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.