The family of the murdered Mississauga teenager decided to have a private burial, without the media or anyone else knowing. This sad story is following the same pattern: hushing, minimization, dismissals, contempt of the public, hiding, lies.
What angers me is the attempt by many individuals and organizations to divert the attention from or dismiss the importance of this case. This is definitely not just yet another episode of domestic violence. Neither is it the straw to break the camel's back in the cultural bruhaha being kicked around by whoever isn't too lazy.
It is an episode of intolerance first and foremost. An episode of intolerance of individual freedom and blatant contempt of life and the Law. Secondly it is an episode of violence, aggravated by premeditation, complicity and futile motives. The third aspect of this matter is the alarming mix of both denouncement and concealment, with the father turning himself in and the following hiding of the core motive for his frenzy, although the coldness of the planning stages of this assassination don't warrant the use of such a word.
The multiple facets of this issue do not reflect merely culture and criminal responsibility, as such events can occur in any household where those above do not know the basic rules of respecting other people's desires, who regard their children (or spouses, or younger relatives) as property to dispose of at their will. This can happen both in Islam and outside of it, and Canadians should wake up to this if they haven't already done so.
As usual, I reiterate that the issue is not merely religion but the underlying culture of rights, or absence thereof. With proper civic rights education for all Canadians and immigrants many of these tragedies can be averted.
Let me conclude with a remark about others giving or not giving warning of such events brewing up in their community. A greater involvement of citizens with the State forces such as the police and the prosecution service can be achieved when the media and politicians stop looking at cultural or religious characteristics in criminal events but say once and for all that murder is murder, premeditation is premeditation and futile motives are just that: futile motives. Full stop. Who's got the ears to listen will understand.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 December 2007
Monday, 12 November 2007
Fair trial down the drain
I am all for greater security for all nations. This, however, chills my blood. Barring defendants and lawyers from hearings where testimonies and evidence against them are being presented is nothing more than due process flushed down the toilet.
Protecting intelligence comes with better intelligence, i.e. one uncovers the whole gang rather than just an individual member. Protecting witnesses can be done in other ways, such as sworn declarations and witness protection programs.
I hereby allege that a kitten dies every time Stephane Dion makes a promise. Fearing violent reprisal, I ask that my testimony be heard under Section 86, thus not allowing Dion to know when, where and how he allegedly came to commit the heinous crime of kitten murder. I declare that I am the only person who could know of the when, where and how, therefore revealing such information would lead directly to me, thus Dion shouldn't be informed of these details. However, he should still defend himself and prove that he didn't kill those fluffy creatures.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, Section 86 and security certificates should do too.
Section 86 and Security certificates belong in the same group: laws that shouldn't be. They deprive the individual, whoever he or she may be, of the right to due process and fair trial. When we begin recognizing lower rights for some, we sin against our own rights because they too might be taken away at some point.
Relishing in one's perceived immunity from such measures with the pretexts of "I am a law abiding citizen" and "I have nothing to hide" is fallacious as well. Some day, somewhere it could be YOU. If, while in a foreign country, you or I would ask for due process we must do the same for those facing the Canadian justice and immigration systems, however despicable their beliefs, actions or intents might be.
Kill someone's rights and you kill your own.
Protecting intelligence comes with better intelligence, i.e. one uncovers the whole gang rather than just an individual member. Protecting witnesses can be done in other ways, such as sworn declarations and witness protection programs.
I hereby allege that a kitten dies every time Stephane Dion makes a promise. Fearing violent reprisal, I ask that my testimony be heard under Section 86, thus not allowing Dion to know when, where and how he allegedly came to commit the heinous crime of kitten murder. I declare that I am the only person who could know of the when, where and how, therefore revealing such information would lead directly to me, thus Dion shouldn't be informed of these details. However, he should still defend himself and prove that he didn't kill those fluffy creatures.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, Section 86 and security certificates should do too.
Section 86 and Security certificates belong in the same group: laws that shouldn't be. They deprive the individual, whoever he or she may be, of the right to due process and fair trial. When we begin recognizing lower rights for some, we sin against our own rights because they too might be taken away at some point.
Relishing in one's perceived immunity from such measures with the pretexts of "I am a law abiding citizen" and "I have nothing to hide" is fallacious as well. Some day, somewhere it could be YOU. If, while in a foreign country, you or I would ask for due process we must do the same for those facing the Canadian justice and immigration systems, however despicable their beliefs, actions or intents might be.
Kill someone's rights and you kill your own.
Friday, 26 October 2007
If discrimination doesn't pay let the market act!
Barbara Hall presents us in today's online Globe and Mail with a very interesting opinion on the nature of human rights and their importance. Despite agreeing with many of her points, I feel she places too much emphasis on legislation and not enough on the individual and the distinction between right and freedom.
While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.
A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.
The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.
Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.
In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.
I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.
Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home
While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.
A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.
The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.
Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.
In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.
I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.
Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home
Monday, 8 October 2007
Propriety Police - God save us from such stupidity
While the US are realizing that spreading democracy isn't just about Election Days, Starbucks and rock music, the party most governments prefer to deal with in Palestine (Fatah) sends out a new kind of police, the "Propriety Police". These guys are charged with the amazingly vital task of ensuring that improper behavior does not occur during Ramadan, such as smoking, eating before sunset and social interaction between young men and young women.
Right, is this the kind of behavior we expect from the moderate party we deal with? We froze all funding to the Hamas nutters because we deemed them radicals and terrorists who didn't recognize Israel, but Fatah is no better deal. Having tasted the rampant radicalism in certain segments of society, they are keen to monkey those whom they earlier despised. Rounding up to the lowest common denominator is, as usual, the easy way out.
What hope can there be for a society where a blatant denial of rights and freedoms by a government is at best greeted with enthusiasm and at worst just frowned upon? If I want a sandwich I should be free to get it at any time, be it day or night, from someone who is willing to sell it to me.
Be it Propriety Police, a National Committee for the Prevention of Nose-Picking or any other nonsense it has no place in a society on the way to progress. Bland attitudes to such patronizing behavior are a symptom of complacency and gullibility.
Considering the kind of ranting they hear all the time from their local radical leaders the hopes for progress in what used to be one of the Middle East's most promising pseudo-democracies look bleak. If they are visible at all.
Today is Thanksgiving Day. Among the thanks we raise to the Almighty, thank Him for the precious right to think and decide for ourselves that Canada and other real democracies grant us.
Right, is this the kind of behavior we expect from the moderate party we deal with? We froze all funding to the Hamas nutters because we deemed them radicals and terrorists who didn't recognize Israel, but Fatah is no better deal. Having tasted the rampant radicalism in certain segments of society, they are keen to monkey those whom they earlier despised. Rounding up to the lowest common denominator is, as usual, the easy way out.
What hope can there be for a society where a blatant denial of rights and freedoms by a government is at best greeted with enthusiasm and at worst just frowned upon? If I want a sandwich I should be free to get it at any time, be it day or night, from someone who is willing to sell it to me.
Be it Propriety Police, a National Committee for the Prevention of Nose-Picking or any other nonsense it has no place in a society on the way to progress. Bland attitudes to such patronizing behavior are a symptom of complacency and gullibility.
Considering the kind of ranting they hear all the time from their local radical leaders the hopes for progress in what used to be one of the Middle East's most promising pseudo-democracies look bleak. If they are visible at all.
Today is Thanksgiving Day. Among the thanks we raise to the Almighty, thank Him for the precious right to think and decide for ourselves that Canada and other real democracies grant us.
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
Smart Power is yesterday!
Anyone advocating "smart power" as a combination of brute force and attractiveness misses a key point: we have lost the lead in it.
America had a great opportunity to exercise its smart power, having emerged victorious from the cold war. Their model was triumphant, their military might unparalleled and feared the world over. People saw the US as a shining light at the end of a tunnel.
What do we have today? Compare the US to a company with a "panic button" which represents brute force. In the rare occasions when the panic button is pushed everyone gives 110% to ensure the company stays afloat. The panic button is revered and its call is taken as an appeal to an employee's honour and loyalty. But what if the panic button keeps on being pushed every five minutes? Everyone is disillusioned, people seek alternative employment, the company falls apart.
Same thing with the US today. By squandering its military might in useless efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq the US have weakened their appeal for their military failures bleaken their successes in other areas. It's not about imposing your way of thinking and your system on populations who in all honesty aren't ready for it. National security is about mere survival. If somebody threatens to nuke you, you nuke him first. Plain and simple, use force only when needed. Instead the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have become a mishmash of national security, flawed democracy, Halliburton and God knows what else.
The US can't use smart power at all because they lack one of the components, and Europe is too weak on its own. They've got the "I told you not to" high ground, but this is no good tactic for attracting people to your model.
Where will "smart power" come from then? My bets are on India and China. Nations are eyeing up to them as a model for economic development, these countries are investing in Africa and Central Asia, they know their stuff. They don't waste time arguing with the US because they know there's a whole world out there ready to be conquered. You can't mess with them as their military (especially nuclear) might is something to fear without hesitation. Face it, they've got the lead now and they will use it.
Our soft power is our only resort. And we can use it only if we expand our horizons showing everyone else that we are doing it and achieving marvellous results. What are our assets?
1) Education. Our systems are the best. In their diversity they give the individual something beyond mere technical knowledge necessary for his/her profession. It is a global outlook and hopefully a mind that values ambition and effort. As long as other educational systems focus on the utilitarian approach to education, we've got a competitive advantage that we must rub in their faces. Not to impose our system on them, but to encourage them to change their system to something maybe even better than ours!
2) Our values.
We are founded on freedom. Freedom for an individual to dream, to live according to his wills, to satisfy his wants, to make his own decisions.
We are founded on rights. The right to own yourself and everything associated with your life, to own property and dispose of it as you see fit, to pursue your ambitions, to express your thinking and seek knowledge.
We are founded on the individual. Everything begins and ends at every single one of us. No entity is above the individual and his imprescriptible rights. No family, no State, no culture.
These mere three values are worth more than any might, because we are in the RIGHT. We have to realise this and stand armed with these three spears against the aggression by sets of values that aim to impose constraints on our rights, on our freedom or on the individual as a whole. And I speak of China especially here.
3) Trade. The exchange of goods fosters more efficient production and ultimately the best use of resources. Trade is a double-edged weapon, and we can use both edges. It is a vector for conveying our success to others (e.g. exporting our better products) as well as a coercion tool (I won't trade with you because you are crap). Let me exemplify with two controversial case studies:
a) GM seeds being sold to Africa. Now I am no expert in the field of agriculture, but if someone can't grow anything good on his land and we have something that'll grow like mad, it seems reasonable that we will want to sell this good and the poor sod will want to buy it. Free trade, duh. If the African countries don't want to be dependent on our seeds then sometime soon they'll realise that maybe building a lab and a factory is a better investment than buying AK-47s for rebels in a neighbouring country. Their squandering of their own resources and of our aid is no concern of ours because in a liberal world the entity has the right to make wrong decisions.
b) The Jackson-Vanik amendment and the extensions of it I advocate. If trade is free then I'm free to choose whom to trade with. And if the country doesn't satisfy my criteria then I must be free to not trade with them. If we set our criteria wisely we can compel the most despotic and mediocre countries into reform. Not necessarily "our reform", but some kind of change driving them into a new direction.
But is this all? Is it the usual "clash of civilisations" talk? Us against them? Right against wrong? Good against Evil? The never-ending deadlock that lies at the origin of today's troubles, trapping us in a spiral of mediocrity and utter short-sightedness and idiocy? Of course not. If we want others to change and follow our lead we've got to demonstrate we are going somewhere.
Now I maintain that our way of thinking as defined by the culture of freedom, independence, free trade and liberalism is the best so far achieved by mankind. While other mentalities/cultures might have enhanced certain positive aspects of human beings (industriousness, attachment to one's family, loyalty, etc) they have failed miserably to achieve the fine balance that allows our yet imperfect society to function as the leader in world progress. We've made the G7, for God's sake!
The greatest asset we possess is the ability to challenge ourselves and our knowledge. We can think centuries ahead, dream up new ideas, new approaches, new ways of thinking. Our greatest treasure and our best export is therefore ambition and the willingness to pursue it.
We've got an advantage over those able to use smart power: our soft power is stronger, is based on solid ground and is open to progress. Lets therefore focus on developing our thinking and rubbing our advantage into the faces of those who think they're smart enough to progress without reforming their ways.
If we are strong enough to demonstrate our superiority despite a lack of hard power we will show hard power is barely needed at all in a globalised, informatised, liberalised and ultimately CIVILISED world.
America had a great opportunity to exercise its smart power, having emerged victorious from the cold war. Their model was triumphant, their military might unparalleled and feared the world over. People saw the US as a shining light at the end of a tunnel.
What do we have today? Compare the US to a company with a "panic button" which represents brute force. In the rare occasions when the panic button is pushed everyone gives 110% to ensure the company stays afloat. The panic button is revered and its call is taken as an appeal to an employee's honour and loyalty. But what if the panic button keeps on being pushed every five minutes? Everyone is disillusioned, people seek alternative employment, the company falls apart.
Same thing with the US today. By squandering its military might in useless efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq the US have weakened their appeal for their military failures bleaken their successes in other areas. It's not about imposing your way of thinking and your system on populations who in all honesty aren't ready for it. National security is about mere survival. If somebody threatens to nuke you, you nuke him first. Plain and simple, use force only when needed. Instead the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have become a mishmash of national security, flawed democracy, Halliburton and God knows what else.
The US can't use smart power at all because they lack one of the components, and Europe is too weak on its own. They've got the "I told you not to" high ground, but this is no good tactic for attracting people to your model.
Where will "smart power" come from then? My bets are on India and China. Nations are eyeing up to them as a model for economic development, these countries are investing in Africa and Central Asia, they know their stuff. They don't waste time arguing with the US because they know there's a whole world out there ready to be conquered. You can't mess with them as their military (especially nuclear) might is something to fear without hesitation. Face it, they've got the lead now and they will use it.
Our soft power is our only resort. And we can use it only if we expand our horizons showing everyone else that we are doing it and achieving marvellous results. What are our assets?
1) Education. Our systems are the best. In their diversity they give the individual something beyond mere technical knowledge necessary for his/her profession. It is a global outlook and hopefully a mind that values ambition and effort. As long as other educational systems focus on the utilitarian approach to education, we've got a competitive advantage that we must rub in their faces. Not to impose our system on them, but to encourage them to change their system to something maybe even better than ours!
2) Our values.
We are founded on freedom. Freedom for an individual to dream, to live according to his wills, to satisfy his wants, to make his own decisions.
We are founded on rights. The right to own yourself and everything associated with your life, to own property and dispose of it as you see fit, to pursue your ambitions, to express your thinking and seek knowledge.
We are founded on the individual. Everything begins and ends at every single one of us. No entity is above the individual and his imprescriptible rights. No family, no State, no culture.
These mere three values are worth more than any might, because we are in the RIGHT. We have to realise this and stand armed with these three spears against the aggression by sets of values that aim to impose constraints on our rights, on our freedom or on the individual as a whole. And I speak of China especially here.
3) Trade. The exchange of goods fosters more efficient production and ultimately the best use of resources. Trade is a double-edged weapon, and we can use both edges. It is a vector for conveying our success to others (e.g. exporting our better products) as well as a coercion tool (I won't trade with you because you are crap). Let me exemplify with two controversial case studies:
a) GM seeds being sold to Africa. Now I am no expert in the field of agriculture, but if someone can't grow anything good on his land and we have something that'll grow like mad, it seems reasonable that we will want to sell this good and the poor sod will want to buy it. Free trade, duh. If the African countries don't want to be dependent on our seeds then sometime soon they'll realise that maybe building a lab and a factory is a better investment than buying AK-47s for rebels in a neighbouring country. Their squandering of their own resources and of our aid is no concern of ours because in a liberal world the entity has the right to make wrong decisions.
b) The Jackson-Vanik amendment and the extensions of it I advocate. If trade is free then I'm free to choose whom to trade with. And if the country doesn't satisfy my criteria then I must be free to not trade with them. If we set our criteria wisely we can compel the most despotic and mediocre countries into reform. Not necessarily "our reform", but some kind of change driving them into a new direction.
But is this all? Is it the usual "clash of civilisations" talk? Us against them? Right against wrong? Good against Evil? The never-ending deadlock that lies at the origin of today's troubles, trapping us in a spiral of mediocrity and utter short-sightedness and idiocy? Of course not. If we want others to change and follow our lead we've got to demonstrate we are going somewhere.
Now I maintain that our way of thinking as defined by the culture of freedom, independence, free trade and liberalism is the best so far achieved by mankind. While other mentalities/cultures might have enhanced certain positive aspects of human beings (industriousness, attachment to one's family, loyalty, etc) they have failed miserably to achieve the fine balance that allows our yet imperfect society to function as the leader in world progress. We've made the G7, for God's sake!
The greatest asset we possess is the ability to challenge ourselves and our knowledge. We can think centuries ahead, dream up new ideas, new approaches, new ways of thinking. Our greatest treasure and our best export is therefore ambition and the willingness to pursue it.
We've got an advantage over those able to use smart power: our soft power is stronger, is based on solid ground and is open to progress. Lets therefore focus on developing our thinking and rubbing our advantage into the faces of those who think they're smart enough to progress without reforming their ways.
If we are strong enough to demonstrate our superiority despite a lack of hard power we will show hard power is barely needed at all in a globalised, informatised, liberalised and ultimately CIVILISED world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)