The tug-of-war between Michael Schiavo and Terri Schiavo's parents over Terri's fate is over. This is a relief in a way - at least she can no longer be an emotional pawn in the media, and nobody can take further actions that could impact on her condition.
I am deeply troubled by the nature of this case - somehow condemning someone to a slow death, no matter how grave their injuries may be is deeply troubling to me. In many respects, I view this as purely a moral issue, not one that should ever have involved the courts. (And oddly, for once, I actually find my own feelings landing much closer to the positions expressed by the various religious groups that weighed into the debate)
Given that this whole saga has unfolded in the United States, I find myself wondering if Terri's parents will launch a 'wrongful death' suit against Michael Schiavo. Given the way the US legal system seems to work in such cases, they may well be able to argue that Michael Schiavo's actions very deliberately precipitated Terri's demise, and therefore he bears at least a civil responsibility for that act.
Given the bitterness of the feud between the Schiavo and Schindler families right now, I would not be at all surprised to see such a lawsuit brought to bear.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
This will be interesting indeed
In January, Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry had the following "pastoral letter" read out to the congregations within the diocese (and I imagine, quite a number of other dioceses followed suit).
Sure enough, Bishop Henry's letter has resulted in a human rights complaint in Alberta.
To see how this plays out will indeed be interesting, for it will be one of those rare cases that actually tests the boundaries between the fundamental freedoms (in particular, Religion (2a) and Expression (2b) in section 2 of the Charter of Rights, Equality Rights (section 15), and the boundaries laid out in the 'hate propaganda' section of the Criminal Code. (No, this isn't a criminal complaint per se, but you can be sure that sections 318, 319 of the criminal code will be part of the discussion.
The article on CTV suggests that the complaint against Bishop Henry takes issue with the aspects of Bishop Henry's article that associate homosexuality with evil, pornography etc, and call upon the government to suppress homosexuality through law.
Given that Calgary is overwhelming represented by Conservative MPs in Ottawa, it's unlikely that any of the political representatives would object to the content of Bishop Henry's letter.
I dissected Bishop Henry's letter in a rant earlier this year, and I don't see any point in rehashing it. At the moment, the Bishop is busy lapping up all of the media attention he is attracting. In a few months, when this issue actually gets into real discussion, that's when the good Bishop may find it necessary to eat a little "humble pie". (Of course, Alberta's human rights tribunal doesn't exactly have a stellar track record...)
While I respect Bishop Henry's right to express his opinions, and his obligation to represent the Roman Catholic Church's position on these and other issues, there must also be boundaries to what is said. Bishop Henry's letter certainly was an illogical rant, but whether it stepped into the realm of inciting discriminatory behaviour is open to some discussion. I can understand the reasoning of the complaint raised, but at the same time, it's far from clear that Bishop Henry has necessarily overstepped his bounds either.
In several dimensions, this complaint may be as important as the Delwin Vriend case a few years ago. (Of course, the amount of howling out of the Klein government over that one doesn't make me overly optimistic for the future of this case.
More cynically, I'm beginning to suspect that Bishop Henry is playing his cards to raise his public profile with an eye to eventually running for public office.
[Update]:
Something to consider looking at the Bishop's letter. What if his pastoral letter had been talking about Jewish people, or Asians? If Bishop Henry had asserted that the coercive power of the government should be used to suppress these peoples, what would the reaction be?
A quote I saw a long time ago read "Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". Does the Bishop's letter cross that line? Much food for thought...
Sure enough, Bishop Henry's letter has resulted in a human rights complaint in Alberta.
To see how this plays out will indeed be interesting, for it will be one of those rare cases that actually tests the boundaries between the fundamental freedoms (in particular, Religion (2a) and Expression (2b) in section 2 of the Charter of Rights, Equality Rights (section 15), and the boundaries laid out in the 'hate propaganda' section of the Criminal Code. (No, this isn't a criminal complaint per se, but you can be sure that sections 318, 319 of the criminal code will be part of the discussion.
The article on CTV suggests that the complaint against Bishop Henry takes issue with the aspects of Bishop Henry's article that associate homosexuality with evil, pornography etc, and call upon the government to suppress homosexuality through law.
Given that Calgary is overwhelming represented by Conservative MPs in Ottawa, it's unlikely that any of the political representatives would object to the content of Bishop Henry's letter.
I dissected Bishop Henry's letter in a rant earlier this year, and I don't see any point in rehashing it. At the moment, the Bishop is busy lapping up all of the media attention he is attracting. In a few months, when this issue actually gets into real discussion, that's when the good Bishop may find it necessary to eat a little "humble pie". (Of course, Alberta's human rights tribunal doesn't exactly have a stellar track record...)
While I respect Bishop Henry's right to express his opinions, and his obligation to represent the Roman Catholic Church's position on these and other issues, there must also be boundaries to what is said. Bishop Henry's letter certainly was an illogical rant, but whether it stepped into the realm of inciting discriminatory behaviour is open to some discussion. I can understand the reasoning of the complaint raised, but at the same time, it's far from clear that Bishop Henry has necessarily overstepped his bounds either.
In several dimensions, this complaint may be as important as the Delwin Vriend case a few years ago. (Of course, the amount of howling out of the Klein government over that one doesn't make me overly optimistic for the future of this case.
More cynically, I'm beginning to suspect that Bishop Henry is playing his cards to raise his public profile with an eye to eventually running for public office.
[Update]:
Something to consider looking at the Bishop's letter. What if his pastoral letter had been talking about Jewish people, or Asians? If Bishop Henry had asserted that the coercive power of the government should be used to suppress these peoples, what would the reaction be?
A quote I saw a long time ago read "Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". Does the Bishop's letter cross that line? Much food for thought...
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Legality versus Morality and this Blog
One of my friends, and a regular reader of this space, recently commented that I tend towards arguments that are weighted in the legal aspects of the topics.
I don't perceive that as a criticism, so much as a valid observation. There's a number of reasons for this. First, recent discussions and debates in this country have caused me to go and read the laws of the land in some detail, and I have begun to find this particular domain rather intriguing. Second, I find that many of the issues involve the application of law in domains that are heavily coloured by moral issues. In order to discuss those issues without descending into arguments that are founded on moral assumptions that may not be shared beyond my own inner dialogues, I find it useful to frame my observations in the context of law. I will also often argue that more subtle moral issues should not in fact be legislated at all for the simple reason that such legislation is simply unenforceable, and presupposes values which may not be commonly held in a society as varied as Canada's.
An excellent example of this appeared in a column on The Western Standard, Ezra Levant's attempt to resurrect the old "Alberta Report" magazine. What led me to this column was a series of comments in other parts of the Canadian political blogosphere talking about a campaign against the Charter of Rights going on in the Conservative party. Basically, there's a lot of sneering and snickering at the Charter right now because the Conservatives don't like how it is being applied in a number of domains.
In this column is a beautiful example of how an assumption of shared values can be so problematic:
First of all, the obvious comment would be "whose God"??? The Conservatives seem to conveniently desire to assume a quasi-Old Testament version of God, but what about Allah, the various dieties of the Hindu religion(s), Asian spirituality, etc. All of which are valid and perceived to be equal under section 2 of that same charter.
The complaint over Bill C-250 (an amendment to the hate crimes section of the Canadian Criminal Code) is possibly subject to challenge under the Charter. Those that are screaming so loudly about their "rights" to spew hatred against an identifiable minority group should take their challenge and put it to the courts as a legal case. If the law as written is in fact unreasonably constraining religious freedoms around that topic, there should be a fairly clear case to challenge the content of those provisions.
Of course, the author of the rant in Western Standard goes on to argue:
The Conservatives have long argued that Section 33 of the Charter should be invoked to suppress the same-gender marriage issue. It certainly could be done that way, but I question the wisdom of such an approach. All that Section 33's invocation would do is defer the issue for 5 years, and reopen the wounds all over at that time. Hardly what I would call "dealing with" the issue at all. Since Section 33 has only ever been used in Quebec, and it has been used in a manner that suppresses legitimate rights of non-francophone Quebecers, I find the notion of using in the marriage context to be deeply troubling. What's next? Laws that suppress freedoms of speech, association and belief with Section 33 invoked to "prop up public decency"?
Or would the 1950s "censorship boards" come back to life, their actions sanctioned by laws that could only be supported by invoking Section 33?
(If the Conservatives want to claim false associations between same-gender marriage, bestiality and polygamy, why can't I assert that they want to resurrect a bunch of dead government institutions for the "public good"???)
As Quixote has commented in his Blog, many of the so-called "Conservatives" are impossible to argue with rationally. Their positions are pre-assigned to them, and carefully filtered through the lens of their particular brand of Faith. It is important to make the counterpoint arguments heard. Knowledge is not the enemy of Faith (in spite of what some believe), ignorance is the enemy of liberty and justice.
I don't perceive that as a criticism, so much as a valid observation. There's a number of reasons for this. First, recent discussions and debates in this country have caused me to go and read the laws of the land in some detail, and I have begun to find this particular domain rather intriguing. Second, I find that many of the issues involve the application of law in domains that are heavily coloured by moral issues. In order to discuss those issues without descending into arguments that are founded on moral assumptions that may not be shared beyond my own inner dialogues, I find it useful to frame my observations in the context of law. I will also often argue that more subtle moral issues should not in fact be legislated at all for the simple reason that such legislation is simply unenforceable, and presupposes values which may not be commonly held in a society as varied as Canada's.
An excellent example of this appeared in a column on The Western Standard, Ezra Levant's attempt to resurrect the old "Alberta Report" magazine. What led me to this column was a series of comments in other parts of the Canadian political blogosphere talking about a campaign against the Charter of Rights going on in the Conservative party. Basically, there's a lot of sneering and snickering at the Charter right now because the Conservatives don't like how it is being applied in a number of domains.
In this column is a beautiful example of how an assumption of shared values can be so problematic:
Here’s what the charter really says, in its very first line: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law . . . ” Here’s what it says immediately afterward: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
You might remember that these are the same “reasonable limits” that allow the government to limit gun ownership and ban certain types of speech that it finds offensive. Yet, somehow, whenever it comes to Liberal causes--gay marriage, voting rights for prisoners--limits are deemed unreasonable.
First of all, the obvious comment would be "whose God"??? The Conservatives seem to conveniently desire to assume a quasi-Old Testament version of God, but what about Allah, the various dieties of the Hindu religion(s), Asian spirituality, etc. All of which are valid and perceived to be equal under section 2 of that same charter.
The complaint over Bill C-250 (an amendment to the hate crimes section of the Canadian Criminal Code) is possibly subject to challenge under the Charter. Those that are screaming so loudly about their "rights" to spew hatred against an identifiable minority group should take their challenge and put it to the courts as a legal case. If the law as written is in fact unreasonably constraining religious freedoms around that topic, there should be a fairly clear case to challenge the content of those provisions.
Of course, the author of the rant in Western Standard goes on to argue:
It’s obvious by the way Prime Minister Paul Martin has been trash-talking the charter’s Section 33 lately, that he doesn’t really consider the charter to be that sacrosanct after all. Just the parts that he likes. In fact, the notwithstanding clause is as valid a section of the charter as any other.
The Conservatives have long argued that Section 33 of the Charter should be invoked to suppress the same-gender marriage issue. It certainly could be done that way, but I question the wisdom of such an approach. All that Section 33's invocation would do is defer the issue for 5 years, and reopen the wounds all over at that time. Hardly what I would call "dealing with" the issue at all. Since Section 33 has only ever been used in Quebec, and it has been used in a manner that suppresses legitimate rights of non-francophone Quebecers, I find the notion of using in the marriage context to be deeply troubling. What's next? Laws that suppress freedoms of speech, association and belief with Section 33 invoked to "prop up public decency"?
Or would the 1950s "censorship boards" come back to life, their actions sanctioned by laws that could only be supported by invoking Section 33?
(If the Conservatives want to claim false associations between same-gender marriage, bestiality and polygamy, why can't I assert that they want to resurrect a bunch of dead government institutions for the "public good"???)
As Quixote has commented in his Blog, many of the so-called "Conservatives" are impossible to argue with rationally. Their positions are pre-assigned to them, and carefully filtered through the lens of their particular brand of Faith. It is important to make the counterpoint arguments heard. Knowledge is not the enemy of Faith (in spite of what some believe), ignorance is the enemy of liberty and justice.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Touching...
It's not very often that I find another writer has captured the essence of my own thoughts so well. Licia Corbella's article on Terri Schiavo cuts to the heart of my own feelings on this tragic situation.
I think she captures my own misgivings about the actions of Michael Schiavo and the US Court system in this matter quite nicely.
I think she captures my own misgivings about the actions of Michael Schiavo and the US Court system in this matter quite nicely.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Misunderstanding Freedom of Speech
I find the way that the hard-line right-wing commentators twist things around time and again, often misrepresenting facts to suit their own distorted perceptions about how the world works.
In the Saturday edition of the Calgary Sun, I was treated to 2/3 of a page dedicated to a tirade by American commentator Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter is notorious for manufacturing facts where convenient, and ignoring reality every bit as much.
Today, I was catching up on some of the columnists that normally write columns for the Sun Newspaper chain in Canada.
An interesting pattern is emerging - not merely misunderstanding, but outright distortion of the facts.
Columnist Link Byfield complains that freedom of speech is being suppressed. Why? Because University of Calgary officials didn't want a campus anti-abortion group to put up posters that tried to draw analogy between abortion and the holocaust. I think anyone with even a half a brain could figure out that the comparison is invalid at best, and offensive in the worst way to the memory of those that perished in those dark days.
His father, Ted Byfield is busy whining because the Conservative party didn't swing far enough to the right to suit his "Social Conservative" sensibilities. His complaint? Apparently the debate over abortion was "suppressed". (Read, the resolution didn't go the way he wanted it to, so he's going to sulk now) Similarly, Columnist Janet L. Jackson is whinging about the abortion issue. According to her, there is some massive conspiracy to start performing late term (9th month) abortions that the Liberal party is propogating. News to me, and nothing I've been able to dig up even hints that such a thing is part of the Liberal party policy agenda. (Oh - wait - they are changing the rules on the "morning-after" pill, aren't they? Of course, RU-486 won't do much good after the first 72 hours - but the rabid pro-life movement seems to view that as a late-term abortion.)
The complaints are consistent - whether the topic is abortion rights, same-gender marriage, divorce law, hate crimes law, or turbans in the RCMP. Basically, these people complain that a policy they dislike is "being shoved down their throats", or that their "freedom of speech" is being curtailed. Why? Usually because the changes in law that are taking place happen to constrain their ability to impose a particular moral code on others are being suppressed.
Omigosh - their right to spew unfounded vitriol against homosexuals is being curtailed - my goodness - they might actually have to found their irrational arguments in actual fact. What a horrifying concept!
Ted Byfield might have to explain, in rational terms, why a woman who has been raped should carry the resulting child to term.
Or - horror of horrors, they might have to actually come up with why allowing a couple to marry is going to cause the irreparable harm to society that they claim it will.
I will point out that none of these geniuses has put their money where their mouth is and actually challenged the laws in question before the courts. Why? Because they know full well that their position is not sustainable in the harsh light of legal scrutiny.
I do not want to take from them the right to express their opinions, I don't think that would be appropriate. I do want them to put their opinions forward with supporting evidence that is verifiable. If you want to assert that the society will crumble because of a marriage, that's fine, but I expect you to back that up with some kind of intelligible evidence.
Similarly, if you believe that a group of people should be marginalized, you darned well better have some pretty solid reasoning. Those that squawked about bill C-250 as an assault on their freedom of religion should step back and ask themselves just how a law that insists that their language not incite violence against people is contrary to their freedom of religion.
While I disagree with many of their suppositions, these people do have a legitimate voice in the discourse of the nation. It would be far more useful if they approached that discourse in the spirit of intelligent debate rather than the shrill, unfounded positions they continue to assert.
In the Saturday edition of the Calgary Sun, I was treated to 2/3 of a page dedicated to a tirade by American commentator Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter is notorious for manufacturing facts where convenient, and ignoring reality every bit as much.
Today, I was catching up on some of the columnists that normally write columns for the Sun Newspaper chain in Canada.
An interesting pattern is emerging - not merely misunderstanding, but outright distortion of the facts.
Columnist Link Byfield complains that freedom of speech is being suppressed. Why? Because University of Calgary officials didn't want a campus anti-abortion group to put up posters that tried to draw analogy between abortion and the holocaust. I think anyone with even a half a brain could figure out that the comparison is invalid at best, and offensive in the worst way to the memory of those that perished in those dark days.
His father, Ted Byfield is busy whining because the Conservative party didn't swing far enough to the right to suit his "Social Conservative" sensibilities. His complaint? Apparently the debate over abortion was "suppressed". (Read, the resolution didn't go the way he wanted it to, so he's going to sulk now) Similarly, Columnist Janet L. Jackson is whinging about the abortion issue. According to her, there is some massive conspiracy to start performing late term (9th month) abortions that the Liberal party is propogating. News to me, and nothing I've been able to dig up even hints that such a thing is part of the Liberal party policy agenda. (Oh - wait - they are changing the rules on the "morning-after" pill, aren't they? Of course, RU-486 won't do much good after the first 72 hours - but the rabid pro-life movement seems to view that as a late-term abortion.)
The complaints are consistent - whether the topic is abortion rights, same-gender marriage, divorce law, hate crimes law, or turbans in the RCMP. Basically, these people complain that a policy they dislike is "being shoved down their throats", or that their "freedom of speech" is being curtailed. Why? Usually because the changes in law that are taking place happen to constrain their ability to impose a particular moral code on others are being suppressed.
Omigosh - their right to spew unfounded vitriol against homosexuals is being curtailed - my goodness - they might actually have to found their irrational arguments in actual fact. What a horrifying concept!
Ted Byfield might have to explain, in rational terms, why a woman who has been raped should carry the resulting child to term.
Or - horror of horrors, they might have to actually come up with why allowing a couple to marry is going to cause the irreparable harm to society that they claim it will.
I will point out that none of these geniuses has put their money where their mouth is and actually challenged the laws in question before the courts. Why? Because they know full well that their position is not sustainable in the harsh light of legal scrutiny.
I do not want to take from them the right to express their opinions, I don't think that would be appropriate. I do want them to put their opinions forward with supporting evidence that is verifiable. If you want to assert that the society will crumble because of a marriage, that's fine, but I expect you to back that up with some kind of intelligible evidence.
Similarly, if you believe that a group of people should be marginalized, you darned well better have some pretty solid reasoning. Those that squawked about bill C-250 as an assault on their freedom of religion should step back and ask themselves just how a law that insists that their language not incite violence against people is contrary to their freedom of religion.
While I disagree with many of their suppositions, these people do have a legitimate voice in the discourse of the nation. It would be far more useful if they approached that discourse in the spirit of intelligent debate rather than the shrill, unfounded positions they continue to assert.
Shades of Hogan's Heroes
As soon as I read this article, I couldn't help but think of the comparisons to the old TV show "Hogan's Heroes"
So - we have the following ingredients:
1 x Tunnel (rather large) leading out of the camp
0 x Prisoners Missing
Somehow, I think there's a bunch of people sniggering their heads off right now in that camp.
Any nominations for Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz ?
So - we have the following ingredients:
1 x Tunnel (rather large) leading out of the camp
0 x Prisoners Missing
Somehow, I think there's a bunch of people sniggering their heads off right now in that camp.
Any nominations for Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz ?
Sunday, March 27, 2005
The Politicization of Religion
The following is a quote left on this blog by another reader:
The first thought that I had was WTF? Until I sat back and thought about it a little bit.
First of all, the underlying point of my commentary was that as religions codify their beliefs into absolute terms, they are guaranteed to fracture themselves as different factions emerge.
Second, in the Middle East, it's fairly apparent that religious bodies hold significant sway in the political arena; and more recently the Evangelical Christians have gained significant political sway in the United States.
The issue isn't my personal perceptions or beliefs with respect to the notion of "God". The fact is that my personal notion of "God" is likely to differ substantially from George Bush's, the Pope or just about anyone else.
The issue that I was addressing, and will continue to address, is the ongoing attempts of various religious institutions to impose their particular view of the universe on the peoples of a country. I was very troubled when George Bush referred to the pursuit of those who planned and sponsored 9/11/2001 as a "Crusade". I don't believe that was a "slip of the tongue", but really is reflected in the ongoing foreign policy of the Bush administration.
In countries like Canada and the United States which have the concept of "Freedom of Religion" embedded in their legal foundations, religion driving legislation is very worrisome. Freedom _of_ Religion also includes Freedom _FROM_ Religion - that is to say not only do you have the right to believe as you wish, but similarly, I have the freedom to believe otherwise. This creates a serious tension legislatively. Legislation must be codified in such a manner that it reflects rational consideration of the topic in a manner that is fundamentally secular. (Please note, that secularism does not preclude morality, but rather requires one to ask if the morality of an act is reflected in the notion of harm to individuals or society)
Power is amazing corrupter. Agreed. I recall that one guy got killed about 2000 years ago cuz he was talkin nice about everyone. The people in charge didn't dig it.
I find politics in the church a bit ridiculous, but there is something we all gotta get down with: It is the institutions that have made it so ugly - the big guy isn't a real-estate agent for the middle east, or a talkin head on CBSFOXABCPBS.
Just for kicks, take a moment to seperate your perceptions of this "god' thing from those of us that are screwing it up so badly.
The first thought that I had was WTF? Until I sat back and thought about it a little bit.
First of all, the underlying point of my commentary was that as religions codify their beliefs into absolute terms, they are guaranteed to fracture themselves as different factions emerge.
Second, in the Middle East, it's fairly apparent that religious bodies hold significant sway in the political arena; and more recently the Evangelical Christians have gained significant political sway in the United States.
The issue isn't my personal perceptions or beliefs with respect to the notion of "God". The fact is that my personal notion of "God" is likely to differ substantially from George Bush's, the Pope or just about anyone else.
The issue that I was addressing, and will continue to address, is the ongoing attempts of various religious institutions to impose their particular view of the universe on the peoples of a country. I was very troubled when George Bush referred to the pursuit of those who planned and sponsored 9/11/2001 as a "Crusade". I don't believe that was a "slip of the tongue", but really is reflected in the ongoing foreign policy of the Bush administration.
In countries like Canada and the United States which have the concept of "Freedom of Religion" embedded in their legal foundations, religion driving legislation is very worrisome. Freedom _of_ Religion also includes Freedom _FROM_ Religion - that is to say not only do you have the right to believe as you wish, but similarly, I have the freedom to believe otherwise. This creates a serious tension legislatively. Legislation must be codified in such a manner that it reflects rational consideration of the topic in a manner that is fundamentally secular. (Please note, that secularism does not preclude morality, but rather requires one to ask if the morality of an act is reflected in the notion of harm to individuals or society)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)