‘Agnostic’ – what the term actually means

October 5, 2010 — xanthippa

Today, I got an interesting and thought-provoking comment from JR (as a response to my reaction to a comment where I declined to participate in celebrating ‘Agnostic Month’ on the grounds that I found ‘agnosticism’ illogical and arrogant).

JR managed to ‘hit’ one of my really, really ‘big buttons’.  So, I thought I’d best answer him in a full-fledged post of its own…..because I suspect that philosophically, we are close.  It’s those danged ‘labels’ that are all over the place.

Which, of course, is the above-mentioned ‘button’ of mine….

JR’s comment was:

Have to disagree, Xanthippa. Of all the philosophical positions one can hold on religion agnosticism is the most rational. Based on what an agnostic rationally ‘knows’ about the world s/he forms an opinion that the objective evidence available to date does not conclusively prove the existence of a supreme being who consciously and deliberately created the universe as we know it and now, in some fashion or other, watches over and/or guides its existence. That last part would be my definition of “God” which I think covers most others’ definition also (if you can propose a more satisfactory one, please do).

Those who worship God, or just “believe” in God’s existence, do so based on their own objective knowledge of the world plus subjective internal “feelings” which are not directly accessible to anyone else. Their subjectively formed convictions are, by definition, unconvincing to non-“believers” who, clearly, have no similar “feelings”. A weak agnostic is one who is not convinced yet, but who thinks it possible that some time in the future, through new knowledge or, who knows?, even a religious experience or revelation, God’s existence will be satisfactorily proven (to him/her). A strong agnostic, on the other hand, believes that knowledge of the existence of God is forever beyond the human mind to grasp – it can never be objectively “proven”. Neither form of agnosticism constitutes atheism which I understand to require an absolute conviction or “belief “ in the non-existence of God – no “maybe” about it. The atheist requires an extremely strong faith – because there can never be any objective proof of a negative.

Your notion of a “militant agnostic” is interesting. I’ve never encountered one of those. It sounds oxymoronic. Is there an on-line example?

The problem, of course, is the disconnect between the popular use of these terms and their actual meaning.

THAT is my ‘big button’ that JR managed to really ‘push’!

Luckily, most of the terms to describe forms of belief or non-belief in all kinds of ‘thingies’ regarding God(s) have been artificially created, so we have their actual (i.e. correct) definitions and need not rely on the inaccuracies of their vulgar use…

Aside:  ‘vulgar’, of course, means ‘common’ or ‘as popularly used by ‘common’ people’.

Another aside:  Wikipedia used to actually have the correct definitions of these terms.  However, a few years ago, they changed them to reflect the vulgar usage of them rather than their accurate meanings.  Disappointing!

Refocusing:

The terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ do not refer to the same aspect of belief:  one addresses ‘BELIEF’ while the other addresses ‘KNOWLEDGE’.  Perhaps I should go back to the beginning….

First, there was the term ‘ATHEIST’.  It was specifically designed to express NON-BELIEF or NEGATIVE BELIEF regarding the existence of God(s).  Literally, ‘ATHEIST’ = ‘apart from the belief in the existence of God(s).

By definition, an ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist.

The term was ‘coined’ with specifically THAT meaning:  it expressly did not address the PRESENCE of ANY specific belief – only the absence of belief in the existence of God.  Of course, the term became misused almost as soon as it was engineered…

The second term to have been ‘coined’  was the term ‘THEIST’ = someone who holds the POSITIVE BELIEF that God(s) DO exist.  It was designed specifically to be the opposite of the term ‘ATHEIST’.

‘Theist’ describes someone with the presence of belief in the existence of God(s), ‘atheist’ describes someone with the absence of belief in the existence of God(s).

The term which properly describes a person who holds the positive belief in the non-existence of God(s) is ‘ANTITHEIST’: though, naturally, this term, too, became misused shortly after it was invented.  Currently, the most popular usage of the term ‘antitheist’ is to describe a person who is opposed to all forms of organized religion.

It appears to me that JR has mistakenly used the term ‘atheist’ to label the positive belief system of the ‘antitheist’.  Common, if frustrating, mistake.

To recap:  we have visited the core definitions of three terms, two of which describe holding ‘positive beliefs’ and one which describes the absence of a particular positive belief:

  • ‘theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) exist
  • ‘anti-theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) do not exist

Thus,  the ‘theist’ and ‘antitheist’ both hold positive beliefs as to the existence of God(s) – just opposite positive beliefs.

  • ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist

In this way, ‘theist‘ and ‘atheist’ are opposite:  one is the presence of a positive belief in the existence of God(s), the other is the absence of such a belief.  However, the term ‘atheist’ does not address the presence or absence of any other belief regarding the existence of God(s).  Thus, antitheists are one of the many sub-groups of atheists.

All these terms are focused on the belief in the EXISTENCE of deities – exclusively.

It would be ‘an error of omission’ it it were not mentioned at this point that ‘monotheism’ is actually a special case of ‘antitheism/theism’, as it is a positive belief that ALL BUT ONE Gods and Goddesses do NOT exist.  As such, it is a positive belief in the non-existence of so many deities, the belief in the existence of one last remaining one of them is so illogical as to defy comprehension.  That is why so many professionals in the field think that ‘monotheism’ can only be achieved through serious brainwashing during early childhood or through mental illness.  I am not a professional in the field, so I merely report this, without commenting on the validity of such an opinion.  (Note:  Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all forms of monolatry, not monotheism, and thus do not fall into this category if practiced according to their scriptures.)

In contrast, the term ‘agnostic’ addresses something quite different.

‘A‘ means ‘apart from’.

‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’.

Aside:  It is important to stress that the Greek term ‘gnosis’ means ‘personal knowledge’ and has, throughout the millenia, been used to also denote ‘mystical knowledge’ when it has been used in the context of religion or religious experiences.  ‘Gnostic Christians’, for example, were a sect of Christianity which rejected imposition of the structure of The Church in favour of ‘personal knowledge’ or ‘gnosis’ of the divine.  Until the ‘Conversion of Constantine’, ‘Gnostic Christianity’ was the ‘norm’.  Several Crusades were authorized by various Catholic Popes to suppress Gnostic Christianity: ‘the Albigensian Heresy’ (Cathars), ‘Bogomils’ and Hussites, to name just a few.  (Reformations introduced by Martin Luther were a watered-down bastardization of the teachings of the Hussites, a century or so after the Hussite teachings went ‘underground’.  But, that is a different ‘button’…)

The term ‘AGNOSTIC’ refers to a person who holds the positive belief that it is impossible for us, puny humans, to ever achieve KNOWLEDGE whether or not God(s) exist.  It thus corresponds to what JR identified as ‘strong agnosticism’:  there is, by definition, no such thing as ‘weak agnosticism’ (according to JR’s description thereof).

In other words, an ‘agnostic’ believes it is UNKNOWABLE whether God(s) exist.

This positive belief does not address the actual existence of deities:  just our ability to ever KNOW – for sure, one way or the other.

As such, a person who believes s/he can never know if God(s) exist can still hold positive beliefs as to their existence itself! After all, these are beliefs regarding completely different aspects:  one is ‘belief’, the other is ‘knowledge’.

Thus, an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist (of the antitheist type or otherwise)!

As for the ‘militant agnostics’ I have encountered – I am sorry, but it was in ‘real life’, not online.  However, the vast majority (though not all) of them fit into the logical fallacy of ‘Pascal’s Wager’:  “we cannot KNOW if GOD exists, but I am safer/can’t loose if I believe in God, so I do!”

When I would point out to these people that this does not constitute actual ‘belief’ and is both a moral and logical hypocrisy (if I chose to use kind terms), these militant agnostics got downright crotchety!

.

…

Posted in atheism, debate, ignosticism, religion. Tags: , , , , . 13 Comments »

‘Collaborators’ will be lined up against a wall and blogged!

September 18, 2010 — xanthippa

Thank you, Suzanne from BigBlueWave!

Posted in debate, politics. Tags: , , , . 2 Comments »

Email interview for Ottawa Election Candidates 2010

September 17, 2010 — xanthippa


The following set of questions will be emailed today to all the candidates who list an email – the rest can find it here, should they be interested.

If at least 10-15 of the candidates do respond, I will set up a separate blog at which I will post all the responses I receive (by Mayor/Ward#).

This election is likely to see many changes in the municipal political scene – and so it should be. Still, it can be confusing for the ‘regular voter’ to know who’s who and what their defining values are.

In order to help the voters identify which candidate stands for what, I have put together a few questions which I would appreciate if you would answer. In order to identify everyone’s stand on some of the issues which are important to the Ottawa taxpayers at this time, some of the questions are provocative, pointed and otherwise biased in order to highlight each candidate’s uniqueness.

If you would like to answer any or all of my questions (feel free to pick and choose), I will post each reply on a dedicated blog. It might not get a lot of traffic – but, then again, it might take off. All I ask is that the questions be answered by the candidate and not their political staff and that they be honest, direct and heartfelt.

(If some of the questions make you mad – please, say so: they are meant to! Which questions make you mad just may help voters identify with your core values! If none of the questions get you ‘hot under the collar’, then I have failed and I apologize.)

Part 1: tell us about yourself

1.1

Why did you decide to run for public office now – as opposed to another time?

1.2

Why did you decide to run for the Municipal level of government, as opposed to the Provincial or Federal?

1.3

What makes you the best candidate for this job?

1.4

What separates you from all the other candidates?

1.5

Whom do you admire and why?

Part 2: decision making

Each of the following questions will present you with 2 options: sometimes, these may be congruent, sometimes not. It does not matter. This section is meant to highlight, if elected, how much relative relevance you would give these considerations in YOUR decision making.

Dividing ten points between the two choices in each question, please indicate how many you would give to each of the two options presented (ensuring the sum adds up to 10).

Example: When considering a snack, how would you rate ‘healthy’ vs ‘convenient’?

Healthy __6___

Convenient __4___

(A snack can be both healthy and convenient – this just tells us, the voters, which quality you would consider more, and by how much.)

Please, feel free to comment as well.

2.1

To whom is the primary responsibility of the City Council?

City employees _______

Taxpayers _______

2.2

When introducing new initiatives (or evaluating existing ones), what should be the relative importance of these to each other?

‘Environmental good’ _____

Taxpayer burden _____

2.3

When introducing policies intended to change the behaviour of the citizens of Ottawa, how would you balance the following?

Advice of experts _____

Voter feedback _____

2.4

When motivating citizens to use public transit, how would you balance these two approaches?

Making it easier, more convenient and especially safer to use public transit _____

Introducing penalties/fees/traffic tie-ups to discourage the use of private vehicles _____

2.5

Who is responsible for the welfare of children?

Parents _____

Public officials (including all variety of school programs) _____

2.6

What is the relative importance of these?

Individual (including property) rights _____

‘Public good’ _____

2.7

What should be the relative focus of any government?

Providing services to citizens _____

Enabling citizens to provide for themselves _____

2.8

When implementing a policy that may not be popular, which is preferable?

Legislating behaviour _____

Permitting those citizens who wish to ‘opt in’ to do so, with no penalty to the rest _____

2.9

What is a better way to help people with ‘drug problems’?

Needle exchange/safe injection site programmes _____

0 tolerance of illegal drug users (including marijuana) _____

(I specify drug ‘users’, as opposed to ‘dealers’)

2.10

In policing, what is the relative importance of:

‘Public Good’ initiatives – such as ‘driver sobriety spot checks’ by police _____

Respecting the constitutional rights of citizens (random police checks illegal) _____

2.11

Who is entitled to decide the fate of trees?

The property owner (whose house may be getting damaged by the tree) _____

The community (as represented by City Officials) _____

2.12

Which is more harmful to the environment?

Raw Sewage _____

Carbon Dioxide _____

2.13

If ‘security’ and ‘freedom’ are in conflict, which should take precedence?

Security _____

Freedom _____

2.14

If a city official (such as a police officer or a by-law officer) is attempting to carry out an illegal order or to enforce an illegal law/by-law (one which contravenes the Canadian Constitution), what should be the reaction of the citizen?

Shut up and obey, like a good little slave _____

Place the city official under citizen’s arrest _____

2.15

Where do rights originate from (and thus reside with)?

Individual _____

Society _____

Part 3: Short and to the point

Please answer the following questions in 10 words or less.

3.1

What is the main purpose of government?

3.2

What is the main purpose of fines?

3.3

What is the proper role of by-laws?

3.4

Currently, the average salary (and benefits) of the City of Ottawa employee is roughly double the average salary (and benefits) of private sector employee (this average includes the high salaries of CEO’s and other executives – as shown in multiple studies). Under what conditions is this justifiable?

3.5

In many City of Ottawa departments, the workers and managers are members of the same labour union. Is this proper?

3.6

Should the City of Ottawa have departments which duplicate the services (and often undermine the policies) of Provincial and/or Federal departments?

3.7

Many businesses in Ottawa claim the amount of ‘red tape’ they have to go through simply to exist is excessive. Is this a problem?

3.8

Under what conditions is it justifiable for a government to financially subsidize one business, but not another?

3.9

Is ‘reverse discrimination’ also a form of discrimination?

3.10

Under what conditions should governments be permitted to fund non-core, non-essential programmes/services?

3.11

Does accommodating sensitivities of ANY/ALL religious groups by the City of Ottawa a breech the separation of ‘government’ and ‘religion’?

3.12

Should elected city officials be subjected to a specific term limit? If so, how long?

3.13

Similarly, should city employees (perhaps with the exception of front-line police officers, firefighters and paramedics) face a similar cap of a maximum number of years in the civil service (say, 15 or so)? (This would help bridge the public/private sector gulf and enrich both, as well as slow the destructive trend of emerging ‘privileged class’ of civil servants we are seeing in our society.)

3.14

Why should the City of Ottawa permit the operation of businesses (such as clubs) which ban a citizen from becoming a member based on their gender (or which set aside hours of operation for members of a specific religion)?

3.15

Should the City of Ottawa tolerate the practice of gender discrimination in any form, including ‘gender segregation’ on City property? (In privacy/modesty situation, the existing measures such as ‘family changing rooms’ and ‘family rest-rooms’ are a perfect accommodation to all without implementing gender apartheid.)

3.16

Should City of Ottawa financially support public events (including sports competitions) which practice gender apartheid? Should it tolerate such intolerance in City owned facilities?

3.17

It is difficult for most non-communications specialists to be ‘perfectly bilingual’: still, it is even more difficult to be ‘perfectly trilingual’. As such, the current City of Ottawa language policy unfairly prevents non-linguist allophones, mostly from immigrant backgrounds (such as myself) from even seeking employment with The City. If elected, will you work towards a more inclusive, tolerant workplace which only requires ‘functional bilingualism’, and only in ‘front-line positions’ for personnel which is directly serving the public?

Part 4 – deeper questions

Please, answer the following questions.

4.1

The classical role of government is defined as protecting territorial integrity (not applicable to a municipal government), protecting the security of person and property of its citizens and providing an impartial and objective judiciary. This is a much narrower role than what the modern governments tend to play. Most citizens would likely agree that the role of municipal government also includes supplying clean water, proper sewage treatment/waste (garbage) disposal and road infrastructure.

Should a municipal government to provide any service other than listed above? (Please list.)

Why/why not?

4.2

This will be difficult to put in practice, but…

Do you support, in principle, the assertion that since civil servants are paid from the salaries of ‘regular citizens’, the average civil service salary should not be higher than the average salary in the private sector?

If elected, would you work towards implementing this principle into practice?

4.3

Multiple studies over decades have established that people who regularly use public transit suffer from many more infectious illnesses than people who don’t. If elected, what measures will you pursue to minimize this public health hazard?

4.4

Public transit is used by downtown commuters more than any other group. Yet, most of the people who work downtown are civil servants – whose salary is, on average, already roughly double that of people working in private industry. As such, concentrating on providing increased public transit service to downtown is an additional subsidy to already overpaid civil servants. When the property taxes are rising to unprecedented high levels, forcing people from their homes, how can such a blatant subsidy to already overpaid bureaucrats be justified?

4.5

Cities which have light rail public transit are increasingly converting their systems to uses buses. Since the accommodation to the unions states that no rail system which the City of Ottawa might implement would reduce the number of drivers/commuters had been made, there will not be any cost savings on the salary of operators if a rail-based transit system is brought in. Yet, the construction of rail-based transit systems is much higher than of bus-based systems while at the same time it lacks the flexibility inherent to a bus-based transit system. If there is a justification for a publicly run transit system (which is far from established), will you oppose all the hair-brained schemes involving rail-based system in favour of a reasonable, bus-based system?

Posted in debate, politics. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Was the ‘Koran-burning preacher’ Terry Jones duped by the moderate imam Musri?

September 9, 2010 — xanthippa

While checking out TheReligionOfPeace, I came across this story.

Instead of trying to simply retell what the article says, let me try to re-construct some plausible approximation of how it might possibly had happened.

First, we have the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.  And, yes – the undercarriage of one of the airplanes that hit ‘The Towers’ on 11/09/2001 actually fell on top of this building and damaged it:  this makes the building ‘Ground Zero‘. Imam Rauf, who is building the Ground Zero Mosque  cannot, by any reasonable person, be called ‘moderate’ – not with what has been learned about him… and certainly not based on his behaviour.

Anyhow…

Yesterday (Wednesday), imam Rauf is quoted in the linked article as saying that

‘nothing is off the table’  when asked whether he would consider moving the site.

Today, (Thursday), Donald Trump is reported to have offered that he would buy the building from imam Rauf for 25% more than it had cost him:  not because he wants the building, but because he would like to end the controversy amicably.  Considering that imam Rauf and his gang had paid $4.8 million for the damaged building, Mr. Trump is truly putting his money where his mouth is.

So far so good.

But things go from good to bad rather fast.

A nutty and, by the sounds of it, somewhat unpopular preacher Terry Jones from Florida got annoyed by something and declared September 11th, 2010, to be ‘International Burn-the-Koran Day’.  (No, not a ‘Burn-an-imam Day’ – just destroying some inanimate objects he owns.)

Could it have been the very existence of the Mosque at Ground Zero?  Or, perhaps the speed with which it’s breezing through all the building permits while St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, the tiny little churched destroyed as the South Tower collapsed on top of it, appears to be fatally entangled in the red tape which denies its reconstruction?  Or was it hearing about the hundreds of bibles burned by Iran?

Perhaps he was expressing solidarity with the Muslims in Iran who have posted this video of themselves, burning the Koran, as a symbol of protest against the oppressive theocracy which is ruining their country? (Thanks, BCF, for digging this one up.)

Perhaps it was a little bit or everything.

Perhaps he was simply exercising his freedom of religion!

Whatever the cause, the fact remains that preacher Jones is well within his rights to destroy his own property, however he chooses to, and nobody has the right to meddle!

Of course, meddle they did.

And this is where it gets rather ugly…

‘Everyone’  has been meddling!

It was just ugly when it was just the usual media lackeys who condemned him.

It was emotional blackmail and just idiotic when people ‘all over’ tried to make him somehow responsible for the potential actions of other people.  Yet, that is exactly what happened!

But when General Petraeus, the American Troops top commander in Afghanistan, came out and started telling anyone who’d listen that how a specific citizen of the USA chooses to exercise his Constitutionally guaranteed rights, he’ll be guilty of putting American troops into danger – that is when it gets downright scary!

Since when do we live in a society which permits military generals to dictate who gets to exercise their Constitutional rights, and how?  Do we even WANT to live in such a society?

Of course, the media ignored the constitutional rights issue and instead of demanding that General Petraeus be stripped of his position and dishonourably discharged from the military (the minimum reasonable reaction to a general caught bullying civilians out of their civil rights) , they have given the military man a pass and continued to beat up on the nutty preacher.  Sad, even if predictable.

Of course, this is not where it ended.

US President Obama – the guy who found nothing offensive in decades of reverend Jeremiah Wright‘s ‘God Damn America’ sermons – condemned his own citizen for exercising his freedom of religion. In this abc piece, Obama is quoted as saying (regarding Terry Jones’s plan to exercise his freedom of religion):

“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values … this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance,”

In other words, Obama says that the USofA ‘has been built on the NOTIONS(?!?) of religious freedom’, but believes that exercising them is ‘completely contrary’ to American values.  (I am presuming here that when Obama says ‘ours’, he actually DOES mean ‘American’.)

Does Obama really not realize what is coming out of his mouth?!?!?

Last night, the internet provider pulled the plug on the prea

Today, when Secretary of Defense Gates did not only not fire Petraeus, but actually personally phoned Jones up and parroted Obama and the disgraceful general, preacher Jones began to show cracks.

So, let me recap.

So far, we have tons of pressure on preacher Jones to cancel his ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ day, which he is ostensibly holding as an exercise of his freedom of religion, because he is so annoyed with imam Rauf’s arrogant project which has created so much discord in the American psyche.

We also have imam Rauf claiming ‘nothing is off the table’ when he was asked if he would be willing to move the mosque’s location to a less controversial spot.

Donald Trump takes imam Rauf seriously and offers to buy out the ‘Park 51’ property from him while giving imam Rauf a 25% return on his investment.

In comes the ‘moderate’ imam Musri,reportedly  an influential Muslim from Florida.

Preacher Jones meets with imam Musri and comes out of the meeting convinced (rightly or wrongly) that since the Ground Zero Mosque builders have agreed to move their project, he is calling off the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’!

Yes, he has called the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’ off!

But, he has done so in the honest belief that the reason for his decision to so publicly exercise his freedom of religion by burning the Koran was no longer there – that the thorn has been removed from his side!

Alas, not so!

Once the ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ was called off, the ‘moderate’ imam Musri says that there must have been a misunderstanding:  he only promised that the two of them (Musri and Jones) would travel to New York to seek an audience with imam Rauf in order to ask him to, please, be so kind as to consider, may be, perhaps, moving his project elsewhere.

If he’d like to.

Pretty please.

Gee – how could such a misunderstanding have come about?!?!?

On a completely unrelated note – have you ever heard of the Islamic concept of  ‘taqiyya’?

Posted in corruption, debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society, war. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Thunderf00t: ‘Tolerance’ and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

August 31, 2010 — xanthippa

This is brilliant!

I love Thunderf00t’s videos – OK, most of Thunderfoot’s videos.

He is really intelligent and articulate.  And, he has a large following of really intelligent and  articulate people who watch his videos on YouTube.  His YouTube -and, I am sure, non-online achievements (he is, after all, a scientist) – have earned him the opportunity to interview Richard Dawkins.

Disclosure:  I like Thunderf00t and what he says WAY more than I like Richard Dawkins and his message.   Still, we are talking ‘celebrity access’ here – earned in the best way possible.

Which is why I was happy to see Thunderf00t post a video about ‘Tolerance and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.

What made me even happier was to see that he had felt obliged to put up ‘Part 2’ to it – so many of those who love and respect Thunderf00t (and follow him in his fight for freedom of speech) simply missed the salient and important points in the original video.  OK – it’s not that they ‘missed’ the point that is so great:  what IS awesome is that someone as intelligent and eloquent as Thunderf00t explained it to them.

It is this explanation that completely and clearly explains the reasoning behind the opposition to this ‘we-have-conquered-America’ landmark which is something every single person who thinks (or says – those are not necessarily congruent) that those who are opposeing the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ are intolerant bigots or some such thing ought to see and listen – really listen – to!

First, the original message:

And then, the explanation:

If you still have any questions, ask yourself:  what would George Carlin say?

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 6 Comments »

‘Regular Tamils’ are returning to Sri Lanka: so, who is aboard the MV Sun Sea?

August 13, 2010 — xanthippa

Sometimes, one has to wonder at the level of our ‘public debate’.

The latest example is the ship which had entered Canadian waters today, loaded with ‘Tamil political refugees’.

Some claim the boat is chock full of  ‘human smugglers’ and Tamil Tigers – a terrorist organization which is best known for (among other things):

The ‘public debate’ is dominated by the questions of how to separate the ‘legitimate refugees’ from the terrorists hiding among them, how to treat them, what process to apply to them, and so on.  This is all done among the warnings that  several more ships are ready to set out.  Whether they also head for Canada depending on how Canada treats this shipload….because Canada has a reputation as a naive pushover when it comes to aggressive immigrants.

The mainstream media is, rather predictably, not getting to the core of the issues – which pretty much ensures that the public remains ignorant of them, much less that they get discussed.

As it happens…

Until recently, my husband used to work with an excellent engineer who just happens to be a Tamil émigré.

Very intelligent, a competent and skilled engineer, with a six-figure salary.

Her husband also had an excellent job.

When their homeland on Sri Lanka was being torn apart by the ‘conflict’, they left, came to Canada and made a home here for themselves and their kids.

But, the conflict is over.

Done with.

Gone.

No, things are not ‘perfect’.  Of course not.  25 years of bitter conflict, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides, take a while to ‘work out’.

But, the time for fighting is over and the time for re-building has begun.  And, many ‘regular’ Tamils who had been driven from their homeland are returning and starting the process of rebuilding  everything, from the infrastructure and the economy to the social fabric of the country.

According to my hubby’s friend, ‘things’ are now ‘safe’ on Sri Lanka, even for ‘regular Tamils’.  Safe enough for these two intelligent and practical people to bring their kids back ‘home’.

Which makes me wonder:

If ‘regular Tamils’ and their families are returning home to Sri Lanka, who are the people claiming to be refugees?

If Sri Lanka is now safe for ‘regular Tamils’,  why is it not safe for the people on the MV Sun Sea?

If law-abiding citizens – Tamils or not – feel that Sri Lanka is safe for them, exactly whom is it NOT ‘safe’ for?

Could it, perhaps, be the people who were part of the Tamil Tiger terrorist network?

This would be in agreement with the warnings we have received that the boat is loaded with Tamil Tiger terrorists…  Except that, instead of genuine ‘refugees infiltrated by some terrorists’ – as the boat’s passengers are being presented to us by the mainstream media, the whole boat is, perhaps, filled with people who are ‘refugees’ because they (and their kids) are escaping justice for their terrorist activities?

I don’t know.  But, if Sri Lanka is now so safe, pragmatic Tamils (and engineers do tend to be pragmatic) are returning there from Canada because the situation there is now ‘safe for regular Tamils’, I don’t know what other conclusion to reach.  At least, not logically….

Which brings me to my second point.

I am an immigrant to Canada.  Before I came here, I was a refugee – a genuine refugee – and was granted a political asylum in Austria.  So, I do know a little bit about the international laws that govern that whole pesky ‘refugee’ thingy… both in theory and from practical experience.

The thing is – international law has very specific laws governing refugees.

There are several kinds of refugees:  coming from a country which is now peaceful (no civil war or conflict), which has not experienced any natural disasters lately, one where the economy has not collapsed, the only kind of refugees the international laws recognize are ‘political refugees’.

There are specific protections for political refugees under international law – for obvious reasons.  However, there are also some very strict rules political refugees have to obey in order to earn those legal protections and enjoy the status of ‘political refugee’.

The  number one rule – the one every country (other than Canada, to the best of my knowledge) – for ‘political refugees’ is that they MUST request political asylum in the nearest country where it is safe for them to do so.

The reasons for this are simple, yet important:  countries in the region are better aware of the details of the internal political situation of the country the potential refugees are coming from.  So, the understanding of the nuances of the local picture is much more likely – both because the closest ‘safe’ country’s government is likely keep abreast of the latest political developments in their area of the world and because it is bound to have ‘good assets’ on the ground to verify specific claims.

Plus, if there is a specific area of the world which is, over an extended period of time, seeing more political refugees than other parts, either UN-run or UN-supervised refugee camps can be set up there.  I went through one of these:  they are not necessarily more ‘comfortable’, but they certainly are much more efficient.  They have channels set up to verify people’s identities, check their international criminal records, assess the veracity of their claims as well as the potential danger they are in.

Yes, the advent of the internet has made much of the checking easier, without the need for centralized facilities.  But, some of the other ‘stuff’  is still best verified as locally as possible.

Which brings me back to the MV Sun Sea:  Canada is not exactly the NEAREST safe country for Tamil refugees to seek shelter in!

Sri Lanka – formerly known as Ceylon – happens to be right next to the subcontinent of India.  The same India which has been a strong supporter of the Tamils, sometimes even accused of being too supportive of them.

This ship has had to pass right by the – perhaps – safest, most supportive of the Tamil cause.  Then it has had to pass by a whole slew of countries, navigate directly away from the democratic countries of Australia and New Zeland.  Then it has had to traverse across the largest body of water on Earth, the Pacific Ocean,  intentionally avoiding the US islands there….

…before making it to Canada!

That means that the boat (and the refugee-status seekers on it) have intentionally breeched international laws and bypassed many safe havens – just to get here.

This act, in itself, makes each and every passenger on the MV Sun Sea NOT ELIGIBLE to receive the status of ‘political refugee’, according to international laws.  (Yes, I am not a lawyer – but, that is my best understanding of the laws.)

To sum things up:  ‘regular Tamils’ are returning from countries like Canada to Sri Lanka, because the conflict is over and it is safe for those Tamils who were not terrorists to return ‘back home’ and begin rebuilding the society.  And, the political asylum seekers on the MV Sun Sea have disqualified themselves from being eligible for that status under international law by not seeking asylum in the closest available safe haven to Sri Lanka.

Until these facts are highlighted and Canadians in general are made aware of them, we cannot even engage in any kind of a  reasonable, informed debate as to the appropriateness of actions our government ought to take with respect to these asylum seekers….

Posted in debate, politics, society, war. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Pat Condell: “Freedom is my religion”

August 3, 2010 — xanthippa
Posted in atheism, debate, freedoms, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Should taxes be mandatory?

July 23, 2010 — xanthippa

When is the last time you went to a restaurant – and did not leave a tip?

Chances are – never.

Or the service was so poor, you were ‘making a point’…

Why?

Because we all understand that servers rely on tips for their income.

And we wish to encourage good service and so on and so on.

Nobody has the right to force you to tip.  You may not like the practice, but chances are, you still do tip ‘good service’.

This same principle also ought to apply to taxes!

Governments would be much more careful with their revenue if they did not usurp onto themselves the power to extort taxes from its citizens.  Any government caught in corruption (AdScam, e-Health,  Sewardship Ontario and on and on), that government’s revenue would dry up – and rightly so!

This, in my never-humble-opinion, is the best (if not only) means through which citizens can keep governments ‘honest’ and fiscally responsible!

Perhaps this sounds extreme – and perhaps it is.

Still, ask yourself why is it that ‘tax collectors’ have powers much greater than police officers or the military.  Why is it that in the name of ‘collecting taxes’, governments create personal files about each and every citizen, where they collect and access decades very private information?

Governments only have the powers we delegate to them.

If you do not have the right to do something, you cannot delegate that right to anyone else (including the government) to do it on your behalf.

You do not have the right to demand to know the financial details of your neighbour’s life.  Since you do not have it, you cannot ‘delegate’ this ‘right’ onto the government.  Therefore, demanding to know the details of our financial circumstances is not a power any government can legitimately exercise on behalf of its citizens.

Again, please ask yourself:  why is it that when governments cannot seem to catch ‘careful’ lawbreakers, they try to ‘get’ them on ‘tax evasion’?

That alone should make us pause.

I know this sounds extreme – it is meant to.

The reason I am raising this point is not because I am advocating any sort of a tax revolt – at least, not on a practical level.

Rather, I am saying is that we ought to think very hard about exactly how we got into the current state where we consider it ‘normal’ that the State suspends our civil liberties in order to take from us whatever amount of money it has unilaterally set.

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 24 Comments »

Banning ‘the veil’: the end does not justify the means

July 15, 2010 — xanthippa

France is just one of a growing number of European countries which have been passing laws which forbid wearing veils that cover one’s face in public.

While I loath all forms of this apparel, I loath this law even more – and have said so often and loudly.

Here is my take on it:

OK – I’m not a fan…

For many reasons.

The origin of veiling women’s faces is in the practice of owning wives as a class of slaves.  This is the history.  Not good – and nothing rooted in this tradition will likely meet with my approval.

Today, some women are forced to veil their faces in public, either through physical or emotional coercion.  This, of course, is unacceptable.

In many instances, the facial veil is being used as a means of isolating a woman from the greater culture:  this form of isolation prevents her from forming social bonds of her own among the greater community – and prevents her from building a support mechanism which would help her escape from any potentially abusive situation.  I’m going to be repeating myself:  this, of course, is unacceptable.

Yes, many women today do wear the full facial veil of their own free will, as a symbol of their ‘identity’.   This, I find even more offensive!  Setting aside the whole psychoanalytical thing of women choosing to self-identify with cattle, this is an act of haughty contempt for everyone else individually and the society as a whole.  It is an aggressive assertion that they are better, worthier, more holy, than the rest of us… It is, in no uncertain terms, an outward expression of self-aggrandization and bigotry.

At the same time, it is often worn by some women as a not very subtle method of intimidation and aggression towards the greater society.  These women are themselves Islamists who understand perfectly well the fear many have of having Sharia forced upon them by the Islamits:  they wear the veil as an arrogant reminder of the threat they are posing to us all.

So, a woman wearing the ‘Islamic veil’ can either be a victim or an aggressor – either way, I don’t like it!  And that does not even touch on the whole ‘security’ issue, where criminals use the face-veil to disguise their identity…

In other words, I would be very happy never to see anyone hiding their true face!

BUT…

The ends never justify the means.

In fact, the means often undermine and invalidate the end.

I got into a somewhat heated discussion about this with Trupeers over in the comment section of BCF‘s post on this.  I think I was not very clear about it and confused the issue by poorly expressing what I mean.  Still, it helped me ‘distill’ the essence of what I mean better.

My ‘first law of human dynamics’ states that eventually, every law will be abused and stretched into unforeseen ridiculousness.  Therefore, whenever we pass laws, we must consider more than their immediate effect.  It is our responsibility to examine the not-so-obvious implications of any law and to really really foresee any potential ways in which the law could be abused.

THAT is my problem with a law that bans ‘wearing a face-covering veil in public’.

The larger implications:  we are permitting a government to legislate what people may or may not wear in public.  You know, like they do in Iran…

It is always easier to give some power to a government than it is to take it back.   Once we legitimize the practice of governments  legislating and enforcing dress codes, that aspect of our existence will be at the mercy of some  future government’s whims!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

There is hope for us yet!

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

The Canadian Senate is actually doing useful work!

YES!!!

Four senators, Finley, Duffy, Wallin and Tkachuk ‘get it’!

They even quote Kathy Shaidle from her ‘Tyrany of ‘Nice”!

Blazing Catfur has the scoop…

I just  hope Justices Kent, Heeney and Wilton-Siegel are reading this!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »