Accommodating Honour Murder

With Aqsa Parvez finally resting peacefully, her murderers — her very own father and brother — sentenced to the Canadian-style “life in prison” with no chance of parole for 18 years, it’s time for the religious equivalence and multiculturalist types to step forward again and declare that “honour killing,” which I more accurately define as honour murder, is not just Islam’s problem.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!

While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.

To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.

United Nations Population Fund:

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.

As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)

Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.

I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.

… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should  take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.

Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.

From the CTV News story here.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Facebook is a Utility; Even if I Don’t Know What that Means

Do you want to read a really horrible blog post?  Danah Boyd has penned… well… something titled, Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated.  Here, I’ll give you a little sample:

Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand…

What?  How do you overstep you overstep your hand, doing a crab walk?  Usually, I wouldn’t bring attention to such a massacred metaphor, but it’s a pretty good demonstration of the level of quality of the post.

So, what, you may ask, is the point of the post?  As far as I can tell, Ms. Boyd is claiming that Facebook is – and wants to be – a utility, and, consequently, it will get regulated.  She supports the argument by writing that Facebook is a utility, and utilities get regulated.  She further supports the claim by arguing that Facebook is a util… well, you get the picture.  From what I understand, the definition of utility is “something you use a lot and then gets regulated”.

(By the way, she doesn’t really say this is a bad thing.  She seems to generally dislike regulations, but she likes governments threatening regulations.)

In the comments, one reader brings up the idea of Facebook as a public good (which it isn’t, but almost is).  Here’s the thing about the post and this accompanying comment.  They talk about utilities and public goods.  As with many discussions of such topics, they keep using these words.  I do not think the words mean what they think they mean.

It’d be really nice if people who continuously talk about “public goods” would actually bother to learn what the term means.  It does not mean, “I’d like the government to pay for anything that I think is really imporant”.  Hell, if it does, then the complete series of The Wire is a public good.

I’ll expect my copy to arrive in the mail soon.

Could Amazon be the first of many bringing jobs to Canada?

Amazon.com is looking to open a new Distribution Centre here in Canada, if Canadian Heritage allows for it.

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

Retiring Boomers should pave the way to 0% unemployment. Right?

So, TD Bank is saying that retiring baby boomers will disrupt the economy.

My first thought? Duh!

This was followed shortly by the thought that the massive vacuum in the employment sector should, in theory, mean the end of unemployment. Right? Yeah, I’m not so sure about it either. However, it will be an interesting test on those who claim they can’t find work. I believe that it will come down to one of two things. 1) Those who aren’t working don’t actually want to work, and 2) Those who aren’t employed don’t have any desirable skills needed to maintain employment.

An inflammatory statement? Perhaps. But perhaps the truth hurts sometimes.

Still, I’m tired of hearing how dismal the future will be with the advent of the Baby Boomer Retirement Saga. Presumably, companies will have the same amount of demand (if not more) for their services or products. The problem they will be facing is that they may not have enough people to provide it.

This leads to the question of what to do about it. One alternative is that the entire job market is going to have to change in shape. Companies are going to be demanding more of their employees, and so they’re going to have to be willing to pay salaries at a rate comparable to the demand placed on the employee. Also, in an employee’s market, they have the power. Companies will have to offer sufficient incentive to hold onto employees who may be being tempted by other companies looking to fill their own vacancies. This may also open the door to employer-provided day care to encourage mothers (fathers too) to return to the workforce. Day Care business boom is in there too, or Nannies for that matter.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this will fill the gap. We’ve known for decades that the current Pension system is broken and that there was a coming storm. Still, higher wages and salaries mean more taxes being collected from jobs that before had paid less, and the potential for savings in the EI system also mean savings Federally.

Just some things to consider.

Borrower-Friendly Mortgages and Mortgage Interest Deductibility:Two Key Differences

Harry Koza, from the Altantic Institute for Market Studies, does everyone a great service by summarizing the two major differences between US and Canadian borrowing/financial system.

Mr. Krugman states that Canada’s advantage has been in being stricter about limiting bank leverage, and that’s true. But he then blames Reagan-era deregulation for the “dangerously interesting” US banking system and suggests that the wild American banking mustangs must thus be broken to the regulatory bit.

The thing is, in his Keynesian enthusiasm, he is neglecting the most important qualities of the Canadian financial system, the things that really made the difference and account for the fact that we didn’t have a US-style housing collapse and have to bail out our entire banking system. The stuff he cites in his column is all correct, as far as it goes, but it’s just the feathers, not the chicken.

The first major difference between the US and Canada that Mr. Krugman neglects is that we do not have the perverse government-spawned incentive of mortgage interest deductibility.

[...]

The second big difference in Canada that Mr. Krugman neglects to consider is that our mortgage law is far more lender-friendly than that in the US, where it is far more borrower- friendly. We don’t have no-recourse loans where you can just mail in the keys on your underwater mortgage and walk away. And, more importantly, our lenders can much more easily act on their collateral.

It’s my health, it’s my choice. Well that’s dandy…

So Danny Williams is not one of my favorite people. He ranks up there with Jack Layton and Al Gore in my books. Granted, a lot of that has to do with his ABC Campaign which violates the so-called 11th Commandment, even in light of his achievements as a “conservative” in Newfoundland & Labrador.

It’s obviously no secret, and isn’t really news anymore that Mr. Williams chose to leave the country to obtain surgical services he claims were not available in Canada. I honestly don’t know the truth of that, but I do question it.

His defense? “It’s my health and it’s my choice.”

You know what? I agree. Yes, I agree with Danny Williams. My problem though, is that there are few other Canadians (Newfoundlander’s notwithstanding) who have that choice. Why? Because they can’t afford it.

And that leads me to the point of this post. I don’t think we should be demonizing Mr. Williams for taking that choice. In fact, I think we should be unabashedly using him as a prime example of how a Public/Private Health Care System could work.

Mr. Williams is a perfect example of how someone who has the means can take advantage of a private health care provider’s services without taking up space in the public ‘queue’ as it were. He can certainly afford the higher costs associated with such care, and in his own words, he was only doing what was best for him. Fabulous!

Unfortunately, there are many others who can, and exponentially more who can’t. For those who can, why can’t they get that service in Canada? Why do they have to take their money and spend it outside the country? And even then, that’s assuming they do. For the rest of those who can’t, they have to wait behind those in front of them ‘in line’. Those who if they had the option in Canada, might not be there at all, thereby shortening the lines.

So, what’s the problem? Why can’t we perform more procedures in Canada in order to lower the wait times? It’s called Salary Caps ladies and gentlemen. Something that isn’t as harshly mandated in the United States where physicians are allowed to earn more.

As I understand it, once a Canadian physician earns up to their “cap” anything they do after that is pro bono, assuming they choose to work for free. I don’t know many people who would work for say, half a year at their job for pay, and then volunteer their time and skills for the second half of the year. Would you?

What I see as a solution, is to remove Salary Caps on a private service care/practices and allow them to earn as much as they care to work for here in Canada, but require them to provide a certain number of hours in the public system while continuing the current limits in Public Care earnings.

Basically, let them work in the public system and collect up to the maximum allowed under the Canadian Public Health Care System, and then allow them to continue to earn additional wages in the private sector.

That kind of opportunity would draw more doctors to Canada instead of the reverse, and allow them to provide more care on a continuing basis to more people over longer periods of time as well as reducing the backlogs.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

—————————————————————————————–

Further this post from this story:

Updated 4:30pm – Feb 23/10

“This was my heart, my choice and my health,”

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

“I wanted to get in, get out fast, get back to work in a short period of time,”

“If I’m entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would,”

“But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven’t even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don’t know what I’m entitled to, if anything, and if it’s nothing, then so be it.”

That’s just dandy Mr. Williams. While you may have the means to simply write a cheque without worrying if you’re entitled to any reimbursement, very few other average Canadians share that same laissez-faire approach. And I’m definitely certain that you’re not alone in wanting to get in and out and back to work as soon as possible, you’re exploiting an option that most Canadians don’t have.

Perhaps you aught to advocate bringing these choices to Canada. Put your mouthiness to good use and you might actually earn some conservative forgiveness from the rest of the country. Not, I’m likely to believe, that you’re looking for it…

CPC – 2, Elections Canada – 0

It seems that this is a bad year for Elections Canada going up against the Conservative Party of Canada. After the GST Rebate ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land has just ruled in favor, again, of the Conservative Party of Canada in regards to the “In & Out” case.

Once again, we’re not seeing a whole lot of press about what was such a big deal in the past. Maybe someone will pick up the ball on this one, but I’m not holding my breath.

Still, not such a good day for Elections Canada who has stated it will review the ruling before deciding whether or not to appeal.

A Look Back at 2000-2009, and How It Set The Stage…

For a decade that cultural historians still don’t know how to define (the “2000′s” is the front-runner, but woefully inadequate), the decade we are about to leave certainly lived up to its reputation. It took almost four years for the trends to shift into something definitively different from what the 1990s were, and even then most of us who were around for the 1980s could be excused for cries of stylistic plagiarism. Politically and economically, things weren’t much better, although the years reflected a more 1970s feel, what with the gas price jumps, economic uncertainties and Nixonian feel of the Bush 43 era.

Speaking of W., I have to agree with a friend who stated that, love him or hate him, the former President defined this decade more so than any US leader has since Eisenhower. It’s hard to believe how different things would be today had Al Gore won the 2000 election and been responsible for the US reaction to 9-11, the CO2 scare and everything else that transpired in the years between then and now. While Barack Obama currently occupies the office, he runs the risk of being a bookend between Bush Jr. and the emerging trends that will define the 45th President up.

Now for the big so what, a collection of brief, but pointed predictions on how history will be defined by this period.

First and foremost, I think its clearly emerging, albeit while most of us blissfully ignore it, that the United States is a spent cause as a superpower. Like Great Britain, it will continue to have moderate, regional influence, but historians could find a fair argument in the self-destructive and, more lately, apathetic tendencies of America over the past 50 years finally coming home to roost at the start of the 21st century. 9-11 was merely a painful symptom, but there was already warning signs when President Bush found few allies internationally who were willing to enter into legitimate cooperation with him in the first eight months of his presidency; this included former Cold War allies, and more recent friends who became used to Bill Clinton’s style of glad-handing and saw the US as just another guy in the room. In the near future, the realization will come through a reflex recession that will clearly establish Asia and Europe as the new power blocs, although the the former is prone to local instability that could shift the balance of power further.

Culturally, there isn’t much to say as there isn’t much to work with. In an era where most folks invest so much in gratification, there isn’t very far to go down, but only because we’re extremely deep to begin with. Be it iPods, or Twitter, or other tools and inventions that will define this decade, it very telling to see just how shallow our society has become. If our world ever became rough and difficult again, the people will certainly look upon an event like our 2004 election in Canada much in the same way that we look upon the story of the Roman horse who would be senator — in both cases, with both societies, the suggestion that the luxuries and liberties enjoyed by both groups of people were far from deserved would be fair comment. As if we had nothing better to define our society by. Even still, Paul Martin was no Caligula.

Finally, there are the small seeds that got planted this decade that will only come into full blossom in the years to come, though they provide a warning to the wise who chose to heed their warnings. For the academic community, living the good life off the public dime currently, the upcoming baby boom crash (when all those boomers will want extensive health care and living costs paid for through social programs) will only serve as the final straw to drastically undo the entire scholarship system as we know it. As climategate showed us just recently, there is enough membership among the public that is willing to criticize the academy if given the excuse and hiding inconvenient truths as the recipients of many a public grant for climate change research did will only serve to speed up the drying up of the fiscal well. For what it’s worth, the militant evolutionists should also take heed, especially if they too have been tampering with the evidence and employing bullying tactics as it has been suggested over the last 24 months. Continually insulting the intelligence of the voting public might make you feel smug, but it’s not good for the long-term survival of your research projects.

Education will also yield drastic results on a more direct level in the coming decades as the western world starts be overwhelmed by Indian, Japanese, Chinese and eastern European graduates who have learned more, in less time and now do more for less cash. The white collar world is in for a bit of a shock if it thinks that university degrees somehow make one immune from what has been rolling through the industrial marketplace recently. To it’s credit, North America has tons of land and natural resources that will keep some of us employed, but not everybody. If we want to compete in the economy of tomorrow, abandoning rigid standards in favour of promoting students’ self-esteem (as Ontario has been doing recently) will only lead us to serious decline, the likes of which our fair country hasn’t seen yet.

If there is to be hope though, it is that the CFL in general has been doing well as far as revenue and attendance goes, with the 2009 season easily being the best in over 20 years. For the good folks of Saskatchewan, the Roughriders seem poised to add another Grey Cup championship to the team’s credit over the coming 10 years — maybe more. The stage is set, now we just need the snow to melt! Happy New Year everyone!

Merry Christmas!

Having freed myself from the clutches of gifts, turkey, children, in-laws, out-laws, family and friends, and with the house finally quiet while everyone enjoys a serotonin-induced nap, I wish one and all a very merry Christmas.  We trust this season finds you amongst those you love and hold dear and that your Christmas time is filled with cheer, good memories and much love.

« Previous Page — Next Page »