Concerned by book burying

This letter appeared in the Aug. 27, 2003, edition of the Daily Gleaner in Fredericton.

Dear Editor:

True Canadian history should be taught to our children. I hope someone in the teaching profession will respond to this letter.

When I asked my granddaughter if she was taking history lessons, she said yes. I asked her, “What history was being taught?” She said “Les Voyageurs.”

It is my belief that the minister of education should refrain from imposing through the school system any false rewritten history to our English children. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are blanketed in past British history. It was the British, not the French, who originally settled here. This history cannot be truthfully changed.

It was the Hudson Bay and St.Lawrence River area the French settled in. The fact remains, I am concerned about the destruction of our British history concerning Canada, and especially the Maritimes.

A heavy equipment operator was to demolish a building in Weymouth, N.S. He was told there was a pile of books in there which was to be put in the dump along with the building. He checked out the type of books, and he picked out a beautiful book on the history of the Seven Year War in Canada, 1756-1763.

He loaned that book to me and I read it. It is worth its weight in gold. Why was this book being destroyed? How many more books of this type are being destroyed for sinister reasons?

The letter was signed: Melvin A. Smith, Fredericton

I am the last person to agree with burying, burning or otherwise wilfully destroy books. If what Mr. Smith relates is truly what is in those books slated for burial, then perhaps they should have been buried.

However, I think Mr. Smith may actually have always believed the British came before the Acadians, and those books slated for burial happened to confirm what he always believed. Yet, anyone who has taken the time to read about Maritime history, especially the more recent and objective books, must clearly realise that the French settled the Maritimes as surely as they settled the St. Lawrence.

The British clearly settled the Maritimes as well, but only after the Acadians had been forcibly removed from their lands. Indeed, propaganda at the time had many British colonists believing that the Acadians lucked out in finding present-day Nova Scotia as they didn’t have to work all that much to earn their living from incredibly fertile ground. The Acadians were “indolent,” they would say.

The colonists who “replaced” the Acadians soon came to realise that the Acadians were far from indolent. One of the Acadian agricultural strategies, reclaiming marsh land from the sea and rivers, required building and maintaining dykes called aboiteaux. The silt left there before the aboiteaux and during extreme flooding is what made the land so rich. When the aboiteau started to break down, the new colonists from New England had no idea how to fix them and would call upon authorities in Halifax to send some Acadian prisoners to have them make repairs.

Thus continued their love-hate relationship with the Acadians, whom the English settlers wound up needing more than they cared to admit.

In the Name of Freedom

Doctor: How did you suppress the natural sexual drive? Drugs? Punitive laws?

Prime Minister: In the beginning, a little bit of each. Now, after 300 years, the entire concept of sexual reproduction is a little repugnant to us.

From the episode “Up The Long Ladder,” Star Trek, The Next Generation.

One of our dearest friends has recently found religion. Mormonism, to be more exact. While still fairly favourable to the concept of evolution, she has found a way to integrate Adam and Eve into her cosmology and had also found greater spiritual insight ever since she stopped touching herself “down there.”

My main reason for advocating for greater sexual freedom is, in part, driven by my upbringing. As I grew up under the watchful eye of my mother, I came to see the many problems caused by secrecy and shame when sex and religion get mixed. My mother was a reserved catholic whose religious knowledge sometimes came into conflict with her medical training as a nurse. I’m not sure she ever resolved the conflicts. She just sort of swept them under the rug.

So when I was starting to come of age, so to speak, she would often try to have me go see one of my uncles for “the talk,” since I had no father to fill that role. She was especially pleased when one my aunts married a doctor. Surely he could guide me well. I don’t think she ever understood that I would have preferred hearing it from her, even if it meant searching through her medical textbooks to complete those parts with which she had most difficulty. In the end, all I really had were the books.

I’m sure that weighed heavily on my mind my wife and I decided to try to have as much openness at home as possible for the sake of our children. We didn’t bother wrapping towels around ourselves when we left the shower. I certainly didn’t wear much of anything most of the time, and my wife, who was more sensitive to cold, would do the same when it was exceptionally hot. This was not sex education per se, but it did lead to interesting discussions which included aspects of sexuality. And the Look Who’s Talking movies didn’t hurt either.

One of the things we learned along the way was how so many people, but especially women, were cheated out of such things by churches which took stands against even the innocent practice of masturbating. For a long time, myths concerning masturbation (it will make you blind, crazy, or stupid; you’ll lose your “healthiest blood” that way, you will damage your sex organs, etc.) have been circulated, and even promoted, to instil shame and maintain control over flocks. Yet, we know that masturbation is useful for better understanding our bodies and how they react their bodies. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood tells us that masturbation helps people relax and relieve stress and physical tension. Orgasms can often be a natural painkiller, which is why many women masturbate to relieve menstrual cramps. In men, frequent ejaculation may lower a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer. So if there’s no partner around, masturbation is the next best thing.

Here’s the big thing for me, though: Most men wind up masturbating one way or another. Is it in our genes? Is it because men somehow allow themselves a little more latitude? I don’t know. But it’s often been said that 90 per cent of men masturbate and the rest lie about it. Women, as a group, don’t masturbate nearly as much, or at least they don’t readily admit to having done so. And I can’t see religious admonitions against masturbation as having helped in this regard.

From what I’ve been able to learn from our newly religious friend, her religion also forbids, or at least discourages masturbation, and she has accepted its teaching on this subject without question. She adds that by avoiding thoughts of sexuality, she has experienced spiritual growth in other areas. I won’t contest her experience. I cannot feel what she feels.

But while refraining from “touching one’s self” is at least as legitimate as doing the opposite, I cannot say the same for encouraging others to do so. And here comes the gist of the problem. When she has daughters of her own, will she deny them the chance to discover for themselves how their bodies work? Will she expect them to deny their sexual natures until marriage? All in the name of spiritual perfection?

One of the obstacles to full freedom for women has been other women eager to crush those who would work for progress in the name of a deity, a religious leader, or just to keep up appearances. I sincerely hope our friend does not become one of those.

The Weighty Issue

For a long time I have been looking for a way to describe the difficulties of losing weight to people who have no trouble at all keeping a healthy waistline. I think I may finally have a found an analogy that works. Please bear with me.

It was long thought that children had a natural talent for learning languages fluently and effortlessly. This skill was somehow turned off in adolescence and early adulthood, leaving most adult people feeling hopeless about ever mastering a second or third language. However, experts in the field know this is not true.

For the first five years of one’s life, practically all one ever does is learn a language (and maybe even two). During those first five years, we are mentored toward perfecting pronunciation and committing words and concepts to memory by people who encourage us along the way. Other things are taught as well, but they usually aren’t as intellectually demanding. By the age of five, our mastery of whatever language we are learning is well underway.

It therefore follows that we could also master another language by the age of 30 if life would allow us to take a five year leave of absence from work at the age of 25, and truly concentrate on learning that second or third language. But life rarely affords most of us that opportunity. Work demands, children, church (for those who have that commitment) all conspire to leave us little time for learning that extra language.

The same can be said for losing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle. It might help some of us if we were in an environment where mentors could be following us as we go about dealing with learning to like healthier foods and becoming more physically active during our waking hours. But the demands of our modern world are such that we must contribute to the economy. This means either running one’s own business or working for someone else to earn one’s salary. We are expected to work at least 35 hours a week (more often, 40) in order to afford buying food, paying for clothing and housing, and buying a host of things that may or may not be necessary just to keep the economy going. Work demands, activities for children, volunteering, church (for those who have that commitment), doctor’s appointments... With all that to worry about, who has time to invest in adopting a new lifestyle?

The very structure of modern society doesn’t help, either. For decades, people would walk to neighbourhood grocery stores to buy what they needed when they needed it. Now, we have residential zones where no stores are allowed, and people see nothing wrong with having to use a motorised vehicle to get to the store and come home with large quantities of food. Instead of getting our exercise through everyday activities, we actually have to set time aside for exercise!

In Back to the Future III, Doc Brown tells bar patrons how things are in the future. At one point, a patron asks: Does anybody walk anymore?

Brown says: Of course they walk, but they do it for fun.

The patron: For fun? Who’d want to do that for fun?

I don’t know to what degree the irony was intended, but I find there’s a wealth of wisdom in that exchange.

Sex and Such

There is a sort of feminist primer at a site called Finally Feminism 101, which seems to have started at blogspot before moving on to wordpress. I’m not sure anymore how I came upon the site, but the first page I visited there was this one. In summary, it was an attempt to explain exactly why there must be a distinction made between a sex act in which one engages wilfully and consensually, and a sex act where one participant is clearly the victim of an assault.

Not that long ago, I heard that a former priest who had been posted in my hometown when I was a child had pleaded guilty to molesting young boys. I was one of those lucky ones who only knew him from afar and thereby avoided becoming a victim. But those circumstances grabbed my attention more than the assaults themselves.

Sexual assault in general may still be underreported, but it is definitely being reported far more than ever before. The shock value is just no longer there, so it tends to slip from my radar. So, in a way, I’m glad that page at Finally Feminism 101 woke me up a bit. A good kick in one’s complacency is never bad when truly needed.

However, it begs the question: How did I become complacent? How does anyone become complacent about such things?

- - - - - - - -

Since consensual sex is allowed and even encouraged in the right circumstances, the right to say no to sexual activity has a necessary corollary: the right to say yes. Of course, some will do everything they can to deny this right to others, and they will be convinced they have the moral authority to do so.

In 1976, the American Humanist Association (AHA) addressed this problem by publishing A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities. In 2003, the magazine Free Inquiry published what it said was a revamped version more in keeping with the times, though it still followed the original quite closely. So closely, in fact, that The Humanist “responded” with an article of its own titled What Do We Do Now that the Sexual Revolution is Over? and called for a full critique of the declaration.

Among the many issues mentioned is that fact that people have been “held in bondage” by rules as to what they can do, with whom, and in what circumstances. But this presents the unintended double entendre since “bondage” is also a sexual fetish. And while it was assumed in the past that all workers in the sex industry were there due to lack of choices in the workplace, we now know this is not always the case, and the part of the Bill concerning prostitution should be rewritten to reflect that. In other cases, there’s the matter of using less outdated language.

The AHA is not the only organisation to have grappled with this issue. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) published a declaration of sexual rights which follows closely the style and intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, even the World Health Organisation has ventured into the fray with unofficial statements concerning gender and human rights.

No doubt the various world religions would disagree with a lot of what can be found in these statements and declarations, and so would many who follow those religions. But then, to what degree do many in the West today actually follow those religious rules concerning sex? Over the past decades, marriage had become less frequent and less permanent. Now, it would seem even boyfriends and girlfriends have become a thing of the past. Rather than invest in relationships, many people find "friends with benefits" (fuck buddies) to satisfy their sexual urges with no intention of going any further. At a time where they must invest almost everything into their careers, relationships seem to get in the way.

- - - - - - - -

Of course, there could be more to this. Remember those articles I wrote on how we went from being sperm-competition avoiders to sperm-competitors and how we may be swinging back again? Remember also how I wondered whether we could actually ever swing the pendulum back that far? Well, at least one husband-and-wife team would seem to agree with me.

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha are the authors of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. I haven’t read the book yet, but according to an interview in the press, they make the case that non-promiscuity is nothing more than a social construct, and that our sexual natures simply aren’t compatible with it. They say sexual fidelity likely didn’t appear as a social requirement until the advent of agriculture. Before, men didn’t have any property to pass down to the next generation, so paternity was of no importance to them. And women received food, shelter, help in caring for children, and sex from their community rather than from an individual male. (I would add that women often supplied food to the community. Gathering was often more successful than hunting.)

While the authors don’t criticise monogamy per se, they do think the story we are told about exclusive monogamy being the ideal for our species is a lie. Non-promiscuity can work for a great number of people, but not everyone, and maybe it’s time we faced that fact.

The sell is the crime, not the sale

(...) no religion-inspired law or government policy should exist if there is no secular justification for it. The State should deal only with life, health, property and other things of this world. (From my Sept. 7, 2010, post, Criticising Religion.)

Canadian laws against prostitution will remain in force for now. An earlier decision had struck down key provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada which dealt with communicating for the purpose of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy-house and living off the avails of prostitution. Justice Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that it would be harmful to the public interest to allow a lower court ruling to immediately come into effect before a recently launched appeal is finally heard. However, the stay is only effective until April 29, which means the prosecution must make its case by then.

In Canada, prostitution per se is not a crime. Rather, the law forbids the solicitation or proposal of payment for sexual services. So while prostitution is technically legal, virtually every activity associated with it is not. The Criminal Code prohibits “communication for the purpose of prostitution.” It also prohibits keeping a common bawdy house for the purpose of prostitution. Some of the legislation was enacted as recently as 1985 in an attempt to deal with the public nuisance created by streetwalkers. But due to “bawdy-house” legislation, the obvious alternative, that is working more safely indoors, was prohibited.

This led to a constitutional challenge launched in 2009 by a three women who sought to have certain sections of the Criminal Code relating to prostitution struck down. The provisions at hand were (a) living off the avails of prostitution of another person, (b) stopping or attempting to stop and communicate with someone for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute, and (c) keeping a “common” bawdy-house. The applicants claimed those provisions of the criminal code violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Furthermore, they claimed that the provision concerning the keeping of a bawdy-house violated section 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel agreed that some provisions of the Criminal Code actually contribute to the dangerous climate in which sex-trade workers must earn their living. “These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have found that these laws infringe the core values protected by section 7 and that this infringement is not saved by section 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” wrote the judge.

It should be noted that she didn’t just strike down the provisions as requested. While sections 212(1)(j) (living off the avails) and 213(1)(c) (communicating for purposes of prostitution) were indeed struck down, the provision concerning bawdy-houses was merely changed. She left the specific provision, section 210, intact, but changed its definition at section 197(1) to remove the reference to prostitution. If acts of indecency are performed in a house kept for that purpose, it will continue to be considered a bawdy-house.

The judge makes clear that only those provisions have been struck down. Other provisions such as stopping or attempting to stop a motor vehicle for the purpose of prostitution, or impeding or redirecting pedestrian or vehicular traffic for such a purpose continues to be illegal. Also, many provisions concerning the offense of “procuring” remain in effect, as do those dealing with minors.

The decision is now on the CanLii website to be read by all. Personally, I find the decision to be well thought out. If nothing else, the judge appears to be well informed of the true dangers regarding prostitution, that is, the powerlessness of prostitutes before the law and those who would do them harm. Politicians, of course, aren’t so sure. They want votes and they know people who oppose prostitution in any way, shape or form often frequent polling stations. Oh well, with all the debts and deficits already at hand, what’s a few more million, eh?

When I die

If you publish something on your own website or on an Internet service where you have full responsibility for content and presentation, did you think about what would happen to all that should you die? Have you made arrangements for your Yahoo and Hotmail accounts after your death? What about your social network accounts like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?

Nobody is immortal. You can live on for many years or die in a car accident today. One day or another, our time will come.

Do you want your website to go on after your death, perhaps with a death notice? Your blog could be of great interest to your grandchildren. Then again, when readers know you’re dead, they’ll stop visiting anyway. Do you want everything to stop immediately or a few weeks down the road?

Whatever your choice, you will need a trustworthy service or person who can handle that aspect. He, she or it must have clear instructions and all your usernames and passwords, as well as the names and addresses of partners picked up along the way for your blog or service.

The password is probably the most important issue. Check out a site called Dead Man's Switch. This is automated service sends messages and waits for your reply. If the message remains unanswered for several days, the service notifies a person whose name and contact information you provided so that person can take whatever measures were planned.

A Gmail account stays open forever unless next-of-kin ask for its removal. If they want access to the account, they must provide information and documentation, including a death certificate. It might be easier to confide the username and password to someone you trust or reveal them in your will.

An inactive Hotmail account will be removed automatically. Until then, next-of-kin can be gain access to it by sending in information and documentation. At Yahoo, however, everything remains confidential. If you have not given your username and password to someone else, the most that can be asked for is deletion of the account.

Facebook will not allow anyone else to access the account, but once notified of your death by next-of-kin, it can turn it into a memorial page upon request. MySpace will delete the page upon request, but will not allow it to be modified or deleted in any other way.

Do you have a PayPal account with a few hundred dollars left over? It would be nice if your loved ones knew how to access them. If a subscription to a Web domain is to be renewed soon, it would be nice to know. Otherwise, the domain will be given to someone else.

Copyright law varies from one country and one region to another. In general, it may be possible to transfer your copyright to others. If copyright is left to the estate, there is no guarantee that your Web material will remain online.

You don’t have to put everything in your will. There could be a separate envelope in which you inform the executor of which material you want deleted from your computer before anyone else gets to see it.

Here are a few resources:

http://webmasterformat.com/blog/what-happens-to-your-website-if-you-die

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-happens-to-your-email-and-social-networking-sites-when-you-die

http://menwithpens.ca/what-happens-to-your-website-if-you-die

Gay bashing occurs in St. George!

See this: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/11/19/nb-st-george-assault-1222.html.

This blog entry and title shall remain until the story is proven wrong or the community of St. George takes measures to prevent any similar activity in the future.

Gateway getaway

Before getting to my main comment, here is a bit of background. In Quebec, immigrants are expected to enroll their children in French schools. The only children who can go to publicly funded English schools in Quebec are those for whom at least one parent was educated in English in Canada. Those coming from outside Quebec must have already been enrolled in an English school elsewhere in Canada before moving to Quebec, or have a brother or sister who was enrolled in an English school before the move. In all these cases, at least one parent must be a Canadian citizen, unless the parent was schooled in English in Quebec.

The main idea is that any immigrant settling in Quebec should send his or her children to French schools. Thanks to a loophole, some people whose children don’t immediately qualify for English education in Quebec would send their children to private English schools for one year. After this, they were then allowed into public English schools. The provincial government passed legislation to close this loophole, but the legislation was declared unconstitutional. Rather than use the “notwithstanding clause” as provided for in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Quebec government recently chose to pass Bill 115, which sets out tougher criteria for parents wanting to have their children qualify for English school in this way.

End of history lesson. On to my usual blog entry:

Aspiring writers have long been told to write what they know. Tasha Kheiriddin is from Montreal, Quebec, and would be expected to be familiar with the province and its education system. But I wonder if that’s truly so. A National Post editorial signed by Kheiriddin and titled Quebec chooses language purity over prosperity is a good example. Here's an excerpt:

"But when children are in the picture, things change. Parents want to equip their kids to take on the world, not just the province. If their children have already been educated elsewhere in English, putting them in French school could affect not only language skills, but their grades in all subjects. Knowing how most immigrants prize education, this is a risk many do not wish to take. And for immigrants coming to Quebec from other parts of Canada, it is downright discriminatory that they cannot move within their new country and school their children in the language of their choice."

Unlike Kheiriddin, I'm not a Quebecker and my knowledge of Quebec is rather limited. But in this golden age of the Internet, it’s easy to get the information needed to be well-informed. In this case, I went to the Quebec government website, in English, and looked up the rules regarding education, the same ones that appear above. Obviously, the matter of citizenship is vitally important. As with many things, citizenship has its privileges. Many immigrants will be permanent residents long before gaining citizenship. If the parent's move to Quebec is inevitable for reasons of employment or otherwise, this could indeed have implications for the child’s education.

And yet, this is a rather limited perspective. Countless children remain unilingual anglophones in Canada because they do not have the chance to interact with francophones or receive an education in French. I understand that we don’t like to see our children’s marks suffer when moving into an area where the culture and language is different. But then we should put the school system on trial for summing up everything in a series of grades. When an employee goes through a performance appraisal, we don’t just see quantifiable factors like the number of tires installed or the number or words translated. There are also the unquantifiable aspects like relating with colleagues, customer service, problem solving. Why can’t we do the same thing with school?

But I digress...

What does Tasha Kheiriddin mean when she writes that immigrants coming to Quebec from another region of Canada cannot have their children educated in their language of choice? Clearly, when Kheiriddin says "their language of choice," it is code for "English". Otherwise, by now, there would surely have been Polish and Russian public schools in Ontario, and Ukrainian schools in Manitoba. If immigrants from France came to Alberta or Ontario, I’m sure Kheiriddin would be delighted to offer them the opportunity to go to an English school.

In many provinces, not just anyone can enrol in a French school. In New Brunswick, a child must be francophone, have a francophone parent or speak neither English nor French to enrol in a French school. In other provinces, the criteria could be even more restrictive. So, why should we be so indignant that Quebec would apply a similar principle regarding English?

And why should a French-language education not make these children ready to take on the world? Is she implying that French-language education is somehow inferior to English schooling? Why? And in what way?

The main thrust of the editorial is that the recently adopted Bill 115 has flaws. On this, even the French agree, though for different reasons. But Kheiriddin protests the creation of another level of bureaucracy to enforce a law that she believes shows that non-French-speaking people aren’t welcome in Quebec. We have every right to hate bureaucracy in Quebec. We have every right to believe that new legislation will create a new level of bureaucracy in Quebec, though we then have to prove it. But saying newcomers are not welcome if they do not speak French is something else. Canada itself insists that immigrants know at least one of the two official languages, or promise to learn one. If Canada can impose such conditions, why can't Quebec impose conditions regardings its schools?

Further on, Kheiriddin complains of deteriorating municipal infrastructure and unreasonable waiting periods in hospitals. She believes whatever money will be spent applying Bill 115 would be better spent if invested in infrastructure or to address the problem of delays in the medical system. But the problem of wait times and crumbling infrastructure is not limited to Quebec. What should Ontario cut to address the crumbling infrastructure in Ottawa or Toronto?

Kheiriddin says Quebec is choosing language purity over prosperity. (To be fair, the term "linguistic purity" should be defined. But again, I digress...) What she does not say is why one must necessarily preclude the other. The columnist does not seem to accept the possibility that both can coexist and even complement each other. She also said that Quebec is depriving itself of young immigrants by applying its language policy at a time where the population is aging. What then of Spain, Mexico, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Brazil? When moving to a new country, one must learn the local language. And if I move to a new province, I should learn the language used in that region too.

Finally, she complained that Quebec would received equalization payments despite – or given – its language policy. She says that Quebec can afford to offer seven-dollars-a-day daycare and free in vitro fertilization services only because it receives equalization payments. If an English-speaking province applied an English version of Quebec’s Language Charter and offered seven-dollars-a-day daycare, would she be so critical?

The two solitudes still exist. And some people and institutions seem determined to make sure they live on.

Food Crisis

A few weeks ago I heard a report on Radio-Canada’s La semaine verte TV show about the impending world food crisis. We heard, among other things, about the growing of Jatropha Curcas in parts of India.

Is this the miracle product that will allow everyone to eat their fill? Far from it! It’s actually a plant that for some time seemed to be a promising source of biofuel. Unlike edible plants, like corn, Jatropha Curcas is not a food source. Growing corn for fuel instead of food creates food scarcity and raises prices, making it harder for poorer people to make ends meet. Growing a toxic plant like Jatropha Curcas for biofuel doesn’t raise the same moral dilemma.

But the report says a moral question of another type has been raised. Jatropha Curcas is being grown on a large scale in an area of Chhattisgarh, India. Some 18 families who collectively owned the land saw it taken away by authorities. They can no longer grow their own food and cannot feed themselves or their cattle. They now depend on food donations.

These families hardly see any benefit to growing a plant like Jatropha Curcas. The plant is as toxic to them as it is to their animals. The plant itself cannot be used for heating, and since none of them use motorised vehicles, they don’t need its fuel. In short, the plant is of no use them.

The authorities planned to use so-called infertile and degraded land since it was thought at the time that it could grow almost anywhere and wouldn’t require much water. The problem is many areas said to be arid and semi-arid were actually inhabited and used by local and indigenous communities. In other words, the land was productive. Force was often used against these vulnerable peoples, violating their right to subsistence.

There is also the matter of disappearing human cultures. These people lived off the land for at least decades, perhaps centuries. Tearing them away from the land and stripping them of the right to use to make a living has led to the end of a long tradition. Don’t blame modernity, because modernity would lead to improved production without compromising the lifestyle. In this case, the lifestyle has been totally turned upside because others saw an opportunity to make lots of money.

But the worst part is the experiment seems doomed to certain failure. Yes, the plant can grow in less fertile land, but its yield has not met expectations. "This is not a wasteland crop. It needs fertiliser, water and good management," according to another Internet report.

In the same TV report, there was talk of Senegalese who were fishing off the coast. The only truly modern tool used by these modern Senegalese fishermen was an outboard motor. But fishing isn’t so good these days because of large fishing boats from other countries with greater fish-catching ability. When the next generation comes of age, will there still be someone to teach them how to fish traditionally? And if so, will any fish be left?

He who loses his faith

In French, there is a saying: He who loses his language loses his faith. But what about people who lost their faith while maintaining the language?

Regular readers know my thoughts on the existence of a supreme being. In short, I do not believe it. However, in Franco-Acadian New Brunswick, religion and education have been virtually inseparable more than a century, even after Canada gave itself the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which calls for religious neutrality, at least according to case law.

That said, I do understand the historical basis for the entanglement. As in Quebec, French language instruction in New Brunswick had been left to priests and nuns in the earliest times. There were probably efforts to recruit new clergy members, but there were also, especially for priests and nuns who were born and raised in the province, a desire to see Acadian society develop. And social and economic development requires education.

Before 1872, education throughout the province was problematic at best, especially among the Acadians. For several years, a provincial minister, George Edwin King, led a movement to change things, promoting the idea of a system of public schools to replace separate (religious) schools. Education would be free, that is, paid through public funds, and would be available to all regardless of language, religion, sex and economic status of a student's family.

However, the separate school system allowed some Acadians to be schooled in institutions that were both Catholic and French. English-speaking Catholics, although generally reluctant to support the French cause, also wanted to keep their separate schools. Given the general lack of support for non-denominational schools, King withdrew his first bill.

Later, when he became head of the provincial executive committee (today, we would call him Premier), King introduced a similar bill and faced the same opposition from both the public and many members of the Legislative Assembly. In the end, two opponents were offered attractive government positions in return for siding with the provincial administrative body, and the Common Schools Act was finally passed in 1871, and came into effect in 1872.

The new law prohibited any religious symbols from being displayed in school building, and teachers were prohibited from wearing religious uniforms. In addition, people who still wanted their children to attend a religious school had to pay twice, both the tax imposed by government for public education, even if their child did not attend public school, and the tuition fees of the non-public institution where their child was enrolled. This may seem normal today, but it wasn't the case during the 1870s.

Over the years that followed, Catholics, encouraged by their spiritual leaders, demonstrated against this law in various ways. This would eventually lead to a tragic event in 1875. Following a protest outside the house of a member of the provincial executive committee, the militia was dispatched to Caraquet. Some Acadians, who had gathered in a house to discuss the events, hid in the attic when they saw the militia coming. In the minutes that followed, two people were killed, a militiaman, John Gilford, and an Acadian, Louis Mailloux. Few people remember Gilford today, but Mailloux's name has been given to a school in Caraquet.

Wishing to avoid any further tragedies, and perhaps fearing the reaction of the rest of the country, the provincial government offered a compromise. The wearing of religious uniform was allowed and Catechism would be taught in schools outside the official hours of instruction. Catholic clergy accepted this compromise and then encouraged the people to pay the school tax and send their children to school.

What about French education? This would lead to a different struggle that Acadians, by and large, had to fight on their own, without the help of clergy.

In 1867, the year of Canadian Confederation, the Acadian population lived mainly outside of mainstream society. Some Acadians became merchants and there were a few Acadian priests in the two existing dioceses, Saint John and Chatham. Lawyers and doctors were still years away. The English controlled trade and government.

As for clergy, the higher posts of the Catholic Church in New Brunswick were held by English-speaking Irish. In his book, Un siècle de revendications scolaires au Nouveau-Brunswick, 1871-1971, author Alexander-J. Savoie presents an excerpt from a letter from the founder of the Moniteur Acadien, Israël J. D. Landry, to historian Rameau de Saint-Père. Here's my translation:

It would be impossible to describe to you all the harassment I was subject to since I started publishing an Acadian newspaper. The Irish clergy (in the counties of Westmorland and Kent) said publicly in their churches that "Mr. Landry came to separate the French Catholics from the Irish, Scottish, etc. ..." You see, there is concern that the poor Acadians may learn and work to retain their language. The Irish clergy (which has already lost its own language) said there should be only one language in this country, and that language is English.

Faced with such opposition, Landry might have been tempted thumb his nose at the clergy. But the Church played such a prominent role in society at the time that this would have been unthinkable. So with the help of some sympathetic clergy, the Acadians worked for years to "Acadianise" the clergy and have a small part of the Church they so willingly followed. In this respect, they succeeded.

Acadian society is not what it used to be. These people with no land to call their own defined themselves through two seemingly immutable characteristics: the French language and the Roman Catholic faith. But the Church has lost ground in recent decades, perhaps less in Acadia than in Quebec, but it has still lost ground. Many Acadians are no longer ruled by the Church, but continue to show a great affection for the French language.

Some continue to attend church out of respect for tradition. But we can respect the past without living in it. We are past the days of horse carriages and inkwells. Acadians themselves now live in an era of automobiles and computers. Acadia as a nation could do the same.

Who is deserving of justice?

“If Edmond Dantes hadn’t been sent to prison and then managed to escape, Villefort, Danglars and Morcerf would not have gotten what was coming to them.”

A friend who was watching the Jim Caviezel Count of Monte Cristo movie with me said this was why God would sometimes allow bad things to happen to good people. So what about Auguste Ciparis, a jailed criminal who wound up being the only one in Saint-Pierre, Martinique, to survive the eruption of Mount Pelée?

“Maybe God wanted the prisoner to live long enough to learn something.”

And what about all the people who died in the disaster? Especially the babies who clearly weren’t cognitively developed enough to be held responsible for any wrongdoing?

“Well, God called them to him that much sooner.” And presumably, the other people deserving of his grace were similarly blessed.

But what of the others? Did they deserve to die? Did Ciparis truly deserve to live? How could the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god come to these decisions and maintain his reputation for being perfectly just?

In a previous post, I spoke of why I had concluded that the biblical god does not exist. At the time I talked about that being having the following attributes: All-knowing, All-powerful and All-merciful. All-knowing means god knows everything even before it happens. All-powerful means god can do anything. Absolutely anything. All-merciful means showing absolute compassion or forbearance. I explained why I believed he could be two out of three, but not all three at the same time.

Recently, I was reminded that there was a fourth attribute: Perfectly just. Perfectly just means whatever one suffers or enjoys as a result of god’s act or omission is fair or deserved, such as a just reward or just desserts.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the process leading to the eruption of Mount Pelée was independent of god. The all-powerful and all-knowing god could, at the most, have decided to stop it, but he evidently didn’t. His next choice was to allow everyone to die, allow everyone to live, or pick and choose who should die and who should live. To be perfectly just, what should his decision have been? And in doing so, could he also exercise perfect mercy?

Is it possible to be perfectly just and all-merciful? If Ciparis was shown mercy, was he also given what he deserved? Was god both merciful and just when he allowed him to live? Did all those people actually deserve to die (even if some did make it to heaven)? Is that perfect justice?

And did Edmond Dantes deserve to be imprisoned just so his enemies could be punished later? I don’t find that very merciful. I don’t believe it was deserved either. True, he was imprisoned through human deeds. But if we follow my friend’s logic, it had to happen so he could exact his revenge later, and in so doing, see that his enemies get what they deserved.

They say god works in mysterious ways. His ways would also appear to be illogical.

(NOTE: Other sources say there were up to three survivors, including Ciparis.)

Don’t play the faith game

“You, on the other hand – I have heard you say this before – believe that the universe created itself from nothing, even though you cannot explain how something can come from nothing, and that life also created itself by some kind of chemical or biological necessity which you cannot demonstrate either. It’s all faith. And furthermore, I think it is far more bizarre than mine.”

This excerpt originally appeared in an article by William Gairdner which was most recently displayed at http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2006/3/14/on-atheism.html. At one point the post has one person saying “I don’t believe in God,” to which another one, presumably Gairdner himself, asks, “How did you come by that faith?” He goes on to argue that taking a position on the existence or non-existence of God is itself an act of faith.

He almost had me there. I almost had to admit there was some faith involved, or at least some trust, concerning my naturalistic view of the universe. Then, I came to a realisation: apples and oranges have again been mixed. I’ve never understood whether religionists use this ploy deliberately or if it simply makes sense in their worldview. In any case, I almost fell for it. Here is the revised version of what I had almost published.

Scientists have put forward the theory that the universe came to be out of nothing following strictly natural processes. They made careful observations and drew the necessary conclusions. The same could be said for how life came to exist. Scientists have made statements on both matters.

However, science has NOT made any statement concerning the existence of a deity. Some scientists may not believe in God, but many others do. While science is finding less and less reason to think God’s intervention was needed for the universe and life to come into being, there is still nothing that says God does or doesn’t exist. Therefore, it continues to be outside the realm of science.

So we must make a distinction between what science tells us and what it doesn’t it. My position on the existence of God isn’t based on science. I came to that realisation after reading different philosophical arguments on the matter and thinking things through. Faith, or trust in proper authorities, has nothing to do with it. I reached my own conclusion. If faith is involved in any way, then it is faith in my capacity to investigate the matter and draw a satisfactory conclusion.

On scientific issues, however, if having faith was an indictable offense, I would be guilty as charged. You see, I don’t have the time or resources to examine fossils myself, or to go over all the raw data to decide conclusively that climate change is driven by human activity. I can’t know for sure that we really were created out of nothing. Luckily, I’m smart enough to realise that just because I can’t personally confirm one theory, it doesn’t mean the other one wins by default.

I do have faith that conscientious scientists will apply the scientific method to come to logical conclusions. I have faith that arguments and counterarguments among scientists will lead to new knowledge and perspectives, as well as consensus on various issues. I also have faith that we will be told about those pseudo-scientists that have broken the trust I have placed in them. It is up to them to not break that trust. In other words, my faith is provisional. It has to be earned.

This differs from religious faith which is usually absolute. One must believe that the world was created by a supernatural being simply because one was told to or because one’s mind simply prefers a kind of absolute truth. There is no room for competing theories (unless they both stem from the same religious source). The faith doesn’t have to be earned because it has already been proclaimed as inerrant. It just can’t be wrong! And if you DON’T have this faith, a terrible fate awaits you...

In this sense, it is the complete opposite of the faith I have.

So, how do I answer when someone asks, “How did you come by that faith?” I guess I could say, “Faith has nothing to do with my position on a deity’s existence. As for how the world came into being, my faith was earned and must continually be earned.”

Following one's nature

“What is required to identify and define homosexuality, is an act. Without homosexual behaviour, there is no homosexuality to worry about, and this fact alone is sufficient grounds to deny protection.” – William Gairdner (http://www.williamgairdner.com/gay-wrongs)

Gairdner doesn’t mince words when it comes to gay rights – he’s generally opposed to them. Notice, however, his implied definition of homosexual. To him, homosexuality is all about what you do. How you feel is irrelevant.

This is hard for me to confess, but it has to be said: When I found myself attracted to girls, it wasn’t something I had asked for. I was quite happy to live my life as a young male child who liked hockey, baseball, dodge ball, cats, TV, board games, comic books (especially DC), and swimming at the cottage. My contact with the female sex was limited mainly to mother, sister, aunts, teachers, etc.

Somewhere around Grade 6, I noticed two things. First, my eyesight wasn’t as good as it used to be. (Two years later, I would finally start wearing glasses.) Secondly, despite my vision problems, girls actually started to look, well, interesting. Just a few months before, I could care less about how a girl’s ass moved when she walked. Soon, though, it took real effort (or the girl turning around) to take my eyes off her ass.

Then, of course, there was the chest. I knew women had breasts. I had seen a few bare ones when I was a preschooler and could tell that women had them under their clothes. But these newer ones on girls who had never had them before captivated me. Soon, I could tell which ones wore a bra. Clearly something was happening.

Whenever I would go to the local drug store to buy comics, I would see magazines that showed naked women on the cover. In other circumstances that are now nebulous, I remember being able to look through a few of them (though not in any store). I also discovered that while our English TV station would never show any nudity, the French channel would show some quite often. This may explain, at least in part, how I became a Francophile.

If these magazines and movies existed, there had to be other people like me who found women’s bodies fascinating. And as far as I could tell, they were all men. There was no one around to really talk to about these things. Luckily, there were nurses in the family and my mother was one of them. She kept medical books at home for reference purposes and I started pouring through them… when she wasn’t around, of course!

As time went on, a clearer picture of what was happening came to me. Like many others my age, I was experiencing puberty and was now fully transforming into a fully sexual being. (Children are sexual beings, too, but not quite in the same way.) More to the point, though, I was turning into a heterosexual being. Why? Simply because I had a combination of these traits: a) I was male; and b) females were my sexual focus.

I hadn’t asked for this. One of my aunts, whom I suppose meant well, started talking about how I would attract a lot of attention from girls because I happened to be quite tall. This was scary! I never had to deal with girls before except as fellow students. Now, they would be on my mind all the time. My aunt even assured me that this was supposed to happen. To make matters worse, my parish priest was adamant that I would burn in hell if I didn’t somehow eradicate my heterosexual feelings.

It took quite a few years, but I eventually came to grips with my heterosexuality. I am what I am and always will be. Women look as fascinating as ever, and I now allow myself to enjoy their company without any feelings of guilt. But with puberty behind me, I can also concentrate on tasks when I must.

I realise now that I was lucky. I have come to see just how much more easily our society accepts heterosexuality, as long as it is controlled, preferably through institutions such as marriage. I can’t imagine what I would have gone through if my sexual focus had been my fellow males.

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve been heterosexual my entire life, or at least since puberty. But if Gairdner is to be believed, I couldn’t possibly have been heterosexual until the day I finally had sex. If we follow his definition to the letter, I only became heterosexual at the age of 19. What was I before then? And what were the gay men before they finally had sex with other men? Neuter? Ambiguous? Fence-sitters?

Implicit in Gairdner’s argument is the wish that homosexuals would deny their very nature. I wasn’t able to deny my heterosexual nature, so I don’t see how I could ask a gay man to deny his.

Random Thoughts

Last time I wrote about the post-Ning situation, Skinbook (the original) had bitten the dust while Free Range Naturists (FRN) and Bare Friends International (BFI) had struck out on their own. Now it would appear that BFI is no more as well.

For the past few weeks a message saying they are temporarily down and will be back soon has been permanently (or so it seems) set on their site, as minutes turned into hours, hours into days and days into weeks. If anything was being done to bring it back, there was no indication of this, not even a general email explaining what is going on. Now, there is another site there, one which is affiliated with godaddy.com.

Have the creators given up? Or is there a technical problem that has forced the creators to go back to the drawing board?

Inquiring minds want to know.

- - -

 
Many people have trouble telling the difference between swinging and naturism despite there being a clear distinction between the two. In Quebec, the Fédération québécoise de naturisme has published a statement on the matter. It can be read in the original French at http://www.vivrenu.ca/avis_aux_internautes.htm. Here is my translation:

"Notice to Internet Users: FQN position concerning swinging and the misleading use of the term "naturism"

"The aims of true naturism are to restore the body to its rightful place and the discovery of the pleasures of living in harmony with nature, without the clichés or fantasies (with which it is often associated). Naturism, of which nudity is but one component, is a life philosophy based on tolerance, respect for one’s self, others and the environment. Naturism is not a sexual activity in any way, shape or form.

"Although the Fédération québécoise de naturisme (Federation) expresses no opinion or judgment regarding the practice of swinging, nor any other sexual activity between consenting adults, the Federation hereby wishes to inform the public that all references to the Federation, including the use of its name or logo, linking to its website or mentioning of the Federation in any other activity or publication, by any person, association or company dedicated to swinging or similar activities, which may suggest that the Federation encourages, approves or otherwise gives its consent to such activities, is strictly prohibited. We reject any information or advertising promoting such activity which would be contrary to the mission of the Federation or to its philosophy, and any such information should not be considered valid."

While not all naturist sites have a statement of this type, they usually have other information clearly indicating that naturism is one thing and swinging is another, and that neither need include the other. Indeed, many swingers aren’t interested in nude recreation that doesn’t include sex. And some naturists eschew any type of sex that would not be condoned by the local parish priest.

Naturism and swinging are NOT the same.

But swingers can be interested in naturism and can be role models to more “vanilla” people who could unintentionally misbehave due to honestly held misconceptions about naturism.

Dismanteling the Clock

“It was certainly not intended to be two political nations. This is unmistakably plain. Over and over again, the ‘Canadian’ Fathers of Confederation, French, English, Irish and Scots, declare emphatically that they were creating a new nation.” – Eugene Forsey

I saw this quote for the first time in a brief prepared by Ron Leitch, who was the time head of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. The brief was published in J.V. Andrew’s book, Enough! The same quote later appeared in a book by William Gairdner called The Trouble With Canada, where I took this quote along with the emphasis as it appears in that book.

I don’t have access to Eugene Forsey’s original speech so I can’t comment on its meaning or whether this quote was taken out of context. But it’s interesting that people who want only one official language in Canada, and want that language to be English, would use this quote to denigrate the idea of two founding nations, or two founding peoples. The idea is that nothing that happened before 1867 matters, and we’ll all live together in this nice new English nation that, all the same, continues to bow to the British Crown.

When the first four British colonies decided to unite into a country called Canada, the presence of an almost homogeneously French-speaking territory commonly called Lower Canada could hardly be missed. In fact, from the start, certain allowances were made, such as section 133 of the British North America Act which allows for French to be used in the Canadian Parliament as well as in Quebec’s government institutions.

Therefore, from the start, efforts were made to accommodate the French. These weren’t foreigners or immigrants. They were there from the start and already constituted a People. This fact could not be ignored. And this fact is part of our common history.

The initial goodwill was limited and, in some cases, quite temporary. To my knowledge, there was nothing in the Constitution that mandated an English-speaking public service. It just seemed to happen naturally. Unfortunately, the natural course of events also tended to shut out French Canadians who couldn’t speak English, and sometimes even those who could. In Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, former Prime Minister Paul Martin tells author Graham Fraser about the father of one of his friends, a man who couldn’t rise any further in the public service for the simple reason that he was French. What should have been nothing more than an inconvenience was instead a hindrance, one that many people who are against bilingualism would like to see again.

We ignore history at our own peril. The French nation we now call Quebec already existed in 1867. As time went on, French developed further in New Brunswick as well thanks to the Acadians, so much so that the province is now the only province in Canada to be officially bilingual. French people have also existed in the rest of Canada, and certainly as far back as 1867. Their numbers are few, too few for any real political significance, but their presence cannot be denied.

Even in Ontario, French was already present in 1867. When French education in Ontario was outlawed in 1912, it was purportedly to prevent other “immigrant” groups from demanding public education in their own languages as well. Yet, the French in Ontario weren’t immigrants. To say their rights to public education in French was merely a privilege afforded by the English majority is, to say the least, disingenuous.

And we certainly can’t forget the Red River uprising in Manitoba and the subsequent hanging of Métis leader Louis Riel. Whether he’s a hero or a scoundrel depends a lot on where you stand on the language issue.

If Quebec ever left Canada, English Canada could not turn back the clock by declaring English to be the only official language. Without Quebec, the clock would be effectively dismantled.

R.I.P. Skinbook... apparently

In the latest development concerning former naturist/nudist social sites on Ning, at least one of the sites I was a member of has become a casualty. Skinbook, arguably the most popular of Ning’s nudist sites, has now closed.

You will remember from this posting that Ning decided to prohibit all nudity from its sites, including those run by and for naturists and nudists. There were various nudist sites on Ning, but those I was most familiar with were Skinbook, Bare Friends International (BFI) and Free Range Nudists (since renamed Free Range Naturists, or FRN). The blanket prohibition of nudity did not sit well with any of these sites, but the attempts at finding solutions were varied.

There was already talk some months before about BFI moving away from Ning due to problems with Ning administration, and the anti-nudity rule seems to have been the final impetus needed to put the plan in action. The site can now be found at a new address.

FRN tried first going the diaspora route with members joining groups on MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Google, etc., and even creating an FRN group on Skinbook itself. The reasoning was that even if those groups didn’t allow nudity, at least the risk of seeing everything disappear due to an overzealous worker at Ning could be compensated for. Most recently, they found a new home on the elgg system, which does allow nudity, and everything is being centralised there.

Skinbook is the only one that promised a seamless transition to another site. It did so after first seeking an exemption from Ning for its group. I find it hard to believe they would actually make such a request given Ning’s final word on the matter. However, they did say that some art groups were in the same boat as some of the portraits exhibited were nudes. I don’t know what happened to the art groups, but Skinbook did not get any special treatment, at least not in this regard.

When it was clear they could not stay on Ning and keep nude pictures, they tried to transfer to another platform. The first try was at grou.ps. They do seem to have tried hard at making it work for quite some time. However, they eventually found it too complex and opted for grouply instead. But many complaints came from the membership regarding spam and other problems at grouply. At least, this is what they said.

The most recent attempt was to start from scratch at www.theskinbook.net and have everyone register all over again. This apparently caused other problems, and the plug was finally pulled for good, with some regret but especially with a certain amount of bitterness on the part of Site administrator Karl Maddocks.

Maddocks sent a message announcing the demise of Skinbook that was supposed to reach all members. I never received it, and I’m apparently not the only one. But the letter was reprinted on various nudist websites and blogs. Here is what he had to say:

     "A message to all members of www.theskinbook.net:

     "It is with much regret that I have come to the decision to bring Skinbook to an end.

     "After all the effort (and money) we have put into saving the Skinbook network; the complaining, negativity, abuse and general lack of support we have received (sic) from our users has been quite frankly, disgusting...

     "I am no longer prepared to provide the Skinbook network to any members past or present.

     "As much as we have attempted over the past couple of years to bring together the naturist community and give the naturist lifestyle a positive public image, the treatment of my team here at Skinbook has finally made it clear (to myself at least) why this lifestyle is both fragmented from within and ostracized from without.

     "What you take this to mean is up to you to speculate individually.

     "For me this revelation doesn't require an explination (sic), it requires merely a reaction; my reaction being that from now on I see fit only to completely distance myself from this lifestyle (from both a philosophical and physical stand point) and most certainly from ANY medium which serves to promote it.

     "Good luck in your quests to find unity within your chosen lifestyle... you need it!

     "Karl Maddocks”

He then added a post scriptum in which he adds that he and his team retain all rights to the Skinbook name, logo and any other associated media.

See also, among others, this posting.

Criticising religion

Why not just stand up for secularism? This was the theme of a talk by Atheist Alliance International’s Russel Blackford, which can be accessed on the net from embiggenbooks.com. The question asks why we should criticise religion rather than just promote the benefits of secularism.

The short answer given by Blackford is that if religion is not challenged in society, there will be no traction for ideas of freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. If everyone just accepts that religion has epistemic and moral authority, it may be wondered, then, why we should ever be free from it. Many religious people and organisations refuse to accept the logic of secularism, that it’s not okay for them to try to convince government to impose their dogmas. History has shown that for our safety from religion, we must be able to criticise it. Blackford then delves into the past to illustrate his point.

Over time, Christianity went from being a persecuted religion to a persecuting one, destroying Jewish synagogues and pagan temples, and attacking any type of Christianity that did not conform to orthodoxy. Eventually, Martin Luther’s actions lead to a protestant movement that the orthodoxy could not put down. Millions died throughout Europe in religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, including millions in France alone during the 30 Years War.

The religious connection was a huge part of what was happening on the European political scene, even if the wars were not religious per se. Part of the reason the Acadians were deported starting in 1755 was they wouldn’t abandon Catholicism, which made them suspect in the eyes of British authorities.

By the 17th century, philosophers were seriously examining the matter of state and religion. In 1689, John Locke noted that much of the struggle is caused by religion trying to take over civil power. If civil government could simply tolerate competing churches and stick to overseeing secular matters, religion would have to fall back. There would have to be no persecuting of religions, either by the State or by rival sects. The mission of the churches is to save souls for the afterlife. The State’s mission is to ensure civil order in this world and avoid choosing which religion is “correct.”

Since 1689, much lip service has been given to this idea. But it’s never been fully accepted in ANY society, not even in that bastion of church-state separation, the U.S.A. Locke himself wasn’t ready to follow his statement to its logical conclusion. For example, he believed it was acceptable to persecute atheists, Catholics and Muslims. Atheists, he argued, don’t believe in an afterlife and therefore can’t be expected to be trusted when taking an oath. Catholics are seditious as their first loyalty is to the Vatican. And a Muslim’s first loyalty is to the Ottoman Empire. Locke didn’t realise that these people could be very good citizens of the country where they live. (He also didn’t realise that gays and lesbians could be good citizens even though they practised a type of sexuality that was different from the one he espoused.)

Still, the general idea had been planted. There should be NO religious persecution carried out or tolerated by the State. Any government measure against religion must exist only if there is a secular justification for it, and no religion-inspired law or government policy should exist if there is no secular justification for it. The State should deal only with life, health, property and other things of this world.

Churches say they support the separation of Church and State, but that doesn’t mean they think the State shouldn’t act for non-religious reasons only. The Vatican still thinks the State should enforce “moral law,” it’s version, of course. Churches still expect the State to impose their morality, which they call “natural law.”

Therefore, we must be able to criticise religion in order to make sure the State continues to deal only with things of this world. Promoting secularisation isn’t enough. If no one actively opposes religion, freedom of and from religion has no foundation. It must be legitimate to oppose religion itself.

If a claim of moral authority is made by a church, we must be able to challenge it and be a voice of disbelief. As Blackford asks, where does the church get its authority? Should it truly have that aura of authority? Are the religious authorities truly moral experts?

Religious Violence

The goal of the previous post was to clearly show that not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists, even if they are Marxists. This is now clear, at least in my own mind.

Many people who want to speak of the “evils” of atheism often point to former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and the deaths of millions caused by his actions. Often this is because religious people believe only atheists could cause death on such an enormous scale, and Stalin was undoubtedly an atheist. But were the deaths caused by Stalin truly the result of hostility toward religion? I think we have to distinguish between atrocities committed by atheists and those committed due to atheism. Let’s define a few terms first.

Theism and State Theism are not the same. Theism is a position taken on matters of religion and society by a person or by a like-minded group of people according to which the existence of at least one supreme and supernatural being is accepted as fact, notwithstanding lack of objective evidence for the existence of any such being. State Theism is the policy of an authoritarian government which encourages the populace to adhere to a particular brand of religion, usually called the State religion, and discouraging belief in any other brand of religion as well as discouraging non-belief in any religious system whatsoever. This can manifest itself in the persecution of those who will not adhere to the state religion, especially if they prove to be a thorn in the government’s side.

Likewise, Atheism and State Atheism are not the same. Atheism is a position taken on matters of religion and society by a person or by a like-minded group of people according to which the existence of a supreme and supernatural being has not been proven and is therefore of no consequence in one’s daily life. State Atheism is the policy of an authoritarian government which encourages non-religion in the populace and discourages religious belief, often to the point of persecuting religious believers, especially if they prove to be a thorn in the government’s side.

Therefore, if we are to attribute killings to religion, the killings must have been either:

• motivated by hatred toward a religion or a particular religious group (Anglican vs. Catholic; Hindu vs. Muslim, etc.);
• motivated by religious belief (Thou shalt slay the infidel); or
• committed by or ordered by the State as a measure of persecution against people of a religious belief other than the one approved by the State (The Iranian government against the Baha’i).

Likewise, if we are to attribute killings to atheism, the killings have been either:

• committed by an atheist who is motivated by hatred toward religion in general (I’m gonna get even with those “/$%?& religionists);
• motivated by atheistic beliefs (whatever that may be); or
• committed by or ordered by the State as a measure of persecution against people of religious belief in general or of a particular religious belief.

Traditionally, religious people and authorities have committed their atrocities against those who are non-religious and those whose religion is different from theirs. Therefore, the atheistic equivalent would be against those who are religious and those whose atheism is at odds with the one practiced by the ones committing the atrocities.

We must make the distinction between purges against religious people and groups due to their religious beliefs and activities, and the deaths caused, for example, by a failed ideological attempt to reorganise a nation’s agricultural system, leading to widespread famine. There is no doubt Stalin persecuted people for their religious views, but I doubt this would account for the epitome of his atrocities, the famine in the Ukraine. Stalin wanted to force the collectivisation of farms there. The religious beliefs of his victims were probably not the first thing that came to his mind. In fact, there is reason to believe that the Russian Orthodox Church was revived during his time to stoke the flame of nationalism and show the world that the USSR was indeed a bastion of freedom of religion. On the first count at least, Stalin showed himself to not be a Marxist since the movement is one which discourages nationalism.

Therefore, pointing to Stalin’s numbers as proof that atheism has killed more people than religion is problematic at best. The millions killed through religious feuding are much easier to account for.

Imagine no possessions

One of the websites I visit regularly had an impromptu debate concerning atheists and religionists, mostly Christians. It started with a “This should be posted to a group rather than the general Forum” type of statement, but eventually became a “stop picking on us” and “you think you’re so smart” fest of comments. I published a reaction to one piece there in my site blog. As I was contemplating whether to publish it here, I realised that often the terms debated aren’t properly defined. As I tried to define them for my own purposes, I discovered my knowledge wasn’t quite up to par. I don’t mind that someone disagrees with me. But, when I’m blatantly wrong on something I should know, it really bothers me.

In this case, the terms were atheist and communist. Not all atheists are communists, but it’s always assumed that all communists are atheists. I certainly assumed as much before examining the matter more closely. In its simplest form, communism simply means a classless and stateless society in which all property is communally owned. In its modern Marxist manifestation, communism has not been stateless, and property, or at least the means for the production of goods and wealth, was owned by the State. While it could be argued the State is the People, the dictatorial nature of the governments would indicate otherwise.

Societies organised according to communist principles have existed since the earliest times. Communist theorist Karl Marx himself saw the hunter and gatherer society as communistic. Early Christians are said to have lived in such a way that all was shared, and other religious groups have also lived according to communal ownership of land and other resources.

Communist thought of a more modern bent can be traced back to Thomas More, who wrote about common ownership of property in his treatise Utopia in 1516. In the 18th century, communism began to take on a dimension of political doctrine following the French Revolution. Non-state-sponsored communistic communities continued to be formed, but while those that came before had been formed mainly for religious reasons, those of the 19th century were based mainly on social reform.

By the late 19th century, Friedrich Engels had made enough of an impression on Karl Marx that he, too, became a communist. Marx and Engels were convinced that just as feudalism had given way to capitalism, capitalism would give way to communism, where the means of production would be owned by all, and all would benefit from the production. All that was needed was for the factory workers and other members of the oppressed class to unite and throw off their shackles.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, or opium of the People, depending on how you wish to translate the original German. His pronouncements on religion aren’t quite as stark in The Communist Manifesto, which he coauthored with Engels and published in 1848. I’ve gone through the Manifesto quickly, perhaps too quickly. But my impression is the Manifesto doesn’t actually preach the ousting of religion, though it is critical of it. Rather, it sees religion as a tool of the ruling class to lull people into a state of complacency, and calls for the people to be free from religion. It’s hard to tell whether Marx and Engels believe people will have to free themselves of religion before the communist revolution or that religion will simply cease to exist once the classless society has been established. But communism, as described in the Manifesto, rather than calling for the end of religion, is predicting its eventual demise or at least the end of its hold over the masses. Atheism wasn’t supposed to be imposed. It was to occur more or less naturally at a certain stage of the working class struggle against the ruling class.

In that sense, I wonder if the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is even close to what Marx and Engels envisioned. The ordinary workers were supposed to take power from the ruling class. In the end, one ruling class was replaced by a different ruling class. While this had been more or less anticipated, Marx and Engels believed the end of classes would bring about the end of political power per se. Obviously, this never happened.

That may be Marxist communism’s Achilles heel. Communism needs a ruling class to take down. But the result is supposed to be a society without class. As long as there must be a State, there will always be a ruling class, an institution called government, though its members may be there only temporary.

Instead of a traditional revolution, it may be better for the working class to eventually reach economic autonomy through a quiet revolution already in progress. As more and more people can work from home through a computer, and perhaps just a cell phone, it may be starting to happen. In the end, we may not have common property of all production resources, but if they’re widely available at a fair price, even the poorest of wage-earners may win that struggle.

Some of my best friends

And now, a little article about some of my best friends...
Felis catus would be its taxonomic nomenclature, an endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature...

Okay, copyright infringement...

What can I say? So far, I haven’t met a cat I didn’t like.

Research was conducted into the origin of domestic cats, including DNA comparison with known subspecies of wildcats worldwide. Five genetic lineages were revealed, but only one, Felis silvestris lybica, included the domestic cat. This species is found mainly in the Middle East, including remote deserts of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, locations where the wild representatives of this subspecies were collected for the study. This means domestic cats originally came from only that area of the world.

So, Felis catus or Felis silvestris lybica? Is there still a reason to distinguish between the two?

In that region called the Fertile Crescent, cats came to live among humans to feast upon scraps as well as those smaller animals that raid gardens and harvests. Cats cause little damage and even kill off vermin. Once this was realised, humans may even have encouraged them to stick around. If we add the “cuteness” factor, like large eyes, a snub face and a forehead that is high and round, it doesn’t take much to imagine our distant ancestors taking in kittens simply because their faces were irresistible.

Can we know when they were first domesticated? The archaeological record can give us hints. The grave of an adult person who lived on the island of Cyprus, 9,500 years ago was discovered to include the corpse of an eight-month-old cat, its body oriented westward, the same as for the dead human. Since cats are not native to Cyprus, they must have been brought over by boat. The cat’s presence in the grave shows that humans and cats already had a special relationship by at least 9,500 years ago, probably more. Since humans began establishing permanent settlements in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago, the cat must have been in the process of being tamed at about the same time.

Why did this species become the sole domestic species the world over when others, notably the Southern African and Central Asian wildcats, might be just as easily tamed? It’s thought the domestic cats simply followed the patterns of civilisation and exploration from the Middle East outward. As other civilisations established themselves, Felis silvestris lybica arrived, either on the heels of explorers or as trade goods themselves, and was already there to integrate itself into new human habitats, effectively denying a similar chance to local subspecies.

Most domesticated animals are either livestock or were made to work for us somehow. The cat is perhaps the only one to have been adopted in Neolithic times for its cuteness factor.

Ning-a-ding-ding

I posted an article on some Ning nudist social sites last April. I later added an update saying that these sites would no longer be free, and that a contribution might be requested from members in some cases.
Now, the sites will go through another metamorphosis of sorts as the Ning service will allow NO NUDITY WHATSOEVER starting August 19.

The Ning sites I have joined and are nudist per se are Skinbook, Bare Friends International (BFI) and Free Range Nudists (since renamed Free Range Naturists, or FRN). The different services strived to maintain high naturist standards, i.e., no erection or crotch shots, no sexual banter, no swinging, no alternative communities, etc. Some of the sites only required a profile pic. Others insisted that at least three “respectful” nude pictures be posted, and even three pictures in “naturist settings.”

Another Ning site, Lenny's Room of Friends and Fun, isn’t nudist but it allowed nudists (and others) to post nude pictures. Lenny’s Room will continue on Ning despite the new anti-nudity rule. Since nudism is not its main raison d’être, there would be no need to transition, and it will continue “as is” minus the nude photos. For the other sites, though, a nudist social networking site must at least allow nudity, so in that sense at least, staying on Ning would not be an option.

Skinbook says it will first seek an exemption from Ning for its group, but if that doesn’t work out, everything will be transferred intact to a new platform, with no need to re-register. All that will change is the site address. So far, with two days to go as of this writing, I have heard nothing about having received special permission from Ning to continue as is, nor anything about a new Web address having even been chosen.

BFI and FRN have chosen a different path. In the case of BFI, the original creators had backed out of operating the site due to illness, and since Ning refused to deal with anyone besides the creators, the administrators who took over operating the site had their hands tied on certain issues. There was therefore already talk some months ago about moving away from Ning, and the anti-nudity rule seems to have been the final impetus to put the plan in action. The site can now be found at a new address and it would appear the service will continue to be offered at no cost to members. But those who want to stay with BFI must register at the new site and transfer any photos or other material there themselves.

FRN tried first going the diaspora route with members joining groups on MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Google, etc., and even creating an FRN group on Skinbook. Most recently, they found a new home on the elgg system, which does allow nudity. Like BFI, FRN must work out some bugs in its system, but the service is still offered at no cost to members. However, those who were members before and want to stay must register at the new site.

With all that, it’s still puzzling why Ning, after first having approved “non-Adult” (non-sexual) nudity, suddenly did an about face and decided it didn’t want any nudity after all. This would seem to be in line with Facebook’s policy where even breastfeeding can’t be shown. Only Ning can say why it has now decided to prohibit even the most innocent of nudity. They say many of the problems they encountered with the more “adult” style nudity have been occurring with the other type as well. They don’t say what those problems are.

Tintamarre

In a previous post I mentioned that the Acadian flag dates back to 1884. What I should have also said was that the flag was never intended to represent a portion of a province’s or country’s population. Rather, it was to represent a People, the descendants of the non-Native people who first settled in Acadia before 1710, as well as those who integrated into Acadian society after 1710, and especially after 1755. Where the Acadians lived after 1755 was of no consequence since the original settlements and settlement patterns had been destroyed forever. Therefore, the flag’s sphere of influence extends beyond New Brunswick, beyond the Atlantic Provinces, and even beyond North America. Acadia has no borders, and neither does its flag.

A similar argument could be made for the flag of the Mi’kmaq. Their flag no longer represents a territory per se, but all Mi’kmaq and all people who integrated into Mi’kmaq society claim that flag for themselves. There can always be a debate as to whether recognising the Acadian flag as an official flag of the province was a good move or not. But that’s an entirely different issue.

The Anglo Society, however, never pretended to be anything more than a provincial organisation. It purportedly represents all the non-Francophones of New Brunswick. But what does this mean, exactly? What historical moment or process led to the creation of a nation called English New Brunswick? That would be 1784, when the territory north of the Chignecto isthmus became New Brunswick. The province included a relatively sizeable number of francophones, the vast majority of them being of Acadian descent, but the province was nonetheless quite English. Therefore, the flag of New Brunswick IS the proper flag of English-speaking New Brunswick. But because New Brunswick actually has a territory to call its own, anyone living there can also call the flag its own. This includes the Acadians who live in New Brunswick.

So, what exactly does the Anglo flag represent? It represents the ultimate goal of the Anglo Society: linguistic inequality. It harkens back to the days where equality was afforded to anyone as long as they spoke English. That’s what they mean by “Equal Rights For All.” The flag represents the myth of French rule in the province, a myth the Anglo Society is only too happy to promote. It advances their slogan of “Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow.” The choice of Sept. 18 as the “national holiday,” the day Quebec surrendered to British forces in 1759, doesn’t help things.

The goal is clearly to put the French in their place. It sounds like they really don’t like the French. Worse, they’re doing their best to convince others to not like the French either. Or at least to not like the French who won’t be English. Denying equality, spreading false information about an identifiable cultural or ethnic group... Doesn’t that meet the definition of hate?

Photos

This year’s Tintamarre in Fredericton wound up being a little more interesting than previous years. Yes, Anglo Society people were there to be seen at least, if not heard. But so were others who seemed to want to have at least as good a time as the Acadians. Here are a few photos I took:

Just in case you can't make them out: "Eastern cougars DO exist," "Diamond Shreddies are just regular Shreddies," "Kittens R Cute," "Puppies R Cuter," an Anglo sign, "This is a sign" and "Is City Hall run by lizard people?"

For those of you can’t make out the sign, it says “I’m not with Crazy→.”

How can an Anglo Society member make a serious point when he has on either side a Diamond Shreddies protester and a believer in the famous Eastern cougar?

J'aime ma pancarte! (I love my placard!)

UPDATE: For different view, go here.

Ecological footprint

The world population is closing in on seven billion, so it may be surprising to learn that our species, Homo sapiens, almost became extinct at one time in the past.

Our species came about shortly before 195,000 years ago, at a time when the African climate was mild and there was plenty of food. At its highest, the population of Homo sapiens at the time consisted of about 10,000 breeding people. This did not include Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia.

By 195,000 years ago, the planet started a glacial stage known by geologists as the Marine Isotope Stage 6 (MIS6), a stage that would only end about 72,000 years later, or 123,000 years ago. During that time, as the climate grew colder and more arid, and deserts we know of today were probably even larger, most of Africa would have been uninhabitable. During this time, the number of Homo sapiens went from 10,000 people to just hundreds. (Again, this did not include Neanderthals, whose population seems to have remained stable.) This means all people alive today are the descendants of a group which was lucky enough to find a milder part of Africa in which to survive.

It’s therefore ironic that our species eventually came to have such a negative effect on so many other species in the millennia that followed. A TV show called Découverte on Radio-Canada (the French CBC) recently explored the sixth major extinction of Earth’s natural history. Unlike the others which were caused by natural phenomena, this one is caused by human activity.

According to recent research, a certain species of caribou in Quebec avoids anything that smacks of human activity to the point of refusing to even cross logging roads. Imagine what happens when the caribou habitat is affected by clear-cutting.

In various parts of the world, scientists are working to identify new species as quickly as possible in order to better know whether their eventual extinction is caused by human activity. One of the scientists spoke of the homogenization of species around the world. Just like music and news that become the same in all countries, we may one day see only species adapted to human presence, as the others will all be gone.

It’s not that humanity doesn’t follow its conscience. Instead, we must recognise that after only about two hundred thousand years of existence, our species has reached a stage of development that disturbs the natural balance of the entire planet. For years, our species had to constantly struggle against the onslaughts of nature with few defences, little natural strength, and virtually nonexistent technology. Our intelligence, the only special weapon at our disposal, was not always enough.

Over time, we have made remarkable progress and discoveries that have allowed us to overcome diseases that were once deadly, and in many cases, put an end to repeated famines. Mortality rates today are significantly lower than in the 19th century. Today, we no longer die of old age at 40.

These advances occurred in a wink of geologic time, and nature can only compensate partially and slowly. When a natural balance can’t be restored, nature seeks a new equilibrium. However, we have long thumbed our collective nose at nature, always trying to deceive and defeat. Our presence in larger and larger numbers on the planet has already led to negative consequences for biodiversity.

Life has always managed to bounce back after major extinctions. Will it do so again this time?