Will all Muslims be caught in the backlash against Islamists?

January 28, 2009 — xanthippa

This post can stand on its own, but it is a loose continuation of my rant from yesterday:  Actions and reactions

In my never-humble-opinion, we are dealing with several things which overlap and muddle all discussions when we discuss ‘freedom of speech’, Islam and the now inevitable clash between the two.  Here is my little breakdown:

1. Islamists – those for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political movement bent on dominating the world (it is wrong to dismiss the things people say they believe – and want to do, even if it sounds outrageous to our sensibilities).

2. Muslims – these are people for whom Islam is a religion.  It includes people for whom it is nothing more than their personal faith and who wish nothing more than to live in a free, democratic society.  It also includes all the Islamists.

3. Islamists make claims and demands on behalf of all Muslims, whether all Muslims agree with them or not.

4. Making claims and demands is perfectly OK. I know I make enough of them!

5. Legislators are satisfying and accommodating these claims and demands.  This is wrong.

Even if the Islamists DID have a mandate to speak for all Muslims (which they do NOT) it is unwise to grant any demands for special privileges to any group within a democracy, because this sets up official ‘classes of citizenship’. (Do we really want to follow the example of Malaysia, where there is one ministry to deal with the rights of non-Muslim women and then a secretariate to deal with the rights and welfare of only Muslim women, with no agencies permitted to participate in both?)

Also, accommodating the Islamists sets them up as ‘community leaders’ and this special status empowers the individual Islamist leaders.  It physically, financially (as government programs for the community are often administered through them) and psychologically gives them the ability to control most of the Muslims in their community.  Not only is very unfair to those moderate Muslims who want to enjoy democracy, it also, in a very real way, creates a parallel governance structure which is independent of the national government and free to pursue its own goals (which are often not compatible with the national government’s goals of maintaining terittorial sovereignity, and so on.)  

6. By setting Muslims apart from society, and giving them a special, privileged status (real or perceived), a strong resentment against all members of this perceived special group will necessarily happen.  That is human nature – people resent being treated (even if this is just a false perception) as second-class citizens, and, if they feel unable to change the governance structure which instituted this inequity, they will turn their resentment against the privileged group.   This is dangerous.

I am in no way saying this is right, or should be happening.  Rather, I am lamenting that human nature dictates that this is inevitable.

Let us look at what is happening in Europe now. No, let’s not dwell on the players: that is minutia. Let us examine the bigger forces behind the action….

The European Union (EU) has adopted many of the ‘multicultural’ attitudes from the UN.  The UN has, over and over, accommodated lobbying from the Organization of Islamic Conference to accord special status to religions in general and to Islam in particular.  And, regardless of the fact that the Western society is deeply rooted in the European renaissance – whose very existence began by criticizing religion and removing blasphemy from the criminal code… the EU has re-criminalized blasphemy.

In Holland, Geert Wilders, a sitting MP, is criminally charged. The prosecution charged him with making anti-Muslim statements. Wilders claimed he made true, supportable statements and quoted Muslim leaders. Wilders won, the charges get thrown out of court. The prosecution appealed. The appeals court – which over-rules the lower court in every way – ruled (on the day after President Obama’s inoguration – so the mainstream media focus would be elsewere) that the charges should not have been dropped and that the politician must face prosecution in that lower court because he is, in the appeals court’s opinion, guilty and must be punished.

You don’t have to be an accomplished jurist to understand the situation here. The lower court was told by its boss that this guy must stand trial because he is guilty.  So, they have to try him and find him guilty. Even if they do not, the appeals court will over-rule them.  Do you think there is even a tiny possibility this can be an impartial trial?

In Austria, Sussane Winter, a sitting MP, was actually convicted of ‘insulting Islam’.  24,000 Euros in penalties (I wonder what her court costs were in addition to the fine) and a suspended 3 month prison term. Her statements may have been phrased differently, yet the substance of what she said is in complete agreement with what the leading Muslim scholars are saying.

If re-criminalizing blasphemy is not going to plunge Europe into another era of ‘Dark Ages’, then what I found out while digging about on this definitely will!

The story comes from Belgium (and, yes, it does make on recount the Monty Python skit about the contest for the most insulting thing to call a Belgian…).

There, only a few years ago, some very, very strange stuff was happening indeed.

First, I must declare my political bias here – I deplore separatist parties. Frankly, I think it is wrong for a party to be in Parliament, if its main goal is to break up the state. Yet, if this party’s representatives are elected into parliament, I would never prevent them from representing their electorate. In this case, subverting the will of the electorate would be a greater wrong.

OK

In Belgiun, there is was a separatist party of an ethnic minority. This party was – from what I have read – not too nice. But, what happened to it – that is even more ‘not nice’. It would appear that the Belgian Parliament actually passed some laws whose sole purpose it was to make this minority party illegal.

Scary?

Not as scary as what followed…

The party ‘cleaned up’ – at least, on the outside, changed its name (slightly) and is now growing in popularity.

GROWING IN POPULARITY!

Is this the beginning of the backlash?

And if it is, will ALL Muslims be caught up in it, not just the Islamists???  I certainly hope not!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, illusions, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Actions and reactions

January 27, 2009 — xanthippa

As a physical scientist, I have learned that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  If you push on something, it will ‘push back’.  Of course, the exact outcome will not only depend on the forces applied, but also the properties of the materials involved in the interaction.

When observing people, I have learned that this principle holds – but in a unique way.

You can ‘push’ – and that soft squishy bit that our human behaviour is wrapped up in (tolerance, good manners, politeness and so on) will absorb a lot of this ‘push energy’.  On absorbing it, it may – over time – slowly dissipate this energy, if no further ‘push’ is applied.  No real reaction occurs.

If there are many more ‘pushes’, or if there comes a particularly big ‘push’, the energy built up in all this soft squishy stuff will be greater than the material can absorb:  there will be a counter-reaction.  Because so much of this energy has been stored in that squishy stuff – without a chance to dissipate – this energy will be released, magnifying the ‘opposite reaction’. In other words, if you push people long and far enough, they will strike back – and not just for the last push, but for all of the ‘little pushes’ and the last one put together.

This is often referred to as ‘backlash’ – and while this is decidedly not a constructive way of resolving the underlying issues, it does not change the reality of how the human psyche reacts.  Singly – but especially in groups – humans will only allow themselves to be pushed past some point.  Then they strike back – with interest, so to speak.

Where am I going with this?

It’s a not-too-subtle observation that forcing people to accept policies which elevate one minority above the rest of society will, in no uncertain terms, necessarily result in deep resentment of this minority.  If taken too far, it may, eventually, lead to very real rejection of this minority by the rest of society.

It does not matter whether this privileged group is identified on the basis or race, language, religion, wealth or anything else.  Once it is separated from the mainstream and elevated above it (in a real or perceived manner), given special privileges, the very perception of this inequity is what will cause resentment – and perhaps direct action – against this group.  That is simply human nature.

For decades now, Islamists (and I do not mean Muslims in general, but rather only those who treat Islam as both a religion and a political ideology which demands world conquest) have demanded a separation between all Muslims (and here, it is the Islamists who frame the definition to include all Muslims, whether they like it or not) and the rest of society.  Not only have they demanded a separation, but they have also demanded special privilages, ones not enjoyed by any religious or political groups.

There is nothing wrong with this demand.

Just about every religious group thinks theirs is the only ‘right’ faith.  Just about every political movement holds the view that theirs is the best way to run the world.  If these things were not true, it would make for pretty pathetic religions and pretty ineffective political movements.

The problem came when our lawmakers satisfied their demands and gave this ‘identified’ group of people privileges not enjoyed by the rest of society.

From such small things as demanding separate swim times in public pools – where only members of their faith may swim – to demanding and receiving legal recognition of their moral customs which are contrary to our legal and moral standards.  Not only have they succeeded in securing these (and many more) special privileges for only members of their religious minority (whether or not they partake of the political side of the movement), they are now demanding that members of the rest of society should not be allowed to criticize them:  from how they behave to the tenets of their religious faith!

That means that not only is this group separated from the rest of society and privileged in its treatment, this group is now succeeding in forcing our lawmakers to outlaw the very principles on which our society was built….and without which our society cannot exist.

Again, it is not wrong for them to demand this.  The fault lies in satisfying this demand.

And since satisfying more and more such demands appears to be happening at a frighteningly fast pace, the rest of society feels that their way of life is being increasingly threatened…  that slowly, but surely, their very existence is being outlawed.

Push…after push…after push…

I fear that the ‘soft squishy’ bits of our society have stored up about as much ‘push’ as they can absorb….

So, what happens now?  Are we yet at a point when the backlash is about to occur? This may just be my Cassandra complex, but I can’t help saying it anyway.  Unless we figure out a way of dealing with the pressures created by unreasonable accommodations of non-integrating minorities soon, we will face social unrest the likes of which I do not want to imagine.

I just hope it is not too late!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

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

Article 29

January 25, 2009 — xanthippa

As we struggle to preserve our freedom of speech, many people have been quoting the United Nations ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.  They cite Article 19:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds very nice:  solid, unequivocal, reassurring.  No sitting on the fence here.  Right?

Yet, Article 19 is only one of many which make us the lofty documents which so many of us faithfully believe guarantees us our rights and freedoms.  The document has to be considered in its entirety, because following the articles which address specific ‘human rights’, there are others which modify these by defining when and how they are to be applied.

Please, consider Article 29:

  • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  • (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  • (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

All right, let us look at it…

Section 1 is a blatant statement that individuals owe their soul to the community and that the community owes nothing back to them.  I use the term ‘soul’ in the sense of ‘that essence which makes us uniquely us’ and not in the religious sense, because the implication of the clause is quite clear:  without the community, none of us would be free to become who we are.

Personally, I most vehemently disagree with this statement.  The ‘community’ is often much more crippling to our development than not…

It is true that people have a greater chance for surviving when they form communities – and it is also true that many of our social needs are fulfilled by being members of a community.  I do not deny that.  However, the benefits which we derive from being members of a community have a great price:  we must necessarily give up much of our individuality in order to do so.

In other words, by being members of a community, we may enjoy physical safety – but at the cost of not developing of our full individual personality!

That is why I disagree so vehemently with the statement in Section 1.   But, why should that statement – or anything like it – even be included here?  What possible purpose is there in asserting the superiority of the community over every individual, in a document which is meant to address individual human rights?

Having affirmed the superiority of the community over every individual in Section 1, Sections 2 and 3 then go on to invalidate any and all individual human rights which the community does not wish to grant.

Section 2 begins by saying:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law …

That seems pretty unequivocal, too.  Laws trump rights. Any law which is passed by any jurisdiction can limit the exercising of any of the rights and freedoms so gloriously listed in the previous articles!  In other words, if you live in a country which passes laws to deny its citizens any of the rights listed in the declaration, these citizens have just lost any ability to exercise these rights!

So, what was the point of the exercise in the first place?

If you live in a country that allows its citizens to exercise freedom of speech – for example – then you don’t need the UN’s declaration.  And, if you live in a country that does not, Section 29 has just clearly stated that you are out of luck!  You may still have these rights, you are just not allowed to exercise them!!!

The section then goes on to say more about the types of laws which are so important they can over-ride our human rights:

law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(Yes, I would like to have highlighted the ‘rights and freedoms of others’ – but I am attempting to align the highlights not with what my priorities are, but with what I, in my never-humble-opinion, think are the current priorities of most of our governments, the EU and UN in the lead…)

The implication of these words?  MORALITY??? It is legitimate for governments to ban speech which they thind does not think is moral enough?

And, of course, speech which might disturb ‘public order‘ can also be legitimately banned by any government!  No wonder that governments are rushing to criminalize speech which might annoy the most militant, most ruthless segments of society.  Instead of living up to their responsibility and keeping order, it is much easier to shut up those who might stir up trouble.

But it is worse than just that:  if a government deems it is against ‘public order’ and ‘general welfare’ of a society for its political opponents to exist, this gives the right to ban their legitimate opposition from speaking.  Think about it.  Really think about it…

If you still had any doubt that the intent of Section 29 is to silence political opposition, please, examine Section 3:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN is a political body – right?

This is an unequivocal statement that anyone whose politics, views or ideas are not aligned with the political aims and goals of the United Nations, has no right to exercise any of the rights and freedoms the UN had so universally declared!

Yeah, I put it into a rant, too:

What a UNIVERSAL HOAX!


add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

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

Defend Geert Wilders

January 24, 2009 — xanthippa

If you have not heard, there is a new blog each and every person who holds the principle of Free Speech dear to their hearts should visit:

Defend Geert Wilders

What is it?  What is its purpose?

When Mark Steyn was being persecuted in Canada, all the Canadian ‘Free Speechers’ went to get the latest information about what was happening at one central place, ‘Free Mark Steyn’.

By having the latest, most accurate information at our fingertips, we could then work to raise public awareness and de-normalize the attitudes which allowed this abuse of the judicial system (in our case, the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals).  As more and more people became aware of what was truly happening, public attitudes changed.  Mark Steyn – and Ezra Levant, who was also persecuted in the same manner – were vindicated.   Many thanks to Binks for having had the courage and dedication to run this site.

Now, another Canadian Free Speecher – Walker Morrow – has stepped up and started up ‘Defend Geert Wilders’ in the same spirit – and with the same hopes.  So, if you would like to keep up to date with what is happening in the war for Freedom of Speech, Geert Wilders battle, bookmark this site.

And, if you get some information that should be included there, but is missing – comment, write, contribute.

Free Speechers of the world – unite!

Don’t let them silence us.

Please!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

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

In defense of Free Speech: Geert Wilders

January 22, 2009 — xanthippa

This is NOT about Geert Wilders, or about his movie Fitna.

This is NOT about what I, you – or anyone else thinks about him or the movie.

This is about giving our politicians the power to silence us, one voice at a time!

Ezra Levant has all the details of the charges now brought against the Dutch Paliamentarian for daring to speak his mind.  Ezra also has a most excellent analysis of the situation – clear, concise and exhaustive.  Much better than how I could say it!

All I will add is:  it is not about a particular voice, what that voice says, or how that voice says it.  It is about us permitting our governments, our politicians, the power to decide which ideas are ‘legal’, which are ‘illegal’ – and giving them the ability to silence us, one voice at a time….

h/t:  BlazingCatfur

 

UPDATE:  Walker Morrow has started ‘Defend Geert Wilders’, to central place to bring attention to the fight for Free Speech in the specific case of Geert Wilders!  Thank you, Walker Morrow! 

UPDATE: 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

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

The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza

January 19, 2009 — xanthippa

More and more Palestinians in Gaza blame Hamas for all the violence they are suffering!!!

Most Palestinians may have voted for Hamas during the last elections, but they have since learned that living under the rule of Hamas is terrible!  Now, they know that Hamas and their disrespect for human life is the cause of their suffering – including the Israeli attacks! 

But, what can they do now? Who will protect them from their own government?  Hamas may have been legitimately elected in Gaza, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Since coming to power, Hamas has seriously oppressed the Gazan population.  Right away, opposition party members (Fatah) were jailed – many were executed.  Journalists were gagged:  no more freedom of the press, thus keeping the world from seeing what they were doing to the people who had elected them.  Demonstrations by the civilian population were brutally suppressed (doctors being specifically targetted).

And, not much was said about it in the world… This is the ‘soft racism’ of mainstream media which consistently fails to report abuses done by a ‘favoured’ groups, like Hamas has become. 

Please, take a look.  This is how Hamas treats the Gazans:

 

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Hamas, which would appear to give independant support to the claims in the video above:

In addition to killing Israeli civilians and armed forces, Hamas has also attacked suspected Palestinian collaborators, and Fatah rivals.[167]

On February 2007, members of the Palestinian Red Crescent, speaking on conditions on anonymity, said that Hamas had confiscated their humanitarian supply convoys that were destined for Palestinian civilians. Hamas claims the supplies were heading to former members of Fatah.[citation needed]

Human Rights Watch has cited a number of summary executions as particular examples of violations of the rules of warfare, including the case of Muhammad Swairki, 28, a cook for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s presidential guard, who was thrown to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City.[168]

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups frequently extra judicially execute or otherwise punish those they consider collaborators with Israel. Frequent killings of unarmed people have also occurred during Hamas-Fatah clashes.[169][170]

Thousands of angry Hamas loyalists marched on 24 February 2008 at the funeral of a Muslim preacher who died in PNA custody, turning the ceremony into a rare show of defiance against President Mahmoud Abbas.[171]

Hamas imprisoned their political opponenets, tortured and executed them…  Hamas stole humanitarian supplies from the already suffering people, sold them to the highest bidder and used the money to buy more weapons.  When they could no longer buy sewage pipes  from Israel because it was discovered they used them to build Kassam rockets, they started ripping up the already aging sewer system for more pipes….causing sewage floods severe enough that some people (including kids) died. 

As disgusting as it is, it is true.  Hamas did not care if what they did caused the children in Gaza to drown in sewage, if it helped them fight Israel…  Do you think the people of Gaza have not realized this? 

 

Hamas may have been legitimately elected, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Here is another video which shows how Hamas ‘maintains order’ in Gaza…

When Israel has invaded Gaza – in order to stop the shelling of its civilian populations by Hamas – what was the first thing Hamas did?  It shot several hundred Gazan civilians in their legs (kneecapped them) because they feared that the very people of Gaza would welcome the Israeli forces as liberators from Hamas oppression and help them!!!

Let me say it again, in no uncertain words:  Hamas knows that the civilian population of Gaza is ready to work even with the ‘hated Israelis’, if it will free them of Hamas!

Hamas, whose top leadership lives in Syria – not Gaza – has many goals… but the well-being of ordinary Gazans is not one of them.  Now, the Palestinian people living in Gaza know it, too. 

Hamas is anti-Israel, not pro-Palestinian people!  The two are not the same!

Please, if you wish to support the Palestinian people, if you are truly moved by their plight and wish to join a demonstration to show your support – do NOT tolerate any show of support for Hamas there.  Please, tell any co-demonstrator who seems unaware of this that showing support for Hamas is anti-Palestinian people. 

Please, do not allow the oppressors to continue to hijack the demonstrations meant to show support for their very victims.  Support the people of Gaza, not Hamas!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Peace for Khan…

January 15, 2009 — xanthippa

 

Rest in peace, Ricardo Montalban!

This chilly morning finds us saying good bye to Star Trek’s sexiest villain, Khan, brilliantly brought to like by Ricarcdo Montalban.

The Wrath of Khan was the only Star Trek movie worth the time to watch it – and, in my never-humble-opinion, Ricardo Montalban’s genius in bringing Khan to life is what sets The Wrath of Khan from the other Star Trek Movies.

Of course, Khan was not just part of the movies – he was one of the originals!   His portrayal of the 20th century genetically altered, crygenically preserved villain is one of those classic episodes which made Star Trek the archetypal classic it has become.

Ricardo Montalban was, of course, an accomplished actor before Star Trek – but it is as the brilliantly evil Mr. Khan that he will always live on in my heart.  I hope he finds peace.

 

Posted in society. Tags: . 1 Comment »

Can labour unions re-invent themselves?

January 13, 2009 — xanthippa

The context for my idea here is that Ottawa, Canada’s capital, is on day 34 of a full and complete public transit strike.  And while these comments were inspired by this particular strike, I think my observation might be general enough to be portable.

While a ‘bus strike’ is inconvenient any time, an Ottawa winter is a particularly unpleasant time for it:  biking or walking  are much less attractive options during snow-storms or when the mercury dips to -20 degree Celsius or lower… 

The reason for the strike?  Control.

The  details of this particular strike are really not all that important… The City of Ottawa had, a few years ago, been amalgamated from the local communities.  During amalgamation, the governance structures were not properly designed to balance the concerns of the civil service labour unions to look after their employees on the one hand and the ability of the City to manage its employees on the other.  The current Mayor and City Council have been attempting to regain the very ability to manage the City’s operations – and the City’s employees.

Now, the first of 8 or 9 employee union contracts (bunched together, from the amalgamation) has come up for renewal.  Surprisingly enough, this union chose to go on strike!

The City has offered a substantial salary increase in its latest offer  (certainly above expectations) in exchange for increased ability to manage – and prevent some blatant abuses of ‘the system’ identified in a recent audit.  Currently, this is controlled by the union – and the union has made it clear they will not give up their power, no matter what. 

Before a vote on the most recent contract offer (when the union had to be legislated to even present it to its members), the head of this union as well as the head of the ‘umberella union of unions’ have urged the members to refuse the contract ‘in solidaruty with all the other unions whose contracts are coming up shortly’.  Some members told me they left the union rally, shouting:  “We’ll stick it to Mayor O’Brien!”

Thus, we are in day 34 of the ‘bus strike’.

In a way, this bus strike has unified the citizens of Ottawa.  People give lilfts to friends, co-workers or, at times, complete strangers (I have).  It has become a sort of a ‘community building’ project.  Just about everyone, even merchants whose businesses are suffering the most, are united in their support of the City Council’s strong position – saying the Council must not give in.

Today, I was (as I often do) listening to a local open-line radio station where the host was – very effectively – asking callers what would be an effective solution:  cut through the rhetoric, the ‘rights and wrongs’ of each side’s positions, and actually try to come up with a solution which might work.  Very constructive – my compliments to him (though I have criticized him in the past on this blog).

I am a slow thinker… so, it was not until it was too late to call in that I got an idea – one I have not heard discussed anywhere before, but which I thought might break this stalemate.  And, if acceptable, this could help unions throughout ‘The West’ reinvent themselves for the emerging economy.  Have we not all seen evidence of just how out of touch with today’s economc and cultural situation many of the labour unions are?  Perhaps this could help…

It is impossible to serve two masters.  The employees cannot possibly be managed by both the union and the City at the same time – not in an effective way which would create an aimcable workplace atmosphere.  As long as there is a power struggle, there will be tension and stress and things will not work well.  Translating to bureaucrateese:  ‘Responsibility to multiple governance structures with non-congruent goals often results in an environment which has historically been unlikely to result in a positive atmosphere within the community of practice; in particular, one which would be conducive to collaborative efforts implementing best practices, thus creating a centre of excellence.’

The Resolution of the ‘Ottawa Bus Strike’ :

  • identify all sides’ responsibilities
  • identify all sides’ goals
  • find a solution to satisfy all of these

Responsibilities:

An employer – private or public – has a responsibility to its customers, citizens/shareholders as well as to its employees to manage effectively.  Here, the employer is the City of Ottawa.  In order to do fulfil its responsibilities, the City must retain management control – it is not their right, it is their responsibility to the user’s of OC Transpo (Ottawa’s public transit), to the citizens of Ottawa (the taxpayers) AND to its employees.

The labour union also has a clear mandate:  look after the interests of their membership in the workplace.  To this end, it is their responsibility to negotiate the best possible contract for their members form the emplolyer.

The employee/union member has the responsibility to live up to an agreed-upon contract.  They also have the responsibility to elect a union leadership which understand and accurately represents their best long-term interests.

Goals:

The goal of the City is to provide service to the citizens in the most effective manner possible and to live up to its responsibilities to the City’s employees.

The goal of the union is to manage things to be most beneficial to its employees.

The goal of the employees/members is to have a good job with fair compensation, with a good working conditions.

The way to satisfy all these responsibilities as well as all the goald – the best win-win solution – (in my never-humble-opinion) is to ralign who the employer is!

If these civil servants ceased to be employed by the City, but became employees of the union instead, all the goals and responsibilities would be satisfied!

The City and the union would negotiate a contract,  clearly and specifically defining all  the services the union will provide to the City,  and the price the City will pay the union for these services.  All expectations and details would be clear in the contract, with legal consequences for non-compliance from either side clearly spelled out.

The benefit to the union?  The members would retain the self-management which they are demanding by this strike – plus more.   This would not only respect the union’s jurisdiction, it would present them with an unprecedented opportunity to truly look after its membership. 

The benefit to the union members?  Since the union leadership is elected by the members, this would, in a very real way, be a form of self-government and would empower them.  This could only improve the workplace atmosphere – as they would be in full control of their working conditions!

The benefit to the City?  By contracting the union, rather than its members, the members would no longer be City employees, which would remove the City’s responsibility to them. The City could abolish the now-redundant layer of management and streamline its operations.  The final contract’s cost would be fixed, which would make the city’s budgeting much more efficient.

Is there a down side to this solution?

If it works,l could this model be used by other labour unions to help themselves re-structure, in order to remain relevant in the emerging economy?

Update:  Today, on day 35 of this transit strike, an opportunistic Councillor turned his back on the principles he defended as late as last week and broke ranks with the rest of the Council and, in a transparent effort to secure the backing of the powerful unions in his upcoming bid for the Mayor’s Chair, he has thrown his support behind the union. 

Still, according to my proposed model, his position would be accommodated:  the union would indeed retain the control they seek.  They would have to accept the responsibility which goes with the control they are striking to retain.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

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

Religion (definition): part 2

January 9, 2009 — xanthippa
To recap from Religion (definition): part 1 :

Religion is a particular state of mind.  It covers beliefs (faith), convictions and even concepts or principles that humans find note-worthy, worship-worthy or love-worthy.  I attempted to demonstrate that different people define ‘religion’ very differently from each other (and from my above definition), providing example of a school librarian who only considered several sects of Christianity as ‘religion’ (not even covering all of Christianity) and classifying all else as ‘mythology’.  As there is no provision in our society for ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of mythology’, should everyone define the term as narrowly (or according to their own particular liking), this would effectively place many ‘religions’ outside of legal protection…. 

C.G. Jung’s definition of ‘religion’ (which I happen to like because it is clear, concise and can be workable in both a personal and a legal context – as well as being a definition I think most people could accept), is as follow:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

This definition would effectively eliminate the problem which I cited in the ‘librarian’ example – and more.

This definition of religion limits it to a peculiar attitude of the mind:  not the practices or ritualswhich accompany it.

As such, whereever freedom of religion was guaranteed, a person could believe, admit and openly discuss all aspects of their religion freely, without regard to how ‘offensive’ this may be to other religions or to some members of the society.   However, since religion is limited (by definition) to a state of mind – not actions – one could not claim protection under ‘freedom of religion’ laws for taking action which would contravene the laws of the land that person would happen to be living in.  In my never-humble-opinion, drawing a very firm line between ‘beliefs/thoughts/ideas’ and expressing them freely (protected) and actions (not protected) is very, very important.

All actions which contravene the laws of the land – no matter how much rooted in or motivated by ‘religion’ – ought not enjoy any protection under ‘freedom of religion’.

Example:

Human sacrifice is an integral part of many bona fide religions.  From ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa, to China and Japan, to Europe, and the Americas – human sacrifice was an integral part of many religious rituals.  If actions based on religious belief were to be protected under ‘freedom of religion’, any person claiming to subscribe to any one of these religions could commit ritual murder without fear of prosecution or any kind of legal action.  The murderer would be protected under ‘freedom of religion’.

I particularly selected human sacrifice for my example because it is so extreme.  Yet, it is a well documented part of many religious rituals!  If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected.

In no way am I proposing that this ought to be so.  To the contrary.  I am demonstrating in as strong terms as I can think of that ‘freedom of religion’ must not be allowed to excuse acts which are in breech of secular laws.  OK, so the ‘religious practice’in question need not be as drastic as human sacrifice:  it could be polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation (male and female) – the list could go on for pages… 

The particulars of the practice are really not important.  The key is that freedom of religion ought to protect one from discrimination based on thoughts, belief, ideas – but must not in any way protect behaviour which contravenes the secular laws of the land.

We must protect everyone’s right to believe and hold ideas freely and openly.  At the same time, we must not allow cries of ‘this is part of my religion’ to protect illegal behaviour:  this would only lead to the hijacking of religions by criminal minded people or those who wish to oppress -or worse. 

It would be wrong of us to allow religions to be abused in this manner.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Religion (definition): part 1

January 8, 2009 — xanthippa

Another term which is important to define when talking about The Big Picture is ‘Religion’.

This is another one of those words that everybody thinks has a universal definition – but not all these ‘universal definitions’ are congruent…. and some of the differences between the various descriptions are, well, rather substantial.  (Yes, this does make our constitution, which forbids discrimination on religious grounds, rather laughable, as in the absence defining what is meant by ‘religious grounds’, this phrase is worse than meaningles…. it is open to abuse!  Please, don’t get me started on that topic!!!)

Just look at the how (not the what) of the way different people practice religion. 

To some, religion is little more than some surreal principles.  They believe in some undefinible, intangable divine principles that form the universal subconsciousness or, if you prefer, which give the Universe a consciousness of her own.  Or, they call it Mother Nature, or some ‘laws of nature’ which have no perceivable form (personification-able, that is).  To these people, spirituality is important, but religiosity – the rituals associated with these beliefs – may be largely irrelevant.

At the other extreme, there are people for whom adherence to the religious customs and rituals is a much more integral part of their religion than any form of actual belief or even abstract concept of the divine.  We see this in many highly ritualistic religions which dictate daily routines and behaviours onto its practitioners.  I have known Anglicans, Catholics, Jews and Hindus who all practice the rituals of their religion because it supports their perception of their self-identity – or serves and supports others in their community – yet who do not subscribe to the doctorines of their religious dogma. 

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by this:  they are able to abstract moral lessons from their religious teachings and see value (either to their personal growth or things helpful or important to others within their community) in adhering to the religious practices, even though they reject the dogmatic or supernatural aspects of their religions.  (I regard this with great respect – it is the opposite of some peoples’ self-righteous pretense at being religious while missing the ‘greater message’!  That is a subject of its own…)

Yet others both have faith in the dogma of a religion, and adhere to its daily rituals.  The spectrum is about as varied as humanity itself…

Many people in The West think that religion is something which deals with questions regarding the meaning/purpose of life, death, afterlife, God, etc.  And, some religions do that.  However, most religions are not this narrowly limited.  So, what exactly defines religion?  What is common to all the religions ‘out there’?

Well, it depends on whom you ask… and what background they are approaching the subject of ‘religion’ from.

The psychoanalyst (NOT to me mistaken with ‘psycho analyst’) Carl G.Jung defines religion as:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

(Emphasis added by me…  I do have to admit that I copied this definition out in calligraphy and stuck it to the inside of my locker door when I was in high-school – yeah, I know, pathetic!)

So, accortding to Jung, religion is a peculiar attitude of the mind. 

The reason I like this definition is because in a society which allows fredom of thought, freedom of religion is automatic:  you are free to believe – fully, partially or not at all – anything you wish.  Here, freedom of religion becomes a sub-set of freedom of thought and does not require special treatment, privileges or accommodations under the law.

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is very important.  After all, no idea or belief should be accorded greater or lesser protection from persecution, regardless of its nature!  Plus, most oppressors (or would-be oppressors….knowingly or condescendingly) are notorious for defining ‘religious grounds’ in a way that allows them to oppress those whose ideas (religious or otherwise) they do not like! 

Example:  when my older son neared the end of grade 8 and different high-schools were lobbying us to register him to attend them, I visited one of the most highly regarded and very coveted high-schools in Ottawa.  That is when I got a chance to look around the school’s library – and it did indeed contain an impressive selection of books!  When I came to the ‘Religion’ section, there were many, many books on Christianity and Christian philosophy.  Truly, it contained an exhaustive collection of books on all the sects of non-Arian forms of Christianity.  Yet, when I looked for the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, Tao Te Ching and other texts widely considered ‘religious’, they could not be found….until one came to the ‘Mythology’ section of the library….  Needless to say, we chose to send our son elsewhere.

Obviously, to this particular school’s librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’.  Everything else was ‘Mythology’, and would not deserve protection under Canadian constitution which bans ‘discrimination on the basis of religion’ – but does not protect against ‘discrimination of the basis of mythology’….  I’m sorry about the circuitous description, but, I do hope I explained by point clearly:

According to this librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’ and therefore, freedom of religion would only extend to people who subscribed to this narrow group of religious sects.

I’m afraid I prefer Jung’s definition or ‘religion’ to this librarian’s!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »