Defeating Hatred - Without Censorship

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the decline of Calgary's racist skinhead movement and the factors that did - and did no - play a role in that decline:

A cursory glance at some of the national headlines from three or four years ago might have given one the impression that the neo-Nazi hordes were descending on Calgary and that the city had become a bastion for the racist skinhead movement.
Such a perception would be very much at odds with the spectacle of two meek (and very much non-skinhead) “white pride” advocates who briefly turned out for Saturday’s anti-racism rally at City Hall.
In fairness, however, if that had been the case in 2009, there likely would have been no headlines at all about racist skinheads in Calgary. As it was that year, several dozen skinheads and assorted racists did turn out to rally and ended up clashing with more than 400 anti-racist counter-protesters.
The Aryan Guard — as it was then known — certainly endeavoured to be as high profile as possible. The group did seem to be drawing recruits from other parts of the country, and the violent tendencies exhibited by many in the group were indeed of concern.
But by 2011, there were barely a dozen skinheads at their rally, and last year, there were none as a handful of them went to rally in Edmonton instead.
So while the panic of a few years ago may have been somewhat overblown, there’s no doubt that a neo-Nazi skinhead movement did exist in Calgary. But it’s also the case that this movement has all but petered out. That is a good news story worth celebrating and it’s also worth exploring why it happened.
One of the obvious reasons is the fact that some of the leaders of the movement are now behind bars. The group’s founder, Kyle McKee, remains in jail while he awaits trial on charges stemming from an alleged race-based assault in Edmonton. Two others have been implicated in a Calgary murder — one has pleaded guilty and another is awaiting trial.
The splintering of the movement and the subsequent infighting has obviously been a factor. It may also be that the young, angry and disenfranchised young men who are drawn to the movement have simply outgrown such views and moved on with their lives. In lieu of any leadership or organization, they are not being replaced.
We could also look to the scrutiny from city police, the pressure from anti-racist activists, and the simple fact that Calgary is a very diverse and tolerant city as other factors.
However, it’s worth noting the factors that did not play a role in the movement’s decline. This was achieved not through denying them the right to hold their annual rally, nor was it achieved through any other means of censorship.
If individuals or groups are engaged in criminal activity, then they should certainly be treated and targeted by police as criminals. The mere act of holding racist views is not criminal, nor should the act of expressing those views be criminal, either.
In this country, it potentially can be. The laws that give rise to that — the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code and the sections of various human rights acts that deal with offensive speech — seem to be premised on the notion that more hate speech will lead to more hatred. Therefore, the response to hate speech in this country is often to censor it.
But no hate speech charges were ever laid against any of those involved in these racist rallies in Calgary. No human rights panels were ever asked to weigh in. Despite calls for the rallies to be blocked, city officials erred on the side of protecting freedom of expression and they were allowed to go ahead.
And despite the lack of any of this — or maybe even because of it — this movement is on life-support, if not already dead.
It could well be that the censorship approach merely serves to push such views underground, whereas allowing hatemongers to expose themselves for who they really are expedites the process of having their views wither and die.
Free speech can often be messy and unpleasant. But as we see time and time again in this city — and in this country — tolerance prevails.

Further Blows to Controversial MS Theory

The idea that blocked neck veins - a condition dubbed CCSVI - are the cause of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and that removing those blockages - the so-called "Liberation Treatment" - could potentially cure MS has attracted a lot of attention.
Certainly if the theory were to be true, that would be well-deserved attention. But despite the enthusiasm of various levels of government and assorted politicians, the evidence is pointing us in the other direction.
Previous studies have failed to replicate the original findings of Italian surgeon Paolo Zamboni and have cast serious doubt on his theory (more on those studies here) .
Two new studies would appear to further confirm that CCSVI is not the cause of MS. One of them deals with the blockages themselves:

"Our results in this phase of the study suggest that findings in the major veins that drain the brain consistent with CCSVI are uncommon in individuals with MS and quite similar to those found in our non-MS volunteers," said Jerry Wolinsky, M.D., principal investigator and the Bartels Family and Opal C. Rankin Professor of Neurology at The UTHealth Medical School. "This makes it very unlikely that CCSVI could be the cause of MS, or contribute in an important manner to how the disease can worsen over time."

The other recent study is even more significant. It is a clinical trial of 30 MS patients who all underwent the so-called "liberation treatment":

The first controlled clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of interventional endovascular therapy on the symptoms and progression of multiple sclerosis has found that the intervention, sometimes called the “liberation treatment,” which has attracted intense interest in the global MS community, does not improve patient outcomes. In a few cases, the treatment made symptoms worse.

More here and here. To repeat, not only did the surgery offer no benefit, it actually made matters worse for some patients. If the CCSVI theory had any validity, that is not the outcome we would see.
These studies would seem to bolster the conclusion of this damning commentary published recently in the journal Neurological Sciences:

We show that no piece of the CCSVI theory has a solid supportive scientific evidence. The CCSVI appears to be a rather alien condition and its existence should be definitely questioned. Finally, no proven (i.e., based on strict scientific methodology and on the rules of evidence-based medicine) therapeutic effect of the "liberation" procedure (unblocking the extracranial venous obstruction using angioplasty) has been shown up to date.

All of this doesn't necessarily close the book entirely on CCSVI, but let's not forget that there is other encouraging research taking place on causes of and treatment for MS. Let's especially be careful to ensure that the focus on CCSVI isn't taking resources away from this other research.

This Levy is Nice, That Tax is Not

So does Premier Alison Redford support a national carbon tax?
Based on what we've heard this week, the answer isn't entirely clear.
In an interview Monday with Postmedia News, Redford suggested that Ottawa look at copying Alberta’s $15-per-tonne carbon levy:

“We think that’s the right approach,” Redford said, when asked whether Ottawa should introduce a federal carbon levy on large emitters.
Alberta’s carbon tax of sorts has generated more than $300 million for a technology fund used to green operations and improve environmental performance.
“The federal government needs to be supportive of that policy (setting a carbon price) in areas where it can actually make a difference to the outcome. Simply symbolically setting a price doesn’t actually achieve an outcome,” she added.

In fact, the reporter who posed the question says he even sought clarification from the Premier's office and they didn't dispute her remarks. But after the story appeared Tuesday morning, the Premier's office was in full spin mode.
They put out a so-called clarification, that didn't really clarify much, only that Redford did not support a national carbon tax. But the clarification also trumpeted the success of Alberta's climate change actions - which obviously includes the carbon levy.
Later in the day, the Premier made it clear that she thinks Alberta's model is successful and that other governments might want to look at it:

“The comments yesterday were about the fact we have a model we like here in Alberta,” Redford told reporters at the legislature. “It’s been successful. If other governments choose to adopt programs, we suggest they look at this. That was the context of the comments and that’s as far as I go. I am in no way advocating any sort of national carbon tax. That’s for other governments to decide.”

So what Redford said on Tuesday is pretty much what she said in the Postmedia interview on Monday. So if Redford thinks that the carbon levy has been a great success, why wouldn't she like to see other governments emulate it? Certainly the Premier has made it clear she thinks climate change is a problem, so shouldn't she be pushing a policy she says is working?
Furthermore, does she see a major difference between a tax and a levy? Perhaps then she should explain why Alberta's levy is fantastic and a federal tax would be bad.
Interestingly, a study this week from the U of C's School of Public Policy finds that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way of reducing emissions. Does Premier Redford agree or disagree? If it's the former, then her remarks this week smack of political cowardice. If it's the latter then she still has much to explain.
Right now, we're at the point where even the Premier's clarifications need clarifications. Frankly, articulating her position here shouldn't be hard.

Hey, Police - Leave Those Phones Alone

It would appear that just like here in Alberta, BC's distracted driving law is not having the desired effect.
Police both here and in BC are reporting that they're handing out more and more tickets and that drivers still aren't getting the message.
Police chiefs in Alberta have floated the idea of issuing demerits with a distracted driving ticket, but police in BC are pushing for a different approach. The B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police wants the power to seize drivers cell phones, for up to five days.
For his part, Alberta's justice minister says he's watching how things develop in BC with this idea, but suggested that it's not on his radar right now. However, he didn't rule it out either.
Don't forget, Alberta borrowed many elements of BC's controversial impaired driving law, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see us follow their lead again.
One of the more controversial aspects of Alberta's impaired driving law is how it allows police to issue penalties (i.e., licence suspension and vehicle seizure) on the spot. Police are supposed to gather evidence and lay charges, but their role isn't supposed to involve findings of guilt and handing out penalties.
That would be the same issue with the proposal to seize cell phones. A distracted driving ticket is essentially a police allegation that you are guilty of the offense. You can pay the ticket, and therefore plead guilty, or you can go to court where a judge will determine guilt or innocence.
If we want those convicted of distracted driving to then lose their phones for a period of time, that might be something worth considering.
We should not allow police to seize phones, because at that point, the accused has not been convicted of anything and should therefore not be punished.
Whatever concerns exist over distracted driving, it shouldn't be an excuse for allowing police to overstep their bounds.

The Pointless and Futile Persecution of William Whatcott

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bill Whatcott, and its aftermath:

The Supreme Court of Canada may have technically ruled against Bill Whatcott, but beyond enhancing his notoriety, it's difficult to see what the ruling accomplished.
That's not to understate the impact of last month's ruling, which upheld two provisions of Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code and re-imposed a finding from a human rights tribunal that two flyers produced and distributed by Whatcott violated provisions prohibiting the publication of materials that might expose people to hatred - in this case, homosexuals.
The court did acquit Whatcott for two separate flyers, and struck down the wording in the code dealing with the prohibition of speech which might "ridicule, belittle, or otherwise affront dignity".
It's a mixed ruling which may in fact offer some improvement to the status quo, but falls well short of the rigorous defence of freedom of expression that many were hoping the high court would deliver. Said hope would be reasonably derived from the passionate dissent in the 1990 Taylor case, which narrowly upheld the censorship provisions of the federal human rights legislation - a dissent authored by the now-current Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin.
With some clarification, we now return to the legal reality in this country where human rights tribunals and commissions can (upon receiving complaints) police what is written and said by Canadians. Furthermore, they can impose financial penalties with the proceeds going to the complainant, even if he or she is not a member of the group that was allegedly exposed to "hate".
We still lack a cohesive understanding of what constitutes "hate" other than to rely upon the judgment of a hypothetical "reasonable person" - except that another "reasonable person" might reasonably disagree with the first. Reasonable people have been known to do that.
It should also be noted that truth and intent offer no defence. The latter is especially ironic given that the Supreme Court ruling republishes Whatcott's four pamphlets in the appendix.
Which brings us back to Bill Whatcott, who believes it's his religious duty to warn us all about what he sees as the evils and dangers of homosexuality (and abortion, too - though none of his publications on that topic are at issue here).
When one considers the fact that such anti-gay sentiment is quickly fading in Canadian society, replaced with growing tolerance for homosexuals and support for gay marriage and other rights, it is clear that Whatcott's campaign is failing. It may not be that his flyers are directly harming his cause, but it's certainly plausible that the blunt depictions of his own intolerance would increase sympathy for gays and lesbians.
Whatever the case, it is beyond any doubt that the prosecution of Bill Whatcott has only served to give him greater national profile and to give him a much larger platform. Far more people have been exposed to his views than otherwise would have been the case. That certainly undercuts the argument of those who believe that enforcing these human rights codes will lead to less exposure to hateful material.
In fact, Whatcott has picked up right where he left off. He has produced new flyers, one of which denouncing "Sodomites and the Supreme Court", and over the last several days has been handing them out on university campuses in Saskatchewan and Alberta - including a weekend stop at the University of Calgary.
Presumably now we could go through his whole process all over if someone is so inclined to file a new human rights complaint. A human rights panel or tribunal could pronounce judgment, followed, perhaps, by multiple court rulings. All the while more people will become aware of Whatcott's views and Whatcott himself will certainly thrive on the notoriety.
Mind you, I'm sure Whatcott would just as soon be left alone from state harassment, and those who value freedom of expression should welcome the same.
It would be much more effective - and much more in keeping with a free society - to counter the likes of Bill Whatcott with reason and evidence.
In the meantime, politicians could protect us from these pointless, costly, and unjust persecutions by removing the laws that were at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, as our own Premier Alison Redford once promised to do.

Welcome to Alberta: Land of Red Ink

The Redford government warned us to expect an unpleasant budget.
Well, that's one promise they've defintely kept. For many other promises, however, it's a different story.
Last year, the Tories promised (PDF) "...a balanced budget by 2013 with no new taxes and no service cuts."
Even once they realized that promise was in rubbles, they made other assurances. Back in September, Premier Redford vowed that other campaign promises would still be kept despite the deficit. In late November, Finance Minister Doug Horner assured the Legislature that, "We will not deficit finance the operations of this government"
Promise upon promise now lie in ruins following yesterday's budget.
For the sixth straight year, Alberta will run a deficit, and for the first time since 1994, the province will run an operational deficit. For the year that's just ended, the government is expecting a deficit of about $4-billion. All told for the coming fiscal year, the deficit is in the neighborhood of $6-billion.
Mind you, it's tough to know for sure. We now have essentially three budgets - operational, capital, and savings.
The government is talking up the $450-million deficit on the operational side. But factoring all the borrowing on the capital side gives us the much larger figure.
Additionally, the Sustainability Fund that just a few years ago was at 17-billion dollars, is now virtually depleted.
And the borrowing will continue - another $12-billion over the next three years. We were once debt-free but by the time the next election rolls around we will be considerably in debt.
All of this leaves the government with plenty of red ink on its hands and egg on its face. It's not a pretty sight.
Further analysis from Don Braid, Rick Bell, and Graham Thomson

Misplaced Focus on Bike Helmets?

While they weren't all that common 20 or 20 years ago, today bicycle helmets are ubiquitous. That's in large part to how safety conscious - some might say risk averse - society has become.
Of course, stemming from that mindset are the laws which have made bike helmets mandatory for kids, as is the case here in Alberta, or laws that have made them mandatory for everyone, as is the case in BC and other jurisdictions.
A strong case can be made that we shouldn't need the state to protect us from ourselves, but in this case, are we even being "protected" at all by mandatory helmet laws?
For one thing, cycling does not appear to be an inherently dangerous activity. In fact, in Holland where a much larger percentage of the populations rides bikes, helmets are rare (less than one percent of Dutch cyclists wear one) and yet it remains one of the safest countries in the world for cyclists.
So why are we so obsessed with helmets?
A study released this week from researchers at the University of Calgary helps illustrate where we've missed the mark. As the release notes:

The study found that the greatest injuries were caused by cyclists crashing into vehicles; the faster the vehicle, the greater the injury. The study also found that the lack of helmet use while biking was not as great a risk factor as were collisions.
(...)
Williamson’s research is supported by a Transport Canada study which concluded that mass helmet use has not contributed to a reduction in cyclist fatalities in Canada, which remains at about 60 deaths a year.

Consider that in jurisdictions where not wearing a helmet is illegal, riding alongside traffic is considered normal. Whether creating separate bike lanes is the answer remains to be seen (more on that question here) , but we need to look at how to take the dangers out of cycling, rather than assuming that cycling itself is inherently dangerous.
It's also worth considering whether mandatory helmets discourage cycling, and from that then whether the lost health benefits from cycling outweigh the benefits of wearing a helmet. Helmet laws may also lead to more risk-taking and a false sense of security.
More here, here, and here.