Herald Column: Alberta's Changing Healthcare Debate

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at Alberta's evolving debate over healthcare, and what the latest polls tell us:

 

Alberta's ruling Tories have survived more than one political controversy over health care, but there are signs that they may not be so fortunate this time around.

What was supposed to be a quiet fall session of the legislature turned into a disaster for the Stelmach government as the issue of ER wait times morphed from a political liability into a full-blown political crisis.

 

A new Environics poll shows that health care has now become the top concern for Albertans.
The end of the session is unlikely to result in any sort of respite for the government. A separate poll released last week put Premier Stelmach's job approval rating at just 21 per cent. The poll, though, was taken between Nov. 8 and 15 -- right before this crisis exploded.
Mind you, wait times are by no means a problem exclusive to Alberta. As a report released Monday by the Fraser Institute shows us, it is a problem endemic to the Canadian health-care system.
The report finds that Canadians face an average wait time of just over 18 weeks for surgical treatment, an increase from last year. In Alberta, the average wait time is 22.1 weeks -- up from 19.6 in 2009.
It certainly exposes the myth that our system is the envy of the world. In reality, the world seems to be noticing how badly our system needs reforming.
A recent report from the OECD warns that "reforms are needed to contain expenditure pressures" on the Canadian system, and recommends specifically easing our regulations on mixed public-private contracts for doctors and on private insurance for core services.
Those reforms sound a lot like the sort of ideas discussed in an Alberta Health Services (AHS) document obtained by the Alberta Liberals and released with much fanfare early last week.
Liberal Leader David Swann called the document a "smoking gun" -- proof positive that the Stelmach government plans on dismantling public health care.
It is ridiculous, though, to suggest that this document, even if it were to ever be acted upon, would mean the end of public health care. In fact, it speaks specifically to a commitment to maintain and improve the public system.
Of course, rather than discuss the merits of the ideas in the document or acknowledge the OECD report and the realities in other OECD countries, the very old and tired American bogeyman still haunts our debate.
In a one-page letter to Premier Stelmach last week, Swann mentioned the U.S. no fewer than three times.
I suppose it's easier to rally your political base by speaking of "(moving) Alberta toward two-tier, U.S.-style health care" and "the kind of for-profit system that has created so much misery in the United States."
But as outgoing Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin recently noted, when it comes to access to quality care and containment of costs, 17 of the 20 top health-care systems are in Europe. Canada is not in the top 20.
What makes this health-care crisis different for the ruling Tories is the double-edged sort of now having a real political challenger and the fact that Albertans may indeed be willing to embrace a new approach to health care.
In that same Environics poll showing that health care is now the top concern, it shows the only party with any momentum also happens to be the only party talking frankly about the need for reform: the Wildrose Alliance.
The Wildrose Alliance has now pulled into a virtual tie with the Tories, while the Alberta Liberals and their alarmism over "U. S.-style health care" have actually slipped four points.
The leaked AHS document speaks of a need to make decisions "based on evidence." That sounds a lot like the aforementioned Dr. Martin, who has called on politicians at all levels to start "talking about the facts and to bury the ideology."
Ideology, however, still dominates. Not the nonexistent ideology of the government, but rather the ideology that denounces, demonizes and demagogues anyone who proposes even modest reforms to our ailing status quo.
There are encouraging signs, however, that Albertans are no longer buying it.

 

That's the Way the Cookie Crumbles...

Duckett's done:

 

Alberta's top health bureaucrat is leaving his position after rebuffing reporters at an emergency meeting on long ER wait times by telling them he was eating a cookie.
After more than a day of discussions, CEO Stephen Duckett and Alberta Health Services agreed to part ways.
Long emergency room waits have drawn growing criticism and sparked an outburst last week from an Edmonton member of the legislature that led to his suspension from the Tory government caucus.
In making the announcement, board chair Ken Hughes said the so called "cookie-gate" incident contributed to the decision.
Chris Eagle, currently a vice president with Alberta Health Services, is taking over as acting CEO.

Meanwhile, my editorial comment from today's addresses the potential firing of Stephen Duckett (it was written before the decision officially came down):

By the time you hear this editorial, the decision may have already been made to fire Alberta Health Services CEO Stephen Duckett.
As of late Tuesday evening, the writing seemed to be on the wall that his days as the province's top health bureaucrat were numbered.
Premier Stelmach addressed the media Tuesday and offered nothing in the way of public support for Duckett.
Stelmach referred to Duckett's now-infamous cookie comments as "offensive", but said any decision regarding Duckett's future would have to be made by the AHS board.
Although, if the government thought Duckett was doing a great job and needed to stay on, I doubt they'd stand by and let the board fire him.
So Duckett may well end up getting tossed overboard, and perhaps not undeservedly given how things have transpired under his watch.
Although, while Duckett certainly needs to be held accountable for his decisions, so, too does the government.
For one, it was the government which hired Duckett in the first place. Furthermore, it was the government which designed the system Duckett was hired to run.
What's to say the next CEO will fare any better?
At the end of the day, it's the government which is responsible for the health care system. Duckett may have much to answer for, but that shouldn't make him a scapegoat for the government.
Not only that, but in the midst of a serious situation facing Alberta hospitals, we may be on the verge of embarking on a search for someone new to oversee this massive bureacracy.
The timing is problematic to say the least.

 

Herald Column: Much of What We Fear is Not Scary at All

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at some recent stories concerning alleged health risks, and what the scientific evidence and scientific consensus tells us:

 

....How can Canadians ensure that the responses to these issues are based on conclusive scientific evidence, as opposed to the urgings of overzealous advocacy groups, or worse, the rantings of charlatans and conspiracy theorists?
Take, for example, Canada's recent decision to add BPA to the list of toxic substances.
Recent assessments by both the European Food Safety Agency and equivalent agency for Australia and New Zealand reached the same conclusions: that the scientific evidence speaks to BPA's safety.
Furthermore, an international panel of experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that the evidence for BPA's alleged health risks is weak, and that it would be premature to ban BPA.
The panel reviewed the most current scientific literature, and found that "BPA is not accumulated in the body and is rapidly eliminated through urine."
There is, at least in this case, some reasonable disagreement, and certainly a need for further research. But it would seem safe to conclude that Canadians have been exposed to far more negative stories about BPA than stories on its safety. And a corresponding course of action by policy-makers has resulted.
Is there a connection between alarmist media coverage and public perception? Undoubtedly.
The problem may lie with us. A recent study from the University of California at Santa Barbara found that the advice and opinions of scientific experts is often ignored or rejected. The experts who are more trusted tend to be those presenting scary scenarios.
Maybe the news media, then, is only giving us what we want. If the mainstream media isn't going to frighten us, there's no shortage of websites that will.
You don't have to look far to find websites touting all sorts of horrible effects of water fluoridation. These conspiracy theories have been sufficiently main-streamed that anti-fluoridation forces have scored some victories, included a decision last week in Waterloo, Ont., to stop fluoridation.
The reality, though, is that the evidence overwhelmingly confirms fluoridation's safety. According to Health Canada, "evidence from all currently available studies does not support a link between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and any adverse health effects."
The Canadian Dental Association concurs: "Scientific studies have not found any credible link between water fluoridation and adverse health effects."
In fairness, much of the coverage surrounding this issue seems cognizant of this.
Why, then, does another scientific consensus seem absent in the coverage of the alleged risks of cellphones and Wi-Fi?
The Ontario NDP is pushing for government-mandated labels for cellphones warning of an alleged cancer risk. One Ontario school has banned Wi-Fi, and other schools across the country are being pressured to do so, too. In Ottawa, a Commons committee has been investigating radio-frequency radiation and its possible health effects.
Again, though, the evidence here is quite overwhelming. For example, in the U.K., the Health Protection Agency recently concluded that a year's worth of Wi-Fi exposure was equivalent to talking on a cellphone for 20 minutes.
More broadly speaking, the WHO says "no adverse health effects are expected from exposure" to wireless networks.
As for cellphones and cancer, the evidence is similarly one-sided.
As summarized by the WHO: "Recent epidemiological studies have found no convincing evidence of an increased cancer risk or any other disease with mobile phone use."
Indeed. A recent 30-year epidemiological study found that cellphone use is not associated with increases in brain cancer. A 2008 metaanalysis found "no overall increased risk of brain tumours."
And on it goes.
There are legitimate concerns to human health we need to focus on, and we need to rely on the scientific process and scientific evidence to guide us accordingly.
Yet, from the anti-vaccine movement to homeopaths and "alternative medicine," we so often are confronted by those going against the preponderance of evidence.
Perhaps, then, it is fear-mongering and pseudoscience we need to be more concerned about.

 

Cookie-Gate

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Stephen Duckett is no longer AHS CEO. More here...

 

The CEO of Alberta Health Services sure likes his cookies:

 

 

After the ensuing firestorm, Stephen Duckett decided to apologize:

 

The chief executive of Alberta Health Services apologized Saturday for his cookie comments as critics renewed calls for his dismissal.

(...)

 

Duckett apologized on his blog and in a written statement on Saturday.
His repeated cookie remarks followed a daylong meeting of about 100 medical leaders from Alberta Health Services pulled together to draft remedies to the emergency care crisis.
"The meeting made great progress," Duckett wrote on his blog. "That success has to some extent been overshadowed by my poor responses to the media afterwards, which I deeply regret and for which I apologize unreservedly."

UPDATE: My Monday editorial comment addresses this subject:

 

The problems plaguing Alberta's emergency rooms are no laughing matter, but the story has taken a very bizarre twist.

Of all the words one might associate with this controversy, "cookie" might be near the bottom of the list.
Unfortunately, though, the word "cookie" has become very relevant in this discussion, and may perhaps come to symbolize the way politicians and bureaucrats are responding to it.
Last Friday morning, Alberta Health Services CEO Stephen Duckett presided over a meeting with health care stakeholders in which the ER crisis was discussed.
One would think that there would be important questions for Mr. Duckett following such a meeting. What's going to be done to fix the problems in the system? What about the crticism of Alberta Health Services this week from Tory MLA Dr. Raj Sherman?
Instead of answering the questions, or even replying with a "no comment", Duckett instead - with a grin on his face - that he was eating his cookie.
When one reporter pointed out that Albertans are interesting in hearing from the top health bureaucrat, Duckett responded by saying again, quote "I'm interested in eating my cookie".
At a time when Albertans are hearing about people dying and suffering after waiting hours upon hours in emergency rooms, it comes across as incredibly arrogant, not to mention indifferent.
Inevtiably it is the politicians who are accountable for all of this. They designed the system Duckett was hired to run - they are obviously the ones who hired him in the first place.
If there are problems at the health superboard then those are problems for the Stelmach government. Not surprising, then, that the Premier on Friday stated that he had not lost confidence in Alberta Health Services.
It's unclear whether the Premier was aware of the cookie remarks at the time. But Albertans now are, and many of them are losing confidence - if there was still any left to lose

UPDATE #2 Well let's see: Stephen Duckett made some newsworthy remarks. Raj Sherman made some newsworthy remarks. Which of the two has been punished?

 

Maverick MLA Dr. Raj Sherman was kicked out of Alberta’s Conservative caucus Monday but vowed to continue his fight to fix the province’s “broken” health-care system.
In a closed-door meeting that lasted more than two hours, Tory MLAs voted unanimously to suspend the outspoken doctor-turned-politician, who ignited a political firestorm last week when he publicly criticized his own government for its handling of the health-care crisis.
Sherman said he is disappointed but believes Albertans will stand behind him.
“I have to stick to my guns,” he said. “We cannot wait to fix the broken health-care system. ... I believe that it can be better, simply because it must be better, because the lives of our most vulnerable — our children, our parents, our grandparents — depend on it.”
Conservative caucus whip MLA Robin Campbell said the suspension is “indefinite” but that Sherman could rejoin the Tories if he makes unspecified amends.

UPDATE: Further thoughts from me (and others) on the Tuesday politics panel on Access TV's Alberta Primetime

Herald Column: Can (and Should) Libertarians & Social Conservatives Co-Exist?

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly draws a parallel between the libertarian-social conservative strain within the US Tea Party movement, and the potential of a similar strain within Alberta's Wildrose Alliance:

 

...The Tea Party was originally meant as a pushback against big government, but there’s an underlying strain between libertarians and social and religious conservatives. The challenge for any such movement is to try and hold those factions together, but still remain focused on a message of limited government.
There is political risk in allowing social and religious conservatives to become the face of any such movement – especially in Canada.
If one wishes to look at how a Tea Party movement might fare here, and whether such strains might arise, perhaps Alberta’s Wildrose Alliance can provide the answer.
The party has capitalized on a growing disenchantment with the ruling Progressive Conservatives– a belief that the government has lost its way, become disconnected from the people, and lost its conservatives principles –both fiscally and socially.
Until now, there has been little strain between these two factions. That is likely due to the potent combination of dissatisfaction with the current government and the strength of Danielle Smith, herself a professed libertarian, as leader.
Smith has managed to keep the focus on the fiscal issues which appeal to all factions: the government’s deficit and reckless spending, the government’s energy policies, and the government’s lack of appetite for real health reform.
Any threat of social issues threatening a fissure has been deftly handled by Smith’s commitment to free votes and direct democracy.
However, at some point, populism must give way to principle.
One example: the recent announcement that Alberta would join other jurisdictions in demanding that Craigslist remove their “erotic services” ads.
Now, a libertarian-inclined voter might wonder why the government is harassing a private company and potentially censoring legal content. For many social conservatives, however, it was one of those cases that the government was to be applauded.
So where does the Wildrose Alliance stand?
There’s an answer of sorts on the party’s website – a news release from Heather Forsyth calling on the government to do precisely what it ended up doing.
One might then conclude that this was the party’s stance on the matter. Not necessarily. Smith said of Ms. Forsyth, “She has good arguments for the issues she cares about. Sometimes we just agree to disagree as a caucus.”
So this is a case of an MLA freely speaking out? That’s a refreshing change in Alberta politics, but it doesn’t answer the question of how Premier Danielle Smith would have responded to the Craigslist matter.
Nor does it explain the joint news release from Heather Forsyth and Rob Anderson on the recent Ontario court ruling which struck down some of Canada’s prostitution laws. Under the headline of “Wildrose Statement on Ontario Court Prostitution Ruling”, the release urged Ottawa to promptly appeal the ruling.
Religious and social conservatives undoubtedly concur. However, a libertarian might see the issue as a matter between consenting adults, not to mention the many problems prohibition has wrought.
As for this news release, Smith said that “in (the) future, such statements will be made by individual MLAs”.  Again, one is left wondering how a Wildrose government would respond.
Other social issues loom. Just recently, Forsyth was speaking out against online gambling. As for Anderson, while still a Tory, he was a staunch defender of Bill 44. These matters do arise in Alberta politics.
In lieu of official Wildrose policy, it seems as though social conservatives in the party are filling the void.
In my view, Smith’s libertarian instincts are the correct ones, and hopefully that’s where Wildrose policy eventually lands.
A message of freedom, liberty, and smaller government is also a stronger basis for electoral success, and a libertarian approach to social issues is more in keeping with that message.
Any Canadian “Tea Party” would be wise to keep that in mind, too.

 

Editorial Comment: Your Cellphone is Not Trying to Kill You

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:12 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Monday's editorial comment:

It often seems to be left-wing politicians lecturing right-wing politicians about the importance of scientific evidence and the scientific consensus.

 

Unfortunately, it's politicians of all stripes who seem to fall prey to pseudoscience and fear-mongering.
Case in point: the Ontario NDP.
New Democrats in that province have failed in their attempts to force every cellphone sold in Ontario to have a warning label.
Specifically, they want consumers to be warned about an increased risk of cancer from cellphone use.
The problem for the New Democrats is that there would appear to be no such risk.
Of course, the Ontario New Democrats are not alone in cellphone cancer fearmongering. It's becoming a widespread perception.
If the media is going to continue to cover this controversy, perhaps there is an onus to at least report on what the science says.
For example, a 30-year epidemiological study published in the Journal of the Nationall Cancer Institute found that cellphone use is not associated with increases in brain cancer.
Another study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, followed more than 12,000 cell phone users from 13 countries. Again, the study found no increase in the risk of the most common types of brain tumors.
Neither of these major studies - both recently published - seem to have found their way into the news coverage of this story. On the other hand, it doesn't take much for the fear-mongers to get extensively quoted.
There are legitimate concerns to human health we need to focus on, and we need to rely on scientific evidence to determine what those are and how to respond. When we ignore the evidence, we are lost

 UPDATE: I've already linked to two major, peer-reviewed scientific studies on this matter, but I suppose something like this deserves even more.

 

Here, first of all, is an excellent analysis of the science from Dr. Michael Shermer in Scientific American:

 

...Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and thereby generate mutations that lead to cancer. Electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, television and radio signals, and AC power is too weak to break those bonds, so we don’t worry about radios, televisions, microwave ovens and power outlets causing cancer.
Where do cell phones fall on this spectrum? According to physicist Bernard Leikind in a technical article in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 15, No. 4), known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds. Green-light photons hold 240 kJ/mole of energy, which is enough to bend (but not break) the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas that trigger our photosensitive rod cells to fire. A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays and 240,000 times weaker than green light!
Even making the cell phone radiation more intense just means that there are more photons of that energy, not stronger photons. Cell phone photons cannot add up to become UV photons or have their effect any more than microwave or radio-wave photons can. In fact, if the bonds holding the key mole­cules of life together could be broken at the energy levels of cell phones, there would be no life at all because the various natural sources of energy from the environment would prevent such bonds from ever forming in the first place.

Here's more published research:

 

Cellular phone use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis (Kan P, Simonsen SE, Lyon JL, Kestle JR. Journal of Neuro Oncology)  "...We found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users"
 

Recent Studies Show Cell Phone Use Is Not Associated With Increased Cancer Risk (Journal of the National Cancer Institute) Another reassuring piece of evidence that cellular phones do not cause cancer appears in this issue of the Journal. Researchers evaluated whether a cohort of nearly half a million cellular phone subscribers in Denmark had a higher incidence of cancer than the general population, with a particular interest in leukemia and cancers of the brain and salivary gland. The answer was a resounding no. This article comes on the heels of two case–control studies reported in December by the American Health Foundation and the National Cancer Institute, both of which also found no association between cell phone use and the risk of brain tumors.

 
Mobile phone radiation and the risk of cancer; a review: "The preponderance of published research works over several decades including some with over ten years of follow up have not demonstrated any significant increase in cancer among mobile phone users"
 
A case-control study of risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use: "...This study suggests that use of mobile phones does not increase leukaemia risk"
 
Evaluation of carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF): "The balance of epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma"
 
Electromagnetic fields (EMF): do they play a role in children's environmental health (CEH)? "Preliminary results do not seem to indicate a substantial increase in risk. There are presently no scientific data supporting the concept of a special vulnerability of children and adolescents to high-frequency EMF, even if the usual caveats (developing organisms and structures may be more vulnerable, decades of life to come) are considered"


Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: a review: "...the available data do not suggest a causal association between mobile phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults"

Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma: "...In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users"

Mobile phones have not been found to be associated with any biological or adverse health effects , according to the UK's largest investigation into the possible health risks from mobile telephone technology.  The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme published its conclusions on September 12 as part of its 2007 Report. The six-year research programme, chaired by Professor Lawrie Challis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at The University of Nottingham, has found no association between short term mobile phone use and brain cancer. Studies on volunteers also showed no evidence that brain function was affected by mobile phone signals or the signals used by the emergency services (TETRA)

 

The Future of the Marijuana Debate

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:12 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Friday's editorial comment:

Proposition 19 may have failed in California, but it has succeeded in showing that the debate over marijuana prohibition is far from over.
In fact, it would seem more likely that it;s a question of when and not if legalization finally occurs.
Proposition 19 would have effectively legalized and regulated marijuana in California - however, the White House made it clear that it would still remain illegal under federal law.
On Tuesday, 53.9 percent of California voters rejected Proposition 19. However, the fact that it even got on the ballot in the first place shows how far along the debate has come in the United States.
It's impossible to imagine such a thing happening 25 years ago. With polls showing over 40 percent of Americans supporting legalization, it would indicate that this is not the beginning of the end for this issue, but rather the end of the beginning.
This is good news. Prohibtion has been a costly failure, and there is no logical reason why marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are not.
If the US is having this debate, it should make it safer for us to have this debate here, since one of the longstanding arguments was that the US would never tolerate us taking a more moderate approach on marijuana.

An Angus Reid poll earlier this year showed over 50 percent of Canadians support legalization. It's an idea whose time has come.

Meanwhile, further thoughts here on the Proposition 19 aftermath from Reason TV:

 

 

Politics Trumps Principle on Potash

Canada is open for business! Well, most of the time...

 

Ottawa has rejected a nearly US$40-billion takeover bid by BHP Billiton to buy PotashCorp.
Industry Minister Tony Clement made the decision after reviewing the blockbuster deal to see if it would be of ``net benefit'' to Canada under the Investment Canada Act.    He says the takeover offer would not benefit the country.
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan  is the world's biggest producer of potash, a key component used in fertilizer.
BHP has attempted to woo Saskatchewan, saying that it would make the province the headquarters of its global potash operations and ensure the provincial government coffers aren't hurt by the takeover.

We spoke with Maclean's magazine national editor Andrew Coyne about this decision - you can listen via the audio player at right. As you can tell from this column, Andrew has some strong views on the subject:

 

...Someone else, then, will have to make the real argument: that foreign investment—yes, even in mining—is a good thing, something to be encouraged, not punished, in the name of, among other things, Canadian ownership. One of the principal attributes of ownership, after all, is the right to sell. It seems an odd defence of our sovereignty that would deprive Canadians of that right.
Why would they want to sell? One, if the price offered is worth at least as much as the discounted stream of future returns they might otherwise expect to earn on the shares. And two, if there is some other use to which they can put the capital thus liberated that pays at least as high a return. So to forbid the sale is not only to deprive the Canadian owners of these firms from obtaining the best price for their shares, but to deprive other Canadian companies of the new investment they might otherwise hope to receive from the proceeds.
(...)
Well yes, you may say, but surely it’s sensible to attach some conditions to the sale. To what end? It isn’t just that such undertakings are routinely violated: it’s why they are that should give us pause. The jobs and investments that last, the kind we should want, are not the ones companies yield up grudgingly, under duress, but the ones they take on willingly, because they make sense on their own terms.
Indeed, the new owners’ ability to run the operation with fewer jobs rather than more ought to be a point in their favour. The prosperity we now enjoy did not come about because employers hired more workers than they needed, but because of their ruthless determination to hire as few as they could get away with—and because by and large governments have acquiesced in this. If instead they had insisted on protecting every existing job, we would still have 80 per cent of the workforce in agriculture, as we did a century ago.
We get that when it comes to domestic owners. Why should it be any different for foreigners?

For what it's worth, here's my own editorial comment on the matter:

 

Once again, unfortunately,  politics trumps priniciple, as Ottawa has has rejected a 40-billion-dollar takeover bid by BHP Billiton to buy Potash Corp.

 

Industry Minister Tony Clement made the decision after concluding that the takeover would not offer a, quote, "net benefit" to the country. But what does that even mean?

 

It seems abundantly clear that foreign investment is a net benefit to Canada, so it's plausible to wonder whether this decision might mean the precise opposite of whatever a net benefit might happen to be.

 

A recent study (PDF) from Jack Mintz at the U of C confirmed just how important foreign investment is to our economy.

 

As Mintz says, "Rather than being hollowed out, we are hollowing out other countries."
In other words, we are a major player in the global economy, to it is critically important that we stand up for free and open international trade.
 Of course, we like to talk a good game when it comes to global markets and international trade. We're quick to scold other countries who might be tempted to throw up protectionist barriers.
 Yet here we are doing the same. When folks get wrapped up in nationalism, it seems easy to forget our principles.
Fact is, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to reject this deal.  The Saskatchewan government owns the resource and would continue to own the resource.
And for all the nationalist arguments we;ve been hearing, it's worth noting that Potash Corp is 51% foreign-owned and its American CEO is based in Chicago.
We need to be sending a message to the world that we're open for business. Instead, Ottawa's decision sends a very confusing and potentially damaging signal to the rest of the world.
How disappointing.

More from Mintz here on why the Potash Corp deal should go ahead.

Editorial Comment: Hanson Misses the Point

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:12 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Friday's editorial comment:

Calgary's police chief has entered the fray in the debate over random breathalyzers.
However, in doing so, Rick Hanson has inadvertently shown why there is a real need for caution in potentially going down this path.
Alberta's justice minister recently indicated the provincial government would support the introduction of random breath tests, and yesterday on QR77, police chief Rick Hanson declared his support, as well.
Hanson claims too many drunk drivers get off on technicalities, and allowing officers to request a breathalyzers without the need for reasonable suspicion would prevent that.
What Hanson calls "technicalities", however, in many cases are legitimate questions. Police should have a reason for pulling people over, and if random breath testing also means police can stop people for no apparent reason, then that is cause for concern.
Essentially police would never have to justify pulling someone over if they could simply pull out a breathalyzer and use that as an excuse for stopping and detaining someone.
The concern raised by civil liberties organizations is that there needs to be check and balances when it comes to why and how people are being stopped by police.
There are all sorts of shortcuts we could enact into law that would make things easier for police officers, but we are on a slippery close if we simply disregard any concern for civil liberties.
Chief Hanson was on the right side on the liberty equation when he opposed the gun registry - other police chiefs were using basically the same argument to defend the registry that Hanson is using to justify random breathalyzers.
We should be concerned about giving police this power - Chief Hanson has shown us why.

UPDATE: More thoughts from me (in the form of a recent column on the subject) on why random breathalyzers are a bad idea:

It may not be too late to pull Ottawa back from the random breath test (RBT) abyss. While the government appears poised to introduce RBTs, one of several recommendations made last year by the Commons justice committee, they've first posted a discussion paper online and have sought feedback from Canadians.
While polls show support in principle for RBTs, hopefully Canadians will consider what this would mean in practice and will tell Ottawa to scrap the idea.
Canadians are clearly concerned about impaired driving, and supporters of RBTs maintain that allowing police to force citizens at random to provide a breath sample will help address the problem.
However, merely touting the effectiveness of a proposed police tool does not tell the whole story.
No doubt random, warrantless searches and phone taps would produce glowing crime-reduction statistics. Surely, though, no reasonable person would find that tolerable in a democratic society.
Consider, for example, random bag and locker searches at schools -- wouldn't that be effective in dealing with drugs and weapons? But the debate would have nothing to do with its effectiveness and everything to do with its intrusiveness.
Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled specifically against the random use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools. The court found that it violated Section 8 of the charter, which guarantees against unreasonable search or seizure.
The ruling also addressed the case of a man who was found with drugs in his bag at the Calgary Greyhound bus station. The court found police "did not have grounds for reasonable suspicion" when making use of a drug-sniffing dog. It's not hard to see how such a principle could apply to RBTs. Remember, this change would eliminate the requirement for reasonable suspicion.
But is the debate here merely one between the effectiveness of RBTs and their constitutional validity? Is the effectiveness of RBTs beyond question?
On the surface there would seem to be compelling evidence. However, it is evidence complicated by the fact that virtually all relevant jurisdictions have seen reductions in impaired driving over the last three decades.
In Alberta, for example, we saw a 10 per cent drop in impaired driving offences in 1993. That was followed in subsequent years by a 26 per cent drop, an 18.5 per cent drop, and a 6.5 per cent drop.
Those also happened to be the first few years of liquor privatization. Could we then credit the privatization of liquor sales for a reduction in impaired driving?
New Zealand is one of the countries which has implemented RBTs and is often cited by those who would import the policy here.
However, one study found that while it was expected the new law would mean an "immediate and obvious reduction in alcohol-related accidents," it was "clear that this did not happen." The reductions in 1993 -- the year the law was introduced -- were no different than reductions in 1991 or 1992.
Of course, one important distinction to note is that most other countries only allow RBTs within the confines of what we would call a checkstop.
Ottawa's proposal would allow police officers to ask anyone, anywhere, at anytime to submit to a breathalyzer test.
There are other means of combating impaired driving that do not entail giving police such an intrusive tool.
To its credit, the Commons committee has proposed some of them, including increased penalties for repeat and severely impaired offenders. They've also proposed creating a new indictable criminal negligence charge, and linking fines for a first impaired driving offence to blood-alcohol levels.
These proposals, coupled with an effective awareness campaign, could go a long way in making our streets safer.
It's unclear how effective random breath testing might be, but what is clear is that it could too easily be abused and that it represents the sort of unwarranted search from which the charter is to keep us protected from.

Also, see the concerns raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
UPDATE #2: The Calgary Herald editorial board comes out against random breathalyzers.

Calgary Herald Column: Politicians Should Stop Demonizing Craigslist

This week's Herald column from yours truly looks at how Canadian politicians are following the lead of their US counterparts in going after the website Craigslist:

 

...Last Friday, the Alberta government announced it was joining Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in demanding that Craigslist remove these ("erotic services") ads. However, just seven days previous, the Solicitor General was expressing skepticism about how effective such a campaign would be.
If the Alberta government's sudden zeal seems less than genuine, there's no doubting the enthusiasm of Wildrose Alliance MLA Heather Forsyth, who was "appalled" the Alberta government took so long to get on the bandwagon.
For an ostensibly libertarian-leaning party, it's disturbing to see Forsyth's moralistic impulses guiding policy in this area. No concern about the way a private company is being bullied and harassed by government? Not a peep about the potential censorship issues?
Forsyth claims that, "one only needs to go on Craigslist and look at these kids. There's no question looking at them they're under the age of 18."
Really? And what, exactly, did Forsyth do about it? In fact, if she saw such an ad and did not report it, then she was in clear violation of the Craigslist terms of use.
The reality is that the vast majority of these ads are not illegal and not of the variety that our politicians are now grandstanding about. There is no doubt, however, that there has been, and still are, illegal and improper ads appearing on Craigslist.
In August, for example, a West Vancouver man was charged after posting an ad seeking a sexual encounter with a school-age girl.
In recent years, Calgary police say they've made upwards of 30 such arrests, including some for ads featuring girls as young as 15. As a result, a number of young girls have been rescued.
All this underscores an important question in this debate: what is to be gained from shutting down these ads on Craigslist? Does the problem go away or is it merely pushed out of sight?
Dr. Danah Boyd is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and a research associate at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. She herself is a victim of violence, and has been active for years in working to end violence against women and children.
Surely if going after Craigslist were a means to that end, she would be supportive of it. However, as Dr. Boyd wrote recently, shutting down Craigslist, "achieves the absolute opposite" result. She urges us to think of Craigslist as a "public perch from which law enforcement can watch without being seen."
The visibility of a site like Craigslist makes us more aware of the problem and makes it easier to help victims, Boyd argues.
She's right. Since Craigslist shut down its "erotic services" ads in the U. S, other sites which still offer such ads have seen a major upsurge in traffic.
Rather than solve the problem, shuttering Craigslist merely scatters it -- to other websites, or more disturbingly, the streets.
As the recent ruling from Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel showed us, confining sex workers to the streets makes the profession demonstrably more dangerous.
In the process, the government would also be wrongly censoring those consenting adults seeking a sexual encounter, which suggests that the crusade against Craigslist springs, in part, from a puritanical revulsion to the mere existence of such ads. From there, it's an easy cause for politicians to latch on to, and claim they're "helping children" in the process.
There are children in need of help and more should be done to help them. Shutting down Craigslist helps no one.

 

Bring Back the Death Penalty?

I suppose it comes as no surprise that given the horrific crimes committed by disgraced (and now former) Colonel Russell Williams, that there would be a conversation about returning to the death penalty.

 

I suppose if anyone would be deserving of such a fate, it would be a monster like Williams.

 

As you can see here, here, here, here, here, and here, that discussion is certainly taking place.

 

But for those who believe we should once again institute capital punishment, I would suggest you consider the case of William Mullins-Johnson:

 

The Ontario government has agreed to pay $4.25-million in compensation to William Mullins-Johnson for the 12 years he spent in prison after he was wrongfully convicted of killing his niece.
The payment was announced just over three years after the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Mr. Mullins-Johnson and concluded that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, based on the flawed findings of controversial pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
Mr. Mullins-Johnson was acquitted following a review by a panel of pathology experts. During the inquiry, Dr. Smith apologized to Mr. Mullins-Johnson, asking for his forgiveness.

Surely, if we had the death penalty, someone convicted of raping and murdering a 4-year old girl would have been at or near the front of the line.

Science or Panic Behind BPA Decision?

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:20 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Thursday's editorial comment:

The federal government has added Bisphenol A, or BPA, to Canada's list of toxic substances.

BPA is a chemical used in the production of some plastic containers - it's also used to prevent corrosion on the inside liner of cans of food.

The announcement states that, quote, "Health Canada considers that sufficient evidence relating to human health has been presented to justify the conclusion that BPA is harmful to human life"

If that's the case, then the government is to be applauded for moving so decisively.

However, if that's not the case, then it would certainly put this decision in a very different light and call into question the decision-making process itself.

What's interesting is that Ottawa;s announcement comes just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) declared BPA to be safe.

The EFSA ruled that Denmark's tough restrictions on BPA were not justified based on the scientific evidence.

They declared that, “Following a detailed and comprehensive review of recent scientific literature and studies on the toxicity of BPA at low doses, scientists on the EFSA panel conclude they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise the current Tolerable Daily Intake.”
That panel, which consisted of  21 scientific experts, poured through the toxicological data from 2007 to 2010 in reaching their conclusion.
They find that many of the claims of BPA's harm involve tests on rodents. However, new studies on BPA in primates show that the chemical is eliminated much faster in humans than in rodents.
That also means the rodent models may be significantly overstating the risk of BPA exposure.
The panel concluded that no new study exists that would justify revising the EFSA approach to BPA or taking a tougher stance in regulating or banning the chemical.
It all suggests that Ottawa's conclusion is based on little more than a strict application of the precautionary principle.
Better safe than sorry might sit well with some, but after we get rid of BPA, what's to say its replacement will be any better?

Herald Column: Can Government Save Us From Distracted Drivers?

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the case being made for Alberta's distracted driving law, and what the evidence tells us about whether it will work:

 

...The case for a ban was bolstered in recent weeks by research led by the University of Calgary's Alan Shiell. His study argues that banning cellphone use while driving, including hands-free, would result in thousands of fewer crashes annually, saving an average of 15 lives each year, and millions of dollars. So, on paper anyway, the case for Bill 16 is beyond reproach.
The real-world evidence tells a different story.
Two studies released this year by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in the U.S. look at the experience of American states which have banned the use of cellphones while driving or specifically banned texting while driving.
One study examined four jurisdictions which had introduced bans on cellphone use. The study found no change in the month-to-month fluctuation of collision claims after the ban was introduced. What's more, claims rates in neighbouring jurisdictions without such bans were no different.
In a separate study released last month, the HLDI examined four jurisdictions which had banned texting while driving, and none saw a reduction in crashes. Three of the four states actually saw an increase in the number of crashes among younger drivers.
It seems the ban might be part of the problem. The study suggests those texting are more likely to lower their devices out of sight. Driving simulator tests conducted by the HLDI found that heads-up displays were less likely to result in a crash than a head-down display.
Shiell, however, wonders whether these bans were adequately enforced.
What, though, would constitute "adequate enforcement?" What's to say such a concept can even apply to offences such as these? If we expand our ban to hands-free cellphones, how would police be expected to catch such scofflaws?
Would officers need to keep an eye out for suspicious lip movement? Would cellphone records be subpoenaed every time we're unsure about why a driver's mouth was moving?
Bill 16 seems particularly unenforceable. For example, a driver is permitted to use an MP3 player, but it must be programmed ahead of time. If a police officer spots a motorist sporting earbuds, how would this important distinction be discerned?
Even more curious is that the law states drivers "must not hold, view or manipulate an electronic device." Is that to say a driver must not touch or look at his BlackBerry? If your phone were to ring, would it be illegal to look at the call display or to press the "ignore" button?
It would seem the mere presence of an electronic device might be enough to run afoul of this law.
We criminalize drunk driving because of the potential for harm resulting from impairment. If distracted motorists pose a threat to others on the road, then taking a similar approach seems logical.
Let's be cautious in assuming government can wave its wand and make all our problems disappear. There seems to be a notion that the only reason bad things occur is a lack of government will.
We may finally get our distracted driving law. That may be all we get.

Herald Column: Registry Proponents Do Not Have Moral High Ground

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the recent debate over whether to scrap the gun registry, and is particularly critical of the arguments which were advanced by the pro-registry side:

 

...It is insufficient -- and frankly, irrational -- to simply cite gun-related tragedies and let that stand as an argument for the gun registry.
Yet, through this entire debate, that's exactly what happened.
How often, not just over the past few months but over the past 15 years, have we heard the invocation of the Montreal massacre in selling and now defending the long-gun registry? There is no evidence or logic to suggest that the existence of the registry would have made an iota of difference in that horrendous tragedy.
To then claim the registry -- which would not and could not have stopped Marc Lepine -- is a "monument" to the 14 women he murdered, is to try to link support for the registry to compassion for the victims. In other words, those who would scrap the registry may as well be urinating on the graves of these women.
Once we arrive at that point, we've long surpassed any pretence of rational debate.
It's just as craven -- and even more bizarre -- for registry proponents to invoke more recent tragedies.
The Dawson College shootings, which left one student dead and nearly 20 injured, has been cited repeatedly in this debate. Survivors have been vocal in demanding MPs save the registry.
Yet, gunman Kimveer Gill had legally registered his weapons.
One survivor, though, went so far as to claim the registry "was probably one of the reasons that the killing was limited that day."
However, the killing was "limited" only because two police officers were on the scene for an unrelated reason and responded when they heard gunshots.
It should say something about the weakness of the pro-registry position that it would need to be buttressed by such obvious falsehoods.
The appeal to emotion featured prominently on the day of the fateful vote on the registry last week. Reporters were tipped off that within the Liberal caucus meeting, MP Scott Simms had emotionally discussed his father's suicide -- a tragedy that apparently convinced him to support the registry.
Mind you, Simms's support was already decided for him by his leader's decision to whip the caucus vote.
The obvious point once again is that the registry did not prevent Simms's father from using a long gun to take his own life.
The closest thing to an evidence-based argument from the pro-registry side is the study done by the National Public Health Institute of Quebec. It argues that the murder rate fell faster in the period following the 1998 implementation of Bill C-68, which mandated long-gun registration.
They then conclude that the registry saves an average of 300 lives a year.
There are some obvious flaws in such logic: their "no registry" scenario does not factor in other methods governments might have employed to fight crime.

It also overlooks the fact that between 1991 and 2004, the homicide rate in the U. S fell by 44 per cent as compared with the 36 per cent decline in Canada. Clearly there are factors not exclusive to our country.
There is also the simple fact that the registry didn't come into effect until 2001 and it didn't become mandatory until 2003.
Interestingly, after years of decline, the homicide rate increased by 12 per cent in 2004 and then by another four per cent in 2005. Also, from 2002 to 2008, the rate of firearm homicides increased by 24 per cent. Factor in the fact that 1998 and 1999 saw 30-year lows in the murder rate, and you're left with a much more complicated picture.
But why should we expect anything complicated from the "we're saving lives" crowd?
My sentiments are obviously with those seeking an end to the registry, but there is a legitimate debate to be had. Portraying one side of that debate as having blood on its hands is shameful and has no place in Canadian discourse.

 

Editorial Comment: Hennessey & Cheeseman - Scapegoats or Villains?

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:20 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)

 

Tuesday's editorial comment:

 

While the world is a better place without James Roszko in it, there is clearly a deep and lasting remorse that he was not brought to justice for murdering four RCMP officers.

 

Given that fact, did we look for scapegoats? Did we feel the need to find someone to punish for what Roszko did?

 

Well, we found two people - Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman. Yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeals - in a split decision - upheld the manslaughter sentences handed to the two men.

 

The two had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but had argued that the sentences were too severe.

I think any honest assessment of what we now know ought to lead to that conclusion.

 

The judges ruled that based on the agreed statement of facts, the original judge did not make an error in handing down the sentences.

 

Yet, there's all sorts of reasons to believe that the agreed statement of facts is not an accurate account of what happened.

 

It seems quite clear that Hennessey and Cheeseman - like so many others - lived in tremendous fear of James Roszko. There's also good reason to believe that Roszko had sexually assaulted Dennis Cheeseman.

 

Given that, we should also be highly suspcious of the Mr. Big sting that RCMP used on Cheeseman.

 

We also know that when Roszko had quote, asked for help from Hennessey, Roszko was packing a pistol and Hennessey's wife and two young children were in the home.

 

One can judge the decisions these two men did and didn't make that fateful night. It is wrong to say they wanted to help James Roszko or that they wanted these officers to die.

 

I'd also highly recommend reading the Edmonton Journal's excellent investigative series on the case.  

Margaret, the Moon, and Me

What do you get when you cross social media, a prominent Canadian author, and a decades-old conspiracy theory? The following:

 

This morning I came across this account of an interview Margaret Atwood gave earlier this year to a youth radio station in Sudbury, Ontario:

 

Student interviewer: I was told recently that you were one of the believers who is of the opinion that the Moon landing was actually filmed ... could possibly have been filmed here.

Atwood: The question about the Moon landing is "why haven't we been back?" and it was done in an age when computers were as big as a couple of rooms. If you even look at the Space Odyssey, 2001, HAL the computer - and I think that movie came out in the late '60s - HAL the computer is huge. So we didn't yet have microchips so I just wonder how did they do that? Why haven't they done it again if it was so easy?

Student interviewer: What do you think of the argument to that question, usually most often I hear they say we haven't had a need to return.

Atwood: Well, you think about it. President Bush said we're going back or words to that effect and then people calculated how long it would take and how much money it would cost to actually do that. It was a long time and a lot of money. Just wondering, wondering about the belt of deadly radiation that people have to go through to get to the Moon and those strange shadows and why the flag rippled and a few things like that.

Student interviewer: What would have pushed them to pull off an entire hoax like that?

Atwood: Well, if it was and the jury is open and we'll never know. But it was the space race with Russia... space and arms race that was going on at the time.

Now to me, it's pretty clear that she's casting doubt on the fact that the moon landing(s) occured. She doesn't outright say it never happened, but she doesn't deny it when the interviewer says "you are of the opinion that the moon landing was actually filmed". She then cites several reasons why she thinks people should be suspicious that it happened.

 

If someone were to say about the Holocaust, "there are many question" and "we'll never know if it really happened", it would be pretty clear that you'd be dealing with a Holocaust denier.

 

Not that I would equate even the most blatant moon-hoaxer to the odious claims of Holocaust denial. The only parallel being that, in very loose terms, both are the denial of a significant historical event.

 

In any event, if Ms. Atwood is not a believer in the moon landing conspiracy theories, the responsible thing for someone in her position to do - especially when speaking to an audience of impressionable young people - is to say that of course the moon landings occured. End of story.

 

So, given all of that, I posted the following on my Twitter page this morning:

 

Help us @BadAstronomer - Cdn. literary giant @MargaretAtwood is a moon landing truther!! http://bit.ly/9oMl10 (via @katewerk)

The "Bad Astronomer" is Phil Plait  who has written extensively about the moon hoax. I then "retweeted" a "tweet" from the National Post:

 

nationalpost Margaret Atwood’s ‘just wondering’ about that silly moon landing hoax http://natpo.st/9zGYHB

 

(Here's an updated story from the National Post).

 

This was enough to prompt Ms. Atwood to respond on her own Twitter page:

 

@RobBreakenridge: http://bit.ly/9oMl10 M: Noo, not quite. There are some interesting q's about it - no microchips then, how did they do it?

To me, saying "not quite" was hardly a rejection of the conspiracy theorist accusation, as was the notion about "interesting" questions.
The following is a lengthy back-and-forth between Ms. Atwood and me. I've tried to put it more or less in order, but that's difficult to do with Twitter. But it went pretty much like this:

@MargaretAtwood "Just asking questions..." - the true hallmark of any good conspiracy theorist
@RobBreakenridge: But I am obviously not a very good one! :) Does that mean anyone who DOES ask questions about anything IS a conspthrst?
@MargaretAtwood Usually it means they "just ask questions" - as opposed to seeking answers to those questions.
@RobBreakenridge: Oh I get it. You're a pal of Ezra's. You agree with him that George Soros funds avaaz... ?? And all that other Nazi stuff?
@MargaretAtwood I don't see what on Earth (no pun intended) this has to do with any of that.. Find a single tweet of mine dealing w/ Soros
@MargaretAtwood You say ".. the belt of deadly radiation" - Read this: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
@MargaretAtwood You say "..those strange shadows and why the flag rippled" - Start here: http://bit.ly/cmKoDk
@MargaretAtwood Also, it was called Apollo "11" for a reason - what about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes?
@RobBreakenridge: What about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes? M: but I haven't said I believed 11 was a hoax.
@RobBreakenridge: I realize some people are mad at the fall of Kory and sueing of Ezra & are taking it out on me, but theirs were own goals.
@MargaretAtwood What it comes down to is the embarrassment of a having a prominent Canadian propagating absurd conspiracy theories.
@RobBreakenridge: But I'm not, unless you think talking about something is propagating it. What it REALLY comes down to is leaving no stone unturned for strange items about me you can take out of context and turn into weird theories of your own.
@MargaretAtwood C'mon - you think those "just asking questions" about Holocaust, 9/11, etc are not propagating theories contrary to reality?
@RobBreakenridge: Give it a rest, Rob. Unless you mean nobody can ask questions about anything. And I'm sure you don't mean that.
@MargaretAtwood Well it's easy to clear up: yes or no, did Apollo 11, 12, 14 land on the moon?
@RobBreakenridge: But Rob. I never said they didn't. I've also said it would be very hard to do a hoax involving that many people.
@MargaretAtwood So is that a yes?
@RobBreakenridge: So is that a yes? M: Let's see you take my last answer to you and twist it into a No. C'mon! You can do it!
@MargaretAtwood Why the need to be so equivocal?
@RobBreakenridge: Grew up with scientists, know that today's "science" is often tomorrow's dismal mistake, keep open mind on all such.
@MargaretAtwood Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in...
@RobBreakenridge: Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in..M: As I've said, Great Pumpkin is very open-minded. ..
@RobBreakenridge: Now there's a headline for you! Wingnut veg. worshipper Atwood believes in the Great Pumpkin! Her credibility is shot!
@MargaretAtwood But of course the moon landings happened. Let's not overlook the fact that even here today you expressed doubt about that.
@RobBreakenridge: Rob, I will go on your show any time I'm in Calgary, now that I know you have one, if you want to have a real conversation
@MargaretAtwood Now THAT is one quote I will gladly dig up at a future date
@RobBreakenridge: But you haven't answered my Ezra question. (Is that evasive of you?)
@MargaretAtwood We're discussing what you said. If you can find anything I said about Soros/Avaaz, I'll happily respond to it
@RobBreakenridge: You're discussing what you said I said. But, taking my note from you: Do you believe what Ezra said about Soros?
@MargaretAtwood Which part? Do I think he's a Nazi or a sociopath? No (how's that for unequivocal - or do I need more of an "open mind"?)

For the record, I found it most unfortunate that Ms. Atwood would have signed the controversial "Stop Fox News North" petition, but I really had little to say in the ensuing controversy. I didn't bring up the moon landing controversy as a way of "further discrediting" her, although to be honest, I'm not sure why the interview has surfaced now.

In any event, whatever Ms. Atwood thinks about Sun TV News or Ezra Levant or Kory Teneycke is neither here nor there.

I still think her answer to the younger interviewer was an unfortunate one, and - given her profile and influence - I think it was an irresponsible one.

I probably agree very little with Ms. Atwood on many issues, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan of her work. I do appreciate that she took the time to respond to me and engage me in a debate. I hope to take her up at some point on her offer of an interview.

UPDATE: It's not over yet, apparently. Earlier today, Margaret Atwood responded with a few more "tweets", two of which I responded to:

 

@RobBreakenridge: Rob, you live in a world of yes & no. "Probably" is not a category for you, whereas "of course" is difficult for me.
@MargaretAtwood Would one say Margaret Atwood "probably" wrote "The Handmaid's Tale"*? Or can we conclude that some things did occur?
@RobBreakenridge: For instance, I thought there were "probably" no WMD in Iraq, but did not discount the possibility that there might be.
@RobBreakenridge: Whereas you seem bent on conducting some sort of heresy or witchcraft trial. What's it to be? Hanging? Tossed in ye pond?
@RobBreakenridge: Flattering, all this attention, but if you do a blogpost about our Twitter conversation, shouldn't you put all of them in?
@RobBreakenridge: There's a whole hash tag #AttackAtwood for your use! :) Enjoy! Sand toys! For what you missed, see Blog's Comment stream
@MargaretAtwood Surely there's a major difference between "attacking" someone and challenging someone. To say I'm "attacking" you is unfair.
@RobBreakenridge: Dear Rob, lighten up. It's a j.o.k e. I'll go on yr show, bring cookies, read yr palm. What's yr birthday? Have some fun!

(*yes, I originally referred to it as "Handmaiden's Tale".. my bad)

I was at first confused by Ms. Atwood's suggestion that I "put all of them in", referring to my account of our conversation. Although as the disclaimer above reads, it was "pretty much" the extent of the back-and-forth. It would seem, however, that I left out two of Ms. Atwood's remarks from early on in our conversation:

 

@RobBreakenridge: .. but remember the context was Speculative Fiction.
@RobBreakenridge: Moon: Go 2 www.yearoftheflood.com, Comments, last comment, mine. (I've also said I am a goalie & a turnip may run for PM.)

I'm not sure if that adds in any way to the context of the discussion, but let no one say I've left anything out.

 

What's even stranger about her responses this morning, as that we now seem back to the point where we started: namely that Ms. Atwood is expressing doubt about the moon landings (that she would say they "probably" occured but be unable to say "of course" they did).

 

The whole point I was trying to make in the first place is that is it rather unbecoming for someone of her stature to be connected to flaky conspiracy theories. After a fair amount of discourse with Ms. Atwood, I'm not sure I'm prepared to acquit her of that charge.

Soharwardy Responds

The Calgary Herald has published Syed Soharwardy's response to my column.  

 

I'm not sure what Syed's overall point is here, other than to portray himself in very flattering terms and to remind us all what a glorious book the Qur'an is.

 

I'm not sure, however, that he read my column very closely.

 

Syed writes:

 

First of all, some of the things Rob wrote made no sense to me. How can reading the Qur'an be an obstacle? 

Well, Syed, the answer is contained in my column: 

 

Therefore, what's really needed is not burning and not simplistic glorification of religious texts, but rather critical analysis and examination. Both Pastor Jones' event and Imam Soharwardy's event are obstacles to that end.

Being told beforehand that the Qur'an is a book of peace (or a book of violence) and then being expected to interpret it that way is an obstacle to critical analysis.

 

Syed then writes:

 

The debate over how to interpret the Qur'an and how a first time reader walks away with a concise understanding of its meaning is not a trivial science. Let me share with you how I understood the Bible the first time I read verses like these (in the Bible)

Syed then goes on to cite several violent and objectionable passages from the Bible. I'm not sure why - I certainly wasn't trying to defend the Bible.

 

My column did originally mention the Bible - the reference was edited out, for space presumably:

 

The danger of asking people to read the Qur’an – or the Bible for that matter – is that it might generate skepticism more than anything else. 

Although, in fairness to followers of the Bible, I'm not aware of people acting on those particular verses. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Qur'an's violent verses.

 

Syed writes:

 

I believe that the Bible is not a book of violence but when a hatemonger reads verses like these, surely he/she thinks that the Bible is motivating him/her to commit violence. The KKK, the Grand Inquisitors, witch burners and the Crusaders were inspired, in part, by wrong interpretations of the Bible. Even some slave traders (mis) used the Bible to rationalize their behaviour.

But here's my point: that doesn't mean those committing such acts are theologically wrong. It simply means that their interpretation is very much out of favour. A Christian who believes that violators of the Sabbath must be stoned to death might have scripture on their side. Fortunately, no Christians seem to follow that particular command.

 

Soharwardy wants us all to know that he has the correct interpretation of the Qur'an. He may. They again, he may not. It's not for me to say. After I'm done getting his interpretation, should I seek out the views of Omar Abdel-Rahman? After all,he mastered in Quranic studies at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Presumably he knows a thing or two about the Qur'an. Should I then visit the fundamentalist Islamonline.net? There I will learn, for example, that stoning women to death is sanctioned by Islam. Syed will surely tell me that's not the case and that a radical like Abdel-Rahman has it all wrong. I hope he's right, but it's not me he needs to convince.

 

Syed writes:

 

Why does Rob think that the followers of the Qur'an must be homogeneous, and that they should all be very peaceful? Muslims are not a small population, and 1.6 billion Muslims are just as human as Christians. Why should it be a surprise that Muslims have their own KKK and Crusaders?

I obviously do not think followers of the Qur'an should be or are homogeneous. That was part of my point. As I noted:

 

There is one additional reason Soharwardy himself should be wary of the invitation he's extended: how could a book open to such considerable differences in interpretation possibly be God's final set of instructions to humanity?

I suppose it is not a surprise that Muslims have, as Soharwardy calls it "KKK and crusaders" - I would just hope that some day those factions will be confined to obscurity and ancient history.

 

Soharwardy then goes on a bizarre tangent about his human rights complaint against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine, by first defending it, and then offering this:

 

Although I now believe the HRC is not a suitable venue for resolving free speech issues, at that time I filed the complaint I felt it was the right thing to do.

So it was not a mistake but it was? OK, then.

 

My whole point was that we should keep an open mind about religion - and not burn religious texts - but at the same time be able and be free to critically analyze religious texts.

 

Syed Soharwardy - like any other devoted man of religion - is very uncomfortable with any criticism of his faith or his holy book.

 

Fair enough. But in a free country - like this one - we are free to ask questions about religion and even reject it outright.

 

 

Herald Column: On the Burning (and Reading) of Qur'ans

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly compares and contrasts the planned (but never excuted) burning of Qur'ans by Florida pastor Terry Jones, and the "Read a Qur'an" event organized by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy:

 

...Of course, given the dark history of book burning by past authorities, it strikes me as alarming that a 21st century church -- albeit an obscure one -- would choose such a way of making a point.
And while the burning of a book is -- or ought to be -- a protected form of expression, doing so is in fact an insult to that very freedom.
It was the impulse of censorship which drove centuries of book-burning. The masses were to be prevented from reading the condemned material and sufficiently intimidated from publicly expressing such ideas in the future.
While modern-day book burners may have less sinister motivations, the sinister overtones remain. Clearly then, in the face of a planned book-burning, an event calling for that same book to be read is an effective counter.
However, the organizers of "Read a Qur'an Day" seem to be expecting the reader to reach a certain conclusion as to the book's interpretation. It is therefore a risky gambit on their part.
The debate over how to correctly interpret the Qur'an has been raging for centuries, how could a first-time reader walk away with a concise understanding of its meaning?
There is but one Qur'an and its verses have been used to justify both terrible acts of oppression and violence -- including 9/11 itself -- and acts of great charity and compassion. Soharwardy obviously has his own interpretation, as he described his event as being about "showing people the Qur'an is not a book of violence."
But there are many verses in the Qur'an which appear to be exhortations to violence. Soharwardy would surely have instructions on how to interpret such verses, but it is not "Read a Qur'an with Syed Soharwardy Day."
Moreover, it's really not about convincing non-Muslims that the Qur'an is "not a book of violence" -- it's about convincing those radical Muslims who believe it is.
It's possible the extremists are the ones with the "correct" interpretation, but that doesn't mean we can't hope and expect that a modern, moderate Islam prevails.
There is one additional reason Soharwardy himself should be wary of the invitation he's extended: how could a book open to such considerable differences in interpretation possibly be God's final set of instructions to humanity?
The danger of asking people to read the Qur'an is that it might generate skepticism more than anything else.
Skepticism, though, leads one away from automatic veneration, and there are those who believe that religious views should be granted automatic and unconditional "respect". All that should be asked of people is that they have an open mind.
Therefore, what's really needed is not burning and not simplistic glorification of religious texts, but rather critical analysis and examination. Both Pastor Jones' event and Imam Soharwardy's event are obstacles to that end.

 

 

Calgary Herald Column: The CMA's Evidence Deficit

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at two controversial resolutions recently passed by delegates at the annual conference of the Canadian Medical Association:

 

In a conflict between evidence-based policy and emotion-based policy, one would expect physicians to be clearly on the side of the former.
So it is therefore disheartening to see Canadian doctors embracing policies that seem devoid of evidence and instead rely primarily on empty emotional rhetoric. If the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) cannot be counted on as a defender of evidence-based policy, then the cause will suffer immensely.
At their annual conference earlier this month, CMA delegates voted 84 per cent in favour of a ban on mixed martial arts (MMA), a sport which now commands a huge following across North America.
A press release quoted a CMA past-president as saying, “this so-called 'sport' is savage and brutal and its aim is the disability of the opponent completely.”
Words like “savage” and “brutal” might be effective in appealing to emotion, but where’s the evidence?
For so many members of such a prestigious organization to advocate the criminalization of what’s now become a major sport in North America, surely they must have some evidence to back up their position?
Well, when asked by the Vancouver Province about ring deaths in MMA, the BC doctor behind the resolution said, “I actually don’t know.”
In fact, there have been a total of two documented deaths in MMA – none at all in UFC, the main MMA promotion. UFC has taken steps to improve safety for its fighters, and it would seem much more productive for the medical profession to contribute to that, rather than pushing for a ban.
Has the CMA given any consideration whatsoever to the dangers of pushing this sport underground? What these sports need is regulation and oversight – not criminalization.
Where does it all end? The CMA is already on record in calling for a ban on boxing.
Professional wrestling, scripted though it is, certainly has its share of concussions and other head injuries – and the tragic consequences those can lead to.
Should we ban professional football? We are getting a clearer picture of just how serious the concussion problem is in that sport. Moreover, we’re learning more about the long-term impacts on the brain of such injuries.
Merits aside, the participants in MMA are consenting adults who are well aware of the risks. It is the height of arrogance for the CMA to make decisions on their behalf. 
It’s especially ironic that as the CMA scolded the news media for “singling out” the MMA policy, the CMA is guilty of the same offense: “singling out” MMA and “singling out” energy drinks.
CMA delegates also voted in favour of stricter government regulation of energy drinks, including mandatory listing of caffeine content.
However, caffeine content already is listed on the vast majority of energy drinks sold in Canada. Also included on most cans are warnings about caffeine consumption and a fairly plain warning that the product “is not recommended for children”.
This particular policy comes on the heels of a July editorial published in the prestigious Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ).
The editorial correctly notes that most energy drinks contain anywhere from 80 – 140 mg of caffeine – some are slightly higher.
The editorial fails to note, however, that similar or higher caffeine levels are found in many popular offerings at the major coffee chains: iced cappuccinos, café lattes, and “Frappuccinos”, just to name a few.
You won’t find caffeine content listed on the sides of those products, nor will you find any suggestion that children avoid them.
Beyond anecdotes and assumptions, where’s the evidence on caffeine consumption amongst Canadian children? Where’s the evidence showing that energy drinks are a disproportionate part of the problem?
There’s no missing the parallel between MMA and energy drinks: both appeal largely to young men, both are relatively new phenomena, both seem strange and overly aggressive to outsiders, and therefore both are vilified by those prone to knee-jerk and visceral reactions.
If the Canadian Medical Association wishes to raise awareness about these and other potential health risks, then simply present us with the evidence. 
For a group like the CMA, the dramatics and hyperbole are most unbecoming.