![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
In the news...
* The Ontario Appellate Court has ruled that homosexuals have the right to marry, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling may still be appealed, but the appeal must be filed before the 30th. I am ridiculously pleased by the decision as it means I can marry that lovely girlfriend I don't have. Go me. I was pleased to see Paul Martin frame the issue as a question of rights, which to my mind, is how it should always have been considered. Legalization of gay marriages is nothing more than the end to a particular form of legal discrimination of gays, and is not a moral or personal issue. Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta says he will invoke the notwithstanding clause to block such a ruling in that province. He is very publicly saying that his homophobia is more important than his belief in a liberal democracy. I'm shocked. Aren't you shocked?
* Sven Robinson (MP, BC, NDP) currently has a private members bill that moves to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the the definition of hate crimes. I'm not sure if it's going to pass, as there is substantial opposition in Alberta and Saskatchewan, (the only provinces in which a majority of the population does not endorse both this bill and the legalization of gay marriage). Apparently the bill is opposed by a group that argues that if passed, the bible would be considered hate literature. I don't know about you, but I'm eager to read over the relevant passages of the proposed legislation and the bible. O.o I've seen the biblical passages that are supposed to decry homosexual activities and those are so open to various interpretations that I'm puzzled.
* The recent decriminalization of marijuana use (fines instead of jail time) has lead to increased discussion of legalization. The issue has been a hot topic for decades now, with neither side really gaining an advantage in the discussion - sadly, I have a feeling that Canada will not move to full legalization until the USA alters its own stance on drugs. I am not a recreational drug user but I do respect the right of adults to control their own bodies and when the substance in question is so mild as marijuana, I can't in good conscience support this illogical (double standard! double standard!) prohibition. It seems that a good portion of the opposition is due to a kind of puritanism that would like to see another prohibition against alcohol. I've been close to more than one alcoholic and addict and as much as I would at times like to see all such substances just go away, I do recognize that they won't and I accept their importance in social gatherings. We need to recast the drug 'problem' as a something to be managed and not necessarily 'solved'.
* Looks like Paul Martin is going to take the Liberal leadership (big surprise) and will likely be the next PM. Now, I respect the work he did as Finance Minister but I'm not pleased to see such a right wing, pro-business liberal take the party leadership. His personal charisma *cough* and his reputation as responsible (anyone else getting a 'head of the family' vibe?) are a large part of his popularity, but Cretien's own swiftly waning popularity and currency are bolstering Martin's. I've always liked the man, but he is too far right for me to ever be comfortable with him. Also, there is a heavy sense of predestination here - his leadership hangs over us like some doom-y anvil - which I always distrust, especially when the man has not done much to actually prove his leadership capabilities. Now, with the very long race ahead of him, Martin begins to seem like a man obsessed with his image and with power, and less the humble, hardworking MP. Score.
* SARS. The WHO is considering another travel ban. Ernie Eves, Premier of Ontario has ordered a probe into how the province has handled the outbreak. Scores of businesses are failing, as tourism dies. Shows are canceled. Health workers are stressed, exhausted and often shunned. All over a relatively minor outbreak. As some of you might remember, I recently had occasion to visit the hospital when the Best Friend was hit by a car. Funnily enough, I have not contracted SARS. The chances of a visitor to Toronto catching it are astronomically low and health officials are still hard at work tracing the infection path of the man from NC who recently came down with it - they aren't even sure that he got it in Canada. I understand that people are scared and hell, they have a right to be, but the whole reaction to the outbreak has reached operatic proportions. I look forward to the inevitable jokes. On the opposite side of the wacky spectrum are those people who refuse to go into quarantine. Um. Right. Ok, I get that you don't want to lose money, but don't you care about your family? Or are you working from the if-I-die-you-all-die principle, here? Just think, if these people were in positions of power, we'd all be screwed. Yay! My dad said to me the other day, "If I was told to go into voluntary quarantine, I wouldn't. I can't afford to lose ten days of pay." To be fair, he really can't afford it. "But dad, if you're dead and we're dead, what's ten days pay going to matter?" "Well what if none of us die? It'll matter then." I wouldn't take those odds.
So, some very open questions.
1. Do you accept that people should be allowed to do things that you very deeply believe are wrong? To what extent do you accept this principle - is there a point where you reject it?
2. Do you look beyond the media image (be honest)? Do you look for the facts behind a news story and look for dissenting viewpoints? Are there stories and personalities you are more likely to accept as being 'real'?
3. Is it more important to be recognized in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of the people? Is it more important to obey the law of your country, or the law of your god?
* Sven Robinson (MP, BC, NDP) currently has a private members bill that moves to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the the definition of hate crimes. I'm not sure if it's going to pass, as there is substantial opposition in Alberta and Saskatchewan, (the only provinces in which a majority of the population does not endorse both this bill and the legalization of gay marriage). Apparently the bill is opposed by a group that argues that if passed, the bible would be considered hate literature. I don't know about you, but I'm eager to read over the relevant passages of the proposed legislation and the bible. O.o I've seen the biblical passages that are supposed to decry homosexual activities and those are so open to various interpretations that I'm puzzled.
* The recent decriminalization of marijuana use (fines instead of jail time) has lead to increased discussion of legalization. The issue has been a hot topic for decades now, with neither side really gaining an advantage in the discussion - sadly, I have a feeling that Canada will not move to full legalization until the USA alters its own stance on drugs. I am not a recreational drug user but I do respect the right of adults to control their own bodies and when the substance in question is so mild as marijuana, I can't in good conscience support this illogical (double standard! double standard!) prohibition. It seems that a good portion of the opposition is due to a kind of puritanism that would like to see another prohibition against alcohol. I've been close to more than one alcoholic and addict and as much as I would at times like to see all such substances just go away, I do recognize that they won't and I accept their importance in social gatherings. We need to recast the drug 'problem' as a something to be managed and not necessarily 'solved'.
* Looks like Paul Martin is going to take the Liberal leadership (big surprise) and will likely be the next PM. Now, I respect the work he did as Finance Minister but I'm not pleased to see such a right wing, pro-business liberal take the party leadership. His personal charisma *cough* and his reputation as responsible (anyone else getting a 'head of the family' vibe?) are a large part of his popularity, but Cretien's own swiftly waning popularity and currency are bolstering Martin's. I've always liked the man, but he is too far right for me to ever be comfortable with him. Also, there is a heavy sense of predestination here - his leadership hangs over us like some doom-y anvil - which I always distrust, especially when the man has not done much to actually prove his leadership capabilities. Now, with the very long race ahead of him, Martin begins to seem like a man obsessed with his image and with power, and less the humble, hardworking MP. Score.
* SARS. The WHO is considering another travel ban. Ernie Eves, Premier of Ontario has ordered a probe into how the province has handled the outbreak. Scores of businesses are failing, as tourism dies. Shows are canceled. Health workers are stressed, exhausted and often shunned. All over a relatively minor outbreak. As some of you might remember, I recently had occasion to visit the hospital when the Best Friend was hit by a car. Funnily enough, I have not contracted SARS. The chances of a visitor to Toronto catching it are astronomically low and health officials are still hard at work tracing the infection path of the man from NC who recently came down with it - they aren't even sure that he got it in Canada. I understand that people are scared and hell, they have a right to be, but the whole reaction to the outbreak has reached operatic proportions. I look forward to the inevitable jokes. On the opposite side of the wacky spectrum are those people who refuse to go into quarantine. Um. Right. Ok, I get that you don't want to lose money, but don't you care about your family? Or are you working from the if-I-die-you-all-die principle, here? Just think, if these people were in positions of power, we'd all be screwed. Yay! My dad said to me the other day, "If I was told to go into voluntary quarantine, I wouldn't. I can't afford to lose ten days of pay." To be fair, he really can't afford it. "But dad, if you're dead and we're dead, what's ten days pay going to matter?" "Well what if none of us die? It'll matter then." I wouldn't take those odds.
So, some very open questions.
1. Do you accept that people should be allowed to do things that you very deeply believe are wrong? To what extent do you accept this principle - is there a point where you reject it?
2. Do you look beyond the media image (be honest)? Do you look for the facts behind a news story and look for dissenting viewpoints? Are there stories and personalities you are more likely to accept as being 'real'?
3. Is it more important to be recognized in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of the people? Is it more important to obey the law of your country, or the law of your god?
no subject
2. I try to look beyond the media. I'm helped in that where I live (in Washington, D.C.) and when I live (in a time with the internet, and other news sources) I have access to different opinions. When a story pulls at me, I usually check out the internet first, and then the libraries and sometimes I even search out people to help me. There are certain things I'm more likely to accept - NPR as opposed to other radio stations, the New York Times and Washington Post as opposed to other newspapers. And of course I'm very skeptical about what I read on the internet.
3. In a way, the law is the people. A 3/4 majority changes the constitution which is the ultimate law in this country. I say it's most important to do what you believe is right, and if you believe your god is right, then you should do that.
no subject
As to #2, I have a liberal, leftist bias. However, I am aware that I am a no-goodnik socialist, and I'm at peace with it. I try not to accept anything at face value, but I am more willing to accept a leftist view than a rightist one. I'm working on that.
For #1 and #3, the Bible has a quick answer to that, straight out of Jesus (I call him hay-soos): Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God what is God's. My amazingly liberal interp of that is that church matters and state matters are meant to be kept separate, and that people who do things I personally don't like are accountable to their own belief system for their doings.
This of course does not mean "kill, rape, and pillage at will." It means legislation of matters that are PURELY personal, such as sexual preference betweem consenting adults, is absurd.
no subject
2. Yes. I don't trust the mainstream media, and opt to get my news from independent sources such as electroniciraq.net, fair.org and indymedia.org, and occasionally, disinfo.com. The aforementioned sites challenge mainstream views and reveal more than the major conglomerates allow. eIraq, for example, is covered by peace activists and tells about civilian casualties.
3. The people. Laws are not always considerate of the needs of the people. Ancient Aztecs excluded, your god. Seriously, most religious beliefs have enough common moral groundwork that I think would be beneficial to society.
no subject
Are there facts beyond a media image? I was under the impression that spin was everything anymore.
I'm not sure that's really a fair question. The religious are going to say God, the lesser or not religious at all are going to saw law. At least most of the common sense laws follow most religious precepts - don't kill, don't steal, don't do drugs, etc.
no subject
Questions:
1. People should be able to do whatever they damn well please providing that they inflict harm only on themselves. If their actions directly damage other people, then the action must be disallowed.
2. I allow myself to read the most far-right dribble I can find (the forums for a local newspaper serve this purpose well; so does the paper, for that matter). I question why I do this, as I cannot take their comments seriously. The writers all sound mad, and it's incredibly easy for me to dismiss their views.
I will admit to having a bias for left-wing media. I accept what certain left-wingers purport with far more ease than I do any right-winger.
I do feel that it's important to understand the opposing viewpoints, only if to be armed well enough to destroy them in debate.
3. Law is such a tricky topic. Law is created by a certain group of people. Generally speaking, this is a priviledged class and laws are designed to protect their society.
In a pure moral sense, it would be more important for me to be recognized in my own personal law.
To say the "eyes of the people" is far too ambiguous to me. Which people are these? Do they live in a specific geographic area? Do you literally mean all of the people in the world?
The "eyes of the people" can be a very dangerous thing, depending on the people's will in that community.
As far as the second part goes, I think the answer is tied with my comment about morality above. Again, it's a dangerous supposition; people's views vary and what I might find unacceptable might be morality correct to another. It's quite messy if someone breaks the laws of society but not their own moral code. It leads back to question one.
no subject
This all depends (as with most things, I suppose). I believe that my sense of right and wrong should no more hinder others than their sense of right and wrong should hinder me. However, I do think that there are some basic principles that should be followed... no murder and the like. However, if I want to marry my girlfriend, I don't think that the fact that my neighbor is homophobic should influence the decision. And, while I might not approve of cocaine, I really don't feel it's my right to stop someone from using, as long as the person is in a state to make the decision to do so (not on withdrawl, addicted, or otherwise stuck. Basically, while I think it's a very stupid thing to do, I don't feel that I have the right to directly intervene in someone's actions, when those actions only influence themselves, and they are in a condition to make the decision to do so...) However, when these actions start to influence others (cocaine in my house, etc) I feel that there is reason to intervene. Depending on the severity of the action, of course.
... that's basically it. There's more in the details section... but, well, have pity. It's midnight, and I'm tired...
2. Do you look beyond the media image (be honest)? Do you look for the facts behind a news story and look for dissenting viewpoints? Are there stories and personalities you are more likely to accept as being 'real'?
I do look beyond the media coverage, mostly because the media is so hopelessly biased at presenting information. Usually, looking over both the mainstream and the independant media stations will render a fair account. I usually look for dissenting points of view, as well... because I'm often one of them. It makes things more interesting. And I cannot possibly agree with mainstream news, they always write as if opinions and unproven reports are fact when they support the right interests.
3. Is it more important to be recognized in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of the people? Is it more important to obey the law of your country, or the law of your god?
I think that the laws of the country are rather corrupt, and serve the rich and powerful while excluding the people from excercising the right of expression and the power which is rightfully theirs as citizens. Think of the protests in Quebec City a few years ago... I was there. I saw people getting attacked by the police when they hadn't done anything violent. The repression was amazing... I can't possibly think that laws which support this, or a media that reports it the way it did, is justified. As such, I've no great love for either, and prefer to be recognised in the eye of the people than that of the law.