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)