Back At It...

So, I let this go to crap for a while.

Many things have happened during the last several months that deterred me from keeping up with my blog. Health issues, head being a bit foggy from a bunch of tragedies, and a host of other things in life just made me lose my motivation. Among them, I got sidetracked in my passion for all things liberty by becoming too aware of many things Libertarian. The movement still thrilled me; the Parties in their various formations, particularly in my province of Ontario, not so much. I had started a blog post on that as well, but it ended up in my huge “to be done later” heap, where it still sits.

But it’s funny how seemingly innocuous events and conversations can reignite a passion within you.

I began my blog because I was disturbed by the complacency shown by various friends who I respected regarding a clear lie told by the Vancouver Police in conjunction with the city’s rather *special* mayor (http://truenorthstrongandfreeblog.blogspot.ca/2011/07/my-little-voice-and-why-i-needed-to-use.html). Most of my friends, while not politically active and in various states of political awareness, were all reasonably intelligent and educated. However, rather than showing any kind of real anger at being part of a public duped once again by branches of government that had been designed to be accountable to them—a novel enough theory nowadays—my peers simply shrugged their collective shoulders, and while expressing some small anger along the way, basically came up with a unanimous “that’s government; what do you expect?” One, in particular stood out to me: she basically told me that the mayor didn’t really lie, he simply “bent the truth, which they all (politicians) do."

I expected more. Hence, my blog was born.

Not coincidentally, the early days of the American election were upon us. In its early days, I followed the American election with a growing interest. After all, I owed much of my willingness to become politically involved to Rep. Ron Paul (“Jumping Into The Fray” http://www.libertarian.ca/newsletter-november-2011-edition/). Issues regarding liberty and lack of government accountability had become increasingly important to me as I realized how governments were gradually infringing on them. But much more alarming to me wasn’t the actual loss of freedom; more specifically, as my friend had stated in her summation of government, it was that Canadians expected nothing different from those who were, at least in theory, to be accountable to them. Our apathy had made the words James Madison wrote over 100 years prior prophetic: “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I began looking for ways to educate both others and myself with greater zeal. After going back to school, I joined Students For Liberty Groups. I edited the Canadian Libertarian Newsletter, and joined the Party, thinking that in doing so, I could be part of movements that would usher in what Dr. Paul often has referred to as “the Revolution”—one of liberty and freedom via education not one of violence and coercion.

I quickly became disillusioned however, with different problems I saw within the Party, especially in my home province. This, coupled with the above mentioned personal issues, caused me to gradually wean myself away from writing, editing, and apart from personal conversations, promoting much about freedom, or the state’s attempts to limit it. Compounding this of course, were the events south of the border. It was obvious that Dr. Paul stood no chance of getting his party’s nomination, let alone winning the American election, and the only other sensible candidate, Gary Johnson, would get little media coverage as the leader of the Libertarian Party in the US, despite being a popular and very effective former Governor of New Mexico. While I was still passionate about promoting causes of liberty personally, I could see no effective vehicles for doing so on a larger scale. In retrospect, I suppose I thought if I couldn’t be part of a movement that could change the world, I didn’t want to try to participate at all.

Much like the Vancouver spying however, a small incident would change that all.

During the final round of American presidential debates that were wrongly confined to including only the Republican and Democrat nominees, some Canadian friends began to promote Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. In questioning them as to why this was, they were mostly evasive; in Canada, at least amongst some of my friends, it appeared Obamamania hadn’t suffered the demise it had south of the border. In response to this, I pointed out that during Obama not only had he managed to accrue more debt than all other US presidents combined, but the he had managed to increase casualties in the Afghan conflict, while simultaneously violating the Constitution on several levels.

One friend however, was a bit more forthcoming: she had told me that her support for Obama was due to her concern for “women’s issues”—by this I assume the ease with which a woman may get an abortion or purchase those ultra-expensive birth control pills that Obama, with the help of the Georgetown Law Sandra Fluke helped divert a potential crisis in—and “gay issues” (her uncle I believe, being gay).

Setting aside for a moment my astonishment that any reasonably intelligent person could assume either of these would be issues—Romney was surely astute enough to understand that Roe v Wade isn’t changing regardless of the strength of his Mormon faith, even if many Republicans running along with him weren’t—and further, why anyone would believe that a man who has flip-flopped at the whim of popular opinion on gay marriage some four times—Obama—wouldn’t be inclined to do so again in the future, her statement made me realize how brutally short-sighted, and self-absorbed North Americans in particular were.

After quoting to her a plethora of statistics on how Obama’s brutal mismanagement of the economy would affect not only current, but several future generations of Americans, I then proceeded to quote to her statistics of casualties from not just the ongoing, pointless Afghan struggle, but the slaughter of unknown numbers of innocent civilians—including, I assume the women and gays she is so concerned about, mixed in with liberal helpings of children—via drone operated strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. My goal was not to encourage her like Romney; quite the opposite: I had always maintained that a vote for one might as well be a vote for the other; they are both empire-building expansionists who will violate the Constitution as it suits them, expanding both debt and casualties along the way. I had merely hoped that she would see that either one is a poor choice, and expand her thoughts. It was a mind-boggling exercise in futility; she assured me that she was passionate only about the “human” issues she had pointed out.

What made the experience so surreal to me was not her blind devotion to Obama, but rather her blind desensitization to the suffering brought about by Obama to others in the world, and how her world could be so limited. It was almost a form of narcissism. The point was driven home to me even more vividly a few days later when I received a response from a Facebook friend regarding something I wrote about Obama’s drone casualties. The response was something along the lines of “I love you, but you DO know we live in Canada, right?”

It is precisely this reason that I felt the need to start writing again.

The friend who wrote this was born in Africa. He is finishing a degree in law, and is intelligent beyond just “book smart.” And yet, like my other friends in Vancouver, he has lowered his expectations of those who are in theory accountable to him. Like my friend in Ottawa, unless the issues are something he can concretely see to affect him, they are somewhat abstract, almost to the point of irrelevance. In neither of these paradigms is he anywhere near alone. Desensitization to injustice done by government both to its citizens and those abroad has become the standard of Western thinking. Imperialism is alive and well in the world, and it tragically has a very North American flavour to it.

Against this grim backdrop however, much good went on during the US elections. Several previously left-leaning, Democratic writers began to take issue even to the point of condemnation with Obama for his horrible record on civil liberties, noting his unconstitutional support of indefinite detention; many others grew increasingly horrified with the rising global civilian casualties due to unconstitutional wars abroad. On the other end of the spectrum, even conservative American Christians began to see the futility of ongoing drug prohibition, and some even adopted a more “live and let live” attitude toward traditionally sensitive areas like gay marriage, rejecting state interference in the bedrooms of the people.

However, as my friend pointed out, we live in Canada. And in Canada, we still seem apathetic toward not only what goes on on a global scale, but also, we remain indifferent to the machinations of our government to limit our freedoms in our own backyards.

And maybe that’s why I needed to start writing again; it’s time to shake off my own indifference.

My NFL Predictions

AFC East

New England Patriots 12-4 (2)

Buffalo Bills 9-7 (5)

New York Jets 6-10

Miami Dolphins 5-11

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens 11-5 (3)

Cincinnati Bengals 10-6 (4)

Pittsburgh Steelers 8-8

Cleveland Browns 3-13

AFC South

Houston Texans 12-4 (1)

Tennessee Titans 7-9

Indianapolis Colts 3-13

Jacksonville Jaguars 2-14

AFC West

KC Chiefs 8-8 (6)

Oakland Raiders 8-8

San Diego Chargers 7-9

Denver Broncos 6-10

NFC East

Philadelphia Eagles 11-5 (3)

Dallas Cowboys 10-6 (6)

New York Giants 9-7

Washington Redskins 4-12

NFC North

Green Bay Packers 12-4 (2)

Chicago Bears 11-5 (4)

Detroit Lions 8-8

Minnesota Vikings 3-13

NFC South

Atlanta Falcons 10-6 (5)

New Orleans Saints 9-7

Carolina Panthers 7-9

Tampa Bay Bucs 7-9

NFC West

SF 49ers 13-3 (1)

Seattle Seahawks 7-9

Arizona Cardinals 5-11

St. Louis Rams 4-12

Wild Card: Ravens over Chiefs, Bills over Bengals; Eagles over Cowboys, Bears over Falcons.

Divisional Round: Texans over Bills, Ravens over Pats; Bears over Niners, Eagles over Packers.

Conference Championships: Texans over Ravens; Eagles over Bears.

Super Bowl: Texans over Eagles.

Defending The Indefensible: Why Hate Speech Must Be Tolerated

In what appears to be a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada this week past upheld a ruling by a lower court that two Calgary brothers were wrongfully punished by the University of Calgary who had the audacity to criticize one of their professors on Facebook (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/09/universities-beholden-to-canadass-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms-appeal-court-rules/). In essence, the Court held that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reigned supreme, even on sacred university campuses.

The fact that the ruling had to be made, much less that it may represent a landmark, is in itself an indictment of how political correctness and censorship has plagued our society; if freedoms of speech expression were truly “free” anywhere in Canada, the institutions that should uphold those freedoms most fervently should be those of education, especially supposedly “higher” ones. While the case will likely have far-reaching ramifications for universities and private institutions as a whole—though one may rightfully wonder how any institution that is the beneficiary of an enormous amount of public money may be considered “private”—the rulings lead to a broader question that rarely gets addressed in Canada anymore: exactly how “free” should speech be? And more specifically, should inflammatory and potentially reprehensible, hate-motivated speech be allowed in public (or private) forums?

 As someone who endorses personal liberty, I would stand initially for the freedom of expression on sheer principle alone: a society cannot be considered “free” if thoughts are repressed and censored regardless of how distasteful I or even an overwhelming majority of people may find them. Further to this is one practical application and standard is that if I argue that another’s speech is inflammatory and hateful, who determines at what point does mine also become that way? Setting these two arguments aside, there is even a more practical application that needs to be made in allowing for freedoms of expression, and ironically, it appears best in the institution that tried to restrict it: education.

As the recent ruling from the Court shows, issues pertaining to free speech still represent hot button topics in Canada. However, perhaps no ruling in Canadian legal history was more seminal than R. v. Keegstra, the well-published trial pitting the Government of Canada against high school teacher James Keegstra, who taught his students that the Jews invented the Holocaust to illicit sympathy, often using racial slurs to underscore his points. While it is true that in certain circumstances—i.e. not while teaching, and in private—Keegstra may have been found innocent of the charges in 1990 (he almost was; the Court convicted him by a 4-3 margin), with the advent of the Human Rights Commissions and the cottage industry they now represent, it’s doubtful that he would have been afforded nearly as close a verdict today.

Setting aside the ridiculous nature of Keegstra’s claims,the case that ironically set a standard for limiting free speech should have instead served as an example of why speech must be free not restricted, and further, why speech should be less restricted today than it was 20-plus years ago. Moreover, it illustrates why institutions of learning which tried to limit a far less oppressive expression of speech—students complaining about the competency of a professor—need to be the place where even the most harmful forms of expression must be defended with the greatest zeal.

The logic is simple: while it is undoubtedly true that ideologies that represent hate are spread through the various mediums of public (and private) forums, that very fact brings up two other truths: namely, censorship has never worked, and indeed, like all forms of prohibition tends to produce the opposite effect for which it was intended; and secondly, the painfully obvious fact that the only way to combat intolerance is not by covering it up and pretending that it doesn’t exist, but rather by exposing it’s sheer audacity and ignorance, and in order to do so, the full ignorance must be exposed by letting those who choose to propagate hate speak freely.

But what of the most disturbing aspects of expression? By not limiting expressions of hatred or violence to particular people groups, aren’t we silently condoning them? Surely, if any form of censorship is called for, it is on those groups, is it not?

Rather, the opposite is true; the more potentially harmful the speech may be, the more it needs to be exposed for what it is, and again, the only way to this thoroughly is through discourse. Freedom in its truest form comes only with the caveat that one does no harm to others. While it may be argued that the discussion of harming promotes the eventual harm, it also points out the truth that those arguments can only be defeated through unobstructed communication. That expressions of hatred often denigrate to despicable levels is unquestionable; running away from them or attempting to bury them outside of minds’ reach can make them no less vile. 

Back to the schools: institutions of education are meant to do just that, namely, educate people, particularly the young who will shape a rapidly changing future. If we are truly serious about improving society, we must be committed to giving future generations the tools needed to overcome hatred, and therefore promote peaceful co-existence.

Uncomfortable as the truth may be, in pretending that destructive ideologies don’t exist, we successfully create an even greater atmosphere of ignorance than that of the vicious ideologues. That truth alone should make censorship the most intolerable act possible.

Some Quick Wisdom from Mencken

“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.” - H.L. Mencken

On Warren Sapp, and Heinous, Egregious Behaviour

It’s time for a Sunday sports rant from the blog…

I have never been a fan of Warren Sapp. Even when he was a Raider, I couldn’t stand him. His mouth, his arrogance, and his taking the occasional play off annoyed me too much. When he wanted to be, Sapp was a monster, possibly the best pass-rushing DT of all time. But, especially as his career wound down—with the Raiders—Sapp seemed to play hard only when he wanted.

Since his retirement, Sapp has carved out a gig as an “analyst” for the NFL Network. I use the term loosely; it was Sapp who “broke” the story that Jeremy Shockey had been the person who told the NFL about the now infamous bounty program the Saints had under Coach Sean Payton and Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams. It would have been a magnificent scoop were it not for the small problem that Shockey vehemently denied being the whistle-blower, an assertion that Sapp’s employer, the NFL, concurred with. 

But what really stood out to me was Sapp standing on the moral high-ground and decrying Williams’ remarks as “the most heinous, egregious thing in the history of this game" and further added this gem “Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, 'We're going to take out someone's ACL' without standing up and saying, 'What the hell are you talking about?' The way you play defense isn't about malice.”

Pardon me while I find Warren a pulpit big enough to store all his bulls(p)it.

Although he has yet to do so, one wonders if Sapp is set to join the legion of former players suing the league for brain injuries.  Clearly, he is exhibiting some of the early signs, notably, memory loss. As this little gem from the NFL Network shows, Warren the Gentle had no problem hitting Chad Clifton even though as Sapp admits Clifton “wasn’t in the play.” Of course, nothing says “I play without malice” quite like “I saw a perfect opportunity to get me a lineman cause that’s the game we play.” But roll the clip for yourself, because only Warren the Gentle can do justice with his lustful recall of “taking my shot” and the throaty “YEAH MAN! You can’t even see me in the screen when I hit him!” The clip is here, Sapp starts preaching at the 1:07 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgdlqNtbBAA

Sorry Warren. In the long line of “heinous, egregious” things in the game of football, Gregg Williams’ audio is pretty bad indeed, but it competes nicely blindsiding a defenceless player away from the play simply because “that’s the game you play.”  Besides, in the “game you play” of life, there are worse things you can be. A deadbeat father would be one of them; at least Gregg Williams doesn’t owe over $700K in child support http://www.tmz.com/2012/02/06/warren-sapp-alimony-child-support/#.T4uIwquwxm0.  

Ten "Cannots," or How to Return to Sanity by William Boetcker

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

- William Boetcker, Ten Cannots, 1916

The Tragedy of Michael Eligon

It should come as little surprise that the Special Investigations Unit recently absolved Toronto Police of any wrongdoing in the February 3^rd shooting death of 29 year-old Michael Eligon.  In the period ranging from 2000-2011, the SIU in Ontario investigated 2384 complaints against officers, which varied from people held in custody being injured, to allegations of sexual assault, as well as all incidents where a fatality occurred. Of those investigations, 68 charges in total were laid as a result of the almost 2400 cases investigated a slightly underwhelming .0285%.

In his summary of the Eligon case, SIU director Ian Scott believed that the bullet-proof vest-wearing officer who fired the fatal bullets at a man armed only with scissors was justified in doing so. This may indeed be the case. There seems to be little dispute that Eligon was holding  the scissors, rummaging through various backyards in the neighbourhood where he was gunned down, and, just prior to the fatal shooting had been warned by police to drop the scissors. He had obviously ignored the commands; this too seems to be verified by the witnesses.

Prior to wandering into the neighbourhood where he would be shot, Mr. Eligon apparently caused an incident at a convenience store, where he nicked the attendant. However, rather than appearing violent to the clerk, he appeared to have been “blanked out,”  a description that leads one to wonder if this man was not only mentally disturbed, but heavily medicated during the time he was killed.

The story is wrought with several troubling details. The first, reported in The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1128985--police-didn-t-need-to-shoot-man-in-hospital-gown-witness), comes from the man who originally called the police to inform them of Mr. Eligon’s presence.  The man, who was doing renovations in the neighbourhood, and was apparently able to convince Eligon to leave the property he was working on without incident. While Eligon unquestionably appeared upset and frightened, the man did not see him as a dangerous threat. Apparently, this account falls in line with the accounts of other neighbours who witnessed the incident.

It also appears the officers were somewhat careless with their weapons—given that they shot what appeared to be a mentally ill man, this may be an epic understatement—the officer fired three shots at a fairly close range. Only one hit Mr. Eligon; it seems fortunate that in a residential area such as this, none went further astray.

However, the real tragedy is with the one bullet that did hit its intended target. A 29 year old male, showing every conceivable sign of mental illness or distressed was gunned down by an officer who would be duly acquitted.  (http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1148660--michael-eligon-shooting-siu-finds-no-wrongdoing-by-toronto-police)

By their own later admission, the officers involved knew that they were likely dealing with a mental patient; the officer gave it as the reason for declining the use of pepper spray during the incident to Director Scott saying “…he understood that it (pepper spray) is sometimes ineffective when used on those with a mental disorder.”

But if Mr. Eligon was such a threat that police—who are supposedly trained for conflict situations—felt they had to shoot him, why was an untrained renovator able to calmly remove him from a property?

Several answers could be possible, but it seems rather obvious by further accounts of the shooting that police were yelling and hostile toward Eligon. Consider that for a moment: how much wisdom does it take to avoid provoking a potentially medicated, clearly mentally distressed patient in this situation? And if one officer who was aggressive would have caused Eligon heightened anxiety, how badly would that have multiplied if there were 12, apparently with guns drawn confronting him? Not only was this not the best way to handle the situation, short of having even more high-strung police present, it was the worst.

If the events described in the aftermath are accurate, they paint an even more troubling picture of the officer’s conduct. After shooting Eligon the police proceeded to kick and stop the dying man as they moved to restrain him. Whether this was the effect of the adrenaline rush that accompanies dealing with a situation like this, natural reaction on the part of police or just an added act of violence was never addressed. But it likely doesn’t matter; at best, the actions in the aftermath show a bunch of edgy policemen too wound up to be dealing with a situation like this. At worst, they show an anger and easy propensity to over-the-top violence. The man had been shot; was kicking and stomping his body really necessary?

While the incident is troubling enough by itself, the greater-reaching ramifications paint a much more disturbing picture.

According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, 20% of Canadians will experience some form of mental illness in their lifetimes. 8% of Canadians will experience depression, 5% will experience anxiety attacks of various severity, 1% bipolar disorder, and a further 1% schizophrenia. Given that many people are loath to admit any kind of mental illness, these statistics may potentially be on the low end.

According to the 2011 census, there were over 6 million people in the Greater Toronto Area. This means that on a given day in the GTA, there may be as many as 1.2 million people with some form of mental illness; 480 000 people experiencing depression; 300 000 fighting some form of anxiety; 60 000 severely depressed and another 60 000 who are schizophrenic. All these people may further be medicated to some degree. And for all those figures, Toronto Police claim that they are trained 10 hours per year to deal with mental issues. Even if they received outstanding training, this would mean that they receive 6000 minutes of training to deal with 60 000 schizophrenic  people. There is no way to make the math sound better.

Given that one of the targets of Canada’s new crime legislation are drug users, and given that many mentally ill people self-medicate or use drugs as a means of escape, they will be the ultimate targets for increased policing and harassment. It requires no great imagination to see more situations where a highly-agitated mentally ill person comes into contact with an even more agitated but apparently well-trained and well-armed police officer, or several of them.

Regardless of how one feels about  if the police in the Eligon shooting were justified in using lethal force, or your thoughts about the reckless discharge of the firearm that fired three bullets, or your thoughts on the purported kicking and stomping of his body, one fact seems to be indisputable:  a great number of police are put into situations that they are completely unqualified to be in in dealing with the mentally ill, and that combination of an aggressive officer or officers with an unstable, possibly medicated individual is likely to turn out in tragedy. Michael Eligon’s case wasn’t the first of its kind; tragically, given the new environment laid by the government and supported by law enforcement, the stage seems set for several repeating incidents.

In the end perhaps Mr. Scott got it right: it would be wrong to blame a single officer. The officer is the product of an incompetent system; it is that system that should be put on trial and found guilty.