Slutwalk 2011: Taking Back the Right (to dress sexy)

Good Morning, my Darling Readers.
Have you been pissed off yet, today? Would you like some spite and vinegar to get you going this morning?
Needless to say if you don't feel like being uncomfortably angry all day, you should perhaps come back to this post when you have an hour to stew and rage.

When I had first read about a controversy where a Toronto Police Officer was being criticised for his advice to University students, I did not make a post about it, mostly because the controversy raging was something I was struggling with internally. The officer had suggested that to avoid being raped, the female students should not dress "like sluts".

On one hand, it seemed like sage advice; if I don't want to get frostbite, I dress warmly. The whole issue is about cause and effect, personal responsibility, it seemed to suggest.

But after focusing on the evidence, my own personal philosophy, and spurred by the sexist, misogynistic, disgusting comments on this website, I realized not only is this complete bullshit, but it is a 'gateway belief' to more disgusting beliefs that tend to manifest once the focus has been "properly centered" on the victim, rather than the rapist.

First off, the principle relies on the notion of "victim-blaming" whereby people think the woman could have "prevented" the rape, or that she "had it coming", ignoring the fact that only 2% of reported rapes are committed by strangers, which is, of course, what proponents of this theory think of when they think of rape: some young woman in a short skirt and low shirt walking around in high heels, when some seedy man catches sight and become so aroused that he assaults her. Not that a woman dressed attractively to go on a date where sex might even be a possibility, but when she decides it is not a possibility her date forces himself on her. The woman on Slutwalk (the response to the officer's comments - women marched in "slutty" clothes to reinforce sex-positive notions) had a saying, "A woman isn't raped because of what she is wearing, a woman is raped because a man raped her!" (True females occasionally rape, but 99% of cases are a male perpetrator)
When we focus on the victim and how they can 'prevent' rape, we encourage circumstances like the fact that a survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught. (Helen Lenskyj, "An Analysis of Violence Against Women: A Manual for Educators and Administrators," Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1992)

This leads us to the next fallacy, that rape is about sexual gratification. If one takes a little while to peruse the avenues for various sexual outlets, it becomes obvious after only a short while that there are systems in place to acquire sex or sexual gratification. What rape is about, rather than the sex that could be obtained elsewhere, is about the power trip. The control over another person. The release of the frustration that comes when men believe that woman should 'give it up' or that woman are withholding sex because the man won't say/do the right thing,  which eventually leads to the idea that the man should just 'take it'.

I won't even get started on the effects of the 'sex negative' culture we have propagated on the notion that prostitutes are "dirty", "cheap", or "less than human" that often leads men to believe they "shouldn't have to resort" to hiring a professional - this tends to lead to the notion that sexual woman are 'not worthy', that woman shouldn't want sex. People that believe woman should dress conservatively to avoid being raped tend to ignore that a woman can want sex, and dress to entice that from someone, while not wanting it from every/anyone.

Continuing this ridiculous notion, if we are to assume that rape is committed because someone is dressed sluttily (I don't think that's a word, but deal with it) we run into problems when we consider child or elder sexual assault. Not to say the elderly can't dress attractively (Another aspect of sex-negative culture is that once you hit a certain age you no longer have the 'right' to have sex or be sexually aroused), but it certainly calls into question what exactly could be considered 'provocative' when we consider all these other victims, and saying the motivation was the person's appearance can cause us to throw our hands up and wonder what the hell we should look like, then, if anything can be considered sexually attractive.

Another ideal that seems to come hand-in-hand with this set of beliefs is that woman should feel lucky, or flattered that someone wants them. (I cannot make this up) Some comments from the website particularly reflects this:
"These women say they dress like that because it makes them feel good. Crap. They dress like that so that they will be noticed.. and hoping that ‘something’ might come out of it...Oh and by looking at the picture .. honestly who would want them anyway."

"WOW!!! somebody should have been throwing dollar bills at them to but their clothes back ON. Good lord that’s a scary crowd!" 

" some of those women could walk down the street stark naked and be in no danger of being raped whatsoever. This is because some women are ugly cunts and not all men are rapists." 

This notion then causes us to wonder, while we dress in the morning, what is considered "slutty"; what is too low, too plunging, too tight etc. It causes woman to wonder if they should wear shorts to the gym. If men 'can't' control themselves when they see short shorts, why would the gym make a difference? Worse, this focus then leads to the 'retroactive' set of criteria for clothing; if a woman was raped, it is obvious that what she was wearing was too slutty.When we focus on this aspect, we ignore must more useful, better advice: Tell someone where you are going and with whom when on a date, don't drink or do drugs to excess without a responsible sober buddy, and trust your gut. If something doesn't feel right, get out of that situations. The only effect your clothes should have is how fast you can get away in your heels.

The final argument against this type of 'advice' is the fact that rape is tragically under-reported in Canada, and when pressed, 64% of woman stated that they felt fear and shame . If we continue to tell woman that they can prevent rape, if it ever occurs, they will be less likely to get help because they think they could have prevented it. It is strange that people could put forth this notion, but we do not automatically assume that if one's car is the victim of a hit and run, one must have parked like a douche, and thus, "had it coming".

A good website, a movement against rape that I can actually support is available here: http://www.mystrength.org/, and it focuses on teaching men not to rape, rather than trying to teach woman not to be raped. My favorite poster is the one that says, "My strength is not for hurting so when I wasn't sure how she felt, I asked", since it reminds me of the "Yes means yes" movement.

Good Fences part 1

As Vic and I were playing Stratego this morning, I noticed he was moving a piece stealthily towards my end zone, so I sniped it; you see, despite how much I love him, I am aware that good fences make good neighbors, and not being a doormat is the key to individual sovereignty. Perhaps I should mail a copy of the board-game over to Stephen Harper and ask him to invite Obama for a sleepover.

Back when we were all scarfing Bon-bons and  watching "Love Actually" over St. Valentine's day, Canada was having a ball allowing United States troops free reign to our homeland. To be precise, they are not allowed to just traipse over for the weekend; we have to invite them in cases of emergency, which here means floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and the effects of a terrorist attack. The point of the program is to save lives, prevent destruction of property, and establish order. My Police State Panic pants were getting dusty from lack of use, so I am quite pleased to break them out for this occasion.

It is cold comfort, when considering this development, that Canada is capable of sending troops down south;  Even considering the greater frequency of catastrophes the United States experiences that could require our assistance, there is still a greater chance that we will require the sheer number advantage the States commands. The main concern that is being voiced is who will be doing the asking, why, and what will we do if we decide we are done with them but they will not leave?

The purported authority for inviting the troops up here is alleged to be the department of Public Safety Canada, which also deems Computer Viruses to be an emergency, and is responsible for a plethora of safety concerns such as Olympics and gang violence. In other words, there is a laundry list of reasons to haul the Americans up here to cover our butts. The head of the department is Public Safety minister Vic Toews, who has fallen a long way from the days when he defended citizen's right to protest, calling it a "constitutional right".

A lot of people have criticized the Canadian government for keeping quiet on the issue; while American sites are heralding the cooperation, there is no mention of the policy on Canadian sites, even the Public Safety Canada newsroom fails to mention the agreement. It is distressing that we have to rely on American news sites for information on Canadian matters.

The functional way this scenario will play out is that Canada is allowed tactical control of the troops, but Americans will still maintain command of the troops, so in a difference of opinion, their decision will take precedence. What I cannot help but wonder is how the Canadian police will establish control in case the Americans run amok, considering the lower fire-power, fewer numbers, and different mandate ("Serve and Protect" is a far cry from "Kill a Man Through his Nostril") For that matter, will the troops even be subject to Canadian laws? Does that mean we may be playing host to Blackwater troops, whose antics are pretty uncomfortable, and are decidedly NOT subject to foreign laws while conducting exercises?

Some Americans are concerned this is an American plan to override the Posse Comitatus, which outlines that Federal troops are not allowed to conduct law enforcement activities without the permission of Congress. The Americans are concerned because Canadian troops would not be held to this same law but apparently we are comfortable allowing those same troops to conduct law enforcement activities in Canada.

The final thought, for now, I have on the subject is the recent pipeline plans. With the flagrant bombings and multiple explosions being committed in Southern Alberta and B.C, the government could very easily declare them terrorist activities and bring in States troops to establish law while it builds the expensive new pipeline.
There is far too much implicit here to disseminate in one post; likely the rest of the week, barring exciting developments, will focus on unpacking this new agreement.

The Blog Post can Only be Accessed with Form 3X-B997

Oh Yeah! We're rock bottom!
In terms of information regulation, that is. Turns out a couple of British academics were comparing the freedom of information laws between several parliamentary countries and we lost to everybody. Well, four others anyway. But saying last out of five does not provoke the kind of outraged horror the newspapers want us all to engage in.
I will confess, the idea that our dearly held notion of questioning the government is being called into question is a fairly uncomfortable idea; they even specified that it marked a reversal of the earlier view that Canada was a "global leader" in information regulation, but precisely who it is who feels this way is not stated, and whether that view was merited or a side-effect of the notion that Canada is a big, open, friendly country, so they could not possibly have strict information laws, is not addressed.

What else is not addressed is how the study was conducted, what the ratings were, or how big of a gap is significant. It is one thing to say we are communist China next to Sweden, but it is quite another to compare Finland and Sweden. Some perspective would be cool, but  is apparently too much to ask.

Apparently this is nothing new, however; a 2009 study by a French group showed the same downward trend, and marked us 19th (out of 175), down six places from 13th. One of the top three spots, it is interesting, was given to Ireland, one of the countries we lost to this year. Various speculations were given for the fall, but these were all temporary considerations of lawsuits that might affect the score. It was, again, never addressed how the ratings were gathered or assessed.

To be honest, I'm not sure I am going to panic just yet. Especially considering who our opposition was (The United States was not including, but we have historically ranked better than them) and that the main explanation given for the placing was because there were too many delays in processing information requests; a problem, to be sure, but not the dire, gestapo-like societal chains I had pictured from the news report.

From Stealth Fighters to Stealth Evangelism

Apparently Stephen Harper is an evangelical Protestant.After reading the article about it, including his main church, his spiritual leader, his supposed beliefs and his hair products, I filed the whole mess under, "Things I do not care about".
But what if he is using his position to further his beliefs?
Thanks for the tip, Dear Reader! I had almost forgotten that people in power are able to push personal agendas without fear of any consequence more severe than being ousted from office (For more reasons why I hate Democracy as a system, see Democrapy)
Let us break this down in the fashion I enjoy so much.
One of two things will hold: one, he will accurately represent his beliefs or two, he will not.
If he does accurately represent his beliefs, two further things will hold (I love doing this. It is just like unpacking Christmas presents except at the bottom of the wrapping paper is a solid understanding of a concept) either we will support and agree with his belief or we will not. If it is the case that we do not support his beliefs, well, it is unlikely he is going to come to your house and sermonize at you until you elect him, so try not to vote for people that you do not support. On the happy chance that you do support his beliefs, you could do worse things than supporting his agenda and electing him. I  am not entirely sure that simply disagreeing with where the beliefs came from is enough reason to discount someone from office.
On the other hand, of course, if he does not accurately reflect his beliefs, we have a much larger problem on our hands than his religion being the "wrong" type. In every election there is an air of trust; we put our whole country in the hands of one individual, and it could turn out quite bad. That is a risk we have to take, same as that time you ordered a Russian bride off that website you thought was "totally legit" and then those weird charges showed up on your credit card.

The only thing we have genuine reason to be concerned about is that in most religions, as in most academic circumstances, we defer to a higher authority ( I mean like a priest or such, not God). The notion that the country's main leader is deferring to a religious authority that none of us have any say in the nominating of is pretty unsettling. Then again, neither do we elect leader's spouses, no one objects to having a married Prime Minister, but few marriages practice complete decision-making autonomy. If we Canadians should pay attention to any aspect of a leader's life, it should be who they are pillow-talking to. 

Also, how did I miss this article back from May that says the federal government is going to start paying its employees to troll online to "correct" any "misinformation" they find? From now on, anyone who does not say they seriously are not a federal agent will be assumed to be one. No lying, promise?

Ratigan: Previously a Disney Villain, now a Rat Afghan!

I'm not sure what I am more embarrassed about; the fact that I got suckered into reading a fashion article from the newspaper, or that I'm going to blog about it. The headline read "Swamp rat's 'guilt-free' fur making a fashion splash" and who wouldn't want to read about that? Fashion models wearing swamp rat pelts, the possibility that there is some species of rodents who shed whole pelts of fur (Other than my husky. It's seriously a blanket), and the lilliputian chance that there will be a genuine fashion model brawl somewhere in the article. (I hold out hope dearly)

What, in actual fact, makes the fur "guilt-free" is that the Nutria species (That is truly its name. It sounds like something health-conscious, cancer-oblivious people stir in their coffees) has become somewhat of a nuisance. Since it was imported by the primordial fashion industry in the 30's, it has been left to its own machinations which, as all animals' do, involve screwing and eating. The eating is starting to destroy the coast-lands, however, since the overdetermined little buggers like to gnaw root vegetables down to the nubbins, leaving big patches of barren land that oblivious and sterile people apparently call "eat-outs". Louisiana, in the fine tradition of over-reactors everywhere (Rodents everywhere! Is Canada invading?!) has ordered a cull. That is apparently all the "go-ahead" the fashion industry needs to capitalize on their ancestor's mistake, bonk the little blighters over the head, and steal their clothes to wear while they flutter their lashes and talk about how committed they are to environmental preservation.

For crying out loud, you're still killing them. You are still causing the death of something living. I don't want to be bleeding heart about this, but you don't get to hack their jackets off and hoist them on your petard of "guilt-free". Just because you've lost conscious touch with the moral portion of your brain doesn't mean you should feel better. Worse, since the average individual on the street can't tell that your fur jacket is "government-cull-condoned" it perpetuates the glorification of the fur culture that is killing thousands of animals needlessly that obviously don't have the warm-fuzzy label of 'saving a whole beach full of yams'. How is Peta not up in these people's grills like they were for Michaelle Jean when she ate a piece of seal blubber? Models are weak and largely irrelevant, isn't that Peta's target market?

On the other hand, watching people killing and flaunting the carcasses of beasties that are purported to look just like svelte beavers might give us the excuse we've been dying for to declare they are taunting our Canadian heritage, and just invade them. I just wish I felt more comfortable following Stephen Harper...anywhere, really. Even just down to the neighbors for a kegger. The Liberal media really paints our PM in a harsh light, as though he's some money-grubbing, war-mongering, women-hating Arch-Demon. But he's not even trying to defend himself. If this was a UFC fight, the ref would be covering him like he's hiding a Smartie from a fat kid. This past week he deferred some gun-tracing regulations for another two years in the hopes of being able to gain a majority vote and not ever need to bother with them, like, ever. But he has done so on the 21st anniversary of the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique, which is the flagship defense for the gun registry. Harper, you may not care enough to kowtow to the Liberals, but for crying out loud, don't give them a gift like this. If you actually do want to get rid of the registry, you might have to try things that will actually work.

Say Cheese

When I was a student the first time, there was a lucrative job opening working for the University of Alberta that I applied for, and gleefully obtained. For $14 an hour, I took my clothes off.
The university needed nude models for their art classes, and apparently there weren't enough people with mid-life crises that needed the positive reinforcement, so they hired me. What this means, that I periodically think about in varying degrees of embarrassment and pride, is that somewhere, in the world, there are nude paintings of me. Conceivably even in some student's portfolio.
Should the case ever occur where someone took a photo of me through my living room window in the same state of undress as the paintings, however, I'm not saying they wouldn't find a body just that the chalk outline would need to be done with spray-paint.

A couple of ladies who needed the money (Or hell, just liked doing it; why shouldn't they?) were working at a strip club in Toronto, but while taking their breaks on the roof that they believed was private, in costume, their photos were taken and, as with everything photographic now-a-days, was posted online with an accompanying piece. Many of the women have quit in response, especially since one girl is a student at a next-door university (although how she worked NEXT DOOR to the university and never expected any fellow students to come in is beyond me).

Apparently a copyright lawyer has voiced that in public no one has the right to privacy, but the nature of the roof is up for debate (seems there was a wall hiding most of the roof from the windows where the pictures were taken from). A pretty rough reading of the report seems to indicate that the case will be declared in favor of the photographer, who was "Stunned and embarrassed" by the article that ran with the pictures. Yes. Because he sat through an entire interview with a journalist but then did not expect them to publish it. Sure.

At the very least, I think the photographer should be charged with theft. Not to open the floodgate that anyone on the street who makes eye-contact with the ladies should pay a fee, but I  think if the girls are in "costume" since people pay a door fee to watch the show  it is a form of theft to enjoy the ladies in costume without paying anything. If Lime-wire is going to be shut down so people don't circulate the same music that is available for free on the radio, the parables seem comparable to me. It's all about the control of your "artistic creation", which for strippers includes their bodies.

As a professional photographer, I think the gentleman should have been better aware of the laws regarding picture usage, and consent. Plus, he's sitting in his office taking pictures of young ladies having a quiet smoke? Didn't feel the need to wander on over one day and say "Hi ladies! I'd like to take some pictures of you relaxing on the roof-top; anybody interested?" Perhaps the ones he wanted to see would have balked, but I'm willing to bet at least a couple would be up the stairs babbling about their "best side" so fast, there would just be the lingering smell of sequins in the air. To me, although it might be a minor point, it just smacks of that old notion that since they are "bad" or "loose" women, they don't have the right to control what happens to their bodies or visage. If this man was taking secret pictures of women in business suits having a smoke, the pictures would probably just develop as restraining orders, right there in the pan. ("Huh. Guess this one's overexposed..."). He defends himself by saying they were beautiful pictures, but this again just smells of a notion that I have run into a few times or more...

Ladies, put your hands up if you've even been walking around the street and a man, well-meaning I'm sure, has ordered you, with a dopey grin on his face, to "Smile!". Let's get all the rhetoric about how he means no harm, blah blah, out of the way and address the initial problem: No-one ever tells a man randomly to smile; it is an order reserved for women (I flatter myself by thinking attractive women), but no one knows why it is a woman's job to beautify the area with her smile. If I wanted to, and boy do I want to, I could certainly connect this to the notion of the Hajib. I cannot help but wonder if the notion that we have "the right" to view attractive women's faces compels bill 94 in some way. Let me put it this way: attractive women are not Geisha; they are not trained and should not be required to be living artwork just for the general public's viewing pleasure.

Oh yes, it's a complicated world out there, filled with photo-lenses; more and more we find ourselves in the public eye, on our best behavior. The ladies but also the photographer as we all point our microscopes at him to say, "Was that right?". It is really a tragedy that when we have achieved our greatest level of public photography and circulation, we have also hit the greatest low with regards to manners and etiquette.

Edmonton EX-PO 2017

We lost the expo bid. Edmonton went up against some pretty high-class European cities and we didn't fail against them, we failed because our government gave up before we started to fight.
Now, I don't care one way or the other. There was only a snowball's chance in hell I was going to spend my hard earned (sitting on my butt) money on something like an Expo, but maybe it would have brought in some more publicity, who knows? Grey cup has sure packed our city to damn-near the brim with people; I hear all our hotels are booked solid, which might also be due to the fact that there was a recent high-rise fire, forcing the tenants to move temporarily to hotel and motel lodgings. But the whole point is neither here nor there.

The thing that concerns me, that raises my eyebrows, was why we were denied. Budget, of course, was cited. Edmonton had planned on putting up several million dollars, but would have required the federal government to add around $700 million to complete the picture. The idea had been criticized by the Canadian taxpayer's association, but a survey taken of Albertans revealed around 80% supported the idea.

After a year of planning and organizing, Edmonton put forth the bid proposal to the federal government, who administered a quick double-tap to the back of the idea's head, while the majority of Edmontonians stood around, speechless. Except for Stephen Mandel, who proceeded to blow his Mayoral top all over MLA Rona Ambrose, saying that he felt she was responsible for the failed proposal. Bless him for being a politician who isn't afraid to speak his mind, which is mercifully not preoccupied with cookies.

The reason given is that it was too much money on too risky a proposal, given our chaotic financial times, especially focusing on the variable security costs, but in the canned speech we were spoon-fed, the fact that we have the oil-sands was brought up multiple times. I can see one of two reasons for this; feeling the economic pinch over in Ontario, the Federals are pissed because we're just doing better over here thanks to the oil-sand's revenue, so they aren't going to give us any money (especially when I hear rumors that the amount we have waived in royalties to keep the oil companies here is about equal to the money we requested for the Expo bid, not that we could hamstring ourselves permanently just to support a one-time party. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying) or two, the security risk could be increased by the recent bad-karma and negative publicity that's been thrown around regarding the oil-sands, and with more radicals moving into Canada, like the Parliament-scaling Greenpeace, it's possible they don't have enough of a handle on the situation to know whether we should be bringing pepper-spray, guns, or tanks, which doesn't really look very positive from a security standpoint ("Hey, guys, should we be nervous?") Don't we have some form of  Canadian Rumsfeld? Somewhere?

Anyway, doesn't matter. We can have a super party and then not invite them.

Front Page Glitter

Canadians, we reap what we sow.

Low voter turnout, largely apathetic public, and a citizenry that seems more concerned about who is staying on "dancing with the stars" than genuine politicians have lead us to the end where politicians and other public figures are becoming clowns just to catch our attention and keep us involved in the process. I think the next step is jingling keys in our faces while making kissy faces.

A key health care board-member who earns $700,000 shoos off the reporters buzzing around him like flies saying he doesn't want to answer questions because he's eating a cookie.

A Crown prosecutor who is viewing a case in which a mother is accused of beating her toddler to death, is accused of distracting the jury by making weird faces, putting the case at risk of being declared a "mistrial".

An elected MLA is removed from his party's caucus because he wrote an angry email about the state of the health care system in Alberta.

A girl is charged with four counts of fraud after she bilked caring people out of their money by claiming she had cancer and even plucking her eyelashes so she could pretend she was going through chemotherapy.

A local newspaper prints comments from YouTube as serious public reactions to a political controversy.

We had a municipal election in Edmonton where the majority of candidates won less than 5000 votes.

Correctional Services for Canada has handled documents for four inmates who are requesting sex-change operation funding when most non-criminal citizens can not get funding approved.

Our fair city spent hundreds of thousands preparing for our Expo 2017 bid, when the federal government pulls the rug out from under us, insisting they can't afford to help fund us.

Our Country was denied a position on the United Nation's security council, and now the position is up for grabs by a country that can't even stamp out internal dowry killings.

Randy Milholland does not believe in eating peanut butter with your fingers. 

Europe is dismayed that our federal government made changes to our national census, and says we had always been held up as the benchmark for impartial statistics keeping. First our peacekeeper status, then our dignity, and now our scientific sovereignty.

The better business bureau in B.C (say that three times fast) is accused of biased numbers, even though they are where Canadians turn to when treated unfairly by businesses, and sometimes seems like the last refuge against unbridled capitalism.

Is there no sacred cow we won't slaughter?

Airplane, Airplane, Sorry I'm late...

A St. Albert couple just recently were coming back from a Las Vegas vacation with their baby, and arrived at the gate between 2 minutes (as the airline reports) or 20 minutes (as the couple reports) time to check in, and were refused their flight! Ooh, How mean!

A Chinese man snuck on-board a flight wearing a face mask that made him look like an old white man,which apparently no-one noticed and now is claiming refugee status over here! Ooh, How unsafe!

So we're back to the age-old (stale as a day-old croissant) question; Security or liberty? Yes, yes, we deserve neither for even thinking the question, but Ben Franklin never had to deal with a man who was willing to pack his anus full of explosive just to bring down a Boeing, so perhaps he's not the best judge in this circumstance.

The fact of the matter is good security takes time; time to double-check, time to rethink, and time to pay attention. We will increasingly run into these types of situations where people are denied service because they are coming too close to "haphazard" service if we want to keep increasing security measures.

Personally, I was once on-board a flight that left three hours early, just in time to miss my connecting flight, and the time, stress, and panic it caused me makes me a little bit insensitive to people who's circumstances may cause them to delay the plane. Dear Reader may wonder what I expect people to do in circumstances like the St. Albert couple, and the truth is this; I don't care. I don't care what they do. Events fall into one of two categories: 1) Plan-able 2) unplan-able. If someone is late because of number 1, then forget them, they can take their consequences like an adult. If they're late because of number 2 (Har. Har. The couple was allegedly late because of a diaper explosion) then, well, emergencies happen, and sometimes we have to just throw our hands up and say, "Well, shit".

Further to this new story breaking comes the revelation that I may have to eschew the Edmonton Journal as a source of publication in addition to the Edmonton Sun. Their coverage of the story was heavily oriented towards portraying the business as "at fault" and the couple was blameless. It details that they were twenty minutes early for the flight (before the mishap), when Alaska Airlines clearly requires passengers to be available 40 minutes before boarding. The tone they use, especially in this paragraph,


 " Blais ran to the bathroom and yelled for his wife to hurry. Inside, Roberge scrambled to get Levi's diaper changed and clothes back on. But when she came out, it was too late. The agent had given away her seat."

clearly  implies we are to feel for the couple who was so heartlessly abandoned by the big, bad, airliner. I don't want my newspaper to editorialize unless I'm on the opinion page, which I don't read, because that's my job, shameless side-taking. Anyway, I feel for the couple, I do, but when they showed up late even before they had a "crisis", it shows lack of planning and forethought, not malice on the airliner's part. 

Their reaction to the incident, as well, is childish at best. They started a blog titled "Alaskan Airlines Hates Families", which is inaccurate. Alaskan Airlines hates late people, and treats families with the same guidelines it treats everyone else. Imagine the public response I would get if I was 40 minutes late, arriving at the gate right at the departure time because I had to fix my make-up. If I then proceeded to make a blog stating that the airline hated women, I'd be laughed off the Internet, which is a herculean feat given the garbage floating around in here. 

It seems, however, in the light of today's consumer outrage society, that raising a big argument about something is enough to be fully compensated. Alaskan Airlines has reimbursed them for $1000, which is more than I feel they deserve. I guess the squeaky wheel really does get the grease.

On the other hand, but in the same vein, we have the situation of the young Chinese man who slipped through security with a stolen passport and a bad Halloween mask. Many people are wondering why no one noticed, but the truth is; someone did but in our society of "non-accountability" she did what most people would likely do- she told the stewardess. She became upset because she told them three times and they didn't do anything. If she genuinely had suspicion that "he was going to blow the plane up" then she should have been raising a huge fuss. Decorum be damned, in my opinion. Obviously if she was wrong it would be embarrassing, but it would be more embarrassing is it to have to explain to your plane-mates at the pearly gates why you didn't want to be a nuisance. I'm not saying tackle the guy, just  make sure your concerns are being addressed. That is not too much to ask.

I  hate to sound like a broken record but where has our personal accountability gone?

You married a 7-11?

I remember a few years back, a friend of mine had traveled to Kenya for whatever reason, but while there fell in love with a young woman. He returned to Canada, intent on moving on, but was so smitten that he was unable to forget her despite limited contact for a full year. He attempted to bring her back here as his wife, but was constantly dogged at every turn by immigration. Finally he flew to Kenya, married her, and brought her back through a circuitous route.
Now imagine that he hadn't fallen madly in love; pretend that he barely knew her, but still flew to Kenya, married her and brought her back, just to help her gain citizenship.
Back in 2007, Immigration officials began to notice a problem with the system of immigration marriages, with people complaining that they had married people who left as soon as they were in Canada (sometimes apparently, even leaving from the airport which, after having spent time in the airport, I'm not sure I can fault them...) and Immigration Canada decided they needed to do something about this. They began cracking down, focusing on consistency in officer training and official regulations, and even "reaching out" to communities which practiced arranged marriages.
It seems the measures could be considered ineffective, however, since the problem is still running around, and now Immigration has turned to the unwashed masses for ideas. In September they posted a survey asking Canadians for information "on the magnitude of the problem as well as opinions and ideas on how best to address it." http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2010/2010-09-27.asp
and, as we all know, asking the denizens for advice is a sure sign that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.Or you really want people to support your new arena (Whoops!). As well, anecdotal evidence, especially when culled from the Internet hate-machine, is notoriously unreliable. But let us bite our tongues, here for a moment and peruse the hundreds of heart-wrenching stories of people who met online, became hopelessly in love, and decided to take the leap of faith that constitutes marriage and importing a spouse. Allow the spine to become malleable when these people assert that they were just used for their nationality with no regard for their feelings, etc. Consider the financial burden because they are obligated to support their wayward spouse for three years upon landing and the sadness if a divorce appears inevitable.
All right. Feel lousy?
Onward to solutions.
You see we're going to...well...uh...the immigration department should...uhm. Huh. Boy, I guess there is little to nothing the immigration department CAN do. Consider, we cannot even prevent people from entering into lousy marriages on our own home turf with people who have met face to face and presumably even had to see each others' dirty laundry. Brittany, poster-girl for bad decisions, was married for 55 hours, and we could do nothing but perhaps suggest that a white leather veil is both impractical and disgusting, despite being on sale at Wal-mart. I cannot support the immigration department policing people's motivations to get married, however. Marriage is one of those things  we still don't fully understand. It means different things to different people. Many people believe it should mean only one thing, but even within that one meaning there are so many different flavors that when we attempt to dissect them to show which is "right" or "wrong" we end up arbitrarily drawing a line that could exclude some people unjustly, especially considering how hard it is to quantify love, to predict who will genuinely "make it", or even to know what "making it" means (if people divorce after 40, 50, even 60 years together, is there ever a time we can say "yes, you've made it"?).
Even with the idea of prosecution after the fact we cannot neglect the notion that some people overseas may fall in love as well, only to become hopelessly disillusioned once they arrive. It is a decidedly ethnocentric notion that we as a society produce such superior beings that any person who arrives here must instantly be grateful and in love with the person they intended to marry. We can, however, insist that these people return to their own countries if the marriage does not proceed so, if  they fail to, then we may pursue and prosecute them, but this is the same nature of violation immigration deals with all the time.
Thus we are left with only a few choices, the best of which I know people hate: personal accountability. True, it's hard to uncover really talented con-people, but if they are clever enough to dupe someone into marriage, then they'd likely gain access to Canada anyway. But we must begin to consider marriage in a more serious light given that it is a serious deal, with financial, legal, personal implications. It seems many people do not realize that. It would take more work to promote a "grassroots" initiative (grassroots is the new buzzword, and I was just dying to try it out. I feel filthy.) surrounding marriage but it seems like the best choice, unless you could imagine yourself standing in front of a judge telling him why her smile makes you happy in the morning and how that means you will never leave her.

UPDATE  14/11/10
Holy smokes! I want to make it perfectly clear that the title is a joke about being a "marriage of convenience" (7-11 being a convenience store) NOT a crass joke about marrying someone of middle eastern descent (who are often stereotyped as running convenience stores)!

Heavens to Betsy; More Scandal?

Was there anyone really surprised to wake in the morning greeted, in Edmonton at least, by David Dorward's huge face on the front cover of their newspaper?

For those who aren't aware, the big story today, the day before Edmonton's Municipal election, is about "Darrensbigscoop" a blog run by a man calling himself  "Darren Holmes"  who phoned up several people, councillors for city hall, etc., claiming to be the Seattle Times, even going so far as to get a fake phone number with the appropriate area code, and harassing them under the guise of an "interview". During  this time, he posted that Mayor Mandel had stolen the airport for unethical reasons and several other libellous allegations.

 
The fallout? Dorward has criticized the man, whose name is actually Nathan Black, saying he was disappointed it took attention away from the real issues, and that he was no longer welcome to volunteer with Dorward's campaign. The Seattle Times is considering suing. Mayor Mandel suggested that once the election is over he would talk about a lawsuit with his lawyers. The blog has run itself out, it has since been taken down, but will continue to putter around, converting feeble minds who can't be bothered to google for veracity. Envision Edmonton has kept him, however, implying that it was just high spirits, and that he had worked "tirelessly throughout the petition campaign organizing events and coordinating volunteers" (Edmonton Journal, Ed Kaiser, October 17th, 2010), which sounds a bit like keeping a rabid, incontinent terrier because it looks so cute on the sofa.

The consequences here are two-fold: 1) It is infuriating that weblogs, already of shaky reliability and reputation, are taking another hit to their credibility in the form of some twit who thought he could get away with such, if  not preposterous, goofy allegations. To be precise, I am aware that I don't garner as much respect as a legitimate journalist, but I do pride myself on accuracy, and situations like this seriously hamper my wilful suspension of disbelief. (Sometimes I have to wrap myself in newsprint, wearing a fedora, and say things like "Just the fact, Ma'am", so I can feel better) however, 2) I do appreciate that people might start to get an inkling of where the line between gossip and facts are. It is strange the proportion of people who will hear something passed on in the darkened tones of a conspirator, and our inner story teller loves a good scandal, but there must be a point where common sense kicks in. It is unlikely, given the firestorm that has raged over this airport, that something so simple could have been overlooked so egregiously. Not to say impossible since it remains to be seen whether the people of Edmonton are the only one who will be benefiting from the closure, as Mandel suggests, and we may never know what the true motivation was (A posteriori motivation is notoriously slimy), but the benefits of being the faceless voting masses is this: We don't care.
When it comes to decisions, motivations, and results, the only thing that matters to 'we, the people', is results. That's the tricky matter about being Mayor. Mea culpa just means you get to know why we turf you. Although it is considered a mark of humility and graciousness for people in office to admit when they were wrong, in the long run, it doesn't change a thing.

These things aside, one thing I think voters should take away from this whole affair is that we should not let volatile situations build up. This is a hazard present in running an election as a one-issue race; It's exploitable. Imagine where we'd be if we believed this story? Howling for a man's blood when we have no clue what is really going on. On the other hand, advanced voter turnout is over twice was it was last election, so if scandal is what encourages people to get out there and cast a ballot? Game on!

Lifting the veil of a bad argument

My latest blog post about the Niqab has sparked some controversy, so I hope to better refine my position here, and then if there is still controversy, well, controversy happens.

First of all, I am pro-identification. Absolutely. We pay too much in taxes to support our stellar health care system to allow just anyone to avail themselves of our services. Re-reading the article I realize I had not made that clear. The problem, I find, is that this bill  is requiring women to remove their headscarf for the duration of the service, whatever that may be.
The majority of Sharia Law interpretations do advocate removal of the niqab to permit identification, in the presence of an official or member of authority; the RCMP confirm that no-one, to their knowledge, has ever refused to remove their niqab for a mugshot, and there is a consistent line of people removing their niqab for passport photos and other such matters. But lifting it once for the purpose of identification is a whole degree of separation away from requiring it be removed for the entire time, when anyone could see the woman's face, a result she does not want.
The landmark case on the issue was a women immigrating from Egypt, who was taking a federally funded language course in French (the fact that it was federally funded puts less weight on the woman's position, however, the ban would also apply to universities, and those are not fully funded), as is mandatory for immigration into Quebec. The instructor was originally a women, so the Muslim woman in question would test her french privately at the back of the room where she would remove her veil. At one point she did complain that the men in the class could see her face still and when the class dynamic changed to be primarily men, she refused to remove it at all (although this coincided with the change of instructor who was now a man, so there is debate as to the motivating factor). The course stipulates that the student's mouth must be seen, since it is apparently essential to elocution for the mouth to be visible (This is the argument they gave). This aspect alone is debatable and I would argue that how you achieve the correct sound should  not matter so long as the correct sound is achieved. If they had learned it over the Internet, their mouths wouldn't be judged (it is noted she was offered the chance to study online; no mention of why this option was not acted on).

It is an interesting point, although not entirely relevant to the argument, that current estimates put the number of Quebec women who wear the niqab between 20-25, but after the story broke about the woman's human rights lawsuit,  another student was kicked out of class for refusing to remove her niqab, but there does not seem to be any precedent (IE. no difficulties in class) and she is alleged to have been doing well and cooperating fully otherwise.Herein lies the biggest risk with this ban, put best by this woman:

 "Shelina Merani, a spokesperson for Muslim Presence, a network promoting common values based on Islam, charged that the bill is discriminatory and reflects growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Quebec.
“As a woman, you will have to choose between your education and our faith,” Merani said in an interview from Ottawa.
“If we want to emancipate women, I think this will do the opposite of what we claim to want to do – it will contribute to ghettoization,” she said." -Marian Scott, the Montreal Gazette, March 26, 2010

There is also the matter of security. It could certainly be anyone in a niqab, and the fact that the 2005 London bombers fled in burkas, makes the situation more tricky. But anyone who supports this measure must also support full body scans, since it is the same principle on a larger scale, and strip searches, although since these involve physical contact there is less precedent. On a confusing point of interest, the  lawyer who defended the rights of Sikh students to wear their ceremonial dagger, does not support the veil. Given the proportion of stabbings to bombings or anything that could be hidden under a niqab, I'm confused about this discrepancy. He does, however, emphasize that any further forays into legislation would begin to intrude on individual rights.

I also get very worried when these kinds of situations occur and people scream that this is "CANADA where we have our own customs and the arrogance of these ‘individuals’ that come over here and expect us to conform to their rights and religion is appalling" (Mikey35 on the national post website), but ignore what exactly Canada stands for, if not for freedom and tolerance.

Old Spice guy says, "Laptops for Babies"

Due to a bad circumstance at work which doesn't need to be detailed here, I'm full of vitriol and since last post was number 333 (the step-son of the beast), I'm keen to spew some bile on the Internet today.

Latching on to the first story to catch my interest, let's talk about division. One of the most surefire way to destroy camaraderie is to show favoritism; think Ender from the teen-age literary staple, "Ender's game". Equality, fairness, and advancement based on merit are cohesive forces, and can see progress even disparate from individual to individual without leaving resentment in its wake. In Canada's history, the government sought to destroy the natives by taking their children away, leaving separation and alienation behind. The damage done by residential schools, which were operating until as recently as 1996, caused schisms between generations that prevail even today, despite the Healing Foundation's efforts, which some speculate are undermined by the current government's financial assistance of Native Canadians (which is only given if the recipient lives on residential land and follows "Indian regulations" ). This financial assistance has caused some Natives to become dependant on the government's help, thus depriving them of the critical autonomy needed to repair the damage done to their culture.

Recently, the government woke from it's Brobdignagian slumber to notice the discrepancy in graduation rates (I guess a 42% grad rate is not as good as an 84%, who knew?) between aboriginals and non-aboriginals across Canada (the worst rate was in Manitoba at 71% failing to graduate) . They vowed to do something about it and so Belinda Stronach is here to make everything better. She's riding in on a white horse with a bunch of low-cost laptops, similar to a type being distributed through a children's foundation in the U.S. About 5000 will be handed out to children between the ages of 6 to 12. Her heart's in the right place; she hopes to encourage education through technology, although I guarantee the built-in wireless Internet has Mayoral Candidate Bob Ligertwood choking on his watercress sandwich ("They have what?!"); but any parent can attest to what happens when you favor one child over another: Chaos and anger. Considering the fairly narrow age range of the recipients, it's not a stretch to imagine there will be children within the same household unit jealously watching their siblings receive a new laptop. Sure, we can say it will promote sharing and all that, but what kid at 6 wants to share their new toy equitably?

"So what?" says the disillusioned masses, "At least it's something." That's a good point, but why do we so often accept 'good enough' for things when they effect other's well-being? Not to forget, even though each laptop only costs around one hundred eighty eight dollars, that computes to $940,000, and that figure only includes the cost of each laptop, not including distribution and peripherals. I can not understand why this money could not be better spent elsewhere. Textbooks for example, or a non-toxic school environment. At least this way the kids can google what type of mould is slowly choking out their lungs.

Let's be honest about the whole issue; simply giving money to rebuild the school would show favoritism for Natives; not the message the Liberals want to send. It wants to show it is sexy. It likes technology. It is hip. Vote for Liberals and you'll give laptops to babies. I wish I didn't think this would work to gain votes.