The cost of not taking your medicine (is less than the cost of taking it)

Submitted to the Globe and Mail newspaper, but not published, as usual when I criticize the medical establishment.


A recent Globe and Mail article, “The cost of not taking your medicine”, estimates that 125,000 deaths occur every year in the USA due to people not taking their medicine. Ironically, way back in 2000, the even more prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association published an estimate that 106,000 people die each year from properly (!) prescribed medications in hospitals. Given increases in population and pharmaceutical use, that’s roughly the same number. But if you include improperly prescribed medications (wrong drug, wrong dose, etc), over-the-counter drugs and drugs prescribed outside hospitals (via a GP, old folks homes, prisons, etc) the number of people who die from taking their drugs is much, much higher than those who die from not.

And many of the people who don’t take the drugs are probably experiencing side effects that they don’t want to confront their doctors with, probably because they are worried their doctors will chastise them. And, in many cases doctors will dismiss the side effects as unrelated to the new symptoms. At least until the drug is pulled off the market for causing too many side effects or deaths, as happens quite often.

Sex Selective Abortion in Canadians of South Asian Descent

The Globe and Mail newspaper (Toronto) reports that a study has shown that the preference for male babies among women living in Canada, but born in South Asia, remains strong no matter how long since they immigrated.
Most striking is that the ratio of boys to girls among Punjabi women who have given birth to two girls, and no boys, is 240 boys to 100 girls.

It's probably true that most people who have two children of the same gender would prefer a third child of the opposite gender, however it probably does not lead to an abortion in many cases.

What is problematic is a statement by Kripa Shekhar, executive director of the South Asian Women's Centre in Toronto, that, "A woman has a fundamental right in Canada to decide whether to have an abortion, and should not come under pressure from a spouse or other family members to deliver a male child…This is an issue of choice that is taken away from a woman, in many ways it is very abuse."

Certainly the first part of this statement is not controversial to me. Women in Canada do have a fundamental right to an abortion (whether you like it or not) and I agree that they should not be pressured to have an abortion, any more than they should be pressured to keep a child they don't want. But is it true that in all cases (as is implied by this statement) it is men who are pressuring women to have the abortion.

I have observed that cultural practices, even when they clearly restrict women in some way, and not men, such as the Burka, Female Genital Mutilation, are endorse and enforced by both women and men who are part of that culture. Just as circumcision, for example, which may damage the sex life of men, is equally endorsed by both men and women who believe it is part of their culture, or who claim that it actually has health benefits.

What if at least some South Asian women want the abortion so that their third, and possibly final, child will be a boy?

If this was true (even if just for some women) then there is a clear conflict between a woman's "fundamental right in Canada to decide whether to have an abortion", and a prohibition on sex-selective abortion.

Since I don't believe that we can reliably determine whether someone would make the same choice outside of the influence of other family members there doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem. Imagine if, for example, South Asian women were forbidden from having abortions, or from having abortions of female fetuses? This would clearly be racist because it assumes that all South Asian men are misogynists, and it assumes that no South Asian women in Canada are strong enough to make up their own mind.

Given that I believe overuse of ultrasound is a health concern, I wouldn't object to restricting the use of ultrasound, but in reality a doctor can always find a medical reason to require one, and the decision to abort when the parents find out the gender can be made without anyone speaking the reason.

The only solution, which isn't much of a solution, is to respect the right of all Canadian women to decide whether to have an abortion (knowing that in some cases they may have been pressured) and to hope that future generations become perfect in all gender matters, just like white people always have been (calm down, I'm being sarcastic).

Not published by the Globe and Mail (sigh, why do I bother?)

Dear Editors;

I sincerely wish Justin Trudeau would stop sucking up to the United States, it just encourages them to get involved in more futile and bloody wars, especially now we have a madman on the Presidential throne. Trudeau can chastise Russia all he wants, but Syria is their only base in the Middle East (unlike the USA), so a withdrawal of support just isn’t going to happen. Realpolitik 101.

Perhaps he is encouraging America to start another ‘humanitarian’ war to topple dictator Assad, just like the successful and rapid topplings of Hussein and Gaddafi. Unfortunately, although we thought nothing could be worse than those dictators, we soon found out we were wrong. And in this case we have the additional danger of a direct confrontation between the US and Russia.

It’s deeply disturbing that our Prime Minister, captured by his flowing rhetoric, is pushing the world towards WW III.

- David Crowe
 Calgary
 403-861-2225

Stop dissing Alberta's new election laws

Published in the May 2017 edition of Alberta Views magazine.

I’m no NDP [Alberta's mildly socialist governing party] hack, but “Getting Big Money Out of Alberta Politics” is wrong in their criticism of the dramatic improvements that the NDP made to Alberta’s election laws. Dramatically wrong. It is false to state that the Alberta limit of $4000 is greater than the federal limit, let alone almost 3 times greater. This is an enormous misunderstanding of federal rules, perhaps drawn from the VUE Weekly article that you also included in your April edition.

In fact, according to Elections Canada, in 2017 you can give $1550 to EACH of the registered federal parties. And another $1550 to Electoral District Association, Nomination Contests and Party-endorsed candidates for EACH party. And $1550 per election for EACH independent candidate. And $1550 in total to leadership candidates in EACH contest.

So if you really want to throw money around, and you want to buy influence with the two or three parties you think are most likely to win, you could easily give several times more than the $4000 total limit in Alberta. You are only limited by the numbers of parties, independent candidates and leadership contests. Unlike Alberta there is no global cap.

There are other tricks you can play, federally. You can, for example, give $1550 to a political party, and request that the money is allocated to a particular riding or candidate. And then give another $1550 directly to the riding or candidate.  I know because I actually queried Elections Canada as I was sure that they would have recognized and filled this loophole, but they confirmed that the limits apply to the entity receiving the money from you, and that there are no limits or restrictions on transfers between parties, ridings and candidates.

And if you like another candidate running for a different party you can rinse and repeat. And if that’s not enough you can donate $1550 to an unlimited number of independent candidates (perhaps to try to bleed votes away from a candidate you want to lose). And don’t forget the leadership contests.

- David Crowe
Former CFO, Green Party of Alberta

It is not lack of access to pharmaceuticals that causes expensive complications, it is excessive access

Dear Alberta Views Editors;

I was shocked to read, in the November 2016 article by Linda Mcquaig, “Medicare On Trial”, that she viewed the inability to afford drugs as a major cause of “expensive complications” and ER visits. I support pharmacare because this situation may sometimes occur, but McQuaig did not provide evidence to persuade me that this is a major problem. What is a major cause of adverse events and ER visits is excessive access to drugs. A 1998 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Assocation, for example, estimated that 106,000 Americans are killed by properly prescribed drugs in hospitals. That would amount to about 10,000 Canadians every year. And this study did not consider drugs prescribed in other settings (nursing homes, prisons etc), over the counter drugs, and improperly prescribed drugs. Pharmaceuticals are, in fact, one of the leading causes of injury of death. Not lack of access to pharmaceuticals, but access that is too easy, in a culture that believes everything can be cured with a pill, with the finger of blame pointing at both on doctors and ordinary Canadians.

Everyone is now familiar with the epidemic of opiod abuse which was not started by illegal drugs dealers, but by legal drug dealers, an epidemic that is causing a trail of death and destruction all throughout North America. This epidemic will not be mitigated by pharmacare.

Pharmacare, and medicare in general, are only funding mechanisms, and can make access to medical treatment more equitable, but they can’t deal with the epidemic of over-treatment (which involves more than just drugs). I would challenge anyone to show that, in Canada, lack of medical treatment is anywhere near as big a problem as over-treatment, mostly the overuse of pharmaceuticals.  Solutions must involve the education of everyone, not just medical professionals, about the dangers of the medical system, beginning a process of eliminating the many unnecessary and unproven treatments.  One of the problems with fee for service, which it was good to see another article in Alberta Views questioning, is that it provides an incentive to treat, and a disincentive to not treat, even if non-medical alternatives, such as changes in diet, exercise and other habits, would be far safer and, in the long run, more effective. Increasing the health of Canadians would also requires governments to have the courage to stand up to big corporations that sell products that cause disease, such as the chemical and food industries. As an added bonus, less reliance on the medical treatment system for conditions like diabetes, would massively reduce the cost of the system.

Until this day comes, it is up to individuals to educate themselves and avoid the system, despite the fact that they’re paying for it, until they absolutely need it.

Electric cars are no magic bullet

(This letter was published in the September 2016 issue of 'Alberta Views' magazine)

I don’t understand why so many environmentalists are in love with the electric car. Does it solve the problem of traffic accidents? No. Of roadkill? Of paving paradise to build roads and parking lots? Of ugly suburban development? Of better access to efficient transportation to the economically disadvantaged? It doesn’t even solve the problem of burning fossil fuels because even if we could achieve 100% renewable energy production for today’s needs, the hundreds of thousands of electric cars added onto the grid would move the yardstick out of reach again, and, batteries, tires and the manufacturing of the vehicle will have a significant environmental impact that is usually ignored. It seems to me that it is a painless way for the upper middle classes to claim the green high road with no impact on their lifestyle, ignoring the fact that there will be far fewer benefits than claimed, and maybe none. Driving a kilometer in an electric car still doesn’t make the shared environment better. It car is greenwashing of the elites by the elites. True improvements in our transportation system will come from improving pedestrian and cycling facilities, from more public transportation, and from devoting fewer resources, less energy, less space and fewer lives to the cult of the automobile, no matter how it is powered.

Light Armoured Vehicle Sales to Saudi Arabia – Response from Foreign Affairs Minister

[This is a July response to my April letter]

Dear Mr. Crowe:

Thank you for your email of April 14, 2016, concerning the situation of human rights in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the sale of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) manufactured in Canada to that country. I regret the delay in replying to you.

The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada’s foreign policy. Canada stands up for human rights and takes principled positions on important issues to promote freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada supports a stable and prosperous Middle East, governed by freedom, tolerance and pluralism, where human rights are respected.

Of course, Canada remains concerned about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Canadian officials at the Embassy of Canada to Saudi Arabia engage regularly with Saudi officials, including the Saudi Human Rights Commission, to maintain an open, respectful and constructive dialogue on human rights issues. Canada’s engagement with Saudi Arabia on these issues extends into multilateral forums as well. For example, during Saudi Arabia’s Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2013, Canada noted the increased participation of women in Saudi Arabian society, including the important role they have assumed within the Shura Council. I also welcomed the local municipal elections in Saudi Arabia in December 2015, in which women voted and a number of women were elected.

I take every opportunity to raise these issues and will continue to do so. On May 23 and 24, 2016, during my visit to Saudi Arabia, I raised critical issues with senior Saudi officials with respect to human rights as well as humanitarian issues. I met with several senior Saudi officials including the King, the Crown Prince, the ministers for Education and Energy, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and the President of the Saudi Human Rights Commission, who reports directly to the King. I also met with prominent women in politics, media, business and homemakers and had valuable exchanges on the evolving situation of women in Saudi Arabia. Our discussions centered on the importance of women’s rights and gender equality, two key Canadian values. Further, Canadian officials raise Canada’s concerns about human rights with senior Saudi officials on a regular basis and will continue to do so, both publicly and in diplomatic discussions.

With regard to the sale of LAVs to Saudi Arabia, Canada has sold LAVs to that country since the 1990s and has no information to suggest that these LAVs have ever been used against the Saudi population. Furthermore, an export of this type requires an export permit. Canada has some of the strongest export controls for military and strategic goods in the world. However, in light of concerns raised, Canada is introducing more rigour and transparency to its export control system. Canada is also delivering on its commitment to accede to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty on a priority basis. I am pleased to have tabled the Treaty in Parliament on June 17, 2016, which is a first formal step in this process.

You may wish to read the statement I issued on April 13, 2016, regarding the sale of LAVs to Saudi Arabia, at http://www.news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1051599.

Please be assured that the Government of Canada will continue to monitor the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia and encourage the Saudi government to respect its international human rights obligations.

Regarding the situation in Yemen, Canada is concerned about the deteriorating situation in that country. The ongoing conflict is fueling widespread instability, chaos and exacerbating a growing humanitarian crisis. Canada urges all parties to participate actively and fully in negotiations led by the United Nations to find a consensus agreement. Such an agreement will be the only acceptable and legitimate course for a political transition.

In response to the humanitarian situation in Yemen, Canada has provided $19.5 million in humanitarian assistance funding in 2015 to help meet the immediate needs of millions of conflict‑affected people in that country.

Canada welcomes Saudi Arabia’s formation of a high‑level independent committee to investigate the Saudi‑led coalition’s actions in Yemen and encourages Saudi Arabia to disclose the committee’s findings as quickly as possible.

Canada calls on all parties to the conflict in Yemen to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, including by allowing and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian relief to civilians in need.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Punishing Parents and ignoring annual medical genocides

Seeing the irony in the reporting of the Globe and Mail, I submitted this letter, which was, of course, not published.

It is ironic that on Saturday (June 25, 2016) the Globe & Mail (Toronto based newspaper) documented the sentences given as punishment to a couple who, while clearly loving their son Ezekiel, delayed treatment that may have saved his life (we cannot actually know). But on Monday you report on an estimated 70,000 Canadians a year injured (and a good fraction killed) by the allopathic medical system that the Stephan family avoided. A recent American paper estimated that medical errors are the third leading cause of death and a 1998 JAMA paper estimated that properly prescribed drugs in hospitals are the fifth leading cause of death. Yet, out of those 70,000 Canadians injured or killed each year, probably nobody will go to jail. The parents who followed standard medical practice for their children, such as use of an antibiotic that caused an anaphylactic reaction, will not be punished. Nor will the doctors who prescribed treatments that backfired and injured or killed someone. Not even when it is a genuine error will anyone be punished. When Health Canada approves a drug that is later found to have a high rate of injury or death, nobody at Health Canada, or the drug company that twisted the data to win approval, will go to jail. This is reminiscent of an oppressive religion that tolerates abuse and deadly mistakes within its ranks, but will never tolerate dissent. And although there are not enough stakes to burn all the heretics, the modern equivalent of an occasional public hanging helps scare patients into conformity and critics into silence.

Letter to Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion regarding sales of LAVs (Light Armoured Vehicles) to Saudi Arabia

I am shocked and angered that you are facilitating the sale of weapons to one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

I understand that this will be a big financial hit for Canada. But principles cost money sometimes. How will Saudi Arabia get a message that they need to change except by brave actions?

Sending the weapons is a message that they can continue to repress their own people, and murder and destroy with impunity in Yemen, and anywhere else they care to start a war.

Please grow a backbone and do the right thing. This is a tough decision, I understand. But really it’s a choice between money and morals. Which side are you on?

Regards,
    David Crowe

Polio is not near elimination

[Letter to the Globe and Mail, never published]

I hate to burst Margaret Wente’s post-Christmas feel-good bubble, but Africa did not have a year without polio, at least not if you care about the symptoms (sudden onset juvenile paralysis). The problem is that the World Health Organization calls this Acute Flaccid Paralysis if poliovirus is not found. And this is not a trivial problem because cases have risen from about 14,000 in 1996, the first year for which WHO bothered to collect statistics, and have been over 100,000 a year since 2011.

Margaret Wente apparently doesn’t know about this. WHO just documents it. And even when people are informed, they don’t seem to care. Because deep down westerners care about disease in poor countries only when they fear it might spread. And although WHO claims ignorance as to the cause, they have admitted that some of the cases are probably caused by exposure to pesticides. But who cares about children dying from poverty and pollution in lands far away? Certainly not WHO. Probably not you.

WHO Polio and AFP Statistics

A more realistic view of university troubles

[submitted to the Globe and Mail, but not published]

While Tom Flanagan is right that American Universities are in crisis, his thinly veiled racism is uncalled for. First of all he claims that marks have been inflated, with university being dumbed down from the good old days when he (and I) studied. But then he criticizes affirmative action claiming that the students who benefit from this (obviously people of colour) struggle to succeed. Joining the dots he is saying that black students simply aren’t even up to the dumbed down standards of today and shouldn’t get all uppity and try to go to colleges where smart white people go.

Flanagan is correct when he describes a US education bubble, both based on increased enrollment and unsustainable student loans. But I assume that his right-wing politics are what don’t allow him to point out that it is greedy for-profit lenders and the greedy for-profit colleges that have created this problem (and of course a US government that is for-the-profit and not for-the-people). Although Canada could certainly do better (low-cost or free university education would be a start) I don’t know of any signs that Canada is being parasitized by colleges whose main aim is to get students to take out loans for an education that will not meet the promises in the advertising materials.

Did Trudeau Favor Men in his Cabinet?

Published in the Globe and Mail

November 7, 2015

Whenever gender equity is discussed (or any other kind of employment equity) skeptics raise the concern that some women might be picked simply because they are needed to reach 50%, and therefore some more qualified men might lose out. But the possibility that Trudeau, for example, had more qualified women than men is never considered. Perhaps some men only got a cabinet position because although there were more qualified women, Trudeau wanted to boost the number of men to achieve parity. 

Shocking stain of racism in Canada

[Sent to the Globe and Mail but, as usual, not published]

The letter on Syrian refugees by Sarah Johnson represents a shockingly strong stain of racism in Canada. No longer able to nudge-nudge wink-wink about aboriginals, Chinese, Jews or Italians, it is acceptable to assume that all Syrian refugees are ne-er-do-wells, lazy bums, or terrorists. From where does this idea come, when history shows that immigrants usually work hard, strive to educate their children, if not themselves, and quickly become important members of our society? Why can we imply this about muslims and not others? Who will be next?

Even if these people were right, that all refugees will end up in slums in Europe, would it be fair to dump this problem on Europe? Furthermore, now that we can strip citizenship from these second-class citizens (like myself) racists should applaud the options we don’t have with native born children who go off the rails.

Banning the Niqab at Canadian Citizenship Ceremonies

[submitted to the Globe & Mail as a letter, but not published]

If the Niqab was banned at citizenship ceremonies it would punish the supposedly oppressed woman (were the nuns I grew up with all oppressed women without personal agency in their severe costumes?) and not her supposed oppressor, her husband. That would only increase the marginalization of the oppressed, and increase the power of the oppressor. In effect it would reward the oppressor in order to punish the oppressed.

But, heh, I am glad the Conservatives have finally started to care for oppressed female minorities, even in this warped way. If only they had so much concern for the fate of aboriginal women in our society and the barbaric cultural practices, such as residential schools, that helped rip apart the fabric of aboriginal society.

Issues of Charlie Hebdou you might have missed

I have been assured in multiple articles I have read this week that Charlie Hebdou pulled no punches, that it attacked all powerful groups. Clearly this means that only muslims don’t have a sense of humor, and that all other religions, cultures and countries currently fighting wars in muslim countries have also been attacked, just as viciously, by this magazine. I’ve also learned that freedom of speech is absolute. There are no limits. Even though Charlie Hebdou produced cartoons that most media won’t republish, they are all behind everything they did, 100%. Really. They would love to publish them if it wasn’t that their lawyers lacked a sense of humor. Okay, there are also a few muslims who are upset, but this is either because they are closet terrorists, don’t have a sense of humor, or missed our issues in which everyone else was skewered in the same manner.

So, just to answer the critics who say that Charlie Hebdou reserved their vicious attacks only for muslims, here’s a synopsis of other issues you must have missed, or you wouldn't think that:

The Christian Terrorist  Issue

You'll love this issue. Stunning graphics of white christians shooting abortion doctors, blowing up buildings in the heart of America, and of course prominently features Anders Breivik and his 77 victims. He’s not just called a neo-nazi, we put a crucifix around his neck, and show him praying in church, just to make sure that you get the connection. The accompanying graphics pull no punches, emphasizing the fact that, in the West, as opposed to unenlightened parts of the world (i.e. muslim), there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. If there are any threats against the magazine from Christians and Neo-Nazis, we will just double-down and produce another issue with even more outrageous anti-Christian fun.

The Catholic Pedophile Issue

Everyone knows that the Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests. And the church still has a lot of power, making them a perfect target for fearless satirists. The graphic possibilities of priests with their frocks pulled up above their knobby knees screwing little boys and girls will have you rolling in the aisles, especially if you read it during Mass. No scruples about the portrayal of pedophilia here. Think of the extra giggles when some of the more observant and stuffy churchgoers walking down the aisle catch a glimpse. The look of horror will add to the deliciousness of this issue. The faces of the priests in the cartoons will be modeled on well known Catholics, whether or not they have been touched by the scandal, just to rub the freedom of the press in their self-satisfied faces. Why should a magazine care about the peculiar sensibilities of a religion anyway?

The Jewish Stereotype Issue

Reflecting back on the first half of the twentieth century when anti-semitism was widespread and acceptable in most of Europe this issue uses the iconography of the stereotypical Jew - yellow skin, hook nose, hunched back, gold coins filling their pockets. There was so much material, the hardest thing for our artists was deciding which stereotypes to copy. Again, the faces of famous Jews are featured. Their bodies, of course, will all be the same, it saves money on artists and has better comic effect. How better to forget French collaboration with the Nazis and the horrors of the holocaust than by rolling on the floor laughing? We’re so fearless that we don’t care if they sue us!

The American Empire Issue

This issue was a piece of cake because there was so much material. The graphic possibilities of a black helicopter shooting civilians and journalists. Little boys being sodomized in front of their mothers. The visual impact of a drone hitting a wedding party, with an entire page of frames just to show the body parts flying by in slow motion. Just to emphasize that it is not just muslims who slaughter people a dozen at a time the issue shows graphic details of the Haditha massacre (two dozen), Fallujah (we lost count), and a special page reserved for Robert Bales who went postal and killed sixteen on his ownsome. The American government is so much in favor of freedom of the press that this issue will be for sale on both sides of la Atlantique. We know it will be a big hit at the White House. Those guys really know what’s funny and what’s not.

The Black Nostalgia Issue

Many people long for the good old days when it was acceptable to show black people as lazy, dirty, banjo picking, watermelon eating, sex maniacs. This issue draws on centuries of beautiful stereotypes of black people and is sprinkled with the 'N' word. In fact, one page, is devoted to this forbidden word. For true freedom of speech there cannot be any forbidden words. No self-censorship. No fear of offending sensibilities. Freedom of speech is so awesome, and especially now that there is no more prejudice in the world against black people (just a few whiners who think that “Black Lives Matter”), even blacks will have to put their banjoes down and stop spitting watermelon seeds long enough to roll around on the dirt floors of their hovels at the hilarity of it all.

There are limits

I recently read a pro-gun slogan that said something like, “No registration, no licensing, no training, no magazine limits. Any gun, anywhere, any time” (I can’t retrace my steps to the exact quote). Absolutism is always the refuge of small-minded people, but in this case it’s easy to see that this is a lie. Even in America you cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon, a rocket launcher, a tank, a nuclear bomb. So the question of whether there should be restrictions on weapon ownership has already been answered in the affirmative, but by pretending that it's still open, pro-gun fanatics (and what else can you call them) can stop the discussion of where the dividing line between legal and illegal weapons should be. Nobody, in America, can ask whether semi-automatic weapons should be heavily restricted or banned, because gun fanatics can lie by saying that NO weapons should be banned. It’s an outrageous lie, but it does the trick and shuts down the conversation.

Back to the tragic events at the Charlie Hebdou offices in Paris. No speech, no matter how vile, no matter how distasteful, justifies the killing of the author. No exceptions. The murderers were criminals who will make the world a worse place for everyone except for those who glorify violence.

No writer or artist should be killed for their work. Neither should they received 1000 lashes as in Western ally Saudi Arabia. Neither should they receive decades in jail, as did Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning.

But that doesn’t mean that there should be no moral limits on free speech.

The “I am Charlie Hebdou” and "Je suis Charlie Hebdou” movements are being hypocritical because they are implying that the unforgivable crime of the murderers proves that there should be no limits on free speech.

But there are limits. Nobody can conceive of posing concentration camp victims in sexualized poses to satirize the current Israeli government. What about President Obama being anally raped with an assault rifle by Wayne LaPierre as satire on the failing of his gun control measures? Or the new Pope sodomizing a naked man representing the Vatican to symbolize his attacks on pedophiles within his own church?

There are limits, and they amount to widespread self-censorship. Charlie Hebdou itself fired a writer in 2009 who joked that Nicholas Sarkozy’s son, who had just married a Jewish woman, was going to convert to Judaism for greater social success. That seems mild by comparison to the anti-muslim cartoons, but it not only resulted in the author's dismissal by the magazine, but also led to hate crime charges.

Most of the journalists who are, this week, with Charlie Hebdou, are refusing to post the offensive cartoons. One reason is that the cartoons truly are offensive, and would not qualify for publication in these journals. Another reason might be that support for Charlie Hebdou (as opposed to support for the individual victims of the massacre) might dwindle if people saw what had been published – especially if accompanied by an editorial pointing out the self-censorship that would make such vile cartoons impossible in almost all other contexts, such as against powerful people or other religions.

The media outlets who “are Charlie Hebdou” but who refuse to republish the cartoons are being accused of being cowards. They are being cowards because they were shocked into defending the cartoons as freedom of speech before realizing that the cartoons are so shocking they don’t deserve republication. Now they are caught in the middle. They do not want to support what the murderers did. And they do not want to support what Charlie Hebdou did. So they are trapped.

The West is also being cowardly. Governments have no problem trampling on freedom of the press for a variety of reasons (critic of Middle Eastern policy, British MP George Galloway was recently denied permission to enter Canada, merely to give a speech). Media has no problem with self-censorship, in fact media could’t exist without choose what was worth publishing and what was not. So at times like this they are trapped. They want to pretend that there is no censorship in the West, that there are no limits on free speech. But there are.

I do not think that Charlie Hebdou should have been banned from printing the cartoons, but I think that all the media who claim to be friends with these cartoonists (including liberals John Stewart and Michael Moore) should have told their friends at Charlie Hebdou to imagine the cartoons redrawn in another context (including with powerful figures or other religions in place of Mohammed or a stereotypical ugly bearded muslim). And if they could’t imagine that, then as a friend-to-friend, they should advise them that they should not be published. They should have done this instead of unthinkingly invoking freedom of all expression when it is quite clear there is no such thing.

Charlie Hebdou’s cartoons did not illustrate freedom of expression, they illustrated freedom of oppression.

Charlie Hebdou Massacre and the Dalhousie Debacle

The murder of 12 people, 10 journalists, and 2 policemen, my islamic fundamentalist radicals is unforgivable but it is a bit rich to see it as an assault on freedom of the press.

This satirical magazine found new life by inflaming islamophobia by printing and reprinting cartoons insulting the muslim prophet Mohammed. The magazine, according to Slate magazine, “depicts the prophet naked and in pornographic poses” (I have only seen some of them, most media refuses to re-publish them).  Such things can be published in Europe with the tacit or overt support of many people with anti-islamic leanings, especially the far-right. Similar cartoons cannot be imagined in the context of Christianity with, for example, the Pope giving oral sex, or a naked Mary giving birth to Jesus out of her ass. Even if the cartoons hadn't been so vile, muslim culture requires that no image of the prophet be shown, which is very different from christian culture where depictions of Jesus, Mary and other religious figures are very important, and found on the walls of most churches.

Not all of the Hebdou cartoons were so obnoxious. One cartoon of the prophet Mohammed with his head in his hands bemoaning the terrorists who are operating in his name, is quite powerful, although still disrespectful of the muslim prohibition on images of the prophet.

The magazine was criticized in 2012 by the French government when it announced plans to publish this new series of cartoons, “In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excess and calls on everyone to behave responsibly”.

So what does this have to do with the dental students in Halifax, Canada? If we get past the mass murder, the West is also calling it an attack on freedom of the press, rather than just the mass murder that it surely is (if it had been 12 pornographers, or 12 beggars, or 12 prostitutes, or 12 soldiers or 12 nuns, it would have still been mass murder, and unforgivable). What Charlie Hebdou did with their cartoons was, in words, to sexually assault an entire religion, and what they were portraying was far more malicious than the boys in Halifax who were obviously amateurs at sexualized insults.

Yet, the West is apparently now all in favor of the freedom of the press no matter how vile the publication is, yet is interested in crucifying 13 young men for a private conversation at a lower level of maliciousness. If the young men had published a magazine with similar cartoons using women in their class as models would that have been okay?

Imagine another thing. A satirical magazine in, say, Iran publishes a series of cartoons mocking western religions or political figures by showing them naked and in sexual poses. Would that be defended as freedom of the press?

The worst thing is that the three terrorists have accomplished the exact opposite of what they presumably wanted. They, who worship violence, might have thought that the West might now respect islam more, but actually, the horror from their actions will almost certainly inflame anti-islamic sentiment, making life difficult for the millions of muslims who just  came to Europe to find a better life, and just want to quietly get on with earning an income and raising a family. And it will provide further justification for the West's war on Islam which probably kills more than a dozen civilians every day.

Dalhousie Dental Debacle

13 male dental students at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, one term away from graduating, had a private facebook group in which they posted a lot of things, including sexist and misogynist comments. Some of the posts specifically referred to female dental students in the same class.

Clearly the postings were wrong and reflect an unfortunately common attitude of men against women when alone in the 'locker room'. However, it appears that some people want to punish these young men by destroying their careers before they start, as an example to the millions of other Canadian men who have made similar comments, particularly during their youth. Perhaps the belief is that if a few young men are publicly destroyed, that all young men will reform their attitudes towards women. Probably the opposite will happen.

The university correctly proposed a restorative justice process, but four women wrote a bizarre letter in which they not only rejected this process, but also refused to file a complaint (because they felt that if their name became public their academic success would be threatened) and refused to be witnesses in any process that does occur. They also want to see the entire facebook group's conversations, which date back to 2011. Their attitude is naive and misdirected. Naive because no fair process can occur when the victims of malicious words refuse to explain the harm that they feel has been done to them.

This article from the CBC contains the letter from the four anonymous women.

The letter proposes that the complaint that is brought forward is one from four Dalhousie faculty members, rather than from any of the young women involved. The university is being increasingly intimidated and diverted from the restorative justice process into a process where many people hope that the men will be outed, and face eternal shame.

It is ironic that feminists would be trying to apply a very masculine and failed justice model. Hang the first street urchin caught stealing bread, and that will stop all the others. Throw all drug users in jail and drug use will plummet. If all the men who had made misogynist comments of the same severity were treated in the same way, probably the majority of professional men (and men in most other walks of life) would have to have their credentials withdrawn. Remember, I was once a young man and I remember many men my age making similar comments. I abhorred them, but I always felt I was in the minority. The implication that everyone who makes such egregious comments is on the path to physical abuse of women is clearly false.

If these comments had been made in public, such as in classrooms, or if there was a plan for real, physical action against women, then the situation would be totally different. There is no evidence that this was anything more than juvenile fantasizing.

Our society should evolve to a point where men do not grow up with such neanderthal views about women. Restorative justice, in this case, would force the men to face the impact that their malicious remarks would have on women when they came to light (and in the present day the argument that the conversation is private isn't very strong, because embarrassing words have a way of finding their way into the public sphere). The men would have an opportunity to express their remorse, and the women would have an opportunity to judge whether they felt this was genuine or not. And there could be a discussion of consequences, consequences designed not to punish, but to help move the attitudes of men to women forwards. Restorative justice could educate other men about the harm their words do, whether they come to light or not, and is more likely to help change attitudes than a more traditional harsh punishment.

The alternative is to throw the men out of university, and due to the high profile of this case, probably deny them any opportunity to complete their education, or ever work as a dentist. Their investment in their education would be destroyed, and there will be a lawsuit against the university, and probably a very large settlement to the young men. The young men will feel that their lives have been ruined by the inability of women to tolerate remarks that many men, perhaps the majority, make when alone with other men. The women will eventually realize the extent of the damage and may well conclude that the consequences of their reaction were much greater than they intended, that things got out of hand. But it will be too late.

And the attitudes of misogynist men will harden, because they will see this as an attempt by feminists to stop men from letting their hair down and letting off steam in a private club, unable to distinguish between normal manspeak and truly dangerous men who are interested in sexually abusing women.

I briefly discussed this situation in my discussion with Judith Levine on my radio show, "The Infectious Myth" but at that point it had not spun so far out of control.

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.