Ottawa has a lot of Latinos!
These days, I've been spending many an hour on campus, along with a select group of others who have also chosen, for whatever stupid or legitimate reason, to take courses in the July-August session. I've recently come to the realization that Ottawa has a disproportionate number of Latinos, at least in comparison to Toronto.
Among the few homo sapiens I've been seeing prowling the desolate concrete forest that is Carleton in the late summer session are very young children.
Yes, that's right. And lot's of them.
I think it's got something to do with summer camp.
I have heard more Spanish being spoken among summer camp students than any other language, and heeding that, and the physical appearance of many of these children, I would conclude that many of them are Latino.
The only odd thing about all this is, throughout the course of my year living in this city I've seen very few Latino adults, but yet, all of a sudden, I'm seeing a very large number of Latino children.
Where the hell are their parents?
Feel free to provide me with a logical, plausible explanation to explain this phenomenon, that doesn't include conspiracies involving Hugo Chavez executing revered Venezuelan businessmen and exiling their children to equally immoral and decadent countries such as Canada and the United States to purify socialist Venezuela of such monstrous filth and their offspring.
Actually, maybe that isn't so implausible of an explanation after all......
I've also found that Ottawa is an appallingly small city (at least in comparison to Toronto). In fact, within one hour, I managed to walk from the heart of a major urban street to the outskirts of the city, where the sidewalk ended, and I started seeing signs providing distance figures for outlying small towns.
This was at 2 am, at which point I proceeded to a mall called "Southgate" (I only know this because of my Interac invoice) and purchased shrimp from the 24-hour Loeb. I then walked all the way back to my apartment, shrimp in hand, arrived at 3 am, defrosted the shrimp, started eating the shrimp, and watched a documentary about a dead, white governor-general.
Gotta love CPAC.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Getting "Canadian Values" Right on Abortion
So I am sure everyone's heard of how various members of the Order of Canada have decided to renounce their membership in light of Dr. Morgantaler's recent naming. Since Dr. Morgantaler's achievements are associated with the fight for abortion rights, some members of the Order who hold strong pro-life views have returned their membership in protest of his appointment. So far, these members are:
- Gilbert Finn, the former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick
- The Madonna House, which owns a chain of soup kitchens in several countries, and was holding the Order of Canada that was awarded to its founder Catherine Doherty
- B.C. Priest Rev. Lucien Larré, who founded Bosco Homes, a Saskatchewan organization which operates homes for troubled youth
The fiasco over Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada demonstrates that a critical value confusion exists in Canada today. For some reason, many Canadians seem not to understand that legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity that is not even a member of this or any society, and that women have full sovereignty over their bodies and what is in them. They also fail to understand that it is immoral to force women to give birth to a child if they are in less than acceptable socioeconomic situations, have been victims of rape, or simply do not feel emotionally mature or capable enough of giving birth to and raising a child. Many go so far as to call women who wish to undergo this medical procedure "murderers"--a title that is disgusting to award to an undeserving individual who is simply exercising her rights.
Individuals who continue to place religious values above human rights, and parade their own interpretations of "Christian Values" as integral to "Canadian Values", have apparently allowed themselves to forget about a particular body of written legal codes and unwritten conventions that form the legal foundation for what "Canadian Values" are. This body of legal tenets happens to be called the Constitution of Canada. I would like to take the liberty to kindly remind these people about the legal implications of potential legislation based on their beliefs.
Take a good look at the following written constitutional provisions, from the 1982 act:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Additionally, as part of this body of written and unwritten legal principles, it is a deeply upheld convention that the Supreme Court of Canada--the final court of appeal in the land--is vested with the final say on the constitutionality of all Canadian laws. In Janaury 1988, Canada's previous abortion law--which required women to appeal to a three-doctor abortion committee if she wished to have the procedure done--was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the constitution (provided above).
If a three-doctor abortion committee was ruled unconstitutional, imagine how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that attempted to ban abortions altogether. Such a law would likely be ruled unconstitutional, as it is an even deeper infringement on a woman's individual liberty to forbid abortion in all cases, than simply making it difficult for her to have this procedure if she desires to have it done. Therefore, individuals who are pro-life support the enactment of a law that would be unconstitutional.
In my view, individuals who believe that Canadian Values should include certain now-archaic elements of christian morality should remember that, once upon a time, a series of very harsh legal punishments, of a brutal physical nature, resembling the legal codes of contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia used to be awarded to individuals who committed crimes, such as adultery, which are no longer considered legitimately criminal acts in the West. If these legal tenets can come out of fashion through religious revision and re-interpretation, there is no reason why other elements of christian tradition that are inconsistent with modern universal conceptions of rights, morality, and reasonability, cannot be eliminated as well.
I would rather have, as members of the Order of Canada, individuals who fought in the cause of women's rights, instead of individuals who support the enactment of unconstitutional, liberty-infringing laws, and who wish to perpetuate an archaic element of christian-influenced morality that should have no further application in the current world. Although the individuals who have chosen to renounce their membership in the order complain about a compromise in the award's honour and prestige as a result of Dr. Morgantaler's appointment, they have, in effect, contributed to the tarnishing of their own honour and prestige by showing their support for an archaic belief and potentially unconstitutional legislation.
Associated Links:
CBC - Former Lieutenant-Governor Resigns Order of Canada in Protest
CBC - Abortion Rights: A Timeline of Developments
The Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court of Canada - Role of the Court
- Gilbert Finn, the former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick
- The Madonna House, which owns a chain of soup kitchens in several countries, and was holding the Order of Canada that was awarded to its founder Catherine Doherty
- B.C. Priest Rev. Lucien Larré, who founded Bosco Homes, a Saskatchewan organization which operates homes for troubled youth
The fiasco over Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada demonstrates that a critical value confusion exists in Canada today. For some reason, many Canadians seem not to understand that legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity that is not even a member of this or any society, and that women have full sovereignty over their bodies and what is in them. They also fail to understand that it is immoral to force women to give birth to a child if they are in less than acceptable socioeconomic situations, have been victims of rape, or simply do not feel emotionally mature or capable enough of giving birth to and raising a child. Many go so far as to call women who wish to undergo this medical procedure "murderers"--a title that is disgusting to award to an undeserving individual who is simply exercising her rights.
Individuals who continue to place religious values above human rights, and parade their own interpretations of "Christian Values" as integral to "Canadian Values", have apparently allowed themselves to forget about a particular body of written legal codes and unwritten conventions that form the legal foundation for what "Canadian Values" are. This body of legal tenets happens to be called the Constitution of Canada. I would like to take the liberty to kindly remind these people about the legal implications of potential legislation based on their beliefs.
Take a good look at the following written constitutional provisions, from the 1982 act:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Additionally, as part of this body of written and unwritten legal principles, it is a deeply upheld convention that the Supreme Court of Canada--the final court of appeal in the land--is vested with the final say on the constitutionality of all Canadian laws. In Janaury 1988, Canada's previous abortion law--which required women to appeal to a three-doctor abortion committee if she wished to have the procedure done--was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the constitution (provided above).
If a three-doctor abortion committee was ruled unconstitutional, imagine how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that attempted to ban abortions altogether. Such a law would likely be ruled unconstitutional, as it is an even deeper infringement on a woman's individual liberty to forbid abortion in all cases, than simply making it difficult for her to have this procedure if she desires to have it done. Therefore, individuals who are pro-life support the enactment of a law that would be unconstitutional.
In my view, individuals who believe that Canadian Values should include certain now-archaic elements of christian morality should remember that, once upon a time, a series of very harsh legal punishments, of a brutal physical nature, resembling the legal codes of contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia used to be awarded to individuals who committed crimes, such as adultery, which are no longer considered legitimately criminal acts in the West. If these legal tenets can come out of fashion through religious revision and re-interpretation, there is no reason why other elements of christian tradition that are inconsistent with modern universal conceptions of rights, morality, and reasonability, cannot be eliminated as well.
I would rather have, as members of the Order of Canada, individuals who fought in the cause of women's rights, instead of individuals who support the enactment of unconstitutional, liberty-infringing laws, and who wish to perpetuate an archaic element of christian-influenced morality that should have no further application in the current world. Although the individuals who have chosen to renounce their membership in the order complain about a compromise in the award's honour and prestige as a result of Dr. Morgantaler's appointment, they have, in effect, contributed to the tarnishing of their own honour and prestige by showing their support for an archaic belief and potentially unconstitutional legislation.
Associated Links:
CBC - Former Lieutenant-Governor Resigns Order of Canada in Protest
CBC - Abortion Rights: A Timeline of Developments
The Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court of Canada - Role of the Court
Monday, July 7, 2008
Dilemmas, Dilemmas, Dilemmas
I've been thinking a lot about a lot of different stuff lately, such as deciding which possible schedule combination I should register in out of the two or three possible ones I've devised for September, whether or not I want to go to Paris for a third-year exchange to accelerate on the road to bilingualism and thereby greatly improve my chances of excellent employment in the public service (as well as embracing the opportunity to revel in my favourite world city), or whether I'd rather go to India on the Ontario-Goa-Maharashtra exchange program instead to experience and learn about the socio-politics of the largest democracy in the world (and one of the few mature ones in the developing world), how best to minimize procrastination, whether or not I will pass my upcoming road test, and a number of other things that I'd rather not publicize.
Interestingly, upon examining a recent degree audit I generated for myself, I have discovered that, owing to my decision to take 2.0 credits this summer, I will reach third year standing by winter 2009, providing that I take a full load of 2.5 credits this fall. That means I am almost a semester ahead of everyone who didn't want to bother taking courses in the may-august session (as I will have completed 6.0 credits by the end of this summer, and more than 8.5 by the end of the fall term, thus putting me into third-year standing by Janaury 2009), and potentially being able to graduate a semester before everyone else, providing that I take an additional 0.5 credit on top of my regular loads before then.
Yay. I'm awesome.
Anyways, this has prompted me to contemplate whether or not I should take an overload in the Fall in order to pull ahead even farther, and also take an overload in the winter, and even a couple courses in the Summer of 2009 if necessary, to pull ahead another semester and finish a year earlier. I figure the big "pro" of this decision is that it can allow me to start and finish grad school earlier than most people geared in that direction would, and therefore enter the workforce and start making money earlier than most others.
However, I fear that the more courses I take all at once, the lower chance of me obtaining a high enough GPA to do as well as I might like. I guess if I work hard enough, I really can do very well even if I'm taking a larger load, as even this year, I would have made it on the Dean's List if it wasn't for Economics 1000 (:@:@:@). Additionally, I wonder if finishing early would diminish the possibility of me being able to go on a year-long exchange at all--something I would definitely like to do due to the international nature of my specialization. I guess I will decide for sure by the time it comes for me to register, and speak to Elaine in the BPAPM office as well.
However, if you have any suggestions/comments/statements from past experience associated with any of these matters, please feel free to dispense them to me.
Cheers!
Interestingly, upon examining a recent degree audit I generated for myself, I have discovered that, owing to my decision to take 2.0 credits this summer, I will reach third year standing by winter 2009, providing that I take a full load of 2.5 credits this fall. That means I am almost a semester ahead of everyone who didn't want to bother taking courses in the may-august session (as I will have completed 6.0 credits by the end of this summer, and more than 8.5 by the end of the fall term, thus putting me into third-year standing by Janaury 2009), and potentially being able to graduate a semester before everyone else, providing that I take an additional 0.5 credit on top of my regular loads before then.
Yay. I'm awesome.
Anyways, this has prompted me to contemplate whether or not I should take an overload in the Fall in order to pull ahead even farther, and also take an overload in the winter, and even a couple courses in the Summer of 2009 if necessary, to pull ahead another semester and finish a year earlier. I figure the big "pro" of this decision is that it can allow me to start and finish grad school earlier than most people geared in that direction would, and therefore enter the workforce and start making money earlier than most others.
However, I fear that the more courses I take all at once, the lower chance of me obtaining a high enough GPA to do as well as I might like. I guess if I work hard enough, I really can do very well even if I'm taking a larger load, as even this year, I would have made it on the Dean's List if it wasn't for Economics 1000 (:@:@:@). Additionally, I wonder if finishing early would diminish the possibility of me being able to go on a year-long exchange at all--something I would definitely like to do due to the international nature of my specialization. I guess I will decide for sure by the time it comes for me to register, and speak to Elaine in the BPAPM office as well.
However, if you have any suggestions/comments/statements from past experience associated with any of these matters, please feel free to dispense them to me.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
