Who's in Charge of this Train, Anyway?

A friend just "recommended" this editorial by Michael Ignatieff on Facebook. My initial thought was to recommend it myself, with my thoughts. Then I decided to post it here, instead. I've noticed lately that I've lost a few FB friends, and although at first this hurt me, I had to wonder if it was due to my political/ideological postings. If that's the case: too bad. I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. Often very strongly.

What I don't understand is why people who disagree with me about these issues are so offended by the idea of society working together for everyone's betterment. Are they afraid for their own standard of living? Do they honestly believe that every poor person is poor because of laziness and/or drug and alcohol abuse? That every New Year's baby born today has EXACTLY the same opportunities for "success" as his/her peers?

I love the analogy in the article: that living in the Great Depression was like riding a train. If you had a job, "it was like being in the heated parlour car in the front of the train, while the unemployed were in the unheated freight cars in the back." I've noticed that those who are so adamantly against government programs to help the poor are usually those who are not only employed, but have been in the same job for a long time; who haven't had to deal with months and months of resumes and applications, and internet job searches; those who don't know that trying to live on $1800 per month (approximately the maximum amount of EI in our area) is nearly impossible for a family who may depend on that income as their sole source of support. For those who have been riding in those unheated freight cars, it is a ride of fear, shame, and despair, made all the more hard by living amongst those who are eating caviar in the parlour car.

I guess I just will never understand how it is that people can be so unwilling to give up a little bit of their wealth to make sure that other people have a reasonable standard of living. There is no way out of this mess while some are zealously guarding the proverbial Versailles and the peasants are crying for bread.

I once had someone ask me "Who are you to decide what's a reasonable income for anyone else?" That's not an easy question for me to answer. I suppose I have no right to say that no one NEEDS over a million dollars a year, but to me, that's just plain logic. To say, "I work 20 hours a day for that money, so I should get to keep it" discounts those who are working 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and barely surviving. Are you working harder than the person who's cleaning your office at 2am? The person who's out collecting your trash in -20 degree or 35 degree weather? Are you working harder than the person building the roads for you to drive to your company? The teacher who's educating your children? Who are YOU to say that what you do is worth more than what anyone else contributes to society?

I've been told that this whole "December 21, 2012" thing is more about a societal shift than about the end of the world. I really hope that's true, because until we all realize that we're all in this world together, I don't see us finding those middle cars on the train.

Mississauga or Abu Ghraib?

According to The Star, employees of Mississauga's transportation and works department were tied up with duct tape, spanked until they were bruised and humiliated, at the behest of a supervisor for over five years. The Ministry of Labour and Peel Region Police did nothing after viewing a videotape of one of the attacks. Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion admits that the city knew about the video back in 2009. Investigations were conducted by the MOL, police and by the city, and "action" was taken by the city, but the supervisor, Domenic Galamini was NOT fired. McCallion declined to specify what action was taken by the city.

In the words of SNL's Seth Myers and Amy Poehler: "REALLY?" Physical and psychological TORTURE of employees isn't a fireable offense? What the heck do you have to do to get fired from there? "Well, no one was actually killed..."

It's international news and people are jailed when American soldiers do it in an Iraq prison, but a supervisor doing this to his employees in a major North American city is worthy of what? A suspension? A note on his record?

This is why government employees (and unions) have such a bad reputation. I mean seriously - use some damned logic, people!

More on Harper's Vendetta Against Women

I try not to just copy and paste articles as a general rule, but this one, from the Guelph Mercury, is worth reading.

Confused about federal take on women’s health

So, the Harper Government decided not to open up the abortion issue and allow debate. How surprising.
It didn’t want to open up a can of worms and embarrass its members. Refusing to fund international programs that fund abortions puts women’s lives at risk and is fundamental to the issue of maternal health. Thousands of women die every year from botched abortions. Let alone the number of women who die during and after child birth, because they do not have access to medical care.

Whatever your view, women who seek abortions will find a way to have one. The real issue is whether that abortion is a safe one. We can argue forever on whether it is ethical. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But the issue is women’s maternal health and reproductive rights.

Canada’s stance is confusing. Canada’s public health care funds access to abortions, but the country denies that access internationally. Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, back in 1980. That convention guarantees women’s reproductive rights including access to safe abortions. The United States is taking an opposite stance. The U.S. never ratified the convention. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that maternal health includes access to safe abortions. President Obama’s National Health Care Plan does not include public funding of abortions. But America will fund it internationally, as will the other G8 countries. So, why is our government taking this stance?

Abortion is an issue few want to talk about and it is politically dangerous. It’s a topic that is emotionally charged and many people see it as black and white. Instead of seeing it as a health issue, many people will let their religion decide what side they are on. But the facts speak for themselves. There is compelling evidence that where there are broad legal grounds to safe abortions mortality among women is considerably reduced. Currently, according to the World Health Organization, 300,000 mothers die a year during pregnancy and childbirth, and thousands more die of botched abortions. Furthermore, according to the WHO, if barriers to safe abortions and abortion services are removed more maternal lives will be saved. Clearly, access to safe and legal abortions should be part of the goal of maternal health. Has the federal government followed the same path as our Ontario government on the safe sex curriculum and caved into pressure from religious groups?

There have been recent successes in overturning strict abortion laws in some countries. Mexico and Nepal overturned strict abortion laws even against political and religious opposition. Canadian and international human rights groups are surprised and disappointed with our government’s stance. According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Canada is getting failing grades on issues of human rights. I am saying human rights because women’s rights are human rights.

The problem is that international human rights groups have been critical of the Harper government, and groups that are critical lose their funding. As we know, this government does not respond well to criticism. It would rather shut down parliament and end debate rather than face criticism. In this case, it is the funding of international programs that support reproductive rights. Like women who seek abortions, these programs will be funded anyway from other more progressive countries — mainly the United States and European countries. I find it shameful and sad that Canada is now not considered progressive. This Conservative party got rid of that word and have to appease their backsliding origins. These backward world views do not match with the rest of the world, and what we need to do to improve the human condition. There are thousands of unwanted pregnancies due to sexual violence and these women do not have access to safe abortions and are at risk. If this conservative government is truly concerned with maternal health, then it should put its money where its mouth is.

Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board. 

But what if she [CENSORED]???

The publication ban in the Tori Stafford murder trial (which I suppose should really be referred to as the trial of the woman accused of her murder, but I'd prefer not to use her name) has me a little perplexed. I'm not a journalist, so I'm not in the "freedom of the press!" camp. Personally I think that freedom gets taken a little too far sometimes, but I also wouldn't want it taken away.

I also remember the publication ban in Karla Homolka's plea bargin, leading up to Paul Bernardo's trial. There is still so much anger across Canada, but especially in southern Ontario, about that plea bargain (AKA "The Deal with the Devil" for my US readers) that I think for a lot of us this is bringing up some very bad memories.

Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were my age. In fact, Kristen French was born just over two weeks after me. Her abduction and murder was a source of terror for girls my age in 1992. I doubt that there is a girl my age who didn't feel anger, fear, sadness, and so many other emotions over that case. When Karla Homolka was released from prison in 2005 it brought back all of the anger that she had gotten such a "sweet deal" from the prosecution.


And so, seeing the woman in this couple, both charged with first-degree murder, and apparently being tried first, having a similar publication ban imposed on her court proceedings, it is hard not to see the parallels. We don't know why the ban is there. We don't know what's going on in those proceedings (although apparently it's fairly common knowledge in Woodstock, Ontario where the trial is going on). It could be that there's a perfectly logical reason for this ban. I don't really trust the newspapers in their outrage: they have obvious motivation for their righteous indignation. It's possible that they are right, but for most of the general public it's impossible to know, and it's unsettling, to say the least.

No one wants to see another Deal with the Devil. All we can do right now, though, is wait and see, and hope it's not too late by the time that the ban is lifted.