This is Controversial

After a week of not blogging anything (I've been really busy, looking for a place to live, if you must know), I came across this article. For those of you too lazy to click on the link and read it, I'll summarize it very quickly: people all over the world are protesting, mostly because they have a very strong sense of entitlement.  Greece and Montreal (over tuition increases) were specifically mentioned.

Though I have always felt that I have fairly left-leaning political views, and I believe that a government's job is to take care of its people first and foremost.  Which means providing all sorts of things that the free market can't provide, such as police, health care, infrastructure (roads, rail, ports), and education. I know government isn't very efficient at a lot of the things it does, but the anger againts governments these days borders on the ridiculous. Though I expect to have all the conveniences of living in modern times (see my above list of what a government should provide, though it's not comprehensive), I'm not so deluded into thinking that I should get it for nothing or that it doesn't cost anything.  Yes, big business has its hands in government and yes that does influence some decisions it makes.  But unions influence them just as much, and it feels like once someone has something good, they'll do anything to protect that even at the detriment of others.

I'm not saying we should all just sit down and accept every government decision that comes about, especially when it means cutting services and rising taxes.  But governments must be run in a way that doesn't lose money. Someone loses out when that happens.  Who are we to say we should get all the good things and someone else should pay the price.

In my field, I've had to witness hundreds and thousands of people who have it way better than me (and many others) complain about small concession they are being asked to make.  They just don't seem to get that there are hundreds and thousands of willing people who would kill (well, maybe not kill) to have the opportunity to work at their jobs. It makes me want to shake each and every one of them and shout: "DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT!?!?!" Which would (in my fantasy) be followed by a lot of swearing and more shaking - though, this being reality, I'd never do that.

In the past, unions and protest movements (ok, even some today) have been helpful in advancing many worthy causes, but in many places those times have passed. At some point it switches from ensuring fairness in society to taking more than what you've earned.

So yes, I've also noticed this sense of entitlement, or "entitlement addiction" as the article calls it.  It is very frustrating for me to see since I'd love to have it as good as some of these people.

R.I.P.

The Federal Government Ought To Pick It's Battles

I'm sure I'm not the only person baffled by the Shane Doan controversy that has heated up in the last week. For those of you who have managed to avoid this waste of government and media time, Shane Doan is a hockey player who has been appointed captain of Canada's team at the World Hockey Championships in Russia. The controversy stems from alleged racials slurs (directed towards our Francophone countrymen) in a game in 2005. Doan was cleared by the NHL and the issue was dead... until recently when some politicians decided to make a big fuss over it and bring Hockey Canada members before the government to explain their choice of Doan as captain of this years team.

Besides the obvious waste of time (I think the issue of Afghanistan and the new information about the Air India incident might be a more pressing need right now), this makes absolutely no sense. Did the politicians make this much stink when they named Doan to the 2006 Olympic team? And what about Todd Bertuzzi (there, I did it, I mentioned the name of two people who shouldn't get attention today) being named to the Olympic squad? Did he not maliciously attack someone on the ice, in front of cameras? Surely the government would not want 'Bert' to represent our country...

I'm at a loss at this point. I, like many others, think that this whole dialogue has been an exercise just to get votes. I'm not sure if anything has been accomplished...

Green and Red Working Together

This week we were treated to the announcement that the Liberal Party will not run a candidate in the riding that Green Party leader Elizabeth May will contest in the election that is apparently coming soon. For those of you who are not up to date on this development, here is an article which outlines the plan.

When I first heard this news I thought it was a great thing; the Liberals were acknowledging the existence of the Green Party and are giving them some help. Then I read many scathing responses to this move. The sentiment against it basically revolves around the fact that the Liberals (well, Liberal leader Stephane Dion to be exact) are leaving their supporters in that riding out to dry. They will not be able to support the Liberal party.

But that is not what started to bug me. If the Greens do pull of the likely miracle of winning that riding (and most experts suggest they won't) then they will have made their breakthrough the easy way. As a supporter of the Green Party's last couple of platforms (and probably one of the few people who actually read them!) I would not be so proud that the breakthrough came as a result of help from the Liberals.

I'm sure Mr. Dion has some good reasons for this move, though no one can really explain how this benefits the Liberals. They potentially lose their supporters in a whole riding (who may or may not vote for the Green party) and don't gain anything from a lack of opposition from the Greens in Mr. Dion's riding.

Maybe more will come out later related to this move, but I doubt it will make a major impact on the results of the next election (whenever it happens). Hopefully, the Green Party will make a breakthrough somewhere else and get a few members elected to Parliament.

Note: I realize this post is somewhat biased. This will not happen often. If you have anything you would like to add (comments on the situation), please feel free to post your thoughts.

A Compromise?

I thought I should write about this subject since it came up on Saturday. I think we can justify it by saying it's Social Commentary on Sunday.

I get the Globe and Mail six days a week and the following headline appeared on the front page: "Lift face veils or don't vote, Quebec tells Muslims." I read the article and had several conflicting thoughts about what went on. Until recently I did not know the purpose of any coverings (whether it be a burqa or a niqab). I was given a great article (whose name I cannot remember, but maybe one of my readers could post the name or a link to it online) in a class of mine explaining the reasons (mainly so that woman are judged on what they say and do and not by how they look - it was described as an empowering thing to wear) why women cover themselves up.

After some thought I came to the following conclusion: Why can't they (all the people in Quebec) just compromise. In summary, this is what the two arguments are (at least the rational people in this debate):

1. The Chief Electoral Officer is trying to avoid voter fraud. Due to what seems like many angry responses, there is a fear that the original agreement would be used to the advantage of some people in protest of the decision.
2. The women who are wearing the veils are doing so for a religious reason (I'm not here to debate whether they are right or wrong, but it's important to realize they have a strong belief in something), and it would violate their beliefs to provide the requested proof of identification. They are stuck with a choice between not voting or going against what they believe in.

Clearly, there are two very good arguments for either of the two proposed outcomes. I decided to do some research to see if I could make sense of it. The first thing I did was look up "niqab" on wikipedia. The entry did not tell me much, but it did send me to this article about a similar situation that occured with regards to wearing a veil for the picture on a driver's license. I discovered there that many muslim nations require muslim women to have their pictures taken without their veil.

I then wanted to find out WHO a muslim woman is "allowed" to uncover herself for (I use the word allow because I'm under the impression that it is different for each individual. I do not think that anyone forces muslim women into this). After much searching I found this quote which came from a much bigger web page:

A Muslimah should not uncover her adornment in front of any non-Mahrahm male. Muslimahs should especially be careful and remain covered, modest, and quiet around in-laws.

If a gay male is aware of female body parts, he should not be allowed to view a woman uncovered. And, of course, a bi-sexual male should not be allowed to view a woman without proper covering.

In addition, a Muslimah should not uncover that which she normally uncovers, in front of any non-Muslim female whom she fears may describe her to others. She may also choose to remain covered around any Muslim female whom she fears may describe her physical attributes to their husband or others.

I also looked up who qualifies as Mahrahm and non-Mahrahm males and found the answers here.

So where am I going with this?

My proposed compromise is for the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a way for women to prove their identiy which does not require them to show themselves to people they do not want to show themselves to. Perhaps arrangements could be made in each riding so that a trusted muslim woman was available to check ID's for the people running the election. One representative for each riding would probably be sufficient if it were advertised which polling station this representaive would be at. To me it is common sense, but perhaps this is just a small part of a larger problem...

I wonder if this message will find it's way to Quebec.

I bet someone has something to say about this... let's hear what you think! I may be wrong about everything and I'm open to other viewpoints (keep it nice though).

For more information, check out this blog which talks briefly about the same article and situation: http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/