Pope Ratz - Time Should Go Backwards

I'm sure that if the current Pope had a "time machine" in some vault underneath the Vatican, he'd happily use it to dial humanity back in time a few centuries.

While I think Gwynne Dyer has an interesting perspective on this Pope and his philosophical stance, I find it increasingly difficult to grant any merit to the Pope's utterances when he makes statements like "Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions".

The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since his election in 2005, for mankind to be "respected as the centre of creation" and not relegated by more short-term interests.

Uh? By what unholy arrogance would we possibly grant ourselves status as "center of the universe"? Not only have such statements of faith been demonstrably false every time they are made, there is considerable evidence to the contrary with respect to man's place within the biosphere of our little world. While we might well be the dominant species in terms of affecting our environs, the consequences of our manipulations keeps showing up in all sorts of ways.

Given our unique ability to change our environment to suit our needs, it should come as little surprise that we hold an increased responsibility to conduct ourselves in a measured way.

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going", the Pope said.

Dear lord, who does this man think he is? While individual researchers may be deeply focused in their fields, it's not like they are unaware of other disciplines and their relevance. What few scientists do is try to mix theology with science, however. Usually because it results in getting swatted around for sloppy reasoning (at the very least).

I'm amazed at the blunt thickness that this pope continues to exhibit. His perspective on all matters harkens back to the era when the R/C church still held sway over the leaders of the world's major powers.

Pope Benedict XVI has done more to attempt to dismiss the relevance of science than any of his predecessors in my memory. His image of science in general is deeply flawed and largely based upon supposition rather than actual understanding of the tension that exists by nature between faith and the school of rational thought that permeates much of scientific endeavor these days.

While one might claim that matters of faith are about "Truth"(™), there is a significant difference between a spiritual "truth" and the kind of "truth" that scientific research seeks. Sadly, this Pope seems more interested in repeating the monumental errors of the Church in centuries past.

Byers Column on Canadian Foreign Policy

A commenter back here tried to suggest that Michael Byers is being "even wingnuttier" than Jonas was on the human rights topic.

I've already explained why I think Jonas was dead wrong on the topic of human rights commissions, so I won't waste more bandwidth on the subject.

Byers' column is interesting in its own right. It opens with the following commentary:

"So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?"

The British professor asking the question was serious.

We were in Cambridge, England, and yet the words "Kyoto," "Bali" and "Canada" were on many lips.

I'm not a fan of phrases like "rogue state" to start with - like other empty catch-phrases such as "family values", it tends to carry implications that are unstated and each listener will "read in" their own understanding of the phrase. However, I can certainly see where the British professor was coming from - there have certainly been those who have accused the United States of "going rogue" by invading Iraq, and other actions of the Bush administration.

Byers then proceeds to enumerate a list of topics that would lend the impression that Harper has acted as a puppet to the Bush Whitehouse.

1. For on the other side of the planet, Environment Minister John Baird was blocking an agreement that would have bound the world's wealthiest countries to specific targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 – when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
   ...
   Instead, the Canadian delegation embraced the stubbornly unilateral, anti-environmental stance of U.S. President George W. Bush. They mimicked his demand – always intended as a deal breaker – that any specific binding targets include developing states.
   
   The move caught some foreign experts by surprise. Canada had previously shown the good sense not to join in Bush's most egregious mistakes, including the Iraq War.

   
   
   Generally speaking, I found the Harper government's stance at Bali reprehensible.
   


2. 
   

   Harper's Bush-like views extend beyond climate change. In July 2006, he described the far-reaching destruction of Lebanese infrastructure as a "measured" response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier, souring our relations with Arab states and precluding a diplomatic role for Canada in the Middle East.

   
   
   Yep, Israel's destruction in Lebanon was another case of aping typical American foreign policy to any conflict involving Israel.
   



3. He has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights, Russia over the Arctic and Iran over ambassadors, rather than seizing opportunities to constructively engage these increasingly important states.

   
   
   Again, Harper's thuggish approach to relations with China is something I've criticized as well.
   



4. In Afghanistan, Harper has stubbornly opposed negotiations with dissident groups, shown a casual disregard for the rights of detainees, and seems to view the mission mostly as a way of currying favour with the United States.
   
   Why else would his defence minister, Peter MacKay, invite the U.S. ambassador along for a Christmas visit to Canada's troops in Kandahar?

   
   
   Oh yes, the visit where Mackay made unfounded accusations of Iran, which are causing officials to have to tap dance around. Not to mention the "spontaneous" propaganda visits that seem to happen every time Harper wants a boost in the polls.
   



5. Thanks to Harper, Canada has become the pliant instrument of a failed U.S. presidency. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a vassal state.

   
   
   In recent months, I've found it necessary to characterize Harper's foreign policy as making Canada a vassal state.
   

From there Byers goes on to comment on what he thinks Canada should be doing on various fronts, and makes one very key comment:

On all foreign policy issues, let's not be afraid to conduct our own analyses, to have our own national debates. In the end, we'll likely decide to work with the United States about 95 per cent of the time.

On the remaining 5 per cent, let's not be surprised when the U.S. government expresses displeasure or even makes threats. That's what good negotiators do, as they prepare for the next bargaining round.

This is important. Canada's real strength on the world stage is in its image as an "honest broker" with Washington. Namely that we have a certain independence of opinion and direction, but also understand where we share common cause with Washington. We need to be seen as willing and able to sidestep those places where an often intransigent government in Washington is radically out of step with the rest of the world. We do ourselves few favours if we simply follow Washington's whim blindly.

However, returning to my original topic, there's quite a difference between Jonas' column and Byers'. Where Jonas starts his argument from the incorrect assertion that:

Human rights laws and tribunals are based on the notion that being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human right. It isn’t

... and then proceeds to rant on repeating an utterly bogus conservative talking point about Human Rights Commissions that both Ezra Levant and Nigel Hannaford had spouted previously. (BTW, the human rights laws for Canada and most provinces (e.g. Alberta) are available online, and it would do many of the "pundits" some good to actually spend some time reading them before they go off making the kind of sweepingly stupid statements that Jonas, Levant and Hannaford have all done)

In comparison, Byers starts with a statement that someone else made, proceeds to substantiate it by giving examples that reinforce where that perception could come from, and then makes some concrete and tangible suggestions as to what Canada should do differently.

Does that make Byers a "wingnut" on the "left"? Not in this writer's opinion - he has actually substantiated his claims with evidence that can be discussed. You can argue that you disagree with his analysis of Harper's behaviour (if that is your stance), and proceed from that point, but he has provided the particulars upon which his position rests.

Why Hate Crime Laws Matter

According to some right wing bloggers, an apparently low rate of conviction means that hate crimes don't really matter.

Sure - unless you are the victim of a hate crime. In which case it is all too real.

Getting the tar kicked out of you because someone thinks you are gay, belong to the wrong religion or whatever is all too real, and if the motive can be demonstrated as being 'hate related' there is a legitimacy to adding that to the list of convictions.

Hate crime statistics are troublesome because hate crimes themselves are notoriously under reported, and it is extremely hard to get a conviction because in order to demonstrate that the crime was in fact a hate crime, the prosecution must demonstrate motive - something that most prosecutors find extremely difficult to accomplish.

Hate crimes are the tool of the bully. The bully in this case seeks to intimidate not just the victim, but other members of the same "group" as the victim. While word of a hate crime is likely to spread within the community of the victim, few among minority communities are willing to draw attention to themselves - which makes it less likely that the crime will actually be reported.

This does not mean that the crimes do not occur, nor does it mean that they are any less serious than other crimes against the person (or their property). The legal concept of "hate crime" is simply a way for the legal system to recognize a serious aggravating factor in the offense. A low frequency of reporting, and similarly lower still numbers of convictions does not invalidate the legal constructs involved.