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.