On Burkas, Condemnation Doesn't Have to Include Prohibition

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the recent debates over banning polygamy and whether to ban the burka/niqab, and concludes that we should do neither:

It may well be the case that clear and definable Canadian values exist, but the existence of such values should not be an excuse to intrude into the private lives of citizens.
It would hardly be objectionable to suggest that polygamy is counter to Canadian values. The same could be said of the wearing of the Islamic burka or the niqab.
However, such observations do not bring us to the conclusion that these practices must then be prohibited. Judging from the national discourse, many Canadians would disagree.
Last month, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman issued a ruling declaring Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada - the law banning polygamy - to be constitutional.
Last week, Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney sparked a national debate over the Islamic veil after declaring that those taking the citizenship oath would be forced to show their faces while doing so. A refusal to lift the veil would mean that Canadian citizenship could not be obtained.
The decree is quite narrow in that sense - it does not directly affect any other laws or regulations concerning the wearing of the veil. It may be a justified expectation, but at the same time, it may also be a solution in search of a problem.
However, it's a decision that's been applauded by many groups and commentators who hope it is a first step to banning the veil out-right, as has been done in countries such as France.
But for a practice to be criminally prohibited, there must be clear evidence of harm - harm without consent.
Causing harm to our sensibilities or values is an insufficient basis for prohibition. That's what brought us the criminalization of divorce and adultery, for example.
Advocates of a ban on both polygamy and the niqab argue that there is indeed demonstrable harm: to the women themselves.
It's a claim not without basis. Many women who have escaped the polygamous world of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have told harrowing tales of the oppression and abuse of women.
And certainly it is the case that many Islamic women hiding their faces and identities have been forced to do so by their husbands. Either way, it represents a troubling ideology that ought to concern those who believe in gender equality.
The problem with the harm-to-women argument is two-fold. For one, even if the harm is present in many or most instances, it cannot be presumed to exist in every instance.
In fact, the harm may be specific to religion - it's hard to identify, for example, the victim of a non-religious polyamorous relationship. There may also be non-religious reasons why an individual may want to cover his or her face while in public.
Should we ban the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or fundamentalist Islam? It seems just as logical as a burka or polygamy ban.
The bigger problem with the harm-to-women argument is that we create the paradoxical situation where the victim is also the criminal.
If we are to argue that a woman who becomes the ninth wife of a church elder is a victim, the problem is that by entering into that arrangement she, too, has violated the law.
By banning the burka, we would be targeting those who wear it. There would be no consequences for the husbands who force their wives to wear it or the imams who warn of eternal hellfire for those who shun it.
Even under Kenney's narrow citizenship rules, it cannot escape observation that it would still allow a misogynistic Islamic fundamentalist to give the citizenship oath, while denying his timid, veiled wife.
Our battle against that which offends our values should not rest on whether we can prohibit these practices.
We can respect individual freedom and autonomy while still condemning and ostracizing certain beliefs and ideologies.
We don't criminalize, for example, the tattooing of one's body with swastikas or the formation of white supremacist groups. Yet, you'd be hard-pressed to find ideas more at odds with Canadian values and sensibilities.
The heavy hand of prohibition should always be a last resort. The impulse of "there oughta be a law" too often leads us astray.

Christopher Hitchens, RIP

An intellectual giant. A brilliant writer. A feisty contrarian. A one of a kind.
A huge loss.

Rushing Ahead With Flawed Drunk Driving Legislation

My latest Calgary Herald column takes a critical look at Bill 26, Alberta's proposed new impaired driving legislation (which passed final vote Tuesday night, much to the chagrin of some Tory MLAs):

Alberta politicians were back at work Monday, later than had been scheduled during this brief fall sitting of the legislature.
With the government attempting to ram through six pieces of legislation, even the midnight sittings last week weren’t enough to crunch everything into a tight time frame.
The opposition parties have accused the government of “legislating through exhaustion,” and fear that these pieces of legislation are not receiving the debate and scrutiny they ought to.
One of those is Bill 26, which introduces tough new penalties for suspected drunk drivers. Questions abound with regard to its effectiveness and fairness, but the government is plowing ahead. The premier even speculated that the law could be in force by Christmas.
On Bill 26, it seems the only Albertans the Tories want to hear from are those who think the government is doing a wonderful thing.
Those asking tough questions and raising concerns are seen as a distraction and an obstacle.
Even after the B.C. Supreme Court declared part of that province’s impaired driving law to be unconstitutional, MLAs had barely a day to try to read the ruling and analyze how it might apply to Alberta’s legislation.
The Alberta government is convinced that its law is sufficiently different from B.C.’s, so that the issues laid out in the ruling would not apply here.
Others aren’t so sure. The president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association has indicated that his organization may pursue its own constitutional challenge of Alberta’s law.
B.C.’s law imposes heavy fines and lengthy suspensions for drivers who blow over .08 blood-alcohol content, as does Alberta’s proposed law. Alberta’s law, however, is predicated on a criminal charge being laid first, unlike B.C.’s law.
However, someone charged with a crime has not been proven guilty, so here, too, we are pre-emptively punishing the accused.
The provision under Alberta’s law that a suspension remains in place until the matter has been resolved by the courts may be harsher in some ways than B.C.’s penalties.
Given that it might be a year or more before a case gets to trial, even an innocent person might feel pressured to plead guilty.
The provisions of B.C.’s law dealing with motorists in the so-called warning range — those between .05 and .08 — were found to be constitutional.
Under Bill 26, those motorists would receive a three-day license suspension for a first offence, rising to 15 days and 30 days for subsequent offences.
Once again, we are imposing penalties on those who have not been convicted of anything — in this case, not even charged with anything.
Furthermore, given that the vast majority of impaired driving fatalities involve those well over the established legal limit, it’s unclear how effective a law targeting minimal impairment will be.
Those having a drink or two do not seem to be the problem.
Last week, Herald columnist Paula Arab argued that this law won’t target such people. She came to that conclusion after an evening of drinks and food accompanied by a police officer and his roadside screening device.
Yet, by her account, after one glass of wine in the first hour, Arab blew .49, a hairsbreadth from the warning range and the accompanying suspension. That doesn’t exactly mesh with her conclusion that “social drinkers have nothing to fear” from this law.
Meanwhile, columnist Robert Remington, writing on the Herald opinion blogs, argued that targeting drivers at the lower threshold will also target more dangerous drunk drivers.
That conclusion is at odds with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, which finds that “there is a considerable body of research that clearly demonstrates that placing lower-risk offenders in more intensive sanctions can do more harm than good . . . and may actually increase their likelihood of repeat offending.”
As foundation president Robyn Robertson has observed, Alberta has a “good structure” in place to deal with impaired drivers and alcohol-related driving deaths have been declining since 1995.
Instead, we’re left with a law that we might not need, that might not work, and that might target and punish the innocent.
If ever there was a law worthy of more debate and scrutiny, it is this.

Polygamy Law Upheld

The BC Supreme Court has upheld Section 293 - full ruling here

Here's a column I wrote back in 2009 on the many problems with the law:

Can the enforcement of a bad law produce a positive outcome?
Of course, it's a rather vague hypothetical, doomed by its own illogic: how can a bad law be enforced in the first place? Doesn't that therefore preclude an affirmative answer?
A real-world dilemma now confronts us in the criminal case against two of the leaders of a polygamous sect--cult may be the more accurate word--in Bountiful, B. C.
Winston Blackmore and James Oler are both charged under Section 293 of Canada's Criminal Code, which prohibits polygamy. As leaders of a religious sect that mandates polygamy, their guilt seems fairly obvious.
However, if we are looking to cast a "bad law" for our above hypothetical, then Section 293 fits the part. Not only does the law have roots in a late-19th century effort to exclude Mormon immigrants, the actual wording of the law discredits it regardless of when it was written.
The law criminalized not just polygamy as we know it, but also "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time."
Also, there is no need to prove "the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into,"whether there was consent, or whether "the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse."
If anyone is looking to give this law a colourful nickname, may I suggest the "Mr. Roper Law"--a reference to the nosy landlord in the '70s television sitcom Three's Company.
Under this law, one could build a solid polygamy case against the platonic roommate trio of Jack, Janet and Chrissy.
One element of the sitcom premise was that the roommates had to convince Mr. Roper that Jack was in fact gay --otherwise, Mr. Roper would have presumed a conjugal relationship and evicted the three.
The law itself seems rather like a stodgy old landlord preoccupied with the private affairs of others: why should the state care if three people --be it two women and a man, two men and a women, or even three people of the same gender live and sleep together?
It may seem kinky and weird, but if all are consenting adults, where's the harm? Better yet, where's the victim?
Winston Blackmore may have inadvertently spoken to more truth than he realized during his defiant post-arrest news conference.
Blackmore declared that "tens of thousands" of polygamists are "hiding in plain sight all across Canada."
Queen's University law Prof. Beverly Baines studied the question of Section 293 for the federal government, and concluded the law would not stand up in court. She pointed out to me last week that one of the fatal flaws of the law is the wide net cast by its very ambiguity.
Take, for example, anyone who is finalizing a divorce and romantically involved with someone new. That is probably thousands of Canadians, and as Baines sees it, each and every one is technically guilty of polygamy.
It's obviously too late to draft a new law, so this crucial case rests on a poorly written law with dubious origins.
If we now have our bad law, can we cast our positive outcome?
While Section 293 does not identify a victim, there are indeed victims here: children.
Former sect member Debbie Palmer has spoken at great length about her horror at being married off at age 15 to a man 40 years her senior. In a tragic irony, that marriage made her Winston Blackmore's step-grandmother.
She is far from alone-- Blackmore himself has admitted to taking on wives as young as 15 and 16.
Vancouver Sun reporter Daphne Bramham's fascinating, chilling and crucial book, The Secret Lives of Saints relays these and many more tragic tales.
She also focuses on another group of victims: young boys. In any society, the natural gender balance cannot facilitate multiple wives for every male. However, fundamentalist Mormons are told that polygamy is an obligation. Ergo, the "lost boys"--young men banished from their families and their community so as to maintain a gender balance suitable to the aims of the sect.
I would like to think or hope that other legal means exist to address the crimes that have taken place in Bountiful.
These two men ought to be held to account, but that cannot justify Section 293. There is no positive outcome here.

Herald Column: Promises, Promises, Promises

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the emerging and troubling trend of Premier Alison Redford backing down from her campaign promises:

Given the absurd lengths of the Progressive Conservative leadership race, not to mention the very high stakes, it is hardly surprising that campaign promises were in abundance.
After all, we wanted to know what these candidates would do as Premier, and they all had ample opportunity, day after day, to provide lengthy answers.
Of course, when it comes to campaigning politicians, nuance is often scarce. “This is what I will do” is a much better sell that “this is what I hope to do, if circumstances allow”.
Plus, it’s rare that politicians are punished for breaking promises — it’s almost as though we’ve come to expect it. So the message is then clear: promise whatever you think you need to promise, and sort it all out after you win.
That’s the position Alison Redford now finds herself in. Her many promises helped propel her to victory and she’s now faced with the prospect of keeping them.
She was very quick to keep one of them: finding $107-million dollars for the education system. Other promises face an uncertain future.
It’s no secret, for example, that Redford’s promise to hold a judicial inquiry into the intimidation of physicians and other failings within the health-care system was opposed by virtually all of the Tory caucus.
Standing alone on this issue might play well in a campaign, but it’s another matter entirely when having to now lead that same caucus. Consequently, Redford’s insistence that a judge be the one to lead a health care inquiry is suddenly negotiable.
The backtracking doesn’t end there, however.
For instance, on the question of protecting freedom of speech, Redford’s commitment was unequivocal: “ ... freedom of expression must be shielded and Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act should be repealed.”
Yet, in her mandate letter to Justice Minister Verlyn Olson, the Minister has been instructed to “assess the appropriateness of amending or repealing Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act”.
So a firm belief that Section 3 should be repealed is now an uncertainty about whether repealing Section 3 — or even amending it — is appropriate.
That’s not to say this promise has yet been broken. But if Olson reports back to Redford that repealing Section 3 is a bad idea, how will she respond? Why didn’t Olson’s mandate include simply following through on the promise in the first place: “Section 3 needs to go. Make it happen”?
On the question of fixed election dates, however, it’s clear that Redford has broken her promise. In fact, in this instance, it would seem as though she’s gone out of her way to do so.
Most other provinces have fixed election dates. Even here in Alberta, municipal elections occur every three years on the third Monday in October.
This is what Redford envisioned for Alberta. She emphasized the importance of changing the status quo by denouncing the “behind-the-scenes deal-making and manipulation that characterize the timing of an election”.
However, under the proposed Election Amendment Act, Albertans would go to the polls every four years, sometime between March 1 and May 31. The exact date would be determined by none other than the sitting government.
While the government is trying to spin this as a creative and flexible way of keeping the Premier’s promise, anything other than a fixed election date is not a fixed election date. Moreover, it’s hard to see what purpose this serves.
If “flexibility” is so important, the status quo offers that in spades. Government House Leader Dave Hancock claimed last week that this is the sort of flexibility that other provinces would like to have, yet oddly no other province has done so.
If the government is worried about winter weather, then don’t schedule an election in the winter. It’s pretty simple. Yet, in this instance, the government has turned what should be simple into a muddled mess.
If politicians don’t want to be held to account for the promises they make, then perhaps they ought to be more careful about what they promise. It is in no way unfair to call out this Premier for failing to live up to her own words.

A Right to Endless Occupation?

In New York, where the so-called Occupy movement first began, they've now come to the conclusion that while protestors are free to protest, they are not free to take over a public park.

Here in this country, however, we're still figuring that out.

Yesterday, a New York judge upheld the city's dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, saying that the protesters' constitutional rights don't entitle them to camp out indefinitely.

The protestors are still free to protest in the park - they're just not entitled to live there.

Slowly but surely municipal officials in Canada are coming to realize that this situation can't go on forever.

Here in Calgary bylaw officers and police have been handing out warning notices to the protesters at Olympic Plaza, who now have until this afternoon to remove their tents

The Occupy, however, maintain that the Charter entitles them to remain in various public parks.  But just like they've come to realize in New York, protesting is not the same as squatting. Nonetheless, protestors in Olympic Plaza yesterday were adamant that they were not going to leave.

However, these protestors aren't so friendly when it comes to counter-protestors. Blogger Cory Morgan was accosted in Olympic Plaza yesterday and was even told by protestors to get out of "their park". Since when did Olympic Plaza become "their park"? How ironic that these staunch defenders of Charter rights don't think these rights apply to others.

This is not their park. It belongs to Calgarians. All Calgarians.

Calgary Herald Column: Double-Standard For Protestors?

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at how the city is responding to "Occupy Calgary" protestors and how they've responded to other protests:

How fitting that a protest ostensibly aimed at fighting inequality has shown us that some causes are more equal than others.
Here in Calgary, according to Mayor Naheed Nenshi, municipal bylaws are rendered impotent by the might of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantee of freedom of expression.
Nenshi was referring to the ongoing presence of protesters in Olympic Plaza. Nenshi did not state that this constitutional reality was specific to the Occupy Calgary protesters, but he didn’t need to.
If the double standard wasn’t already plainly obvious, it certainly became so on Sunday.
After Calgarians were told that municipal bylaws could not be used to disrupt peaceful protest, one Calgarian found out that municipal bylaws can indeed be used to disrupt peaceful counter-protest.
Blogger Cory Morgan brought his pickup truck down to Olympic Plaza, complete with protest signs affixed in the rear. Morgan’s satirical slogans of “More Sunny Days in July” and “Bring Back ‘Arrested Development’” were only slightly more vapid than the empty platitudes of the Occupy Calgary crowd.
That his pickup had no business being in Olympic Plaza only served to place it on equal footing with the tents belonging to Occupy Calgary.
Well, of course, the tents remain, as do the protesters. Not yet a ticket to show for their troubles, either.
As for Morgan? Well, it took just three hours for police to ticket him and tow his vehicle. So it would seem we’ve now gone from merely coddling the Occupy Calgary protesters to actively shielding them, too.
Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe the bylaw-proof guarantees of freedom of expression apply to tents, but not trucks. Maybe the ticketing and removal of a counter-protester from Olympic Plaza was based on advice from constitutional experts.
Although as Morgan himself has pointed out on his blog, it may well be that the city’s position is legally flawed.
Morgan has linked to the 1995 ruling in the case of Weisfeld v. Canada, which concerned the RCMP’s dismantling of a so-called peace camp on Parliament Hill. A federal court ruled that the police actions were a justified limit on freedom of expression.
In other words, the government had a legitimate interest in protecting the grounds and ensuring the openness of Parliament Hill. Those arguments might apply to Olympic Plaza, where the city maintains that the grounds have been damaged and access to the park has been impaired.
Of course, we should always seek to keep state interference in free expression to a minimum.
It would be encouraging indeed if the city’s current position represented a genuine commitment to that freedom, notwithstanding the specifics of the Olympic Plaza situation.
Unfortunately, there’s little evidence of that.
As the city now claims that the Charter might supersede its own bylaws, it is contradicting the position it has so ardently asserted in the case of Calgary street preacher Art Pawlowski, who has been ticketed more than 80 times.
In 2009, a provincial court judge threw out a number of those tickets, declaring that they violated Pawlowski’s freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
It would be wonderful to think that the city’s cautious approach to the Occupy Calgary protests represents an acceptance of its failings in the Pawlowski case.
Alas, the city’s position on Pawlowski is unchanged and it has not wavered in its commitment to prosecute him.
So while Nenshi argues that the situation in Olympic Plaza is not “urgent,” he missing the point.
Whether or not the encampment reaches the level of crisis is irrelevant to the question of whether the city is guilty of a glaring double standard.
Furthermore, what of the precedent being set here? Why should other groups waste time in applying for permits or following other city rules when planning a rally or protest? What basis will the city have for acting when the next protest movement takes over a public space?
There is nothing special or unique about the Occupy Calgary protests. The actions — and inaction — on the part of the City of Calgary seem to imply otherwise, which creates different tiers of rights. Therein lies the real crisis.

Editorial Comment: Leave Halloween Alone

(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)

Thursday's editorial comment:

Monday of course is Halloween, but at some schools it's not quite the Halloween we're used to.
Of course, at many Calgary Catholic schools, October 31st is merely known as "Black and Orange" day, which I suppose is their prerogative as Catholic schools. It's a little hypocritical, however, given that so many Catholic leaders are outraged when Christmas is referred to simply as the winter holidays.
For most public schools, though, Halloween is still Halloween, at least in name.
But at two Calgary public schools, Halloween will have a much different look this year.
At Colonel Walker and Ramsay schools Monday will instead be used as an opportunity to teach community values.
Costumes will still be permitted, but only positive, caring costumes. Anything deemed to be too frightening or violent are forbidden.
Certainly we don't want six years olds dressing up as blood-drenched axe murderers, but I hardly think kids dressing up as zombies or ninjas is counter to community values. 
Look, if schools think a day of costumes and fun is a waste of a school day, then that's a point worth considering.
But if a school is going to allow Halloween in the first place, why turn it into some mushy, feel-good watered-down version?
The woman who serves as principal for both schools, said the change is also to  accommodate all children, including those with cultural backgrounds that don’t celebrate Halloween.
But by that logic, though, the schools should cancel Halloween. If some kids don't dress up, it hardly matters if all the other kids are dressed as vampires or dressed as bunnies.
It all amounts to a solution in search of a problem, all driven by political correctness. Either have Halloween or don't.

Herald Column: Be Wary of BC's Impaired Driving Law

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the suggestion from Premier Redford that Alberta should emulate BC's controversial drunk-driving law:

With four young lives snuffed out this past weekend in northern Alberta – allegedly at the hands of a drunk driver – any effort to deal more harshly with impaired driving is unlikely to face substantial opposition.
As it happens, Alberta’s new Premier was making such a pledge on Friday, following a meeting with BC Premier Christy Clark.
As Alberta’s Justice Minister, Alison Redford had expressed her support for the tough new law introduced in BC. Now, as Premier, Redford is suggesting the BC approach could be implemented here.
Last year, BC introduced a new law which attaches harsh consequences to the process critics have dubbed “trial by breathalyzer”.
For example, if a motorist blows between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent BAC, an immediate three day driving prohibition is imposed, plus a $200 fine.
However, if a motorist blows over 0.08 - or refuses to blow - the law imposes a mandatory a three-month driving ban, impounds the vehicle for 30 days, and imposes fines and other obligations which total nearly $5000.
All of this is determined and imposed on the spot by a police officer.
Even an appeal of a suspension does not go to a judge, but rather to a “delegate” appointed by the BC Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.
It also creates the situation where an officer essentially pronounces guilt on an accusation of being illegally impaired, and yet the relevant Criminal Code sanction is often left on the table.
Refusing to provide a breath sample is a criminal offence – one that 37-year-old Kristen Debra-Lee Spencer was declared by a Vancouver-area RCMP officer to have committed. No criminal charge was laid, however, and instead Ms. Spencer was plunged into the Kafkaesque world of this new legislative reality in BC.
If this is the system Premier Redford really intends on imposing on Alberta, perhaps she should take heed of not just the spin from her BC counterpart, but also the recent ruling from BC Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan.
The deck seemed to be stacked against Spencer every step of the way as the judge spoke of “processes fundamentally at odds with basic concepts of fairness and impartiality”.
But it wasn’t just the manner in which Spencer’s case was handled that concerned the judge.
He declared it to be “highly anomalous” that a speeding ticket appeal goes to a court, but the far more serious consequences of this law “are adjudicated in this stripped-down manner.”
McEwan described the whole “scheme” to be “seriously flawed”.
No doubt Premiers Redford and Clark would point to the fact that BC’s law is “working”.
The BC government points out that under the first seven months of this new law, there were 30 drunk-driving related deaths in the province. The average for same period over the previous five years was 61.
That seems impressive, but it still does not erase the very real concerns over civil liberties. There’s also the long-term implication of having many drunk drivers lighter in the wallet but clear of any criminal record.
However, the mere visibility of the new law and increased enforcement, apart from the specifics of the law itself, would certainly have a considerable impact on its own.
So rather than imposing this “scheme”, could a highly-publicized campaign of increased enforcement of existing laws had a similar impact?
Impaired driving is a societal problem that, despite the remarkable strides of the past 30 years, still exacts a tremendous toll. Many Canadians look to politicians to “do something” about this and other crimes, and so we provincial politicians seeking to leave their mark in a realm which is primarily federal responsibility.
We’ve seen that at least once during Alison Redford’s time as justice minister, as she oversaw the introduction of so-called Proceeds of Crime legislation.
Similar concerns over civil liberties arose then, too, since under the law someone’s property could be seized even if they hadn’t been convicted of a crime – or even charged with one in the first place.
Based on that, it’s no surprise that Redford might be blind or indifferent to the flaws inherent in BC’s impaired driving legislation.
 Hopefully the rest of us won’t be.

Now is the Time for Action! And a Cigarette!

It's the political ad everyone is talking about at the moment. But the kind of buzz this ad is generating might not be the kind of buzz that will help the candidate:

"Misunderstood"?

A controversial Islamic group from the UK has come to Canada:

An Islamic group whose presence in Montreal sparked controversy insisted Friday night that its message has been misunderstood.
The Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) is a UK-based group that describes itself on its website as an "international dawah organization committed to educating and informing humanity about the truth and noble message of Islam."
However, a speech by the group's chairman Abdurraheem Green, where he suggested it is alright for a husband to use physical force on his wife, drew a lot of negative attention to the group.
(...)
Tzortzis defended his chairman, saying Green's statements were taken out of context.

"Misunderstood"? "Out of context"? Seems pretty clear to me what Mr. Green is saying here:

Once Again, No Evidence of Cell Phone-Cancer Link

Further to the studies detailed here, a major new study once again shows us that there is no evidence pointing to a connection between cell phones and cancer:

In this update of a large nationwide cohort study of mobile phone use, there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association.

As the Associated Press explains it:

The biggest study ever to examine the possible connection between cellphones and cancer found no evidence of any link, suggesting that billions of people who are rarely more than a few inches from their phones have no special health concerns.
The Danish study of more than 350,000 people concluded there was no difference in cancer rates between people who had used a cellphone for about a decade and those who did not.

More here and here.

Also, see these two recent studies in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 

Herald Column: Ideal Opportunity To Make Strides for Free Speech

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at an important Supreme Court case beginning tomorrow, and other developments which could have a very positive impact for freedom of expression in Canada:

With the Supreme Court of Canada this week hearing arguments in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission versus William Whatcott, it might just provide the ideal opening for the debate over freedom of expression to burst back into prominence.
Certainly we have an abundance of politicians all too willing to euthanize the debate and leave the status quo intact. Fortunately, that attitude is not universal.
Here in Alberta, our new premier has committed to eliminating Section 3 of the provincial human rights legislation, which prohibits the publication or display of anything deemed “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
The term “likely” is highly subjective, and it matters not whether what was published might also happen to be true.
Alison Redford’s response to a survey from the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association was unequivocal: “...to better define and protect free speech in light of challenges to the statute in recent years. Freedom of expression must be shielded and Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act should be repealed.”
If indeed the new premier wishes to represent change, what better than to follow through on a firm commitment that her predecessor was too timid to ever consider, let alone utter?
Federally, we shall see if the comforts of a parliamentary majority allow the Harper government to consider changes to Canada’s human rights legislation.
Despite an overwhelming call in 2009 by Tory members to strike down Section 13 of the federal human rights legislation, no action was forthcoming.
Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth has tabled a private member’s bill to do what presumably his party expects to be done, namely, eliminate Section 13 (which, much like Alberta’s legislation, speaks of that which is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”; and again, truth is no defence).
The case of Whatcott, however, comes via Saskatchewan, where the ostensibly conservative government of Brad Wall has seen fit to stand behind the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal and the legislation on which the Whatcott decision was predicated.
Back in 2001 and 2002, Whatcott produced a number of pamphlets in which he was trying to alert the public about an apparently sinister gay agenda.
Two of the flyers were simply photocopies of classified ads from a gay newspaper. The others warned of “sodomites in schools,” reflecting Whatcott’s paranoia that this vast homosexual conspiracy was now creeping into the education system.
A human rights tribunal ruled the pamphlets promoted hatred against homosexuals and therefore violated the human rights code. Whatcott was fined $17,500.
A court of appeal took a more enlightened view of freedom of expression and overturned the ruling. That brings us to this week’s Supreme Court hearing, where hopefully, the top court will be similarly inclined to ensure freedom of expression is protected.
There are those, however, who appeal instead to a mysterious and vaguely defined “freedom from hate,” as did University of Calgary professor Darren Lund recently in these very pages.
Lund, though, failed to explain why the Criminal Code provisions with regard to publicly inciting hatred are insufficient. He also conveniently overlooked the court ruling dismissing Whatcott’s conviction, or for that matter, the court ruling acquitting Red Deer pastor Stephen Boissoin in a case brought by Lund himself.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found the tribunal made no “attempt to balance the protection for freedom of expression” and declared that “anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression.”
If people like Whatcott or Boissoin wish to describe certain behaviours as “wicked,” then perhaps their behaviour or beliefs could be described thusly.
Such name-calling might be counter-productive, but it is not the state’s role to force us to all get along.
As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association observes, “polemical statements of opinion, some of which may be offensive, are part of the protection for free speech. The best response to hateful speech is to denounce and counter it, not ban it.”
Hopefully, now circumstances will conspire to ensure our laws reflect those important principles.

Canada's Bizarre Caffeine Double-Standard

Further to this and this, we now know how Ottawa plans to address the issue of energy drinks:

Most of the energy drinks such as Red Bull and Monster already meet the new requirements to keep caffeine levels at 180 milligrams per drink.

All energy drinks will still have to change their labelling to meet new Health Canada requirements to list ingredients and analysis of the amount of caffeine and vitamins.

And all the drinks will have to carry a warning that they are not recommended for children or pregnant or breastfeeding women and should not be mixed with alcohol.

My thoughts were outlined in my Thursday editorial comment:

It's not quite the radical solution some had pushed for, but Ottawa is pressing ahead with tighter regulations on so-called energy drinks.

An expert panel had recommended to the federal health minister that these drinks only be sold under the direct supervision of a pharmacist.

Given that the majority of these energy drinks contain less caffeine that the coffees and other drinks available at places like Starbucks and Tim Horton's, it was a preposterous idea.

So a silver lining of sorts in that Ottawa declined to go that far.

However, the feds are still taking a nanny-state approach to intervening in the marketplace with tighter regulations on these products.

For example, the minister has put caffeine limits in place for energy drinks and has mandated warning labels and caffeine content to be listed on the side of the can.

However, most energy drinks already fall below the new limits, and most already come with warning labels which discourage consumption by children and pregnant women.

But we now have a situation where certain drinks with caffeine are subject to a whole new set of rules and regulations and other drinks with even more caffeine are completely and totally exempt from these rules and regulations.

If that sounds absurd, that's because it is.

Ottawa has created a very convoluted solution in search of a problem. What a waste of time and resources.

Brian Knight Gets 90 Days

Sending criminals to jail is a crucial component of our justice system. It both sends a message to the offender, and protects the public by removing the criminal from our streets for a certain period of time.

So it makes me wonder, then, why we are sending Brian Knight to jail.

The Stettler-area farmer was handed a sentence of 90 days in jail by a judge today in Red Deer.
The 41-year-old father had pleaded guilty earlier this year to a charge of criminal negligence.

Last one night back in March of 2009, Knight was awoken from a dead sleep by his wife who was in tears after noticing some men on their property trying to steal their ATV.

Knight ran out into the freezing weather in his boxer shorts and a pair of boots. Not knowing what he might encounter, he grabbed his firearm.

Knight got in his truck and chased the thief who was fleeing on the stolen ATV. The truck bumped the ATV and the thief took off on foot. In an attempt to frighten the thief and get him to stop, Knight fired two shots into the air above the thief. However, some pellets did fall and strike the thief in the back.

Brian Knight has never been in trouble with the law. He is a hard-worker, a devoted father, and a community leader. If the authorities really believed he was trying to shoot or hurt this thief, then presumably he would have been charged with assault or something even more serious. It seems incredibly unjust to lock him up for this.

Maybe Knight overreacted. Maybe he should have just said "it's only an ATV" and simply phoned the police.

Certainly, though, for those living in rural areas, there's the worry and frustration that thieves think they can steal property and get away with it, since police can't quickly respond.

It's bad enough that we've deemed Brian Knight of someone worthy of imprisonment, but it's even more outrageous when you consider that the thief in question actually got less time in jail - a third of what Knight will serve.

The judge may think a message has been sent to Knight, but this verdict sends a much different message - one that should concern us all.

(More on the Brian Knight Legal Defence Fund here)

Beware the Beverage Police

Don't drink energy drinks! Don't drink raw milk! What next?

Energy Drinks: The Nanny-State on Steroids

I've written before about the pointless panic over energy drinks, and the complete lack of context in this conversation (eg, the fact that coffee has far more caffeine than most energy drinks).

Well, just when I thought the debate over energy drinks couldn't get any more ridiculous, we learn that the federal Health Minister is considering this:

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq won’t say whether she’s ready to accept the advice of her own expert panel on energy drinks to classify the caffeinated beverages as drugs and sell them at pharmacies, saying she first needs to be assured the science is right and the report is balanced.
(...)
The panel’s report, provided to Health Canada last November and obtained by Postmedia News last week, says such energy drinks as Red Bull, Rockstar and Monster should be renamed “stimulant drug containing drinks’’ and be sold only under the direct supervision of a pharmacist instead of on grocery store shelves.

So it would then fall to a pharmacist to sell a can of Red Bull (80mg of caffeine), but a Starbucks barista will still be the one to sell you a coffee (upwards of 300mg of caffeine), the young employee at Tim Horton's can still pour you an iced coffee (up to 150mg of caffeine), and the grocery store can still stock all the soft drinks it wants (some 500ml bottles of soda contain as much or more caffeine than a can of Red Bull).

Insanity.

Junk Food Bans Can't Ensure Healthy Eating

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the junk food ban soon to be in place in Calgary Public Schools:

Much like the allegedly sinister foods we're aiming to vanquish from Calgary schools, perhaps sweeping bans could also find their way onto a list marked "choose least often."
The Calgary Board of Education is proceeding with a plan to rid public schools of junk food by the start of 2012. That will mean removing sugary and salty snacks from vending machines, and removing such offerings from school cafeterias. Catholic schools are removing junk food from vending machines next week.
However, for as much as this discussion revolves around schools and children, perhaps we should more precisely identify the target of such policies: high school students. The very same high school students who, in many cases, are holding down part-time jobs and driving themselves to school, or making preparations for post-secondary education. It is at the high school level where students typically have disposable income or are at the age where they are trusted enough to be sent to school with money, rather than a packed lunch.
Certainly, by the time a child reaches high school, nutritional patterns and eating habits are going to be fairly well established, and it's hard to see how these policies are going to have much impact.
Clearly, though, many expect the bans to make a difference. So far, the evidence is less than encouraging. For example, a study published in July in the American Journal of Public Health found that junk food bans in school did lead to a reduction in the consumption of soft drinks, particularly among certain minority groups. However, the same study found the bans led to no decline at all in students' body mass index.
A major study in 2009 by the non-profit RAND Corp. found that banning the sale of junk food in schools had no significant effect on BMI, had no significant effect on overall consumption of health food, and found no evidence of broader effects on behaviour or academic outcomes.
And what's to say these policies promoting healthy food actually lead to healthier eating? Surely juice is healthier than soda, but why are the 41 grams of sugar in a cup of grape juice more acceptable than the zero grams of sugar in a Coke Zero?
In a profile on celebrity chef Jamie Oliver - who has become a major activist for healthy food in schools - Reason magazine found that one of Oliver's own recommended "healthy lunches" contained more calories and fat than not one, but two McDonald's Happy Meals, including soft drinks.
There is also a financial side to all of this. For one, removing the products means losing that revenue. It seems to me that such additional revenues could help toward the availability and quality of physical education, which might make more of a difference than removing the snacks.
Secondly, will offering healthier meals in the school cafeteria make those meals more expensive? Will that mean an even greater burden on schools on top of lost revenue? Or will that cost be passed on to the students, making it even more likely they'll avoid such fare?
If a 17-year-old can find a way to cheaply satisfy his hunger, he'll do so. There's a reason Kraft Dinner is a staple of many high school and university students' diets.
One might still argue, however, that banning junk food sends "the right message." But does it? It seems to me that a policy devoid of any creativity and flexibility, and based on an inherent mistrust of teenagers, entails some poor messaging.
Indeed, a little flexibility and creativity could go a long way. Cornell University's Brian Wansink has done some fascinating research on how to guide young people toward healthier choices. For example, one study showed that by simply labelling carrots as "X-Ray Vision Carrots," young children consumed significantly more of them.
Wansink and colleagues also showed that by combining that approach with some changes in menu selection and the layout of the cafeteria, students will make healthier choices.
As they put it, "children can be presented healthy and unhealthy items and be led to willingly choose the good."
That's what we all want. But by simply removing junk food, we're ensuring it won't happen. Let's rethink the junk food ban.

Life Imitates "The Onion"

Al Qaeda has had it with all these 9/11 conspiracy theories:

The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the "Great Satan" -- which it calls the U.S. -- in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories. 
In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine "Inspire", an author appears to take offense to the "ridiculous" theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.
"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government," an article reads. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

 The Onion News Network was on this two years ago:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Ethical Oil vs. Unethical Saudis

The Saudis are not happy about this:

 

 

More here, here, and here.

 

Oh, by the way, Saudi Arabia has just executed a man convicted of sorcery.

Irresponsible Fearmongering on HPV Vaccine

Of all the major issues the United States of America is dealing with at the moment, it's rather strange to see that a vaccine has become a major issue in the Republican presidential race.

With Texas Governor Rick Perry suddenly a front-runner for the GOP nomination, his rivals have been looking for an opportunity to bring him down a few notches.

Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann believes Perry is vulnerable on the issue of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, specifically the mandate from Governor Perry that the vaccine be offered in all public schools. As summarized here, Perry was assailed over the issue at a Republican debate earlier this week.

Not content to argue against Perry's mandate however, Bachmann went even further by asserting that the vaccine is dangerous:

 

The relevant Bachmann quote:

 

“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. There are very dangerous consequences.” 

 

I'm not sure what is worse: that Bachmann might have made up the story or that someone really did relay such a story and Bachmann accepted it without question (Bachmann is not backing down, either).

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that this anecdote has any validity and no evidence that this vaccine has caused any such reaction. In fact, some professors are now offering more than $10,000 for proof that this story is true. 

 

In reality, this vaccine has a remarkable safety record. As noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (PDF):

 

There is absolutely no scientific validity to (Bachmann's) statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record.

 

Hoover Institution fellow Dr. Henry I. Miller makes the point even more emphatically:

 

In the extensive clinical studies (on more than 20,000 girls and women) that were performed prior to the FDA’s licensing of the vaccine, the vaccine was 100 percent effective, a virtually unprecedented result. How safe is the vaccine? No serious side effects were detected; the most common side effect is soreness, redness and swelling in the arm at the site of the injection. In summary, Gardasil has one of the most favorable risk-benefit ratios of any pharmaceutical.

 

More here. The fact that we have a vaccine to potentially prevent many of those deaths should be seen as a remarkable medical achievement.
About 95% of cervical cancer cases are linked to HPV, or human papilloma virus. In Canada we see about 1400 new cases cervical cancer annually - more than 400 women die every year from this disease.
However, Michelle Bachmann is not alone in trying to discredit the vaccine. This has been an issue here in Canada and here in Alberta, and we've heard similar claims from from people like Calgary Bishop Fred Henry.
Like this, for example:

Bishop Henry said the Catholic bishops of Alberta are concerned not only about the harmful side-effects associated with the vaccine, but very particularly about the conflicting message the vaccination program sends to young girls about chastity and sexual promiscuity and about putting schools in a position of "grave moral compromise."

 

Or, this:

 

According to Bishop Henry, their studies had suggested the HPV vaccine was “not adequately tested” and could have “problematic dimensions” and “disastrous side-effects.” Adverse reactions, including some deaths, have been reportedly linked to the HPV vaccine. 

 

 

And it's not simply a matter of Bishop Henry having an opinion. As a direct result of his beliefs about the HPV vaccine, Catholic Schools in Calgary - and other jurisdictions - have refused to offer it. As a result, relatively few Catholic girls in the region have been vaccinated.

 

The notion that the vaccine encourages premarital sex is absurd.

 

For one, it's hard to believe that fear of cervical cancer is a major factor for teens considering sex. The Bishop's position, though, seems tantamount to believing that such a fear should remain as a deterrent (a position skewered in this video). The fact is, even if a young woman saves herself for marriage, her husband could be carrying the virus. So much for Bishop Henry's belief that "the vaccine is not a substitute for chastity".

 

Secondly, would all of this really be explained to a ten-year-old? Don't we just sit kids down, give them a needle, and send them on their way? I certainly don't think Catholic schools would be faulted if they took that approach.

 

What would be the point of explaining to a 10-year-old in the first place was cervical cancer is, what HPV is, and how HPV is spread? I doubt most 10-year-olds would comprehend most of that, let alone jump to the conclusion that sexual intercourse is now suddenly a great idea.

 

We can protect these women and save lives. Shame on those who would undercut that effort with irresponsible fearmongering and preposterous moral grandstanding.

 

Corporate Taxes: Gary Mar 1, AFL 0

There may be reasons as to why Gary Mar is the wrong man for the top political job in Alberta, but his support of corporate tax cuts is not one of them.

 

The Alberta Federation of Labour believes it to be of major concern, and has zeroed in on the candidate who the latest poll shows is the frontrunner for the PC leadership.

 

The AFL believes says Mar's plan amounts to a $660-million question giveaway to,  "wealthy corporations" and they wonder if Mar is then planning deep cuts to make up for the lost revenue.

 

There is much wrong with the claims of the AFL, and if indeed our next Premier plans to reduce corporate tax rates, then all the facts need to be on the table.

 

First of all, it's unclear what exactly a "wealthy" corporation is in the first place. There are profitable companies and wealthy people, but the reverse is illogical.

 

If indeed we want to see gainful employment in this province then I should think we would want companies to be profitable. If those profits are going into people's pockets, then it is income tax and capital gains tax that will take care of that.

 

The fact is, workers are the ones who end up paying for higher corporate taxes. The evidence is quite clear: higher corporate taxes are associated with lower wages. Surely the Alberta Federation of Labour is supportive of higher wages.

 

And it's not necessarily the case that a cut would mean a $660-million shortfall - or any revenue shortfall for that matter. Alberta's corporate tax rate has gone down incrementally from 15.5 per cent in 2001 to it's present 10 per cent.

 

But those reductions have not created any revenue shortfalls. In fact, corporate tax revenues continued to rise (PDF) every year with the exception of a short dip in the recession of '08 and '09. Of course, that's when those so-called wealthy compnies weren't as profitable.

 

The fearmongering of the AFL doesn't quite mesh with the facts.

 

Further reading on the matter - with extensive links to various academic research - here.

Defenders of Bill 16 Missing the Point

UPDATE: Apparently motorists are being stopped for drinking coffee. Don't you feel safer?

 

Today is the day that Alberta's new distracted driving legislation (formerly Bill 16) takes effect. The makes it an offense to talk on a handheld cell phone while driving. Other activities are banned while driving including texting, grooming, and eating (although "snacking" is allowed, leaving people to figure out this grey area themselves).

 

I've written two columns in recent months - here, and most recently here - outlining what I see as the two main problems with the legislation:

 

1. It encompasses an array of activities that have nothing to do with making our roads safer. For example, reading a text while in line at a drive-thru or waiting at a train crossing.

 

2. Studies out of the US indicate this legislation might make little or no difference with regard to road safety, contrary to the numerous claims from the Alberta government and other defenders of the law.

 

Those are my main points. So I would expect, then, if someone is going to respond to my criticism and rush to the defence of the legislation, those points would be addressed.

 

Naomi Lakritz responds to my most recent Calgary Herald column with one of her own.

 

She offers a passionate defence of the legislation and the need to crack down on distracted driving.

 

Yet nowhere in her piece does she address point #1. She does not defend the fact that the legislation specifically deems being stopped in an alley or ditch, or being stopped in a drive-thru lineup or a train crossing as "driving". She simply ignores it. Does she approve of police ticketing someone who is stuck at a train and calls his wife to say he'll be a few minutes late? Who knows.

 

She does, however, address my second point:

 

Tuesday, my fellow columnist, Rob Breakenridge, argued on this page that the evidence isn't there to prove that cellphone bans make the roads safer. Other sources, such as the province of B.C., say there's been a noticeable drop in collisions caused by distracted driving since legislation was brought in. As with similarly contentious issues, such as fluoride, each faction in the debate can summon statistics to its side to prove its point pro or con.

 

Well, Naomi, by all means, summon some statistics. I specifically mentioned two studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Those studies compared the number of crashes in states with bans compared to states without such bans. I also specifically mentioned the report from the Governors Highway Safety Association which examined 350 studies. That report concludes that there really isn't any evidence to show these bans work, and the GHSA is calling on states to hold off on bringing in this kind of legislation.

 

What does Naomi offer in the way of "statistics"? Virtually nothing. She asserts that BC's distracted driving law is working, but offers nothing to back that up. I've searched to find some reference to her claim but so far I am coming up empty.

 

In fact if you read this and this, you'll certainly come away with the impression that police are not yet getting a handle on the problem. This story from just last week illustrates the point:

 

Distracted driving is now the number one factor in driving deaths in Metro Vancouver, police say.
Inattentive driving is now a factor in 47 per cent of fatal crashes, overtaking speed (36 per cent) and drinking (21 per cent) as the biggest danger behind the wheel.

Now, I suppose such a figure might justify the existence of the law. I'm sure Naomi think so, as she offers this:

 

Too bad it's come to this, but since the situation is so bad out there on Alberta's roads, then let's be thankful that the government has finally stepped in.

Another example, however, of not "summoning statistics". As I noted in my piece this week:

The government points to "tremendous technological advances over the last 20 years" as one of the reasons why distracted driving has become such an issue.
But consider this: from 2003 to 2010, Canada went from 13 million cellphone users to more than 24 million. That's after cellphone usage doubled from 1997 to 2003.
Yet while this explosion has occurred in the usage of these devices, our roads have become safer.
In 1990 there were 3,445 fatal crashes in Canada along with 178,515 injury collisions. In 2009 - with more drivers on the road and far more in the way of distractions - there were 2,011 fatal crashes and 123,192 injury collisions. 

Also, Jesse Kline makes a similar point in the National Post:

Between 2005 and 2009, the number of Alberta households with a cellphone increased by 31%, according Statistics Canada. That followed a 170% increase from 1997 to 2005. Yet, between 2005-09, the number of casualties caused by traffic collisions in the province decreased by 22%. The correlation between cell phone use and traffic accidents simply doesn’t exist. 

Another point not addressed by defenders of Bill 16.

 

Bill 16 Has Many Fans But Little Supporting Evidence

My latest Calgary Herald column takes a look at Alberta's Distracted Driving legislation, which takes effect on Thursday:

 

With police forces across Alberta eagerly on board, Alberta's new distracted driving law is now certainly a fait accompli, although that was likely the case long ago.
With the law taking effect on Thursday, we will have completed this headlong charge with very little scrutiny or debate of Bill 16.
Anecdotes about dangerously distracted drivers might seem compelling, but tell us nothing about whether this legislation will accomplish anything.
If we're going to pass legislation and devote police resources to enforcing it, then it's not too much to ask for the province to justify why they believe this will work and what evidence exists to demonstrate that.
In the meantime, police are making it clear that there will be no grace period under this new law
However, police have deftly sidestepped any questions (assuming anyone bothered to ask such questions) about how and whether certain provisions of this law will be enforced.
The law is very detailed and specific about what counts as "distracted" and what counts as "driving".
To most Albertans, "distracted driving" means just that: talking on a cellphone or texting while operating a moving vehicle. As far as this law is concerned, "distracted driving" goes well beyond that.
For example, "driving" under this law includes all sorts of scenarios where one is arguably not driving at all. You might be stopped for several minutes waiting for a train to pass, or stopped in an alley, a parking lot, or even a ditch, but you're still "driving."
Therefore, reading a text message or taking a phone call - or even holding a turned-off cellphone - under any of those circumstances constitutes a violation
So how far will police go in their eager enforcement of this new law?
The closest we've come to an answer is the reassurance that such matters will be left to the "discretion" of the officer, which is really no reassurance at all.
It might seem harsh to ticket someone in the Tim Hortons lineup calling his wife to double-check if that was one sugar or two she wanted. However, doing so is completely in line with the letter of the law. The offender would not have much basis for an appeal.
But how exactly does that make our roads any safer?
Supposedly, improved road safety is the goal of this legislation. At least, that's what the government keeps telling us.
The government points to "tremendous technological advances over the last 20 years" as one of the reasons why distracted driving has become such an issue.
But consider this: from 2003 to 2010, Canada went from 13 million cellphone users to more than 24 million. That's after cellphone usage doubled from 1997 to 2003.
Yet while this explosion has occurred in the usage of these devices, our roads have become safer.
In 1990 there were 3,445 fatal crashes in Canada along with 178,515 injury collisions. In 2009 - with more drivers on the road and far more in the way of distractions - there were 2,011 fatal crashes and 123,192 injury collisions.
That's not to dismiss the potential dangers of distracted driving, but merely a presentation of actual numbers to counter the many presumptions being made.
And while the Alberta government is busy selling anecdotes, south of the border actual research is happening, and it presents a much different picture.
Most recently, a major report was released by the Governors Highway Safety Association, analyzing more than 350 scientific papers on the subject (odd that no one here in Alberta has done so).
The report found that much of the research is contradictory and that there is really no evidence to suggest that these bans actually work.
In fact, after having previously supported such bans, the association is now urging states to hold off on introducing them.
That comes on the heels of two major studies last year from the Highway Loss Data Institute which found no reduction in crashes in states with cellphone bans, and the same for states with texting bans.
Of course motorists should avoid distractions while behind the wheel. But we should have been much more skeptical about the notion that the Alberta government could somehow fix the problem.

The Bloc is Dead! Long Live the Bloc!

It's been often noted that in recent years, the Bloc Quebecois more or less ceased to be a serious separatist party, and instead seemed to have morphed into a left-wing party simply representing the interests of Quebec.

 

Of course, the Bloc was all but wiped out in the last federal election, as the NDP orange wave swept over Quebec. But more and more it looks as though the NDP didn't just replace the Bloc, they've essentially become them:

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan to give B.C., Alberta and Ontario fairer representation in the House of Commons divides the country, interim New Democratic Party leader Nycole Turmel said Wednesday.
(...)
"The approach of the Harper government is really divisive right now. It's not constructive, it's not nation-building," she told Postmedia News in an exclusive interview.
Turmel, whose past membership in the Bloc Quebecois raised questions this summer about her own commitment to federalism, also slammed the Harper government over its announcement Tuesday that it would add "royal" to the names of the Canadian navy and air force.

It's hard to see how the Bloc's position would be any different. How on earth is any of this divisive? If anything, it's the exact opposite: Alberta, BC, and Ontario are under-represented, and this plan to add seats is a way of fixing that. Not doing could fairly be described as divisive.

 

We also see the Quebec-centric NDP approach in Turmel's reaction to the announcement that the names Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy will come back into use. It's only divisive or controversial if your sole concern is the province of Quebec where the monarchy is much less popular. But the fact remains that we are a constitutional monarchy; the Queen is our head of state. Not liking that fact doesn't make it any less true.

 

Canada's system of government and Canada's system of democracy are not divisive. How sad that the NDP has been reduced to this sort of pandering.

 

UPDATE: Wow, even the Toronto Star gets it.

Nanny-Statists Target MMA & Exotic Dancing

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at developments in Alberta, B.C., and Saskatchewan, where politicians, bureaucrats, and other busybodies are looking to ban activities they disapprove of:

 

If one were to rank activities on a wholesomeness scale, I suppose mixed martial arts and exotic dancing might rate quite low.
What should offend us far more than scantily clad men pummelling each other or scantily clad females dancing on a pole is the existence of moralistic busybodies who feel consenting adults should be prohibited from enjoying or participating in such activities.
Last summer, the Canadian Medical Association voted to support a ban on mixed martial arts (MMA), despite the sport's growing popularity. Around the same time doctors called for a ban, the sport was sanctioned in Ontario and B.C.
Last week, the B.C. Medical Association renewed the call for a ban after a participant in an amateur MMA event in Kamloops had to undergo emergency brain surgery. The individual has recovered, and it's been suggested medical care and screening of participants at the event was not what it ought to have been.
The hostile stance taken toward the sport seems rather counterproductive if the goal is to reduce injuries. Offering supervision and expertise seems more likely to result in positive change. All the more disappointing is the self-righteous tone, rather than an evidencebased argument for a ban. Condescending disapproval is a flimsy basis for criminalizing an entire sport.
It seems Canada has an abundance of condescending approval, especially in Saskatchewan. Not only is our neighbour one of the few provinces where MMA is banned, it is the only province where strip clubs are forbidden. I believe fun is still permitted, but you should double-check that if you plan on travelling.
A Regina bar is in hot water after allowing a burlesque show to be performed, even though it featured no nudity. So apparently upholding this senseless prohibition involves enlisting government bureaucrats to scrutinize women and determine what constitutes exotic dancing.
The Saskatchewan government can't seem to mount a compelling argument in support of the ban. But when politicians are trying to make better decisions on our behalf, who are we to second-guess them?
A similar attitude persists in Alberta, although strip clubs are permitted. Here, the "freedom to create and spirit to achieve" does not extend to burlesque performers. The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) cannot imagine how such smut could be considered art, so surely it is no different and no better than exotic dancing. The two are treated the same.
Those involved in burlesque and those who enjoy the shows consider it art. Once again, you might think this could be left to the tastes of consenting adults, but provincial bureaucrats are having none of it.
In Alberta, performers wearing the traditional burlesque pasties are considered to be nude. Therefore, they must not come into any contact with any other performers. Any props or devices determined by AGLC bureaucrats to be "sexual" are also forbidden.
One Calgary venue was recently fined $10,000 for a show bureaucrats deemed "too racy." It's unclear the extent of the trauma suffered by those in attendance.
Burlesque performers are pushing back.
They recently held a performance protest in Calgary, and they've been gathering names on a petition.
However, much like Saskatchewan's exotic dancing law, if no liquor is being served, then burlesque shows are out from under the puritan boot of the AGLC.
Who - and from what - is this law aimed at protecting? All that appears to be in danger are the sensibilities of those who have deemed themselves the arbiters of what others should see and do.
Disapproval is one thing. But the tut-tutting of the nanny-statists should not be the final say on how Canadians live their lives.

Herald Column: The Many Flaws of Bill 16

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at Alberta's new distracted driving legislation, which officially takes effect on September 1st. I argue that the entire approach of the law is rather problematic:

 

While Albertans may be in agreement about the risks of driving while talking on a cellphone or texting, such a consensus should not make us blind to the many flaws of Bill 16.
Alberta's distracted driving legislation will come into effect Sept. 1, and a warm sense of gratitude seems to have emerged since the announcement last month -a gratefulness that government is finally going to tackle this scourge.
There are those upset by the exclusion of hands-free devices, but from an enforceability point of view, you might as well include daydreaming, too.
Fewer distracted drivers would certainly mean safer roads. It does not necessarily follow that Bill 16 will produce such an effect.
Two studies released last year in the United States by the Highway Loss Data Institute illustrate why. One found that states with cellphone bans saw no decrease in crashes compared to states with no bans. Another found the same for states with bans on texting while driving -three of the four states with such bans actually saw increases in crashes.
Part of the reason, researchers suspect, is that drivers were holding their devices low to avoid detection. So instead of less distracted driving, we might simply get more dangerous distracted driving.
The other major problem of Bill 16 is how muddled it is, and how much of it seems to have very little to do with actually making the roads safer.
That was illustrated by recent remarks from Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette on how the law applies to eating while driving: "If all of a sudden, you open a chocolate bar and take a small bite . . . we don't want an officer giving you a ticket for that. But if you have a Quarter Pounder in front of your face, and you are using both hands and driving with your knee, you deserve to get a ticket."
What does this mean, exactly? Eating is permitted, so long as it can be confined to a single hand? The food must not block your field of view? Candy is fine, but nothing containing meat?
Given how many of us grab a bite while on the go, and given the threat of a $172 ticket, such questions might not seem so facetious.
But that's the confusing reality of this new law.
As the minister notes, you may open a candy bar and take a bite. You may open a pack of cigarettes and light one. You may open a CD case and insert or remove a disc.
However, being pulled over and holding a turnedoff cellphone would constitute an offence under this law. Reading a text while stopped at a train crossing would constitute an offence under this law. So, too, would skipping songs on your MP3 player while waiting in the Tim Hortons drive-thru lineup.
The obvious danger of someone texting while barrelling down Deerfoot Trail does not explain the threat posed by someone using his BlackBerry to read the list of everyone's coffee order at the drive-thru window.
Surely, defenders of the law would say, police would not write a ticket for something so trivial. But if you consider such offences to be trivial, why defend a law that has specifically included them?
Moreover, anticipating an unspoken police policy to ignore unspecified provisions of the law seems quite odd.
In defending the law, many are drawing the comparison between distracted driving and drinking and driving.
Banning a motorist from saying, "I'm stuck at a train, I'll be a few minutes late," on his phone is the equivalent of criminalizing a sip of wine two hours before driving.
Another problem may prove to be technological: in two decades, we've gone from brick-sized cellphones to Bluetooth. Two decades from now, we may receive calls on implants in our molars and e-mail messages may simply appear in our field of view. Laws like this will seem rather moot.
In the meantime, we're left with legislation that tries to fix what government may not be able to fix, and legislation that also tries to fix what isn't broken.

On Cellphones & Cancer: The Latest Research

Given how much attention this issue has been receiving as of late, it seems worthwhile to draw attention to this story:

 

A major review of previously published research by a committee of experts from Britain, the United States and Sweden concluded there was no convincing evidence of any cancer connection.

It also found a lack of established biological mechanisms by which radio signals from mobile phones might trigger tumours.

"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults," the experts wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives
The latest paper comes just two months after the World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decided cellphone use should be classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
Anthony Swerdlow of Britain's Institute of Cancer Research, who led the new review, told Reuters the two positions were not necessarily contradictory, since the IARC needed to put mobile phones into a pre-defined risk category.
(...)
Significantly, other studies from several countries have shown no indication of increases in brain tumours up to 20 years after the introduction of mobile phones and 10 years after their use became widespread, they added.
Proving an absence of association is always far harder in science than finding one, and Swerdlow said it should become much clearer over the next few years whether or not there was any plausible link.

What of that apparent disconnect between this latest research and the recent decision by the WHO's IARC? Some further explanation here of how this all squares:

 

The ICNIRP evaluation also considered the data on brain cancer incidence in several countries with reliable records, including Nordic Countries, Switzerland and the US; in all cases there has been no indication of an increase in brain tumour incidence (as I discussed previously, the trend is the same in Canada).
Overall ICNIRP concluded that the combined evidence suggests that there is no significant increase in adult brain tumours within 10 to 15 years of cell phone use, but noted that there are no data on the risk of childhood tumours.
These two evaluations do not really contradict each other as much as it might seem. Neither give a clear black and white conclusion – both show that the available studies have significant flaws and biases that make it difficult to draw solid conclusions. The two evaluations were done using a different approach; IARC looked at the evidence within a specific framework and set of rules for comparison with other evaluations, while ICNIRP looked at the overall weight of evidence and tried to make general conclusions.
Both evaluations acknowledge some major shortcomings in the data. In particular, cell phone use has only really been widespread for about 10 years, and some cancers may take longer than that to develop. There also aren’t any good data for risks to children, who might be expected to be more sensitive due to thinner skulls and still-developing brains.

More here:

 

It is understandable that people are concerned about mobile phones, especially because they are so widely used. But so far, the published studies do not show that mobile phones could increase the risk of cancer.  This conclusion is backed up by the lack of a solid biological mechanism, and the fact that brain cancer rates are not going up significantly.

 

And here:

 

So we can’t rule out the possibility that mobile phones cause cancer, but it does look pretty unlikely, which is why the IARC has classed it as 2B. This is not an admission that mobile phones cause cancer, it is simply an honest indication that it is impossible at this stage to rule out. It is also, incidentally, pretty much in line with mobile phone guidelines handed out by the UK government since 2000, which is to keep calls short if you are concerned, and try to minimise your children’s use.
But if it turns out, later, that the evidence improves, what does it mean? Well, obviously, since right now the evidence is weak, we don’t know. But one study – and the headline figure, really, that is being bandied around – is that 10 years of heavy mobile phone use could lead to a 40 per cent increase in risk of glioma, a cancer of nervous tissues in the brain or spine. That sounds pretty bad, and, of course, it is. But bear in mind that gliomas, while the most common kind of brain tumour, still have an incidence of between 2.1 and 7.1 per 100,000 head of population per year, according to the Handbook of Clinical Neurology. So even if the headline-grabbing, scary 40 per cent figure is accurate, and the top-level 7.1 per 100,000 per year is also accurate, that leads us to a new level of 10 incidences per 100,000 per year. It’s an increase, but it’s not so terrible when you put it like that.

And here:

 

It's mildy amusing to note that mobile phone use appears to be prevent brain cancer among people who have ever made a cell phone call. Even among top ten percent of heavy users, their risk of brain cancer was well below Shapiro's 2.0 relative risk threshold.
Interestingly, as the number of cell phone subscriptions in the U.S. has risen from 1 million in 1987 to over 300 million today, the National Cancer Institute reports that brain cancer incidence [PDF] has been trending slightly downward.

Previous coverage of this issue at this blog here and here.

 

Further worthwhile reading on this subject here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Long Weekend Gas-Gouging Myth

For those taking to the road this long weekend, they're probably quite aware of just how they're paying for fuel.
It's the sort of thing we all tend to pay closer attention to when setting off on a long journey.
From that, perhaps, has grown the belief that we pay more for gasoline on long weekends. It's become quite commonplace, in fact, to hear people say that motorists get "gouged" before holiday weekends.
However, as it turns out, the notion that we're being gouged at the pump is a myth.
A new study (PDF) by MJ Ervin & Associates finds that as much as prices have gone up before a long weekend, they's also gone down.
The study looked at week-over-week pump prices around holidays and non-holidays over a five-year span from April of 2006 to June of this year:

The aggregated results indicate that week-over-week retail prices are no more likely to increase during the week immediately before a holiday. In fact, our findings revealed that the number of price increases during the week of a holiday was slightly less than that of weeks not related to holidays.
The average magnitude of price changes over these same weeks indicates a negligible difference between holiday and non-holiday weeks. The average price increase during the week of a holiday was slightly less than for non-holiday weeks. Conversely, average price decreases were slightly higher during holiday weeks.

The study did find that gasoline tended to cost more in the spring and early summer, after demand spikes and inventories become squeezed.
But when it came to long weekends, prices were no different than any other weekend.
The study explores why this myth persists:

The perception held by many consumers that gasoline prices increase just before a holiday weekend is simply not supported by the objective data. We would therefore conclude that this perception can be viewed simply as a myth, likely perpetuated by a combination of distrust of oil companies, long-held beliefs, and commentary in the popular media that often takes a cynical view of oil companies.
Our findings suggest that the retailing of motor fuels is more competitive than many consumers might perceive. The "long weekend" myth is in direct opposition to this analysis showing petroleum price behaviours surrounding long weekends to be competitive.

In lieu of any evidence, the notion of the long weekend gas gouge is merely a conspiracy theory. Now we have the evidence to lay it to rest. Whether to choose to accept it is another matter.