| .. |
. |
.. |
| .. |
|
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
|
Letter to the Winnipeg Free Press - July 3, 2003 |
|
| .. |
Subject: Gay Marriage and the Decline of Democracy in Canada
It may be my American perspective, where separation of powers is the jewel in the crown of workable democracy, but I am puzzled by the hand-wringing over recent court decisions that extend rights enjoyed by some citizens to those to whom they have been previously denied. Ted Morton [a political scientist from Alberta], along with many others, thinks these decisions spell eventual doom for democracy in Canada, but lost in his argument are some important questions:
1) If democracy is merely government by the will of the majority, as expressed in Parliament, what's the point of having courts? I'm shocked that a professor of political science seems unaware of the problems of tyranny by the majority, which makes pure democracy as undesirable as any other form of dictatorship, and requires constitutions and courts to protect minority rights. The premise of modern representational government is that liberty and order are preserved only by assuring that no identifiable group wields enough power to oppress others. Thus Parliament exists to impose the will of the majority, and courts exist to counter Parliament, not to rubber stamp it, assuring that it can't abuse its nearly absolute sovereignty.
2) Why isn't the rise of new groups seeking recognition of their rights a sign of healthy democracy, rather than its demise? Seems to me that the past 40 years have witnessed a flowering of liberty where blacks, women, and many others have seen their basic humanity affirmed, and it's entirely proper that these groups seek the help of the courts when Parliament obstructs or neglects their aspirations.
Finally, if Mr. Morton feels that feminists, gays, and other advocacy groups are abusing the system and the norms of debate, he can gain a little perspective by considering the centuries of systemic and rhetorical abuse by Anglo-Saxon males on this continent, and perhaps he'll feel a little better as he watches it recede.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Letter to the Nationa Post 1/20/01
|
|
| .. |
I often find the Post's editorials to be somewhat muddled, but "Beyond Tolerance" is beyond the usual sloppiness. First, I can't tell whether or not the writer thinks it's a good thing that tolerance may evolve into equality. And if not, how is it possible that anyone born since the Enlightenment, and living in a western democracy, can persist in the belief that some people are not entitled to equal treatment under the law? This editorial convinces me further that the 'nuances' of the argument against gay marriage (including this weakminded tolerance vs. equality tack) is in fact a waffling defense of longheld prejudice, and that the holders of this particular prejudice believe themselves somehow exempt from the need to examine it and abandon it that is incumbent on any thoughtful rightminded person. It is time for us all to admit that it is unconscionable to split hairs where people's rights are concerned. It is no more lamentable that the venerable prejudice against homosexual union must fall, and that equal legal rights must be granted, than that past legal distinctions based on race, religion, high/low birth, etc have been rectified as our society slowly and painfully attempts to live up to that most ancient of principles: that we are all created in the image of God. |
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Letter to WFP - June 17, 2003 |
|
| .. |
Subject: should marriage remain heterosexual?
Harold Jantz [Mennonite journalist] invokes a very strange argument to continue to deny homosexuals the right to marry. We can call it the "potential procreation" argument, and it's patent nonsense on several fronts.
From a human rights standpoint, using a physical criterion to deny status and dignity is abhorrent and indistinguishable from any other form of unacceptable discrimination -- racism, sexism, etc. Substitute the widely believed lack of intellectual and moral "potential" of dark-skinned people, or women, that was firmly entrenched in law for centuries into this line of reasoning and it's distastefulness becomes apparent.
From a logical standpoint, it is absurd to invoke potential action of a class of people as a basis for law. We might just as well incarcerate large people simply because they have the potential of harming small people. Being potentially physically capable of an act does not automatically confer nor deny rights.
From a social standpoint, it is common sense backed by much study that biology has little if anything to do with success in child-rearing. It cannot possibly be generalized that homosexuals will be worse parents than heterosexuals. In the history of mankind it is probably more common for children to be raised by adults who are not their biological parents -- think extended families, monastic cultures, wet-nurses, etc. The nuclear family as we know it in North America is a very recent trend and has been shown to have many deficiencies in producing psychologically healthy children. It also cannot be maintained that there would be a lack of significant influence from the other gender. Homosexual couples have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends of both genders just like heterosexuals.
Most importantly, the "potential procreation" argument is a complete red herring in modern society. The relatively recent legitimization of unmarried cohabitation and the widespread acceptance of artificial insemination puts marriage squarely into the realm of choice. The issue here is that a man and a woman can marry, or not, as they choose. But a man and a man, or a woman and woman, could not choose to marry until last week, and thus a great wrong has been righted. Though many will still argue for their own unearned privileges, just as some white people still feel cheated by civil rights success, another great step has been taken towards a free and equitable society.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Response to a WFP column by Tom Oleson opposing adoption by homosexuals 11/24/01 |
|
| .. |
Tom Oleson is correct that there is no legally written right to raise children -- for homo- or hetero-sexuals. However, this is irrelevant to the question. It is not whether children are property of the state or of parents. No right-thinking person in this era considers children to be "property".
Neither is it a "cultural rights" question. The comparison between native adoption by native families, and homosexual adoption is an apples-oranges comparison. There is no "homosexual culture" in this sense. Homosexual individuals appear, and have appeared historically, in all cultures, and may or may not form into cultural "sub-groups" based on sexual issues. Either way, there is no basis for legal restriction.
The only "right" that matters is the right of "abnormal" people to do what "normal" people do. There are no other meaningful rights. For human rights to be a relevant concept, they must apply where "normal" people wish to prevent others from enjoying what normal people do normally: speak and publish freely, assemble as they wish, worship as they wish, choose to have children, etc. In a society that respects human rights, only the state may restrict the "normal" activities of "abnormal" people, and it must have an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Otherwise it must stay out of their lives and protect them from those who would interfere. Since there is no demonstrable reason why homosexuals should not be adoptive parents, the state may not prevent it, and the Ontario judge has argued correctly.
Oleson's contention that we ought not to "experiment" is specious as well. There may or may not be "evidence" that such adoptions are helpful/harmful to children, but this is irrelevant -- no such experiments can be done. One cannot raise a child in one family and then re-raise it in another and compare the results. One can only surmise that certain qualities are good for children, and then seek to prove that homosexuals in general do not possess them. Since this also cannot be done, the state restriction on homosexual adoption is oppressive, inconsistent, and cannot stand in a free society.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
| .. |
|
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
|
RE: welcome to iraq nightmare - a column by Gwynne Dyer predicting problems for the US military in Iraq |
|
| .. |
WFP April 2, 2003
Thank you to Gwynne Dyer for his excellent analysis. It brings to mind another conflict between an ideological administration and a professional army -- Nazi Germany's conduct of the Second World War. The stunning, unprecedented German victories of the early years were largely due to Hitler's brilliant new strategy now known as blitzkreig (lightning war). Donald Rumsfeld openly acknowledges that his "war-lite" strategy for Iraq (and future actions) is modelled on this.
Hitler faced strong opposition from his military staff, but was proved right -- at least temporarily. Things went badly when, intoxicated by his invincibility, he began to make purely ideological decisions on the battlefield -- again in the face of strong opposition from his generals. He threw diplomacy and caution to the wind by turning against the Soviet Union (an "inferior people") and simultaneously pursuing the Romanian oilfields (the Vaterlands birthright). We know how this turned out. The world's most powerful armed forces were stretched too thin and eventually collapsed, but not without tens of millions of casualties on both sides.
The history of the Iraq war has yet to be made, but the parallels are striking: the sense of invincibility, thinly stretched forces, the pursuit of oil. Both Saddam Hussein and George Bush are compared to the Nazi dictator for propaganda purposes, but the real similarity may be between Hilter and Rumsfeld as examples of disastrous Ideological rule.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
response to a letter accusing me of appeasement 3/2/03 |
|
| .. |
I am not surprised that my recent letter would be misread, but Robert B responds with an "appeasement" argument, as if it has any connection to the issue. My point is simple: it is immoral to advocate other people's suffering and death. If you're willing to risk your own life for what you believe, that's one thing. But to sit back comfortably and cheer on other people's horror, is fundamentally immoral. This has nothing to do with appeasement, which has become a buzzword for an historical event which happened to go bad from some points of view. There are more choices than retreat or slaughter, and most peace advocates, including the Feb 15 marchers, are aware of this and hope to find that effective middle ground.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
comment on "Vice-Regent" Paul Cellucci's [American ambassador to Canada] recent remarks |
|
| .. |
WFP March 26, 2003
As an American living in Canada, I'd like to comment on "Vice-Regent" Paul Cellucci's [American ambassador to Canada] recent remarks, and to provide some perspective for those who lament Canada's current stand on the Iraq war.
Everyone wants to be loved, but the United States does not love Canada. It finds you a convenient custodian for its natural resources. It tolerates and ignores you when you do not interfere with its interests, and does not hesitate to apply sanctions when you do not. It has only one-sided regard for trade or security agreements, and it will not "be there" when you are in trouble. This is an historical pattern, detailed below. Mr. Cellucci's remarks clearly indicate that the United States does not regard you as a separate country, and will not long tolerate your acting like one. Since there are no possible security threats to Canada other than the United States, Cellucci's assurances [that the US would rush to your aid] are meaningless, and his intimidation serious.
Please remember the following history:
1) The U.S. did not jump to your aid in World War I. The fighting raged for over three years before Americans entered.
2) The U.S. spent more than two years deciding whether to join your side in World War II. I grew up in America thinking the Second War lasted only four years, 1941-45. Surely most Canadians know better. Roosevelt's Lend-Lease program was a circumvention of American law. Even after Pearl Harbor, America was reluctant to be involved in Europe. Only Churchill's relentless efforts turned things around.
3) Lester Pearson did not last long once it became clear where he stood on Viet Nam. U.S. intelligence services quickly and effectively engineered a "regime change".
Now look at current disputes concerning softwood lumber and the Wheat Board. See if you think America is your "friend". Also try the following thought experiment: Imagine if, in response to Cellucci's public threats (which any truly independent nation would regard as intolerable), Canada turned off the Alberta petroleum pipelines. How long would it be before American troops "secured" the Alberta oilfields?
In the American diplomatic dictionary "friend" is defined as "docile servant". It behooves you all to keep this in mind as you spend the next two or three years (as the U.S. did in the World Wars) deciding whether to join this conflict.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Re: Dixie Chicks and other artists against the war |
|
| .. |
WFP 3/19/03
Re: Dixie Chicks and other artists against the war
I still don't know whether to laugh or cry at the topsy-turvy world of the Winnipeg Free Press. In Wednesday's issue, the editorial page was rife with parroted U.S. propaganda and newspeak terms such as columnist Gerald Flood's "humane war", while way in the back of the "Entertainment" section rock critic Bartley Kives laid it on the line for free speech -- one of the early casualties of this war. Maybe a small staff shake-up is due. (I wonder how Editor-in-chief Nicholas Hirst feels about covering the popular music scene).
Why is it always left to artists to state the obvious? Why are they then lambasted, boycotted and otherwise attacked for doing so? I know thinking is hard. That's why we pay other people to do it for us. So when our "designated thinkers" can't deliver, it falls to Martin Sheen and The Dixie Chicks (and Bartley Kives) to pick up the slack. Most unfair -- they already work hard at doing their own jobs. May I humbly suggest that editorial writers and columnists start doing theirs.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
RE: Back your ideals, go to Iraq |
|
| .. |
WFP April 12, 2003
RE: Back your ideals, go to Iraq
I fear Dale S has taken an argument of mine, turned it on its head, and unjustly aimed it at John R. In an earlier letter I stated that it is immoral to advocate the death and suffering of other people, which implies that those who are unwilling to suffer the direct consequences of war should not advocate it. Swirsky thinks John R should pack his bags for Iraq because he is appalled at the suffering caused by U.S. actions there. This doesn't wash. While a warmonger may only avoid hypocrisy by actually putting his/her body on the line, a peace advocate need only be peaceful in order to "walk the talk". I can personally attest that John R is a peaceful man, and nothing else is required of his viewpoint.
I am also disturbed by the repetition of the specious statement that nobody raised a protest about the suffering in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. I don't know what rock these folks were hiding under, but I remember daily coverage, discussion, demonstrations, conferences, investigations, commissions and armed intervention that went on for nearly a decade and which only a hermit could avoid knowing about. So go figure...
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
From a letter to political columnist Frances Russell concerning Canadians' self-flagellation over the Iraq war. 03/ 31/03 |
|
| .. |
Dear Ms. Russell,
I was touched by your letter, and grateful for your thoughtful response. I am not used to going public with my opinions, but these recent events have me firing off something to an editor or columnist nearly everyday. I have been quite upset by the editorials in the Free Press, and ...your columns have been a relief indeed.
I do have some thoughts on the self-hatred problem, but I'm afraid they're mostly based on what I read in the papers. My experience as a Canadian is only six years old, and nearly completely restricted to Winnipeg. Nonetheless, I am familiar with many of the explanations you mention, and I think some are more plausible than others. For instance, I'm not sure longterm history explains much, except as it shows up in certain trends in education and discourse. One thing I've noticed is that whereas my indoctrination into American patriotism began almost from birth and was strenuously reinforced throughout my public education, there seems to be no equivalent here. There's nothing here that I recognize as "patriotism", and it seems that Canadians notice they don't have this "glorious" feeling and wonder what's missing.
Frankly, I think yours is a much healthier approach. It seems most Americans don't get over the disillusionment of finding out there's no Santa Claus (i.e. their teachers/politicians/business leaders lied to them), and develop serious neuroses as a result. I am nearly daily struck by the relative sanity of people here (even your politicians), and have never experienced this feeling anywhere else. At first I thought it was a Midwestern thing (I'd lived my entire life within an hour or two of New York City), but in the past few years, I've spent a lot of time in North Dakota and Minnesota. The difference is palpable, even though people there are also really "nice".
As far as THE reason [corporate interests], I think you are probably on the right track. One always has to check out who profits from any particular policy, trend, or attitude, and while I'm not much of a conspiricist, it certainly seems that one can "follow the money" here and come up with some insight.
I hope you won't be offended if I tell you that I find your comment on Stephen Harper [leader of a right-wing party, the Canadian Alliance] charming -- you have much too high an opinion of American politicians. Mr. Harper would thrive in the current Republican Party. Look who's being painted as traitorous in States; it's not anyone like Harper. In fact, the Alliance is the only political faction that looks familiar to me; the US no longer has anything that looks like Canada's other parties. (We haven't had any serious NDP [Labour] party since Lyndon Johnson; the federal Tories resemble "Rockefeller" Republicans who are now extinct; and the Liberals seem to be all-purpose centrists, whom we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter, though the Clinton administration was close).
Of course you're talking about Harper's standing up in the House of Commons and essentially representing a foreign government, and that couldn't happen in the US because the range of discourse is so restricted that no electable politician would even think of it. You don't make as much of a fuss over free speech here, but you certainly practice it more.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
WFP 2/20/03: if you are not willing to put your own body on the line in Iraq, then just shut-up |
|
| .. |
Am pretty shocked by the vituperation against those who marched for peace last Saturday. So let me join the fun by offering the warmongers the following index of moral clarity: if you are not willing to put your own body on the line in Iraq, then just shut-up. |
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Letter to Terry Moores' downplaying the "empireness" of the Bush administration., Editorial Page Ed of WFP 4/4.03 |
|
| .. |
Letter to Terry Moore, Editorial Page Editor of WFP 4/4.03
Terry had written a column downplaying the "empireness" of the Bush administration.
Hi Terry,
Enjoyed your column today, but think maybe you were a bit narrow in your sense of empire. If you look at the historical trajectory of regimes that we've traditionally called empires, you find that the American version seems to dovetail nicely. Empires have never been entirely ruled directly by the homeland; they have always been patchworks of military occupation, compliant native administrations, and strategic alliances -- all coordinated from the homeland for its own economic interests. What changes over time seems to be mainly rhetorical; sometimes empires are popular and points of pride, and sometimes the word is derogatory.
It would be hard to argue that the current world order doesn't look like an American empire, and as they say about ducks: the walk and the quack are diagnostic. It's an interesting point of speculation to wonder if the current U.S. administration will be viewed by historians as the beginning of the "decline". The parallels to late Rome are striking: an unelected elitist government with a lightweight figurehead leader, unsustainable (probably) military adventurism, a "bread & circuses" approach to domestic issues, etc.
Talk of empire may be exactly what we need right now, as long as it's done thoughtfully and with a long historical perspective.
All the best,
Jeff
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
Letter to the Globe & Mail 10/13/99 RE: a prediction of "Arnold for President" bumper stickers |
|
| .. |
Letter to the Globe & Mail 10/13/99
RE: a prediction of "Arnold for President" bumper stickers
Unless there's an ammendment to the U.S. constitution in the near future, you won't see Arnold Schwarzenegger, or any other foreign-born individuals running for president in 2008. On the other hand, given the average American's understanding of his/her own government, that will probably not prevent the predicted bumper stickers from appearing anyway.
|
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
| .. |
| Letter to the Globe & Mail 11/23/99 Re: Canadian banks |
| . |
| . |
|
.. |
| .. |
|
.. |
|
Re: Canadian banks |
|
| .. |
Letter to the Globe & Mail 11/23/99
Re: Canadian banks
I am so grateful that the Globe editorial writers have condescended to educate the willfully illiterate Canadian public on the basics of economics (Profits, banks, and prosperity - Nov. 23). Now let's see if I've got the lesson right: if the obscene profits of a Canadian enterprise are less than the obscene profits of a similar business in the U.S., this lowers the standard of living of Canadians and thus we should applaud the efforts of Canadian banks to lower service values for their customers and create misery and disruption for thousands of their soon-to-be unemployed workers. Now that I understand this I'll be concerned about the relative profit margins of other financial service businesses who have equivalents in the U.S., such as the Hell's Angels.
But serously folks, beside the fact that the editorial offers not one shred of evidence for its assertion, it even asks us to admire the rapacity of American banks with their higher fees, poorer service, and higher loan rates. Am I missing something here, or is the Globe's flakking for the wealthy 2% approaching "Smithers"-like proportions? |
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
| .. |
|
.. |
| .. |
. |
.. |
|
RE: Scam Artists |
|
| .. |
WFP
RE: Scam Artists (Canadian Press story - April 28)
Gentlemen:
It's a small thing, but perhaps you could help start a remedial language trend by no longer referring to criminals as "artists". I mean, these folks are much more likely to be lawyers or accountants, no? -- and you know how sensitive we can be...
Thanks in advance. |
.. |
| .. |
Top |
.. |
|
|
|
|
WFP
Diane,
If you choose to print this, it must be printed in its entirety, or not at all.
Thanks,
Jeff
To the Editors:
It appears from the front page of Wednesday's Free Press that the triumph of marketing is complete. We seem to have moved into an age where a billboard is considered an exciting improvement. According to the story, Glen Murray has made it official by clearing the way for a Times Square-like electronic monstrosity at the heart of the city. Let's not pretend that this is anything but a pathetic idea that will make us look like provincial big town wannabes.
But also let's not pretend that we're not being spun by the Free Press. One must be wary of its penchant for manufactured controversy. One thinks back to Lindor Reynold's creation, not reporting, of the kerfuffle about the English family who "hated" Winnipeg. One looks at the front page of the City section, where there is yet another non-story about Aliza Amihude and the people who haven't even seen her art.
It turns out that the Draft Context Plan is full of interesting and appropriate ideas for the downtown, and you would only know this if you turned to page 4 and read the rest of the story. So reader beware: it is in the interest of privately owned media to distract you from the fact that it is trying to sell you something, and it will routinely emphasize the sensational in order to get your attention and involve you in its product. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, but corporate media is as much an obstacle as a conduit for this. If we see this at the local level, imagine what were getting on the national and international scale.
.
|
|
|
|
