Both sides of the HPV vaccination debate are faith-based

The 2008 Nobel citation lauding Harald zur Hausen for his theory that the Human Papilloma virus causes cervical cancer included the admission that, "discoveries whether these vaccines are effective in preventing not only against cervical lesions but also cervical cancer and death must await the collection of epidemiological data during the coming decades". That's right, the belief that the HPV vaccine is effective against cervical cancer must, at present, be based on faith. This puts the proponents of the vaccine, who like to see themselves as rationalists, on the same footing as Bishop Henry.

Published in the Calgary Herald. October 9, 2013.

Let's not get stressed about the clothes people wear

In response to the Parti Quebecois' proposal to ban religiously inspired clothing and ornaments from public spaces. 

I have never been terribly affected by the clothes people wear, I hardly even notice a cross or turban any more than piercings or tattoos affect me. Exceptions are a T-Shirt or tattoo with offensive writing or clothing that is so revealing it makes me feel like I'm leering just because my eyes are open. But I'm not sure how to know whether a head scarf or cross is worn for religious reasons, as a fashion statement or just to keep mom and dad happy. And does it mean that someone is a fundamentalist or progressive in their religious views? When I encountered a nun or priest in their full length gowns as a child it had the opposite reaction that perhaps they intended, I certainly never wanted to feel so constrained by my habits (in both senses) when I grew up.

I do know, however, that Jim Keegstra wore normal clothes, clothes that reflected western secular values, if clothes can do that, when he taught his children in Alberta that nobody died in the Nazi holocaust -- no Jews, no gypsies, no socialists, no communists, no mentally 'deficient'. It seems that he was capable of being hateful and racist without the help of clothing, just as I'm sure teachers can stick to the syllabus, and government officials can stick to public service, whether wearing a miniskirt with a cross around their neck, a Sikh turban and kirpan, or a hijab.

Published in the Calgary Herald, September 25, 2013.

How to deal with rebuilding after floods

The Calgary Herald published this letter on July 13, 2013:

Defenders of the Calgary flood status quo, such as [Calgary Herald columnist] Don Braid, could be more thoughtful and creative. Where houses have been destroyed, it is reasonable to tie rebuilding money to certain conditions. In the lots most at risk, this could be a condition to build elsewhere, with governments purchasing the lot for parkland, at the former market value. In other cases it could be rebuilding with mitigation, such as no basement. In intermediate cases, homeowners could be offered a voluntary relocation package.

The devastated homeowners certainly should not be blamed for their dire situation, almost certainly not being warned at the time the house was built or purchased, that it might be destroyed by flood. However, as a society, there is no point throwing good money after bad, and while we should make sure that everyone gets back into a home, we could significantly reduce our exposure to the next flood by requiring or requesting that the new home be in a safer area in the few homes or businesses in Calgary that are most exposed to future flood danger.

David Crowe
Calgary
403-861-2225

Tragedy at Lac Megantic

Everyone who has voted for a political party that promised to reduce red tape and regulation on companies (despite their big and getting bigger profits) and everyone who has cussed out unions because they want a decent wage for workers (despite concessions given, often futilely, over the years) bears some responsibility for the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

How can we accept that a train carrying dangerous cargo would, for even one second, be unattended?

How can we accept that a train carrying dangerous cargo would not have a backup engineer on board?

How did we come to accept that corporate profits are really more important than our lives?

How many more Lac-Mégantics will it take before “regulation” and “government oversight” are not seen as four-letter words?

Published in the Globe and Mail