Perpetual Motion

It’s time I tackle a topic that has a bit more “controversy” written on it.

Recently, the issue of same-sex marriage has become a presidential issue in the United States, with the election due in November. Last week, Barack Obama, President of the United States, publicly stated that he firmly believed that same-sex couples have a right to marry. It was about time Obama made a stand on this issue, since he tends to flip-flop quite a bit. He may have, however, been pressed to make the announcement due to Vice President Joe Biden stating a few days earlier his affirmation that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Either way, Obama made a powerful statement and it was nice to see someone in his position make such a statement.

However, it’s going to turn ugly and turn into a real shitfest for campaign purposes, especially since right after the announcement, North Carolina voters passed an amendment for the state that specifically defined marriage between a man and a woman. When people are interviewed in the United States, if they are opposed to same-sex marriage, they tend to invoke that it’s “God’s law” to oppose same-sex marriage. For example, this is what Leviticus 18:22 has to say on the matter:

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

Well, no one can say The Bible doesn’t get straight to the point. There are other passages in the Old Testament that basically forbid same-sex marriage (or same-sex relationships). So yeah, some people will quickly invoke The Bible to say that same-sex marriage is an abomination, however, like many other good Christians, they’ll ignore other parts of the Old Testament that would make their life a bit more… shall we say, difficult.

Let’s look at Exodus 35:2 for a moment:

“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

So, has anyone who denounced gay marriage by invoking The Bible ever worked on a Sunday (or Saturday if you’re Jewish)? If so, please proceed to the nearest firing squad. You’re in violation of God’s law.

What about Deuteronomy 22:23-24?

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”

So wait? The woman is to be put to death because she didn’t cry out for help? You’re essentially punishing the woman because she got raped and may have, in the heat of the moment, failed to cry for help. Sounds pretty extreme… and fucking idiotic.

Now, those are just two passages from The Bible I selected to make a point. Now, do we murder people who violate the Sabbath or do we punish rape victims? No. There’s a simple reason why: society has updated its moral code through secular values, not religious ones. As Charles Darwin is famous for noting, a species needs to adapt, and these are part of the adaptations of a progressive society – you can either adapt to them, or be left behind. It’s really your choice.

There will be others who go on and say that same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of the institution of marriage. For example, when Newt Gingrich was trying to run for the Republican nomination, he was playing the family values card and said he opposed same-sex marriage because it violates the sanctity of the institution. Sorry, Newt, but you’re not in a position to really say anything about that, considering you cheated on your first wife and have two divorces under your belt. An adulterer’s opinion on the matter is null and void as far as I’m concerned.

Sadly, Gingrich’s example isn’t the only one in society. There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that do, in my opinion, violate the sanctity of marriage. Some people who are married will lie, cheat, steal and do all sorts of fucked up shit that, as far as I’m concerned, is way worse than a gay couple getting married. You might say, “Well, it’s not natural” or “It’s not normal,” but who are we to define what is natural or what is normal? There is no one on this Earth that is in that position and as an atheist, you can’t ask me to appeal to a higher power, so I stand by that no one is in a position to make the call.

Now you ask, what is my opinion on the matter? If it hasn’t been made clear already, I am in full support of same-sex marriage. If Person X and Person Y happen to be of the same sex and they truly love each other and are willing to commit themselves to one another and live a long, happy, fulfilling life, who am I to say they should be denied to opportunity to consummate a marriage? I’m not. No one is. I know several people who are gay (some mild, some extremely flamboyant) and I see nothing in them that would prevent them from being a good partner in marriage. In fact, some of them would do better than people you see in a heterosexual marriage.

You might not see me marching in the annual Pride Parade (because I’m not a big fan of being in a crowd), but you can be damn sure that through written statements, I will defend the concept of same-sex marriage and if that someone is trying to shit on a gay person’s parade (pun slightly intended) by invoking religion, I’ll be there to stand by their side and defend them against bigotry.

If you are opposed to same-sex marriage and are at least honest about it and don’t pussyfoot around it, I’ll give you credit for honesty. However, if you’re using religion to push your point, be sure to read through The Bible very thoroughly to make sure you yourself are not in violation of God’s law somewhere. Otherwise, you’re nothing more than a fucking hypocrite.

If you know me well enough (or have read this blog frequently), you know I would not pass up an opportunity to pay homage to the greatest piece of legislation in Canada, especially since I love to cite it every chance I can. I’m talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which constitutes Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was signed into law on this day, April 17, thirty years ago (in 1982).

The last couple of days, I have been posting Charter-related media on my Facebook and I’m sure it annoys some of my friends, but I do take great pride in the Charter, as should all Canadians. The Charter protects and guarantees us the fundamental freedoms that we take for granted, such as the right to free speech, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to vote (to those in Alberta, hint hint!) and many other freedoms. It was decided that these values, and others, would be the building blocks to the Constitution and that they would form the basis on which Canadian society would govern itself.

Before the Constitution was patriated on April 17, 1982, in order for Canada to amend its previous Constitution, the changes had to be passed by the House of Commons and Senate in Canada, then it had to be approved by the House of Commons in the United Kingdom; we still had a legal dependence on the United Kingdom. Under the government of the late Pierre Trudeau, they set out to bring the Constitution home (patriate) and make it truly Canadian. With patriation, the government also decided that there should be a Charter in order to protect the rights of Canadians and to ensure that fundamental freedoms would be guaranteed.

Of course, there was fighting in order to get the Charter. The Progressive Conservative opposition feared there was a liberal bias in the judiciary, so that having the courts inherit the role of interpreting the Charter would not be in their best interests and that it should be up to the elected representatives of the people, not judges, to create the laws of Canada (in essence, no real judicial oversight). It was seen as a huge risk to put the judiciary in charge of overseeing the construction of laws in Canada, however, in hindsight, I would say the risk was worth it – it is of my opinion that the judiciary has done a fine job upholding the rights of citizens in Canada and ensuring that Parliament respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there should be provincial consent in writing the Constitution, although there was no legal barrier that prevented the federal government from foregoing input from the provinces. In order to attract support, the government included Section 33, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (Trudeau did not want a notwithstanding clause). The notwithstanding clause allows a government to override the Charter and shield any legislation from the Charter for a period of five years (in which it would then have to be renewed). In the end, every province signed on to the Charter, with the notable exception of Quebec. The government under Brian Mulroney tried twice to get them to sign, with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, but both had failed.

After all the debates and Quebec’s failure to sign, on April 17, 1982, a rainy day in Ottawa, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II signed the proclamation putting the Constitution Act, 1982 (and with that, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) into force and it became the law of the land – the Constitution of Canada was finally home.

Thirty years have passed and I believe the Charter has done an excellent job in representing the beliefs and ideals of Canadians. A nice piece was written in the Globe and Mail yesterday by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, a former puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada, stating how our Constitution has become a model for countries around the world and that people are starting to use it more often than the US Bill of Rights. Not going to lie, I thought that was absolutely impressive – Canada is setting the stage for writing a constitution! As well, she had mentioned that judicial bias is not really of concern in Canada, like it is in the US (since people were concerned that judicial bias would play a role in the law as the courts had the job of Charter interpretation). She cited her own career as an example and how something like that would be impossible in the United States: she was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and later the Court of Appeal for Ontario by the Progressive Conservative governments of Mulroney, then later appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. She believes that when judges are appointed in Canada, their judicial record, rather than their political beliefs, plays a role in their appointment, contrary to the United States, where you have to bow to the party that appoints you and essentially give up your soul.

I was disappointed to see that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was not really willing to celebrate the Charter, citing how it was divisive. As a Canadian citizen, Prime Minister Harper should be proud that not only does the Charter represent the ideals of a tolerant and progressive society, but that it is being used around the world by other countries trying to write their own constitutions. Perhaps he doesn’t think fondly of it because it’s going to be used against him to strike down some of the ridiculous laws that Parliament has already passed and will be passing soon. Then again, that’s just a guess.

I am very proud of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is the greatest piece of legislation ever enacted in Canadian history. In fact, I love it so much that I own three paper copies of it and I intend to frame at least one of them in the near future so that I may put it up on my wall. The Charter is a source of great pride and on this day, please take a moment to reflect upon the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Charter and how they apply to your life. As well, remember that in some places around the world, others are not as fortunate to have these freedoms guaranteed, much less protected. Remember how lucky we as Canadian citizens are.

“We must establish the basic principle, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which made us proud of the country that has given us freedom and such immeasurable joy.”

-P.E. Trudeau

For a PDF copy of the Charter, you can visit the Department of Justice website here.

Back in February, I decided to try my luck at writing a sitting prime minister (again) in order to express my displeasure with the government’s usage of cloture in the House of Commons. Specifically, I was concerned that cloture was being applied so hastily without debate progressing to its full potential and that the government was taking the position that the opinion of the opposition parties simply did not matter. Here is the letter that I sent to Ottawa on February 11, 2012, with my address blanked out (obviously):

[Author's note: in the second last line of the letter, I changed "power tool" to "powerful tool" before I sent it to Ottawa]

A few of my friends were proud that I decided to do this and others gave me the standard line of, “There’s no point” or “No one is going to read this.” The problem is that if everyone has that attitude, then nothing will get done. I decided to at least try something, because a little effort never killed anyone. One day, maybe, if more people do something like this, the government will start to listen (although given the current government’s attitude, it would be hard to convince them to do something logical).

I did get a response back from the government in April, dated March 28, 2012:

It seems like the standard government response and it was what I expected (I definitely did not expect a written reply from Stephen Harper himself – I would have been really surprised if that was the case). I will, however, take this response – it is something! Also, who knows – maybe I will get a response from Peter Van Loan? We just have to wait and see.

The point: if you’re pissed at the government, don’t be afraid to let them know. Someone will read your concerns and maybe one day, they will bring about change.

I knew this day was coming, but I really did not want to accept it.

History was made in Canada when the Government passed Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, yesterday on March 12, 2012. It had already passed in the House of Commons before Christmas, but was amended by the Senate earlier this month, so it went back to the House for a final vote. All that’s left now before Bill C-10 becomes federal law is the signature of David Johnston, the Governor General. I, for one, am not looking forward to this disaster being put into law.

[Addendum: it seems as I was writing this, Bill C-10 was given royal assent and is now the law of the land.]

The Government has taken the official position that the state needs to be tough on crime and that longer sentences will reduce the crime rate in Canada. However, it wasn’t long before the Canadian Bar Association (you can read the report here: http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/PDF/11-45-eng.pdf) offered critique to the bill (and some positive attributes). Furthermore, we even heard from conservatives in Texas telling us Bill C-10 was destined to failure, which I’m surprised Prime Minister Harper didn’t take as the word of god, considering how much he loves to bow down to the United States in sacrifice of Canadian interests. The government, however, brushed off these concerns and would not let anyone get in the way of their election promise to pass this bill, because they were elected with a “strong, stable majority” and had to deliver a mandate to the Canadian people… well the 39% of them that voted for the Conservative Party of Canada in the last federal election. In other words, it was, “Too bad – fuck you!”

Now I agree that people who contravene the law should be punished. In order for a society to function, there needs to be law and order (some form of structure) in order to prevent anarchy and widespread civil disobedience. However, there is a difference between being smart on crime and being tough and unreasonably stupid on crime. Locking up people for longer sentences without any form of rehabilitation is being stupid on crime. In fact, if you look at Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it talks about the principles of sentencing under the judicial system in Canada:

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime
prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the
following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment
of the harm done to victims and to the community.

Now the big key is 718(d) of the Criminal Code, which states that sentencing is also supposed to aim at rehabilitating offenders, not just locking them up and throwing away the key. If you want to prevent recidivism, you need to look at the factors that attributed to the crime and see if you can fix them. It’s like getting rid of weeds in your lawn: cutting the weed will get rid of it temporarily, but it will grow back. If you attack the root and kill it, the weed is now gone and has a much smaller chance of coming back. It’s the same with crime, essentially – if you do not attack the root cause of the crime, chances are, criminals will relapse once they are released back into general society. However, if you can get to the causes and help them to readjust and understand the negative impact of their actions so that they are aware why they have been incarcerated, you’ll lower their chances of being part of the judicial system in the future. Will it work with a 100% success rate? Absolutely not – nothing’s perfect. However, that should not stop us from attempting to rehabilitate offenders. It’s too late to stop the crime they already committed, but if we can prevent them from committing a crime in the future, then we, as a society, have done a good job.

Now there’s also the matter of 718.2

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the
following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant
aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the
offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
[list of aggravating circumstances]
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders
for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence
should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive
sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in
the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular
attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Now judges are allowed to use their discretion when imposing a sentence, which is why they take into account mitigating (factors that work in your favour to reduce your sentence) and aggravating (factors that work in favour of lengthening your sentence) factors. However, Bill C-10 essentially ties the hands of judges with respect to mandatory minimums, which is stupid because that treats classes of offenses as a “one solutions fits all,” which is never the case. Every case before the law is unique in its own circumstances, which is why judges have discretion in the first place. It is their duty to look at all the evidence and the societal factors that surround the case. Not doing so is, in my opinion, an affront to justice.

The other concern is that with mandatory minimum sentences, you’re creating more problems for a system that is already overstretched on resources. If you impose mandatory minimums, you’re going to have more cases going before a judge and as was stated by experts in Canadian law, people will likely not accept plea bargains to plead guilty, because you cannot bypass the mandatory sentence, so there’s no incentive for them to plead outright at the start. Now there’s already an overburden on the judiciary as it is; in fact, many cases are being dismissed in British Columbia on account of there are unreasonable delays in getting a fair trial, which is a violation of Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right…

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

So the government has the bright idea to create even larger caseloads for judges when there’s already enough of them being dismissed on Charter grounds without mandatory minimums and creating more criminals? What a smart move. It just screams stupidity. You essentially put more criminals back out in society, since if they get their case dismissed, well… that’s pretty much the end of it. So instead of protecting society, which the government has promised with this bill, you’re actually doing more harm to society. It seems the government doesn’t understand cause and effect, but then again, this is a government that has quite capably demonstrated that they refuse to listen to facts and just need to push on with a need to quote the bullshit line of, “strong, stable, history majority” or whatever spin they put on it.

Bill C-10 has to be one of the most idiotic things a Canadian government has ever passed. Instead of trying to be smart on crime, they just decided to be downright retarded on crime. We’re about to suffer the financial and judicial consequences of this bill, so hang tight for the long roller coaster ride – it’s going to be bumpy.

I have really neglected my blog and I feel really bad, because I love to write and quite a bit has happened in the last six months that I’ve been kind of ignoring, but this I cannot ignore and to put it bluntly, it pisses me off to no end.

Now when Stephen Harper got elected to his majority last May, like many people, I knew he was going to go hellbent with power; I mean, Christ, Stephen Harper just has that dictator vibe to him. Never did I imagine his government would go crazy with the closure motion.

For those of you who don’t know, closure (sometimes called cloture) is a motion that is made during a debate of a bill that limits said debate; if the motion of closure is passed, the next session the bill is debated, that is the last session of debate on that particular bill. Closure is generally used when the opposition is dragging out the debate indefinitely. A famous example of closure being invoked was during the Great Flag Debate back in 1964 when Lester Pearson was trying to get the bill for the Maple Leaf Flag passed, but John Diefenbaker, being a staunch monarchist, was filibustering the bill, because he had a hard-on for the Red Ensign. Fearing the opposition was going to drag the debate on indefinitely, the government applied closure in order to end the debate and eventually pass the bill (it’s one of the reasons we now fly the beautiful Maple Leaf Flag, which I have a hard-on for).

Since Stephen Harper got his majority, he’s been using closure on many of the bills that have passed through the House of Commons, because it’s urgent that they need to passed into law to help combat the evils of society, especially unreported crimes. Here is just a list (I doubt this includes all the bills) in which closure has been invoked:

• Bill C-3: Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act
• Bill C-4: Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act
• Bill C-6: Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act (to end the postal strike)
• Bill C-10: Safe Streets and Communities Act (the famous Omnibus crime bill)
• Bill C-11: Copyright Modernization Act (Canada’s SOPA)
• Bill C-13: Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act
• Bill C-18: Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act (ending the wheat board monopoly – you know, the one the Federal Court said broke the law because the farmers didn’t have a binding vote)
• Bill C-19: Ending the Long-gun Registry Act
• Bill C-20: The Fair Representation Act

I count nine bills in which closure was applied – NINE FUCKING BILLS! Closure is supposed to be a last resort tool if the opposition wants to drag the debate on forever to prevent the government from doing its job; it is NOT meant to be used to limit the opposition from expressing their concerns. The opposition parties represent just over 60% of the Canadian electorate who voted in the last federal election, so they obviously represent a significant number of people who have real concerns about the direction the government has been taking.

Some of the bills that have had closure applied to them have serious implications, such as Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. The debate on those bills should not be shortened; if anything, they should be prolonged so that the bills are examined in depth due to their implications on the law and how it will affect every day Canadian citizens. Instead, the government is taking the ground (especially with Bill C-10) that they need to be passed quickly because otherwise, people will be unsafe. As a Canadian citizen who lives in a somewhat shady neighborhood in Edmonton, I actually feel pretty safe where I am. Furthermore, Canada’s crime rates have been declining for the last four decades and have hit a 44 year low, so when the government tells me about these “unreported crimes” and so-called dangers, I just want to call their bluff and say, “bullshit”; in fact, as a scientist, when they use the “unreported crimes” excuse to justify the fast-tracking of the bill, I want to tell them that’s stupid, because that’s like making a scientific claim with no evidence. In the science world, people would like at you like an idiot, so it should be no different with the government trying to use the “unreported crimes” angle. It’s nothing but fear mongering and fear allows you to control society’s retards with little effort. We’ve already seen that south of the border since 9/11.

With that said, I do not believe every bill should have closure being applied to the them. The government will say that the opposition will drag on the debate, but that’s kind of their job – they are supposed to voice the concerns of people who do not share the views of the Conservative government and be allowed to have them heard. Instead, the government would just rather shut them out; they keep forgetting that although they were elected by 39% of the Canadian electorate, they’re supposed to represent the entire Canadian population and at least take into considering what the opposition says, not just flat out ignore them and accuse them of stalling the work of the government.

Again, I realize closure is sometimes necessary in order for the government to actually function to some degree and if the opposition is dragging the debate on for an unreasonable amount of time, fair enough, but a week or two is not what I would consider unreasonable considering the intricacies of the parliamentary system. If it was six months or a year, fair enough, but not two weeks – that’s just being, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I honestly fear the direction this country is taking and I am not looking forward to seeing its state in October 2015. The only comfort I can take is knowing that there’s a chance Stephen Harper can finally be booted out of office and never have control of the Office of Prime Minister ever again.

We can only hope…

Well it’s been quite a while since I last posted anything on here (September 11), so I figure it is time to get back into writing and gain some momentum.

As most Canadians know (even if you’re not a Christian), Christmas is coming up soon – in fact, it’s in nine days. I’ve been asked a few times whether or not I celebrate Christmas since I am an atheist. The short answer is yes, but not in the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Rather, I use Christmas as a time of year to spend with family – pretty much every aspect of modern Western Christmas without religion and a bit of a downplay on the commercialism aspect.

At this time of year when people want to spout the “Keep Christ in Christmas” slogans and such, I just want to touch on my life and religion.

As many of my friends know, I was raised in a very traditional Roman Catholic family. We went to mass every Sunday; there was a crucifix in the kitchen, a painting of Jesus and Mary in my grandparents’ bedroom and a photo of the Virgin Mary above my closet in my room. The only thing that we didn’t do was say grace before every meal; we reserved that for holidays only. Heck, I was even the organist at a Catholic church for a year. My grandparents were my legal guardians once my mother had moved to Alberta when I was a kid and they were very deep and sincere in their religious convictions (especially my grandmother), so obviously religion was going to be a big part of my life growing up.

I had to go through the traditional Catholic education outside of school (Catechism) and learn about the teachings of Christ and his apostles (don’t forget transubstantiation, the big tenet of Catholicism) and all that good stuff. When I was in second grade, I had my first communion; I remember in Catechism, we practiced with actual bread – it was rather disappointing when I received my first Eucharist (also known as the body of Christ) and it tasted nothing like real bread, but rather cardboard. Then in third grade, we had to do our first confession. I can remember before we all did confession, Father Reilly asked us who our heroes were; a lot of people said sports players, but I decided to be a good Catholic boy and say that “God” was my hero – I think I won points with the priest (don’t worry, nothing happened after that) and of course, my grandmother, because I remember she said she was so proud of me.

Of course, the above two sacraments pale in comparison to Confirmation, which I went through in the Spring of 2003. For those of you that don’t know, Confirmation is basically your right of initiation into the Catholic Church (your acceptance, basically) – at that point, I was like a full member of the Church and if you haven’t grown up in a Catholic family, it’s a big fucking deal. I remember we all went out to dinner afterwards and celebrated. So yeah, this atheist was once a confirmed member of the Catholic Church (as a side note, I’m probably still “technically” a member because I have never been excommunicated from the church, but I imagine simply declaring you’re an atheist is good enough for them to tear up your imaginary membership card).

So this begs the question of how did I end up going from being a good Catholic kid to an atheist? Well, it’s all about transitions. Growing up, I believed in God and thought he did everything. It was when I was in high school that I started to question my faith, because I really started having a hard-on for science and as we all know, science deals in facts and evidence. I started thinking there was not really much (or any, for that matter) evidence for God and wondered why people believed he was there; there was no real concrete proof of it and we were just taking it on someone’s word. I can remember asking my grandmother if God was real and she gave me a good lashing and told me never to bring up the subject again.

By the time I had finished high school, I had begun to seriously question religion and wonder if it was right for me. After I graduated high school, not long after, I moved out to Alberta to start my post-secondary education and it was at University that I discovered something: there were people (and plenty, at that) who were quite verbal in their declaration that God does not exist or that he probably does not exist. Growing up in Miramichi, this was a foreign concept to me, because the church holds such an influence in my hometown and to even dare question the existence of the Lord would be like a death sentence. I met a handful of people in physics who were agnostic or atheist and gave me quite a bit of food for thought and from them, I learned there’s nothing wrong with agnosticism or atheism and that there is nothing to ashamed of. This was the push I needed to finally move away from theism – I guess I just needed confirmation that there was no shame in declaring your lack of belief in God and/or religion.

I had at first taken the safe position of declaring myself to be an agnostic, but as I did more readings about atheism and listen to a few speeches and debates, I decided to take on the position of atheism. It became awkward when I was home one year for Christmas and my grandmother told me to get ready to go to church and I said I wasn’t going. She told me to give her a good reason and I told her I no longer believe in God or religion. The look on her face was heartbreaking when I told her I was an atheist and the first thing she said was that I was going “straight to Hell.” I didn’t want to disappoint her, but at the same time, I figured it was better to tell her the truth than to outright lie to her. To this day, I still think she has this belief I’m a Catholic, but I also think she’s in denial, because she sees it as a horrible thing that her grandson is an atheist and fair enough, to each their own, but I’m still the same person I was before I made a 180 on religion, with the exception that I no longer take my cue from God et al. Besides, it shouldn’t be surprising, because growing up, I questioned almost everything, so they shouldn’t be surprised that I also took it upon myself to start questioning religion. As well, The Bible says that God gave man free will, so this is the path of free will that I have chosen.

Before I end, I just want to make something clear: just because I am an atheist does not mean I am anti-religion or anti-theist; they are two separate things, although they do overlap at times. As long as you’re willing to respect my beliefs (you certainly don’t have to agree with them), I will respect yours. However, when you become a bit of an ignorant prick and start saying I’m immoral or a heathen for not believing in God and such, well, I will call you out and turn into an ass quickly – remember the golden rule!

Happy Holidays!

It was 10 years ago on this day that was the beginning of a series of events that would have a significant and monumental impact on the lives of people around the world. On September 11, 2001, the world watched as American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 made their way into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York, New York, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. For many who were my age at the time of the incident (I was 13), the seriousness of the situation could not be fully assessed; in that, I mean that while it was easy to recognize something bad had happened, it was hard to tell what the impact of this would be in the future.

First, let me tell you my story of how I came to know about the events of 9/11.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001 was just another day of school for me. I had been back in school for a week and I was in eighth grade, so I was a senior in middle school. As far as I can recall, it was like any other school day, with nothing major happening. I remember during sixth period, I was in shop class and Mr. Matthews had asked my friend to go take out the trash near the end of class. My friend had complied and when he came back in, he said his mother told him that a plane flew into the White House. Now my friend had a habit of lying an exaggerating the truth, so I said he was full of shit and continued on, not thinking much about it.

After we went back to homeroom to copy down the night’s homework in our agendas, I remember asking Mr. Doucet if anything had happened in the United States today. He said no, but his body language said otherwise, so I was a bit skeptical. Nonetheless, I trusted him and continued on. It was a Tuesday, so I didn’t have band practice and I probably didn’t feel like going to study hall that day (we were only one week in to school), so I took the early bus home.

I walked in through the back and when I entered the kitchen, I could see my grandmother sitting at the dinner table watching the TV. The look on her face was that of horror and shock and I could not for the life of me think what she would have seen to give her that look, so I made a 180 degree turn and looked at the television and the first thing I saw was the video of the North Tower in the process of collapsing (I might add that image has been burned into my brain permanently – whenever I hear of 9/11, that is the first image that comes up). I had recognized the building as the World Trade Center, but I had just thought in my mind, “What the fuck?” because I had not heard yet of the terrorist attack and I didn’t think they would be demolishing the building, since that would have made news. Then the caption came on the screen, “America under attack” and then I was really confused, so I sat down and asked my grandmother what had happened and she had recapped the events. For the next few hours, I just watched the news because I wanted to know what had happened in more detail.

I remember after supper, I went to my room to do homework (since I had a desk in there) and I remember just sitting there staring blankly for a while trying to process the information of the day. Several feelings were going through me, most notably hate, anger, sadness and fear. The hate and anger had arisen from the fact that people were killing other people in such a horrific manner, yet no one knew why (at the present moment). The sadness had arisen from the fact that by watching the planes hit the towers, I just watched quite a few people die and even more when both towers finally collapsed. The fear had come from wondering if something like this would happen in Canada or even just wondering what would happen next. While I knew this would have an impact on the world, I had no idea what impact that would be…

Ten years have passed since the event and many of us have seen the transformations that have come about in society due to 9/11, especially when it comes to security and its application, most noticeable at airports and if you have ever crossed the United States border and encountered a US Customs and Border Protection officer.

Security is the biggest thing to have changed in the years after 9/11. Ten years ago, a full-body scanner never existed at an airport and invasive pat-downs were quite rare; now they seem to be part of the norm. There are now even more regulations about carry-ons and what can be in your carry-on baggage, especially the rules about liquids and gels which came into effect in 2006 after the discovery of a plot to bomb several transatlantic flights. As well, aircrafts became more secure, especially the cockpit door to prevent breaching. I can remember when I was a kid, the flight crew would take you into the cockpit and the captain and first officer would show you the controls and how things worked – obviously that was now forbidden.

Along with security, border security became an issue with the United States. I can’t really comment on this aspect in complete detail, because the first time I went to the United States was in 2007, which was well after the events of 9/11, so I cannot compare it to pre-9/11 standards, although I have been told going to the United States before 9/11 was a lot easier and immigration officers didn’t really ask many questions besides the standard ones you always get (why are you in the US, how long will you be here). The only thing I noticed in changes of border security with the United States was the requirement of a passport to enter; when I went in 2007, I just needed my driver’s licence and an oral declaration of citizenship, which seemed a bit too lax, especially by American standards, but I wasn’t going to complain. Since June 2009, Canadians require a passport to enter the United States, which was a hassle for many Canadians living near the border, but it’s quite a bit more secure than an oral declaration of one’s citizenship, so I can understand the reason behind it.

However, one of the backlashes of increased security is the fear mongering that has been associated with it. It seems in the last 10 years, there has been an emphasis on trying to scare the hell out of people to the point where they’ll sign off on their rights, which is what we saw starting in the United States when they decided to enact the USA PATRIOT Act. Now don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against defending a nation against the threat of terrorism and protecting people, but you can do that without having to scare your population and tell them that if they do not enact certain laws (you know, giving away some liberties), then the terrorists will get you. Certain aspects of security did need to be strengthened and revamped, but some of them came at too great a cost that could have likely been avoided (i.e. we could still protect our nations without stripping the rights of the people).

In my opinion, there were three sets of victims from the 9/11 attacks: the actual people who perished on that day and in the aftermath, citizens of the United States and Muslims. The first two are quite obvious, but I’d like to elaborate on the third.

As we all know, the 19 perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were of the Muslim faith and in the last 10 years, this has led to a lot of hatred towards Muslims in North America and around the world. It was very simply a case of people painting an entire group with the same brush. Now there are over a billion Muslims in the world and the figure I got from Wikipedia is 1,571,198,000 (from 2009). Now let’s assume this number was the same on 9/11 (the variation in the numbers won’t matter much to make my point); that means the perpetrators represented 0.000001209% of the world’s Muslim population, so nothing really significant. Now we need to factor in extremists, so let’s say in the world, there are 1,000,000 Muslim extremists (that’s a guess – it could be overstated or understated). That would represent 0.06364% of the world’s Muslim population, so not even 1%. The point I’m trying to make is this: just because a few people, who happen to be from a specific faith, commit acts of extreme violence does not mean everyone from that faith is a terrorist and out to kill everyone. It seems this small fraction of people have helped to typecast Muslims into nothing but terrorists out there to kill anyone who loves freedom.

The harassment and maltreatment of Muslims over the last 10 years is why I feel they are victims of 9/11; as one put it in a news report I was watching, they have become the new blacks in America. It’s unfortunate people have stereotyped Muslims, because if you actually get to know anyone who does follow Islam, they’re actually really great people and some of the nicest you’ll ever meet. Two guys I know from physics are both Muslim and they’re the happiest people I know and very friendly, which is quite amazing because I have no doubt they have been subject to some harassment in their lifetime – the fact they still have such a positive outlook gives credence to their character. Western society has become way too judgmental and too quick to react without really getting to know the people they’re typecasting. Yes, Muslims have been involved in terrorism, but so have people of other faiths. Catholics and Protestants were known for the fights they had during The Troubles in Northern Ireland and there were acts of terrorism in those regions for the longest time (the Irish Republican Army being a good example of that). Every religious group has its share of extremists, not just Muslims. Of course, people just want to judge and ask questions later.

One aspect that always angered me is the whole “truther movement” which consists of people claiming the events of 9/11 were committed by the government. I don’t buy into that and I do believe the events of 9/11 were a legitimate terrorist attack. Of course, the truthers will say they have scientific evidence to support their claims, but here’s the problem: those “scientists” with the truther movement had drawn up a conclusion before they gathered any evidence, so during the collection of evidence, they made it fit their conclusion. Any true scientist would know this is not how the scientific method works – you don’t draw your evidence from a conclusion, but rather, you let the evidence you have draw your conclusion; you see in what direction the evidence takes you. Furthermore, I believe many of these “scientists” made these extraordinary claims to get their 15 minutes of fame, because making a claim that the government killed 3,000+ of its own citizens and destroying its own infrastructure is quite a serious and very bold claim, so it would gather attention. Another point someone made when I was watching a YouTube video was very interesting: in order for there to be a controlled demolition, there would need to be a lot of explosives placed all over the building and in order for that amount of explosives to enter the WTC buildings and be placed without raising a red flag with someone would be damn near impossible. So yeah, when it comes to the truthers, I think they’re full of shit and just looking for attention. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but we don’t have to necessarily agree with the opinions being put forth and in this case, I definitely do not agree with the opinions of the truthers.

While the United States felt most of the brunt from the 9/11 attacks, others in the world also felt the effects and that includes Canada. First and foremost, right after the attacks happened, we had a responsibility to help land the 239 aircraft that were bound for the United States but couldn’t land there because the FAA had closed US airspace. Operation Yellow Ribbon was instituted and all 239 planes were safely landed around the country and everyone aboard was feed and given a place to sleep until they could fly back to the United States on September 14. One of the names you’ll find coming up is Gander, a small town in Newfoundland and Labrador of about 10,000 people – they managed to bring in just under 7,000 people during Operation Yellow Ribbon, feed them, help them get clothes and other accessories and give them a place to stay while they were in Canada. It was the actions Canada displayed on September 11, 2001 that made me proud to be a Canadian citizen, because we were able to demonstrate the Canadian spirit and help people in their time of need. Canada opened up its arms that day to her American brothers and sisters; on that day, we were all Americans and sharing in their pain. We offered everything we could to our American brother from the same mother (Great Britain).

While Operation Yellow Ribbon was more of a positive event (in the sense of helping and as positive as one can be given the circumstances), Canada has suffered a few negative effects during the post-9/11 era, specifically the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Canada lost 157 of her citizens during our combat operations in Afghanistan and depending on who you ask in Canada, they either supported the mission in Afghanistan or did not, the main reason being against it was that it was not our war to fight since we were not the ones who were attacked. I was not really a supporter of the War on Terror in Afghanistan because I also felt it was an American war, not a Canadian one, however, I understand that due to the unique relationship we share with the United States, it would have been hard to deny them aid (the difference with the Iraq War was that we did not have a reason to go there, whereas Afghanistan was where Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were primarily located, so that provided some justification). While the US endured most of the pain from the events of September 11, others in countries around the world also suffered some pain due to 9/11.

The last point I’d like to make is one that seems to come up now-and-then and it angers me due to it being a lie and a very damaging lie at that. It seems that there are times when Canada gets blamed for letting in the 9/11 terrorists in that they entered Canada from the Middle East and then crossed into the United States by land and that we should have been able to deny them entry (although that begs the question why couldn’t the US deny them entry?). This is, of course, not true – the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States directly from the Middle East and never came through Canada. This lie is very damaging and it was frustrating when a couple of years ago, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano perpetuated that lie during an interview with CBC. It’s a very damaging lie, because in a sense, it makes Canadians feel like we’re being blamed, to an extent, for the events of 9/11. Canadians know 9/11 was a tragic event, but when people try to make it seem we carry some responsibility for it, it really irks us because we already feel bad for those who perished, we don’t need a guilt trip added onto that. I believe Canada acted quite honourably during the events of 9/11, so it definitely pisses me off as a Canadian when I keep hearing that lie. Hopefully one day it will be extinguished for good, but I guess it’s not helping that I bring it up here, so I shall move on.

The events of September 11, 2001 were tragic and the deaths from that day were absolutely senseless. My condolences go out to those who perished during the attacks of September 11 and in the aftermath and to the families of the victims of 9/11. I also would like to recognize the efforts of the New York Police Department, the Fire Department of New York City (which includes firefighters and paramedics), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police and all the other emergency responders and volunteers for their work during and after the events of 9/11 – it will not be forgotten and I have no doubt you made your country proud (in the opinion of a foreign citizen).

Requiscat In Pace.

Alright… I’ve seen enough on Facebook to warrant a blog post about this.

Now I am not too familiar with the Casey Anthony trial except that Casey Anthony, the mother, was charged with the first-degree murder of her daughter, Caylee, three years ago and lying to investigators. Today, she was found not guilty on first-degree murder by a United States court, but guilty on four charges of lying to investigators.

After the verdict was announced, it seemed like everyone on Facebook decided to take their legal training to bat and condemn everything from Casey Anthony to the United States justice system. Now I am no expert in law either, but how can we condemn the trial and the verdict without knowing all the facts? Were any of you present at the trial? Did any of you watch every single moment of the trial? Did you hear all the evidence and testimony? If not, you’re in no position to call out the judicial system or the verdict, because you don’t have enough evidence to support your opinion. If anything, your opinions are based on emotions (and to some degree, sensationalism) and the judiciary and a person’s emotions need to remain separate at all times.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do find Casey Anthony’s actions and stories to be incredibly suspicious and seem to point towards a guilty verdict, but I don’t have all the facts, so I can’t make that assessment in a proper, legal manner. As well, I feel horrible that little Caylee had to die; no person deserves to die the way she did, much less a three-year-old child, however, one cannot their emotions of Caylee’s death interfere with the legal process.

There are people screaming that this trial is just like the O.J. Simpson trial all over again. While that may very well be the case, take solace in knowing that while O.J. got away with the murder charge, he was eventually sent to prison in December 2008 for armed robbery (and he’s STILL there). As much as I’m not a religious person, karma worked its magic on that one, so if Casey Anthony is truly guilty, she will find herself in prison one day – just be patient.

I want to address a very fundamental issue. According to Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of the United States, a person is presumed to be innocent when brought before a court of law until they are proven guilty – this is known as the presumption of innocence. Now Casey Anthony did not get that; the media portrayed her as being guilty, but whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant. It is for the courts to decide a person’s innocence or guilt after considering all the evidence, not the media or the public. This is why the judiciary exists.

Another issue I want to address is the victim, Caylee. She was just a child and hence, more people got emotionally involved in the case. However, what if we change the parameters slightly. Let’s say I was the victim and my mother was brought on trial for first-degree murder and everything else was the same (although a few things would have to be tweaked, such as the stories presented in court). Would this case even receive media attention? Furthermore, would people have a tantrum over the verdict? Probably not, because I’m a 23-year-old male whereas Caylee was just a couple of months shy of being three-years-old and peoples’ emotions ran high in the case. With that, I think sensationalism kicked in, but don’t you dare think that by making that statement that it means Caylee’s death is any less significant – it is not. She still suffered an unfortunate fate and the perpetrator should suffer to the fullest extent of the law (and like I said, if her mother is the truly guilty party, her day will come).

If, after all this, you still feel like being mad, then don’t blame the United States judicial system or the jurors: blame the prosecution. It is the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If any shred of doubt exists, it is the job of the jury to find the defendant not guilty. Even then, it’s hard to blame the prosecution as most of their evidence was circumstantial, which makes getting a conviction really difficult. As well, when you’re the defendant, you’re not legally required to go on the stand to defend yourself (because it’s the prosecutor’s job to prove your guilt; it’s not your job to prove your innocence), so that makes the job of the prosecutor even more difficult.

You don’t have to agree with the verdict or like it, but you (or myself) are in no position to criticize its validity.