To be or not to be

When the tsunami that hit south-east asia there was a flood of news coverage (pardon the pun) concerning the region. I remember finding out for the first time virtually everything I now know about places such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka. I found out for the first time that Sri Lanka was not part of India. I also learned about the strife between the government and the Tamil Tigers. I had heard about the Tamil Tigers before but never paid much attention. One of the things that I learned about Sri Lanka is that the Tamil Tigers are fighting for independence from the federal Sri Lankan authority. I remember thinking at the time why not just let them have the north portion of the island like they want? Wouldn't it be better than continuing to kill thousands of people on both sides of the fence? This of course reminded me of home.

I read today in the news that upwards of 54% of Quebecers are in favor of sovereignty.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/27/sovereignty-poll050427.html

Back in October of 1995 (hard to believe its been almost 10 years) Quebec held a referendum on whether to leave Canada or stay. The federalists won the day by a split of 50.6% to 49.4% which of course really answered nothing. For the past decade we have had rumblings of Quebec sovereignty and each time I think that in reality they have no real right to leave. I was reminded of this attitude when I was mentally telling the Sri Lankan government to simply allow the Tamil people to form their own country on the island. Of course my position on Quebec was now hypocritical because I was allowing the Tamil people something I was denying the french in Canada simply because I live in Canada. This of course is not good. So I did some thinking and I think I've made up my mind on the issue (I can hear you all shouting in celebration).

For me the main problem I have with the idea of Quebec sovereignty is that they don't truly want sovereignty. In fact the poll that was conducted this month as in the referendum of 1995 asked, what I consider to be, a flawed question. The definition of sovereignty is "complete independence and self-government." This I am willing to live with if it is what the people of Quebec choose. I of course have a few conditions.

First the question asked in the referendum must be clear. Something akin to "do you want to leave Canada? Yes or No." This in my mind is clear and cannot be misconstrued.

Second the terms of sovereignty must also be clear. I would be willing to give Quebec its total independence from Canada if the majority in Quebec chose to leave. This means that they are truly independent. They would not share our currency, our military or federal institutions. They would lose Canadian citizenship and all federal institutions would leave Quebec. It would mean that they would be treated as any foreign country with which we deal, namely they would have to send a diplomatic mission to Canada as we would to Quebec, borders would have to be stregthened, trade agreements would have to hammered out, etc. In the end they would become a seperate nation and the responsibilities of such would be solely theirs. I think that this matters a great deal as you can tell from the question that is asked not only in the poll, but in the 1995 referendum as well, "The poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir newspapers showed 54 per cent of decided respondents supported sovereignty if it included an economic and political partnership with Canada." It is the IF that matters. In my mind why should they be allowed to leave Canada but still benenfit from Canada? For me a yes vote is a vote for complete and utter independence.

Third they would automatically become a debtor to Canada equal to 50% of the total federal spending (including transfer payments) on Quebec over the past 20 years. For instance if the Canadian government dumped $50 billion in Quebec over the past 20 years Quebec would owe Canada $25 billion on the day they became sovereign and would enter into a payment plan as would be negotiated between the two governments.

Fourth a 12 month transition period would come into effect 21 days after the referendum (if the yes vote wins) during which time any person wishing to leave or enter Quebec would be able to do so without penalty. Also during those 12 months if any substantial or unique group wished to leave Quebec (for instance the Indian groups within Quebec) that they would be given the same priviledge that Quebecers had, namely a referendum on seperation. This referendum would be binding just as the one concerning Quebec succession would be.

Fifth if the no vote won, there could be no agitation for sovereignty for 50 years. If in 50 years time Quebecers wished to vote once again for sovereignty that would be their right however the same conditions would apply.

I think in the end if it meant leaving Canada or staying in Canada (given the conditions above which I believe to be fair) that the majority of Quebecers would choose to stay. I believe that those within Quebec who wish to leave given the question posed want their cake and to eat it too. They want the right to be independent of Canada as far as running the territory goes without interference from the federal government (in language laws for instance) but they want to maintain the benefits of Canada such as the money. This is unfair to the rest of Canada. If Quebecer's wish to form a sovereign nation, so be it. But in the end it has to be sovereign.

Also I think that given these conditions the majority of Canadians would allow a referendum in Quebec (am I wrong?). I also think that if a referendum were held that the rest of Canada would be better off. If they voted yes then at least we know and can move on from there without having the political time bomb of a referendum and a provincial party in the federal parliament hanging over our heads. It would effectively end the 'special treatment' that many within Canada feel Quebec receives all in order to appease the seperatists. If they voted no, then it too would end all of the speculation and we could get on with running the country and end the 'special treatment' as we wouldn't need to appease Quebec because of the threat of a referendum was just around the corner.

Just like the Tamil's if Quebecers want to leave Canada and strike out on their own, so be it, I wish them the best. However I think that issue does need to be handled in a definite manner with definite language so that the country can continue with those who wish to be in Canada.

My life ... is sooooo boring

I find it interesting that when looking through people's blogs the majority simply write about what they did that day. I did this ... I hope to do that ... etc. I guess in some sense they are trying to share themselves with others (even if it is this anonymous and ultimately cold manner [weird that in seeking connection we seem to use technology that in essence keeps us apart {wrote a paper on that once in SF class of all things}]). I find my self asking what do I really learn about people from their day-to-day life? Are we to make some judgement based upon what they do? Is what we do from day-to-day a real measure of who we are (who I am) as people? Or do we lose ourselves in the menutia of the daily grind? Does my knowing that you went to the store today and bought a few cd's really tell me anything about you (other than you bought cd's [I can make inferences but would they be accurate?]), who you really are? Where are we? What about us communicates to others who we really are? What are we really? Are we the collection of random thoughts that swirl around in our brains (and which I throw up on a blog)? Are we the collection of our actions? They say actions speak louder than words but so does inaction when you think about it. Does it matter if we know what motivates people? Does that help us to know them?

I post a lot of crap here on anything that floats into my head from politics to religion to economics to culture. Occasionaly I say the odd word about myself but in the end am I not always saying something about myself? Would what I say here be furthered by knowledge of what I do in the minute by minute living of my life? Would anyone really care? I guess the big question is why do we care or does anyone care? Why do I care to express myself at all? Does it matter that people know me? Does anyone really know me? Can anyone really know me? Do I really know me? I guess part of this blog is a quest towards self realization. An effort to determine who I am, what I think and ultimately how I should act. The Apostle James says we should display our faith by our works, do I do that?

In the end (it amazes me how much I use this phrase) I'm not too sure what I do from hour to hour really encapsulates who I am but it does speak to who I am. Just as my thoughts aren't my entirety but a portion of what I am. In the merging of the two I guess is where we see who a person is to some extent (especially given this forum because I could by lying and you would never know, of course it would do me little good if I didn't tell the truth) for even in that I believe it is impossible to really know someone.

Enough of the philosophy and on to the mundane:

My week ...

Monday: Worked till 7am - went home and watched 'Everybody Loves Raymond' and 'Two and a Half Men' which I taped the night before - went to bed about 8am - got up around 4:30pm and checked my email and a few websites - watched 'Pardon the Interuption' which I had taped - went for a bike ride out to the university and back - watched 'Ocean's 12' - went to work at 10:30pm.

Tuesday: worked till 7am - went golfing with my brother-in-law - got home around 12pm - did some online banking - got to bed about 12:30pm - got up about 7pm and watched 'Pardon the Interuption' and 'The Daily Show' - commented on a political discussion blog that I am involved with - played some SoCom 2 on my PS2 - watched the first half of 'Closer' (good movie btw) - went to work at 10:30pm.

Wednesday: worked till 7am - went home and watched 'The Daily Show' - got to bed about 8am - woke up around 5pm - watched 'Pardon the Interuption', '24', 'The Amazing Race' and 'Arrested Development' - played a little Socom - finished watching 'Closer' (again a good movie) - went to work at 10:30pm.

Thursday: worked till 7am - went home and watched 'The Daily Show' - played some Socom - got to bed about 9am - woke up around 5pm - played some Socom - watched 'Pardon the Interuption' - watched Survivor (after I taped it, I tape everything first) - went to work at 10:30pm.

Friday: worked till 7am - went home and watched 'The Daily Show' - played som Socom - went to bed aroudn 8:30am - got up at 11:30am - cleaned the bathroom - went to work for a staff meeting - called about an apartment for rent - got a call to work tonight - had to cancel plans to visit my family for the weekend - played some Socom - went to bed around 6:30pm.

Saturday: woke up at midnight - made myself a western omlett and went to work at 12:40am - played around on the computer at work and updated my blog after checking out some others.

There it is. My boring life in all its glory. Does it tell you anything about me (other than the fact that I lead a boring life)?

Rights

Male and Female round 1.

I sit at work and I listen to the radio. Night after night the same song comes on detailing a man's frustration and anger towards his girlfriend who has left him. There are many such songs like it in many forms of music. This is nothing new.

I'm sitting at home, flipping through the various channels when I come across the video to the above mentioned song. Interestingly, given the premise of the song, the video is about a woman who believes her boyfriend left her a note saying he is leaving. She goes on a violent rampage destroying everything in the apartment only to find out at the end that she was mistaken and that he had left to simply get coffee. She shrugs innocently.

It struck me watching this video how much violence towards men by women is presented as being okay within our culture. I was reminded of a Kelly Clarkson (the girl from American Idol) video in which she breaks into her ex's apartment and destroys everything in sight. Once she is finished her act of violence she leaves the apartment seconds before the ex shows up, all the while Kelly is walking down the street wearing a satisfied smile.

I am quite confident that if a video was presented that depicted that level of violence being portrayed by a man towards a woman many feminist and women's rights groups would be up in arms over the fact that the musical acts in question were promoting an attitude of violence towards women. They would probably be right. Violence against women is shameful and wrong. It should not be tolerated whether it is perpetrated by a man or a woman. Therefore violence against men is equally wrong, be it perpetrated by a man or a woman and as such these same groups should be equally up in arms concerning a culture of violence. For that is what is at the heart of the matter. It's not necessarily men vs. women but the simple fact that human beings are violent and cruel towards one another.

Of course the topper is the Dixie Chicks song about 'Earl'. Many of the women I know (who are into country music) love this song. It is about a woman who gets married to some low-life who beats her. She picks up the phone one day after having taken enough and calls her lifelong friend who comes to her friends aid. They kill Earl and bury his remains out in the bush and then go on with their lives operating a diner. At the end the killing is celebrated with the reanimated corpse coming back and dancing a little two-step for his killers. Talk about promotion of violence. This video depicts pre-meditated murder (1st degree murder) and then the subsequent covering up of the crime with no remorse. I understand that they are prefacing this horrible act with the notion of domestic abuse but if the wife has the ability to call a friend from out of state and have her come and stay perhaps she could have called the police and got out.

Of course no one says a word. Again if this was reversed and a male act portrayed the same incident in reverse women's rights groups would be up in arms demanding that the song, video and album all be banned. Nope. Nothing. Women committing violence against men so it is apparently okay. This is of course ludicrous as the notion of violence is in and of itself wrong regardless of the gender of either the perpetrator or victim.


Male and Female round 2.
I was thinking a while ago while watching some tv show (can't remember which one) about the rights of men as it concerns abortion. As of right now we have none. It is argued (and I am not going to debate the issue here) that a woman's body is her own and therefore she has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes. Fine, but what about the man involved. I am assuming that the woman in question did not pay thousands of dollars to be artificially insiminated just to turn around and abort the pregnancy. A man and a woman get together and the woman ends up pregnant (we'll say it was an honest mistake). If she wants the baby as well as the man there is the chance for happily-ever-after. If she wants the baby and he does not he is on the tab for child support payments for 18 years. If she doesn't want the baby and he does she aborts it and he is left hurt and violated.

Why is it that men have no rights in this issue? It seems to me to highly unfair especially the instances of (perhaps rare) pregnancy by entrapment. Instances where a woman lies to a man about using birth control or going so far as to damage a profolactic in order to get pregnant. So the options for a man are as follows:

1. get a girl pregnant and hopefully they both want it
2. get a girl pregnant and pay for the next 18 years because you don't want it
3. get a girl pregnant and be victimized emotionally when the woman decides she doesn't want it

So unless both parties want the child the man has little options. So what I propose is a male abortion. In Canada abortions are legal well into the 3rd trimester so I propose that once a man is notified that he has gotten a woman pregnant he has 90 days (this can be tinkered with a bit) to go to court and absolve himself of any rights, obligations, etc. towards the pregnancy in question and any subsequent child that might be born. In essence he is aborting the pregnancy.

Of course its not an easy decision but I think 90 days provides sufficient time to come to terms with the issue and work things out or not with the woman involved. Therefore the woman in question would have sufficient time to decide then (if the man in question decided to abort the pregnancy) whether or not she wished to continue the pregnancy knowing that she would be alone (other than family or friends support) in the venture. This to mean seems fair. If no woman should be forced to carry on with a pregnancy that she doesn't want then why should a man. They both knew the potential consequences of their having sex so one should not be treated differently than the other.

Quandry

So I find myself in a bit of a quandry concerning the rights of those convicted of a crime, especially a violent crime. In Canada we have two rather high profile murder cases hitting the headlines once again. The first deals with Karla Homolka and the fact that she is getting out of jail in July after having served 12 years in prison for her part in the violent killings of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey.

It turns out that Karla lied to the courts when she struck her deal 12 years ago. She claimed to be a battered wife who was forced to do these horrible things. After the fact video's came to light that showed Karla was an active participant in the crimes and was not forced as she claimed. Now she will get out in July and unless a Quebec court judge agrees with the Ontario government she will be completely free to do as she wishes. The one thing that my give a person pause in all of this is that the parole board has repeatedly said that Karla showed a certain lack of remorse for her crimes. She is not going to be charged in the death of her sister even though she had a part in it and apparently she had information concerning a 4th victim but that never came out.

The second case in question concerns Kelly Ellard who was found guilty of 2nd degree murder in the beating and drowning death of Reena Virk. In November 1997, Kelly Ellard and a group of teenagers beat a 14 year old Reena Virk under a bridge in Vancouver. After Reena escaped the group she fled across the bridge but was once again set upon by Kelly and another (who was also found guilty of 2nd degree murder) who attacked her. We are told that Kelly then dragged Reena down to the river and held her head under water with her foot. According to Kelly's friends, Kelly bragged about the killing in the days that followed. Also in February 2004 Kelly was charged with assault when she attacked a 58 year old women in a park.

I can clearly remember working nights in a factory when this case was going on and thinking that the 'golden rule' should be applied to Kelly Ellard and the others. That seeing as how they attacked a innocent and defenceless girl, killing her in the end, that maybe they should know what it is like to be attacked by a group of strangers. I don't say this to my credit but I am being honest.

I bring these two cases up because I find myself wrestling with the concept of the social contract. In essence each citizen of the country is part of a contract in which they are provided with rights protected by the government and in return each of us is expected to obey the laws set down by that government. I know that in many cases the contract is forced upon us as we are part of it simply by being born but I question whether or not it is possible to violate the social contract to such an extent that the contract should no longer apply to you.

It is clear that criminals violate the social contract because they broke the law. It is also clear that different criminals violate the social contract to differing extents based upon their actions. A person found with some pot is not the same as a person who rapes or kills. We as members of society delude ourselves that justice will be served through the courts and that our criminal justice system will reform these criminals to such an extent that they will uphold the social contract for good. Recently a woman who left her baby in a sweltering apartment to die while she went on a 36 hour bender was given only 3 years for the baby's death. A number of years ago 2 men in Quebec were sentenced to 2 years in prison for brutally raping a woman, dangling her from a 6th floor balcony, bashing her head in with a tire iron (from which she suffered permanent brain injury) and left her to die in a garbage dumpster. Is this justice?

I am not advocating capital punishment but I do question if our criminal justice system is truly serving its purpose in protecting the people in society. I have a cousin, who after 53 convictions still only receives 6 months in jail for a break and enter. He acknowledges that he can do the time with no problems. Obviously the prospect of serving time in a jail is no deterent to him. It obviously does little to reform him of his penchant for violating the social contract.

I understand that this is a slippery slope and that perhaps there is no clear answer but I do find it frustrating that people who so grossly violate the trust of society and their fellow man by killing, raping, etc. are protected more than the victims of their crimes. The social contract meant nothing to them when they were performing their crimes so why should it mean anything when they are aprehended? For in the end Karla Homolka spent 12 years in jail and society is treated to pictures of her mugging for the camera at birthday parties and learning that she gets steak dinners twice a week. Leslie Mahaffey and Kristen French, the two girls that she brutalized, molested, killed and dismembered suffered as no person should and paid their lives for it. They are no longer free to walk in the sunshine, hear the birds sing, smell the flowers of spring, fall in love, have children, etc. so why should the people who denied them this be granted it in return? Reena Virk was only 14 when she was brutally killed, the same holds true for her as it does for Leslie and Kristen so why should Kelly Ellard ever get out?

I say that this is quandry for me because in the end it is a battle between my mind that says that we must forgive and my gut that says that these people deserve to suffer to some extent so that they know clearly and without any shodow of a doubt that what they did was wrong and that it will not be tollerated by society.

Innocence

The sun looks at me as though through a mirror. I sit and look at the colours dance amongst the browns of the mud puddle. The sun shines, the wind blows, the trees grow, I sit. A bird darts to my left collecting debris for its nest. I watch as it scours the area for something appropriate, something that is good enough to cradle its young. It clutches what looks like a few pieces of hay in its beak and flies off into the white and blue. My eyes are caught by the clouds hanging lazily overhead. Nothing to do, nowhere to go, simply hanging there providing shade. I look down, the dancing colours are gone.

In the distance I can hear a child's laughter ringing out amongst the buildings. I can't see them but I can remember them. My mind wanders, the sun shines, the trees grow. I'm awed by the height of the trees and how cool it feels walking amongst their brown sturdy trunks. Earlier in the day we packed our lunches, grabbed some water and prepared for our adventure we headed off. We walked north towards our friends house and then into the woods behind where my uncle used to live. It was easy walking, the woods weren't too thick and the ground was fairly even. After about 20 minutes we reach the stream and begin following it upstream.

It's such a wonderful day. The sun shines through the leafy canopy above casting alternating patches of light and dark upon the ground around us. We fan out and simply take in the life around us, stopping periodically to investigate something new. A fish swims by to cheers of delight. We walk for what seems like forever before stopping to eat some lunch. The sun is high in the sky but it is nice and cool here shaded in the woods. We continue to treck upstream occasionally chasing squirels, pointing out fish or picking up various oddities to show our parents back home.

I'd never been this far before, it all looks so strange and new. For once I was Magellan or Columbus seeing something new and wonderous. We reach a clearing lit up by the bright sunshine. It seems weird to see this island of grass amongst the trees but the sun feels warm on our cheeks and necks. We continue upstream and there it was, my first waterfall. It wasn't big or unique but it was new and wonderous. It fed a small pool which in turn fed the stream that we had been following. We all stop and watch the waterfall and the pool beneath. We see fish swimming below us, speckeled trout someone says. We sit for what seems like hours around our new waterfall, watching the fish. Eventually we decide we should continue on, its getting late.

We reach a dirt road after a while and decide to follow it. After a while we see things that are familiar but different. It brings us out near the big hill which we sled down in the winter but is now teeming with grass, birds and insects. We head home our minds filled with stories and memories. Our big adventure into the wild. It was ours. It was mine.

Years later I went back after we had moved away. They had built more houses so that the stream ran through peoples back yards. They didn't like it when I walked through to the stream and into the woods. It wasn't as big as I had remembered, it all seemed so different. The wonder was gone, the simple joy and amazement was gone. My childhood innocence had been diminished. I found my waterfall and smiled at the memories that the three feet of falling water conjured in my mind. I continued on to the dirt road, which by this point had been fenced off and followed it down to our old sled hill. It too had been fenced off, kids no longer got to play here in the winter, feeling the wind and snow sting their faces as they sped down the hill.

I sit and notice the smile that had settled over my face. I listen as the children's laughter echoes amongst the buildings and I find myself jealous of their joy. There I sit, an adult, jaded and cynical. Innocence lost and seeming incapable of simple joy. My eyes begin to tear at the loss. My mind instinctively tells me to stop. I say no. The tears trace their lines down my cheeks. Tears are appropriate. People cry when something dies. People cry when something dear is lost. People should cry when they finally realize that they can't go back to the innocence and wonder that is childhood. People should cry when they realize that they have lost the ability to lose themselves in the wonder of things small. I hope you don't have to cry as I have.

Goodbye

Today, as I am sure that most of you have heard, Pope John Paul II died. He was 84 years old. As I am sure you will hear, if you haven't already, he travelled more than any Pope in history. He visited 127 nations. However, the thing that can get lost in all of this (the focus upon his accomplishments, his theology, his travels, the institution of the Pope, etc.) is that this was a man who loved people. Despite his position of power and influence, despite the demands on his time, despite the rigors of leading the Catholic Church, this was a man who had a gift for connecting with people. It was this connectedness that allowed him to share accutely the struggles, pain, joy, triumphs, sadness and love that we have all experienced. He loved people simply because they were people, because he saw the intrinsic value of every human being. Whether or not you are Catholic or not, whether or not you share his beliefs or not, please understand that if each and everyone of us shared his passion for humanity this would be a far better world to live in.

Goodbye Karol, the world will miss you.