Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts

An Open Letter to Vince Agovino

Dear Mr. Agovino,
Recently, in your campaign for the position of Member of Provincial Parliament in Willowdale, you sent out a letter (p1, p2, p3, ad) to all constituents. In this letter, you included an advertisement for a petition regarding the sex ed program in Ontario schools, and a long explanation about the problems you see regarding Ontario schools (Catholic schools, specifically) and the "Gay Agenda".

I have to start by saying that your letter lost some of its impact by arriving at my house on October 12th, a little too late for the October 6th election (besides, I voted in the advance polls). However, I did find it quite insulting that Canada Post seems to think that one cent of postage was not sufficent for this letter, and that I am now personally responsible for $1.81 in outstanding postage.

The mode of delivery of this particular letter, however, is not what offends me the most. What offends me are the views expressed in this letter. But first, a little about myself.  I was born in Ontario and was a student in Ontario's Catholic school system from Grade 1 onwards. As a child, I didn't know lots of things, including much about homosexuality (or, let's face it, about sexuality at all). But I did know that someone you didn't like in the schoolyard was called a "fag", though I didn't use that word very often.

Now, I am living in Willowdale and am raising a family of my own. In a way, my situation is a bit like yours. However, our choice of city (and provincial riding) appear to be the only similarities we share. Because frankly, I found it incredibly offensive that your letter establishes your campaign platform along the following two ideas:
  1. Sexual education for children is bad. 
  2. Gays are bad, or at least, should be ignored, and certainly not supported in schools.
The first point is one that I've already rebutted on my blog.  In a nutshell, the sex ed curriculum changes that the Liberal government had proposed was almost completely unremarkable, and it should have simply been implemented as-is. It is total misinformation and fear-mongering to suggest that children will be learning about "sex" when they should be learning to tie their shoes.  That argument doesn't even make sense. Children can learn more than one thing at a time and the sex-ed curriculum doesn't bump out any other useful knowledge. And also, learning about anatomy is not the same thing as learning about sexual intercourse. Attempting to equate those two things is, basically, lying. Learning about anatomy, and privacy, are important things to teach small children who otherwise can't articulate themselves when an adult abuses them, and this is what the early sex-ed curriculum addresses. Suffice to say, the government was making a positive change with that curriculum and my disappointment lies in the fact that they backed down because of a rabid, uninformed, fear-mongering outcry.

Your second platform point is actually far worse than your first. Your letter reads as a thinly veiled warning that if we don't elect you, the gays are going to have their way with our children. You must really not like gays. Because if you cared about them at all, you'd be appalled that a gay student killed himself in Ottawa recently, and that he did so because he was bullied by homophobic teenagers in his school. And Gay-Straight Alliances, which the Catholic school boards are resisting tooth-and-nail, are an important tool to help deal with that kind of bullying. But your campaign letter says that you will fight tirelessly to ensure that Catholic schools are free to allow students to bully gays.

How does an educated person in 2011 get to be so wrong about such an issue? Let's pretend that instead of gay students we are talking about black students, or Chinese students. If schools were full of systematic bullying and intolerance for black or Chinese students, wouldn't you want the schools to set up programs to help alleviate this? Wouldn't you support the government's attempts to solve this problem? I'll be honest and say that I don't know how effective a solution a GSA is. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't. But you aren't criticizing the solution. You are instead criticizing the problem. Because these students were born gay, they are now fair game for bullying, and any attempts they make to improve their lives must be evidence of an evil conspiracy.

Now, you might raise a bunch of arguments here, such as claiming that being gay is a choice, or that being gay is a sin. First, most scientists do not believe that being gay is a choice. The evidence is pretty clear about it. Besides, what possible advantages does it bring? "Gee, I'd like to be attracted to the same gender as me, so that I can have the same amount of sexual satisfaction as a straight person, but oodles more scorn and derision and bullying from people who see me as a freak! Sounds like a good idea!"

As for it being a sin, please note that the Old Testament explicitly condemns homosexuality only in Leviticus, and the Gospels say nothing about homosexuality. Leviticus is a surprising book to read. It starts out with a detailed description of how to sacrifice animals. Then it talks about which things are unclean and how you are a guilty sinner if you touched an unclean thing, even if you didn't know you had. Also it prohibits the eating of lobster, clams, and other sea creatures that don't have scales, because those are abominations. There are whole lists of creatures that you can and can't eat. Leviticus also prescribes that all men must be circumcised. It goes on and on. My point is that almost all the rules of Leviticus are ignored in modern Christianity. Why does the ban against homosexuality get special treatment? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. But he did command his followers to love their neighbours.

That boy that committed suicide recently, because homophobic teenagers bullied him? His name was Jamie Hubley. He was a boy, learning about the world and growing up to be a man. And he's dead now, because homophobes made his life unbearable. How can we let something like this happen? How can we pretend that this boy "chose" to be tormented to death? He was a boy, and a human being, and he deserved better from the world and from his school. And your campaign strove to undo any advances this child needed.

That attitude sickens me to no end. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since you've aligned yourself with the same party whose Federal brothers and sisters unanimously voted against officially legalizing gay marriage, despite it being clearly required by the Charter of rights and freedoms. It was a mere technicality, yet the entire cohort of elected Conservatives stood up to declare themselves homophobic. It should come as no surprise that you too have the same views as they. But your letter, your anti-gay beliefs are why you, and your party, lost the provincial election: the people of Toronto stood up and denounced this bigotry.

I am sending this letter to you directly from my personal email, and also cross-posting it to my blog. If you reply, I will post your reply as well, so that you can get your word in.

Virginity tests

In Egypt, the military administered virginity tests on female prisoners.

W. T. F.

The general who admitted to this crime rationalizes his behaviour:

"The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," the general said. "These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs). ... We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place," the general said. "None of them were (virgins)."
My irony meter exploded when I read that last part.  So, to prevent them claiming that they had been sexually assaulted, you ... sexually assaulted them? And since they supposedly weren't virgins at the time of their capture, that means you have no way to prove that they haven't been raped in your captivity. Boy, you must be disappointed that you went to all that trouble for nothing!

Sadly, this sort of behaviour is too commonplace in other parts of the world. Here in Canada, we generally don't tolerate sexual abuse or rape. It must suck to be female and to live elsewhere. Dear women of Egypt, and other places where the men can't be trusted: you are welcome to come to Canada. Leave the jerks behind though.

France's anti-veil law

Recently two women were arrested in France for wearing a veil in public. The article in The Star says that one of the women was arrested because she was part of an illegal protest, and because she "refused to disperse" when asked to. (The French law tries to be very PC and avoids mentioning Islam, women, or veils, but let's not be naive. This is clearly about Muslim women wearing veils.)

In the middle ages it was fashionable to hate the Jews, because they had the temerity to keep to themselves and refuse to integrate into Christendom. Now that we're more enlightened, it's fashionable to hate the Muslims, because they dress differently and refuse to integrate into Christendom.

Wait, how exactly can one woman "disperse"? Was she supposed to de-materialize?

Personally, I don't like the Muslim veils. I see it primarily as a tool for male oppression of females. But you know what? If a woman wants to wear a veil in public, she should be allowed to. What's next? Laws banning mini-skirts? Laws banning socks with sandals?

In Canada, we believe in Freedom. Personal liberty is an extremely important concept. Privacy is as well. So why should we tell someone that their dress code is wrong? If they choose to wear it, that's their choice.

Some women don't have a choice. Their husbands or fathers or other relatives will force them, one way or another, to comply with their medieval religious ideals. But guess what? We already have laws against this behaviour. Why would we need another law specifically singling out one kind of abuse? Honour Killings are against the law no matter whether the reason was because she had sex out of wedlock or because she didn't want to wear a frickin' scarf. If some jerk tries to force her to wear the scarf, HE should be punished. If SHE chooses to wear the scarf, by all means, let her.

Inevitably someone will mention some ridiculous edge case that supposedly makes my argument moot. Such as the commentor on the Star who says "I saw a woman driving while wearing a niqab." But we already have laws that stipulate what constitutes safe driving. You could be charged for dangerous driving if you were, say, driving while blind, or driving while wearing contact lenses that block your vision. Even if everyone can see your face.

I can hear the other whiners now. "But what if I'm working at a bank, and this person comes in and says she's my customer, but I can't recognize her? What if we need her driver's license photo? What if, what if?!" Clearly, if a person must be identified, then they must be identified. But how often do YOU need to be identified on a daily basis? I certainly almost never need to be. I can pay for things with a credit-card and enter my PIN and nobody needs to know who I am. I can walk around the city and it doesn't matter who I am. I can get on the TTC with my Metropass and it makes no difference if the driver can see my face or not. So why should it be against the law for me to cover my face? Or for a Muslim woman to do so?

The comments posted on the Star's article are FULL of racism and xenophobia and Islamophobia. Canadians (at least, the ones who posted on that article) seem to be very insecure about their country and the demands that Multiculturalism (tm) places on it.  You know what? Canada has ALWAYS been multicultural. From the very first colonists who landed here and started integrating with the existing population... oh wait, that's not how it happened. Two dominant European cultures came here and fought everyone else into submission for centuries, until they reached an uneasy peace. Then we opened our doors to other cultures... as long as they weren't too shocking. No Asians or Africans or other "visible minorities" please.  It wasn't until the late 20th century that we finally reached something like true Freedom and openness. I mean, until Trudeau, we were a model of tolerance and freedom. Forget about the Japanese internment camps. Or the Residential schools for the natives. Or better yet, DON'T FORGET about those things.  Canada's history (and the world's history) is full of misdeeds and shameful things we'd sooner forget, but we must always remember our mistakes. Let's not add systemic, legalized Islamophobia to that list.

Canada has some important values. Freedom and equality are the most important. Our women must be free from the religious tyranny commonly associated with Islam. But not all Muslim women are oppressed. And not all oppressed women are Muslim. Don't be afraid of the veil. Be afraid of tyranny, and stand up against it. Let ALL our women be free, including being free to choose the veil. France's law, and its oppression of its own citizens, should be condemned.

Mandatory Language Tests for Immigrants

It seems that all skilled immigrants to Canada will need to pass a language proficiency test.  Even those whose native language is English and whose careers are based on daily use of the English language.

At first glance this seems like a reasonable idea.  The truth is it is a dangerous tool which can be used to enforce racist and xenophobic policies under the guise of "integration".  However, it seems like enough of the commentors on the Star's website disagree with me. When I read the comments I was disappointed to find that most of those writing were supportive of the new policy and hostile to foreigners.  My own comment achieved a stunning 16 "disagrees", a new record for me.

The article talks about a woman who was born in New York, graduated from Harvard and has been practising law for 13 years.  Clearly there is no need to test this person on her language ability.  To suggest that anyone in the government Canada is even qualified to pass judgment on her language skills is ridiculous.  Yet she must prepare for the language test while simultaneously managing her home life and career.

Wait, what?

She has to prepare?  Many of the comments on the Star were questioning this.  Why should she need to prepare if she is so confident of her language skills?

Well, the sad truth is that language tests are notorious for being debatable about their content.  Thankfully, the test in question doesn't have any grammar questions (despite newspaper reports to the contrary), and seems to be completely about reading and writing comprehension.  But the truth is that any test which measures "language" is going to be strongly influenced by how well the test-taker understands the desired answer to a question.  A person's grasp of language is not necessarily related to their grasp of test-taking.  And since she must pay to take the test, it behoves her to prepare, so that her money isn't wasted by an over-zealous and pedantic test-grader.

Besides the dubious nature of testing a native English speaker's grasp of English, and the obvious waste of resources this entails, is the question of whether or not this exercise has any merit whatsoever.

The comments on the Star were full of sad, sad stories about going into a shop and not being able to find an employee who spoke English.  My heart nearly broke into a million pieces as these poor, poor people recounted their tales.  The ordeals of a lady who couldn't find an English speaker in a shop in Chinatown.  The escapades of a gentleman who was unable to locate the kolbasa in the grocery store and couldn't find an employee who understood his question.

All of these stories have something in common.  The speaker suffers from an absurdly inflated sense of entitlement.  They act as if they are being personally injured or insulted when they go somewhere and someone doesn't speak their language.  It never occurs to them that THEY are somehow flawed for not knowing more than one language.  They just bitch and whine that multiculturalism is a failure.  They ignore the fact that all of them are descended from people who didn't speak the local language when they arrived: none of their ancestors spoke the languages of the Natives.  The hypocrisy goes further, however, because these same people are the type that go into Quebec and complain that the people don't speak English.

Ignoring the petty 'foreign employee in a shop' syndrome, the bigger question is whether or not non-local-speakers are even useful to the society at large.  It should be pretty clear that they are.  There is no reason that a doctor can't practice medicine in Chinese or in Italian if they have Chinese or Italian patients.  This doctor may have difficulty reading the laws on what drugs are legal, or other various tasks, but isn't it the job of the medical college to regulate such things? If the college decided to offer its services in Chinese (because the Chinese population will soon be the biggest minority group in Canada) would that somehow harm the English-speaking doctors and patients?  For regulated professions we have licensing and examination boards to keep out people who can't function in those roles.  For any other task, why does it matter if the person is illiterate in English?  The electrician who comes to your house to install a new light fixture doesn't need to speak English.  He needs to know how to install wiring, and he needs to know how to communicate with YOU.  If you (hypothetically) only speak German, then that's what he needs to speak.

Furthermore, it's also pretty obvious that monolingualism is an artifact of (some) adult immigrants only.  Their children will always (always!) learn the local language.  They will be bilingual, speaking their home language at home and their local language at school and work.  And their children are (sadly) almost always monolingual in the local language.  This always happens, as long as the family stays in the country.  So any worries about Canada turning into some country where nobody can speak to anybody are just ridiculous.

Finally, Canada is supposed to be a free country.  If I decide that I want to speak nothing but Esperanto, and I teach my children only this language, and I home-school them, and throw away my TV, is this not my choice?  Sure, nobody will be able to communicate with me.  But don't I have the right? Don't I have the right to try to find work at an Esperanto-friendly business, dealing with Esperanto-speaking customers?  Don't I have the right to fail at that task?  Of course I do.  But I was BORN in Canada.  Newcomers aren't allowed to fail and aren't allowed to even try.

Sex Ed

The Ontario government recently announced, then withdrew, a new Health and Physical Education curriculum.  They withdrew it because of an outcry claiming that this new curriculum was bad.  Some rabid protesters even said it was "bordering on criminal".

Seriously?

I read the new curriculum to be sure.  Guess what?  Nothing in it is remarkableRosie DiManno disagrees, and says the new curriculum is a sermon in disguise.  But Rosie DiManno seems more opposed to the curriculum's content on "Healthy Relationships" rather than its discusson of anatomy.

Ironically almost nothing in this curriculum is new and almost nothing in it is being taught earlier than it was.  I went to a Catholic school and we learned all about the reproductive system and the names of the body parts.  We learned about relationships.  We learned about puberty.  A couple of these topics are being taught a year or two earlier but that is not really a big deal.  And the "Healthy Relationships" material is geared towards identifying harm, such as abuse and neglect. It is not about trying to enumerate all the possible healthy relationships that might exist.  If you think it's a bad thing for a 6-year-old to be able to tell an adult that someone inappropriately touched him on the penis, maybe you should get a job working for the Pope's child-abuse squad.

This whole thing should be a tempest in a teapot, but sadly there are too many people who are afraid that they won't be able to tell their kids that being gay is wrong, or that God will punish them if they use a condom.  Rosie DiManno says that, especially in Toronto,
such a richly multicultural city, where so many families are immigrants and first-generation Canadians of diverse, often conservative faiths and cultures, it was demanding a great deal for parents to accept invasive sex instruction in the schools at complete variance with ethics taught at home. While many of us may disagree with some of those moral paradigms, we can’t compel others to change their personal views, or meekly hand us their very young children so that we can shape theirs.
 Actually, we should demand that they hand us their children so we can fix their broken brainwashing at home.  The schools already do this to a great extent.  Schools teach that racism is wrong.  They teach that humans evolved from some other primate.  They teach that the world is round.  These are simple facts about the world, and it is the school's job to teach these facts, even if the parents want to stick their heads in the sand.  And for those sexually-conservative parents who want to pretend that homosexuality is a choice, or that God hates fags, or some other brain-dead concept, well, the schools should be teaching their kids too.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Finally, it has come out that the Catholic school board had been negotiating permission to teach a different curriculum.  I went through the Catholic school system and it was not too bad, but there were definitely some missing parts (we did not really learn about contraception).  Coincidentally, the Catholic high school in my city had an unusually high number of girls drop out because they were pregnant.  Our school didn't have any facility to help such girls and so they typically went (out of sight, out of mind) to a different school that had daycare facilities.  These girls might have been in a different position if the principal (a nun) hadn't thrown away boxes of free condoms given to the school to supplement the health program.  It is time for the Catholic School Board to teach proper sex-ed.  We don't live in the 1950s anymore and the fact is that teenagers have sex and STIs are on the rise.  Abstinence-only education has been proven to not reduce pregnancies nor STIs.  And a good portion of the Catholic laity is not opposed to STIs (witness the demonstrations when the Pope came to Downsview).

The premier has said that the curriculum will be re-opened for discussions and may be revised.  If people actually READ the new curriculum maybe those discussions will be useful.  But probably the homophobes and condom-phobes will ruin things for everyone.

Bill 179

Ontario is on the verge of passing a health care bill which will grant drug prescribing power to Naturopathic Doctors.  The name "Naturopathic Doctors" is misleading because they are not doctors in the sense of a medical doctor; they are merely approved by the self-regulated College of Naturopathy.  Skeptic North explains this issue far better than I can so I urge you to read their posts on the subject.

Magical Prescriptions
Why Bill 179 Matters and is a threat to Medical Standards
A Skeptic North Response to the Naturopaths' Rebuttal

I sent the following email to my MPP to explain my views on the subject.  I urge everyone to call or write their MPPs before it is too late and any nutjob in a white lab coat can write prescriptions.

We recently read about Bill 179 on the CBC website and were shocked to discover that Ontario is planning to allow naturopaths to prescribe medication.  We feel this is a grave mistake.

Naturopathic practitioners are simply not qualified to assess patients and determine which chemicals they should be ingesting.  Naturopathy is based on pseudo-scientific philosophy and is not grounded in chemistry or science.  It is based on unproven beliefs and untested hypotheses, or worse, disproven theories.  Naturopaths are opposed to conventional, evidence-based medicine.  They oppose vaccines.  They promote homeopathy, which has been proven again and again to be a placebo.  In short, naturopathy is not medicine and naturopaths are not proper health-care providers.  Someone who is not trained in chemistry and biology should not be able to prescribe a drug.

There is real risk of harm to patients.

Recently a baby girl died because her eczema was treated with homeopathic remedies instead of real medical careIn Ontario a baby died in 1987 due to malnutrition because a naturopathic "doctor" was advising the parents about the proper feeding and care for the baby.  In Quebec last year a court ruled that a mother was negligent in withholding her daughter's medication in favour of naturopathic treatments.  The website whatistheharm.net documents these and many other cases worldwide where improper treatment and non-medical treatments result in injury or death to patients.

Most people are not qualified to judge their own healthcare.  They have little or no understanding of biology or even nutrition.  These people are easy prey for people who sell questionable cures.  Consider vitamins: there are two kinds of vitamins.  One is water-soluble, which means that if you have too much in your body it just dissolves in your urine and you flush it away.  Taking these vitamins can cause kidney stones but is usually not harmful (merely wasteful of your money).  The other kind of vitamin is fat soluble, which means it builds up in your body.  Vitamin D is one of the fat-soluble vitamins.  This means it is actually dangerous for people to take vitamin D supplements because it is very easy to overdose.  But the general public is unaware of the danger and they feel that because it's available without a prescription it must be safe and effective.  This simply isn't true and the science backs it up.  However under Bill 179 naturopaths are going to regain the ability to prescribe high doses of Vitamin D.  Most people don't have a vitamin deficiency, but for those with low Vitamin D the standard dose, 1000 IU, can already be prescribed by naturopaths.  What basis do naturopaths have for prescribing higher doses? 

Finally, another troubling aspect of this bill is that it legitimizes naturopathy.  Naturopathy does not work.  Homeopathy does not work.  This is a simple fact.  Some people try to paint a picture of "science" vs "nature" but this is a false dichotomy.  Science is about facts.  When science proves something, it is a fact.  If science proves the opposite, then it is not a fact.  Science has proven that homeopathy is no better than placebo, and that naturopathic treatments do not work.  If they did work, they would be scientific treatments.  After all, what do you call alternative medicine once it's been proven to work? Conventional medicine.  Science isn't about taking sides or being political.  It is impartial.

Bill 179 expands the scope of practice for many non-physicians.  This is not necessarily bad.  There is logic to allowing optometrists and pharmacists and other medical professionals the right to prescribe.  Presumable an optometrist knows how to prescribe eye-related medications because she has studied the biology, chemistry and physics of the eye.  Similarly, a nurse has also studied biology and medicine.  Pharmacists too spend a good portion of their school years studying chemistry and biology so that they can understand and evaluate prescriptions.  All of these people are trained medical professionals.  Naturopaths are by definition not medical.  They should not be allowed to prescribe medicine.

When Bill 179 comes up for a third reading we urge you to vote against it unless the expanded scope of practice excludes non-medical practitioners.  Don't put the lives of Ontarians at risk.

Sri Lankan Civil War

The Sri Lankan Civil War has been in the news a lot lately, especially here in Toronto where a large number of Tamil people have been protesting daily, calling on the Canadian government and the UN to intervene. It's hard to know what to make of the situation since accurate information is very scarce and both sides have their share of atrocities. Yet the situation in Sri Lanka serves as a reminder of the balancing act we have here in Canada, where there is a sizable minority of people who want to make their own country by carving their province out. The situation in Sri Lanka is roughly the same as if the FLQ had been more effective in their initial attempts to start a civil war in Quebec.

It's very interesting to note that there are linguistic aspects to both our struggle and the one in Sri Lanka. On Language Log there is a post describing this history. It's a very interesting article. To summarize it, when Sri Lanka was under the control of the British, the civil service was run in English. American missionaries had been very successful in teaching Tamil youth English, and thus the Tamil were a big part of the civil service; only about a quarter of the people are Tamil but half the civil service was Tamil. After Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948 there was call to change the official language of the civil service to a local language. Initially it was intended to be Sinhala and Tamil, together, but Sinhalese nationalists, assisted by numerous lay Buddhists and activist Buddhist monks, organized emotive and impressive processions demanding a Sinhala-only policy. They called Tamils parasites, said that Sinhalese and Buddhism were under threat by the Tamils, and demanded a Sinhalese-only state. The result was the passage of the Sinhala-Only Act of 1956. The Tamil responded by protesting; the protesters were attacked by Sinhala protesters, and riots ensued. Over the years, the situation further deteriorated, and even attempts to elevate the Tamil language's status in the 70s and 80s didn't solve the problem.

Everyone must read this

This is the story of Matthias Rath, a vitamin magnate who works hard in South Africa to convince people that AIDS drugs are actually poison and that their problems will all go away if they eat vitamins that he sells.

He sues Doctors without Borders, newspaper reporters, etc. He takes scientific research and abuses the conclusions so badly that the authors of the research make announcements distancing them from his bizarre nonsense. He even tried to have a community activist, who was HIV+ but refused treatment until others in the community had access to anti-retrovirals, indicted on genocide charges in The Hague.

And he is causing people to die of AIDS related illnesses due to his (and the South African Government's) insistence that AIDS isn't real.

Dr. Ben Goldacre, writer for the Guardian and a true scientist, has written a chapter about this outrageous story, but it wasn't included in his book because Rath was suing him at the time the book was published. Dr. Goldacre won the suit and now you can read it. It's long for a blog post but short for a book chapter and worth reading.

The scariest part: the rest of the nutritionism/naturopathic-medicine community still back Rath and treat him like a superstar. What is wrong with these people? People are dying.

Democracy

It's funny that Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament today so that he could spend a few weeks doing damage control, while claiming that the Opposition were behaving undemocratically. The problem with his argument is the assumption that people vote for the government. Sorry, they don't. They can't, in fact, because they only get to cast one vote and that's for their local MP. Given that, if a bunch of MPs form a party, and that party forms the government, how is it more or less democratic if the party is one of the "standard" parties, or is actually a coalition? All those MPs were elected democratically.

What's undemocratic is having the Governor General decide to suspend parliament. She did this at the request of the PM, but that's not democracy, unless you can prove that the majority of the MPs currently sitting in parliament supported proroguing. I'm not too surprised that Michaëlle Jean sided with Mr. Harper, but I am disappointed. Here we have a chance for real democracy, even if it's unconventional, but she has decided to instead waste time and give Harper an undeserved reprieve.

Bias alert: I voted against Harper and generally don't like him or his party. That said, I don't have a lot of confidence in the Liberals either, but Dion is on his way out, so that should help. I don't know whose approach is best for the country, Harper or Dion Ignatief Rae. But I feel that a coalition government is as valid as a normal government, and Mr. Harper should do the right thing and step aside.

Another politician proves a total lack of understanding about copyrights

It's common to find that politicians don't understand copyright. Copyright, along with other "Intellectual Property", is a government-granted monopoly on some sort of intangible concept like a name, or idea, or representation of an idea. Trademarks protect names (and other distinguishing marks like sounds or the appearance of a mascot or logo) for businesses; patents protect ideas, and copyright protects the (artistic) expression of an idea.

But Robert Lutczyk, who sits on both the Oshawa and Durham Region councils, as proven that he doesn't understand the funamental difference between these things. He has "Copyrighted" the name of a local school and sued newspapers to prevent them from printing the name in their papers. If you think this is odd, consider that names can't be copyrighted. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong. So this coucillor needs to consult a lawyer before making an even bigger fool of himself.

The people at the school in question aren't sure what Mr. Lutczyk is trying to achieve with these hare-brained actions; maybe he wants the school to change its name or maybe he wants to extort money, who can tell? Mr. Lutczyk isn't talking. But I hope any newspaper that he sues takes the lawsuit to court and drags it out as much as possible. Copyright, trademarks and patent laws are already misused enough as it is, we don't need this jerk making things worse.

Eternal sunshine of the innocent mind

Photo copyright The Rat BatWell, India has set itself a goal of being the most screwed up country in the world, and they are well on their way to achieving that goal.

This is the country where monkeys invaded a city, and the city people couldn't kill the monkeys because other people worshipped them, so they hired bigger monkeys to take care of the smaller monkeys.

This is the country where a girl was force to marry a dog in order to lift a curse.

So I shouldn't be surprised that this is the country that did an MRI of a defendant in a court case, and based on the results concluded that she had committed the crime, and sentenced her to life in prison.

And I thought breathalyzers were potential problems in legal cases... this goes beyond everything.

The way this device supposedly works is as follows:
  1. They strap you in
  2. The prosecutor reads to you what they think the crime was, in "first person voice" (i.e. "I went to the store", "I bought the arsenic")
  3. They watch the MRI to see if your memory lights up, indicating that you remember the event, and thus must have been there.

Does this make sense to you? Me neither. First of all, if I wanted to beat one of these things I'd just ignore the prosecutor and think of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Or if I don't want to destroy the world I'd just do multiplication tables in my head or write code. Since there's no way to know if the person is actually listening (the subject isn't allowed to speak), there's no way to know if they're NOT listening either.

Also it's quite notable that the research which led to the invention of this device has not been peer-reviewed. There was someone in the article who was impressed by the device but he is a polygraph expert, among other things. Anyone who believes in polygraphs would believe in this thing.

It's important to be skeptical. It's critical, in fact, to doubt things, because only doubt can lead to truth. So I hope this device remains in India for ever; but if some reputable people can validate the results I'll change my mind. I won't hold my breath.

The importance of transparency

An Arizona defendant was recently awarded the right to examine the source code of the breathalyser used to provide evidence against him. I discussed this a few months ago with some family when the same issue arose in Florida. I think it's critical that Arizona force this issue on the makers of the breathalyser and the police forces that use it, because to date the company that makes the breathalyser in question has never provided the source code and consequently racked up $1.2 million in contempt of court charges.

This is a serious problem in the court system.

The courts need to know that the evidence they collect is accurate. This is the most important thing is a fair court because inaccurate evidence leads to bad results. Guilty people can go free and innocent people can be jailed. These are not desirable consequences. In the case of a breathalyser, especially this one, which is reputed to give odd results from time to time, a person's freedom and life are at stake if the machine doesn't work properly. Thus the court needs proof of the accuracy of the breathalyser, and the only way to know that is to examine the device and its code.

Now, as I've discussed in previous posts, I hate drunk drivers and have no respect for them. I wish the courts were harder on drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders. I'm thinking first time means 5 years in jail, second time means 10 years and lifetime driving ban, third time means we amputate your legs and hands so you can never drive again. But I can't condone sentencing people when there's a chance that the breathalyser isn't working properly, especially if that is the only hard evidence for a DUI.

Every jurisdiction should require this of the breathalyser manufacturers: the design of the device must be fully documented; the source code must be available; there must be a way to determine which exact version of the source code is on which devices; and there should be QA of randomly sampled devices as selected by the state/province/etc. Manufacturers who refuse to comply will simply have their devices returned to them or the devices won't be purchased at all.

It's telling that CMI, the producer of the Intoxilyzer 8000, has never given over their source code even when their clients demanded it; they also refuse to sell the device to anyone but police forces, and the machine also failed to meet precision and accuracy testing in Tennessee, so law-enforcement agencies there are prohibited from using it. The only solution is to allow the defense attorneys to examine the devices and argue before the courts about any defects found. This is the only way we can ensure that the drunk drivers do go to jail, and those who weren't drunk don't.

For entertainment purposes only, must be 18 IQ points or fewer to call

This is slightly stale but I've been busy lately.

I read this article about the mother of an autistic child accused by a psychic of sexual abuse on the Bad Astronomy Blog. You have to read it to believe it but in a nutshell a mother nearly lost her child to Children's Aid because a psychic determined that a child (whom she never met) was being abused. The psychic's client, a teaching assistant, reported this to the teacher, who reported this to the principal, who called Children's Aid.

You read that correctly: a random person told someone that a child was being abused, based on no information, and this report was taken seriously.

The Children's Aid is required to investigate all "credible" reports and thus, when a principal called them, had to investigate. Thankfully they had the wit to understand that there was no chance this child had been abused. But what would have happened if the mother didn't already track her daughter with a GPS device that records audio? This woman could have easily lost her child to the authorities and been branded a monster. The psychic in this story is guilty of causing real harm to this innocent mother and her child. Yet because our society tolerates psychics under the guise of "entertainment" the true monster is allowed to continue to spread dissent and lies to gullible people.

Frankly I think it's also frightening that someone who believes in psychics is helping to teach at schools and raise children. But given our society's poor ability to train and hire competent teachers, that isn't surprising.

If only it were true

Natural Health Food vendors are up in arms about a new law that will more tightly regulate their industry. They claim that "natural" products should be regulated differently than drugs, because they are safer and have demonstrated benefits.

Sadly, that's just not true.

For one thing it's a complete fallacy that something natural must be safe. Mercury, for example, exists in nature. As do many toxins: cyanide, arsenic, etc. Asbestos occurs in nature as well, and has many beneficial properties, but, oh yeah, it causes cancer and lung disease. Whoops!

The other problem with natural products is that, until the new law is passed, they have not had to prove that their product actually contained the active ingredient, nor that it has any effect at all. And this is what the real issue is: the new regulation will (gasp!) mean that, if you claim your product helps headaches, it must actually help headaches. If you claim your product contains ginseng, it must actually contain ginseng.

The problem is that the government and the public have differing notions about what constitutes a drug and the health food vendors slip their wares right into that huge gap. The public sees a bottle of pills at Shoppers Drug Mart and thinks "This will solve my arthritis problem!", when in reality it will do nothing except lighten your wallet. The manufacturer, meanwhile, doesn't have to sell you a real product; they can sell you silicone dioxide in a gelatin capsule, call it glucosamine, and you can't tell the difference. The placebo effect takes care of the rest. The government let this go because the pills were "harmless" "supplements" and if you want to buy junk it's your problem. Since most people are woefully ignorant of biology or science or statistics they can't make informed decisions about their health and happily buy the products which do nothing.

(Another part of the problem is drug stores selling these health foods; this only adds to the supplements' credibility. Some pharmacies claim that a trained pharmacist can steer you to the real drugs which DO work, but I only know one pharmacist who does this, and she's been told by her superiors to try to INCREASE sales of the natural products. The real motive is that gullible people will buy these things no matter what, so the drug stores want a piece of the pie.)

Earth Hour: Do nothing, and feel good about it

Pat yourselves on the back, Toronto! You've done it: absolutely nothing. Well, you did turn the lights off for a few minutes on Saturday. But overall it accomplishes nothing. The Toronto Star's article has the key facts and figures:

2,738 MW: The lowest demand for the hour
5% : the percentage drop from the previous hour
8.7%: the difference between the lowest demand of Earth Hour compared to the average for a typical late March Saturday night.
8:54 PM: The time at which that lowest demand was reached.

So way to go! You managed to reduce energy usage for about 5, 6 minutes. Because, as Toronto Hydro supervisor John Fletcher said, "People will forget to put out the lights ... but they won't forget to put them back on." And sure enough, when the giant clock jumped 21:00, then 21:05, the numbers rose as surely as they dropped.

Now I don't want to rain on everyone's parade, but let's look at this Earth Hour thing objectively:

1. No changes will be made because of it:
  • businesses will still leave their lights on even though nobody is in the office
  • Stores will leave exterior lights on unnecessarily
  • Yonge+Dundas Square is still filled with light pollution from those retarded ads
  • Nobody did anything about the dozens of power-wasting devices in their homes, such as DVD players, cable boxes, TVs, stereos, computers, and AC/DC converters that are wasting power even when you're not using the device
  • No politicians saw all the lights go out and decided "I'm going to support pro-environmental legislation, now that I know how serious the people are about this!"
2. It didn't even save any energy, in the big picture:
  • 8.7% is a lot, except it was for one hour
  • Oh wait, not even an hour, we only saved 8.7% for 6 minutes
  • Even if we had saved that for a WHOLE HOUR, that's still only 1/24th of a day
  • which adds up to 1/8760 of a year, or 0.01% of the energy used in a year
  • That is, it would be 0.01% of the year's energy if Earth Hour had happened during peak usage, which it didn't.
I think we should be glad that people want to chip in and help the environment, but we need to focus because this is not a small problem which can be solved by stunts like this. Instead we need to demand that manufacturers report things like how much power their devices waste when not in use. We need to demand that businesses install motion sensors or other features to enable better use of lights when they aren't needed as much. We should demand that politicians legislate about light pollution: light pollution is wasted energy, and it harms migrating birds and makes it impossible to see the stars. Why shine a light into space when you can shine it only where you need it?

Let's do SOMETHING about energy waste. Let's turn those lights off and KEEP them off.

Shopping Hours

Toronto City Council voted to continue to force stores to close on holidays, thus ensuring that pointless laws continue to be upheld. This sort of law goes back to religious laws which prohibit certain activities (typically working) on certain days. These days, especially in a city like Toronto, not everyone is the same religion (or even religious) and these types of laws are silly and antiquated.

Frankly there's no reason why stores shouldn't be allowed to be opened all day, all night, every day. Shoppers Drug Mart is already open every single day; why are they allowed to keep their doors open when Chapters is not? There is simply no good reason to force stores to close. Workers can be protected by laws allowing them to have a certain number of days OFF WORK (not just "off work or paid extra") and or laws allowing them to have a certain number of religious holidays at specified times. Some people I know didn't work Sundays even though everyone else on their project was working 14h/day every day, because these people asked for a religious exemption. There's no reason the same sorts of things can't be done for everyone. If you want to protect workers, fine, but let the workers take part in their own protection.

Lots of people don't mind working Christmas day (or Easter or any of the other mandatory holidays) because they want the extra money. There's no reason they should be forced to not work, because someone in the government feels everyone should have a "day off".

The other argument against allowing all of Toronto to be open for all days of the year was that other municipalities don't have the legal authority to enact the same law. Guess what? The Ontario government can't fine the whole province, and if every city enacted the same bylaw allowing stores to open whenever they wanted, the provincial government would cave.

(Note: I originally wrote this when the article was fresh then forgot to post it, but was reminded when I remembered that the Eaton Centre was closed Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Those are two of the only three days in the whole year that it closes. However other stores in the city don't get to be open even that long. Not to mention that many places have restrictions on what HOURS a store can be open. This doesn't actually ensure that everyone gets the night off, though, because lots of store have night-staff that work all night getting the store ready for the next day.)

LEGO's prices do them in

Looks like I'm not the only one disgusted with LEGO's prices in Canada: Walmart has decided to stop carrying LEGO. I can only hope that this brings LEGO to their senses regarding the ridiculous prices. Either the US prices are artificially low or the Canadian prices are artificially high but Canadian customers deserve the same good deal the Americans get. I'm not usually a big fan of Walmart but I applaud this move.

Judge shows common sense in face of insane prosecutors

I'm glad to see that there are still judges in the justice system who understand that crime needs to be punished. The recent case of a woman in Halifax who was beaten by three teenagers is one example: Both the Crown and the defense argued for short sentences for two of the girls, but thankfully the judge showed some good sense and imposed a stiffer penalty. Unfortunately this penalty doesn't go far enough but at least it's better than nothing.

Amputee Runners

The Star has an article about Oscar Pistorius, a runner who has two artificial legs. Mr. Pistorius has been barred from running in the Olympics because his artificial legs give him an advantage over normal runners.

It seems an ironic, possibly unexpected situation, where a person born with no fibulas, who had his lower legs amputated at 11 months old, could have the advantage in a running competition. But the truth is the artificial legs were designed for only one purpose: running. They are not suited to any other task, and their structure is optimized for what they do. As a consequence they allow a runner to run more efficiently.

It's unfortunate for Mr. Pistorius, who has trained hard and overcome obvious limitations in order to be a possible Olympic athlete, but if his prosthetics provide an advantage over normal legs then I have to agree with the ban. The Olympic games are supposed to be a narrowly-defined contest and things like steroids or prosthetics fall outside those limits. This is especially true of running, where almost no technology is used; compared to, say, skiing where the skis and poles are extremely advanced.

One day there will be a sport where people can use artificial limbs, or maybe the poor availability of unmodified athletes will moot the discussion. Or maybe the normal runners can have shoes made that mimic the prosthetics. Until then, the disabled runner is just too good for normal runners. And that is possibly the highest compliment that can be paid to the runner and the people who made his running legs.

Surgeons and skullduggery

I previously posted about Dr. Yazdanfar, whose patient died on the operating table but believes the decline in her business is due to her competitors spreading damned lies about her. Well, her competitors have now marshaled their professional organizations to investigate her use of a private investigator to expose their villainy. They claim that a doctor should be able to speak freely with his or her patient, and not have to be wary of a "trap".

As far as I'm concerned, the doctor-patient privilege exists to protect patients. So a doctor shouldn't be able to say just anything to a patient without fear of a "trap". The Toronto Star article even quotes Weinberg, a Toronto-area plastic surgeon and member of the three organizations that have complained about Yazdanfar to the College of Physicians, as saying
"A physician has to be able to speak honestly to their patients. As a patient, wouldn't you want to go to your doctor and ask for an honest opinion even if it isn't to the benefit of a company, institution or another doctor?"
The thing is, a doctor IS protected when he speaks his honest opinion, even if it isn't to someone else's benefit. There are many justifications for slander; in many jurisdictions one simple defense is "truth", that is, what you are saying is true. In some places you can't reveal the truth if doing so does no good but only does harm, but a doctor advising a patient on issues pertaining to safety can certainly not be accused of gratuitous harm.

I support any efforts by doctors to uphold a code of ethics, but let's be sure your ethics are actually ethical and not just protectionist.