Herald Column: Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the bickering over "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" and urges both sides to take a step back:  

...It is Christmas -- or, the Christmas season. There is no point in denying this or fleeing in terror from it. Therefore, it hardly seems offensive to wish someone well in conjunction with the season: "Merry Christmas," for example.

 

True, many do not celebrate Christmas, but even if one is to take the most narrow religious interpretation of the holiday, "Merry Christmas" is still a gesture of goodwill. I am not Jewish or Muslim, but were I offered a greeting of Happy Hanukkah or Eid Mubarak, I would appreciate the sentiment behind it.

It is true that both of those occasions fall more or less within the Christmas season, so if one is motivated by a sense of inclusiveness, then "Happy Holidays" is not unreasonable. Further, "holidays" would seem in many cases to be quite literal -- as in "enjoy your time off and your time with your family."

 

Or, for some, "Happy Holidays" may simply be a pushback against those who are demanding they say something else. That would be the "Merry Christmas" crowd, which refers to those who take offence to "Happy Holidays" because to them it is too secular -- that is, those who view Christmas in strictly religious terms and see it as an opportunity to push and elevate their religion.

 

The fact that Christmas is a statutory holiday is seen as one foot in the door: If the state tacitly accepts a holiday with religious overtones, why not make it as religious as possible?

 

It's far easier, for example, to push to have Christmas carols in public schools than it is to push for prayer in public schools -- for many, though, the objective is the same. There is certainly nothing menacing in having Christmas trees and Santa pictures in public schools, but singing praises to the purported Son of God born of a purported virgin would seem highly inappropriate in such a venue.

 

Ah, but Jesus is the "reason for the season" we're told. If Jesus is the reason for your season, then celebrate it accordingly. But for many Canadians, it is not the reason and there is nothing untoward about that.

 

Of course, much of Christmas has little to do with Christianity anyway, even the season itself. It is highly improbable that Jesus was born on Dec. 25 or anywhere near that date. For many Canadians, Christmas is simply an embodiment and celebration of values we all share: goodwill, generosity and the importance of family.

 

Religion does not have a monopoly on those values, nor should it have a monopoly on this season. In that sense, there is no need to phase out or marginalize what has become a western holiday tradition.

It is not Christmas which poses a threat to our secular, pluralistic society, but rather those who would use the holiday to further blur the lines between church and state. It is also not an attack on Christianity or western society to wish someone "Happy Holidays" or to celebrate a non-religious Christmas.

 

Let's stop obsessing over how people celebrate the season or what greetings they offer. Perhaps then we'll truly have a Merry Christmas.

Shame on Suzuki

One of the most hysterical voices in Canadian public life outdoes himself with a most offensive metaphor:  

 

 

If you'd rather not watch the interview, here's a transcript of the relevant portion: 

(EVAN) SOLOMON: And by the way, they're saying because it is, by the way, because the oil sands creates jobs, creates money that is transferred to other provinces, and that's their notion of the balance.

(DAVID) SUZUKI: You know, that's what they used to say in the southern states. We can't give up slavery because it'll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that. Some things you do because they're right. And you know, the problem is...

SOLOMON: But David, just for the record, and I know you're passionate, but is comparing this to slavery, is that fair, to demonize the other side like that?

SUZUKI: We're talking about the fate of all of humankind and the kind of future we're going to leave for our children. Yes, I think this is criminal what's going on now, to act as if the economy. Remember, the economy is a human- created construct.

For the sake of argument, I'll give Suzuki the benefit of the doubt in that he truly believes that drastic action is needed and that he is truly worried about the consequences of not doing so. He probably is genuine and who knows, he may even be right.

 

None of that, however, can justify that kind of comparison - it's not as though he was comparing the struggle to end slavery to the struggle to address climate change as a broad comparison of important historical struggles.

 

Suzuki is clearly and overtly comparing those who disagree with him on this issue to those who supported slavery or opposed its abolition.

 

What seems immediately obvious to me is that if a white conservative were to use slavery as a metaphor in this manner, there would be immediate demands (and rightly so) to apoologize to African-Americans. For a variety of reasons, I suppose, David Suzuki gets a pass.

 

Of course we know full well the horrific impact of centuries of slavery. We don't really know what the future holds with regard to climate. As noted yesterday, prominent economist Richard Tol (whose work was heavily relied upon by the Stern Report - a report Suzuki is fond of mentioning) has argued that the cost of climate change is not nearly as dire as some (like Suzuki) would have us believe.

 

Furthermore, of course, economic growth is crucial to adapting to climate change and being able to develop important new technologies. In that sense, it's hardly "criminal" to be concerned about the economic impact of the sort of policies Suzuki believes in. There are many people who might completely disagree with Suzuki's proposals who do share the same goal of mitigating dangerous climate change and helping the developing world adapt to it.

 

It's arrogant in the extreme to portray one's self as a gallant defender of mankind and those with whom you disagree are "criminals", no better than those who would enslave other humans.

 

I'm sure, then, that Suzuki believes its important for Canadians to take him seriously. That's going to be difficult if he keeps saying things like this.

Herald Column - The Gift of the Magi(strate): Free(r) Speech

Further to last week's post on the subject Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the decision by Court of Queen's Bench Justice Earl Wilson to overturn the conviction and penalty imposed on Rev. Stephen Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission: 

...Wilson wrote of several "fundamental" and "fatal" errors in Andreachuk's decision. He found that Boissoin's letter fell short of the prohibited status of "hate" or "contempt," and wrote that the penalties ordered "were without legal foundation or beyond the [panel's] authority." This magistrate's gift, though, was not just for Rev. Boissoin. In severely curtailing the reach and scope of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Justice Wilson has provided something approaching the gift that the government refuses to give: free speech.

Section 3 remained unscathed after the Alberta government's "reform" of the human rights legislation-- the much-maligned Bill 44. Scathed it should be as the process is often the punishment--and the process remains. Justice Wilson declined to strike down the law itself, citing a 1990 Supreme Court decision which narrowly held up the comparable section of the federal legislation.

The matter may yet end up before the Supreme Court once again, but for now, Justice Wilson may well be bound by it.

Wilson, however, noted repeatedly that Alberta's law requires that a hateful message be connected to the "likely perpetration of acts of discrimination listed in the Act." He also noted that regulating hateful expressions was clearly federal jurisdiction (i. e. the Criminal Code), not provincial. As Boissoin's lawyer offered, "it is difficult to conceive of a political or religious debate that would meet the two-part test established in the legislation."

In response to Wilson's ruling, the original complainant Darren Lund said, "It makes you wonder what are the reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta?"

Well, actually, one needn't wonder--it is spelled out rather clearly in the ruling.

Lund went on to say, "We are trying to create inclusive communities and this takes away the tools at our disposal and puts very vulnerable people at greater risk."

This may take away one "tool"--but it is a "tool" we call all live without. Even the leading gay rights organization Egale refused to support Lund's complaint, siding instead with Boissoin's right to free speech. I hardly think Egale is disinterested in "inclusive communities."

In fact, despite the caricature of raging homophones lurking behind every corner, Alberta would seem to be quite a tolerant place. A recent poll pegged support for legalized gay marriage at 65 per cent--far higher than it would have been a decade ago. It's rather condescending of Lund or Andreachuk to believe they possess the special ability to read Boissoin's letter with their tolerance intact, but that it's too dangerous for the rest of us. Albertans are a mature bunch--we can handle rough and tumble debate.

This magistrate has indeed bestowed a wise gift upon us. If only the Stelmach government could find the wisdom to finally scrap Section

 

More great commentary on this story from Lorne Gunter, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Colby Cosh.

MADD May Not Always Be Right

I suppose there's always the need to preface this sort of thing with an expression of admiration for the work of MADD Canada - and indeed, they have played in an important role in changing attitudes with regards to impaired driving and their mere existence serves as a reminder of what's at stake.

 

You can listen to a podcast of a recent segment with did with a MADD spokesperson at our podcast page and go to this blog post for a link to a column I wrote critical of MADD and streaming audio of an interview I did with another MADD spokesman in response to the column.

 

Yes, many of those involved in MADD have been personally affected by an impaired driving-related tragedy, but that doesn't mean they automatically and always have the right prescription for combating the problem. It's somewhat akin to those affected by the Montreal massacre - it doesn't mean their ideas for gun control are automatically right (UPDATE: This editorial makes the point well).

 

Now, saying things like this seems to get me in trouble. I'm trying to get around some of the personal and emotional issues and simply look at issues related to policy. But to some, criticizing MADD is akin to being in favor of drunk driving.

 

Here's from an e-mail I got after a recent segment with a MADD spokesperson:  

Your views about impaired driving are so far out there and it's the same kind of attitude those have who drink and drive and still get behind the wheel because they think they are 'okay' to drive. You're thoughts are only based on your opinion and it's obvious you've never taken the time to really look at what is happenning on the roads each and every day.

 

(...)

 

You call people prohibitionists because they think it's only fair and right that people are sober behind the wheel and you don't agree? You have the nerve to say that others are wrong when all you do is sit behind a mic and criticize? If all the world had the same opportunities as you, I would hope they decided to use it for the greater good. 

I also received this from a MADD official: 

Offering your opinion rather than taking the time to review any of the national and international research it is greatly misleading to your listeners. It truly frightens me to think of people listening to your show last night have just been reinforced in their belief drinking and driving isn’t a serious crime and the level of 0.08% BAC or 0.05% BAC is still sober enough to drive. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If you could at least have the forethought to tell listeners that despite mounting research and data, your opinion is of the contrary it would be entirely different. Yet you have never mentioned to your listeners that it is of your opinion only. As a professional and as a radio personality with dedicated listeners, I would think you could a least extend them that courtesy to be upfront. I would hope you take the responsibility of what you are saying to your listeners seriously.

(...)

 

Alberta is the most deadly province with 107 deaths in 2008. Every year, Alberta has consistently risen in the number of deaths and injuries on our roadways. Furthermore, because of Alberta’s incomprehensible numbers, it has also pushed the entire country as leaders of alcohol-related deaths in the international community as well. What a sad state of affairs and it is certainly nothing to be proud of. So maybe a better approach for you rather than dismissing what recommendations have been made is to provide your guidance and expertise so the problem will be solved. Rather than forcing what you don’t approve of, may I ask how exactly you would save lives?

Keep in mind as research has proven, impaired drivers have varying BAC levels and come in all genders and ages. They can have numerous suspensions and have made countless trips before even being caught – this through their own admissions. The problem isn’t as general as you like to make it. In fact it is far more complex which is why any recommendations we make are not based on opinion. Impaired driving doesn’t discriminate and your opinion doesn’t discount all the research and information that is needed to save at least one family from receiving a death notification.

 

 

The implication here seems to be that they know the answer to the problem and its only unformed people like me that are standing in their way.

 

Obviously, my opinion is opinion based on facts. Many of these facts are laid out in a great feature piece in Maclean's Magazine: 

Despite almost three decades of experience, there’s no clear scientific proof that allowing police to arbitrarily detain and test drivers is any more effective in reducing drunk-driving crashes than the standard checkpoints. In fact, there’s a growing body of evidence—clogged courts, falling charge rates, overburdened cops—that our natural impulse to crack down on those who get behind the wheel when loaded may have become part of the problem. Is it time for a new battle plan?

(...)

 

Much of the testimony before the Commons justice committee last winter revolved around a push to replace those roadside suspensions with criminal charges, lowering the legal BAC threshold to 0.05 per cent. Proponents argued that drivers with that much booze in their system are already functionally impaired, and that such a move would result in a “signi?cant reduction” in deaths and injuries. But the committee’s majority report rejected their calls, citing a “lack of consensus among experts” as to whether a lower BAC would really make the roads safer. (A recent study found that 81.5 per cent of fatally injured drunk drivers in Canada have BACs over 0.08 per cent, and that most in that group were driving with at least double the legal limit.)

(...)

 

 But those who argued against a lower legal limit, like Emile Therien, the past president of the Canada Safety Council, scoff at the notion the country is somehow falling behind. “If you don’t think our laws are tough, get caught,” he says. “The ?rst thing you are looking at is $30,000 in legal bills.”

(...)

 

But the bigger question might be whether random breath tests are really worth the ?ght. The justice committee pointed to studies suggesting that the change from standard checkpoints to RBT signi?cantly reduced fatalities in Ireland (23 per cent) and in New South Wales, Australia (a 36 per cent drop in fatally injured drivers with BACs over 0.05 per cent). However, such clear-cut examples of RBT’s superiority are fairly hard to come by. Impaired fatalities and accidents do have a tendency to dip dramatically after the introduction of random stops, but that effect rarely lasts, and may well be a function of the publicity surrounding the change, rather than the checkpoints themselves.

The gold-standard study of RBT, a 2001 review of the scienti?c literature by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which examined 23 papers spanning from the early 1980s to the late 1990s, found “no evidence that their effectiveness for reducing alcohol-related crashes differed” from regular checkpoints. In 2009, another meta-analysis looking at the effect of both types of checkpoints reached a similar conclusion. “It had been assumed that checkpoints are more effective when BAC tests are taken from all drivers who are pulled [over],” wrote the Norwegian researchers. “The subgroup analysis does not seem to con?rm this assumption.”

(...)

 

The 2008 Road Safety Monitor, an annual drinking and driving roundup produced by Ottawa’s TIRF, found 80 per cent of Canadians professed to be “very” or “extremely” concerned about impaired driving, more than crime (64 per cent), the economy (59 per cent), or global warming (50 per cent). When asked about their own behaviour, only 5.2 per cent of respondents copped to driving “when they thought they were over the legal limit” in the previous 12 months. “In Canada, you are really talking about a small group of persistent offenders,” says Ward Vanlaar, the research scientist who compiled the report. “The majority of people do understand the dangers of drunk driving. It’s not like other road safety issues, say speeding or tailgating, where people say they are concerned, but do it all the time.” 

But lest anyone think the author of this piece doesn't care about the issue, he concludes with this: 

The roads are demonstrably safer, yet impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in the country, killing hundreds more than homicide. Progress is relative. The pain of losing a loved one to something as sel?sh as driving while drunk is absolute.

Herald Column: A Tale of Two Cheap Shots (Swann's Was Worse)

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly examines two sets of controversial remarks last week: some cheap shots on Twitter from the chief-of-staff to the Wildrose Alliance leader and some provocative remarks from the Alberta Liberal leader.

 

I argue that it was David Swann who went over the line in accusing the province of being directly responsible for H1N1-related deaths: 

...It's worthwhile, though, to contrast the remarks from Mr. Carter and from Dr. David Swann, leader of the Alberta Liberals. As far as I can tell, no apology has been offered from him, and as of this writing no apology has been sought.

Not that I spend copious amounts of time assessing and ranking the sorts of insults I might wish to be hurled my way, but I'm pretty sure that being called a stammering yokel might be slightly less grievous that being accused of having blood on my hands.

Dr. Swann has certainly made himself more relevant as of late with his sharp criticism of how the government handled its vaccination program. Frankly, much of his criticism has been spot-on.

I fear, though, he may have overplayed his hand here: if you're going to accuse someone of having blood on his hands, you'd better be able to demonstrate that the blood is indeed there.

Late last week, Dr. Swann accused the Stelmach government of being responsible for deaths linked to H1N1 flu.

The rationale here is that because the vaccination program was poorly run, its possible that those in high risk groups were not vaccinated and it's then possible that some of those individuals who might have been vaccinated through a properly run program instead contracted H1N1 influenza and subsequently died.

It's a plausible scenario. Unfortunately for Dr. Swann, he has put forth no evidence to suggest that it occurred.

In fact, Swann has all but admitted that he doesn't know: rather than presenting evidence he is the one asking for it. It's almost like a police officer charging someone with murder and then asking the suspect if he has any evidence that could help make the charge stick.

By all means, let's look into whether at-risk individuals fell through the gaping cracks in the early days of the vaccination program.

However, there are several problems with a simple narrative like this. And being a medical doctor, Swann ought to be aware of them.

First of all, vaccinations didn't begin until late October and could not have begun any sooner - by that point, this flu season was well under way.

Secondly, it can take up to two weeks for the vaccine to take effect, so any death prior to mid-November could not realistically be attributed to a poorly planned vaccination campaign.

Furthermore, we're not exactly talking about a tetanus shot - flu shots can decrease your likelihood of getting the flu, but it's not a guarantee. It's less effective in the elderly and those with weakened immune systems: the very people who may have succumbed to flu-related complications.

It should also be noted that Alberta's death toll includes those who died from other causes but also tested positive for H1N1.

Bottom line: we don't know if any of the flu-related deaths in the last two weeks involve anyone who was unable to get vaccinated. We also can't say for sure if the vaccine would have made enough of a difference.

All in all, it's a pretty flimsy basis for saying the government is directly responsible for any deaths.

None of this is to say the government deserves a pass - quite the contrary.

However, if the opposition is going to resort to over-the-top, unproven allegations, then in lieu of any serious criticism, the government will effectively have been given a pass.

Those tasked with holding the government to account need to rise above such cheap shots.

However, the initial reaction to Swann's comments from the government side has been disappointing. It would seem as though the government not only feels its unfair to blame them for any deaths, but that it's unfair to blame them for anything. Here's my on-air editorial comment from today: 

I must admit, whatever sympathy I felt for the Stelmach government is quickly evaporating. Last week, Liberal leader David Swann accused the government of being directly responsible for H1N1 deaths. To me, that was an over-the-top and unsubstantiated allegation. It's unclear exactly how many people have died solely as a result of H1N1, and given the two weeks it takes for the vaccine to kick in, we're talking about a very narrow period of time. That, of course, does not absolve the government of responsibility for how the rollout of the vaccine was handled. The health minister, though, would rather not speak of responsibility. According to Ron Liepert, really no one is to blame He accused others in politics and in the media of being, quote, not happy unless you can blame somebody. Try to imagine the opposite scenario, where the government flawlessly executed a vaccine plan. Would the minister really say no one was deserving of credit? Would he really be upset that people were trying to give his government credit? Of course not. This is a government that wants all the credit when things go right, but demanding accountability when things go wrong is some sort of cruel and petty blame game. It's a sign of a government that's been too comfortable in power for too long

Neo-Prohibitionists in Alberta

Wetaskiwin, to be precise, where the temperance movement seems to have a firm grasp on city council.

 

Civic politicians in Wetaskiwin have decided that they don't like the idea of people purchasing alcohol in the late evening: 

The matter came to a head Nov. 9 during the second reading of the controversial proposed bylaw 1753-09, which originally called for the closing of all Wetaskiwin liquor stores by 8 p.m. daily.

Following last month's public meeting, which attracted a standing room-only crowd of more than 250 people at the Memorial Arts Centre, council made several amendments to the proposed bylaw, including extending hours to 10 p.m. daily, as well as a clause, which includes the potential of revoking business licences, and issuing a stop work order for those businesses, which fail to comply with the bylaw, if it is indeed passed into law by city council. 

 

 

More here:  

"You talk about democracy. Let's have a democracy where we open liquor stores 24 hours because someone wants to? I don't think so."

(Ald. Bill Elliot) pointed out he has spoken to a number of people about the bylaw, and there aren't many who purchase alcohol after 10 o'clock at night.

Elliot said he also spoke to a liquor storeowner, who told them the amount of sales made after 10 p.m. was less than 10 per cent.

"And I said, 'Who is that less than 10 per cent sold to?' People coming out of the bars. That doesn't sound like a very safe city to me.

"Currently, we have liquor stores, liquor stores selling to intoxicated people, we have under aged people. I've seen it and had it reported to the city, so we'll ask the liquor commission come down and inspect to make sure people are within the law," said Elliot.   

Where to start? First of all, yes, in a democracy we could have 24-hour liquor stores. If our elected politicians wished to change the regulations we could indeed have that. I'm not aware of many businesses clamouring for such a change, but it's hardly the terrifying concept Mr. Elliot makes it out to be.

 

It's ironic that in attacking the liquor stores, Mr. Elliot is acting as though he's doing them a favour: you don't really want to be open past 10pm.

 

It's really not the concern of government: if this business feels there's little reason to stay open past 10pm, then they can make the decision on their own to close at or before 10pm. If they have clients who are coming in later, it's the store's decision to remain open to serve them.

 

There are already laws about serving to intoxicated individuals, so beyond that, it is not really the business of the state if a person wishes to buy a bottle of wine at noon or at midnight.

 

There are, of course, laws dealing with the sale of liquor to minors - the answer, therefore, would seem to be enforcing the current laws rather than create new ones.

 

As for "people coming out of the bars", Mr. Elliot makes it sound as though everyone "coming out of the bar" is now poised to embark upon a crime spree. I suppose someone "coming out of the bar" and stopping to buy a six-pack is probably on his way home to drink it.

 

Although, if we're now assuming the worst about people inclined to purchase liquor, then isn't it possible that with this new law, thirsty troublemakers will drive to, say, Millet, Ponoka, or Leduc, thus creating new problems?

 

If Wetaskiwin or any other community has a crime problem, the answer is to target those committing the crimes, not to punish everyone.

 

Yes, Wetaskiwin may have a crime problem - it lives right next door to a community with a severe crime problem - but do they really think it's all going to go away by closing liquor stores a little earlier?

 

We, of course, once had a government monopoly on liquor sales where early closing times was the norm. Are we now operating under the illusion that those were wonderful crime-free times?

 

There is an assumption - common among neo-prohibitionists - that alcohol turns normally law-abiding folks into raging criminals. I dare suggest that those committing crimes in and around Wetaskiwin might be doing so regardless of what time the beer store closes.  

 

Now, I don't live in Wetaskiwin (though I once did for about 18 months or so), and the city isn't exactly in Calgary's backyard.  So why does this matter?

 

It matters because this sort of neo-prohibitionist ideology seems to be spreading in this province - this is only the latest example. See here, here, here, and here for more on this trend.

Herald Column - Scapegoats & Strawmen: Ed vs. The Media

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly has a look back at the weekend Tory convention, and specifically Premier Stelmach's declaration that the media is "the biggest problem we're facing as a government":

...Although, if I may be so blasphemous, perhaps the reality of the situation is not quite as the premier frames it.

After all, it is possible that the media bears no responsibility whatsoever for the Tory malaise.

Perhaps the media has simply reported accurately on the government's shortcomings and missteps.

Perhaps the media has reported accurately on the building enthusiasm for the Wildrose Alliance.

Perhaps the premier's comments represent an arrogant and desperate government refusing to acknowledge that Albertans are quickly losing faith in them.

To expand on the old saying: don't shoot the messenger and don't shoot the messaging. Shoot the policies and shoot the governing.

When you get right down to it, it is quite pathetic for a government in control of a massive, multi-million dollar PR machine to be complaining about its failure to communicate.
If anything, it serves as further evidence of their own ineptitude.

Stelmach indicated that part of this new strategy would be to bypass the media and communicate more directly with Albertans.

Trouble is, they've tried that, with underwhelming results to say the least.

You'd be forgiven for not remembering, but it was only last month when we were all subjected to "The Way Forward", the premier's heavily promoted televised address.

Here is a perfect example of what the premier claims is missing from his communications strategy: a direct connection to voters, a platform unfiltered by the media.

What did we get? Very little beyond warm and fuzzy platitudes. The premier demanded a stage and then didn't know what to do with it.

Given that wasted opportunity, it remains a mystery as to what it is that the Premier is being prevented from sharing with all of us.

In Red Deer Saturday, the Premier claimed, "I really do feel that the policies we have are the right ones for Alberta, but it's difficult to get it through the present media that's available to us."

For now, we'll just have to take his word regarding these fantastic-though-unspecified policies. However, here's a question to ponder: if indeed this government has the "right policies for Alberta", why the need for "change"?

"Changes are coming," the Premier himself declared this past weekend.

How can it be simultaneously true that the Stelmach government has the right policies and that we need change?

Do they really inhabit a world where logic allows for such a contradiction or is the premier simply just making it up as he goes along?

No wonder this government has communication issues. Although, even the slickest of communications strategies cannot mask this amount of confusion and disarray.

Before revising their plan for dealing with the media, or crafting new infomercials and websites, this government might want to figure out what exactly it stands for and where exactly it intends on taking this province.

The government would have you believe that more favorable media coverage would simply be correcting an imbalance - the end of a malicious anti-Stelmach agenda.

What it really would amount to is a complete abdication of the media's responsibilities. An expectation that the media pass on the spin rather than cut through it - creating an echo chamber for the empty boasts of a party in denial.

While the government lashes out at strawmen and invisible conspirators, Albertans continue for wait for real leadership.

Calgary Herald Column - Fear Not the Flu Shot

This week's Herald column from yours truly looks at the fears and fearmongering concerning the H1N1 vaccine and vaccines in general: 

It should strike us as very telling that many of those complaining of unnecessary and unjustified fears over H1N1 flu are the same one spreading unnecessary and unjustified fears over the H1N1 vaccine.

The blatant hypocrisy of engaging in one form of hysteria while denouncing another belies a deeper agenda: vaccine denial.

The scope and severity of H1N1 may indeed have been overblown to some extent, although we've not yet really seen what this new virus is capable of. Fortunately, thanks to science and medicine, we need not witness its full potential.

Also, some of the alarmist rhetoric and sensationalist reporting has fostered a high level of public cynicism - an atmosphere which has provided fertile ground for the anti-vaccine movement.

On top of that, there's the perception that this the flu, after all, which for the most part is unpleasant but not the end of the world. Most H1N1 cases have been relatively mild, so it may seem more of an inconvenience for people to get a shot: apathy as opposed to fear.

When you couple that with the ramping up of anti-vaccine rhetoric, though, it's little surprise that some polls show a majority - or near-majority - of Canadians saying they will not get vaccinated.

But even if you are at worst going to contract a minor case of H1N1 flu, what if you then pass it on to someone at much greater risk of complications? Moreover, H1N1 seems to pose more risk to healthy young women and men than does seasonal flu.

Reducing the total number of cases of H1N1 flu is achievable and desirable - what's the upside of mass vaccine refusal?

There's some understandable concern among Canada's medical establishment, which is why Canada's chief public health officer has gone out of his way to counter the myths and make sure we're all aware of the facts.

Dr. David Butler-Jones is saying what the vast majority of other top medical experts are saying: the H1N1 vaccine is safe and effective. The benefits of getting it far outweigh the risk of refusing it.

Flu vaccines are not perfect, but their efficacy and safety have been demonstrated over and over again in the peer-reviewed medical research. Yet that matters little to the true believers of the anti-vaccine movement who routinely denounce even our most proven and effective vaccines.

 

(...)

 

All the anti-government and anti-corporate rhetoric in the world is no substitute for scientific evidence.

In this respect, the anti-vaccine movement comes to resemble creationists: with no science or evidence to bolster their argument, they run around trying to poke holes in the mountain of evidence bolstering the case of that for which they are in denial.

Mind you, creationism never gave anyone the flu, measles, or polio.

Fear the quacks. Fear the conspiracy theories. Fear not the flu shot. 

 

Further reading here, here, here, here, here, and here. Also, a caller last night asked me about the concern over Guillain-Barré syndrome and an outbreak believed to be linked to the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Here's the article in New Scientist magazine I mentioned:

 

In 1976, after the death of a US army recruit triggered fears of a repeat of the deadly 1918 pandemic, around 48 million Americans were given a swine flu vaccine. Of these, 532 developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic condition caused by rogue antibodies attacking nerve cells. Most people recover from Guillain-Barré, but not all; 25 died after 1976 and others suffered lasting damage.

The 1976 vaccine caused around 10 cases per million vaccinated. Even ordinary flu vaccines, however, are thought to cause one extra case of Guillain-Barré per million, in addition to the 10 to 20 per million who get Guillain-Barré some other way every year.

Does this mean it is safer not getting vaccinated? Absolutely not. First, there is the risk of swine flu killing you. Second, what few people know is that flu itself is far more likely to cause Guillain-Barré than any flu vaccine.

A 2009 study found that out of every million people who get flu, between 40 and 70 develop Guillain-Barré. So your best chance of avoiding Guillain-Barré is to get vaccinated, a conclusion backed by a 2007 study.

The vaccine risk is also diminishing. Cases of Guillain-Barré in the US have fallen 20 per cent since 1996, and cases reported after flu vaccination have fallen by 60 per cent. Intriguingly, this coincides with a fall in infections by the food poisoning bacterium Campylobacter, thanks to improved meat hygiene. Guillain-Barré usually follows infections, and Campylobacter is the main cause. It is also endemic among chickens, and flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs. So the occasional contamination of flu vaccines with Campylobacter proteins might explain the link with Guillain-Barré, according to a 2004 study.

That is reassuring, if true. If the problem in 1976 was contamination rather than some property of the virus, there is no reason to expect a repeat. There has never been a similar problem with any other vaccine. And almost all the pandemic vaccines now being given in the US, the UK and Australia are being made in the same plants and in the same way as ordinary flu vaccines.

Herald Column: Nanny State Just Keeps on Trucking

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at just how far government anti-smoking measures have gone and why they've crossed a line: 

When we suddenly awake one day to find that smokers are criminals, it will seem fitting that prison itself might be one of the few places left to legally smoke.

A number of federal inmates will argue in court this week that their rights are being violated by the smoking ban imposed by Correctional Services Canada last year. Should the challenge succeed, we can all sit back and marvel at the baffling legal construct where a convicted murderer would be permitted to smoke, but it would be forbidden for a trucker to do so.

In Ontario last week, a truck driver was stopped by police and issued a $305 ticket after being spotted on Highway 401 with a cigarette in his mouth. You see, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act prohibits smoking in the workplace -- a trucker's truck is his workplace. In fact, even if a trucker owns his vehicle and even if no one else but him drives it, it is still illegal for him to smoke in the truck.

Alberta's own law contains similar provisions, although no such citations seem to have been issued here. Pardon the pun, but the wheels have come completely off whatever justification previously existed for stringent anti-smoking measures.

Let's say for the sake of argument that second-hand smoke is as bad as even the worst-case assessment.

The whole point of smoking bans in the workplace and other public places was to protect the rest of us from ingesting fumes we did not consent to ingesting. The bans still at least paid lip service to the premise that if you want to smoke those awful cigarettes, then do so away from the rest of us. Now the whole "protection" mantra has been tossed out the window like the proverbial cigarette butt. We are now "protecting" the smoker himself, and once that genie is out of the bottle, there's no going back.

 Read the rest here.

Do They Make Body Bags for Dead Narratives?

You no doubt recall the great kerfuffle surrounding the shipment of body bags sent to a reserve in northern Manitoba. If not, here's a reminder: 

Aboriginal leaders in Manitoba are horrified that some of the reserves hardest hit by swine flu in the spring have received dozens of body bags from Health Canada.

The body bags — which were sent to the remote northern reserves of Wasagamack and God's River First Nation — came in a shipment of hand sanitizers and face masks.

Grand Chief David Harper, who represents northern First Nations, says body bags send the wrong message and no one can understand why Ottawa would do such a thing.

"It really makes me wonder if health officials know something we don't," he said. "I have a right to speak for my people. I make a plea to the people of Canada to work with us to ensure the lowest fatalities from this monster virus. Don't send us body bags. Help us organize; send us medicine."

 

That was the narrative last month. Turns out the narrative was bogus. Here's why the body bags were sent - because there were requested (emphasis added): 

Despite speculation that Health Canada ordered a controversial shipment of body bags to Manitoba's Wasagamack First Nation, the delivery was requested by the community's nursing station in preparation for a possible second wave of H1N1 pandemic, according to a much-anticipated report released yesterday by the Deputy Minister of Health.

Health Canada previously admitted it had "erred" in sending the body bags, but the report said it was Wasagamack's nurse-in-charge who ordered 100 body bags on Aug. 12.

(...)

"The person who placed the order made a bit of an error in requesting so much," echoed Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

"Had this person consulted with community leadership, the chief would have known that this sort of shipment would frighten people. This shows the need for better communication across all parties, including Health Canada."

The comments from Chief Evans is interesting since he wasn't sounding so concilatory last month: 

"It's frightening our people. It's frightening me as leader. It's frightening me as a grandfather, father, and that's not what we want," said Grand Chief Ron Evans. "[Health Canada officials] have to understand that. We care for our people, love our families, children, grandchildren, and we want to make sure when a pandemic hits, there's medicine for them and people to look after them."

More from Jonathan Kay and Dust My Broom.

Messrs. Steyn & Levant Go To Ottawa

A fascinating day on Parliament Hill, as the Commons Justice Committee held hearings on Section 13 of the federal human rights legislation. As part of today's proceedings, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were invited to testify.

 

The National Post reports: 

Two free-speech crusaders appealed to a parliamentary committee on Monday to do its part to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its power to investigate complaints of online hate, alleging that it is bad law that has been "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation."

Blogger Ezra Levant and author Mark Steyn contend that if anyone in Canada should have the power to investigate online speech, it should be police - not human rights employees who have behaved like out-of-control thought police.

"I call on this Parliament to assert its oversight role and compel a full inquiry into the commission," said Steyn, who was the target of a hate speech complaint by Muslims two years ago for an excerpt published in Maclean's magazine from his book, America Alone.

The House of Commons justice committee is studying whether Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed in light of persistent complaints that the commission's powers to probe Internet postings that are "likely to expose"a complainant to hate are too broad.

You can view the opening statements of both gentlemen below:

 

 

 

 

You can view the rest of the hearings here, here, here, here, and here.

 

I think it's encouraging that this issue is receiving this sort of attention, but I'm still not convinced there's an appetite in Ottawa to take the bolds steps needed on this file.

 

In the meantime, with word that the CHRC is going to challenge the recent Lemire ruling, this is likely to drag on before the courts for some time. That's not to say that we won't get the proper conclusion to all of this via the courts, but some political leadership could resolve things much more promptly (and cheaply).

 

More coverage from Maclean's magazine and I'd highly encourage you to read Mark Steyn's latest piece in Maclean's.

 

Also, more from Kathy Shaidle, BCF, and Jay Currie.

Herald Column: Happy Blasphemy Day

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at a pair of stories from recent days and how they relate to International Blasphemy Day: 

...Whether its cartoons, books, newspaper editorials, or elephant statues, it seems to take very little these days to rile up the religiously hypersensitive.

 

In some cases, such tweaking is very much deliberate. Other times, though, the offence is entirely unintended.

 

This very newspaper is a testament to the perils of running afoul of certain sensibilities. Last week, the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against the Herald over an April 2002 editorial deemed to have been offensive to Muslims.

 

Last week also bore witness to one of the strangest examples of religious grievance one will ever encounter. The statue welcoming visitors to the Calgary Zoo's elephant exhibit has drawn the wrath of Concerned Christians Canada (CCC).

 

The issue here seems to surround the depiction of the Hindu god Ganesh, which has not produced any noticeable negative reaction from any Hindu anywhere.

 

Those offended would seem to be solely of the Christian variety; those who apparently believe their own religion holds some special elevated status in Canada.

 

The letter sent by the CCC condemns the display of a "foreign god," and also makes reference to what it perceives to be the fundamentalist views of our nation's founding fathers.

 

The letter also complains of "religious indoctrination" and bemoans the public display of religion. This is the same group, mind you, which proudly boasts that it lobbies all three levels of government for "Christian values." In other words, religious indoctrination for me, not for thee.

 

Let us first establish here that no "religious indoctrination" whatsoever is occurring at the zoo.

 

Of course, the vast majority of zoo visitors probably know little or nothing of Ganesh--an unfamiliarity that will survive even prolonged statue exposure, as no reference to any religion or god is to be found. To most observers, the statue is that of a cheery anthropomorphized elephant--with some Asian flavour.

 

And that's the point: these are Asian elephants on display, so this sort of cultural reference is entirely logical and not at all controversial.

 

Since removing the statue is not an option, there is the CCC's plan 'B'. The group would like to see a Noah's Ark display at the Calgary Zoo, although it's unclear to me why Christians are so eager to tout this story.

 

If you're looking to promote your religion, the story of how your god ruthlessly murdered (by drowning, no less) all but Noah's household of the Earth's inhabitants might not be your first choice.

 

But, if the Calgary Zoo wishes to make amends by adding such an exhibit, might I suggest it be located near the new Koala exhibit.

 

After all, I'm sure visitors might be curious as to how such an inactive animal with such a specific diet would have journeyed all the way from Australia to Mount Ararat. Or, how Noah managed to round them up in the first place.

 

Fortunately, no such exhibit is in the offing and the CCC's outrage has been met with derision, even from other Christians.

 

The lesson here, though, is that the cries of offence from religious special interest groups usually mask another agenda. The solution to addressing these grievances invariably involves a course of action that elevates religious beliefs or shields them from criticism --a de facto blasphemy law.

 

It is no coincidence that where blasphemy laws are most vigorously enforced, freedom of speech and religion are minimal or nonexistent.

More Vaccine Hysteria

My editorial comment from today: 

Some mixed news this week on the flu vaccine front. The good news is that we seem to be on track for a mid-November availability of an H1N1 vaccine. There is also good news about the vaccine itself: the U-S National Institutes of Health says in clinical trials the vaccine acts just like the seasonal flu vaccine. That means kids over 10 will need only a single shot. One Canadian expert says our own vaccine might be even better because it contains a boosting additive. The bad news is the pending availability of the vaccine has given a new platform to the anti-vaccine movement. A news article this week suggests the H1N1 vaccine has "given a new life to the ongoing debate about whether vaccines cause autism". The fact is, there is no legitimate debate, because the evidence shows overwhelmingly that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet the same people claiming a link exists are now, it seems, the same ones spreading fear over the H1N1 vaccine We should demand evidence supporting the eiffcacy of any medical treatment, including vaccines and including this one in partcular. As Canada's chief public health officer says - get the facts. As the track record would indicate, facts are not a prominent feature of the anti-vaccine movement. We in the media should also be cautious about who we seek out to help bring you those facts.

You can read more here on the clinical trials of the vaccine. More in this story on the benefits of flu shots.

 

 This is the story I was referencing in the editorial: 

The much-anticipated H1N1 vaccine has given new life to an ongoing debate about whether vaccinations in children can cause autism, a discussion that will likely heat up as Canada and other countries move closer to releasing the new vaccine.

From one side of the debate come assurances that vaccines are safe and there is no conclusive link to autism; from the other, warnings that there is a relationship and parents should think twice about giving shots to their children.

Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, has repeatedly sid that vaccines have a long history of being safe and effective.

 

It's a rather strange story, since the vaccines-cause-autism crowd are usually referring to the MMR vaccine, not the flu vaccine, so it's unclear as to why this story is drawing a link.

 

More at this blog here, here, and here on the evidence against vaccines causing autism. There's also some new research out of the UK reinforcing the point.

 

As for the H1N1 vaccine, it's obviously a new vaccine, so as I mention above there is a need for vigilance. The fearmongering, though, has begun in earnest. For more on that see here, here, here, and here.

 

UPDATE: A great piece on vaccine courtesy of Dr. Harriet Hall: 

Some people just plain hate the idea of vaccines — to the point that they are willing to spread old falsehoods, make up new lies, distort the results of studies, misrepresent statistics, and endanger our public health. There are websites like “Operation Fax to Stop the Vax” and even anti-swine-flu-vaccine rap videos. Press releases, e-mail campaigns, talk shows, and blogs are being used to stir up irrational fears. These people are irresponsible fearmongers. They are wrong, and they are dangerous.

 Read the whole thing.

Herald Column: The Good, The MADD, and the Ugly

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the response from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to some recent stories, and what it tells us about the organization:  

...It is a long-standing criticism of MADD that it is as much an anti-drinking organization as it is an anti-drunk-driving organization. That would include founder Candy Lightner who has described MADD as "neoprohibitionist".

 

As much as MADD rejects the insinuation, it seems intent on acting as though it were a firmly established fact.

 

The MADD we should want MADD to be was front and centre last week in the debate over whether dangerous offender status should be pronounced upon a repeat drunk driver in Quebec.

 

Roger Walsh's 19th drunk driving conviction was for a crash that claimed the life of a 47-year old woman.

 

MADD helped ensure that Canadians were aware of the case, and was quick to voice its outrage when the judge rejected the dangerous offender label.

 

The existence of offenders like Walsh and the seeming inability of the system to keep them off Canadian roads would certainly indicate that this fight is far from over.

 

But the sort of fight MADD seems intent on fighting is one which embodies the pro-temperance caricature painted by its critics. Aside from the high-profile Walsh case, MADD's familiar acronym was spotted last week in news coverage here in Alberta in a story which had nothing to do with impaired driving.

 

An Edmonton nightclub has been offering university students $20 in cash if they arrive early on Thursday nights. Those who qualify get $10 when they arrive and $10 after 12:30 a. m.--and they're free to use that money toward cab or bus fare.

 

Nonetheless, MADD is among those condemning the bar, calling the promotion "stupid" and "irresponsible." All of this could have been avoided if we'd left bars free to set their own prices--and their own hours, for that matter. It is hardly an act of evil to help a thirsty university student save a few dollars.

 

If an adult is not driving, how much he spends on alcohol or how late he stays out is of no concern to an organization ostensibly dedicated to fighting impaired driving.

 

Other recent stories have exposed MADD's neoprohibitionist side:

- MADD strongly supported Alberta's minimum prices and happy hour ban. MADD has also called on Alberta to raise its legal drinking age.

 

- In June, MADD Canada reiterated its strong support for government monopoly on alcohol sales.

 

- The head of MADD's Delaware chapter criticized the White House for hosting a "beer summit" last month between U. S. President Barack Obama, Harvard professor Henry Gates, and police officer James Crowley.

 

- The New Jersey chapter of MADD has condemned a brewery for naming beers after turnpike exits.

 

- MADD slammed AMTRAK for offering $100 in free drinks for overnight train passengers: people who clearly aren't driving anywhere.

 

(...)

 

Going after responsible drinkers is not going to make our roads any safer and it risks eroding the credibility and reputation MADD has worked so hard to build.

 

Roger Walsh is the enemy --not happy hour.

Herald Column: The Stories Criminals (Want To) Tell

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the debate surrounding Colin Thatcher's new book, and whether the law can and should prevent convicted criminals from signing books deals or somehow profiting from their notoriety: 

...Nonetheless, the book's pending release has reopened the debate over whether the legal system can be used to prevent convicted criminals from cashing in on their notoriety.

 

In a broad sense, it is virtually impossible --Thatcher is out of prison and free to earn a living, and one could argue that any future income is linked to his profile.

 

Of course, it would be much easier to prevent convicted murderers from cashing in on their infamy if we only kept them behind bars. Perhaps the legislative tools of the state would be better geared toward preventing those convicted of first-degree murder from ever leaving prison.

 

Since that horse has already left the proverbial barn, the Saskatchewan government is going after Thatcher's finances--specifically his book deal with ECW Press.

 

That province followed the lead of other jurisdictions, including Alberta, in introducing--and rushing through--the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act.

 

The legislation forbids "any money earned through the recounting of a crime" --Thatcher's publisher maintains that the book does not recount the crime and is therefore outside the realm of this law.

 

(...)

 

While society is rightly abhorred at the prospect of violent criminals profiting from their crimes --imagine cop-killer Albert Foulston (who is, shockingly, about to be released) signing such a deal--these sorts of laws may end up casting too wide a net.

 

Fortunately, there are not too many examples of this --perhaps the decency of Canadians (and the backlash from running afoul of it) is enough of a safeguard.

 

Although, if a remorseful criminal is trying to help keep young people from making the same mistakes --would compensation for that re-telling be such a bad thing?

 

Or what if the technicality of a conviction masks a deeper societal issue? I think Canadians will be eager to hear at some point from Robert Latimer. Should this law apply to him?

 

Another example may be Alberta rancher Brian Knight, who's facing some serious charges after he chased and shot a thief. Many have rallied to his cause, and the case has generated much discussion about self-defence and protecting one's property. A conviction and jail term would only intensify that discussion and prompt more interest in a post-conviction re-telling of the story.  

We did a segment about this case last week as we spoke with the publisher of ECW Press and a spokesman for a victims' rights group. You can access that segment at our podcast page or by clicking here (MP3).

 

UPDATE: The National Post's Kevin Libin has a fascinating piece on the many issues surrounding Thatcher's conviction and the evidence in the case.

Herald Column: Bailouts for Big Festival?

Further to some of the issues explored here and here, this week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly explores the recent controversies surrounding Ottawa's Marquee Tourism Events Program and the strange rationale for subsizing large festivals: 

...Well, meet the new logic: You see, events with mass commercial appeal serve some broader economic purpose and therefore it is in the greater public interest to ensure their survival.

The old logic, of course, has spawned a host of government grants, regulations and programs. The new logic has brought us something called the Marquee Tourism Events Program (MTEP), which is the vehicle for delivering $100 million to events which, frankly, don't seem to need it.

MTEP recently burst into the national discourse following word that Toronto's Gay Pride Parade had received $400,000. Socially conservative groups raised a ruckus over the grant, clearly due to the nature of the event, but ostensibly because of such use of taxpayer dollars in lean economic times.

Mind you, the parade itself was hardly contingent on Ottawa's generosity. In fact, it was a fine example of the illogic of the New Logic: the parade is a fabulously successful event which draws hundreds of thousands of people every year.

If those troubled over the funding of a gay pride festival in Toronto are legitimately motivated by prudent use of taxpayer dollars, then it hardly begins and ends with the flamboyant men of Yonge Street.

I dare say that if one were tasked with compiling a list of events not in need of a federal bailout it might look a lot like MTEP's list of recipients: events like Montreal's Just for Laughs Festival and even our own Calgary Stampede.

Yes, the recession may be keeping more people away from these events. However, it's hard to see how giving money to the event itself makes it any easier for people to attend it.

If such spending decisions are motivated by an unease over the state of the economy, it's easier to see how frivolous government spending could compound that unease.

(...)

I can't conceive an economic reality that would justify such a cavalier use of taxpayers' dollars, but I'm quite convinced that the current one isn't it.

The scope of any event should depend on the demand for it: The state shouldn't be trying to create a demand, nor should it try to artificially sustain it.

Calgary Herald Column: Boundaries Between Church & State

This week's Herald column from yours truly examines how some recent court cases help define the boundaries between church and state: 

...As we've now learned, there are clearly areas that are the state's purview, and areas that belong to organized religion.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has been most helpful in its ruling (divided, albeit) rejecting the claim from Alberta Hutterites that they are entitled to photo-free driver's licences. The complainants demanded an exemption from the photo requirement, claiming their religious beliefs prevent any "graven image," photos included.

 

The court rightly noted that highway driving is a privilege, not a right, and freedom of religion does not "indemnify practitioners against all costs incident to the practice of religion."

 

The ruling also notes the difficulty in both principle and practicality in tailoring "a law to every . . . sincerely held religious belief."

 

Just as one is free to not obtain a driver's license, one is also free to not be a marriage commissioner, if doing so conflicts with one's religious beliefs.

 

A decision last month in Saskatchewan strikes much the same tone as the nation's highest court.

 

A Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled against marriage commissioner Orville Nichols who argued that he should be exempt from marrying same sex couples because of his religious beliefs.

 

Well, no Christian church should be required to perform such a ceremony, but the law allows same-sex marriage, so public marriage commissioners should follow the law.

 

It would seem to me that the beliefs Nichols claims frown on same-sex marriage would also frown on marriages performed outside of a church or religious setting. Perhaps Nichols is in the wrong profession. In any case, no one is forcing him to remain in it.

 

But just as the religious should not be calling the shots in the public square, the state should not be calling the shots in the religious square.

 

The question of who does or does not work as a volunteer altar server in a Catholic church should not be of concern to anyone outside the Catholic church.

 

Not everyone agrees. A gay man has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission after he was asked by the Bishop of Peterborough to step down as altar server.

 

The decision may seem petty, but it ought to remain an internal matter. I'm sure any Catholic church would deny me the opportunity to serve in that position for the simple fact that I am not Catholic. If one follows the logic behind this complaint, I am being discriminated against on the basis of religion.

 

It would be absurd for me to make such a claim, and it would be equally absurd for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to stick its nose in this situation.

 

These are the same human rights commissions that seem totally disinterested in radical imams calling for gays to be "exterminated" and "beheaded," yet jump to action if a gay man is denied the opportunity to ring the altar bell.

 

Herald Column: Principle or Bruised Ego?

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at Guy Boutilier's turfing from the Tory caucus and what it represents: 

For all I know, he is motivated solely by concern for the residents of his riding and given the punishment meted out, it's hard to see this as a politician trying to advance his career. Frankly, Boutilier may be on solid ground, however forcefully he chooses to make his case. Clearly, he has widespread support in his riding.

And really, who am I, a talk show host and columnist, to question someone who went to Harvard-- with Barack Obama, no less. Well, not really with Obama per se, but they were there at the same time and may very well have passed each other in the hall at some point. I've never even visited Harvard and cannot say that I've ever been anywhere near Obama. Boutilier 2, me 0. (Although, I do find it odd that in the context of a discussion on long-term care in the Fort McMurray region, we would be confronted with information about Boutilier's alma mater and his former classmates. I would find myself much more sympathetic to Boutilier's plight had he not gone to such pains to remind us of his glorious CV.)

Yes, MLAs ought to stand up for their ridings and their constituents. Yes, politicians should be free to speak their minds. Yes, Premier Ed Stelmach appears both petty and ruthless in his handling of this matter.

But those touting the Boutilier-as-martyr narrative should consider the following question: Would Boutilier have so vocally championed this cause if he were a member of Stelmach's cabinet?

Further to that: Does Boutilier believe he ought to be in cabinet? The answer to the second question is quite obvious--plainly implied in the following quote, "If the premier doesn't want to have a guy who graduated from Harvard with Barack Obama, that's fine."

Not only does that reveal a desire to be a cabinet minister--as he once was --it also suggests Boutilier may have been a little more willing to bite his tongue if only such a post had been offered in the first place.

Furthermore, if Boutilier were premier, how would he have handled the
matter?

 

(...)

 

Perhaps this is all symptomatic of a deeper problem. What truly spurs people into seeking elected office in the first place? I suppose some ego must be a prerequisite if one is to thrive in the political arena, but the accumulation of such haughtiness can often make politics unbearable.

None of this suggests Boutilier should shy away from standing up for what he thinks is right: It's crucial for democracy to have politicians voicing what's truly in their hearts.

It's depressing, though, that it so often takes bruised egos to provide the necessary motivation.

 

 

 

The rest here.

Was Diane Ablonczy Thrown Under a Bus?

I've always had a lot of respect for Diane Ablonczy. She's a hard-working MP and, at least in my dealings with her,  has always been very accessible and straightforward.

 

So I find it concerning that she's apparently been rapped on the knuckles over funding for Toronto's Gay Pride Parade:

Controversy erupted Monday amid suggestions federal Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy was pulled from a key file weeks after granting $400,000 to Pride Week from the -Marquee Tourism Events Program.

The $100-million Marquee program was quietly moved to Industry Minister Tony Clement two weeks ago.

 

(...)
The $397,500 awarded to Pride was used to improve access for disabled people, infrastructure spending and to help bring artist Kelly Rowland to perform.

(...)

Saskatchewan Tory MP Brad Trost criticized the grant, telling a conservative website it was an "isolated decision" that did not sit well with a number of Tories. He also hinted Ablonczy was yanked from the file as a result.

Clement's office insists the move was not due to the grant.

And the director of another of Canada's premier gay and lesbian festivals said yesterday she has received even more support since the Tories took power.

UPDATE: Trost has more to say.

 

Maclean's magazine's Kady O'Malley joined us to discuss this controversy - you can listen to that interview via the player at right and read more of her coverage here.

 

Meanwhile, rather than address the matter head-on, the government is deflecting: 

The federal cabinet minister now responsible for giving Pride Week any new money said the government is reviewing the program to see what "value for money" it gives taxpayers.

Industry Minister Tony Clement told reporters that it's "appropriate" to review the Marquee Tourism Events Program after its first year, a review he suggested had nothing to do with its controversial sponsorship of Toronto's gay pride parade.

 

 

Well, that's all well and good, but it a) does not address whether Ablonczy was indeed admonished, and b) is all after the fact: the millions have already been spent. If the government wants to have a discussion about whether we need funds like this is the first place, then great. If the government believes that we should fund tourism events, but just not gay ones, then they should stand up and say so.

 

Yes, there may be nudity in the Toronto gay pride parade, but there's likely much nudity to be encountered at the Toronto International Film Festival, which received millions from this tourism fund. In fact, as David Akin details, there are several gay events which have received funding from this government.

 

Governments are not obligated to fiund every event under the sun. It can be a slippery slope, however, when governments are empowered to revoke funding for "offensive" events. "Offensive", of course, is in the eye of the beholder - a Liberal or NDP government might have a very different view of what's "offensive" and the social conservatives demanding such an approach of this government are being rather short-sighted.

 

Former MP Monte Solberg sums it up well: 

So you can either scrap all grants for all parades, or you can fund the thing like you always have and devote your efforts to fixing the three or four other things that really do make a difference, none of which involves parades, costumes and nudity.

My ideal is to let everyone raise their own money to hold their parades and the police can be there to make sure that most of the people, keep on most of their clothes most of the time. That's never been a problem at the Rodeo Day parade in my town but then again it's usually cold in Alberta at the beginning of June.

Whatever. The bottomline is that after all the years Diane has contributed to building the conservative movement in Canada she deserves better then to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complete loser for the party.

Herald Column: Protecting Bountiful's Children

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly offers a suggestion to politicians eager to show their resolve in protecting children from sexual predators: apply our existing laws: 

Promising to get tough on hypothetical future offenders provides no excuse for inaction on current ones.

 

An affidavit filed last week in B. C. Supreme Court would seem to confirm that indeed we have failed to act. The Criminal Code is quite clear on the parameters of sexual exploitation, yet clear violations of the law are spelled out in a court document merely for informational purposes.

 

The affidavit contains information regarding Winston Blackmore, who, along with James Oler, has been charged with polygamy. The two men are leaders in the fundamentalist polygamous cult based in Bountiful, B. C.

 

The affidavit informs us that of the 25 wives taken by Blackmore, nine of them were under age; of those, four were just 15 when they married the much older Blackmore. In fact, one of those 15-year old brides gave birth to a child the following year, which should provide even further proof of the sexual nature of the relationships.

 

There may be solace in that these men could be jailed anyway -- a polygamy conviction brings with it a potential five-year sentence.

 

It is a charge, however, that makes no pretence of protecting children: it makes no distinction between a 15-year-old girl and a 35-year-old woman. Whether we need laws to protect consenting adults from one another is debatable, but it is most egregious that our top priority in this instance is not the children of Bountiful.

 

The problem is clearly not the law itself. Just recently we saw a Calgary teacher plead guilty to a charge of sexual exploitation over a relationship with a student that turned sexual when the girl was 15.

 

We will find out later this month just how long Blaine Harrison will spend in jail for his crime, but it is a glaring blight on the system that one man will be sent to jail for a crime being flagrantly committed elsewhere in this very country.

Happy Canada Day, CAF Style

UPDATED & BUMPED: Damage control: 

The Canadian Arab Federation moved to distance itself from one of its own executives who resigned yesterday after he apparently posted "F--- Canada Day" on his Facebook page, called Canada a "genocidal state," and said he "couldn't be more ashamed to be Canadian."

The tirade on Omar Shaban's profile stirred up a firestorm of controversy and put CAF leaders in damage-control mode as they were quick to condemn the posting on the social networking site.

Just after 8:30 last night, Shaban, 23, resigned his post as the CAF's executive vice-president for Western Canada, CAF national president Khaled Mouammar confirmed.

"There was a big outcry from our member organizations and it was felt that he had to correct that," Mouammar said. "He decided that the best thing for him to do was to resign."

 

Here's the CAF's news release (PDF). More coverage from BCF here. UPDATE: The Calgary Herald weighs in, too

 

 

ORIGINAL POST: The Canadian Arab Federation describes itself as being committed to: 

1. The protection of civil liberties and the equality of human rights;
2. Combating racism and hate in all of its forms;
3. Working with all politicians and all levels of government on issues of importance to Canadian Arabs to promote community empowerment through civic participation;
4. Assuring the accurate representation of Arabs in the media, and in all areas of civil society;
5. A strong, vibrant multicultural Canada.

 

They seem to have left off #6 - insulting and denegrating Canadians: 

As the rest of Canada celebrates the nation’s 142nd birthday today, a Vice President of the Canadian Arab Federation has labelled the country a “genocidal state” and the described its national day as “F**k Canada Day.”

Omar Shaban, who lives in Vancouver, BC made these comments on his Facebook page, declaring, “It’s finally Canada Day ... Couldn't be more ashamed to be Canadian.”

Yesterday, the Facebook status of the CAF vice president welcomed July 1, 2009 with the slogan, “Happy Genocide Day Canada.”

 

Thanks to Tarek Fatah for catching this. Let's not forget, there was an actual controversy over whether the federal government should give taxpayer dollars to this organization. I would certainly hope that discussion is now closed.

 

I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised by this, given all the reasons I've had to write about the Canadian Arab Federation. But this is truly shameful.

 

UPDATE: Barbara Kay weighs in.

Herald Column: Events Prove Embarrassing For Tories

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at a pair of events last week which expose the Alberta government's rhetoric on Bill 44:

 

In the recent debate over Alberta’s Bill 44, the government’s sales pitch often appeared contrived and haphazard.

Last week, two completely unrelated events would seem to have confirmed the emptiness of the government’s line of defence.

I refer not to the non-existent defence of the decision to leave untouched the censorship clause of the human rights legislation, but rather the arguments put forth to buttress the case for a parental opt-out clause in education.

Specifically, we saw the government hastily claim for itself the mantle of the Great Defender of Parental Rights in order to sell the opt-out clause.

It seemed an odd mantle to don, given that there was little clamour for such a defender and that the government itself had given no indication it was inclined to position itself thusly.

In defending the need to enshrine the opt-out clause into the human rights legislation the argument boiled down to this: parents will always act in the best interests of their children and the state has no business overruling them.

Further to that was the contention that the government was keenly interested in what was and what wasn’t being taught in Alberta schools, and that curriculum would not be affected negatively by Bill 44.

As to the latter, a national report released last week on the teaching of Canadian history proved to be rather embarrassing for Alberta, and certainly exposed any pretense the government had of standing up for education.

The Dominion Institute’s report card surveyed all provinces on how well they are teaching Canadian history – Alberta shamefully scored an ‘F’.

This is a blight that lands solely in the lap of the Alberta government, and while we’ve all been distracted by the question of whether schools should acknowledge the existence of homosexuals, we’re missing some much bigger questions.

This would also seem to confirm one of the fears of Bill 44: that rather than parents opting their kids out of certain subjects, the subjects themselves will be watered-down so as to avoid any controversy in the first place.

That may explain why Canadian history has been slowly disappearing from schools: it can be awfully politically incorrect and so rather than risk offending anyone maybe it’s just safer to minimize the exposure.

We recently saw a school in New Brunswick drop O Canada for apparently that very reason.

Sometimes the curriculum has to be the curriculum; wishy-washy sensibilities be damned.

As to the broader point surrounding parental rights, the controversy surrounding Finance Minister Iris Evans proved to be quite illustrative.

Evans opined that it is in the best interests of children for one parent to stay home, that “when you’re raising children you don’t both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise”.

Granted, the Minister was speaking for herself, but her comments on parenting were certainly embraced by social conservatives – no doubt including those social conservatives in caucus who had pushed for Bill 44’s opt-out clause.

But suddenly we’ve gone from “parents always know best and the state should butt out” to “parents don’t always know best and the state should butt in”.

I think in fairness to Evans – and those defending her position – it probably is best for kids to be raised by one at-home parent, but as everyone has acknowledged through this kerfuffle, that’s not realistic for many families.

But if Evans meant to imply that sometimes parents make selfish choices rather than decisions that are in the best interests of their children, then sadly she’s probably right.

That’s not “parent bashing” – a term we heard during the Bill 44 debate – that’s a tragic reality.

Whether it’s career-related or something more derivative of a fundamentalist religious agenda, the fact is that parents don’t always act in the best interest of their children. While state interference is not usually an advisable response, we should avoid pandering to such instincts.

Unfortunately, pandering turned out to be an undeclared but key ingredient of the government’s Bill 44 strategy.

If the Alberta government is truly interested in protecting parental choice and protecting education there are clearly ways in which that desire could be demonstrated.

Hollow rhetoric doesn’t cut it.