Change is good. Unless, of course, you happen to be a Conservative Party convention delegate. On November 7, 2009, 77 per cent of Conservative convention delegates cast a vote in favour of keeping Premier Ed Stelmach in power by voting against holding a provincial leadership election. I was shocked at the results. I shouldn’t have been. Of course the Conservative Party stood by Stelmach. To do otherwise would be to turn their back on their party, their policies and their political belief systems. However, by supporting an ineffectual, uncharismatic and increasing unpopular premier, the Conservative Party has turned its back on the province of Alberta. The Conservative party may need Stelmach, but the citizens of Alberta could certainly do without him.
Voting to hold a provincial leadership election would have been the same as Conservatives admitting that their party is in trouble. If Conservative Party delegates had turned their back on Stelmach, it could have been the kiss of death for a party that is in desperate need of a face-lift. If the Conservatives had chosen to vote for a chance to elect a new leader, they would have confirmed what the rest of us already know: that the government of Alberta is broken and in desperate need of change. That much-needed change could have potentially come from the Conservative Party if they had made the brave choice to elect a new leader. However, since Stelmach remains at the helm of the Conservatives, it is Danielle Smith, the new leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party, who will have the opportunity to be the change Albertans desperately crave. Smith is charismatic, young and bold; in other words, everything that Stelmach is not. Conservative convention delegates chose to save the Conservative party rather than please voters by getting rid of a party leader few people are happy with. Ironically, this may lead to the demise of the Conservative party in Alberta anyways. Many Albertans may vote for the Wildrose Alliance Party simply because they want a government that is different from the current one, much like when Americans overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because they wanted a leader who was different from George W. Bush in so many ways. Is this a smart voting strategy? Perhaps not but it is what will happen come election time.
Conservative party members knew that if they did not show their support for Stelmach, it would send a very strong message not just to their party leader but to all Albertans, along with the rest of Canada. If the Conservatives do not believe in their leader, why should the rest of Alberta? But Conservatives did choose to “believe” in Stelmach and they will need to live with the consequences of that decision, as will the rest of us. We will all have to deal with the fact that we live in a province that chose to give H1N1 vaccination shots to professional hockey teams before all high-risk citizens could be vaccinated. We will have to accept that we have a premier who did not ask for the resignation of Alberta’s Health Minister Ron Liepert but allowed two Alberta Health Services staff members to be fired for something that was likely not entirely their decision. We will have to settle for a health care system that is falling apart and a disorganized health minister that cannot settle on a clear vaccination plan for Albertans.
Albertans put their faith in Stelmach and the Conservative Party during the 2008 provincial general election. Less than two years later, many Albertans are questioning Stelmach’s leadership capabilities and the shelf-life of the Conservative Party in Alberta. Any party that has been in power in one place for 38 years risks becoming stagnant and inefficient. Younger, hipper government parties always have the opportunity to swoop in and steal the hearts and votes of citizens. Between the recession, the deficit, H1N1 and the global climate crisis, the Conservative Party (and all political parties) certainly has some major hurdles to jump over gracefully in order to prove they deserve our support.
The Conservative Party chose to keep Stelmach in power; this we cannot change. But thanks to democracy, freedom of choice and rational thought, we can choose to end the madness in 2012, during the next provincial general election. Of course, plenty can change in two years. If the Conservative Party wants to retain power in Alberta, those changes must include booting Stelmach and finding a party leader with a little more panache.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Legalize the Sex Trade to Keep Women on Streets Safe
People keep disappearing. Women, in particular, go missing all the time, never to be seen again. It seems inevitable. In Canada, over 1500 women are officially considered missing persons by the police, according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. But data tells us that a certain segment of the population goes missing more often than others. Sex trade workers, or “prostitutes,” as they are more vulgarly known, are at high risk for disappearing because they are one of society’s most vulnerable sectors. Edmonton is a prime example of what can go wrong when sex trade workers do not have advocates on their side looking out for those who have to live on the street and encounter strangers on a daily basis. For years, missing sex trade workers have later turned up dead, desecrated and forgotten in farmers’ fields outside the city. In British Columbia, the victims of Robert Pickton still remain on many people’s minds. It is a grim truth, what can happen to those people that have no one looking for them.
Changes need to be made to ensure that sex trade workers do not continue to go missing. A sex trade worker may only be a “hooker” to many people but to someone, she is family. She is a daughter, a mother, a sister, a friend. But the sad truth is it can be extremely difficult to keep track of someone who lives on the street. Women who work in the sex trade industry are often missing for a long time before anyone notices or thinks to report it to the police. Legalizing prostitution would allow sex trade workers to work in brothels without fear of police raids and jail time. By legalizing prostitution, the government could also regulate the sex trade, allowing for more protective measures to be taken to ensure the health, safety and well-being of all people involved in the sex trade. Legal brothels would give sex trade workers a place to check into every day, ensuring that someone would notice within a day or two if a sex trade worker went missing. Legalized prostitution would mean the government could implement a health check system that would send nurses to test sex trade workers in brothels for sexually transmitted infections and other health-related problems. This, in turn, would make working conditions not only safer for sex trade workers but also for their clientele. If prostitiution were legalized, sex trade workers would not have to hide from police. Instead, sex trade workers could feel more comfortable reporting any john who mistreated them or abused them.
Yes, legalizing prostitiution sounds crazy to some people. It’s a simple but extreme solution to a problem that is anything but simple. Sex trade workers often stay in the sex industry because they don’t know any other way of life. Last year I spent six weeks interviewing a sex trade worker in Halifax for a class project. I tried to learn every detail of her life; when I returned to my safe, warm home after every interview, I felt like crying. The women I interviewed dropped out of school in Grade 9 and had been arrested many times for solicitation. She had been beaten and broken and left for dead. She told me she could not leave the sex trade because she could not even get a job at Tim Hortons because of her criminal background. She had no options. The system had failed her, just like it has failed all women involved in the sex trade.
Relegating prostitution to a dirty, illegal realm has not made the sex trade disappear. Instead, it is the women who are involved in the sex trade that are disappearing. Sex trade workers are a marginalized group simply because society treats them as such. Sex trade workers are forced to remain separate from the very society that allows them to exist in the first place. The sex trade only remains alive because there are always customers willing to pay for sex. Ignoring the problem hasn’t made it go away. Ignoring the women in the sex trade has only made the problem worse. In order to keep sex trade workers safe, we must first begin to see them as people, not as outsiders. In order for that to happen, in order for sex trade workers to matter to society, the government needs to legalize prostitution. Too many women have gone missing; too little has been done to stop it. Legalize prostitution, regulate brothels and give sex trade workers a safe place to call home.
Changes need to be made to ensure that sex trade workers do not continue to go missing. A sex trade worker may only be a “hooker” to many people but to someone, she is family. She is a daughter, a mother, a sister, a friend. But the sad truth is it can be extremely difficult to keep track of someone who lives on the street. Women who work in the sex trade industry are often missing for a long time before anyone notices or thinks to report it to the police. Legalizing prostitution would allow sex trade workers to work in brothels without fear of police raids and jail time. By legalizing prostitution, the government could also regulate the sex trade, allowing for more protective measures to be taken to ensure the health, safety and well-being of all people involved in the sex trade. Legal brothels would give sex trade workers a place to check into every day, ensuring that someone would notice within a day or two if a sex trade worker went missing. Legalized prostitution would mean the government could implement a health check system that would send nurses to test sex trade workers in brothels for sexually transmitted infections and other health-related problems. This, in turn, would make working conditions not only safer for sex trade workers but also for their clientele. If prostitiution were legalized, sex trade workers would not have to hide from police. Instead, sex trade workers could feel more comfortable reporting any john who mistreated them or abused them.
Yes, legalizing prostitiution sounds crazy to some people. It’s a simple but extreme solution to a problem that is anything but simple. Sex trade workers often stay in the sex industry because they don’t know any other way of life. Last year I spent six weeks interviewing a sex trade worker in Halifax for a class project. I tried to learn every detail of her life; when I returned to my safe, warm home after every interview, I felt like crying. The women I interviewed dropped out of school in Grade 9 and had been arrested many times for solicitation. She had been beaten and broken and left for dead. She told me she could not leave the sex trade because she could not even get a job at Tim Hortons because of her criminal background. She had no options. The system had failed her, just like it has failed all women involved in the sex trade.
Relegating prostitution to a dirty, illegal realm has not made the sex trade disappear. Instead, it is the women who are involved in the sex trade that are disappearing. Sex trade workers are a marginalized group simply because society treats them as such. Sex trade workers are forced to remain separate from the very society that allows them to exist in the first place. The sex trade only remains alive because there are always customers willing to pay for sex. Ignoring the problem hasn’t made it go away. Ignoring the women in the sex trade has only made the problem worse. In order to keep sex trade workers safe, we must first begin to see them as people, not as outsiders. In order for that to happen, in order for sex trade workers to matter to society, the government needs to legalize prostitution. Too many women have gone missing; too little has been done to stop it. Legalize prostitution, regulate brothels and give sex trade workers a safe place to call home.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Should Convicted Rapists Face the Chopping Block?
A man convicted of paedophilia multiple times is now once again on trial in France for a crime he cannot seem to stop committing. Francis Evard admitted his guilt during the first day of his trial but said he can’t explain why he continues to rape male minors, only that he has “impulses,” according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. Oh, but don’t worry about Evard; he has already come up with a plan to help him help himself. Evard has asked for his testicles to be surgically castrated, as in removed from his body. Evard wrote to Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, asking that he be allowed to break France’s law against surgical castration. Sarkozy has not replied to this request or commented on it publicly. If convicted, 63-year-old Evard will most likely spend most of his life in jail where he will not be able to harm any children. However, is it right that Evard remain a financial drain on the French penal system when he is wiling to undergo a procedure that would, in theory, allow him to stop committing the crime that resulted in his jail time?
If someone wants their testicles surgically removed or chemically castrated, that should be their own personal choice. However, the government does have some say in what happens to a man’s own personal pair. Every country seems to have a different opinion and law regarding surgical and chemical castration. Some are for it; some are horrified by it. In France, surgical castration is illegal, even when requested by the man attached to the testicles. In October 2009, Poland passed legislation that will allow for a judge to order chemical castration for sex offenders who have been convicted of raping children under the age of 15. In Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland and Sweden, convicted child molesters can choose to have chemical castration to reduce or eliminate their sexual urges. Surgical castration is legal in the Czech Republic; Zimbabwe is considering passing similar legislation that would allow for the castration of convicted male rapists. In Canada, several repeat child molesters have voluntarily submitted to castration in the past decade. In 2000, a convicted paedophile in Quebec voluntarily had himself castrated in order to reduce his sentence. If a man is willing to give up his cojones in order to curb his sexual impulses, why not? Rewarding any convicted rapist who is willing to surgically or chemically castrate themselves in exchange for a lesser sentence or a shorter stint in the slammer is a smart way of reducing overcrowding in jails.
However, surgical castration must remain an individual choice, not a lawful threat. Sure, it would be delightfully vengeful if a judge could punish every convicted sex offender by sending them to the chopping block but there are too many moral and ethical implications to consider. What if a man who involuntarily loses his testicles is later found to be wrongfully convicted? I don’t possess male anatomy but my understanding is that balls don’t grow back once they are gone. Also, many people consider castration mutilation, akin to Female Genital Mutilation, when a woman’s clitoris is partially or fully removed. If surgical castration became a lawful punishment for male rapists and paedophiles, would an equal law be passed for female rapists? Would the law only apply to those convicted of molesting children or would all rapists be at risk for losing part of their anatomy? Where would the line be drawn?
While surgical castration seems like a fitting punishment for rapists and paedophiles, chemical castration would be the more humane option. Chemical castration consists of injections that would reduce or even completely kill a man’s sex drive (and hopefully hurt. A lot). Chemical castration should, in theory, curb a man’s sexual desires enough that he would not feel the urge to misuse his junk for evil, but would still leave him physically intact. This would remove many doubts about whether surgical castration is too close to outright mutilation. If used properly, chemical castration could provide convicted rapists and paedophiles a chance to serve shorter sentences and rejoin society. Do they deserve a chance to leave jail early? Maybe not, but a solution must be found to repeat offenders and overcrowded jails. The government of Canada (along with the government of France) needs to examine the law and decide if it would be feasible to create a system that would reduce the amount of repeat offenders by chemically castrating convicted rapists and paedophiles.
If someone wants their testicles surgically removed or chemically castrated, that should be their own personal choice. However, the government does have some say in what happens to a man’s own personal pair. Every country seems to have a different opinion and law regarding surgical and chemical castration. Some are for it; some are horrified by it. In France, surgical castration is illegal, even when requested by the man attached to the testicles. In October 2009, Poland passed legislation that will allow for a judge to order chemical castration for sex offenders who have been convicted of raping children under the age of 15. In Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland and Sweden, convicted child molesters can choose to have chemical castration to reduce or eliminate their sexual urges. Surgical castration is legal in the Czech Republic; Zimbabwe is considering passing similar legislation that would allow for the castration of convicted male rapists. In Canada, several repeat child molesters have voluntarily submitted to castration in the past decade. In 2000, a convicted paedophile in Quebec voluntarily had himself castrated in order to reduce his sentence. If a man is willing to give up his cojones in order to curb his sexual impulses, why not? Rewarding any convicted rapist who is willing to surgically or chemically castrate themselves in exchange for a lesser sentence or a shorter stint in the slammer is a smart way of reducing overcrowding in jails.
However, surgical castration must remain an individual choice, not a lawful threat. Sure, it would be delightfully vengeful if a judge could punish every convicted sex offender by sending them to the chopping block but there are too many moral and ethical implications to consider. What if a man who involuntarily loses his testicles is later found to be wrongfully convicted? I don’t possess male anatomy but my understanding is that balls don’t grow back once they are gone. Also, many people consider castration mutilation, akin to Female Genital Mutilation, when a woman’s clitoris is partially or fully removed. If surgical castration became a lawful punishment for male rapists and paedophiles, would an equal law be passed for female rapists? Would the law only apply to those convicted of molesting children or would all rapists be at risk for losing part of their anatomy? Where would the line be drawn?
While surgical castration seems like a fitting punishment for rapists and paedophiles, chemical castration would be the more humane option. Chemical castration consists of injections that would reduce or even completely kill a man’s sex drive (and hopefully hurt. A lot). Chemical castration should, in theory, curb a man’s sexual desires enough that he would not feel the urge to misuse his junk for evil, but would still leave him physically intact. This would remove many doubts about whether surgical castration is too close to outright mutilation. If used properly, chemical castration could provide convicted rapists and paedophiles a chance to serve shorter sentences and rejoin society. Do they deserve a chance to leave jail early? Maybe not, but a solution must be found to repeat offenders and overcrowded jails. The government of Canada (along with the government of France) needs to examine the law and decide if it would be feasible to create a system that would reduce the amount of repeat offenders by chemically castrating convicted rapists and paedophiles.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Cutting Inmates’ Visitation Rights a Specious Way to Save Money
Visiting your favourite mobster or godfather in the clink just got a whole lot easier, albeit, less personal. The new Edmonton Remand Centre, set to open in 2012, will not allow visitors to actually visit the centre, where the majority of inmates are only awaiting trial, not actual convicted criminals. Instead, visitors will trek to a yet-to-be-determined off-site location to video chat with prisoners. The reasoning behind the switch is simply to make the system more efficient, says the province. Every time a visitor arrives at the current centre to see an inmate, they must go through security screening, which is costly and time-consuming. Also, the current in-person visiting system only allows for 12 visitors at a time. The new system would most likely have 60 booths at both the Remand Centre and the off-site location, which would allow for about 1600 half-hour visits per day. Visitors would still have to make an appointment to speak to an inmate and would need to travel to the off-site location for the video conference.
While the reasoning behind the new visiting system may be purely financial from the province’s point of view (after all, times are tough and any changes that save the province money are seen by many as a good move, whether or not the changes are beneficial or harmful). However, many of the people who are favour the idea of video visits over face-to-face visits say that it is a good idea simply because the inmates at the Remand Centre don’t deserve in-person visitors. At best, this is specious logic; at worst, it’s vindictive. The Remand Centre is primarily a facility to hold people awaiting trial, meaning that inmates have not yet been found guilty of a crime. It is one thing to take away the visiting rights of convicted murderers; it is quite another thing to take away outside human contact from people who are supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many people will say the prisoners awaiting trial in the Remand Centre are criminals and don’t deserve visitation rights; I say, that’s for a judge and jury to decide.
The average prisoner is only in the Remand Centre for approximately 18 days; however, some prisoners are kept in the centre for years before their cases go to trial. Imagine having no direct human contact with your wife, your brother, your best friend or your kids for almost three weeks. Sure, people often go that long without seeing loved ones if they live far apart or are away at university or on a business trip. But imagine not having direct contact with your husband or grandchildren for two years not by choice but because you are incarcerated for a crime you did not commit and have not been convicted of. I don’t think any of us can pretend that it wouldn’t be hard not seeing the people we are used to seeing or living with every day. Removing a prisoner’s right to speak to their loved ones in person punishes not only the prisoner but also the wives, husbands, children, siblings and parents of prison inmates.
Not only will removing in-person visitation rights for prisoners be detrimental to the well-being of a prisoner’s family and friends, it may potentially cause a prisoner to have difficulty successfully rejoining society after their time in the Remand Centre. Having to tell friends and co-workers your two-week vacation was actually spend in doing time in the clink for a crime you didn’t commit is socially awkward enough as it is; imagine having to have that conversation if you had spent the entire two weeks you were away not talking to anybody face-to-face except prison guards and your fellow inmates. Humans are creatures of habits; social skills are learned and must be practiced, otherwise they will be lost. Isolated inmates run the risk of being unable to rejoin society as a functioning human being, making them kind of useless to the world at large. But 18 days is such a short time, you say. Well, why don’t you lock yourself in solitary confinement in your basement with no laptop, no TV, no people to talk to for the next three weeks and report back on how you feel after that experience, if you’re still able to communicate your feelings. Innocent people who have not been convicted of a crime by a court of law should not be cut off from their loved ones, with possibly long-lasting detrimental effects on one’s quality of life.
While the reasoning behind the new visiting system may be purely financial from the province’s point of view (after all, times are tough and any changes that save the province money are seen by many as a good move, whether or not the changes are beneficial or harmful). However, many of the people who are favour the idea of video visits over face-to-face visits say that it is a good idea simply because the inmates at the Remand Centre don’t deserve in-person visitors. At best, this is specious logic; at worst, it’s vindictive. The Remand Centre is primarily a facility to hold people awaiting trial, meaning that inmates have not yet been found guilty of a crime. It is one thing to take away the visiting rights of convicted murderers; it is quite another thing to take away outside human contact from people who are supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many people will say the prisoners awaiting trial in the Remand Centre are criminals and don’t deserve visitation rights; I say, that’s for a judge and jury to decide.
The average prisoner is only in the Remand Centre for approximately 18 days; however, some prisoners are kept in the centre for years before their cases go to trial. Imagine having no direct human contact with your wife, your brother, your best friend or your kids for almost three weeks. Sure, people often go that long without seeing loved ones if they live far apart or are away at university or on a business trip. But imagine not having direct contact with your husband or grandchildren for two years not by choice but because you are incarcerated for a crime you did not commit and have not been convicted of. I don’t think any of us can pretend that it wouldn’t be hard not seeing the people we are used to seeing or living with every day. Removing a prisoner’s right to speak to their loved ones in person punishes not only the prisoner but also the wives, husbands, children, siblings and parents of prison inmates.
Not only will removing in-person visitation rights for prisoners be detrimental to the well-being of a prisoner’s family and friends, it may potentially cause a prisoner to have difficulty successfully rejoining society after their time in the Remand Centre. Having to tell friends and co-workers your two-week vacation was actually spend in doing time in the clink for a crime you didn’t commit is socially awkward enough as it is; imagine having to have that conversation if you had spent the entire two weeks you were away not talking to anybody face-to-face except prison guards and your fellow inmates. Humans are creatures of habits; social skills are learned and must be practiced, otherwise they will be lost. Isolated inmates run the risk of being unable to rejoin society as a functioning human being, making them kind of useless to the world at large. But 18 days is such a short time, you say. Well, why don’t you lock yourself in solitary confinement in your basement with no laptop, no TV, no people to talk to for the next three weeks and report back on how you feel after that experience, if you’re still able to communicate your feelings. Innocent people who have not been convicted of a crime by a court of law should not be cut off from their loved ones, with possibly long-lasting detrimental effects on one’s quality of life.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Harper Becomes Human, With a Little Help from His Friends
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you surely have heard that Prime Minister Stephen Harper put on a show-stopping musical performance at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa, on Saturday, October 3. Harper’s performance came as a complete surprise to everyone who attended the black-tie gala, which was a fundraiser for the National Youth and Education Trust. Who knew that a conservative prime minister who invoked the wrath of the arts community by cutting funding for arts and culture not only actually likes music but is capable of performing? Harper pounded the ivories and belted out the Beatles classic “With a Little Help from My Friends,” accompanied by the famous cellist Yo Yo Ma.
Harper’s performance created an instantaneously positive reaction from almost everyone. Symphony members on stage couldn’t contain their smiles. The audience roared their approval not only when Harper walked onstage but again when the first strands of music floated in the air. Liberals stood bravely in their seats to join in the standing ovation. For a few minutes, it appears the entire theatre, regardless of political beliefs or personal opinions, was enthralled and united by Prime Minister Harper.
Although Harper insists he had no idea his performance would create such a reaction from media and people around the world (the video of his performance is now the fifth most popular video of all time on YouTube, less than a week after it was first posted), the performance was a genius move on Harper’s part. We all tend to view politicians as separate from us “regular” beings; we elevate politicians to a different level not only because we elected them but because we need to see them as separate from the common folk. We need to see every politician as a non-human so that it is easier for us to not only let them guide us but also so we can easily blame them when things go wrong. Many people openly voice their opinion that Harper is, in fact, some android from another planet, not flesh-and-blood like us. And this makes it a lot harder to like him, and all politicians. We don’t relate to Harper, so how could he possibly relate to us or understand what we need? By performing an iconic song popular with all generations, Harper showed everyone a side of him few people get to see. Harper humanized himself, in a way that seemed neither calculating nor manipulative, even if it was meant to be. As one of my friends said about Harper’s performance, “He looks amused by this thing us humans call music.”
Harper’s performance might have been a stunt to con us all into liking him and the Conservative party, in case of an election in the near future, or simply because he is expected to call four by-elections in November. After the Conservatives lost their seat in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election this past September, the Conservatives can’t be sure of easily winning any seats. Still, Harper’s motive for doing a musical number at a fancy event isn’t really what’s important. After all, it was Harper’s wife, who happens to be the honourary chairwoman of the National Youth and Education Trust fundraiser gala, who suggested he perform at the gala. Maybe Harper’s motive for singing was as simple as wanting to please his wife. Maybe it was an evil plan devised by a robot to convince us of his humanity. Or maybe Harper simply thought it would be a fun thing to do.
Other Conservative politicians, especially those whose leadership is being questioned (ahem, Premier Stelmach), should take a page from Harper’s handbook and try to find ways to show us their fun, human sides. Before, I could never picture what Harper was like when he wasn’t being a politician. Now, I can easily see him kicking back with a beer (okay, maybe a glass of wine) in front of the TV, watching a hockey game or a Beatle’s concert DVD. I can picture him taking piano lessons from some mean, old lady down the street at the age of six. I can believe that he feels bad about mistakes he has made while in power and that he wants to change things for the better. I can picture him winning a majority government. Whether he deserves it or not, I’m not sure. But anyone with the balls to pull off that performance after only a week of practice deserves our respect
Harper’s performance created an instantaneously positive reaction from almost everyone. Symphony members on stage couldn’t contain their smiles. The audience roared their approval not only when Harper walked onstage but again when the first strands of music floated in the air. Liberals stood bravely in their seats to join in the standing ovation. For a few minutes, it appears the entire theatre, regardless of political beliefs or personal opinions, was enthralled and united by Prime Minister Harper.
Although Harper insists he had no idea his performance would create such a reaction from media and people around the world (the video of his performance is now the fifth most popular video of all time on YouTube, less than a week after it was first posted), the performance was a genius move on Harper’s part. We all tend to view politicians as separate from us “regular” beings; we elevate politicians to a different level not only because we elected them but because we need to see them as separate from the common folk. We need to see every politician as a non-human so that it is easier for us to not only let them guide us but also so we can easily blame them when things go wrong. Many people openly voice their opinion that Harper is, in fact, some android from another planet, not flesh-and-blood like us. And this makes it a lot harder to like him, and all politicians. We don’t relate to Harper, so how could he possibly relate to us or understand what we need? By performing an iconic song popular with all generations, Harper showed everyone a side of him few people get to see. Harper humanized himself, in a way that seemed neither calculating nor manipulative, even if it was meant to be. As one of my friends said about Harper’s performance, “He looks amused by this thing us humans call music.”
Harper’s performance might have been a stunt to con us all into liking him and the Conservative party, in case of an election in the near future, or simply because he is expected to call four by-elections in November. After the Conservatives lost their seat in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election this past September, the Conservatives can’t be sure of easily winning any seats. Still, Harper’s motive for doing a musical number at a fancy event isn’t really what’s important. After all, it was Harper’s wife, who happens to be the honourary chairwoman of the National Youth and Education Trust fundraiser gala, who suggested he perform at the gala. Maybe Harper’s motive for singing was as simple as wanting to please his wife. Maybe it was an evil plan devised by a robot to convince us of his humanity. Or maybe Harper simply thought it would be a fun thing to do.
Other Conservative politicians, especially those whose leadership is being questioned (ahem, Premier Stelmach), should take a page from Harper’s handbook and try to find ways to show us their fun, human sides. Before, I could never picture what Harper was like when he wasn’t being a politician. Now, I can easily see him kicking back with a beer (okay, maybe a glass of wine) in front of the TV, watching a hockey game or a Beatle’s concert DVD. I can picture him taking piano lessons from some mean, old lady down the street at the age of six. I can believe that he feels bad about mistakes he has made while in power and that he wants to change things for the better. I can picture him winning a majority government. Whether he deserves it or not, I’m not sure. But anyone with the balls to pull off that performance after only a week of practice deserves our respect
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
What's Gender Got to Do With It?
Jan Buterman isn’t a substitute teacher for the Greater St. Albert School district anymore. It’s not because Buterman is a bad teacher, or a pedophile or a Lutheran. Buterman is none of those things (except Lutheran, that is). Jan Buterman was removed from the substitute teacher list in 2008 because she decided that at the beginning of the new school year, she would no longer be Mrs. Buterman. Instead, she would be Mr. Buterman.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This ruling set a legal precedent, meaning that people who are gay, bi-sexual, heterosexual, or metrosexual can’t be fired because of who they sleep with. Unfortunately, there are no laws about what to do in cases where gender identity comes into play. Transgender people are not protected by law, meaning that people like Jan Buterman can be fired because they have decided to make the transition from male to female, or female to male.
I understand parents might worry about the confusion their child might face if one of their teacher’s who was a “she” in June comes back as a “he” in September. However, having a transgender teacher makes no difference to the quality of a child’s education. There are good teachers and bad teachers, lazy teachers and earnest teachers. Gender isn’t a factor in any teacher’s ability to do their job correctly. Is your child’s teacher passionate about what helping people learn? Is your child’s teacher bright and engaged in their role in the classroom? Those are the things that matter when it comes to a child’s education. Most kids don’t care about their teacher’s gender. And if your child does have a problem with a teacher who has suddenly transitioned into a different gender? Than maybe it would be a good time to teach your kid about tolerance, acceptance and compassion. The transgender population in Canada doesn’t consist of three freaks sitting under a bridge somewhere. Although it’s impossible to track the amount of transgender people in Canada, there are plenty of active transgender communities in every province, which means eventually your kids will meet someone who is in the process of, or already has, changed from one gender to another. Would you want your child to act hostile or violently towards a transgender person? Or would you hope that you raised a child who is accepting of everyone, including people who might be different from them? What if it was your child who decided they were more comfortable as a boy even though they were raised as a girl? Would you want them to be shunned or fired from a job they loved?
Buterman’s transition from one gender to another shouldn’t be a topic of debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and feelings about that subject. However, a person’s job security should not rest on whether or not the general public approves of their personal life choices, as long as those choices are not illegal. Firing a teacher because they are transgender isn’t about what’s “best” for the kids and it’s not even about adhering to the Catholic church’s belief system. The Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district allowed Buterman to teach before, despite the fact that he is not Catholic. Did the school board not worry that Buterman would inflict his Lutheran beliefs on the poor, susceptible Catholic students? Firing Buterman is the school district’s way of saying they don’t accept Buterman’s life choices because they differ from their own. However, the Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district is not a privately-funded school district; it’s a public school district, which means the public has a say in the decisions made by the school board.
Buterman is clearly a person of character and integrity. He could have chosen to move to another town where no one had ever known him as a woman and started his life over again there. Buterman chose not to hide, not because he wanted to make life difficult for anyone or cause a scene but because he has a right to keep his job, whatever his gender may be. Why should Buterman hide? Buterman’s very public battle to fight for his rights sends a good message to the kids he used to be allowed to teach: stand up for yourself, no matter what others might think. By firing Buterman, the Greater St. Albert Catholic school district set a disturbing precedent for all school districts and the people who work in them.
Please note: The term “transgender” means different things to different people. Some people prefer the terms “transfolk,” “Gender Identity Disorder,” “Male-to-female” or “Female-to-Male.” In this column I use the term “transgender” as a blanket reference to all of those things not to be offensive, but for simplicity.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This ruling set a legal precedent, meaning that people who are gay, bi-sexual, heterosexual, or metrosexual can’t be fired because of who they sleep with. Unfortunately, there are no laws about what to do in cases where gender identity comes into play. Transgender people are not protected by law, meaning that people like Jan Buterman can be fired because they have decided to make the transition from male to female, or female to male.
I understand parents might worry about the confusion their child might face if one of their teacher’s who was a “she” in June comes back as a “he” in September. However, having a transgender teacher makes no difference to the quality of a child’s education. There are good teachers and bad teachers, lazy teachers and earnest teachers. Gender isn’t a factor in any teacher’s ability to do their job correctly. Is your child’s teacher passionate about what helping people learn? Is your child’s teacher bright and engaged in their role in the classroom? Those are the things that matter when it comes to a child’s education. Most kids don’t care about their teacher’s gender. And if your child does have a problem with a teacher who has suddenly transitioned into a different gender? Than maybe it would be a good time to teach your kid about tolerance, acceptance and compassion. The transgender population in Canada doesn’t consist of three freaks sitting under a bridge somewhere. Although it’s impossible to track the amount of transgender people in Canada, there are plenty of active transgender communities in every province, which means eventually your kids will meet someone who is in the process of, or already has, changed from one gender to another. Would you want your child to act hostile or violently towards a transgender person? Or would you hope that you raised a child who is accepting of everyone, including people who might be different from them? What if it was your child who decided they were more comfortable as a boy even though they were raised as a girl? Would you want them to be shunned or fired from a job they loved?
Buterman’s transition from one gender to another shouldn’t be a topic of debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and feelings about that subject. However, a person’s job security should not rest on whether or not the general public approves of their personal life choices, as long as those choices are not illegal. Firing a teacher because they are transgender isn’t about what’s “best” for the kids and it’s not even about adhering to the Catholic church’s belief system. The Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district allowed Buterman to teach before, despite the fact that he is not Catholic. Did the school board not worry that Buterman would inflict his Lutheran beliefs on the poor, susceptible Catholic students? Firing Buterman is the school district’s way of saying they don’t accept Buterman’s life choices because they differ from their own. However, the Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district is not a privately-funded school district; it’s a public school district, which means the public has a say in the decisions made by the school board.
Buterman is clearly a person of character and integrity. He could have chosen to move to another town where no one had ever known him as a woman and started his life over again there. Buterman chose not to hide, not because he wanted to make life difficult for anyone or cause a scene but because he has a right to keep his job, whatever his gender may be. Why should Buterman hide? Buterman’s very public battle to fight for his rights sends a good message to the kids he used to be allowed to teach: stand up for yourself, no matter what others might think. By firing Buterman, the Greater St. Albert Catholic school district set a disturbing precedent for all school districts and the people who work in them.
Please note: The term “transgender” means different things to different people. Some people prefer the terms “transfolk,” “Gender Identity Disorder,” “Male-to-female” or “Female-to-Male.” In this column I use the term “transgender” as a blanket reference to all of those things not to be offensive, but for simplicity.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Emery Smoked by Extradition
Mark Emery, leader of the British Columbia Marijuana Party, entered jail on Monday to ponder his fate before he is extradited to the United States to serve a five-year jail sentence for mailing marijuana to users ‘round North America. Although Emery is a Canadian and has never visited the land of the free and the home of the brave, he is to serve his sentence in the U.S. because he technically sold seeds in America, albeit via the postal system. Some people, mainly Emery’s wife, argue since Emery is a Canadian, he shouldn’t be “charged and imprisoned in a foreign country” or that Emery should at least be able to do his stint in jail in a Canadian prison. Oh look at that poor criminal, forced to go all the way across the border to the big, bad United States for a crime he admits he committed. Boo freaking’ hoo. People who commit crimes in other countries are generally extradited to that country. Canada generally co-operates, unless the country doing the extraditing is known to have a poor human rights record. Even then, government intervention isn’t guaranteed.
It’s kind of hilarious, in an ironic sort of way, that Emery is being extradited to the United States when he has never even stepped foot in the country. The U.S. might be foreign territory to Emery but it’s not like he’s being forced to leave the continent. Emery might be stuck doing jail time in a country that voted for George W. Bush twice and thinks Jessica Simpson is worthy of a Vanity Fair cover but at least Emery will be able to speak the language.
It would be easy to have an ounce of sympathy for Emery; that is, if he accepted some responsibility for his actions. But sadly, Emery makes it nearly impossible for many of us to like him. A loveable stoner in a Judd Apatow movie, he is not. Emery doesn’t seem to understand that he broke the law. He also doesn’t think his business bred consequences. Emery has been quoted as saying, “There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one.” But many people are, directly or indirectly, victims of Emery and his business. The majority, if not all of the marijuana seeds Emery sold from 1994 to 2005 were, no doubt, grown into plants. These plants were smoked by teenagers, parents, lovers and hippies. People got high from these plants. Fine, whatever. Some people probably just bought the seeds to grow a plant or two in their dorm room closet. Maybe these people just liked to smoke up occasionally, at parties and with friends, and never sold pot. These occasional stoners probably had a grand old’ time, courtesy of Mark Emery and his magic little seeds. These people presumably weren’t hurt in any way and maybe they didn’t hurt anybody along the way. But some people undoubtedly did hurt themselves, or others. Some drove high, perhaps causing accidents. Some people who grew Emery’s marijuana seeds into marijuana plants sold them to other people. Some of these buyers and sellers were no doubt stuck in a downward spiral they couldn’t break and their lives crumbled, in large part due to drugs. Emery isn’t separate from this pain. The man who sold the seeds is no different from the people who sold the plants. For Emery to claim that “no one” was hurt by his seed-selling business is bullshit. Just ask Emery’s wife Jody who sobbed as she watched her husband being escorted to jail. Just ask Emery himself, who may spend the next five years in a U.S. jail, unless he issues and wins an appeal. Oh, if only there was some way to avoid this whole messy business. Oh wait, there is: don’t break the law in the first place; and, if you are going to break the law, don’t put it on your business cards.
The only person who wasn’t hurt by Emery’s seed-selling business is Emery’s public persona the “Prince of Pot.” Emery’s public image has actually been boosted in the eyes of many, thanks in part to the 30-city “farewell tour” he did before he was taken into custody. Now, instead of being seen as a slimy enabler with a lucrative business, Emery will be seen as a martyr for the marijuana cause. Pot smokers and anti-establishment types all across North America will be in awe of Emery because he is pro-pot, pro-legalization, pro-I-Can-Do-Whatever-I-Want-Even-If-It’s-Against-The-Law-And-I’m-Likely-To-Get-Caught.
It’s kind of hilarious, in an ironic sort of way, that Emery is being extradited to the United States when he has never even stepped foot in the country. The U.S. might be foreign territory to Emery but it’s not like he’s being forced to leave the continent. Emery might be stuck doing jail time in a country that voted for George W. Bush twice and thinks Jessica Simpson is worthy of a Vanity Fair cover but at least Emery will be able to speak the language.
It would be easy to have an ounce of sympathy for Emery; that is, if he accepted some responsibility for his actions. But sadly, Emery makes it nearly impossible for many of us to like him. A loveable stoner in a Judd Apatow movie, he is not. Emery doesn’t seem to understand that he broke the law. He also doesn’t think his business bred consequences. Emery has been quoted as saying, “There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one.” But many people are, directly or indirectly, victims of Emery and his business. The majority, if not all of the marijuana seeds Emery sold from 1994 to 2005 were, no doubt, grown into plants. These plants were smoked by teenagers, parents, lovers and hippies. People got high from these plants. Fine, whatever. Some people probably just bought the seeds to grow a plant or two in their dorm room closet. Maybe these people just liked to smoke up occasionally, at parties and with friends, and never sold pot. These occasional stoners probably had a grand old’ time, courtesy of Mark Emery and his magic little seeds. These people presumably weren’t hurt in any way and maybe they didn’t hurt anybody along the way. But some people undoubtedly did hurt themselves, or others. Some drove high, perhaps causing accidents. Some people who grew Emery’s marijuana seeds into marijuana plants sold them to other people. Some of these buyers and sellers were no doubt stuck in a downward spiral they couldn’t break and their lives crumbled, in large part due to drugs. Emery isn’t separate from this pain. The man who sold the seeds is no different from the people who sold the plants. For Emery to claim that “no one” was hurt by his seed-selling business is bullshit. Just ask Emery’s wife Jody who sobbed as she watched her husband being escorted to jail. Just ask Emery himself, who may spend the next five years in a U.S. jail, unless he issues and wins an appeal. Oh, if only there was some way to avoid this whole messy business. Oh wait, there is: don’t break the law in the first place; and, if you are going to break the law, don’t put it on your business cards.
The only person who wasn’t hurt by Emery’s seed-selling business is Emery’s public persona the “Prince of Pot.” Emery’s public image has actually been boosted in the eyes of many, thanks in part to the 30-city “farewell tour” he did before he was taken into custody. Now, instead of being seen as a slimy enabler with a lucrative business, Emery will be seen as a martyr for the marijuana cause. Pot smokers and anti-establishment types all across North America will be in awe of Emery because he is pro-pot, pro-legalization, pro-I-Can-Do-Whatever-I-Want-Even-If-It’s-Against-The-Law-And-I’m-Likely-To-Get-Caught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
