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
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
"Da-DA-Da-Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" No More????
I used to be a huuge hockey fan, and a pretty big sports fan in general. These days I'm not as engrossed in sports as I used to be because I've discovered other things. However, there are certain things that define your childhood, and the experience of growing up in Canada, and one of them happens to be the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. For 40 years, generations have turned on the television on Saturday night at 7 p.m. to hear the legendary jingle before the evening's games began. The classic Canadian saturday night can never be complete without Hockey Night in Canada, and Hockey Night in Canada can never be complete without that legendary jingle. Some have gone so far as to call the song "Canada's second national anthem"--an important unifying institution in a country fraught with regionalism and divided nationalistic sympathies.
The song was originally composed in 1968 by Vancouver-native Dolores Claman, an alma mater of the University of British Columbia who received a graduate scholarship to the famed Julliard School of Music. Since CBC bought the right to use the tune as the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada, it has been played, in various different forms, from jazz to rock, prior to the commencement of their saturday night hockey series. Over the years, Canadians have fallen in love with the tune. It has been known to have a great emotional affect on Canadians at home and abroad, with a myriad of anecdotal tales describing the importance this melody has had in inspiring nationalism and encouragement into Canadians across the globe. When the sheet music was released in 2000, it sold more copies than the year's top-of-the-chart albums.
Recently, after the expiry of the copyright agreement between its owners and the CBC, the CBC announced that it might not be renewed, and Canadians may have very well heard the last of "Da-DA-Da Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" with the conclusion of the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. The copyright holders announced that they hoped the crown corporation would have a change of heart, and it is known that the composer is having a particularly hard time with the news of this possibility. The CBC said that, if a deal cannot be reached under any circumstances, a nationwide contest would be held to select a new theme. Somehow, however, I think that if a national contest was held, everyone would send in the same theme song as before :P It has become such an important part of national life in this country that getting rid of it is as foolish as getting rid of the Maple Leaf. Even some politicians, such as Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and NDP national leader Jack Layton, have expressed their anger and disbelief with this attitude on the part of the CBC.
So far, Canadians that have been confronted with the news on the street have responded with shock, anger, and disbelief. I hope the CBC's bureaucracy is proud of what it is stealing from our national experience. It should be reminded that it is part of the CBC's mandate to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" (part iv), and failing to renew the copyright for this jingle would be contrary to this. The royalty is $500, and I think that is measly in comparison to the amount of revenue they make from the program. I truly hope the CBC and the jingle's copyright holders can come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, if not for anything else but the benefit of this nation's heritage, traditions, and future generations.
Considering its mandate, the CBC should not give up at the negotiating table as easily as it seems to be, as indicated by comments such as "oh, we thought the deadline was tomorrow!". Comments such as this indicate to me that they are actually trying to get away with not renewing the theme, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and definitely not in their, or this nation's, best interest. If the CBC does indeed decide to do away with the classic HNIC theme, it will have made, in my eyes, an anti-Canadian decision.
Associated Links:
thestar.com, "Hockey Theme Not Dead Yet"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/437636
Hockey Night in Canada Theme Website
http://www.hockeytheme.com
CBC/Radio Canada Mandate
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml
The song was originally composed in 1968 by Vancouver-native Dolores Claman, an alma mater of the University of British Columbia who received a graduate scholarship to the famed Julliard School of Music. Since CBC bought the right to use the tune as the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada, it has been played, in various different forms, from jazz to rock, prior to the commencement of their saturday night hockey series. Over the years, Canadians have fallen in love with the tune. It has been known to have a great emotional affect on Canadians at home and abroad, with a myriad of anecdotal tales describing the importance this melody has had in inspiring nationalism and encouragement into Canadians across the globe. When the sheet music was released in 2000, it sold more copies than the year's top-of-the-chart albums.
Recently, after the expiry of the copyright agreement between its owners and the CBC, the CBC announced that it might not be renewed, and Canadians may have very well heard the last of "Da-DA-Da Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" with the conclusion of the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. The copyright holders announced that they hoped the crown corporation would have a change of heart, and it is known that the composer is having a particularly hard time with the news of this possibility. The CBC said that, if a deal cannot be reached under any circumstances, a nationwide contest would be held to select a new theme. Somehow, however, I think that if a national contest was held, everyone would send in the same theme song as before :P It has become such an important part of national life in this country that getting rid of it is as foolish as getting rid of the Maple Leaf. Even some politicians, such as Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and NDP national leader Jack Layton, have expressed their anger and disbelief with this attitude on the part of the CBC.
So far, Canadians that have been confronted with the news on the street have responded with shock, anger, and disbelief. I hope the CBC's bureaucracy is proud of what it is stealing from our national experience. It should be reminded that it is part of the CBC's mandate to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" (part iv), and failing to renew the copyright for this jingle would be contrary to this. The royalty is $500, and I think that is measly in comparison to the amount of revenue they make from the program. I truly hope the CBC and the jingle's copyright holders can come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, if not for anything else but the benefit of this nation's heritage, traditions, and future generations.
Considering its mandate, the CBC should not give up at the negotiating table as easily as it seems to be, as indicated by comments such as "oh, we thought the deadline was tomorrow!". Comments such as this indicate to me that they are actually trying to get away with not renewing the theme, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and definitely not in their, or this nation's, best interest. If the CBC does indeed decide to do away with the classic HNIC theme, it will have made, in my eyes, an anti-Canadian decision.
Associated Links:
thestar.com, "Hockey Theme Not Dead Yet"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/437636
Hockey Night in Canada Theme Website
http://www.hockeytheme.com
CBC/Radio Canada Mandate
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml
Thursday, May 29, 2008
"Israel" - Not Just a "Dirty Word" or a "Promised Land"
No other country (except, perhaps, the United States of America) has been the source of so much fascination and scrutiny in the Islamic World than the State of Israel. Time and time again, I've heard right-wing muslims refer to the citizens of that country as "zionist filth". They decry the zionist state as a "racist colonialist entity", and have declared a jihad against the Israeli State and its Western supporters.
These Islamists need to consider that the Israeli state, although having deep-ceded problems, is a vibrant democracy with an open society struggling to reconcile a Jewish identity with a democratic one. Most Arab countries are not open societies, and citizens (especially women) are subjected to the harshness and brutality of sharia law. All arab citizens of the state have constitutionally-protected rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Many Israeli Arabs have enjoyed high positions in the public service.
Despite these commendable points, It is also no secret that Israeli Arab citizens have had to deal with widespread racism and religious-based discrimination. It is also no secret that the IDF runs an illegal and repressive military occupation in the West Bank, and maintains an uncompromising forcefield around the Gaza Strip. Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens, and have to deal with a day-to-day life of constant and perpetual harassment. It is no secret that many members of religious militia are not members because they are fiercely ideological, but are members because they wish to defend their country from illegal occupation.
However, these Islamist pressure groups and terrorist networks have religious motivations. They wish to cleanse the "dar-ul-islam" (land of Islam, loosely Arabia) of a state with a majority kaffir (non-muslim) presence, and wish to recruit Palestinians frustrated with occupation to their cause. While Israel humiliates Palestinians in their day-to-day occupation, the Islamic world uses them as pawns in their politically-motivated jihad against the West.
Most pro-Israel activists are American and European jews who have, at best, visited the state on occasion, but hold strong, deep-ceded views that they believe represent the best interests of the state. Such individuals need to keep in mind, just as the majority of Islamist activists do, that Israel is a politically diverse country, with individuals holding all sorts of viewpoints, from those who believe that all arab citizens of Israel should be expelled from Jewish territory, to those who believe that the state should not even exist. Individuals holding the latter view are not only citizens from the Arab Israeli community, but also born-and-bred Jewish Israelis, such as the famed academics Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein. And also, just as pro-zionist Jews exist, so do anti-zionist jews who do not believe the state of Israel should exist. If Israelis and Jews disagree so widely on the fate of the Israeli state, how can pro-Israel activists claim to represent its best interests?
Consider an example. It is a common belief among those in the pro-Israel camp that the best interests of Israel represent the best interests of the United States. John Mearsheimer, a well-known American political scientist, makes the argument that Israel is actually becoming a strategic liability to the US, outliving its cold war usefulness and is receiving more financial aid than any third-world country. He argues that America's support for the country is due primarily to the strength of the Israel Lobby. His opponents decry him and his co-author Walt as "anti-semitic" (Mearsheimer is Jewish). Bernard Avishai, who argues that global enterprise and secular democracy is the formula that will bring peace to the Israeli state, has been publicly accused of "liberal theology". As can be seen, no single one of these intellectuals and activists can be said to represent a consensus opinion.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that the "Islamic World" is a very complicated entity. I use the term in reference not only to countries in which Islam is the majority faith, but to the global body of muslims, including all the various different sects of the religion. There exists a wide variety of theological views and opinions in the Islamic world, and it is a grave mistake to regard the collective body of muslims as a monolith. Even viewing the shia-sunni dichotomy as the only division in Islam is an extremely incorrect statement to make. There exists many sub-groups of muslims such as the Ismailis, Bohoras, Seveners, the "reformists" such as Irshad Manji and their "moderate" opponents, the militant jihadis of Al Qaeda, the forward-thinking Spanish Muslims who issued a ruling against Osama Bin Laden, the friendly, simple villagers and nomads of Arabian and North African deserts, and the Iranian youth movement rebelling against an anti-democratic mullahcracy. Some of these individuals aren't even regard members of other muslim sects as being true muslims.
Bearing all this in mind, it should be remembered that when you are speaking to a muslim, it is incorrect to automatically believe that he is opposed to Israel or the West, and that he holds expansionist views. His/her views might be even more reformist and secularist than you, or they might be so ridiculously extreme that even Osama would shudder at the thoughts.
It is true that more muslims than not have to recognize that Israel is much more complicated than a dirty word, and pro-Israel activists need to recognize that they may very well be helping to dig the grave of the country they have dedicated their lives to defending.
Associated Links:
John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
Ilan Pappe, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Norman Finkelstein Official Site
Not In Our Name - Jews Opposed To Zionism
Arabs for Israel
Arab Citizens of Israel, From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Saturday, May 24, 2008
First Nations--Think They Have It Good??
People often think that Canada's First Nations have been given too many privileges. Tax breaks, preference in university applications, affirmative action--"they don't deserve all that special treatment!"
If you actually think they have it good, keep in mind that a disproportionate number of them live under the poverty line and in third-world conditions, on reserves with despicable infrastructure. Often, these reserves are chemically toxic, causing severe health problems and birth defects.
For those of you that believe that they should leave their communities and integrate into the Canadian majority "for their own good", consider that they suffered a ruthless attack on their culture, identity, and human dignity throughout the 20th century at the hands of major religious institutions such as the United Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church. This was all done under the premise of "civilizing" and "christianizing" a culture that these bloodthirsty colonizers scarcely understood. Also consider that the Canadian government & its citizens were totally complicit in all these activities.
In church-run Residential Schools, indigenous children were physically tortured for expressing their culture, speaking their traditional language, and even in showing emotions such as love, happiness, and brotherhood. Students infected with smallpox were deliberately forced to play with healthy students so as to spread infection and kill off as many aboriginal youth as possible. RCMP motorboats went to aboriginal communities and forced parents to sign off custody of their children to the government, in effect allowing them to do whatever they wanted to these innocent children. Why should Canada's aboriginal peoples' have to bow to a society that tried to destroy them?
A colonizing majority must take full responsibility for the crimes of its past and assume the financial burden for infrastructure development on First Nations' reserves. It is the only righteous thing for a settler majority to do.
Associated Links:
"Unrepentant: Kevin Annett & Canada's Genocide" (Documentary)
Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement
Assembly of First Nations
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Canada's National Inuit Organization
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
