In an age when regulation of shoddy business practices seems to be rapidly eroding, the ethos today being that anything inhibiting growth is bad, it may not come as a surprise that both the Federal and the Ontario Provincial Governments are complicit in inhibiting the free flow of information in countries with repressive regimes.
The latest Canadian salvo against human rights is revealed in a story appearing in today's Toronto Star. Entitled Canada needs clear cyberspace censorship policy, watchdog says, the piece reveals how both levels of government virtually endorsed a Guelph-based company that produces content-filtering software that it sells to repressive countries to control what is available to their citizens on the Internet. In the United Arab Emirates, Netsweeper Inc., which has received Canadian government grants, presented a domestic telecom called Du with an award for its use of green technology. Representatives of both the Harper and McGuinty governments were on hand for the ceremony, but as reported in The Star, the problem is this:
Du uses Netsweeper software to block content from UAE Internet users, including political, religious and human rights material, according to the Open Net Initiative, a collective of researchers that track Internet censorship and surveillance.
The question we, as Canadians, have to ask ourselves is whether it is right to both fund and endorse companies that make it easier for such countries to repress their citizens. Do we take a stand based on common principle, or do we hew to the egregiously amoral philosophy that markets will decide the fate of such enterprises?
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The State of Journalism
Thanks to Dr. Dawg for posting this link to an essay by Kai Nagata, who writes about why he recently quit his job as a reporter for CTV. His observations about the current state of television journalism are instructive, and will be of interest to anyone who worries about the increasing vapidity of news content these days.
Unions - Part Two
Saturday, July 9, 2011
What Have Unions Done For Us?
I just came across the following video on You Tube. Although directed toward an American audience, its message is completely applicable to Canada as well. Enjoy!
Critical Thinking: The Assault On Reason
The following is a review I wrote about four years ago of Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, a work that addresses many of the problems arising when the populace at large lacks the capacity for critical thought. Although geared to an American audience, Gore's points are universally applicable, and especially germane to my previous post on critical thinking, the only real defense we have against government manipulation of the electorate:
Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.
Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing
In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.
This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.
He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.
This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.
A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.
Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.
Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing
In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.
This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.
He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.
This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.
A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Is This A Quest For Justice, Or A Thirst For Revenge?
While I doubt that I will ever be accused of being 'soft on crime,' agreeing with the view held by many that the Canadian judicial system tends to be too lenient in too many cases, my belief in the deterrent effect of stern sentencing and less liberal parole provisions is trumped, when the two areas come into conflict, by my deep desire to see justice done and fairness practised. In the case of the 15-year-old who stands accused of killing Officer Garrett Styles, it seems the Crown is motivated, not by a quest for justice, but a thirst for revenge.
As reported in The Star, the Crown is seeking not only to charge the teen as an adult, which may or may not be defensible, but also with first-degree murder, which, upon conviction, would require a minimum 25-year-sentence before parole. From my perspective, this charge is unwarranted and indefensible.
Although Canadian law allows for the laying of a first-degree murder charge when a police officer is killed, one of the hallmarks of a fair and compassionate system of justice is the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the death. Clearly, from what I do know of the situation, the teen panicked when stopped by Officer Styles and foolishly tried to flee, dragging the officer along with him, his actions culminating in the van overturning, leading to Styles' death. Without minimizing the loss to the family and the larger community incurred by his death, it was clearly unintended, caused by a stupid thing a kid did.
And I think that is the lens through which this tragedy should be viewed. A foolish kid, engaged in foolish behaviour without consideration of consequences, the sort of thing teens have been doing for millennia. Should a stiff sentence be sought? Perhaps, but justice will not be served by ensuring that a 15-year-old who made some stupid choices does not get out of prison until he is 40.
Shame on the Crown for pandering to the public and the police for the choice it has made.
As reported in The Star, the Crown is seeking not only to charge the teen as an adult, which may or may not be defensible, but also with first-degree murder, which, upon conviction, would require a minimum 25-year-sentence before parole. From my perspective, this charge is unwarranted and indefensible.
Although Canadian law allows for the laying of a first-degree murder charge when a police officer is killed, one of the hallmarks of a fair and compassionate system of justice is the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the death. Clearly, from what I do know of the situation, the teen panicked when stopped by Officer Styles and foolishly tried to flee, dragging the officer along with him, his actions culminating in the van overturning, leading to Styles' death. Without minimizing the loss to the family and the larger community incurred by his death, it was clearly unintended, caused by a stupid thing a kid did.
And I think that is the lens through which this tragedy should be viewed. A foolish kid, engaged in foolish behaviour without consideration of consequences, the sort of thing teens have been doing for millennia. Should a stiff sentence be sought? Perhaps, but justice will not be served by ensuring that a 15-year-old who made some stupid choices does not get out of prison until he is 40.
Shame on the Crown for pandering to the public and the police for the choice it has made.
The Real News Commentary on G20 Summit Police Crimes
As always, The Real News offers a refreshing perspective rarely found in the mainstream media. Anything that continues to keep the G20 police abuses of Charter Rights in the public forum can be nothing but good for our democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)