Just imagine all the … oppression?

October 14, 2009 — xanthippa

We are used to being able to display our political views on our property.  During elections – municipal, provincial or federal – we are used to being able to display a sign on our front lawn, or in our window, which proudly proclaims which candidate we are supporting.  One election, my in-laws each supported a different candidate:  and proudly displayed two political signs on their front lawn!

Now, imagine a place where doing this:  displaying your political views (either on your front lawn or inside your window) would earn you a $10,000.00 per day fine… and 6 months in jail!  Plus, the police would have the power to come onto your property, inside your home, and remove the ‘offensive’ sign.

Where is this place?

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!

We are used to being able to protest – publicly – for or against any cause or issue.  Sure, we ought to get a permit and obey rules of public order.  That is the civilized way to do it.  A government has the right to regulating the ‘HOW’ – but only in the respect that the protest does not interfere with public order and safety (like, say, shoving your kids into the middle of a busy highway, to make your point…).  It does not, and MUST NOT, have the right to regulate THE SUBJECT of any protest.

Now, imagine a place where all protests regarding a specific subject were 100% banned!  A place where people were forbidden to express a specific, non-violent, non-hate-mongering point of view!  Where any expression whatsoever which contravened the ‘official line’  was forbidden.

Where is this place?

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – 2010!!!

Any and all signs (including private ones!) which ‘do not celebrate’ the Olympic Games are banned.

Any protest which might mar the festivities is banned.

Any commercial ‘in, on or above’ the official venues – but whose sponsor had not paid the incredibly high IOC ‘sponsorship’ extortion money (and, they only allow for one ‘sponsor’ in a particular field:  if you are a small, local business – how will you compete with the multinationals?) … any such sign is, predictably, banned.  (Consider a scenario where you have two restaurants in one building:  one sells Coca-Cola, the other a small, local gourmet-made-in-small-batches Cola – and both have neon signs advertising their beverage of choice.  If the business below became ‘official venue’ of the Olympics, because ‘their’ drink became the ‘official sponsor’, that business would be allowed to display their signs and attract customers.  The business above would be forced to remove or cover up their sign (at their own expense) and would not be allowed to even try to attract customers….  Some law!)

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, non-IOC approved ‘voice amplification equipment’, from private boomboxes to megaphones, are – banned.

These are the rules which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is imposing on Vancouver while it is hosting the 2010 Olympic games!

Oh – and while they’re at it:  they have exclusive ownership of such specific words like ‘winter’ and ‘2010’ !

OK – I have been a very vocal critic of the Olympic Games.

For a long time, I have ranted on and on that this abomination ought to be abolished.  And, prior to the Bejing Olympics, I have written about it.  Now that they are being held in Canada, I have not changed my mind.  To the contrary:  I wish this corrupt and corrupting organization stayed out of my country!

In addition to my objections to the Olympic Games on that  whole unbelievable institutional corruption basis, I also object on the grounds that it degrades sports and diminishes the spirit of sportsmanship.  Sports are supposed to be about being healthy:  healthy body, healthy spirit and all that.  A balance in life.

Yet, today’s top athletes push their bodies way beyond the point of what is healthy!  In their attempt to be the best of the best, athletes do thing to their bodies (both legal and illegal – but, I am focusing on the ‘legal’ bit here) way past what is actually healthy or good.  From microfractures in many bones – including the spine (like, say, gymnasts whose pursuit of Olympic ideals delays even the onset of their puberty by years, if not a decade…a summer sport, true, but it is just the tip of the iceberg) which spell a future racked with arthritis to pushing their tendons and muscles well beyond their healthy limits.  In a very real sense, we have taken what ought to be a healthy hobby and turned it into a self-destructive, government-funded job.  No more, no less…

And as for sportsmanship….please, don’t make me laugh!

It is no longer about a friendly sports game!  Winning is now a matter of national pride!  How many medals a country wins – or looses – somehow becomes a measure of the whole nation’s worth! No, not how they treat each other, not how well they treat and educate their kids, not how good their economy or how excellent their science programs.  No.  These things no longer matter.  In a very real way, Olympic athletes are turned into weapons in a war!

But, those are not the reasons for this particular rant.  No, my fear here is about something much, much greater than some public funding of private hobbies or glorification of physical self-mutilation…  I speak of nothing less than our freedom of speech!

The IOC – an organization which has, over and over and over, been demonstrated to be corrupt to its core – is now in charge of what free citizens of a supposedly free country may – or may not – express!  On their private property, none the less!

If I am still not making myself as clear as I ought to (and, I do know that is my weak spot), let me approach it from a different angle…

Some people have experienced how the ‘Patriot Act’ south of our boarder had, in the name of security, taken some serious ‘liberties’ with the American citizens freedoms (pun intended), as guaranteed them in the US constitution, see how the ironically named Human Rights Commissions are trampling over real human rights in Canada (and other places, too), and  fear that ‘governments’ are a serious threat to our freedoms in general, freedom of speech in particular.

Others have pointed to the oppressive copyright laws – the ones which treat all consumers as criminals, before any evidence is even gathered – and other corporate ‘protections’ will be the greatest  threats to our freedom of speech and expression to us in the future.  Frankly, I agree with this point of view:  the evidence is overwhelming…

In the Olympic Games, the worst aspects of both of these are rolled into one:  there is a political body which is suppressing all opposition to itself, silencing all criticism of it.  At the same time, this same political body had sold exclusive rights for commercial activity and advertising to a select group of large multinational corporations and is willing and able to persecute any and all small businesses (or, indeed individuals) who refuse to submit to its ‘regulations’.

There is a word which defines collusion of government with big business in order to control the marketplace and silence opposition.  That word is fascism.  By definition.

And I, for one, do not want any fascism in Canada!

UPDATE: Canadian Centre for Policy Studies launches Free Speech petition:

We the undersigned call on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to: A) Examine all legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and

B) To amend said legislation to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.

(via BCF)

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

No Guide Dogs Allowed!

October 10, 2009 — xanthippa

School is supposed to be a place for learning.

A place where kids feel safe.

A place where all possible care is taken to make learning possible.

Yet, at least one school had set up a committee to decide whether or not to allow a disabled child’s guide dog to accompany her to school.

What?

Our society is rightly supportive of disabled people, and doubly so for those who work hard to succeed despite their disability.   Since different people have different needs and preferences, we have developed a myriad of tools to aid them.

One such ‘tool’ – perhaps ‘the classical one’ – is the guide dog.

These canines are not just some loving pets.  They go through a screening process which permits only the most intelligent, non-aggressive animals to be entered into a rigorous training program.  And only the best of the best ever graduate to become certified guide dogs.

And that is not the end.  Now that the dog has become a highly trained professional, it is carefully matched with the person whom it is to assist, to ensure compatibility.  And there are courses to teach the disabled person and the dog how to communicate with each other, as well as to teach the dog the skills which it will require to aid this specific person.

That is doubly so in the case of a guide dog assigned to a child!

Cargo made it through all that training!  Fully trained, graduated and certified as an official guide dog, Cargo was assigned to a young girl named Annika Merner.  A ‘feel good’ story, right?

Except that,Colchester North Elementary School in Essex, Ontario, where Annika is a grade 4 student, will not permit Cargo to enter school property!

Why?

Well, some kids might be allergic to dogs…

Please, do not misunderstand:  I am not making light of allergies, especially serious ones.  They could affect a child’s ability to learn – no question about it.

But, surely, in a civilized society, we can figure out a way to accommodate both!  The school and the parents of all the affected kids could sit, talk, figure out a workable solution based on the level of allergies of the individual students that were affected and their relative location in the school.

Could they not?

Why wouldn’t they?

But that did not happen.  Nothing like that.  Just a simple ‘No dogs on school property – no exceptions for guide dogs!’

Only after Annika’s parents pointed out that this is not only unfair to their child, but actually against the law – guide dogs are exempted from ‘no dog’ rules – the Greater Essex County District School Board formed a committee last November to examine the issue…

Now, eleven months later, they have still not come up with any decision – and little Annika is still going to school without her guide dog.

Good news:  in two weeks, the committee might come out with a decision which might permit the use of a guide dog on school property.

Ah, the mighty ‘might‘!

How grand of them!

This – in my never-humble-opinion – is indicative of a much greater problem in our society.  We have lost the ability, desire – or both – to get along with each other amicably without long and convoluted sets of rules, whose application often blurs the line between accommodating a real, physical disability and frivolous grievances which are a matter of choices and opinions.

It is precisely to deal with situations like Annika’s that the Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals) (HRCs) were formed!  Their whole ‘raison d’etre’ was making sure that people were not discriminated against based on things they had no control over, like their race or disabilities.

After all, one cannot simply choose to no longer be disabled.  A person cannot become a member of a different race by changing their opinion or belief.  These are not a matter of choice!

To discriminate against someone because of something one cannot change, one cannot choose to change, to deny a person the best possible chance to start out from ‘ as level a playing field as physically possible’ – that is wrong!  And we, as a society, must not tolerate it.  Ever.

Of course, we can never overcome a disability someone else has for them – but we should and MUST do our best to permit disabled people the tools to help them overcome it as much as possible.  Even if it means allowing their guide dogs access to places where pet dogs are not permitted.  Like, say, school…

That is a reasonable accommodation!

Instead, we – as a society – have lumped ‘accommodation’ based on ‘choices, opinions and/or beliefs’ and given them equal or greater importance than accommodation because of real disabilities.

In 2006, Canadian Supreme Court unanimously decided that even though knives of all kinds are banned on school property, a Sikh boy can carry a 10cm blade because he believes his religion requires it.  This, despite the testimony of Sikh religious leaders who stated that carrying a picture of the ceremonial dagger is sufficient to satisfy the religious requirement.

In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada said that religious belief is sufficient grounds for weaponizing our schools!

Please, contrast the two cases:  one child, based on ‘belief’, is permitted to bring weapons to school… while a disabled child’s certified guide dog is banned!

We have, with the HRCs acting as enforcers, elevated people’s choices and opinions into a place which is supposed to be reserved to stop discrimination based on things people have no control over!

Certainly, we must tolerate other opinions and personal beliefs – but we should not be obligated to accommodate them to as high a degree as if they were something the person could not exercise a choice over.  Like, say, one’s race or physical disability…

Posted in Aspergers, education, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

A ‘Czech-mate’ for the Lisbon Treaty?

October 8, 2009 — xanthippa

If you are a political junkie, or somebody who values their freedom, you are familiar with ‘The Treaty of Lisbon‘.

If not, then, very briefly, here is the background:

The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution-type-document-thingie which would finally establish the EU as a legal, supranational political entity which can act independently.  Most EU countries have already ratified and signed the Lisbon Treaty (though the English opposition – if they gain power in the next election, plans to withdraw England’s support – if they can…), so the EU is already planning to act as a full legal entity, entering into international agreements on behalf of its member nations (read here ‘and no longer requiring their approval to do so’).

However, freedom-loving people – and people who care about children – have some serious problems with the Lisbon Treaty.  In no uncertain terms, the Treaty of Lisbon legalizes pedophilia.

Yes, pedophilia.

If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, no person can be persecuted (and prosecuted) based on ‘sexual orientation’ – including the ‘sexual preference for raping children’.

Read it and weep – I did!

VictimlessCriminal explained it rather well in his video.

Whatever else may be contained in the Lisbon Treaty, its legalization of pedophilia disgusts me and makes the whole document, in my never-humble-opinion, bad, evil and every other negative term you’d like to attach to it.

Ireland has just ratified it:  the Irish people have allowed the promise of cash to sell out their kids, just like most other Europeans have already done.

There are still two holdouts:  the Polish and Czech president have steadfastly refused to sign.  There are rumors that the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, will sign the Lisbon Treaty this coming Sunday (though, his brother claims the rumors are false).  As for the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus – well, the story gets more interesting.

President Klaus (author of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’) has told the Swedish Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, that he would sign – provided they agree to insert a footnote into the ‘Fundamental Rights’ section of the Treaty!

Of course, I hope it will be a footnote that prohibits pedophilia.

There is an awesome and insightful analysis of this (not the pedophilia bit – rather, the ‘political dancing’) from Lubos Motl of The Reference Frame:

I have always thought that the Czech president is a kind of an ingenious politician. He believes in great ideas and principles and he is courageous enough to defend them. However, as far as I understand, he’s also playing politics like chess and he’s often able to defeat seemingly stronger and more numerous foes.

…

I actually think that the footnote won’t be related to any particular Czech issue.

It will be more universal in its character, it will be somewhat innocent, and its content won’t matter much. I think that the point is that the footnote would have to be approved at least by the EU Council (and who knows, maybe even a new Irish referendum). But even an innocent footnote will split this group. Some of them will say “No way, Klaus has no right to add new delays or modify the treaty” while a few of them will say “Why not, it’s a great chance to pay a small price and put the treaty to life – and a president must surely have the right to add at least a footnote, as long as we’re a democracy.”


…

Of course, Klaus may also want to demand a non-trivial footnote that significantly changes the content or the validity of the treaty. Well, such things are usually not written in the footnotes. If this were the case, it would mean that Klaus is determined to fight against the treaty to the very end, in very transparent terms.

Interesting – especially considering, as Mr. Motl points out, that President Klaus is enjoying over 70% approval ratings in Czech.

Let’s hope the Czechs save the kids of all of Europe!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Section 13(1) and Aspergers

October 7, 2009 — xanthippa

OK – this is a topic that people who know me have had to listen to me rant on and on and on….

And, I have tried to write it up – and have at least 18 drafts to prove it…

Because… this is something SOOO IMPORTANT that it deserves the most perfectest write up ever!

Because… this shows an internal inconsistency in the Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code – the ‘Hate Speech’ bit!

It clearly demonstrates that Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself!!!

That, if I my layman’s understanding of our legal system holds, would render the whole thing illegal.  After all, a law may not contravene itself, may it?

Yesterday, I got a comment on my last post, which said exactly the same thing I had been ranting on and on about.  (The comment, not the post – well, the post, too, but that is implied.)

Actually, I read it out loud to my husband, who thought I was reading my words, so close was the sentiment!

Hi Xanthippa.

Your blog has got me thinking… Perhaps we Aspies particularly resent censorship boards like Canada’s because we are used to “saying it like it is”, speaking the truth (as we see it) bluntly and plainly, and not being stopped by thin-skinned people taking offence. Aspies can’t detect _likely_ offence in advance, and if we played it safe and avoided all _possible_ offence, we’d never say anything!Whereas those who support Canada’s state censorship system are probably neurotypicals who are good at treading their way carefully, taking cues from context. They have picked up, for example, that joking about assassinating President Bush is “brave dissent” while joking about assassinating President Obama is “racist hate speech” that will get you visited by the FBI.

Aspies like to have the rules laid out clearly, neutrally and consistently. They/ we don’t like implications, winks and nods, and “It just is, okay?!” So you get someone like Ezra Levant (almost certainly an Aspie) asking why the Emperor has no clothes, why Canada’s censorship rules are applied differently to Christians and Muslims, and a lot of people regard him with distaste: he’s rude, he’s offensive, he’s loud, he’s rocking the boat, he “just doesn’t get it”.

Perhaps Section 13 could be struck down as discriminating on basis of a disability, do you think?

That is exactly correct!  I’ve been ranting on this for years!

*  * *

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code is the ‘hate speech’ section which has, lately, been applied to silence people with unpopular views.  The key bit of the wording is that a person is forbidden from communicating anything which could potentially give offense to someone or a group.  No, not ‘just anyone’ – only people who are members of ‘protected groups’.

In other words, it is illegal, in Canada, to communicate anything that might offend people, based on their sex, race, religion, disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on, or stigmatize them, or is likely to increase ‘general hate’ against them.

*  *  *

Now, let us look at  the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism-spectrum disorder):

Aspies For Freedom (an Asperger’s support group) lists, among others:

  • Criterion A. Severe and sustained impairment in social interaction
  • Criterion C. The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

About.com tells us that

“The essential features of Asperger’s Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction…

“…  The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist at Hopkins and a recognized authority on Asperger, wrote in ‘Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry with Practical Neurology’ about ‘Aspergers’:

It is characterised by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication

I could go on, in a typically Aspie obsessive manner… but, you get the picture.  Aspies (people with Asperger’s Syndrome usually prefer the nomicker ‘Aspies’ – it is less cumbersome) have a neurological disorder, which prevents us from having ‘normal’ social interactions.

We cannot tell when we are boring you.

We cannot tell when what we are saying is offensive to you.

We cannot tell if people are so fed up with us, they are about to loose their patience and beat us to a bloody pulp, because we have just said something they consider ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’.

We think the rest of the world ought to get over themselves and their stupid emotionalism and its burdensome public display and grow up!  (And get some logic, while they’re at it.)

We also lack the ability to ‘believe’.

Oh, we can accept rules – and love to adhere to them scrupulously.  So, Aspies CAN follow religions.  We just can’t believe in them.

We can take some God(s)’s existence ‘as given’ or ‘pre-defined parameter’ – but not as an ‘article of faith’ to be ‘believed’.  There IS a difference.

Despite what some clinicians think, we CAN accept ‘alternate realities’ (make-believe) – as long as it is presented as a concept (not ‘truth’ – but a ‘different game’) and is internally self-consistent.  That  is why we love Spock (the first ‘real’ Aspie character on TV who was not a villain – at least, not intended to be perceived as a villain, even though his appearance followed an ‘evil-man’ archetype) and why we CAN accept alternate reality rules.

But we recognize them to be ‘non-real’.  And – naturally – we say so.  Especially when somebody is wrong and thinks it is ‘real’.

It is our responsibility to educate them!  To do any less would be insulting to them…

We are especially good at pointing out internal inconsistencies – within belief systems, ‘holy’ books (scriptures), the behaviour of clerics vs. the tenets of their faith and all kinds of things like that.  Good and persistent!

And THAT is why so many Aspies earn the wrath of religious people….. because we will never understand why it is OK to correct someone’s misconceptions regarding physic or mathematics, but not regarding bronze-age myths and demonstrable reality.

Actually – any age myths…

With our lack of social skills and inability to ‘take things on faith’ – both conditions are documented as being biologically based and not something we can just change because we want to – we are BOUND to offend a lot of people. Or, so I am told.  Especially with all that religious nonsense!  And I mean NON-SENSE!!!  As defined…

(Is this a good demonstration?  I hope so… I was trying to convey the understanding of our internal thought processes….)

I suppose it would be a fair parallel to describe Aspies as ‘offensiveness-deaf‘!  And, this disability is a well documented, recognized medical condition.

*  *  *

Ah – but our constitution states that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of a medical disability!

Would it be legal to pass a law that penalizes people for not standing when the National Anthem is played – even if they were deaf and did not hear it?  Or of they were a paraplegic or otherwise disabled and unable to stand?

Would passing such laws, which punish people because they have a disability, be tolerated if that disability were anything other than Asperger’s Syndrome?

NO!  IT WOULD NOT!

We would not tolerate such laws!  And, our constitution specifically forbids discrimination on these grounds!

Yet, Section 13(1) is a blatant and shameful discrimination against people who have a medical disability which prevents us from knowing when we are likely to ‘give offense’!!!

*  *  *

OK – this is where I tie it all together….bear with me, please, I’m almost there.

1.  Section 13(1) makes it illegal to communicate anything which ‘is likely to offend’ or stigmatize a group or individuals (on ‘protected grounds’), or expose someone to hate.

2.  One such ‘protected ground’ is ‘medical disability’.

3.  Asperger’s syndrome is a medical disability, whose defining characteristic is an inability to successfully socially interact with others:  in other words, rude and offensive behaviour is an invountary symptom (and even a diagnostic criterion) of this medical condition.  As such, Aspies cannot tell if they are ‘likely to offend’, just as deaf people cannot hear and react to sounds, or just like people cannot significantly change the amount of pigment in their skin!  By just existing, we are ‘likely to give offense’!

4.  Therefore, Section 13(1) makes it a criminal offense to live with this specific medical disability!

5.  By criminalizing our very existence, Section 13(1) seriously stigmatizes Aspies, simply because of how we were born! It is very likely that we, as an identifiable and protected group, will be stigmatized and we are likely to be exposed to hate, as a direct result of the existence of Section 13(1).

6.   However, Section 13(1) forbids anyone or anything to stigmatize a group on protected grounds, or expose anyone to hate – and having Asperger’s IS a ‘protected ground’!

7.  That is an internal inconsistency.

8.  Therefore, Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself.

Q.E.D.

    Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »

    Letter to my Member of Parliament

    October 6, 2009 — xanthippa

    The following is a letter I have just emailed to my MP, and which I have copied to all the members of the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is asking some questions about the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its activities:

    Dear Mr. Poilievre!

    When our paths intersected at a public event last summer, I mentioned that Mr. Ezra Levant was facing yet another nuisance lawsuit from a disgraced ex-CHRC employee – so I know that you are aware of and concerned about the current issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    To be honest, I was rather thrilled when the Human Rights Tribunal itself acknowledged that Section 13(1) of the Human Rights code (better known as ‘Thought Crime Section’) was unconstitutional: it gave me hope that the system can indeed be salvaged.

    However, my hope was short lived.

    It seems that even though it has acknowledged that Section 13(1) is unconstitutional, the CHRC is continuing to prosecute other cases under this section!

    How could this be?

    Is it even legal for them to do this?

    How can a government agency prosecute people under a law which the Tribunal has ruled unconstitutional? Perhaps it is because I am not educated in the subject of law, but, just as an ordinary person, this does not seem legal to me. I would love it if you could make some public comment about this (of course, I understand that it cannot be immediate – you need to get the wording right and all that), perhaps an informal comment on a radio station (I have heard you speak on CFRA before), which would explain how this is possible. After all, if I am wondering this, there must be many other people who also do not understand how a government agency can prosecute citizens under a law which had been ruled to be unconstitutional.

    I’m sorry if this comes across too stark or starchy or snarky – it is not meant to. I’m just trying to get to the heart of things quickly.

    Also, there is currently a Commons Committee of Justice and Human Rights: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have already answered some questions for this committee, Ms. Jennifer Lynch and others will come to answer some questions, too. (I am cc-ing (is that the proper word?) the members of this committee on this email.) I am certain that there will be many questions the committee members will ask about the substance of Section 13(1) and related issues of freedom of speech, thought, conscience, and so on. That stands to reason.

    And, I have great trust that they will be thorough!

    However, I would also like them to ask about the expenses at the CHRC…

    Not only has it been revealed that during these trying economic times, the CHRC employees have traveled first class on airplanes, stayed at extremely expensive hotels, and so on. They may be employed by an ‘arm’s length agency’ – and ought to stay politically neutral, of course, but they are still all civil servants and they must adhere to all the rules and regulations regarding expenses which all civil servants are bound by. The optics on this have failed.

    I would like to know if it truly is just the optics of the situation (it does look pretty bad that Ms. Lynch can rack up expenses from just one trip which are greater than many Canadians’ annual salary), or if there is a deeper problem there. There has even been a report that Ms. Lynch has not supplied the receipts to support her enormous expense claims, because she thought it was unreasonable and would have interfered with the operation of the CHRC!

    Is this true?

    What is going on?

    Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

    The negative impact of ‘spanking’

    September 28, 2009 — xanthippa

    Pun 100% intended!

    OK – this is usually a very heated debate, which has bubbled up to the surface (yet again) because of the release of a new study which claims to prove that people whose mothers reported spanking them grow up to have a lower IQ.

    Those who would discredit this study have been quick off the mark:  and, I really don’t know if the study is any good or not.  That is why I am not linking to it:  while I have a lot to say about the topic in general, I do not wish to get ‘boxed in’ and limited to this study.

    BUT…

    …here are a few thoughts for your consideration which listening to the discussions this topic has raised have popped into my mind.

    1.  Whose intelligence is being measured, anyway?

    The study said that mothers were to self-report the discipline methods they used on their kids over a certain period.  Then, years later, the now-grown-up-kids intelligence was measured – and those whose mothers had reported not spanking averaged higher on the IQ scale: is this an indirect IQ test of the mothers?

    We know that people who are intelligent often have kids who are intelligent. Could it be that more intelligent mothers do not resort to spanking their kids?

    2.  HOW could ‘spanking’ affect ‘intelligence’?

    ‘Intelligence’ is defined many ways by many people:  however, the definition I like most defines ‘intelligence’ as ‘an ability to learn’.  In my never-humble-opinion, this means that there are three major components to ‘intelligence’:

    1. The genetic potential:  as in, how good the ‘blueprint’ for one’s brain is
    2. Nutrition/health: the proper building blocks must be provided in the food to ‘build’ the brain to the best potential of the ‘genetic blueprint’ – illness can interfere with this process
    3. Desire to learn

    It is the third one that I think can be affected by spanking.

    After all, spanking – corporal punishment in general – tends to discourage ‘asking questions’.  And, ‘not asking questions’ – whether out of fear or habit – will necessarily limit one’s intelligence.

    So, without passing judgment on this particular study:  I find it plausible that spanking a child can, indeed, lead to that person not growing into their full intelligence potential.  Not proven – just plausible.

    Now, having set this ‘study’ aside, I would like to make a few comments on using corporal punishment to discipline children – in general.

    This issue is very emotionally charged for people, for all the obvious reasons!  Therefore, any discussion of ‘spanking’ becomes extremely emotional, early on into the debate.  So, how do we approach the issue and discuss it, without sinking into the emotional quagmire?

    Personally, I think it is best to ‘remove’ the situation from the ‘particular’ to the ‘general’:  do we, as a society, approve of corporal punishment?  Not just of ‘children’ – but of every citizen/resident.  Do we, as a society, approve of using caning or whipping or other forms of corporeal punishment?

    For example, should an employer discipline an employee using corporal punishment?

    Why?

    Or, should nursing-home care-providers use corporal punishments to’ teach’ their elderly patients, who may have diminished mental capacities and might not understand long explanations, to comply with the nursing home’s rules?

    Why?

    Now, regardless of what your answers were, ask yourself if you think that a country’s laws ‘ought to’ protect every individual equally.

    I think they must!  Our very civilization is founded on the principle that all people are equal in the eye of the law!

    Or, at least,we ought to be…many of our lawmakers have been forgetting this bit lately, giving some groups privileges over others.  So far, these privileges do not include the right to inflict corporal punishment…. so why are these already existing laws not enforced when the victims are the most vulnerable members of our society:  children?!?!?

    As my favourite philosopher wrote, a person’s a person, no matter how small!

    P.S. Before anyone raises the ‘hot stove & other immediate dangers’ objection, arguing that it is important to make kids avoid ‘immediate danger’ so it is acceptable to hit them to make them comply with associated rules…  That is the worst possible argument EVER!!!  ESPECIALLY in situations of potential ‘immediate danger’, it is really, really important that children – from the moment they learn to crawl – are taught to UNDERSTAND what is dangerous, instead of being taught to OBEY rules!

    How could replacing the understanding of danger (and, even infants can learn to understand danger!) with a mere arbitrary-sounding rule keep a child ‘safer’?  Rules will be broken… so making rules to cover dangerous situations is setting the child up for failure!  A dangerous failure, to boot!

    Why not just take the easy way out and teach the child to understand the danger?  It’ll make them safer – and might just increase their intelligence in the process!

    Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

    Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

    September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

    There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

    The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

    At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

    This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

    The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

    But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

    Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

    This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

    Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

    Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

    Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

    Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

    The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

    As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

    What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

    As opposed to ‘them’.

    And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

    That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

    Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

    In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

    This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!

    Posted in human nature, immigrants, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

    Heroes are no longer welcome in our society

    September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

    Many people in the Ottawa area are discussing  how active a role citizens ought to take in the protection of our community and our fellow citizens.

    Let me set the stage:

    Two men were driving down a road, in a hurry (as they were late for a Kim Mitchell concert).  A woman jumped onto the road in front of them – they almost hit her.  Since she appeared not to be in perfect control of herself (the men thought she was drunk), they stopped in order to make sure she’d be OK.  She wasn’t…

    This is where the situation takes a turn towards the surreal:  the young woman was hysterically screaming into her cell-phone, talking to 9-1-1,saying she had just been sexually assaulted.  Our two men immediately offered her assistance.

    The woman was not perfectly coherent:  she had just been through something horrible, was bleeding… not exactly composed (screaming hysterically, as the 9-1-1 dispatcher put it).  Understandable…  But, she did convey to ‘or guys’ that her attacker was an acquaintance who was giving her a ride home, that he raped her and tried to choke her to death, and was sitting in that car over there!

    The man she indicated started yelling rude insults at her and threatening to kill her and ‘put her in a cornfield’…. and appeared to take a drink from a bottle of Tequila.  Then he drove off.

    Please, keep in mind that in Ontario, if you see someone drinking (alcohol) and driving, the law says you are to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’.  This is a bit of an ‘aside’, but it is important to the way the events unfolded.

    ‘Our guys’ took the injured woman into their car and, using her cell-phone to talk to the 9-1-1 dispatcher, they followed the man who had just they had just witnessed drinking and driving – and whom they heard threatening to kill the distressed woman.

    This is where the controversy comes in:  many people have condemned the young men for chasing after the attacker!

    The whole discussion is hardly helped by a very ‘misleading’ (according to the lawyer for one of the protectors) article about this event in the Ottawa Citizen:  today, I was listening to CFRA (an Ottawa radio station) when the lawyer for Ryan O’Connor called in and filled in some information.   (And, yes, it is ‘reporting’ like this that drives people away from the mainstream media…  It seems obvious that to them, this is no more than ‘just a story’… so the reporting is either unbelievably shoddy or intentionally misleading!)

    OK – I heard the interview live, so I do not have a link to support my assertions (soon to follow).  Still, the lawyer (whose name escaped me) said his version of events would be brought out when the 9-1-1 transcripts will be released, so I am trusting that I heard things ‘right’.

    The article asserts the woman knew her attacker and his name.  Well, he was an acquaintance – someone she had seen around.  And, he told her his first name.  I think that when a ‘familiar stranger’ – a person you know by sight, but little else – tells you his first name, it really ought not be reported as ‘the woman knew her attacker and his name’.  There is a serious difference between the two!

    Also, there was the assertion (in the article as well as in much of the commentary that followed) that the man’s identity was clear because they noted his car’s license plate number.

    Really?

    Who said it was his car?  It could have been stolen.  It could have been borrowed.  It could have been just about anything! Claiming one could ‘prove’ the man’s identity by the license plate on his car is so idiotic, I don’t even know where to begin.  Jumping to conclusions without considering what evidence you actually have is bad – but when lives are at stake, it is inexcusable!

    People have been condemning the two men who helped the victim, for a whole slew of reasons:

    It turns out they were driving a Porsche – so they must obviously be bored rich kids looking for an excuse to live out a Hollywood – style high speed chase!

    The fact that they were helping a woman in obvious distress, that they had abandoned their plans to go to a concert (the tickets to which they had already bought) and helped a woman who was hurt in body and spirit –  that little fact did not seem to matter to these petty complainers!  Nor did they seem to care that ‘our guys’ were well within the law to attempt to execute a citizen’s arrest on a drunk driver…

    One of the two men turned out to be Matt Spezza – a brother of a very popular NHL hockey player on our local team, the Ottawa Senators.  The amount of venom this brought out in people – the ‘you know, he has a famous big brother so he thinks he’s God’ sentiment… that truly sickened me.  Why are people so warped and steeped in envy?  Does it not eat away at them?

    The car chase reached ‘high speed’ at some points.  This means that they endangered themselves, the woman they were trying to help – and everyone else in the city!  They could have hit someone!  They just wanted to be heroes! (A woman said that last sentence at a call-in show.  She spat it out with such hate, as if wanting to be a hero was the most disgusting thing EVER!)

    Yes, they could have hit someone.  But they didn’t.  The chase did reach ‘high speeds’ of 160 km/h (some reports go up as high as 170 km/h).   Not ‘Autobahn’ speed, mind you, but this is Canada!  We don’t think people ought to drive faster than a horse-buggy goes….you know, it could be dangerous!  The fact that the driver actually races cars – and would be quite capable of handling these speeds – seemed to only pour oil onto the fire of indignation against him!

    Oh – and the driver continued to talk to the 9-1-1 operator while he chased the baddie:  talking on cell-phones while driving is bad!

    Yeah!  He was talking to the 9-1-1 people!  As in, following their instructions…and, are our 9-1-1 operators not experts specially trained to assess the dangers of a wide range of situations?  And did not this expert assess the situation and decide that the danger of pursuit was ‘the lesser evil’ than unleashing a homicidal drunk on the public?  (By the way – this dispatcher has also been much maligned….before all the facts are known!)

    They knew the attacker’s name and had his license number:  there was no need for a chase!  The cops could have just gone to his home and arrested him there!

    Oh, like he was just going to orderly drive home?  Or, perhaps, he was going to drive to the nearest police station and respectfully request to be arrested? And then kiss some babies and donate to charity, too!

    EVEN IF they knew exactly who he was (and, by now, the guys chasing the baddie and the 9-1-1 operator knew that the man did not own the car he was driving and that the victim knew nothing about him except his first name), LETTING HIM GO would have simply meant some other woman was going to be murdered that night.

    This was a guy who was trying to live out a sadistic ‘rape-murder’ fantasy – and got interrupted half way through.  He was still high – on adrenalin, for sure, other stuff perhaps… and his reaction to having the victim snatched out of his grasp showed unabated rage!

    Had the good guys not pursued him, he would – most likely – have snatched another person and carried out his murderous fantasy!

    The cops certainly did not join in the chase – it was not until 15 minutes after the chase started that the cops got involved, stopping the suspect at a roadblock.  As in, no police helicopter.  No police cars or motorcycles joined the chase.

    The baddie would have had 15 minutes (at least) to disappear!  During those 15 minutes, the suspect could have reached a spot where he could have abducted another victim, and then hidden away in some secluded area (the road on which the fist victim was assaulted borders the Green Belt:  an area filled with ‘nature paths’ and quiet, dark, secluded parking lots).

    Yet, those who think it is unacceptable for citizens to take any action to protect themselves, that it is solely the job of the police (must be a union thing) – these people have won.  Today, the police chief announced that in the future, no citizen is allowed to lift a finger to help.  Anyone.  Ever!

    Nobody expects the police to be able to be everywhere, right away.  It is not physically possible.  So, next time you see a crime in progress – just keep on walking!  It’s none of your business.

    Found a loophole in the laws, which might let you help save a life?  Don’t worry, we’ll soon have those loopholes plugged!

    Posted in debate, human nature, politics, society. 4 Comments »

    John Robson: ‘They mean what they say’

    September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

    An excellent post by Mr. Robson:  “They mean what they say”.

    It is not just disrespectful to dismiss what people say they believe and what they will do – it is dangerous.  And arrogant.

    John Robson is, yet again, right.

    Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

    Will we be complicit in the ‘honour killing’ of Rifqa Bary?

    September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

    Are we about to hand Fathima Rifqa Bary to the custity of people who swore to murder her?

    It would not be unprecedented…

    14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone escaped from Jeffrey Dahmer, but  the police officers handed the unfortunate boy back to the sadistic murderer, even while smelling the decomposing body of a previous victim…  The cops even laughed about the whole thing!

    Have we not learned anything?

    Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old, all-American girl, an honour student, a cheerleader, and a battered child.  Perhaps it was her father’s violence towards her, perhaps it was something else.  The fact remains that Rifqa converted from Islam to Christianity….and, following phone calls and emails to the family from  their local Mosque, her father told her he must kill her to cleanse the family honour of her apostasy.

    Fearing for her life, Rifqa fled from her home in Columbus, Ohio, to Florida. She did all the ‘right’ things:  she removed herself from the most immediate danger and directly asked us – the society – to protect her.  The Florida authorities took charge of Rifqa and her ‘case’.

    Is she being taken seriously?  Or…

    Is she ‘just another rebellious teenager’ – as far as the very people who are supposed to protect her are concerned?

    Is she ‘yet another teen run-away’ who ‘ought to be returned home, into the custody of  her parents?

    Is she simply an ‘attention-seeking teen’ who ought to learn some respect and obey her parents’ rules?

    May be, may be not!

    With her life at stake, the ‘authorities’ ought to take great care to find out. That, however, does not seem likely…

    If you have not heard Rifqa’s story, it is documented here.  Here is a ‘short version‘ from ‘Atlas Shrugs‘ (her version has MANY links with deeper info).

    In a nutshell, in July 2009, the 17-year-old Rifqa got on a bus and fled to Florida.  Now, she is in foster care supervised by the Department of Children and Family in Florida   Juvenile Court Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who is presiding over Rifqa’s case, had ordered a report to assess just how much this 17-year-old apostate is in from her family and Mosque, before he decides  Rifqa’s fate.

    So far, not that bad.

    Except that…

    Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has just released their report – the one which assesses the threat to Rifqa. And, the report is, to say the least, a curious piece of work which could actually endanger this young woman’s life!

    The FDLE report is, in my eyes, unexplicable.  Not only did they not interview most of the witnesses and people most close to Rifqa (whom they interrogated for hours, without her lawyer or any other representative present) and then concluded that there were no people who corroborated her story, not only did they disregard the facebook group which bears her name, and whose over a hundred members are openly calling for her death because she is an apostate…they did not even consider an incident which her father ADMITS TO!  They never asked about the incidents her mother admitted to!

    But, they respectfully interviewed CAIR (an Islamist organization with known ties to terrorist groups – and which is facing many charges of intimidation against moderate Muslims).  The FDLE even allowed CAIR to control their ‘investigation,’ ‘helping them choose’ whom to interview, and how!

    These *#$)(#%$ people actually refused to consider the tradition ‘honour killing’ or how it might relate to Rifqa and her current situation… as in, do her parents and their friends (and co-religionists, along with the prevailing views at the Mosque they take their guidance from) subscribe to the belief that they must kill Rifqa for rejecting Islam and becoming a Christian.

    Why?

    Quoting the report:

    “An investigation into any person, religious or social organization without a specific identifiable criminal predicate is inappropriate.”

    Pardon me?

    Is this what our society has been reduced to?

    Here is ‘Center for Security Policy’s’ review of the FDLE report – the FDLE report is included.

    Now, please, excuse me – I have to go shopping for a burka…


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