug addiction to providing help to them.