To the polls?

According to the Conservatives, it's time to collapse the Liberal Government in Ottawa.

This would land Canadians at the polls sometime in June.

Frankly, at the moment, I'm thinking it's time to start a party called "None of the Above". Right now, we have a dysfunctional parliament, nominally headed up by the Liberals - whose inner/upper circles appear about as rotten as any I've seen; an opposition fractured across three parties all of which have significant problems - and none of which strike me as "ready" to govern.

Duceppe - well - he's got one thing in mind, and I don't like it. The one piece of good news is that BQ couldn't get a seat outside of Quebec if it tried.

Layton - sigh - he showed so much promise before the last election, but the William-Shatneresque overtones of his campaign speeches didn't exactly make people comfortable with him - and there's still the long standing issue of the NDP getting past the old McArthy-era "better dead than red" associations that still echo in this country.

Harper - just makes me queasy. He's not a particularly compelling speaker, and he hasn't yet managed to convince many that the radical factions that were always the fatal weakness of the Reform/Alliance parties are actually moderated after the merger. (In fact, there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that they aren't)

As for Martin, in his best light, has managed to come out looking like he is the pianist in a brothel - the one who's saying "this is a brothel?" while the place is being raided. At worst, it appears that the rot still pervades his party. A few people I've heard have commented that he is either corrupt or incompetent - talk about a damning indictment. (But sadly for a Prime Minister, bad news at the polls)

Ugh! - what an ugly mess. The polls I've seen lately suggest that many voters feel the same way - the parties aren't moving in the polls all that much - meaning that if we wind up at the polls in June, we might just get no more than another minority government. We might get sufficient general apathy that only the "interest" votes get out, and we get a slim majority government that those groups will then demand their pound of flesh from.

In the department of _NOT_GETTING_IT_

...we have Paul Jackson's latest column.

According to Paul Jackson, we should pity poor Bishop Fred Henry, who now faces an investigation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. After the Bishop's latest column in which he attempted to back-pedal and wound up sticking his other foot in his mouth, I find it a little hard to overly sympathetic.

Says Mr. Jackson:

Here's a major flaw in the Alberta Human Rights Commission process: Anyone can file a complaint and it doesn't cost them a single penny. Yet, to defend himself, Bishop Henry has had to go to one of Canada's top law firms, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, and get them to prepare an enormous brief.

The costs the diocese will incur could have been spent on any of the charitable and community works performed by the church in our city.

So - let me get this straight. Bishop Henry is using his Diocese's monies to defend himself. Hmmm - those funds come from where - oh yes - the people of the congregations, and whatever investments the church has made over the centuries with tithes etc.

So, those monies cannot be used for "good works"? They could, but the good Bishop was idiot enough to demand that the government "coercively legislate to suppress homosexuality" in his first "Pastoral Letter".

Up to that point, I actually have no problem with Bishop Henry's letter. I disagree with his stance, but I have no problem with the content of what he wrote. Up to that point he was engaging in a perfectly legitimate, theologically-based ministration to his flock.

For me, that line of his letter stepped over a line. He moved from theology and legitimate religious discussion into political advocacy. Worse, the wording he used was so broad that it could - and was - easily read by many to suggest that he sanctioned using the law to marginalize a minority group in society.

Of course, Paul Jackson is standing up on his hind legs and yapping away about the evils of this "Kangaroo Court" (as he calls it) who "persecuting" the Good Bishop(tm) for his religious beliefs. They aren't, they are investigating a complaint that arose from what the Bishop wrote in his Pastoral letter (and reiterated many times in his columns for the Calgary Sun).

The complaint is both serious and legitimate. It is serious in that it is the first real test of the boundaries between freedom of religion, as guaranteed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the non-discrimination clauses in section 15. Indeed, the Bishop has truly opened a can of worms with his words.

I don't mind Bishop Fred Henry ranting away from the pulpit - he can pretty much say as he wishes. However, once he starts using his position as a leader of the church to demand that the political system engage in systematic discrimination, he has stepped over the line from legitimate reinforcement of Roman Catholic teaching and has begun to operate as a political lobbyist. As a leader in his church, he is in a position of implicit authority, and further can be accused of using his position to spread hostility against those he chooses to marginalize. (You have to admit, the reading of a Pastoral Letter at Sunday Mass is one heck of a publication and distribution mechanism - beats anything the Aryan Nations have at their disposal!)

As is the case with any leader, the Bishop must be even more sensitive to how his words will be received. I personally think (especially given Bishop Henry's latest diatribe that he knew darn well how his words would be interpreted, and he wrote what he meant to say. Unlike a more skilled political writer, Bishop Henry hasn't yet figured out how to be adequately "ambiguous" so that he can use the "you're just taking it out of context" defense.

Personally, if I were Roman Catholic, I would be seriously upset with the Bishop for putting the Church into the position of wasting its resources defending his political ambitions.

A Critic of Israel is a What???

Driving into work this morning, I happened to catch "Commentary" on CBC's Eyeopener program.

Today's speaker was some lawyer from "The Center of the Universe(tm)" (aka Toronto) who was arguing that modern criticism of the Israeli state is somehow anti-Semitism in a new guise.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and others that are quite loud in their critiques of Israel. However, I don't think the existance of these loons justifies a global assertion that any criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic.

The author on the radio this morning went on to assert that Israel has been unduly maligned on the world stage. After all, where are those critics when it comes to China's treatment of Tibet; Russia's handling of Chechnya, or the ongoing civil war in Sudan?

Further, he asserted that Israel has experienced some 20,000 acts of "Palestinian Terrorism" in the last year. Therefore, Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians has been quite benign.

First, just because I happen to think that the Israeli government - especially under Sharon - is as much a part of the problem as the terrorist organizations claiming to be fighting "for the Palestinian Cause(tm)" does not make me anti-Semitic. Criticism of the behaviour of governments is legitimate discourse. I may, for example, criticise the Iranian government for its policies towards women. That doesn't make me "anti-Islamic" either.

The second part of the author's complaints were that the world appears to be more inclined to condemn Israel for its practices while other, equally (or more) egregious events are taking place. This is not a legitimate defense of Israel's actions towards the Palestinians. The fact that other nations are engaging in activities that I would politely describe as noxious doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for its actions vis a vis the Palestinian people.

Expressed concerns about Israel's behaviour are no more "anti-Semitic" than criticism of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq is "pro-terrorism".

The situation in Israel is socially and politically complex, riddled with issues that ripple back throughout history and have never been adequately resolved. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come to a solution. Both sides have sunk to new lows in human affairs. It is past time for them to put aside their pugilism, and move forward. Extremism, violence and retribution solve nothing, and do little more than create more bodies to be buried.

To say so is neither anti-Arab, nor is it anti-Israeli. It is a legitimate critique of the situation. No more, no less. Those that accuse all critics of being "anti-Semitic" are engaging in hysterical over-generalizations.

A "Hidden Agenda" ?

Right now there are a number of pundits (conservative and not) talking about Stephen Harper's "hidden agenda".

I'll agree with Janet L. Jackson for once - there's very little about Harper's Agenda that is hidden.

Now, on the other side of that coin, there's very little about the Conservative Agenda that I like either. The calculus of their economics makes about as much sense as Reaganomics did in the '80s - cut taxes, spend more on the military.

Harper's stated desired to cozy up with George W. Bush doesn't make me feel very good either. Bush is a moral absolutist with his head so firmly embedded in his bible that I don't think he has a clue about the so-called average man on the street.

With Theo-Cons like Ted Byfield running around claiming that Harper owes them some kind of debt, I can only imagine what kind of regressive legislation could come along, all "backed up" by the 'not-withstanding' clause of the Charter.

Just imagine the possibilities:

- Abortion banned because it's immoral.
- Contraceptives only available with a doctor's prescription. (including condoms)
- Abstinence-only sex education.

- Death Penalty revived a la Texas
- Social service delivery handed over to religious groups. (Mandatory Bible study before a welfare cheque is handed over?)
- Discrimination based on biblical scripture not only condoned, but legislated

- Recriminalization of sexuality
- Equality rights provisions of the charter ignored, return to the WASP dominated rules of the pre-1960's era.

- Fund-it-yourself healthcare and education
- Mandatory Bible Study in schools - even if you aren't Christian.

The list goes on and on. Harper hasn't said any of these things per se, but people like Ted Byfield, Bishop Fred Henry, Paul Jackson and others have at one time or another over the last few years. These are the public figures that ostensibly back Stephen Harper's "Conservatives" - do you really want to know what's in the back rooms?

Is Harper the lesser evil to Martin's Liberals? I don't think so - but then again, I'm think about voting for something else entirely these days. I've had enough of the horse manure from both parties. I actually feel somewhat sorry for Martin - he's paying the political price for Jean Chretien's malfeasance, and Martin doesn't strike me as a "corrupt" man the way the Chretien did.

Until the current 'Conservative' party shows some real signs of moving beyond the Reform/Alliance days, this is not a party that I am comfortable supporting. I'm too familiar with the narrow-minded, self-righteous crap that came out of the Reform/Alliance party, and this country desperately needs to move beyond that.

Why States Must Maintain Faith In A Cautious Balance

At heart, I'm a rationalist, and I always have been. That doesn't mean I don't respect people of faith, merely that I value well considered, rational reasoning above that which is based primarily on "articles of faith".

This morning, while I was perusing the news sites I visit on the Web, I found something on CNN that is deeply disturbing. It appears that constant hectoring from extreme religious groups is causing the state government to once again re-open the can of worms that is the discussion about evolution.

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin Thursday in Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

The first thing that goes through my mind is 'What the heck are they thinking?'. Then it turns out that a group called "The Intelligent Design Network" is one of the advocates for this debate:

Irigonegaray's opponent will be attorney John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas organization that argues the Earth was created through intentional design rather than random organism evolution.

The group is one of many that have been formed over the last several years to challenge the validity of evolutionary concepts and seek to open the schoolroom door to ideas that humans and other living creatures are too intricately designed to have come about randomly.

Fundamentally, Intelligent Design (ID) is a desperate attempt on the part of creation advocates to hide their theology behind a veneer of apparent rationalism. I've read (among others), Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" - one of the better known ID texts out there. My analysis of it is an essay unto itself, and perhaps one day I'll post here (over several days). Suffice it to say that although Dr. Behe is a very smart man, his arguments left me feeling not only were they incomplete, they were deeply flawed from a rational standpoint.

The basic argument that ID advocates make is that the world is far too complex, and far too elegant to have occurred by "mere random chance". Therefore, some "higher power" had to have "designed it". Okay, fine, you've replaced the word "God" with the more abstract "Higher Power", and for a change you are actually arguing without referencing the Scriptural Genesis story. I suppose that's a small improvement. Unfortunately, there is an underlying theism in the argument. That higher power is a deity of some sort - whether it is God, Allah, Odin, Ra or Zeus.

The odd thing is that I actually agree with the Creationists and ID people on one point - Evolution is not "proven" yet. There is compelling evidence in its favour, and of all the explanatory models I have seen, it seems reasonably complete to my eyes. (Granted, I'm not a biologist or anthropologist by training, so there may be more problems I haven't heard about) However, if I apply Occam's Razor to the arguments over evolution versus other theories, evolution has the relative grace of being simple. Simple models (as opposed to simplistic) have this nasty tendency to be correct - even if you don't like the conclusions.

What worries me about the form of this debate in Kansas is the obvious undertones of conservative religious views being brought to bear. Frankly, if the ID argument has enough evidence behind it to stand up to peer review for journal publication, I'd be quite happy to see it in the classrooms alongside evolution. So far, the ID people have claimed that they can't get published in peer reviewed journals because of "discrimination". I'd say it's far more probable that the issue isn't discrimination so much as a lack of compelling evidence presented in their papers on the subject.

If the religious conservatives want to talk about Creation, ID (or our descent from pink chocolate bunnies), let's put that in a class talking about theology in general. Science is science - it is an attempt to study the world objectively. Clouding the issue with a bunch of religious issues doesn't help a 12 year old understand basic chemistry, physics and biology. Science is riddled with theories - models that appear to explain the evidence, but are not provably complete. Evolution is one of those, and is a legitimate part of study. Like democracy, science isn't perfect - but it's the best we've got right now.

Professionally, I write software for a living. The systems I work on are large and complex - and every so often we run into problems where we sit there and scratch our heads and say "that shouldn't happen". Eventually, after staring at it long enough, we find out that yes it can (obviously - it did), and the piece of code that allowed it to occur simply had an ever so tiny probability of allowing the observed behaviour. In a very microcosmic sense, this underscores to me the likelihood of random chance events actually occuring, no matter how tiny the odds are.

"Millions to one odds happen nine times out of ten"
- paraphrased from Terry Pratchett.

Bishop Henry - Politician

At first glance, Bishop Henry's article in the Sun yesterday appears to be his first attempt at political backpedalling. I've suspected for a while that Bishop Henry has his eye on achieving political power in this country. I thought at first that he had made an actual attempt to back pedal from a major case of 'foot-in-mouth'itis that he has been suffering from lately.

First, Bishop Henry reviews one of the most controversial statements in his January Pastoral letter:

In one of my previous pastoral letters, I wrote: "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

He then goes on to argue:

The state obviously responds to each of these threats to family life in different ways as it exercises its coercive power.

The government has a solemn obligation to protect, not re-engineer, an institution that is more fundamental to human life than the state.

Okay - so far, so good. He appears to be trying to moderate the intent of his January letter.

Next, we read:

For example, in the case of marriage, federal legislation prohibits people from marrying if they are related linearly or as brother and sister, whether by whole blood, half blood or by adoption.

Specifically, a woman may not marry her grandfather, father, grandson, son or brother. A man may not marry his grandmother, mother, granddaughter, daughter or sister.

The time has come for the government of Canada to use its coercive powers to legislate that a couple being married must be one man and one woman.

This is not a fascist or Hitler-like position, nor even an anti-homosexual stance, but it reflects Christian teaching on the primordial status of marriage and family life.

Ah! Bingo - not only does the Bishop show us that his intentions are no more moderated than they were in January. In fact, he comes around and provides the weakness of his argument as well in that very assumption.

First, regardless of what various people think the preamble to this country's Constitution means, it does not specify a particular notion of God, nor does it sanction Bishop Henry's particular brand of Christian God.

He is correct in raising the issue that the Supreme Court's reference ruling on marriage does not obligate the state to allow same-gender marriage. However, there is a significant body of prior rulings in a variety of areas that demonstrate that the laws of the land are in fact discriminatory to same-gender unions.

These have turned up time and again in areas such as bereavement rights, CCP survivor benefits, "next of kin" issues, criminal law (there are some rules around spouses as witnesses in criminal cases), taxation and a plethora of other situations where the language of the law speaks about spouses and their rights and obligations under law.

As I have argued before, opponents of Same-Gender Marriage object primarily on religious lines, and presuppose either a religious or procreative (or both) role for marriage that is uniquely applicable to a heterosexual relationship. This opposition to the modification of the legal definition of marriage misses the point entirely. There is a clause in the constitution that says that we are all equal before the law.

Under this light, the state has three real choices available to it:

1. Refuse to do anything, and have every piece of legislation that provides specific rights and privileges to a spouse challenged in the courts.

2. Legislate against same-gender marriage explicitly and support it with the "notwithstanding clause". Not only does this continue to subject the country to this debate every 5 years, but it also fails utterly to address the costly prospect of every law on the books being dragged through the courts - at taxpayer expense.

3. Alter the _legal_ definition of marriage and move on.

If you argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreative, then do you invalidate marriages with no offspring after so many years? Do you prohibit post-menopausal women from remarrying? Of course not.

Looking around, the argument that same-gender unions cannot raise families is simply false logic. There are many same-gender couples raising children. As far as I have been able to determine, the worst that happens to these children is that they might have more open minds as a result.

Even moderated by the language of his interpretation of faith, Bishop Henry continues to demonstrate wilful ignorance of modern knowledge, as well as an amazingly calcified perspective on the legal issues in this discussion.

Further, other writings of the Bishop have railed against the progressive "normalization" of homosexuality in society. Omigosh - if people think its normal, he won't have anyone to hold up as a bastion of immorality. After all, think of all the nasty things that those you don't understand must do! Bishop Henry chooses not to understand a minority group so that he can continue to stand in judgement over them with a clear conscience.

I seem to recall that happening to Jews in Europe for centuries; and before that, the Roman Empire did something very similar to early Christians. Perhaps the good Bishop should stew on that with a side order of law before he goes off writing his next public expose of ignorance.

Cogito, Ergo Rant

... I think, therefore I rant...

Once again, Bishop Fred Henry has opened his obnoxious mouth on the issue of same-gender marriage in a "pastoral letter".

If I can find the full text of the letter, I'll give it a more detailed analysis. Right now, all I can find is the excerpts posted on the Calgary Herald's website.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't want Bishop Henry silenced. His voice is a legitimate part of the discourse in this country. However, Bishop Henry is treading dangerously close, if not over, the line between legitimate religious discourse and political lobby. As a private citizen, Bishop Henry is free to advocate however he should see fit. However, in doing so via pastoral letters, the Bishop is abusing his position as the Bishop by attempting to dictate how his parishoners should behave politically. More pointedly, since he is clearly acting in his official capacity as Bishop, Henry is taking his diocese into the realm of political lobby.

What's wrong with that? you might ask. Per se, nothing - except for a few clauses in the tax law that give Church's and other charitable organizations significant privileges. However, those privileges are bounded, and there are specific rules for political lobby organizations. There has been quite a hue and cry over phone calls to church leaders from CCRA officials warning leaders like Henry that their actions could result in the Church losing their charitable organization status. This is not an attempt to silence Bishop Henry - it's a warning that he is treading dangerously close to a line in the laws of this land. (Like it or not, the law has its boundaries - and some of them are obscure and come along to bite when you least expect them) As he moves towards political activism, and away from scriptural discussion of the issues, leaders like Henry must be more careful to separate their actions as church leaders and as private citizens.

In an era where more and more people are drifting away from the Roman Catholic Church, one can only be agog at the stubborn antics of people like Bishop Henry. His outright hostility towards other human beings is astonishing. His wilfull ignorance of the accrued knowledge since psychology/psychiatry emerged in their modern forms only serves to reinforce the suspicion that many people view churches with. There was a time when churches served a real purpose in the community - today, under the leadership of people like Fred Henry, the Church is becoming a source not of enlightenment and contemplation, but instead a place where real thought is suppressed, and replaced instead by blind obeyance of the church leadership.

Bishop Henry - the challenge to you is simple. Make your case, and make it in terms of legitimate religious discussion. As Bishop, you are beholden to the teachings of your church - that's fine. Your constant demands that the government legislate this way or that based on your scriptural beliefs are offensive to those who do not subscribe to your assumptions. I don't care what you advocate to your parishoners in the realm of spiritual belief. I do care when you choose to disrespect Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and demand that legislation reflective of your dogma be imposed on me.

Your right to swing your fist ends precisely where my nose begins!