Why is it that myths have a longer lifespan than truth? Another myth has raised its ugly head again, and again Canada will no doubt suffer the consequences.
The CBC’s Neil Macdonald was interviewing U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and he asked her to clarify comments she had made previously that the Canadian and Mexican borders must be given the same treatment. Her response:
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on; it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," Napolitano said.
"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 attackers. She stated: "Not just those but others as well."
Now according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 commission all of the terrorists flew into major U.S. airports from outside North America, carrying documents issued by the U.S. government. None came from Canada. Yet this story has persisted since the time of the bombing, and shows no signs of going away any time soon – especially if it is being repeated by the head of Homeland Security (am I the only one who thinks that “Homeland” has a Nazi sound to it?)
Why does it matter? After all, it’s just a silly story. Except that people in power in the U.S are using this lie as an excuse to further lock down the border between the countries, making trade and travel ever more difficult.
A few generations ago, there really was an open border between Canada and the U.S. I have relatives in Michigan, because a great-uncle (or maybe two “greats”) went across the bridge at Sarnia to work, and settled there.
I don’t expect that today. The world has changed a lot. But there is no need for the fanatical policing of the borders that the U.S. has started recently, with both physical and virtual fences, and unmanned drones watching from the air.
Canada is not the enemy. The guns that come north across the border are more dangerous than the imaginary terrorists that go south. Please, see someone about the paranoia. And stop telling lies.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
One seat, or two?
I read a news story this weekend stating that United Airlines was planning to force obese passengers to pay for an extra seat, or wait for a later plane if there was no extra seat available.
It wasn’t the story itself that bothered me, as much as the responses. There were dozens of comments, and almost everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. Virtually without exception, they took the point of view of the person sitting next to the obese passenger, who prefers not to be made uncomfortable.
While I don’t fall in the two-seat category – I can put down the arm-rest and buckle my seatbelt, which are the tests – I am a larger person. Maybe that is why I see it from the other side as well.
Imagine you have a vacation planned. You and your partner have splurged and bought expensive tickets to somewhere exotic. You get to the airport, packed, excited and ready to go, only to be told you have to buy an additional ticket. You can’t afford another ticket. You are humiliated, and your vacation is ruined.
Or you have a business meeting. Your company buys you a plane ticket. You go to board, and discover that not only will you need an extra seat, which your company won’t pay for, but there is no extra seat available on this flight, so you will have to wait for one that has two free seats – and you will miss your meeting.
The cost, the humiliation, the lost time – how would you feel if it was you?
I know all of the arguments. “If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay more. It’s the same thing”. You can choose to pack less. You can’t just slice off a chunk of yourself in time for the flight.
“Why should I be uncomfortable?” Well, I like to be comfortable, too, but on public transportation it doesn’t always work out that way. Babies scream, seatmates won’t shut up, or drink too much. That’s life.
“They can lose weight if they want to”. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But not by the time the flight leaves, so it isn’t really relevant.
The Canadian Transport Agency ruled in 2008 that airline passengers here would pay one fair per person. Carriers are expected to accommodate all passengers. I consider that fair. In the United States and other countries, however, this is not the case. They can make extra money from someone’s problem, and many have chosen to do so.
It would certainly make me think twice before flying with them, even if I did get a comfortable seat.
It wasn’t the story itself that bothered me, as much as the responses. There were dozens of comments, and almost everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. Virtually without exception, they took the point of view of the person sitting next to the obese passenger, who prefers not to be made uncomfortable.
While I don’t fall in the two-seat category – I can put down the arm-rest and buckle my seatbelt, which are the tests – I am a larger person. Maybe that is why I see it from the other side as well.
Imagine you have a vacation planned. You and your partner have splurged and bought expensive tickets to somewhere exotic. You get to the airport, packed, excited and ready to go, only to be told you have to buy an additional ticket. You can’t afford another ticket. You are humiliated, and your vacation is ruined.
Or you have a business meeting. Your company buys you a plane ticket. You go to board, and discover that not only will you need an extra seat, which your company won’t pay for, but there is no extra seat available on this flight, so you will have to wait for one that has two free seats – and you will miss your meeting.
The cost, the humiliation, the lost time – how would you feel if it was you?
I know all of the arguments. “If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay more. It’s the same thing”. You can choose to pack less. You can’t just slice off a chunk of yourself in time for the flight.
“Why should I be uncomfortable?” Well, I like to be comfortable, too, but on public transportation it doesn’t always work out that way. Babies scream, seatmates won’t shut up, or drink too much. That’s life.
“They can lose weight if they want to”. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But not by the time the flight leaves, so it isn’t really relevant.
The Canadian Transport Agency ruled in 2008 that airline passengers here would pay one fair per person. Carriers are expected to accommodate all passengers. I consider that fair. In the United States and other countries, however, this is not the case. They can make extra money from someone’s problem, and many have chosen to do so.
It would certainly make me think twice before flying with them, even if I did get a comfortable seat.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Rights and Freedoms?
Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Canadian citizen. According to both the RCMP and CSIS he has no links to terrorists, and has committed no crimes. Under Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as a citizen, he has a right to enter Canada. Yet he is stuck in Sudan, camping out in the lobby of the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, where he has been for the past year after going to the country to visit his mother.
The issue, says the government, is that Abdelrazik is on the "no-fly" list. This list - which requires no proof of any wrong-doing - apparently supersedes his rights as a Canadian.
Ottawa has denied him an emergency passport, citing a section of the Canada Passport Order that allows them to "refuse or revoke a passport if the minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."
Remember, no one claims this man has committed any crime.
International rules, even ones which require no supporting evidence whatsoever, would appear to be more important to the government of Canada than the rights of Canadian citizens. Gee, it sure is nice to know that your country will be there to stand by you when you need them.
Abdelrazik has a team of lawyers, who are currently working on having him returned home. I suspect they will succeed. That isn't the issue.
The Conservative government has also refused any help to Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan held in an American prison and awaiting the death penalty, until they were literally forced by a court order on March 4 to continue the clemency appeal started by a previous government.
The government is supposed to work for the people in a democracy, not the other way around. But since Stephen Harper's Tories have been in power, it would appear that being a Canadian only guarantees you the rights that they see fit to allow you.
That is not what I want for my country and its citizens. This is just one more reason to get rid of the Conservatives - before they get rid of us.
The issue, says the government, is that Abdelrazik is on the "no-fly" list. This list - which requires no proof of any wrong-doing - apparently supersedes his rights as a Canadian.
Ottawa has denied him an emergency passport, citing a section of the Canada Passport Order that allows them to "refuse or revoke a passport if the minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."
Remember, no one claims this man has committed any crime.
International rules, even ones which require no supporting evidence whatsoever, would appear to be more important to the government of Canada than the rights of Canadian citizens. Gee, it sure is nice to know that your country will be there to stand by you when you need them.
Abdelrazik has a team of lawyers, who are currently working on having him returned home. I suspect they will succeed. That isn't the issue.
The Conservative government has also refused any help to Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan held in an American prison and awaiting the death penalty, until they were literally forced by a court order on March 4 to continue the clemency appeal started by a previous government.
The government is supposed to work for the people in a democracy, not the other way around. But since Stephen Harper's Tories have been in power, it would appear that being a Canadian only guarantees you the rights that they see fit to allow you.
That is not what I want for my country and its citizens. This is just one more reason to get rid of the Conservatives - before they get rid of us.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Getting Old
My Dad died when he was 38. I saw a lot of death as a kid, and for a long time I thought that dying young was the worst thing that could happen. When my grandmother would have trouble standing up and tell me “Don’t ever get old” I would joke with her, and say it beat the alternative.
Lately I have started to wonder. I don’t qualify as “old” yet, but my parents and their friends are in their 70’s now, and a lot of it isn’t pleasant. Forget the whole “golden years” myth. My step-father was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and his best friend’s wife has lung cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Every time I talk to my mother, someone else they know is sick, dying or dead. And rarely did they die peacefully in their sleep. There is a lot of suffering going on.
It just seems wrong. After a life spent working hard, raising a family and taking care of others, retirement and old age should be a time of vacations to sunny places and taking up hobbies. And I suppose for some it is. For so many, though, it is a time of pain, memory loss, helplessness, dependence and, of course, death.
I know that life isn’t fair. I got over that fantasy a long time ago. But it seems that there should be more to look forward to at the end than arthritis.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I am certainly not recommending mass suicide (or euthanasia) for everyone over 50. I guess I feel that we just need to appreciate the time we have more, and not put things off until "when I retire". Because who knows what will have happened by then?
I will end with a quote from Pernell Roberts, who is now about 80, but said this when he was much younger: "I find life very precious. I find it very immediate. I do not have a long-term point of view. I may be dead tomorrow. So it's very important that I do now what I want to do."
Lately I have started to wonder. I don’t qualify as “old” yet, but my parents and their friends are in their 70’s now, and a lot of it isn’t pleasant. Forget the whole “golden years” myth. My step-father was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and his best friend’s wife has lung cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Every time I talk to my mother, someone else they know is sick, dying or dead. And rarely did they die peacefully in their sleep. There is a lot of suffering going on.
It just seems wrong. After a life spent working hard, raising a family and taking care of others, retirement and old age should be a time of vacations to sunny places and taking up hobbies. And I suppose for some it is. For so many, though, it is a time of pain, memory loss, helplessness, dependence and, of course, death.
I know that life isn’t fair. I got over that fantasy a long time ago. But it seems that there should be more to look forward to at the end than arthritis.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I am certainly not recommending mass suicide (or euthanasia) for everyone over 50. I guess I feel that we just need to appreciate the time we have more, and not put things off until "when I retire". Because who knows what will have happened by then?
I will end with a quote from Pernell Roberts, who is now about 80, but said this when he was much younger: "I find life very precious. I find it very immediate. I do not have a long-term point of view. I may be dead tomorrow. So it's very important that I do now what I want to do."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
War and women in Afghanistan
I have to be honest: I was against the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. Before all of the deaths. Before it seemed as though it would stretch on forever. I just don’t believe in war as a way of solving disagreements.
But it seems to me that those who did support the war (like, say, our government) have now lost their last argument. How many times have we been told that all of the death and destruction in Afghanistan was for a higher purpose – that we had to help women in that country have the freedom they do here, and help girls get an education?
Well, the new law passed by the government we support in Afghanistan is about as far from that as you can get. To start with, it legalizes rape within marriage – that’s right, a husband is entitled to sex four times a week, whether or not his wife agrees. Women are also not allowed to leave the home without permission of their husband.
True, at the moment this law applies only to Shia women, which comprise approximately 15% of the population. But isn’t this moving in exactly the wrong direction? We were told Canadians were losing their lives (and taking those of Afghanis) so that women would have more freedom, not less.
The politicians on all sides are expressing their unhappiness with this law, and discussing what they might be able to do about it. There is one thing Canada can do, without winning the support of Hamid Karzai first. We can leave Afghanistan. Now.
Even Stephen Harper has admitted we cannot “win” a war there. It is now obvious we are not having other successes either. Let the Americans stay and add more troops if they so desire, but the best thing Canada can do, for everyone, is bring our soldiers home.
But it seems to me that those who did support the war (like, say, our government) have now lost their last argument. How many times have we been told that all of the death and destruction in Afghanistan was for a higher purpose – that we had to help women in that country have the freedom they do here, and help girls get an education?
Well, the new law passed by the government we support in Afghanistan is about as far from that as you can get. To start with, it legalizes rape within marriage – that’s right, a husband is entitled to sex four times a week, whether or not his wife agrees. Women are also not allowed to leave the home without permission of their husband.
True, at the moment this law applies only to Shia women, which comprise approximately 15% of the population. But isn’t this moving in exactly the wrong direction? We were told Canadians were losing their lives (and taking those of Afghanis) so that women would have more freedom, not less.
The politicians on all sides are expressing their unhappiness with this law, and discussing what they might be able to do about it. There is one thing Canada can do, without winning the support of Hamid Karzai first. We can leave Afghanistan. Now.
Even Stephen Harper has admitted we cannot “win” a war there. It is now obvious we are not having other successes either. Let the Americans stay and add more troops if they so desire, but the best thing Canada can do, for everyone, is bring our soldiers home.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bed-in ... for what?
75-year-old Yoko Ono is in Montreal this week, commemorating the “bed in” for peace she celebrated with husband John Lennon 40 years ago.
It was 1969, and war raged in Vietnam. The newly-wed Lennons had a message to share with the world: war is over, if you want it. They rented a room at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, got into bed, and invited the world into their room. They talked, and sang, and used John’s fame as a Beatle to get their message across. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
Such a simple message. Yet, forty years later, what has really changed? The war is in a different country. Millions more have died violently, including Lennon. Nowhere is there any indication that peace is any nearer than it was in 1969.
It saddens me to see people like Ono, or 89-year-old Pete Seeger, still out performing for peace. Not only have we not achieved an end to war, we don’t even have younger people willing to take up the work.
I do understand why. I was one of the tens of millions around the world marching to protest just before George W. Bush went into Iraq. The result? Bush remarked: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group", and continued to do exactly what he had planned to do. If the voice of millions doesn’t matter, why bother?
But of course it does matter, even though that is hard to see sometimes. We can have a peaceful world, despite the Bush types, if we are determined enough.
I have a quote from John Lennon that I use on some of my email: “When we say ‘War is over if you want it,’ we mean that if everyone demanded peace instead of another TV set, we'd have peace.”
How many TV sets do you own?
It was 1969, and war raged in Vietnam. The newly-wed Lennons had a message to share with the world: war is over, if you want it. They rented a room at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, got into bed, and invited the world into their room. They talked, and sang, and used John’s fame as a Beatle to get their message across. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
Such a simple message. Yet, forty years later, what has really changed? The war is in a different country. Millions more have died violently, including Lennon. Nowhere is there any indication that peace is any nearer than it was in 1969.
It saddens me to see people like Ono, or 89-year-old Pete Seeger, still out performing for peace. Not only have we not achieved an end to war, we don’t even have younger people willing to take up the work.
I do understand why. I was one of the tens of millions around the world marching to protest just before George W. Bush went into Iraq. The result? Bush remarked: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group", and continued to do exactly what he had planned to do. If the voice of millions doesn’t matter, why bother?
But of course it does matter, even though that is hard to see sometimes. We can have a peaceful world, despite the Bush types, if we are determined enough.
I have a quote from John Lennon that I use on some of my email: “When we say ‘War is over if you want it,’ we mean that if everyone demanded peace instead of another TV set, we'd have peace.”
How many TV sets do you own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
