Another Example Of Idiocy That Gives A Bad Name To Religion

Were I still a teacher, I would certainly use the following as a prime example of a reasoning fallacy and sheer idiocy:

A Christian Speaks In Defense Of Gay Marriage

Calm, eloquent and convincing, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offers his reasons for supporting gay marriage. Rarely have I heard a politician articulate and defend his position so well. He puts the unhinged and zealous hate mongers who claim to be Christian to the shame they richly deserve.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

Most days that I post a blog entry, I choose my topic based on my reaction to news stories. Today, two disparate pieces seem particularly noteworthy, one that confirms what all but the profoundly naive know about government, the other about yet again another police incident that, thanks to the blanket of secrecy that encases our security forces, seems incomprehensible.

First, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, under the troubled 'leadership' of young Tim Hudak, confirms that that they are the party of business interests. As reported in The Toronto Star, Conservative MPP Randy Hillier, admittedly no fan of his leader, has revealed his concerns about a private member's bill introduced by fellow MPP Monte McNaughton that would release construction giant EllisDon from a closed-shop working agreement dating to 1958, that locks the company into using unionized workers.

According to Hillier, he and his colleagues were told “explicitly” by senior party officials behind closed doors that pushing [the] legislation ... would boost financial donations to the Tories.

“In caucus, it was stated quite explicitly that following a successful EllisDon fundraiser for (Tory leader) Tim (Hudak), our party would continue to benefit financially with the advancement of this legislation,” he said in the email.

And it gets worse:

Two PC sources confided it was Hudak’s office that pushed the matter in a bid to curry favour with a company that has been a generous political donor for years, especially to the Liberals.

Predictably, a veil of secrecy in response to the allegations has been drawn:

Ian Robertson, Hudak’s chief of staff, said in an email internal caucus deliberations were not for public consumption.

Seems like those ads during the last election weren't so far-fetched after all.

Seguing from the secrecy embraced by political parties to that worshiped by the police, a disturbing story reported in The Globe reveals that an 80-year-old woman was tasered by police around 3:30 a.m. last Wednesday as she was walking along a road in Mississauga. She fell and broke her hip.

Predictably, details about the circumstances surrounding this seemingly unnatural act are being withheld from the public pending an investigation by the perennially impotent Special Investigation Unit, always obstructed by the fact that subject police officers do not even have to talk to them.

Secrecy, secrecy, and more secrecy. Not exactly what one would expect from an open and democratic society, is it?

More From The Religiously Unhinged

Oh, he's back at it again. The perpetually aggrieved and unhinged 'Reverend' Gordon Klingenschmitt is still grappling with that old demonic spirit of tyranny and persecution, as the following video makes clear. One can only hope that the poor tormented soul will someday find peace by concentrating on God's love rather than his own issues with homophobia.

An Immutable Truth

This, from Howard Zinn:

A Restaurant To Avoid: Richtree Produces Bitter Fruit*

Were I a Toronto resident, Richtree Market, a restaurant located in the Eaton Centre, is a business I would refuse to patronize. Its union-busting tactics should appall anyone who cares in the least about workers' rights.

As reported in The Toronto Star, Richtree Market began its dark anti-union journey in January, when it terminated all of its employees and closed the business. For Nazrul Islam, their chef for 25 years, it was a devastating blow:

“It was my first job in Canada and it had good benefits,” said the 57-year-old man who came from Bangladesh. “I was king of the kitchen.”

However, Islam's shock was compounded upon discovering Richtree is reopening at the Eaton Centre on Sept. 9, metres away from its previous spot, without him or any of the other 49 workers who were laid off.

According to the union representing the employees, Unite Here 75, this is a major violation of Canadian labour law.

“They are opening at the same location, same concept, same company, same owner, but we don’t get our jobs back,” said Islam, who’s had no luck finding a new job. “I have five family members to feed. How can we survive? I cannot afford next month’s rent.”

Richtree, for its part, claims that it has done nothing wrong:

“In January, Richtree was no longer in operation and successfully completed the process of collective bargaining with Local 75,” said a company representative, who agreed to read a statement but not be named. “The severance packages were greater than the minimum and each associate accepted those packages. Each and every one of them.”

The problem with the severance packages is that the employees had no knowledge that the restaurant was planning to reopen later in the year. They were, in fact, lied to:

It’s legal to shut down a business to avoid unionization, said labour lawyer Sunira Chaudhri but only if the closure is genuine and final.

“What’s illegal is superficially shutting down and severing ties (to the union), just to do business next door,” said Chaudhri. “Clearly that’s what Richtree seems to be doing, which likely wouldn’t be in line with the current labour law landscape.”

Boycotting this upscale eatery may not get Narzul Islam or the 49 other workers their jobs back, but it will send a strong message that Canadians of conscience reject such reprehensible behaviour and will do nothing to reward it.

P.S. I notice that Richtree's website states, It's always good to hear from you. If you are so inclined, you can send your thoughts on their practices by clicking here.

* Many thanks to LeDaro for his excellent suggestion of an amended title to this post.

The Problem With The Police Starts At The Top

Leadership is a word that evokes many associations; strength, vision, determination and resolve are a few of the positive ones. Selfishness, careerism, expediency and cowardice are but a few of many negative associations. In my own working life, I had perhaps three administrators I looked up to, the ones who put the good of education above personal ambition, pettiness and self-centreness. They were people I would have done anything for.

The rest I merely endured because I had no choice.

As I have often written in this blog, I see Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair as a failed leader, one who must bear a large portion of the responsibility for the democratic debacle of the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto and its aftermath, which saw virtually no consequences for the massive and widespread police abuse of charter rights. In my view, Blair should have been fired afterwards. Sadly, the effects of his failed leadership, like poison dropped in a reservoir, continues to ripple outward, affecting those he 'commands'.

An exceptionally well-crafted letter in today's Toronto Star by Rick Owens of Toronto explains why:

Re: SIU head blasts Toronto police chief for co-operation failures, Aug. 29

That Toronto police Chief Bill Blair is not directly accountable to the SIU is clear in law. But that is not the issue. What is at issue here is whether the chief ought to have the courtesy to respond directly to a legally mandated body that investigates matters involving the consequences of the use of force by his staff. Courtesy or rather the problem with discourtesy is the issue here.

I can recall no time in the last 40 years when regard for the police in Toronto was this low and widespread. Whether it’s the G20 fiasco, the series of charges and allegations about dishonesty in court or outrageous misjudgments such as the Sammy Yatim shooting, some police in Toronto have done much to undermine the credibility of and trust in the Toronto Police Service. And it is the sort of defiance and fundamental discourtesy that the chief demonstrated in this matter that seem to be the common theme across the past decade.

That Blair feels no need to be even remotely courteous to Ian Scott is akin to the disregard by some police to the rights of citizens or their own responsibility to abide by the law. One recent example of this disregard is the officer who parked his personal car illegally while on a paid duty assignment. All he had to do was put a police vest on his dash and he was exempt from paying the fees that every other private vehicle is required to pay. That was his expectation; it’s not the law. This is at best a discourtesy to those of us who abide by the law and pay the penalties when we don’t. At its worst, it is quite simply corruption. But why should that officer think he’s accountable to the rest of us if his chief doesn’t think he is?

The chief sets both the tone and example for the thousands of women and men in his (our) employ, and his response to Scott was most certainly the wrong one. The police service has a lot of work ahead of it in repairing its image and relationships with the people it serves and to whom it is accountable. This was a step back. It is my (admittedly distant) hope that the Police Services Board will hold him to account on this matter.