Different jurisdictions have different laws concerning when a child is old enough to consent fully to sexual activity with people of adult age. In Canada, it used to apply only to girls, and the age chosen was 16. At that age, she could then consent fully and her partner would no longer risk being charged with “statutory rape.”
Later, the law was changed so it would apply to young people of both sexes. At the time, 14 was the minimum age for full capacity to consent. When the Conservative Party came to power with a “Get Tough on Crime” agenda, the age was raised to 16. This was ostensibly to fight paedophiles, an apparent epidemic at the time. (Incidentally, no young person is allowed to have anal sex until he or she turns 18.)
In the days of Women Against Censorship, which was published in 1985, editor Varda Burstyn said girls could legally consent to heterosexual sex from the age of 16, whereas homosexual relations were outlawed up to the age of 21. According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, any homosexual act was punishable by up 14 years in prison until the law was amended in 1969.
When it comes to sex, I subscribe to the philosophy that all laws must have a genuinely secular purpose. Therefore, when I see laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity, or sexual activity between certain types of people, I tend to be suspicious of the intent of the lawmakers at the time they were passed. The only “taboo” that I continue to support unflinchingly is any type of sexual activity where an adult takes advantage of a person who may be too young or otherwise lacking in cognitive development to truly consent fully to sexual activity.
It is typical that adults will want to protect their children from all dangers, and turn to law enforcement and legal remedies against those who would harm their young ones. But is there any evidence to show that such laws accomplish the desired goal?
When sentences are rendered, the first objective is to punish the guilty party. The second objective is to deter anyone else who may want to commit a similar act, including the guilty party once he or she has served his or her sentence. Does this actually work?
It could be argued that if it did, such cases would be almost non-existent. But life doesn’t work that way. For millennia, people have been worshipping other gods, making and worshipping idols, taking some god’s name in vain, working on the weekly day of rest, dishonouring their parents, killing, cheating on their spouses, stealing, lying and coveting whatever belongs to their neighbours. And there will always be people who do so. Similarly, statutory rape laws exist only to make charging and convicting people easier.
If one were truly worried about the welfare of a child, there are better ways of seeing to that and better ways of investing taxpayers’ money. I would start with better sex education and, while we’re at it, better life education. Our teens come out of high school knowing how to do trigonometry, but they can’t fill out their own tax return. How logical is that? Similarly, when it comes to sex, our children and teens should be taught so much more than how to say no to people who would exploit them. After all, at some point, we expect them to say yes to those who will treat them properly.
Still, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily against age-of-consent laws. However, the aforementioned Varda Burstyn did oppose them back in 1985 (I don’t what her view would be today). In Women Against Censorship, she writes that age-of-consent laws were enacted in the late nineteenth century purportedly to protect children from sexual abuse. But the laws were ineffective because child prostitution, rape and more subtle forms of coercion continued. Rather than punish the truly guilty, these laws served instead as a means of sexual repression of gay boys and men, and of working-class girls for simply being promiscuous or precocious. Burstyn could even see injustice where relatively non-exploitative sex occurred between men, including very young men, and girls who hadn’t yet reached the age of consent. She argued – and certainly convinced me – that these laws do not achieve their intended goals and wind up harming too many Speople. She too favours better education in matters of sex and self-esteem. On page 177, she has this to say:
Present age of consent laws are predicated on the assumption that adolescents are not sexual beings entitled to sexual experience with others. In fact, psychologically and emotionally, adolescence is a time of intense sexual feeling, and many adolescents take determined action to bring about encounters with partners who are considerably older than themselves. In terms of social policy governing education, state intervention and punishment, notions such as statutory rape or variations on that theme are more dangerous than useful.
See also Age of Consent to Sexual Activity.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sex in naturism, another look
The summer 2007 edition of Going Natural magazine includes the conclusion of a two-part article titled A paradoxical attitude towards sexuality by Jacqueline Shoemaker Holmes. The article she authored was based on research she undertook as a Master of Arts student at York University in 2003. She chose a nude beach and spent the summer mingling with people there in order to study both the people and the activities there.
She emphasises that the conclusions apply only to that beach and the people who frequent it, but the tone of her article is such that she has risked making a few generalisations about naturism as a whole.
Right from the first day she received much attention, both as an unaccompanied woman and as a researcher. She had been told by many that nudism is not inherently sexual. But both the behaviour on the beach and her interviews have revealed links between nudism and sexuality. The two are intertwined in the sexualization of women and the hypersexualization of gay men by the dominant population, namely middle-aged men.
Males were far more numerous than females, and most females were accompanied. Therefore, the banter was from a male perspective. There was a lot of talk about the potential for sex even if this was supposed to be officially a naturist beach. Much of the talk had to do with the physical attributes and sexual desirability of the women who frequented the beach. Many wanted to know if the women were sexually willing, especially the unaccompanied ones. As one of the few unaccompanied females, she drew a lot of attention—flirtatious attention.
(My thoughts: If being at a naturist locale is not supposed to elicit sexual thoughts, then maybe this locale wasn’t quite naturist…?)
The males also had definite opinions about people at another section of the beach—the gay section. Apparently that was the place to go to see sex take place. The author believes that by sex, they meant more sex than would occur at the “family” section. After all there were stories of things happening “after hours”.
According to her research at the beach in question, there is a sexual component to naturism. Unaccompanied women are viewed by users, especially heterosexual men, as opportunities for sexual encounters. As for gays, they are treated as "hypersexual" and said to not be "real" naturists.
Her main point, to use her words, is that it is incorrect to say that naturism is “no more sexual than anything else.” The sexuality is simply hidden and, in the case of this beach at least, oppressive. By denying the part that sexuality plays in naturism and by denying full equality to those whose sexuality would be different from the norm, the possibility for alliances—with the gay community for instance—is very low.
Since we can’t know which beach it was, we’ll never be able to compare and see if behaviour and attitudes at this beach are the rule, the exception or somewhere in between. Indeed the author emphasises that she doesn’t say naturism as a whole is patriarchal or homophobic, perhaps because the “sample size” is too small.
What of our established naturist locales, resorts and otherwise? Are they as “clean” as we’d like to think? Are we deluding ourselves to think there is no sexual component to naturism?
For so long we’ve limited our thinking about sex to overt sexual activity, i.e., sex in public. That may be a failing we can no longer afford. The author doesn’t advocate public sexuality either. However, she does propose a few questions:
• Why are there separate “family” and “gay” sections to a beach, or indeed entire beaches that are either “family” or “gay”?
• Why do some clubs exclude people based on their sexual orientation?
• From a political and personal perspective, what does it mean to exclude sexuality from naturist values?
• If there is room for sexual expression within naturism, where can we find it? And if not, why isn’t there?
• How can naturism be made more inclusive and egalitarian?
Who wants to take a crack at them?
She emphasises that the conclusions apply only to that beach and the people who frequent it, but the tone of her article is such that she has risked making a few generalisations about naturism as a whole.
Right from the first day she received much attention, both as an unaccompanied woman and as a researcher. She had been told by many that nudism is not inherently sexual. But both the behaviour on the beach and her interviews have revealed links between nudism and sexuality. The two are intertwined in the sexualization of women and the hypersexualization of gay men by the dominant population, namely middle-aged men.
Males were far more numerous than females, and most females were accompanied. Therefore, the banter was from a male perspective. There was a lot of talk about the potential for sex even if this was supposed to be officially a naturist beach. Much of the talk had to do with the physical attributes and sexual desirability of the women who frequented the beach. Many wanted to know if the women were sexually willing, especially the unaccompanied ones. As one of the few unaccompanied females, she drew a lot of attention—flirtatious attention.
(My thoughts: If being at a naturist locale is not supposed to elicit sexual thoughts, then maybe this locale wasn’t quite naturist…?)
The males also had definite opinions about people at another section of the beach—the gay section. Apparently that was the place to go to see sex take place. The author believes that by sex, they meant more sex than would occur at the “family” section. After all there were stories of things happening “after hours”.
According to her research at the beach in question, there is a sexual component to naturism. Unaccompanied women are viewed by users, especially heterosexual men, as opportunities for sexual encounters. As for gays, they are treated as "hypersexual" and said to not be "real" naturists.
Her main point, to use her words, is that it is incorrect to say that naturism is “no more sexual than anything else.” The sexuality is simply hidden and, in the case of this beach at least, oppressive. By denying the part that sexuality plays in naturism and by denying full equality to those whose sexuality would be different from the norm, the possibility for alliances—with the gay community for instance—is very low.
Since we can’t know which beach it was, we’ll never be able to compare and see if behaviour and attitudes at this beach are the rule, the exception or somewhere in between. Indeed the author emphasises that she doesn’t say naturism as a whole is patriarchal or homophobic, perhaps because the “sample size” is too small.
What of our established naturist locales, resorts and otherwise? Are they as “clean” as we’d like to think? Are we deluding ourselves to think there is no sexual component to naturism?
For so long we’ve limited our thinking about sex to overt sexual activity, i.e., sex in public. That may be a failing we can no longer afford. The author doesn’t advocate public sexuality either. However, she does propose a few questions:
• Why are there separate “family” and “gay” sections to a beach, or indeed entire beaches that are either “family” or “gay”?
• Why do some clubs exclude people based on their sexual orientation?
• From a political and personal perspective, what does it mean to exclude sexuality from naturist values?
• If there is room for sexual expression within naturism, where can we find it? And if not, why isn’t there?
• How can naturism be made more inclusive and egalitarian?
Who wants to take a crack at them?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Troll Roll
I get a lot of my online news from CBC News Online. While the point is to keep up with current affairs, there’s the added bonus of watching comments come in, mostly from the same people each time. And whenever there is a news items regarding bilingualism, the usual gang of anti-bilingualism trolls can be counted on to show up.
Back on January 31, there was a report with the title N.B. lacks leadership on language laws: prof. The article referred to a person who was charged with a breathalyser offence and was acquitted because the police officer didn’t ask the person in which official language he wished to be served. The problem wasn’t one of being understood. Both the accused and the officer spoke French fluently. But the judge ruled that the officer should still have asked the accused if he preferred being served in the other official language. A constitutional expert, Michel Doucet, was quoted throughout the article about what was expected from police in such situations.
Well, that’s all it took for the trolls to vent their frustration for nth time in the Comments section. One commenter, whose username was “ivatumca,” concluded his post with, “You DO NOT want to know what bilingualism is costing this province...”
Thinking he or she might actually know what they were talking about, I replied with:
“Actually, yes, I do. Please provide full description and detail the cost of each item.
“Thank you. Yours truly,
“etc. etc.”
Life being what it is, I went on to other pursuits and only recently checked to see what might have become of the issue. Predictably enough, there was no reply.
Now, I’ll admit I was being tongue-in-cheek with my posting, but it was to make the following point: For years, we have been told about how expensive bilingualism is and how it is somehow responsible for New Brunswick being a have-not province. If they are so sure of their facts, why don’t they publish them? It would be the greatest coup in history if it did happen. “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow” was the first truly public manifestation of anti-bilingualism, written from supposedly an insider’s point of view. Even he couldn’t offer anything more than extremely vague accusations.
And they always talk about how the French don’t want to compromise. They talk about how they have witnessed French-Canadian people insisting on being served in French. They don’t like this because it used to be that French-Canadian people had no choice. English was the only officially recognised language in New Brunswick and that was that! Ah, to return to golden years of yore...
At least, they would. And it would be interesting to see what would happen. Right now, they blame bilingualism for not being able to find jobs or advance in their field. If bilingualism were to be eliminated, what would their excuse be then?
Back on January 31, there was a report with the title N.B. lacks leadership on language laws: prof. The article referred to a person who was charged with a breathalyser offence and was acquitted because the police officer didn’t ask the person in which official language he wished to be served. The problem wasn’t one of being understood. Both the accused and the officer spoke French fluently. But the judge ruled that the officer should still have asked the accused if he preferred being served in the other official language. A constitutional expert, Michel Doucet, was quoted throughout the article about what was expected from police in such situations.
Well, that’s all it took for the trolls to vent their frustration for nth time in the Comments section. One commenter, whose username was “ivatumca,” concluded his post with, “You DO NOT want to know what bilingualism is costing this province...”
Thinking he or she might actually know what they were talking about, I replied with:
“Actually, yes, I do. Please provide full description and detail the cost of each item.
“Thank you. Yours truly,
“etc. etc.”
Life being what it is, I went on to other pursuits and only recently checked to see what might have become of the issue. Predictably enough, there was no reply.
Now, I’ll admit I was being tongue-in-cheek with my posting, but it was to make the following point: For years, we have been told about how expensive bilingualism is and how it is somehow responsible for New Brunswick being a have-not province. If they are so sure of their facts, why don’t they publish them? It would be the greatest coup in history if it did happen. “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow” was the first truly public manifestation of anti-bilingualism, written from supposedly an insider’s point of view. Even he couldn’t offer anything more than extremely vague accusations.
And they always talk about how the French don’t want to compromise. They talk about how they have witnessed French-Canadian people insisting on being served in French. They don’t like this because it used to be that French-Canadian people had no choice. English was the only officially recognised language in New Brunswick and that was that! Ah, to return to golden years of yore...
At least, they would. And it would be interesting to see what would happen. Right now, they blame bilingualism for not being able to find jobs or advance in their field. If bilingualism were to be eliminated, what would their excuse be then?
Friday, March 11, 2011
Tax Time
One nice thing about tax preparation software is one can come up with hypothetical tax situations and see where they lead without having to do all sorts of convoluted calculations by hand. So I imagined two people, made them each others’ spouse and both living together in the province of New Brunswick. I then added the following criteria:
a) If either of them works, it is as an employee, not as a self-employed person.
b) They have no other revenue beside their employment income.
c) The couple has no dependents, neither children nor other people.
d) Neither has any deduction to claim, not even contributions to a registered retirement savings plan.
e) The only non-refundable tax credits either one can claim are the Basic Personal Amount, the Spouse or Common-law Partner Amount (where applicable), the Canada Pension Plan contributions, the Employment Insurance contributions, and the Canada Employment Amount.
With those criteria in place, I set about calculating the amount of tax payable for situations where the total household taxable income came to $100,000.
In one case, each earned $50,000. After entering the proper amounts and letting the software do the rest, each owed $9,978.51, for a household total of $19,957.02. In the second situation, one earned $65,000 and owed $15,153.51, while the other earned $35,000 and owed $5,447.78. The two amounts owing combined come to $20,601.29. The means a couple where both members earn $50,000 pay would pay $644.27 less in income tax than the couple where one member earns $65,000, and the other, $35,000.
In the third case, one member of the couple earned the entire $100,000 for the household. In this case, even when factoring in the Spousal Amount, the total household income tax bill comes to $25,917.32. This is $5960 more than the couple where both members earn $50,000 each, which I find rather exorbitant. In case you were wondering, the total tax bill would reach $46,572.95 if the working partner earned $150,000 instead.
By now, you’re probably wondering where all this is leading. Just a little more to this preamble, if you please.
According to the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide – 2010, a person may claim allowable medical expenses which exceed either 3% of his or her net income (line 236) or $2,024, whichever is less. A couple can elect to declare all their allowable expenses on a single tax return, and add those of their dependent children as well. They will usually do so on the form of the lower income earner since that threshold will be lower and the credit can be more fully used.
The example given in the guide is about “Rick” and “Paula,” whose medical expenses for the year total $4,300. Paula’s net income is $32,000, so three percent of her income is $960. Rick’s net income is $48,000, so three percent of that is $1,440. Clearly, it makes more sense to claim the medical expenses on Paula’s return because $4,300 minus $960 is higher than $4,300 minus $1,440.
Keep in mind that the expenses must exceed three percent of the net income OR $2,024. The amount of $2,024, the maximum threshold for 2010, works out to three percent of just slightly more than $67,466. This means anyone earning, say, $67,467 or more will not have to subtract more than $2,024, no matter how much money is earned throughout the year.
Now, on to the main point. One year I was looking for a way to shave money off my tax bill and decided to try calculating the family’s allowable medical expenses. At the time, there were no out-of-province medical trips, nor even any out-of-town medical trips, so everything hinged on insurance plan premiums and whatever we paid directly for dental and optometrist appointments, as well as prescription drugs.
That year, my family’s medical expenses just barely surpassed three per cent of my income, by $14 dollars or so, thanks to my company’s medical plan. And since my wife had no income, the credit was useless on her own tax return. The whole exercise hardly seemed worth the effort.
But what really angered me at the time was that a maximum threshold existed at all. No matter how much money one earned, the threshold would never go any higher once that maximum was reached. I felt like I was being ripped off. Couldn’t the law and policy makers see how unfair this was?
However, after seeing how much more tax is paid by the higher earners, I can understand now why it may make sense to give them a break when it comes to medical expenses. Besides, I have an idea that could be even more beneficial for households where only one partner is working. Medical expenses can be declared on the return of the partner with the lower income, and then any unused portion can be transferred to the other partner through Schedule 2, Amounts transferred from spouse or common-law partner. It would be a great way to recognize the impact of medical costs on the whole family.
Mind you, I had forgotten all about this one year when our out-of-province medical trips became so frequent that it would have made sense to keep the receipts from travels, motel stays and meals. They represented about $500 per trip and would have quickly reached and exceeded the threshold. Oh well, lesson learned.
a) If either of them works, it is as an employee, not as a self-employed person.
b) They have no other revenue beside their employment income.
c) The couple has no dependents, neither children nor other people.
d) Neither has any deduction to claim, not even contributions to a registered retirement savings plan.
e) The only non-refundable tax credits either one can claim are the Basic Personal Amount, the Spouse or Common-law Partner Amount (where applicable), the Canada Pension Plan contributions, the Employment Insurance contributions, and the Canada Employment Amount.
With those criteria in place, I set about calculating the amount of tax payable for situations where the total household taxable income came to $100,000.
In one case, each earned $50,000. After entering the proper amounts and letting the software do the rest, each owed $9,978.51, for a household total of $19,957.02. In the second situation, one earned $65,000 and owed $15,153.51, while the other earned $35,000 and owed $5,447.78. The two amounts owing combined come to $20,601.29. The means a couple where both members earn $50,000 pay would pay $644.27 less in income tax than the couple where one member earns $65,000, and the other, $35,000.
In the third case, one member of the couple earned the entire $100,000 for the household. In this case, even when factoring in the Spousal Amount, the total household income tax bill comes to $25,917.32. This is $5960 more than the couple where both members earn $50,000 each, which I find rather exorbitant. In case you were wondering, the total tax bill would reach $46,572.95 if the working partner earned $150,000 instead.
By now, you’re probably wondering where all this is leading. Just a little more to this preamble, if you please.
According to the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide – 2010, a person may claim allowable medical expenses which exceed either 3% of his or her net income (line 236) or $2,024, whichever is less. A couple can elect to declare all their allowable expenses on a single tax return, and add those of their dependent children as well. They will usually do so on the form of the lower income earner since that threshold will be lower and the credit can be more fully used.
The example given in the guide is about “Rick” and “Paula,” whose medical expenses for the year total $4,300. Paula’s net income is $32,000, so three percent of her income is $960. Rick’s net income is $48,000, so three percent of that is $1,440. Clearly, it makes more sense to claim the medical expenses on Paula’s return because $4,300 minus $960 is higher than $4,300 minus $1,440.
Keep in mind that the expenses must exceed three percent of the net income OR $2,024. The amount of $2,024, the maximum threshold for 2010, works out to three percent of just slightly more than $67,466. This means anyone earning, say, $67,467 or more will not have to subtract more than $2,024, no matter how much money is earned throughout the year.
Now, on to the main point. One year I was looking for a way to shave money off my tax bill and decided to try calculating the family’s allowable medical expenses. At the time, there were no out-of-province medical trips, nor even any out-of-town medical trips, so everything hinged on insurance plan premiums and whatever we paid directly for dental and optometrist appointments, as well as prescription drugs.
That year, my family’s medical expenses just barely surpassed three per cent of my income, by $14 dollars or so, thanks to my company’s medical plan. And since my wife had no income, the credit was useless on her own tax return. The whole exercise hardly seemed worth the effort.
But what really angered me at the time was that a maximum threshold existed at all. No matter how much money one earned, the threshold would never go any higher once that maximum was reached. I felt like I was being ripped off. Couldn’t the law and policy makers see how unfair this was?
However, after seeing how much more tax is paid by the higher earners, I can understand now why it may make sense to give them a break when it comes to medical expenses. Besides, I have an idea that could be even more beneficial for households where only one partner is working. Medical expenses can be declared on the return of the partner with the lower income, and then any unused portion can be transferred to the other partner through Schedule 2, Amounts transferred from spouse or common-law partner. It would be a great way to recognize the impact of medical costs on the whole family.
Mind you, I had forgotten all about this one year when our out-of-province medical trips became so frequent that it would have made sense to keep the receipts from travels, motel stays and meals. They represented about $500 per trip and would have quickly reached and exceeded the threshold. Oh well, lesson learned.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Rights and Entitlement
For some time, francophones in the Kennebecasis Valley have been pushing for a new school to be built in their area. The following letter published in the Jan. 21 edition of the Telegraph Journal, would appear to a reference to that.
The letter is signed Tom Hickie, in Fredericton. Well, where do I start?
Mr. Hickie seems to think it natural that students must travel far to attend school. That is unfortunately the case in many areas of the province. However, many factors enter into the equation.
For example, in the area from St. Anne de Madawaska to Edmundston, there is only one English school, St. Mary's Academy, which is located in Edmundston. Given that English students in that area are few and the vast majority are in the immediate area of Edmundston, it makes perfect sense. But try doing the same thing with French students. It can't be done because there are too many of them, and it makes sense that the youngest attend school as close to home as possible. Unless the student population goes down significantly, the smaller schools should stay open.
In the Acadian Peninsula (the eastern part of Gloucester County), many schools are on the chopping block due to a decline in student population. All we're waiting for is a final decision. But in the Kennebecasis Valley, the opposite is happening. If there are enough students there to justify it, there should at least be an elementary school.
Further on in his letter, Mr. Hickie eventually agrees that duality is necessary in the school system so each language community can oversee the educational programs of their respective students. However, his suggestion that parents lobby the school district rather than politicians is, to say the least, misguided. School districts do nothing more than manage the schools assigned to them. To build a school, you need provincial government approval.
Mr. Hickie seems to think that everyone knows the situation of the school in Balmoral. I'm not one of them. It can't be denied that when funds are allocated to a project, they cannot be used for anything else. But governing means making choices. Mr. Hicks may be right in saying too many people have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. But why should it be "all about me no matter what the cost"? It could be "according to the taxes I pay."
"Language is not culture ..." This is an interesting philosophical debate to which I unfortunately have to limit myself to presenting my vision. Ann Duncan is an Associate Professor of Education (Counselling) at the University of Tennessee at Martin, and teaches courses that address multicultural issues in education. She offers a series of definitions of culture at this site. If you look at these definitions, you will find the following common themes:
We often hear about a statement or text whose meaning gets "lost in translation." Since languages were never created with translation in mind, there is no process to make sure two languages develop in a way that is complementary to each other. Therefore, there will sometimes be concepts that cannot be easily rendered into another language, so the translation can only be approximate.
In fact, a good example of this is the English word "entitlement," which we see quite a bit in Mr. Hickie's letter. In French, we speak of "something one has by right." I translate the phrase with a definition because French does not seem to have an expression which reflects the word "entitlement." Unless, of course, we stick to specific fields such as law and insurance.
Language shapes culture and vice-versa. That is perhaps the best evidence to show Mr. Hickie's last sentence is wrong. Language and culture may not be, per se, the same thing. However, they are so inextricably linked that one could not fully operate without the other.
It's only natural that francophones in the valley desire a community French school. Who doesn't want a school or hospital next door? The truth is that many students, French and English, travel much further to attend class in many areas of the province than the trip to Saint John.
Bilingualism was never supposed to create duality in government, but we have de facto dualism in education and fledging duality in health.
The French-speaking residents of the valley should be lobbying their school district for a new school, not the politicians or provincial government. They could ask Donald Arsenault, the former minister, to explain the new French school in Balmoral, even though the area's existing schools are less than full. Whatever resources are spent in the valley will be at the cost of some other area, just as the school in Balmoral was. The sense of entitlement is alive and well in our province, and it's often "all about me regardless of the cost."
We should fully accept dualism in education and have separate systems, with each being funded on a per-student basis to ensure equality. This would allow different groups to invest the education dollars where they think it will be most beneficial.
It troubles me to see the population decline in the rural anglophone communities, but it saddens me even more to see the population decline in traditional Acadian villages.
Language is not culture, and we do ourselves a disservice when we allow this lie to exist.
Bilingualism was never supposed to create duality in government, but we have de facto dualism in education and fledging duality in health.
The French-speaking residents of the valley should be lobbying their school district for a new school, not the politicians or provincial government. They could ask Donald Arsenault, the former minister, to explain the new French school in Balmoral, even though the area's existing schools are less than full. Whatever resources are spent in the valley will be at the cost of some other area, just as the school in Balmoral was. The sense of entitlement is alive and well in our province, and it's often "all about me regardless of the cost."
We should fully accept dualism in education and have separate systems, with each being funded on a per-student basis to ensure equality. This would allow different groups to invest the education dollars where they think it will be most beneficial.
It troubles me to see the population decline in the rural anglophone communities, but it saddens me even more to see the population decline in traditional Acadian villages.
Language is not culture, and we do ourselves a disservice when we allow this lie to exist.
Mr. Hickie seems to think it natural that students must travel far to attend school. That is unfortunately the case in many areas of the province. However, many factors enter into the equation.
For example, in the area from St. Anne de Madawaska to Edmundston, there is only one English school, St. Mary's Academy, which is located in Edmundston. Given that English students in that area are few and the vast majority are in the immediate area of Edmundston, it makes perfect sense. But try doing the same thing with French students. It can't be done because there are too many of them, and it makes sense that the youngest attend school as close to home as possible. Unless the student population goes down significantly, the smaller schools should stay open.
In the Acadian Peninsula (the eastern part of Gloucester County), many schools are on the chopping block due to a decline in student population. All we're waiting for is a final decision. But in the Kennebecasis Valley, the opposite is happening. If there are enough students there to justify it, there should at least be an elementary school.
Further on in his letter, Mr. Hickie eventually agrees that duality is necessary in the school system so each language community can oversee the educational programs of their respective students. However, his suggestion that parents lobby the school district rather than politicians is, to say the least, misguided. School districts do nothing more than manage the schools assigned to them. To build a school, you need provincial government approval.
Mr. Hickie seems to think that everyone knows the situation of the school in Balmoral. I'm not one of them. It can't be denied that when funds are allocated to a project, they cannot be used for anything else. But governing means making choices. Mr. Hicks may be right in saying too many people have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. But why should it be "all about me no matter what the cost"? It could be "according to the taxes I pay."
"Language is not culture ..." This is an interesting philosophical debate to which I unfortunately have to limit myself to presenting my vision. Ann Duncan is an Associate Professor of Education (Counselling) at the University of Tennessee at Martin, and teaches courses that address multicultural issues in education. She offers a series of definitions of culture at this site. If you look at these definitions, you will find the following common themes:
- Culture includes assumptions, beliefs, practices, attitudes and perceptions;
- Among others things, culture is expressed through behaviours, patterns, symbols, institutions and values.
We often hear about a statement or text whose meaning gets "lost in translation." Since languages were never created with translation in mind, there is no process to make sure two languages develop in a way that is complementary to each other. Therefore, there will sometimes be concepts that cannot be easily rendered into another language, so the translation can only be approximate.
In fact, a good example of this is the English word "entitlement," which we see quite a bit in Mr. Hickie's letter. In French, we speak of "something one has by right." I translate the phrase with a definition because French does not seem to have an expression which reflects the word "entitlement." Unless, of course, we stick to specific fields such as law and insurance.
Language shapes culture and vice-versa. That is perhaps the best evidence to show Mr. Hickie's last sentence is wrong. Language and culture may not be, per se, the same thing. However, they are so inextricably linked that one could not fully operate without the other.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Meaning of Respect
From Caroline:
You are all ignorant. I personally believe in God and modesty, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should disrespect me by trying to tell me my beliefs are false. I respect your beliefs, so why must everyone constantly fight about it. Stop being immature and learn to respect each other. This discussion is about being bare breasted, not God. If someone makes a comment that they’re for modesty because of their beliefs, it is rude and disrespectful to tell them otherwise and vice versa. Grow up. (Pokedandprodded.health.com, my emphasis.)
The above came from a health website where the author was promoting topfreedom. Naturally, the web being what it is, some supported the idea (and this included males who simply wanted a change of scenery), while others disagreed. Many, if not most, who disagreed did so for religious reasons. While they spoke of modesty, they always tied it to a belief in what they thought was the will of God.
To be fair, some were fine with a belief in God, but added that God, as far as they knew, never intended for breasts to be reduced to nothing more than objects of sexual attraction. Others, though, made it clear they did not have any religious beliefs and criticised those who did. I won’t pick sides on this specific issue.
However, Caroline’s reaction to comments by others does bring up an interesting philosophical issue. She wants atheists and agnostics to show her respect by not telling her that her false beliefs are exactly that: false. She says she respects the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, but she clearly doesn’t want to hear them because they are, apparently, disrespectful – even if she respects them. If she at least tried to criticise both sides by also castigating the religious people for criticising those who see no problem with baring breasts, religious or not, I might have given her the benefit of the doubt. But she didn’t. Only we atheists and agnostics are capable of disrespect, it seems.
While it’s fun to wax philosophical on such issues, there is one thing we must remember: Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and its constraints, and this must include the right to criticise religion. Is it possible to do so in such a way that religionists will not feel disrespected? I doubt it. After all, many tend to not see the plank in their own eyes when they criticise non-believers for the sawdust in theirs. (Matthew 7, 3.)
If they bring up the subject of religion, they should expect to be soundly rebuked by whatever Internet user is on at that time. It’s the nature of the medium as well as a natural consequence of debate in a public space.
You are all ignorant. I personally believe in God and modesty, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should disrespect me by trying to tell me my beliefs are false. I respect your beliefs, so why must everyone constantly fight about it. Stop being immature and learn to respect each other. This discussion is about being bare breasted, not God. If someone makes a comment that they’re for modesty because of their beliefs, it is rude and disrespectful to tell them otherwise and vice versa. Grow up. (Pokedandprodded.health.com, my emphasis.)
The above came from a health website where the author was promoting topfreedom. Naturally, the web being what it is, some supported the idea (and this included males who simply wanted a change of scenery), while others disagreed. Many, if not most, who disagreed did so for religious reasons. While they spoke of modesty, they always tied it to a belief in what they thought was the will of God.
To be fair, some were fine with a belief in God, but added that God, as far as they knew, never intended for breasts to be reduced to nothing more than objects of sexual attraction. Others, though, made it clear they did not have any religious beliefs and criticised those who did. I won’t pick sides on this specific issue.
However, Caroline’s reaction to comments by others does bring up an interesting philosophical issue. She wants atheists and agnostics to show her respect by not telling her that her false beliefs are exactly that: false. She says she respects the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, but she clearly doesn’t want to hear them because they are, apparently, disrespectful – even if she respects them. If she at least tried to criticise both sides by also castigating the religious people for criticising those who see no problem with baring breasts, religious or not, I might have given her the benefit of the doubt. But she didn’t. Only we atheists and agnostics are capable of disrespect, it seems.
While it’s fun to wax philosophical on such issues, there is one thing we must remember: Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and its constraints, and this must include the right to criticise religion. Is it possible to do so in such a way that religionists will not feel disrespected? I doubt it. After all, many tend to not see the plank in their own eyes when they criticise non-believers for the sawdust in theirs. (Matthew 7, 3.)
If they bring up the subject of religion, they should expect to be soundly rebuked by whatever Internet user is on at that time. It’s the nature of the medium as well as a natural consequence of debate in a public space.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Reaping What We Sow
Note: Some time ago I was sent an email which was said to contain a monologue from Ben Stein, although alterations to the original text showed it to be more than it pretended to be. I began writing a blog entry in reaction to it. Before I could finalise it, Gabrielle Giffords, a U.S. member of Congress, was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, who then turned the gun on other people, killing six and wounding 13 others. She was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” public meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, when the shooting occurred. Given some of the parallels between the event and the email I was writing about, I’ve decided to combine the two.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
- - - - -
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
- - - - -
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)