IMFC "Free to Choose"

 Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk.

Greg Fleming spoke on “Free to Choose: The Consequences of the atomized individual in New Zealand”

New Zealand is often at the forefront of change. He is going to particularly address the decriminalization of prostitution in NZ and the criminalization of spanking.

The notion of the free and isolated individual as the foundation of society, rather than the family, is deeply imbedded in the NZ psyche. We see the image of a liberated unrestrained individual forming their own truth.

One way to measure the soul of society is to watch their advertisements. (Shows advertisement for university which emphasizes that our world now has no boundaries, no traditions, no one path. Everything is fluid. If we understand these things than the world is infinite. A second ad for telecommunications talks about all the choices we have today, we can have a virtual second life, men can stay at home while women work.)

He experienced the slant our system has towards divorce when his sister was going through a rough patch in her marriage. She had a great deal of support, but one day she took the advice of a friend and went to government social services, who told her that they would give her enough money to start a new life so that she could find happiness. There was no material, no resources in the office on how to keep a marriage together, only on how to get divorced. She found that their family could make more money if her husband moved out. He did, and at first he visited, but eventually the separation became permanent.

They view marriage merely as a product to be consumed. However social science shows that it is actually very important.

Our views of the world really shape the way we view evidence, he was on a show once and a professor in all seriousness said that the professor’s research showed that family form had no affect on children.

There is very little reliable information on legalized prostitution, it is really too soon to see the full affects. However there is some anecdotal evidence and polling.

Prior to the change in law prostitution was illegal but readily available. Police would use their discretion as to when to prosecute. Some people, who didn’t necessarily support prostitution, believed that things would be better if prostitution was legalized because it would be regulated and would be able to protect vulnerable participants. Others believed that prostitution is good and healthy, and that criminalizing it is what is responsible for any negatives in the trade.

The issue that really needs to addressed in the prostitution debate is one one of fundamental worldview. However it was not worldview or facts that decided the legalization of prostitution in NZ, but an emotional speech from a former prostitute.

In practice legalization has tied the hands of local authorities in containing or addressing issues with the trade. One big issue is the location of prostitution, many people object to its incursion into the suburbs.

Police report that there are now more under-age workers, more street workers, more gang activity than before.

Polls were done, and show that 66% of people want to ban it in residential areas, while 50% (64% of men) want to ban street prostitution.

There are two assumptions that were made in the legalization of the trade.

1. That women were freely choosing the trade.

2. That there were no negative external effects from the trade.

Both are wrong.

Legalization legitimizes something. We say that choice has the prime place in society, and yet the government has no trouble restricting choice when it comes to smoking.

Either way, laws are not the answer. The only real answer is community based help for these women, to get them off the street and off drugs.

The criminalization of spanking.

NZ had a bad history of child abuse. However the MP who sponsored the bill, did so because she saw no difference between children (mini-adults) and adults. And therefore if it would be assault to do something to an adult, it should be assault to do it to a child. Children are just another oppressed class to be liberated.

There were also calls for lowering the age of consent and the voting age.

In the past, children were seen as part of a family, innocents in need of protection. Now they are seen to have rights like adults, and need to be emancipated from parents and their support structure.

Assault is defined as the use of force, or the threat of the use of force. In this case, even punishments like timeout could become illegal if you need to restrain the child using force.

Formally minor correction (like a light smack) was legal. Currently it is not, but police have discretion in prosecution.

There was a referendum on the issue and 87% of voters supported the decriminalization of spanking. However the referendum was not binding and was ignored.

Parents now report feeling less confident, and 32% say their child has threatened to report the parents to the authorities if they are spanked.

However there is hope in NZ. There has been positive progress in devolving social services to the community level. The Maori have had a very positive influence, they have not been affected by the notion of the supremacy of the individual, but still hold family in very high regard. As their culture is greatly respected, some progress may be made there.

The story of individual supremacy is unraveling, and he has real hope that in 20 years New Zealand may be a model for Canada, rather than a warning.

Q1: What is some positive news?

A1: That there are ceilings on many of these statistics which NZ has probably hit.

Q2: How is the anti-spanking law working, are the police using discretion?

A2: About 300 people have been charged under the law, 30 have gone to court, and 6 have been sentenced. The biggest impact of the law has been on parental confidence and clarity on what their rights and duties as parents are.

Q3: How do parents, such as Christian parents in particular, deal with that?

A3: Isn’t sure that spanking is really necessary. But parents do need physically authority. Basically there aren’t enough police to prosecute everyone, so his advice to parents is just keep doing what you were doing.

Q4: Police are allowed to lay charges unless it is in the public interest not to. Shouldn’t Parliament be deciding on the public interest?

A4: Yes they should be. The court ultimately decides public interest in these cases. But it does leave too much discretion, too much decision making in the hands of the police. The problem is that it is harrowing to be investigated, whether or not you are finally convicted.

Q5: What forces do you think will change things?

A5: Strategic planning, it is a small country, things change fast.

Q6: Did they end up changing the age of consent?

A6: No.

And that mostly wraps up the IMFC conference. It was a great day and if you weren't there, you should have been. I believe I heard something about audio/video of the conference being available later on, you may want to check out the IMFCanada.org website in the coming weeks for that.

ELECTION RESULTS

And the Conservatives have swept to a...... Majority of 167! Cue fireworks.

The Bloc has been decimated, worse than decimated. They dropped from 49 seats to a humiliating 4, and lost official party status.

The NDP have swept into the Official Opposition position with 102 seats, more than triple their previous mediocre position of 29.

In a campaign that reminds me of the cartoons where someone runs off the side of a cliff, does a stationary bicycle routine in thin air for a minute, and then plummets to the depths, the Liberals went into something like free-fall from 103 seats to a third place 34. Only, unlike in the cartoons, the Liberals do not appear to have survived the fall without a scratch.

In some of the most dramatic news of the evening, Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe couldn't even win seats in their own ridings. Ignatieff lost to a Conservative, swept away in the flood that crumbled Fortress Toronto where the Conservatives picked up 32 out of 47 seats by one estimate. Up from their previous low number of absolutely none. Gilles Duceppe lost to an NDPer, by good fortune not the one who went holidaying in Los Vegas during the campaign.

Pundits learned that they didn't know as much about Canadian politics as they thought they did, and pollsters learned that they can be quite wrong, very few polls put the Conservatives as high or higher than they actually performed.

And Cheryl Gallant's "controversial comments" did not sink her victory in our riding, unless you consider a lead of around 17,851 votes over the next candidate (an independent) to be a close win. And for a certain relative of mine who shall remain nameless but knows who he is, the Blue Guy in your riding won by a margin of around, 25,251 votes.

In other news, I would like to uncharitably dig up an article Heather Mallick wrote on the subject of what if Harper get a majority.

Old-tyme religion will reign, and our spiritual leader will be Harper's favourite evangelical, Charles McVety... I used to decry the concept of tenure, suspecting it made professors coast in class, but now I see it as a fence standing between us and the intellectually primitive. In Harperland, your students would turn you in for Wrongspeak and you would lose your job...
Guns on the street, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn . . .Individuals would be in trouble.... The Conservative hate machine will swivel toward you like a Dalek and advance. You're doomed. A Harper majority government wouldn't just lash out generally. It would hunt down its enemies.
Fear these people. Don't get sick. Don't grow old. Don't have children. Make yourself invulnerable.

I suspect the Toronto Star columnists, if they were gathered together in a huddled enclave watching the election results coming in, may have had their keys collectively taken away as a result of their pain mitigation techniques.

Miss Marprelate's Favourite Party

Miss Marprelate's official "favourite party of the election", The Peoples' Political Power Party of Canada. They appear to have some costing issues, I am at present unsure of how they are planning to pay off the deficit and create a massive budget surplus while eliminating income tax, the GST, and returning all corporate profits to the workers. Oh yes and while eliminating poverty, war, terrorism (through compassionate listening), cleaning up the planet (through love for children), emptying the prisons, making it a criminal offence for agencies (undefined) to neglect people and make the sleep on the street. Cutting healthcare by 50% as people’s immune systems improve due to the elimination of fear under their policies should help.

Unfortunately as their “father” just died they aren’t fielding any candidates this election. But his Spirit (in italics) continues to guide them and "by this Spirit that the PPP will continue…by Love, Respect, Equality and Truth until everyone is happy.” so you may be able to vote for them next election.

I mean really, what is not to love? At least for the entertainment value.

They have a very nice flip book of all their policies you can read online. The link to their downloadable policy book appears to be broken. http://peoplespoliticalpower.ca/home/index.html

Ottawa Events for May

(Partially written for the Prince Arthur Herald)

There are essentially two kinds of people in the world, those who would prefer to hit themselves on the head with a hammer rather than go to a political conference, and those who plan their entire lives around making sure that they will always have the time and money to go to political conferences. 

While the primary purpose of these events may appear to be listening to lectures, something most students have had quite enough of by the time school ends for the summer, for dedicated conference goers political events are about much more than just listening to fabulous speakers lecturing on such entrancing subjects as socio-economic statistics, constitutional law, political philosophy, or dead politicians, they are about networking. 

Networking is one of the most important skills that any politically-interested student can acquire. Actually, if I may amend that, that any student can acquire. In a generation that is increasingly known for its tendency to slouch against the wall texting while listening to its iPod, simply taking the time to pocket the cell phone, volunteer, mingle with other attendees, ask questions, shake hands, and dress professionally, can stand out and get noticed. Potentially by the very person who will be reviewing your internship application the next time you apply. Even student conferences, although they may be devoid of future employers, are worthy networking events, as you build contacts that can last a lifetime. While networking may be difficult, especially at first (as I can testify from personal experience, not being naturally outgoing), it does become easier as you get to know other conference regulars, and become more comfortable with the social mores of political events. 

However, with all the best will in the world, sometimes it can be difficult to find out about every interesting event that is happening. Is the Free Thinking Film Society showing a movie this month? Or perhaps more relevantly, what is the Free Thinking Film Society anyway and why would I want to go to one of their events? 

In the interest therefore, of connecting students to the events they would care about, I have collected a small sampling of such events for the month of May. If there are more that I have missed, as I am sure there are, please feel free to send them to me at missmarprelate@gmail.com and I will do my best to make this column a monthly event tracker.

May 2nd: VOTE!!! http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=41ge&document=index&lang=e

 

May 5th: IMFC Policy Conference 2011 - Transforming the way Canadians think about family, put on by The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. Held at the Lord Elgin hotel in Ottawa,

confirmed speakers are sociologists Dr. Brad Wilcox and Dr. Mark Regnerus, Greg Fleming of New Zealand's Maxim Institute and Jonas Himmelstrand of Sweden's Mireja Institute. Conference lasts for a full day, and costs $125. http://www.imfcanada.org

May 11-13th: The National March for Life. Beginning on the evening of the eleventh with services and a candlelight vigil at the Canadian Tribute to Human Rights monument, the event really gets going the next morning with the annual March for Life. With over 12,000 attendees last year, the March is an event to remember. That evening there are two separate banquets, the Rose Dinner banquet and the student banquet. On the 13th, is a youth conference, with various speakers and music. The cost for the youth banquet is $40, and the conference is $45. http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=March+For+Life

May 17-19th: Canada Student Forums. Come out and experience this 3 day forum that will facilitate dialogue between young adults, aged 16-25, and Christian politicians. Network and gain valuable information about how you can achieve your career goals without compromising your faith. Tour Parliament, meet MPs, attend the National Prayer Breakfast, and more. Some of this year's speakers: Colin Mayes, MP for Okanagan-Shuswap; Hon. Jack Murta, former Member of Parliament, chaplain on Parliament Hill and President of The Ottawa Mission; Dr. Victor Ling, Vice President of Discovery BC Cancer Agency and BC Cancer Research Centre;

Pastor Lyle M. Notice, B.A. MDiv, and Special Assistant to David Anderson, MP. Cost for all events, $175. http://www.canadastudentforums.com/

I would like to give all of these events Miss Marprelate's personal seal of approval, as I have been to all of them in the past and found them absolutely wonderful.

The IMFC conference is undoubtedly aimed at a more mature crowd, in fact some of the material, at least in the past, may be unsuitable for younger audiences. Although their topics may appear to be slightly dry, I remember them as being very interesting, and highly recommend the event for social conservatives interested in the research behind their beliefs, and fiscal conservatives who are interested in the fiscal implications of social policies.


The National March for Life is, of course, an event for all ages, although in my personal opinion the youth conference the next day is aimed a little more towards high-school than university students. There are vendors, music, and speakers at the conference, and while as someone who is very politically interested I found some of the lectures a bit on the basic side (I really didn't need to be told that I should write to my MP), they are great for the audience, and some of them should be interesting for anyone.


The Canada Student Forums is a terrific event aimed primarily at university students. I enjoyed going to Question Period for the first time (and didn't find it half as bad as expected, although as a blogger I may just be hardened to political rhetoric. My biggest disappointment was that everything they were talking about was six week old news.), found the prayer breakfast and especially the sessions afterwords interesting, but most of all loved the speakers who specifically came to the student forum, and networking with other students who shared the same interests as me. We heard from human-trafficking activists, a panel of aboriginal youth, people from a variety of professions, had a chance to sit down and talk with Members of Parliament, and had plenty of opportunity to talk with each other in between (and even, I must admit, for a couple of us girls to sneak out and do some shopping while we were supposed to be eating lunch. For some reason none of the guys wanted to join us.).


So, if you can make it out to one or all of these events, please do so. I think a lot of political events planned for May are having some trouble with attendance etc due to the election, the Manning Centre Networking Conference for example was, sadly, canceled, so if you have been thinking about going to a conference "sometime", this would be a good year to try to make it.

Budget: Part 1

So the budget is out and despite many concessions to the NDP they are not mollified that Harper hasn't fully metamorphosed from a blue caterpillar to an orange butterfly.

And Harper probably looks like the cat who stole the cream.

Why wouldn't the conservatives want an election right now? Their poll numbers are better than they have been almost ever, including a last minute poll which showed that Canadians trust the conservatives to lead an honest government more than anyone else, and by a margin of 13% over the Liberals. Ignatieff, who plans to run on an "ethics" platform, apparently still prefers mass telepathy to polls. In other news voters also believe that the conservatives would do the best job at handling the economic recovery, keeping taxes down, and spending taxpayer money wisely by margins of 17, 19, and 17%. Those are all, incidentally, bigger leads than the Liberals have over the back runner, the Bloc.

Ignatieff today, "I would love to fight an election over the economy."

Definitely still telepathy.

But, since the Conservatives obviously tried (or tried to appear to be trying) to placate the NDP in the budget, they get to come out looking like the good guys who tried to spare Canadians an unnecessary election, while the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc get to look like the petulant opportunists who wouldn't accept a reasonable compromise.

Why wouldn't they accept a compromise? Because they want an excuse to form a (drumroll please) COALITION after the next election.

At least that is what the Tory campaign ads will be saying for the next month.

Have a fun election season everyone.

Bits and Bytes

Well, well, well... here I am, back again after my inexcusable leave of absence from the blogging field, I really have no idea why any of you keep reading me considering the shameless way I neglect you. I wouldn't tire you with my excuses, but they are relevant to a couple of points.

First, I am busy because I am working for the Prince Arthur Herald, that fledgeling conservative student newspaper you should all know and love. Gems coming from the editing desk of the Marprelate include Samantha Lui's analysis of Rebecca Black's supposedly (haven't actually watched it myself) horrible Youtube by the name of Friday, and the intensely negative reaction she is receiving. For my comments? The reaction to Rebecca Black's song, considering her age, is nothing short of a mass cyber-bullying campaign. These people need to think a little bit about the fact that they aren't just criticizing a song, they are potentially devastating a young girl who didn't know any better than to release the song, and doesn't know any better than to take the sarcastic comments at face value. If anyone's head should be on the chopping block it should be the idiots who helped her produce the monstrosity.

Japan and Libya are eating up the headlines these days. Our condolences to the people of Japan in their time of need, and in particular profound applause for the heroes who are still in the nuclear plant.

Libya, fewer condolences, especially to Gaddafi. Canada has finally declared war on him, just as we are trying to get out of Afghanistan. Question of the day, will liberals still be able to fault conservatives for meddling with the freedom and sovereignty of Libya after everyone gave the go-ahead and it was properly approved by all the relevant international authorities. A. Of course they will, stop asking stupid questions.

Things you thought were safe, that aren't. Your iTunes account. Unless someone in my very uni-lingual family bought those Chinese proverb apps (Chinese proverbs in Chinese that is) and isn't fessing up our account was unceremoniously hacked and our gift-card money pilfered by some unscrupulous proverb aficionado. One is forced to conclude that either they have not studied their proverbs with sufficient diligence despite their desperate measures to obtain them. On a more serious note, we were fortunate to have not had our credit card attached to the account, or the damage might have been more serious. iTunes did do a "one-time" refund and disabled the account, but you may want to think twice before letting them get their sticky little mittens on your credit info.

In one of the more irritating stories of the week (And no it doesn't even involve Heather Mallick, well actually now that I mention it there might be a toss-up for most irritating story) a landlord had his buildings seized because someone was running a grow-op in the house. Are they all mad? They have made it almost impossible to evict tenants and very difficult to properly screen them. Everyone knows not to give bad references, as they can come back to haunt your bedside with a libel suit in hand. You aren't allowed to discriminate on so many different grounds, that if you deny someone a least based on the fact that you just know they are probably a small time criminal you can be making yourself vulnerable to a Human Rights lawsuit with all the joy that involves. Now granted that in this case the landlord was accused of being willfully blind, if not actually in the know that his houses were being used for the production of illicit flora. But surely a $240,000 odd thousand dollar fine is extremely hefty for being live and let live about the less than above board activities of your tenants, especially considering how difficult it is to evict bad tenants should one wish to.

I don't know about the rest of you human, or non-human, critters, but I believe grading inspires me to work harder, learn more, and explore issues more deeply than projects which carry neither positive nor negative consequences. (Point in fact, I have been neglecting blogging to focus on my economics courses). Grading - good. No objective standard to judge personal achievement by - bad.

And no, that was not responsible neutrality.

Perspectives

I wanted to find a word that could accurately describe the kind of shameless cynicism that goes into such marketing, but was worried it'd break the thesaurus. The idea that there are commercial breeding operations creating "shelter dogs" as a product to be sold to well-meaning prospective pet owners is so repugnant the first reaction isn't horror -- it's often disbelief, even anger toward the messenger. In fact, this is a subject we are very careful about bringing up, because it is so hard for a decent person to wrap their head around. "Nobody could do something that despicable! How could you say such a horrible thing?" NAIA

 Well quite frankly that was NOT my first reaction. My first reaction was something along the lines of doubled up laughing, combined with a certain admiration for the enterprising souls with the imagination to cash in on such an obviously lucrative and gullible market.

And anyway, the dogs will probably have a great life with a Madeline Bassett as owner, and the owners will get a disease free (probably) animal. Or do these breeders deliberately infect the animals to increase their sympathy value? The questions, the questions.

(Not that I am unsympathetic to shelter animals or anything, but a little sense of proportion would hardly be amiss here)

The PAH Seeking Conservative Columnists

 Would you like to write for a national student newspaper?

 

Conservative students and groups often complain about being treated inequitably on campus, or feeling like they are all alone in their convictions. The Prince Arthur Herald, Canada's only center-right national student newspaper, aims to change that by giving conservative students a voice and community that will respect their opinions and stand up for their rights, along with the rights of all Canadians.

   Started by a group of predominately McGill students, The PAH in less than two months of operation has received tens of thousands of hits from across Canada. As a result, the editors have decided that a nationally-read newspaper deserves to be written by students from across the nation. As an Ontario Desk Editor, I am recruiting students who are interested in writing a regular 500 word column. Columns don't just have to be about politics (although they can be) as the Herald also addresses subjects ranging from campus life to culture, finance, sports, health, law, and more.

   Those who control the message, control the debate. Without a friendly media presence that values excellence in communications while addressing the hard issues of our day, conservative students will continue to struggle to be heard and respected on campus.

  This is a fantastic opportunity for conservative students to make their voices heard, while gaining valuable experience working for a national student newspaper. If you are interested in being part of this, please contact me at missmarprelate@gmail.com or through Facebook.

Rebekah Hebbert
Ontario Desk Editor,
The Prince Arthur Herald
missmarprelate@gmail.com
www.princearthurherald.com 

Please feel free to repost, forward, or link this message to anyone who might be interested.

What Harm Does it Do?

My latest article on MercatorNet.


Oh, I would sing and dance with rejoicing if celestial [polygamous] marriage was no longer considered criminal. I believe in my religion and way of life. Our family could all take the same last name. We would be able to have the benefits of Canada as other Canadians have. We would use the money we spend on fighting for our religion to build nice housing for the families… We would be able to live in peace.
 

That was Witness Four, speaking in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court about the alleged religious rights of a breakaway Mormon sect to practice polygamy. 

According to the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and others on the side of decriminalizing polygamy, Canada, the land of hope and freedom, is persecuting some of its most vulnerable citizens -- men and women who choose to peacefully express a minority religion, who ask nothing more than to be left alone and not live in the daily fear of being jailed and harassed for their faith. 

Is this possible? In a country that takes minority rights so seriously that entire institutions are dedicated to weeding out even the smallest hints of prejudice? What have we become? 

But wait a minute, this religious minority is also accused of involvement in the trafficking and abuse of young teenaged girls, subjecting children to dysfunctional and abusive families, exploiting young men, trapping women in a world of pain, the flagrant and public breech of laws that would protect the most vulnerable. Is it possible that Canada has turned a blind eye to all of this? 

And what will happen now that the judiciary has to decide which should prevail: freedom of religion, or some of the most basic values and norms of Canadian society? 

The question pits Canada’s anti-polygamy law, section 293 of the Criminal Code, against the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedom guarantee to “freedom of conscience and religion” -- in this case the freedom of a FLDS/Mormon offshoot community in Bountiful B.C. This community believes that “plural marriages” are necessary in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom. Opposing that claim is a collection of organizations who contend that the abuses of polygamy are so grievous, and the harm to individuals and societies so great, that the law is a justifiable infringement on religious and individual rights. 

What kinds of harm? Allegations against FLDS members include the water torture of babies (holding children face up under a running tap if they cry when spanked), marriage of girls as young as 12 or 14 (statutory rape), sexual, mental, and physical abuse of children, immigration fraud, unfair treatment of young men (due to shortage of brides), forced/coerced marriage, and more. 

Perhaps some of the most affecting testimony came from Witness Four, quoted above. She learned the identity of her much older husband thirty minutes before she married him as a just turned 17 year old, crossed the Canadian boarder under false pretences, and came to live with him and her other three “sister-wives”. Six months later, with no prior notice or consultation with his other wives, her husband married a 15 year old girl, who enrolled in grade nine that year as a married woman. It never occurred to anyone involved that this might be in any way improper. No one called the authorities. The marriage must have been a revelation from God and, therefore, it was right. 

Another tragic story is told by a woman who refused, as a 13 year old, to marry the prophet Rulon Jeffs, then in his 80s. For this she was sent to work for a Bountiful lumber business. Laboring in sub zero conditions without proper protective clothing, she was reminded again and again by the “authorities” that if she would just submit to an arranged marriage it could all end. Trapped, terrified, and abandoned by her family she finally gave way and agreed to married, at the age of 17. 

But is this kind of harm, or any harm, inherent in polygamy? Surely monogamy has its own problems?

Dr. Margaret Somerville, Samuel Gale Professor of Law at McGill University, in an interview with MercatorNet suggests that while not all alleged harms are inherent in polygamy, some indeed are.

“My primary objection would be for the children... I believe that family units are primarily for the benefit of the children. Of course they are for the benefit of the adults involved as well, but if there is a clash between what adults want and what children need I give priority to the children.” 

“Children are best off with their mother and father, preferably their own biological parents unless an exception is justified as being in the best interests of a particular child... Polygamy is an alternative adult arrangement, which is also difficult for some of the children who become adults within that arrangement.” (Note the abuses chronicled above.) 

Others contend that the abuses chronicled in Bountiful, by both supporters and detractors are best fought by the legalization of polygamy. Some point to the idyllic picture of peace, love, and cooperation painted by many of the polygamous women, and suggest that the needs of the vulnerable would rather be served by bringing polygamy into the open, where abuse could be reported by women no longer afraid of prosecution for polygamy, and where justice and freedom of religion could coexist peacefully. 

But does society have a larger interest in banning polygamy? If some of these abuses are inherent to polygamy, can even legalizing it help? What could this do to the moral fabric of our society? 

Margaret Somerville again speaks of the danger of redefining marriage, particularly for children. She has contended for years that allowing same sex marriage (as has been done in Canada), would make it difficult to justify shutting the door on polygamy. 

“If you say that marriage is simply a social or cultural construct, which is what same-sex marriage says it is, and it has nothing to do with giving a child his own biological parents, then you could say that we could design marriage however we like. It could be four men and three women, or whatever you want to have. 

“What a monogamous relationship, one man and one woman, does is that it builds marriage around a biological reality. Actually, unlike same sex marriage, polygamy also builds marriage around a biological reality too but it doesn't do it equally between men and women. 

“I think it’s a matter of both biology and cultural values, and our western democratic societies’ cultural values are most definitely [in favour of] one man and one woman, and polygamy threatens that just as same sex marriage threatened that. Polygamy threatens it on the monogamous level, same sex marriage threatened it on the biological level.” 

“Once you move away from that fundamental monogamous procreational relationship... you start designing marriage however you like it, whether it is same sex marriage, whether it is polygamy either in the form of polygyny (one man with many wives) or polyandry (one woman with many husbands).” Or, indeed, what some of the sexual avant garde are calling “polyamory”.

 

The children and women of Bountiful tell stories of wrenching abuse, and peaceful contentment. The Supreme Court is given a simple but difficult and critical choice. To choose to restrict the religious practice of some in the interests of preserving the traditional values of Canadian culture, or to accede to another redefinition of marriage and accept the collateral damage of broken lives in the name of freedom. 

Freedom, we may ask, for whom?

Liars Figure

I do not like to attack someone who is obviously a fellow conservative, but the truth is not served by covering up well, I might not be able to call it lies, but it isn't exactly straight forward either. Let's just be really charitable and call it sloppy writing. 
Take this chart and explanation here.

As tens of thousands of U.S. factories get shut down and as millions of our jobs get shipped overseas, the number of unemployed Americans continues to go up and up and up 

As you can see from the chart below, there has been a long-term trend of increasing unemployment in the United States.  In fact, there are about 3 and a half times as many unemployed workers in the United States today as there were when 1970 began.  These jobs losses are going to continue as long as we allow our corporations to pay slave labor wages to workers on the other side of the globe.  All of the major trends in global trade are very bad for the U.S. middle class.  For example, the U.S. trade deficit with China for 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.  How long will our politicians stand by as our nation bleeds jobs? (Source)

What is missing from this chart? Anyone who says, "The numbers aren't controlled for population increases and thus aren't worth a plugged nickle" hits the bell and gets their choice of coconut or honey doughnut.

Obviously we have no interest in knowing whether the absolute number of unemployed people is increasing, that number can't prove anything whatsoever. What we would like to know is this, has the unemployment RATE consistently increased since 1970 as a result of overseas outsourcing?

Answer: No.

Here is the appropriate chart, compiled by yours truly, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Funny enough, until 2009-10, the unemployment rate in the United States seems to have been decreasing, not increasing since the mid 1970s. Just to confirm that, average unemployment rate per decade.

1950s: 4.51%
1960s: 4.78%
1970s: 6.21%
1980s: 7.27%
1990s: 5.75%
2000-2008: 4.61%

What we seem to see here is not a steadily increasing unemployment rate, but rather an unemployment level that increased to a peak in 1982 and has been declining, more or less steadily, ever since to lower levels than even in the 60s (pre-recession).

Is that a result of overseas outsourcing? Well one way to test that would be to look at imports as a percentage of GDP. That will tell us what percentage of goods and services that Americans consume were imported, a measure that will likely tell us something relevant about American companies moving overseas.

Doesn't really look like it declines after the 80s, in fact it seems to be pretty steep in the 2000s, while unemployment was very low.

So, combine a misleading graph with a not particularly defensible explanation...

Lesson for the day: Never believe a graph you can't prove yourself from the raw data.

Supreme Court Speech Decision

 In one of the more under commented on stories of the week:

The Supreme Court of Canada has come down 6-1 on the side of freedom of speech, and not just freedom in a disputable case, but freedom in quite an extreme case. Andre Arthur, a radio host, delivered a rant about Arab and Haitian cab drivers, saying that,

[translation]  Why is it that there are so many incompetent people and that the language of work is Creole or Arabic in a city that’s French and English?  . . .  I’m not very good at speaking “nigger”. . . .  [T]axis have really become the Third World of public transportation in Montreal. . . .  [M]y suspicion is that the exams, well, they can be bought.  You can’t have such incompetent people driving taxis, people who know so little about the city, and think that they took actual exams. . . .  Taxi drivers in Montreal are really arrogant, especially the Arabs.  They’re often rude, you can’t be sure at all that they’re competent and their cars don’t look well maintained.

The Court ruled that while the speech was racist, it was impossible to prove that it had caused personal harm to all the members of the class action lawsuit.

Apparently one of the things that Courts look for when deciding group defamation suits is the size of the group and how homogenous the group is. The smaller and more homogenous the group, the more likely a group libel action to succeed. For example, remarks about "women" or "lawyers" (or "Muslims" or "homosexuals" presumably) in general cannot constitute defamation, because the group is too large and diverse for the remarks to personally affect every member of the group.

The Court also decided that context was important (HRCs take note) and that Andre Arthur's reputation as an over the top "shock jock" meant that an "ordinary person" would be very unlikely to take the remarks as literal reputable truth (Note to self, cultivating reputation as controversial can help in defamation suits. Interesting.)

In general the Court decided that it was obvious the remarks were over the top, that no "ordinary person" would assume that they applied to each and every Arab and Haitian taxi driver in Montreal, and therefore it could not be said to personally discredit and damage every Arab and Haitian taxi driver in Montreal.

In other words, the Court soundly rejected the idea of any sort of corporate damage or group defamation. Defamation law only protects individuals, not groups.

Since the right to the protection of reputation, which is the basis for an action in defamation, is an individual right that is intrinsically attached to the person, only those who have suffered personal injury become entitled to compensation.  The requirement of proof of a personal injury contributes to maintaining the balance between freedom of expression and the right to the protection of reputation, and also applies where the defamatory comments are made about a group.  However, an individual will not be entitled to compensation solely because he or she is a member of a group about which offensive comments have been made.  The member or members of the group who bring an action must have sustained personal injury.(Bolds mine)

Whether the Supreme Court will extend this idea that rights belong to individuals, not groups, to human rights complaints I do not know. However I think it is clear from this ruling that the Supreme Court is not necessarily an enemy of freedom of speech, even in shocking cases, and thus the cases like Whatcott's that are heading towards the Supreme Court have, in my opinion, considerably better than a 50:50 chance of winning. 

Other interesting comments coming out of the ruling:

Freedom of expression is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b), and the Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C‑12, s. 3 (“Quebec Charter”).  It is one of the pillars of modern democracy.  It allows individuals to become emancipated, creative and informed, it encourages the circulation of new ideas, it allows for criticism of government action and it favours the emergence of truth... Freedom of expression is essential in ensuring that social, economic and political decisions reflect the aspirations of the members of society.  It is broad in scope and protects well‑prepared speech and wrath‑provoking comments alike...  However, it is not absolute and can be limited by other rights in a democratic society, including the right to protection of reputation.

Rather well put if you ask me. Also, contrary to what might seem to be the case, the Supreme Court appears to view defamation law as evolving, towards a more full protection of freedom of speech.

What was an acceptable limit on freedom of expression in the 19th century may no longer be acceptable today.  Indeed, particularly in recent decades, the law of defamation has evolved to provide more adequate protection for freedom of expression on matters of public interest. 

Indeed.

All quotes from CanLII

Iranium 2

So after the first shut down (see original story here) Iranium went on last night under the watchful eye of 17 security officers and some heavy duty police hanging around very conspicuously. It was all very boring, no protest, no teargas... but in compensation we did get to see a very interesting film. I think there were some youngsters their with disruptive intentions, they were sitting in front of me and were noticeably not applauding at the appropriate intervals. One of them was also holding a big mike on her lap. However in the end, whether due to the fact that the police were too intimidating or the movie too convicting, or both, there were no disruptions.

The crowd in general were very much on the side of the Free Thinking Film Festival, applauding at every available opportunity during the speech. There were several government officials there, MPs, Ministers, Senators. Some of them, including Heritage Minister James Moore, got up to speak (He got a standing ovation before he even said anything).

Deborah Gyapong has some pictures up of the event.

For those who missed it, I believe you can watch it free online for a limited time here. 

I got a recording of the Clare Lopez speech and Q and A which will go up just as soon as Blogger decides to cooperate with the upload.

Ways to Describe a HRT Adjudicator's Words and Actions

"Patently unreasonable", "illogical", "unsupportable in law and fact", "legal errors", behaved "inexplicably", a "breach of principles of procedural fairness and natural justice", "it is simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator", "unsupported by factual findings","unfair", "failed to apply... legal principles", decision "fatally flawed", makes apparently contradictory findings, the decision "cannot be said to be rational or logical".

Who said all of that?

A) Ezra Levant

B) Mark Steyn

C) The Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The answer is, C, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a review of a HRTO decision.

Who was this patently unreasonable ruling against?  Maxcine Telfer, a Toronto immigrant businesswoman who runs an organization devoted to helping immigrant women settle in Canada.

Result of original patently unreasonable ruling? A $36,000 fine and an attempt to seize Ms. Telfer's house in payment that was only foiled by the Superior Court's ruling. 

Why? In the course of her business operations she hired Seema Saadi a legally-blind, Bengali-Canadian, Muslim social worker.  But, less than six weeks after Ms. Saadi started work Audmax, Telfer's organization, let Ms. Saadi go for cause. She sued, and the HRTO found that Ms Saadi had been discriminated against on the grounds of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, and sex largely on the grounds of their microwave and dress codes.

You lose a house for enforcing rules about what you can put in a microwave? Apparently that is what the HRT now considers reasonable.

What happened?

Audmax had a strict environmental sensitivity that restricted the use of scented products or the heating of strong smelling food in the microwave. By even the admission of the Tribunal this microwave policy was strictly enforced on everyone, to the point that other people had just stopped using the microwave rather than risk running afoul of it. Apparently however, because Ms. Telfer couldn't provide a list of acceptable ingredients this "ambiguity leads to arbitrariness and the conditions for discriminatory enforcement." and therefore discipline resulting from violating the code was discrimination on the grounds of ancestry and ethnic origin although Ms. Saadi was not singled out for adverse treatment in this way and others were adversely affected by the rule as well. Indeed as the Superior Court pointed out, "It would appear from that factual conclusion (that she continued to use the microwave where others didn't) that the policy had less impact on Ms. Saadi than on others." Also the food was apparently not even hers, which shoots down the only remaining argument, that reheating strong-smelling food was an integral part of her ethnic identity. " I do not see how the ethnicity and ancestral rights of a Bengali-Canadian Muslim are adversely affected by being prevented from reheating somebody else’s Tunisian food."(Superior Court)

All in all the Superior Court said it best, " In short, the reasons do not disclose a rational basis for the conclusion that there was discrimination against Ms. Saadi in respect of the microwave policy. "

Dress code then? Was this a Hooters masquerading as a social work agency? 

Apparently Ms. Saadi always dressed in a "religiously appropriate" manner, and this never caused a problem indeed "Ms. Telfer often complimented the applicant on her fashion style." according to the HRT. However one day she came in wearing an outfit which, from the sandals and anklet, to the short skirt and leggings, to the weird hijab (unlike the traditional one she usually wore) Ms. Telfer considered unprofessional. This was apparently also discrimination, as a woman has the right to wear any form of headdress she wants if her religion mandates that she wears a headdress. In other words, Muslim women have the inalienable human right to show up at the office in a baseball cap or Mickey Mouse ears, and win tens of thousands of dollars if anyone suggests that is unprofessional. Gotcha. 

The Superior Court pointed this out in vivid language.

 "In my view, the adjudicator proceeded on an illogical, and legally incorrect, course of reasoning.  First, he held that what Ms. Saadi was wearing on the day in question was consistent with her religious requirements.  Second, he held that what Ms. Saadi was wearing was, at least according to the employer, inconsistent with the dress code.  He therefore concluded that the dress code violated Ms. Saadi’s religious rights.  The logical step that the adjudicator missed was a consideration of whether it was possible for Ms. Saadi to comply with the dress code without compromising her religious requirements.  There was nothing about Ms. Saadi’s religion that required her to wear the particular form of hijab she was wearing on the day in question.  If it was possible for her to wear a religiously acceptable form of hijab that was fully consistent with the dress code (as indeed she had done every day for six weeks), her religious rights were not affected.  All that was affected was her sense of style, which apparently was in conflict with that of her employer.....

If she chose, for example, to wear a battered old sweatshirt and baggy flannelette pants, the requirements of her religion would likely be met, but surely her employer could legitimately complain that this was not suitable attire for a professional office environment.

[88]           The adjudicator in this case made an irrational decision by concluding that discrimination had been established any time an item of clothing was questioned and that clothing complied with the requirements of the complainant’s religion.  He ought to have considered whether the dress code, or the employer’s enforcement or interpretation of it, conflicted with what the employee was required to wear as part of her religion."

Wow, did you see that wizzing by the left hand window? Logic! Savor the moment kids, you may not see that again for a long time.

The Superior Court has also determined that it is not de facto discrimination if a man is in the room during a discussion of  acceptable female business attire. Good to know.

There were other matters in the ruling but these were the primary ones.

One of the most grotesque errors on the part of the HRT was drawing negative inferences from the absence of a key witness, and thus working on the assumption that there was no reason to believe the accusations against Ms. Saadi which led to her termination. What the HRT left out of their ruling but the Superior Court caught and harped on, was that the key witness was going to testify until he was called away by a family emergency, tried to submit his testimony via sealed envelope which the tribunal refused to even open, and that Ms. Telfer, being unrepresented, was too ignorant of her rights to request an adjournment until he could testify. The Superior Court considered all of this horrifyingly unfair, especially as the Tribunal arguably had a duty to inform Ms. Telfer that she had the right to adjourn, and the fact that they decided that Ms. Telfer was lying about Ms. Saadi because she failed to produce testimony that Ms. Telfer had tried to produce but the Tribunal had disallowed just compounded the travesty of the entire ruling.

The National Post and The Star had a lot to say about the fact that Ms. Saadi had her lawyers paid for by the government, while Ms. Telfer was unrepresented because she couldn't afford a lawyer. That the deck was stacked against Ms. Telfer by not letting her key witness testify. And that the government is now paying Ms. Saadi's fine while Ms. Telfer would have lost her house to pay hers.

As Ms. Saadi said, presumably after the Superior Court overturn, "I am a little bit surprised and a little bit confused about how the justice system works,”.

Aren't we all.

Although I think she and I would be referring to different aspects of the "justice" system.

And yes Faisal Bhabha, I am talking about you, and all your HRTO buddies.

As I always say, when The Star and The Post agree that the Human Rights system is out of control, it must be really, really, out of control.

The Star

The Post

The Superior Court of Justice

The HRTO ruling

Good News in Egypt

As with most current events blogs it seems that bad news frequently predominates over good news. However it is nice, every once in awhile, to be able to produce a heartwarming story of unity and solidarity in the midst of trouble, especially when it transcends frequently divisive lines.

Egyptian Muslims turned up for the Coptic Christmas Eve services, surrounding the churches as "human shields" to protect them from attack as the mass was celebrated.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.... “This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.” In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. (Link)

Our thanks to the brave Muslims defended the right of Copts to worship peacefully in their nation. Let's keep this up, together.

I Survived Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade - 38 Years

For a Future without abortion.

And because it deserves to be resurrected at least once a year,

The Street of the Dead Fetuses

Iranium

I'm sure most of my Canadian readers are by now well aware of the Iranium shut down, but for those Canadians who might have recently come out of a coma and my international readers I will repeat a few of the more important points.

The Free Thinking Film Society was due to show the film Iranium, about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, with a Clare Lopez speech at the National Library and Archives, their usual venue of choice. Following a formal complaint from the Iranian embassy (cue sputtering indignation from anyone to the right of, say, the Canadian Charger staff) and complaints and threats from members of the public (or perhaps rather "public") the Archives canceled the screening.

Heritage Minister Moore intervened, and the Archives agreed to reinstate the screening, only to cancel it again at the last minute due to more threats.

This made front page news on just about every newspapers in Canada, commentators wanting to know since when the Iranians dictated Canadian culture events, etc. Finally the Heritage Minister intervened again and ordered the Archives to honor their obligation to show the film at a later date, now Feb 6th.

So, to all those in the area, or not in the area, the National Library and Archives is the place to be on Feb 6th to see Iranium and hear Clare Lopez (who is flying in again).

Put your money where your mouth is. Tickets available online. http://www.freethinkingfilmfest.ca/

Arizona Shooting

Our condolences to Gabrielle Giffords, the victims, and families of the victims, of the Arizona shooting.

Happy New Year!

To start this post off with the obvious, Happy New Year! Hopefully you all had as good a time I did, fantastic food, great friends, and Pirates of Penzance, on top of some very nice exam results (Perfect score on modern middle east, wonder why) which are my excuse for not blogging as much as might have otherwise been advised. My excuse for the next two weeks of slack posting are precalculus, statistic, and calculus. Did I mention that I haven't really started studying for statistics or calculus yet and I am supposed to know them before I start econometrics on the 18th? You can forgo the comments questioning my mental sanity, I've questioned it enough myself recently.

On that subject, the BC NDP are in a bit of a fix because their new leader must be a woman due to quota rules, and all their candidates are men. At this point I would usually talk about the negative social effects of ruling out great candidates due to the rather irrelevant fact that they are men, but I won't. It might, actually, cause me to rethink my stance on gender quotas. Because honestly a bad leader for the NDP doesn't really make my list of negative social outcomes. What fate more just then to fall upon the rocks of their own bigotry?

The first American Baby Boomer has turned 65. Welcome to the new world. Hope you like it. This seems to me like the perfect moment to resurrect one of my older posts (that had people questioning my emotional stability, caused a local scandal, and resulted in people wishing violence against me. So I knew it was pretty good.)

To continue the first half of my post some days later.

My Mother has been "encouraging" me to put up a Paypal donation button on my blog. I resist on the grounds that I do not blog often enough or well enough to justify anyone paying me. But on the slight off chance that I am wrong and I do have devoted fans who would love to support me, you can check out this little thingamajig.  It is a reminder of an important, if too often overlooked, period of history, sometimes called a civil war, but having a rather one-sided outcome (let's just put it this way, their numbers today are still half what they were in the 16th century). The Huguenots, my ancestors among them, were discriminated against, forcibly converted, massacred (70,000 in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre), driven into exile. But those fortunate ones who managed to escape France alive were immensely influential in the spread and foundation of much of Protestant Christianity (John Calvin being perhaps the most famous example). One beautiful symbol, immensely rich in meaning, that they left us is the Huguenot Cross (aka the Protestant Cross)

The cross as the universal symbol  of Christianity.
The base is a Maltese cross, because we are soldiers of Christ.
It is also a lily, symbol of purity and of France.
The four petals/arms symbolize the four gospels.
The eight points symbolize the beatitudes.
The hearts are to symbolize that our hearts are to be centered on Christ, and they are connected to John Calvin's seal.
The fleur-de-lis represent France, again.
The 12 petals of the four fleur-de-lis represent the 12 apostles.
The ring of points represents Christ's crown of thorns.
The dove represents the Holy Spirit. In times of persecution it was replaced by a dove, symbolizing tears.
(I know, minus several hundred points for tact, alienate all my Catholic readers and still hope to build my readership. But I do love the Huguenot story, and the Huguenot cross, and it deserves to be told. After all, bloggers aren't into political correctness right?

CBC and Kathryn Joyce may believe that "The Demographic Winter" is a piece of racist, anti-women, Christian, etc (you know the list) propaganda, but the million dollar question is this, will their ideological purity preserve them if Canada eventually goes Europe and starts seizing private retirement savings in order to boost public pension funds? H/T RuralRite

And a little late, but none the worse for that. The New York, oops sorry The New Jerusalem Times has a cover story on the birth of Jesus. Best headlines in my opinion. "Planned Parenthood's Success Story: Herod's administration implements ultra-late-term post birth (up to two years or 8th trimester) abortion regimen" and "Who Killed the Dead Sea? Large Roman-made chariots most commonly blamed for the disaster".