A Scientist Speaks Out

By now, the plight of government scientists is reasonably well-known. Despite the Harper propaganda machine's vehement campaign to deny the practice, more and more Canadians have become aware that the regime has been systematically muzzling its scientists, whose research and hard data frequently contradict and expose as lies the ideology that passes as truth in our debased democracy.

Because we have a collectively short memory, every so often we need to be reminded of some harsh realities, as was done on September 16 when scientists rallied against government efforts to suppress much-needed information.

David Schindler, described as the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the University of Alberta, has a well-written piece in today's Star reminding all of us of the government's odious practices.

Entitled Remove the muzzle from government scientists, the article begins by reminding us of the proud and often pivotal role Canadian science, much of it governmental, has played in some far-reaching environmental initiatives, including the fact that

Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms.

Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.

...policies to control acid rain, based largely on science from government departments, were implemented.

Shindler himself left government science when things began to change. The first changes were somewhat subtle, beginning in the 1990s:

Scientists ... were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”

Things steadily deteriorated, with restrictions reaching their nadir once the Harper regime became ensconced:

Shortly after it took office, scientists were told they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be embarrassed by using them.

This weakening of the scientific voice had dire consequences, including the collapse of the cod industry, but much worse was to come:

The government divested itself of the Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while expediting large industrial developments.

And now, of course, we have the almost daily spectacle of government ministers defending the indefensible, with lies about subjects ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of fisheries.

Shindler ends his piece with the following sobering thoughts:

We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.

Government science once provided this information, and it must be changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of Canadian democracy, depends on it.

We can expect the Harper cabal to continue to fight any such ideas vigorously, as is the wont of repressive regimes everywhere.

America: A Superpower Of Near-Demonic Dimensions

So says Noam Chomsky in this 2003 video produced for the BBC. I find little with which to disagree in his analysis:

Please Sign This Petition

While many of us know that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is being conducted in unprecedented secrecy (except, of course, in the case of the corporate sector that has full access to the discussions), it is difficult to rally opposition to it with few facts. I received a petition request today from Doctors Without Borders along with a sobering reminder of what could emerge if the agreement comes to pass in its present form:

A Doctor's Perspective On Quebec's Proposed Charter

While the proposed Quebec Charter of Values has elicited a variety of strong responses, some decrying it as thinly-veiled racism, others hailing it as a bold blueprint for secularism, there is something that up to this point has been missing from the debate: the fact that, whether openly acknowledged or not, there exists within humans something more than our prejudices, our instincts, our principles, and our rationality.

There is a spiritual dimension.

It is easy to mock religious sentiment. Professional atheists such as Richard Dawkins do it all the time, but they tend to target the unsophisticated and risible parodies that pass as religious belief today: literal interpretations of the Bible, God as a kind of cosmic Santa Claus who gives us what we ask for, a.k.a. the prosperity gospel, creationism, the ravings of unhinged people like Pat Robertson, etc. etc. In my mind, transcendent reality is likely much more subtle and nuanced, glimpses of which we get as we go about our daily lives.

In yesterday's Toronto Star, Dr. Samir Gupta, who practices medicine in both Quebec and Ontario, offers his perspective on the Quebec Charter that indirectly addresses this other reality. Essentially, he contends that the kind of 'rational' neutrality the Charter calls for would be a grave disservice to many people during those times when something beyond the material is needed:

Doctors play an integral role in some of the most intimate and difficult moments in people’s lives. Moments such as learning that one has an incurable chronic condition, or worse, a terminal disease. Indeed, moments when a person will often turn to religion.

Rather than simply imparting objective information about prognoses, etc., doctors are often expected and called upon by their patients for much more:

...doctors advise families about withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy when their loved one is in a vegetative state. They also routinely propose whether and under what circumstances cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be offered to a patient with a grave and terminal illness.

Gupta points out that such advice often goes beyond the strictly medical to involve the physician's own values and beliefs, especially when asked what decision they would make under such circumstances:

These situations occur every day in our health-care system. As described, they engender a “human” response from doctors — one that is invariably influenced by their religious beliefs, philosophy and world view, whether they like it or not.

Gupta suggests that this ability to advise by drawing upon spiritual dimensions is valued by patients and their families.

An interesting perspective, one that clearly deserves to be part of the debate.

A Smoking Gun?

Oh, what a tangled web they weave.

To Protect And Serve

The police protect and serve - they really do. It's just that we aren't the ones receiving those services:

More On The Minimum Wage

The struggle to raise the minimum wage has been the subject of several of my recent posts. The current wage of $10.25 in Ontario is as inadequate as the $7.25 that the majority of jurisdictions in the United States pays, forcing millions to live below the poverty line even if they are working 35-40 hours per week.

Today's Star has an editorial championing an increase, perhaps not the 40% immediate increase that poverty activists are calling for in Ontario, but at least a reasonable step toward that goal.

Consider this startling fact from the editorial:

Some 534,000 Ontarians work 35 hours or more each week in fast-growing retail and service industries, earning the provincial minimum wage of $10.25 an hour. Indeed, with annual earnings under $20,000, these workers will never even crack the paltry official low-income measurement of $23,000 a year. That means a lot of people are working very hard just to remain in poverty.

While praising the Liberals for having made some progress on this file, given that the much-despised previous Harris government had frozen it at $6.85 an hour for nine years, the fact that it has been stuck at $10.25 since 2010 leads the paper to advocate the following:

The least the government should do is continue the same trend of raising the minimum wage 2.5 times faster than the rate of inflation. That would mean an increase of 13.5 per cent, to catch up since 2010. It translates into an increase of $1.40 an hour, bringing the minimum wage up to about $11.65.

That would still leave many full-time workers stuck in poverty. And it would disappoint activists pushing for an immediate increase to $14 an hour – the level that would bring earnings just above the poverty line. But it would mean a hike of almost 40 per cent, a huge burden on many businesses.

While business will always bewail and bemoan any increase that might mean having to share a little more of the profits made possible by their serfs workers, the plan seems eminently doable and a decent start on the road to a living wage that everyone deserves.