'Human Rights' Commissions Problems Exposed

I was pretty excited about the tragic impact of so called Human Rights commissions about a year ago. Sometime between then and now, it felt like consensus opinion changed and the battle of public opinion had been won. I can't remember the last time I wrote about them. However, the laws and commissions remain. Thankfully there are many eloquent voices that haven't given up the fight. Last week, Ian Hunter wrote a succinct account of how the concept of equality has gone awry:

The purpose of the original legislation was equality of opportunity. It sought to achieve this by prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of defined factors — race or colour. In other words, it forbade practices in hiring, renting, etc., that placed one individual at a competitive disadvantage to another because of some innate factor like colour over which the individual had no control. Such was the original equality-of-opportunity model.

Two decades later, the-equality-of-opportunity model gave way to an equality-of-treatment model. The objective here was to identify, and eliminate, structural barriers to equality; it was contended that human rights commissions must superintend not just opportunity but all subsequent consequences, to ensure that social benefits were equitably distributed.

In employment, for example, equal opportunity required that applicants receive fair, unbiased consideration. Equal treatment expanded this to require that employees receive parity: in salary, benefits, working conditions.

Equal treatment required more intrusive state action in the workplace. Under this model, the Canadian Human Rights Commission compared the salaries of telephone operators with those of linemen, and ordered millions of dollars in compensation for what was called “constructive” discrimination.

Contemporary human rights legislation has evolved again; now it reflects an equality-of-results model. What good is equality of opportunity or treatment, this view says, if nothing much changes?

That's a dramatic evolution, that's led to some crazy rulings. Good on Ian for describing the situation. Incidentally, from the day I started studying at Western, nothing inflamed my pride in my school, like a good article by Professor Ian Hunter.

Then just yesterday, the National Post reported on a case where Barbara Kulaszka, put the situation bluntly:

"The use of censorship to stop psychological harm is a blunt instrument" that in fact has the opposite effect, she wrote, because it "leads to division, not harmony, as each strongly self-identified groups starts using complaints to assert its interests."

"Canada has a general population that deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does not experience the harm that is said to justify [Section 13]. Canadians overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship," Ms. Kulaszka wrote.

Hopefully the battle continues and our country's Human Rights Commissions will be reformed or dismantled.

Maclean's Article Fair and Balanced

I just had this article pointed out to me. In December, Michael Friscolanti wrote a very fair and balanced article about the issue of abuse in the Catholic Church. It's graphic, and disturbing and it's very critical of the hypocrisy and betrayal of bishop Leahy and others in the church that have sought to cover up past scandals. I don't necessarily recommend reading the article it's long and, as I said, graphic but there were some very encouraging points that bear repeating:

But at the risk of downplaying decades of unspeakable abuse—or forgiving a Church hierarchy that moved heaven and earth to suppress scandal and protect criminal clergy—an obvious point is often ignored: the vast, vast majority of Catholic priests are not sexual predators. In fact, the scientific research suggests that men who target children are no more pervasive in the priesthood (and perhaps less pervasive) than in any other segment of society. Depending on the study, somewhere between two and four per cent of priests have had sexual contact with a minor. Or, to put it another way, between 96 and 98 per cent have not.

“It’s part of that myth—the myth of the pedophile priest who can’t help himself,” says Thomas Plante, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University who has published dozens of studies about sexually abusive priests. “It’s really an issue of perception rather than reality. Believe it or not, probably the safest place for a kid to be is in a Catholic church environment.” . . .

In 1993, experts analyzed the files of 1,322 priests who were hospitalized over a 25-year period at Southdown Institute, an Ontario facility that treats clergy suffering from a wide range of psychological disorders. Fewer than three per cent were pedophiles. Around the same time, the archdiocese of Chicago examined its own records over the previous 40 years—spanning more than 2,200 priests—and reopened every internal complaint. The result: fewer than two per cent sexually abused a child. A New York Times analysis conducted a decade later found the same rate across the United States: 1.8 per cent. . .

So why do four per cent of priests abuse children? . . . One theory does stand out: the vow of celibacy. . .

Ask the average Catholic, and they know the solution: let priests get married. But that assumption, Plante says, is as much of a myth as the pedophile priest. “People will say: ‘Oh, if they weren’t celibate, the problem goes away.’ We know that’s not true. Sexual abuse is not an uncommon thing out there, whether you’re married or not, whether you’re a priest or not. It’s common.”

Plante's point is undeniable, but it's still very refreshing to see it included in a mainstream media article.

Ignatieff Miscalculates

Michael Ignatieff had momentum. The Liberals had been successfully hammering Stephen Harper for proroguing Parliament. They had tied the Conservatives in most polls.

Now Ignatieff has changed the story. He's demanding that Stephen Harper drive a hard pro-abortion agenda at the upcoming G8 conference in June. That's simply wrong headed and the prime minister's office has already responded:

“Saving lives of mothers and children should not be a political football,” said Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas. “This has nothing to do with abortion. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. This had nothing to do with capital punishment.” He called Mr. Ignatieff's remarks “sad.”

“Far too many lives have already been lost for want of relatively simple health-care
necessities such as clean water, inoculation, better nutrition, or well-trained health care workers,” Mr. Soudas said.

Mr. Soudas is right, there are many easy ways to improve the lives of mothers in developing countries - if the G8 can help they certainly should. The Liberals have been trying to make Harper look like a pro-life extremist (whatever that is) since he became leader of the Conservatives and it hasn't stuck. It won't stick this time either. Instead the Liberals will look like extremists for bringing an issue that nobody wants to talk about and trying to make it a hot button.

The Liberals only need to look at two recent examples to see that over-reach by abortion promoters only alienates the rest of us in the real world. Funding abortion in Obama's health bill, and an effort to prevent a pro-life Super Bowl ad from being aired have both back fired on the left wingers. Ignatieff's latest overreach will too.

Humility Leads to Honesty

The Economist's summary of an article in Psychological Science is positively fascinating:

All of the volunteers were then asked to rate how immoral it would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it themselves and not report it. [Each question had a scale of 1 (totally immoral) to 9 (totally moral)]

The “powerful” who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their power readily engaged in acts of moral hypocrisy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others engaging in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves.

Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud. “Legitimate” low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively.

However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals—to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others—but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal “hypercrisy”.

They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely.

So it seems a sense of humility will lead people to away from abusing power. While a sense of pride or arrogance will breed bad behaviour. That's probably worth keeping in mind when deciding who to hire or vote for. It's even more important to keep in mind when examining our own conscience.

Pork Anyone Lately?

You should really watch this video - If only because it's Friday. It's great fun and might help you decide what to have for dinner.

Matching Donations an Ideal Response

The Canadaian government's decision to match individual donations to relief efforts in Haiti dollar for dollar is an ideal response to the disaster in Haiti. I heard about it in church yesterday and we'll be having a special collection next Sunday for the relief efforts.

We've all seen the images coming back from Haiti and it's clear it will take a very long time to clean up the mess. It's one thing for governments to make grand announcements about funding, and to provide immediate military support (both have their place) but nothing can replace the effect that dedicated volunteers can have especially when the agencies or ministries they are with are already active in the area. The government's announcement will ensure that the charities Canadians believe are doing the best work will get the funding they need.

If your debating giving to a relief effort consider the enormous bang for your buck. A $100 donation means the government will chip in $100, plus give you a tax refund of $40. As far as I'm concerned the decision of whether to give is easy, the questions are "how much?" and "which charity is in the best position to do the most good?"

Christmas Cont'd

I don't let go of Christmas easily. Always keep the decorations up until Epiphany. So as the festivities continue and we get ready for the New Year, I thought you might enjoy this 30 second video that my brother and sister in law created. Elapsed time photos of building their gingerbread house. It's both fun and festive. Enjoy!

Merry Christmas!

It was just over 10 years ago at a university Christmas party when it struck me as odd when a friend of mine wished me happy holidays. I questioned, "Don't you mean Merry Christmas?"
"No, I mean Happy Holidays" she replied. I left the conversation perplexed and ever since I've been intensely aware of the 'war on Christmas.' Some years I've let myself get quite worked up about it. This year seems strangely different.

Now I find the ridiculous and supposedly inoffensive greetings that companies and "progressively" minded individuals simply humourous in a sad and pathetic kind of way. In a way the fact that Christmas is out of favour among progressive types makes saying Merry Christmas that much more powerful because it really means something. It's a thrill to see faces light up when you say the simple phrase. For me it's a thrill just to say it. It's a statement of Faith and that's powerful in itself that reminds us we are created beings who are loved and supported by our God who was willing to come to Earth, become human, sacrifice himself and rise again. So . .

Merry Christmas!

Please Bishops Don't Let H1N1 Dampen Christmas Celebrations

The dust is finally settling after the massive H1N1 overreaction.

• Today the Chatham Kent Health Unit will stop reporting H1N1 cases
• The LA times reports 'swine flu may be mildest pandemic ever'
• Only 1/3 of Ontarians have received the flu shot despite widespread availability and promotion
• Many Flu shot clinics have been shut down as demand wanes.

Unfortunately not all of the effects are over. In my diocese (Hamilton) the Bishop's are still advising Catholics not to shake hands at Mass and I've heard stories from friends in Toronto that holy water has been removed from the entrance ways in churches.

I never liked this decision from the start, but now it's time for our worship to return to normal. It appears that everyone at a church service will have either received a flu shot or knowingly decided against it and accepted any associated risks.

Bishops, Please as Christmas approaches let us enjoy our worship to the fullest including by blessing ourselves, shaking hands, and receiving the sacraments in the method we're most comfortable.

Effective Diplomacy with China

Opposition leaders were quick to argue that the Chinese Premier's statement that Stephen Harper should have visited China earlier somehow weakens our country and our Prime Minister. Poppycock. In advance of the visit, China finally lifted a partial ban on Canadian Pork products and today Canada is on a list of approved travel destinations for Chinese citizens. John Ibbitson summarized the event as follows:

In sum, the agreement represents a significant breakthrough in relations between the two countries. But Mr. Wen was clearly not willing to let the occasion pass without expressing his displeasure at the Conservative government's previously chilly approach to the Middle Kingdom.

It seems to me Harper has successfully strengthened the trading relationship with China while staying true to his convictions and standing up for human rights. Premier Wen's comments show that Harper's efforts to signal displeasure with the lack of freedom in China have clearly had an impact on his hosts and have therefore been worth the effort.

Today Stephen Harper has demonstrated that our country can strike a balance between staying true to Canadian principles and building economic opportunities. Congratulations are in order.

Taking Advantage of US Health Care

The Guelph Mercury reports today that the number of Ontario residents heading to the US for medical treatment is growing exponentially. A new report documents:

A 450 per cent increase in OHIP approvals for out-of-country care since the beginning of this decade, a period of explosive growth in new technologies and therapies not covered or available here. The province agreed to fund 2,110 procedures or treatments in 2001, and 11,775 last year.

Patient demand has created a new breed of health-system navigators, known as medical brokers, who find U.S. options for the growing number of Ontario patients who elect to pay for medical services south of the border themselves.

Medical brokers negotiate discount rates with U.S. centres to get Ontarians faster diagnostics, second opinions and surgery. Brokers say that for every patient sent south by the Ontario government, there may be up to 10 others who go — and pay — on their own.

It's easy to say we don't have a dog in America's internal fight over health care, but clearly we do. Ontarians are flocking to American hospitals because wait times are shorter, and technology is better. Both of those advantages exist because the private American system ensures both innovation and adequate resources. If the Americans socialize their system, we may no longer enjoy the same access to the best health care providers in the world.

Climate Shame

Can't believe I missed this story about leaked emails showing 'scientists' trying to spin and suppress data that contradicted the global warming thesis that has gotten politicians whipped up into a world wide frenzy. I always had a suspicion that we were being sold a faulty idea with the hype surrounding global warming, now I'm sure:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

This is scary stuff. How many millions of dollars have been spent on fighting 'climate change'? How many people have been genuinely fearful of an imminent environmental disaster because of the one-sided coverage of climate data? Maybe the upcoming Copenhagen conference will finally provide an opportunity for an honest discussion about the data.

Then again, maybe not.

Set Phasers to Stun

My inner geek is yelling COOL!

Canadian researchers use `phaser' to stun worms.

The Food Post

Food is highly personal and we all need to eat something so it makes sense that it would be a hot topic. I just did a Google Blog search and found more than 71 million blog posts about food. Truth be told I'm pretty much fed up with people telling me what to eat, a few examples come immediately to mind.

Last night the lady cutting my hair said we shouldn't drink milk because we're the only animal in the world that drinks milk from another species or drinks it as an adult. Ugh - newsflash - we're not like 'other animals.' No other animals plant their own crops, raise their own livestock, or even trade different types of food. What silly logic.

Of course there are the militant vegans. Last week, the Globe and Mail gave front page coverage to that extremism in an article titled, "Is any meat OK to eat?" The article is full of bizarre assertions about animals such as, "We don't think it's right to create animals that can't reproduce sexually." The only animal I've heard of that doesn't reproduce on it's own is a donkey, and I've never seen that on a plate.

I think of my friend, affectionately known as French Fry because of her pretty clear food preference. Everyone seems to take an opportunity to make fun of her food choices, but she looks perfectly healthy to me. My only goal is to match calorie intake with usage close enough that I don't turn into a butterball. That seems to be working too.

I'm quite tired of the silliness and would prefer to be left alone to eat what I want. Unfortunately the debate seems to have been ranging for quite some time. But the good news is previous generations often figured it out.

The stoic philosopher Epictetus felt he had to address it saying, "Preach not to others what they should eat, but eat as becomes you, and be silent." Sound advice there. More than 100 years ago Mark Twain made a similar observation, "Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like and let the food fight it out inside."

Even today there are people who get it. Max Fisher wrote earlier this year, "My mistake--and the mistake of anyone bothered by the diets of others--is placing an objective value judgment on what a person chooses to eat and not eat." Right on.

The most definitive answer to the question, "what should I eat?", probably comes from the Bible. St. Peter says:

I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' "I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' Acts 11:6-9

I won't argue with the Big Guy. Maybe I'll have a cheese burger for breakfast.

Remembering Our Soldiers

Happy Remembrance Day. This is really a beautiful song by Billy Ray Cyrus and I can't think of a better tribute today.



May God bless all our soldiers. If any of you are reading this today - Thank you for your service to us!

Godspeed Dr. Dobson

On Monday I heard Dr. James Dobson announcing his retirement from the Focus on the Family radio programs. It was a fluke that I was listening to the program at all; I rarely have the opportunity to listen, but when I do I often feel fed and encouraged by the episodes. Dr. Dobson has an exceptional gift at his ministry of helping families live faithfully, lovingly and successfully.

Focus on the Family Canada's press release is fitting noting, “Dr. Dobson’s impact on families in Canada has been profound. Over 26 years, he has left a rich and lasting legacy to Canadians through his books and radio broadcasts.”

That's true. If anything it's an understatement. Whether dealing with practical issues like building a stronger relationship with your spouse and raising godly children or somewhat more controversial responses to attacks on the family from same sex marriage to abortion, Dr. Dobson has always taken an orthodox Christian position and delivered it in an unassuming, deeply respectful way.

It's a testament to his leadership and faithfulness to God's call that he has been able to build such a strong organization and set it up for future success after he leaves the organization.

Godspeed Dr. Dobson, I'm sure whatever you do next will also bear much fruit.

Not the Time for All Day Kindergarten

Moira MacDonald is spot on with her commentary in the Toronto Sun noting that:

The decision by the McGuinty Liberal government to not only plunge ahead with all-day kindergarten, but add $500 million to its previous $1-billion cost by opting for a full-day, rather than half-day kindergarten teacher (score another one for the teachers' unions), represents a gamble in the face of a $25-billion deficit for this year.

Whether the government wins its bet or not, those same kindergartners will be among those saddled with the bill, however slickly Premier Dalton McGuinty side-stepped questions yesterday about how to pay for it.

It is a huge gamble indeed. Setting aside the merits of whether full time schooling is really the right thing for kindergarten students, this decision is really a massive expansion of government at a time when we can ill afford the increase. Cutting $25 billion annually in spending or raising taxes on an ever-shrinking provincial economy is going to be painful enough adding a new and questionable cost now is simply wrong headed.

More Questions Than Answers

The Toronto Sun reports that married men are apparently much more attractive to women than single men. Sounds like a recipe for heartbreak to me:

According to a recent study out of Oklahoma State University, the urge to lure away a married man is a real phenomenon known as "mate poaching."

For the study, men and women were asked to describe their ideal romantic partner and were told they'd be computer matched with someone who met their criteria. Half of the participants were told their matches were involved with somebody else, whereas the other 50% believed them to be single.

Here's where things get sticky. When researchers described a man as single, just 59% of the women expressed interest in him, but when he was considered off-the-market, a whopping 90% were eager to get their hooks in.

Men, however, showed no preference for women in relationships.

I never would have expected those results. I honestly would have thought people in general would look for someone unattached so there's fewer complications.


I pointed the story out to a friend of mine at work, and she explained that if a man's married at least one other woman thought he was a good catch and at least he's willing to make a committment. Once a guy gets past a certain age she figures there must be a reason he's still single.


I definitely appreciated her insight but I'm still left with more questions than answers:

Why do women and men think so differently about this?

Aren't women who pursue a married man just setting themselves up for heartbreak?

Shouldn't married men be more aware of this to better guard their hearts and remain faithful?

Is it possible that I'M EVEN MORE ATTRACTIVE than I thought? ;P

I Want a Mark Carney T-Shirt

Mark Carney clearly gets it, telling traders to focus on inflation rather than speculatively driving our dollar higher:

Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney said currency traders should focus more on how the bank will meet its inflation target when thinking about whether policy makers are considering action to stem its gains.

“Markets should take seriously our determination to set policy to achieve the inflation target,” Carney said at a news conference today, when asked if traders are taking seriously the chances of intervention. “Markets sometimes lose their focus, we don’t lose our focus.”

The primary responsibility of the central bank is to control inflation, that means raising interest rates when price increases threaten to destabilize the economy. It also means there's absolutely no need to raise interest when our dollar has strengthened dramatically - our dollar's strength will keep downward pressure on prices for the foreseeable future.

The strong Canadian dollar makes imports cheaper, as well as making Canadian companies' costs relatively higher than their American competitors. Anyone who participates in international markets, either by exporting, competing with imports, or selling services internationally is going to be hurt by a rapid rise in the Canadian dollar. That's why the Bank of Canada noted Tuesday that the dollar's strength will “more than fully offset” recent signs of growth.

I've noticed a lot of bravado coming from currency traders saying the drop in the dollar as a result of Carney's comments is a buying opportunity. I think it's time for those boys to take contorl of their testosterone. Bloomberg notes:

Carney also said today the bank still “retains considerable flexibility in the conduct of monetary policy at low interest rates,” and that “intervention is always an option.” He spoke during a news conference in Ottawa today after releasing a quarterly economic forecast.

“That is a pretty blunt smack down of some recent commentary,” said David Watt, senior currency strategist in Toronto at RBC Capital, a unit of Canada’s biggest bank. “It shows that the Bank of Canada isn’t musing about exit strategies; I’m not even sure it’s done with stimulus.”

RBC is right. All the tools remain in the Bank of Canada's court. The Bank recognizes that a persistently increasing dollar will seriously hurt our economy so the Bank is prepared to put the brakes on the dollar's ascent. I commend the Bank for its courage and sense of purpose and I'd warn speculators betting on a stronger Canadian dollar that taking on our central bank is likely to be a losing propostion.

Ruby Dhalla's Dead Horse Beaten Again

Ruby Dhalla's Private Member's bill to extend old age security benefits to immigrants who have been in Canada for as little as 3 years was never going to go anywhere. Now even the Brampton Guardian says it's time for Dhalla to give up on the idea:

Last June, Brampton-Springdale MP Ruby Dhalla introduced a Private Member’s Bill to amend the benefits act so immigrant seniors can qualify to receive old age security benefits after three years instead of 10 years. . .

The bill has raised a storm of controversy, and rightfully so.

Now is not the right time to toy with this issue. The economy is stressed and government coffers are also strained.

Besides, the Private Member’s Bill doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing as long has the Tories hold power.

Dhalla’s bill is nothing more than grandstanding and an attempt to win votes from her constituents. If Dhalla and the Liberals are serious about pension and benefit fairness, put the issue in their platform and run on it in the next election.

Brampton is Dhalla's home turf and it has one of the largest concentrations of recent immigrants in the country. It's bad news for her if even this newspaper wants her to give up.

The Libersals have sensibly distanced themselves from this bill, and I can't see the proposal being included in the next platform. To me the proposal violates a basic sense of fairness, and I wonder, why would elderly immigrants even expect to receive a cheque every month from Canadian taxpayers if they haven't contributed anything at all to our economy?

Shouldn't a Nobel Prize . . .

go to someone who actually accomplished something?

So Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize:

OSLO — US President Barack Obama sensationally won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday less than a year after he took office with the jury hailing his "extraordinary" diplomatic efforts on the international stage.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Nobel jury said in making the stunning announcement.

It said the decision was unanimous.

The committee attached "special importance to Obama's vision and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and said he had created "a new climate in international politics."

I'm just not sure how they came to this conclusion. Vision is one thing - but impact is what matters. Over his watch, the situation in Afghanistan has progressively worsened and Iran appears to be on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons.

I don't usually put much faith in the opinions of music radio DJs but, tellingly I was listening to MacArthur in the Morning on 103.9 FM, and the one announcer said to the other, "Don't you think this is a little premature?"

"I think it's A LOT premature" was the response. My guess is that'll be the consensus opinion around the world.