Education and Its Discontents - Observations from A Retired High School Teacher

Confessions of An Academic Criminal

2012-01-02T14:30:00.002-05:00

Given all the time I spent in my career ferreting out suspected plagiarism, this article, entitled The Shadow Scholar, was of particular interest. Although the author seeks to justify his unethical behaviour by indicting the education system, it is still worth reading.

Bully for Him

2011-12-11T12:32:00.000-05:00

It is probably largely due to both the verbal and physical abuse I suffered at the hands of my teachers as an elementary and high school student in the Catholic school system many years ago that I am so sensitive to abuses of authority, be it individual or institutional. I also suspect my experiences play a strong role in the visceral contempt I feel for the Harper government, so adept is it at wielding its power in ways so contrary to our democratic traditions and sense of fair play. Outside of that blanket contempt, however, I like to think that I am sufficiently critical as a thinker to recognize merit in the positions of those I do not support.

Readers of my other blog will know that I have been consistently withering in my assessment of Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, largely over his complicity in the abuse of authority that defined the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010. Nonetheless, I have to commend him for his strong and unequivocal stance against bullying in Ontario schools, even when that position treads on the toes of the religious right.

There is an interesting article well-worth reading on McGuinty written by Catherine Porter in today's Star that explains the roots of the Premier's antipathy toward bullying.

Pity, however, that his aversion to strongarm tactics didn't manifest itself in June of 2010 in Toronto.

The Power of the Documentary

2011-11-27T14:22:00.001-05:00

Although traditionally avoided as a rather staid and boring genre, the documentary has enjoyed a real resurgence in popularity over the past couple of decades, no doubt in part due to the important and provocative work by people such as Errol Morris, Michael Moore, and Velcro Ripper. A good documentary, for me, is one that provokes thought and provides knowledge and insights we often don't have the opportunity to encounter in our day-to-day lives.

Nature documentaries, when done right, can accomplish much. A series on the earth called Earth From Above, spectacular when viewed on blu-ray, but I'm sure almost as visually stunning on a regular DVD, has much wisdom to impart. In the episode I just finished watching, called Amazing Lands, the point is made that every impact humanity has on the earth, whether intentional or unintentional, has far-reaching ramifications.

For example, deforestation means the destruction of habitats to a myriad of species, oftentimes resulting ultimately in their extinction. It also means the loss of flora whose possible medicinal benefits to humanity will never be known. Another impact of that deforestation is land erosion that means heavy rains carry formerly fertile topsoil down in to the rivers, the mud killing the fish, etc. But while we may understand all of this as a series of abstract fact, a naturalist on the show reminds us that we have no ability to imagine what any of this really means. It is very similar to when we are talking about the magnitude of national debts. The numbers really don't mean anything to us.

The only real wisdom here is for all of us to remember that we are not above nature, but rather simply a part of it.

I therefore highly recommend the series as a way of helping us to start understanding what the environmental destruction wrought by an unfettered corporate agenda, aided and abetted both by our political 'masters' and our own rampant and very disposable consumerism, really means.

And since this is Sunday, I will not apologize for the preachy tone of this post, but instead leave you with two of my favourite poems, both written at different points in the nineteenth century; both resonate very strongly with our situation today:

The World Is Too Much with Us - William Wordsworth

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. --Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.

God's Grandeur - Gerald Manley Hopkins

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Criminal Teachers And Those Who Protect Them

2011-10-02T09:07:00.000-04:00

As a retired teacher, I cringe when I read about wrong-doing by those in the profession. It enrages me that people occupying positions of trust and care would violate their duty to protect and nourish by exploiting their young charges. However, as one who aspires to the ideals of critical thinking, I can't turn a blind eye to these offences and wish them away.

A series in The Star, the result of a lengthy investigation, suggests a systemic problem in bringing these criminals to account. The paper theorizes that one of the reasons this is occurring, in some cases over many years, is a reluctance by teachers to inform on their colleagues. I cannot speak to that, having never known anyone to behave inappropriately in the classroom, but I do know from experience that just like the Vatican did in untold cases of pedophiliac priests, institutions try as hard as possible to conceal their problems, lest the institution suffer bad publicity that therefore impede the career paths of the ambitious.

For example, there was a case of an administrator who was stealing goods, money and services from his school; I have it on what I consider very good authority that a brave soul made every effort to bring the wrongdoing to the attention of senior administration and board officials. He was told unequivocally to drop his pursuit. Eventually, and I don't recall the precise details, his crimes became public, at which point he was permitted to resign, and the board signed a confidentiality agreement with him, an agreement that the board still insists is valid and thus binds them to secrecy. Of course, the critical thinker would immediately ask why the board entered into a secrecy agreement with him. I will leave you to ponder the implications.

The other problem, and I saw this with teachers who either had either very poor attendance or poor teaching practices, was an unwillingness by administration to confront the problem which, if done properly with several opportunities for improvement, can lead to dismissal of the teacher. The difficulty, as one of my friends and colleagues used to say was, “Lorne, they just don't want to do their jobs.”

The following example illustrates this perfectly:

Another administrator in my board, who was moved for harassing his staff as he constantly pressured them for money to feed his gambling problem, was moved to my school for a year where he was allegedly given the job of overseeing special projects which, to my knowledge, never went beyond scheduling on-calls when teachers were absent. The following year he was moved again and became an adult education administrator where, as far as I know, he finished out his career.

Note how the above shows the unwillingness to directly confront a problem employee. It was much easier to simply shift him around.

Public opinion notwithstanding, it is not unions that protect incompetence; the union's role is simply to ensure that the entire process that can lead to dismissal is scrupulously followed, which requires that administration, usually the principal, conduct many meetings with the teacher in question, offer constructive instruction as to how to improve, maintain the appropriate paperwork, etc., all guaranteed to ensure that his or her rights under the collective agreement have been observed and respected. Most principals, in my experience, did not want to put in the effort to do this, and were happy to simply arrange a transfer of the problem to another school, if one were available. Then, of course, he/she became someone else's problem.

It should be clear from the above that like so many other institution, politics in the worst sense of the word permeates education; indeed, taking a few quotes from the Star article demonstrates how officials no longer speak in meaningful ways, but use the obfuscatory language undoubtedly learned by watching the sleaziest of our so-called political leaders. Consider the following:

In an interview, College registrar Michael Salvatori said he could not discuss any individual cases. The Star had hoped Salvatori would answer questions about whether students were let down by the College or the school boards in cases where it appeared better screening or earlier detection would have saved a lot of pain.

“We are confident we have processes in place to protect students,” Salvatori said. “We can always do better.”

Asked about cases where it appears a teacher did not warn authorities of unusual behaviour (Baggio is one), Salvatori said “there are very few cases where (teachers or principals) do not carry out their duties.”

“The heart (of the College) is the public interest and safety of students,” said Salvatori, who added the College is concerned about “the welfare of students and ensuring teachers are well qualified and competent.”

I'll let you evaluate what he said, but for me, his comments do not pass the smell test.

Or consider the following criminal behaviour, which went on for 14 years, aioded and abetted by a feckless administration. I personally find the account difficult to read:

Antonio Raco

In what teachers commonly refer to as “passing the trash,” the Windsor-Essex Catholic District Board moved this Grade 6 teacher between at least four schools from 1991 to 2005. College prosecutors allege his assaults on girls from Grades 6-8 included taking students into the supply room and groping them; pulling a student close and thrusting his pelvis against her from behind; playing a game he called “Red Light,” moving his hands all over a girl's body until he touched her vagina; touching their breasts and hugging them so he could feel their breasts; and sitting on the floor in gym class and pulling girls against his groin. Raco swore at students, threw desks and played favourites. When one parent complained he told all the students he was going to “shun” her daughter. He was also, the college alleges, a dreadful educator.

One day, he told his young students never to share classroom discussions with parents: “This is Raco's circle — whatever happens in Raco's circle stays in Raco's circle.”

Raco, 53, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault in 2009 and sentenced to six months in jail. He is appealing his conviction. The College began a hearing two weeks ago but adjourned it because it was worried Raco (who was not in attendance) had not been properly notified.

Until those in positions of responsibility make the public good a priority over protecting and promoting their own careers, expect such betrayals to continue.

UPDATE: I just opened my Sunday paper, and The Star's investigation seems to be continuing. The latest headline: Sexting, cuddling with student, a teenage girl, did not cost teacher his job.

If you have the stomach for it, click on the above to read it.

Unions' Self-Inflicted Problems

2011-09-21T10:20:00.000-04:00

Although I spend most of my blogging time on my other site, Politics and Its Discontents, I still occasionally post here, sometimes cross-posting on both blogs. the following is one I posted today on my other site, but I feel it does have some relevance both to education and to the promotion of critical thinking skills:

Allow me to be unequivocal from the start: I am a strong believer in unions as virtually the only effective means of countering the depredations that employers would inflict upon their workers if given the opportunity. However, I also believe that in some ways, unions are their own worst enemies, an opinion I formed as a member of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation during my teaching career.

Like many if not most institutions, unions have become highly political in both their structure and their treatment of members. My own experience with my former union was that they had little time or respect for those, like me, who expressed opinions that challenged their positions, especially since I was not a member of the executive. I suspect it is this refusal to both respect and to cultivate the 'ordinary' union member that poses a threat to the union movement's future greater than any that might emerge from so-called 'right-to-work' legislation that is becoming increasingly popular in the United States.

I was prompted to reflect on the topic this morning during breakfast as I read The Toronto Star. A story entitled Construction union pays $10 million to buy off employees reveals a curious kind of union-busting tactic within a union framework that has been employed by the Labourers’ International Union of North America in Toronto.

The first four paragraphs of the story read as follows:

The continent’s biggest construction local is spending more than $10 million to muscle out its own staff and their new union.

In a twist to the explosive political infighting that occasionally flares up in the labour movement, the Toronto-based Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 is buying out about 80 employees with lucrative financial packages after they joined another union.

Several insiders say the move will effectively snuff out the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2, which represents Local 183 staff, because replacement members won’t have any allegiances and will eventually decertify it.

“It’s disgusting what Local 183 has done to get rid of them and the union,” one insider said Tuesday. “It’s a good example for non-union companies. If you don’t want a union, just buy off the employees.”

The rest of the story describes the political machinations within the local and how the staff joined a rival union to try to circumvent revenge firings that regularly ensue when staff has backed the wrong candidates for union elections. Indeed, there is even a tactic discussed in the story reminiscent of the show-trials popularized by Joseph Stalin during the 1930's.

I hope you will read the entire article to get the full flavor of union politics.

A New School Year Begins

2011-09-06T12:38:00.000-04:00

There is no doubt in my mind that education is not what it once was. And no, this is not about to become a screed about the lowering of academic standards. Rather, it is only a recognition that like just about everything else, education has become a commodity, its value measured almost exclusively by its ability to lead to a good-paying job.

What's wrong with that, one might ask? While having a job that remunerates well is a desirable outcome, in my view, as a retired high school teacher, it should be one of the end results of a good education, not education's raison d'etre.

The classical notion of education, as a process whereby we gain the tools with which to interpret the world, is now considered a quaint notion, one that may be pursued by the wealthy, but one that has no practical place in the 'real world'. In other words, acquiring the tools for critical thinking, as opposed to the learning how to design something or to enter the business world, is largely considered to be a time-waster, something that will not serve one in good stead. That is how far we have deviated from and declined from real education.

And, at the risk of sounding like a wild-eyed radical, that departure serves the corporate agenda very well. Universities, once a breeding ground fermenting new ideas whose goal was to make us better as a society and as a species, has become so debased that it is now largely there to maintain the status quo, not to rock the boat. It no longer holds the potential for infusing society with new intellectual blood, but rather has become the silent enabler of the corporate aim, to serve the god of unfettered capitalism that masquerades as the friend to all.

So, on this first day back to school for so many, what can the average person do, hungry for change and challenge to what has become the status quo that has betrayed countless millions of North Americans? She and he can become educated and acquire critical thinking skills through the rigours of reading and informed discussion.

Here are a few suggestions to start off:

The Trouble with Billionaires – Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks
The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein
The Death of the Liberal Class – Chris Hedges

One warning to those who haven't read these works: approaching them with an open mind will inevitably lead to agitation, outrage, and a changed world view. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, you will now begin to see 'the man behind the curtain.' I do not advise perusal at bedtime, unless the prospect of insomnia inspires no fear.

The Ontario Liberal Government's Proposal To Extend Teacher Training

2011-09-05T08:58:00.000-04:00

Recently, the McGuinty-led Liberal government of Ontario has proposed extending to two years from one the training of new teachers. The logic seems to be that the additional training will make for better teachers AND reduce the number of unemployed new graduates.

While I can't really address the efficacy of such a proposal in turning out better-qualified teachers, my own memory of teacher training being that it was only during the practicum that I learned anything useful, I can address its second purpose with considerable confidence.

As a retired teacher who has long opposed teachers doing supply and contract work post-retirement, one part of the solution to unemployment amongst new graduates is to ban this practice, something neither the teacher federations nor the government have shown any appetite for. It has always seemed manifestly unjust and selfish to me for retired colleagues to be denying new grads the opportunity to gain some experience and make some contacts within the crucible of supply and contract work.

However, the proposed lengthening of teacher training to two years from one as a solution to teacher unemployment is only a way of avoiding political risks. Several years ago, in anticipation of a teacher shortage that never materialized, the Ontario government significantly increased the number of university spots to train teachers. Rather than now reducing that number to realistic levels, (which would also reduce education faculties' revenues,) the McGuinty government has once more opted to play politics instead of showing real leadership.

And speaking of politics, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, of which I am a former member, by immediately and reflexively supporting this two-year initiative, has demonstrated that it is more interested in supporting the objectives of the Liberal government than it is in representing the interests of its members.

Are All Attack Ads The Same?

2011-04-01T10:09:00.000-04:00

In yesterday's Star, Bob Hepburn had an interesting article entitled Harper the king of nasty attack ads, an article well-worth reading. It got me thinking about fallacies of reason and the importance of critical thinking, subjects about which I have previously written.

So I decided to make a brief post here on one of the most common fallacies, the ad hominem, followed by video of two attack ads, one from the Liberal Party and one from The Conservatives. I will then leave you to consider whether one or both of the ads fall under the ad hominem label.

About.com offers some interesting insight on the purpose served by the fallacy known as the ad hominem, which means the attack on the person rather than on his/her arguments:

The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument.

An example of an ad hominem would be the following statement:

I can't believe a word that Al Gore says about climate change because he couldn't even keep his marriage together.

You will notice the fact that Gore's marital status has nothing to do with the facts that he has been promoting for many years on global warming, yet the purpose here is for you to dismiss those facts by cultivating a disdain for those who experience marital failure.

Enjoy the videos:

The Independent Project

2011-03-15T14:59:00.002-04:00

I just read a very interesting piece in The New York Times revolving around a high school in Massachusetts that allowed eight students, ranging from near drop-outs to honours achievers, to design their own curriculum, essentially creating a school within the school. Called the Independent Project, the story of what it achieved can be read here.

Do We Need A New Political Literacy? Part 1

2011-03-09T17:47:00.001-05:00

I take much comfort in reading the political views expressed by many members of Progressive Bloggers, giving me as it does a sense of community, shared purpose and the knowledge that passion for politics and love of our country is alive and well.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but be discouraged by poll results showing strong ongoing support for the Harper Conservative Government, despite its regular and unapologetic attacks on what many of us see as the fundamentals of democracy and good governance.

While there is hardly a need to provide a comprehensive list of those attacks, a few of the more recent and egregious examples will serve to illustrate that my antipathy toward this government goes well beyond philosophical disagreements:

- The request by the opposition members for the Afghan detainee documents was met by deep resistance and cries of confidentiality. Even a ruling by the Speaker of the House ordering those documents be made available was met with an unsatisfactory compromise, foolishly accepted by The Liberal Party.

= The unnecessary proguing of Parliament by Stephen Harper to avoid defeat of his Government in the House was a gross misuse of privilege, sadly abetted by former Governor-General Michelle Jean

- The contempt shown to Parliament by speaking lies about the need to reform the Census with the claim that many hundreds had complained about its intrusive nature when, in fact, there might have been no more than a dozen objections.

- The refusal by the Government to permit Ministers' aides to testify before Parliamentary Committees, despite the fact that the latter have the power to compel such testimony.
The entire tissue of lies surrounding the cessation of funding to KAIROS by Bev Oda.

I have asked myself why, despite these serious offences, they are dismissed so readily by so many. Of course, there are several combinations of possible answers, ranging from people's inertia, indifference to, or alienation from the political process to being too busy working and maintaining a family life to have the time for such concerns. I wonder, though, if there might be an additional factor at work: an ignorance of and therefore an inability to understand the very principles that are the foundations of our government.

We hear many cries coming from government and business that it is time to teach financial literacy at a young age so that people can avoid falling into crippling debt in the future. While I don't disagree with that notion, in my mind of equal if not greater importance is the imparting of a kind of political literacy by our schools that will help to bring about a more knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.

In future posts, I will try to suggest what such a model might look like, and some of the changes that would be necessary to bring this about.

Something New from Michael Moore - A High School Newspaper

2011-02-20T12:31:00.002-05:00

I recently received an email from Michael Moore's website describing a very interesting and timely addition: a high school newspaper, edited by Moore's 17-year-old niece, soliciting the input of young people on a wealth of issues. While the stereotype of teenagers suggests that they are simply shallow and self-absorbed, I suspect the content in this paper will demonstrate otherwise.

The Smart Saver Program

2011-02-08T08:39:00.002-05:00

While I no longer subscribe to the Globe, I periodically check its online content, and this morning I read about a program intended to help poor families with the costs of post-secondary education. As described in Margaret Wente's column, the "federal government will contribute $500 for a Canada Learning Bond for any child born since Jan. 1, 2004, who lives in a low-income family. It adds another $100 every year, to a maximum of $2,000, and matches any extra family contributions by as much as 40 per cent.

Despite my antipathy toward the Harper Government, I have to give them credit for thus far not eliminating this anti-poverty measure in the name of fiscal restraint.

New Evidence of Police Brutality at the G20

2011-01-12T08:05:00.001-05:00

There is a compelling video on today's Star website in which Toronto student Dorian Barton explains how attempting to take some pictures of police horses during the G20 led to the police breaking his upper arm and arresting him for obstruction. Originally investigated by the SIU and dropped due to lack of evidence, it is to be hoped that this new spotlight will encourage them to revisit the assault. As matters now stand, Barton is suing the Toronto Police Force.

Why I Do Not Donate To Universities - Part 2

2011-01-10T16:02:00.000-05:00

The other day I reprinted some material from The Hamilton Spectator dealing with the Freedom of Information request it had made to uncover some of the perks meted out to Peter George, the recently retired three-term President of McMaster, and his family.

Today, the paper has a hard-hitting editorial about the attitude of entitlement that afflicts so many of our institutions. I am reprinting it below:

Secrecy makes it all worse

It is too easy to simply rail against former McMaster University president Peter George regarding the university paying his spouse’s airfare so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.

He made a ton of money as the head of the university, we tell ourselves. Surely they could have covered the cost themselves. And besides that, he’s making a ton of money — $99,999 a year over 14 years — even after having left McMaster. Why shouldn’t we point our angry fingers his way?

Because this is not just about George and his ability to negotiate a lucrative employment contract and convince the university’s board of governors to pay his wife’s way to Australia.

It is about the “fat-catism” that seems to infect so many of our public institutions. And it is about the fact that those in charge of those institutions, including members of their governing boards, are so out of touch with both the optics of their spending habits and the day-to-day financial realities most of us face. Add to that a heavy shroud of secrecy and it’s no wonder individuals such as George end up at the business end of those angry fingers.

Most people would not object to an executive taking his or her spouse on a business trip. But most of us would also expect that executive to cover the extra cost. That an executive would ask for and be granted coverage of a spouse’s travel expenses smacks of a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of understanding of what the average person would deem appropriate.

What’s hardest to swallow, though, is the idea that expenses such as George’s — which totalled almost $30,000 for the Australian conference — are both so high and so, apparently, not our business.

Universities receive taxpayer funding and are supposed to be accountable to the public. Granted, universities are not solely funded through taxpayers’ money. But the public makes a substantial enough investment in post-secondary education that it is not unreasonable to expect an open accounting of that money.

The financial information regarding the Australia trip was released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request. That should not be necessary, just as it should not have been necessary for The Spectator to fight almost two years — between 2006 and 2008 — for disclosure of George’s contract, with details of its perks and job entitlements. It is even more aggravating that the university spent $66,000 on legal fees to prevent details of the contract from being released to The Spectator. McMaster abandoned its fight in June 2008, releasing the information to the paper.

It was a wise change last March when, four months before he took over as McMaster’s president, Patrick Deane’s five-year contract was made public on the university’s website.

Secrecy only makes bad optics even worse.

Lee Prokaska

A Response to Angelo Persichilli

2011-01-09T16:41:00.002-05:00

As a former teacher now enjoying his fifth year of retirement, there are several contentions in Angelo Persichilli's column, 'Public sector unions serving up a juicy issue' (January 9) with which I must take issue.

Persichilli's general thesis, hardly fresh, is that those working in the public sector are both coddled and protected by their unions. More specifically, he endorses the idea, recently resurrected by B.C. Liberal leadership hopeful Kevin Falcon, that teacher salary increases should be tied to student performance. The columnist readily dismisses B.C. Teachers President Susan Lambert's criticism of the notion as “a destructive idea that doesn't bode well for public education” and asks, 'Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?”

Both his dismissal and his question deserve to be addressed. First, his implied equation that good teaching=good student performance is flawed. While I never regarded myself as an extraordinary teacher, 30 years of experience in the classroom taught me several truths, perhaps the most important one being that no matter what learning environment I provided, it was still ultimately the students' choice to either accept or reject what I offered. While that would seem to be a self-evident truth, it frequently gets lost when the discussion of remuneration for results is raised.

There will always be, as we used to sardonically describe them, 'difficult to serve clients,' students who have no interest in school and are there only due to parental pressure, provincial legislation, or the fact that they have nothing better to do during the cold winter months. While this may appear cynical and counter to the current orthodoxy which asserts that every student can achieve, it is a truth that few experienced educators would deny. How could I ever convince Jason, for example, whose main interest seemed to be drugs and girls, that education was his key to a successful future, and that what schools offer have real value? Or what about Janine, who, owing to an abusive family background, saw adult authority figures as untrustworthy and not to be respected? Indeed, were salaries tied to student performance, how many teachers would want to face the challenges presented by a class of such students, knowing that their ability to make a living was tied to the academic results they obtained?

Conversely, there are always those classes with students whose motivation, focus, and ready engagement with the subject matter ensure a vital atmosphere that is a joy to work within. What teachers, knowing that their livelihoods would be enhanced, would be reluctant to instruct such self-directed learners? Because such an academic environment almost guarantees good results, would that really be a good method by which to gauge a teacher's effectiveness and salary?

Persichilli's second question, “Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?” deserves to be addressed as well. Implied in the question, indeed, in the entire article, is that teacher unions are somehow defenders of the incompetent and that educators are not bound by the rules constraining mere mortals. While there is some truth in his observation that “less qualified and ineffective teachers are shuffled around the board and thrown into class after class where their students learn nothing,” readers may be interested to know one of the key reasons for such unethical practices.

First, under provincial legislation, teachers are required to be evaluated on a regular basis, usually by senior administration, i.e., principals and vice-principals. The reality of administering schools today inevitably means that many assessments are either rushed or not conducted at all, owing to time constraints. While few would argue that having first-rate teachers should be the highest priority for a school, administrative politics and career ambitions that require networking, keeping current with the pedagogical 'flavour of the month,' meetings with disgruntled but influential parents, etc. etc. often take precedence, leaving principals little time to be the 'principal teachers' the term once meant.

My friend Dom, also a retired teacher, long ago summed up a large part of the problem when he said, “Lorne, administrators just don't want to do their jobs.” He was alluding to the hard work involved in rooting out bad or incompetent teachers. Rightly, federations have contractual procedures in place to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of teachers; a detailed series of steps must be completed, including offering opportunities for remediation, before a teacher can be dismissed for incompetence. Given the above-mentioned constraints, few administrators are willing to invest the time needed to complete those steps, which can hardly be deemed the fault of teacher federations.

Therefore, to base teacher remuneration on student achievement, while for some a beguilingly attractive expedient, is a shortsighted notion that ignores the complexities and dynamics of today's classroom. If implemented, it will not be the panacea that vote-seeking politicians would have the public believe it to be.

Why I Do Not Donate To Universities

2011-01-07T08:54:00.005-05:00

The following two stories, the first of which could only be obtained by the Hamilton Spectator through a Freedom of Information Request, demonstrate two of the reasons I do not donate to universities:

Mac defends $13,000 to fly former president’s wife to Australia

McMaster University spent more than $13,000 on executive class airfare for the spouse of former president Peter George so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.

The $13,125 spent for return flights from Toronto to Adelaide for George’s spouse was part of nearly $30,000 in expenses he submitted for attending the Australian conference, hosted by the Association of Commonwealth Universities in April 2006. The documents were released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request.

The airfare for George’s spouse is equivalent to the average yearly tuition for two McMaster undergraduate students.

The university also paid $700 AUS (about $588 CDN) for George’s spouse to attend social activities and city tours associated with the conference.

The trip also included five nights’ accommodation at the Hyatt Regency in Adelaide.

Documents released to The Spectator also showed that McMaster paid $445 in airfare so George’s spouse could accompany him to New York City in March 2006 for what was billed as a four-day trip for “donor cultivation.”

A McMaster spokesperson said the spousal travel arrangements in both cases were pre-approved by the chair of the university’s board of governors and considered an appropriate use of the school’s funds.

“Under Peter’s contract, spousal travel was permitted when it was travel that served the purposes of the university,” said Andrea Farquhar, McMaster’s director of public and government relations.

“This wasn’t a holiday,” Farquhar added. “It was a trip for a conference. It was just a week, so it was essentially fly there, do the conference and fly home.”

George attended the Australian conference to speak on issues related to leadership and fundraising. At the time, the university was in the midst of an ambitious four-year fundraising campaign that ultimately brought in $473 million.

The fundraising campaign necessitated a significant amount of travel, Farquhar noted, and there were times when it was appropriate for spouses to be in attendance.

“Spouses often play roles in different kinds of events,” she added. “They can be called upon to meet with alumni or donors or spouses or business or government representatives or other university representatives.”

Information obtained from an earlier Spectator FOI request showed that George claimed more than $200,000 in expenses from January 2006 to August 2008, while another $185,000 in expenses was claimed by McMaster’s five vice-presidents during the same period.

The Spectator also requested receipts for a $2,676 expense submitted by George to cover the cost of a rental car for the month of October 2006.

The university indicated that the actual receipt was lost. The university said that the vehicle rented by George was a Nissan Altima.

The following represents the flip side of McMaster's largess with its employees, and is written by Cupe 3906, the bargaining unit in the new labour dispute:

To Hamilton Area Unions and Labour Organisations and allies:

I am writing to inform you of a pending strike at McMaster University
by the Hospitality staff who are members of SEIU Local 2. At present
picket lines are scheduled go up Friday Jan. 7th at 6am.

For the past few months we have been in negotiations with McMaster
University and have reached an impasse at the bargaining table.

The employer, a publicly funded institution, has demanded concessions
and roll backs from some of the lowest paid workers at the University.
Importantly the administration has asked to remove a job security
clause that would then allow them to move to casualize the workforce.
This would mean the eventual end of 175 decent paying full and
part-time jobs in Hamilton. In essence the administration wants to take
these jobs away and create poverty level McJobs in their place.

Several years ago we worked with the University to adopt a living wage
policy that would ensure the university paid its staff a living wage
and would not contract out our jobs. The new administration wants to
throw that out and begin a race to the bottom.

At present, barring a miraculous change of mind by the employer, we are
heading into a strike position as of 6am Friday January 7th.

It is sad that an institution funded by public money can see fit to
give raises to its top administrators but demands the lowest paid give
what little they have.

We are hoping we can count on your support and where possible to ask
members to respect our picket lines, where that may not be possible we
ask that you request your members who may have to go into McMaster to
spend as much time as possible discussing the situation with our
members.

Further we will in the near future be calling for a solidarity rally at
the picket lines and we hope you will be able to send members from your
union or affiliates.

Of course all support on the lines is appreciated.

Fair and Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 3

2011-01-04T14:56:00.002-05:00

Part Three of the program on Cuba, dealing with the country's medical diplomacy, can be accessed by clicking on the title above.

Fair and Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 2

2011-01-04T08:30:00.003-05:00

Part Two of the Cuba report highlighting the role of preventative medicine can be accessed by clicking on the title above.

Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 1

2011-01-02T17:28:00.000-05:00

Having visited Cuba twice in 2010, my wife and I have developed quite an interest in and affection for the people. Warm and gracious, they seem to exude a passion for life that transcends their very humble, in many cases quite impoverished circumstances. PBS, one of the few American sources of fair and balanced reporting, recently completed a three-part series on the country. Part One offers an overview of the country and its prospects for economic change and growth, while Part Two examines the vital role preventative medicine plays in the overall health of the people. Part Three examines the role Cuban doctors play in helping the people of poorer nations through medical missions.

While the reports do not gloss over the restrictive nature of life in Cuba, neither do they take a confrontational ideological stance towards what are remarkable achievements in a developing nation.

Part 1 can be accessed below:

A New Avaaz Petition

2010-12-30T17:25:00.000-05:00

The following is a petition from avaaz.org to try to reduce the usurious fees Western Union charges for money transfers to some of the world's poorest nations:

This holiday season, Josh, a Kenyan student in the Netherlands, scraped together a year's worth of savings and sent it home to support 10 struggling family members. Shockingly, the giant money transfer company Western Union skimmed off 20% of the cash meant for Josh's family in fees.

Josh’s story is painfully retold every day, the world over, on a staggering scale -- an estimated $44.3 billion worldwide was lost in transfer fees last year! The World Bank recommends that transaction costs not exceed 5% of the total, but Western Union has never faced serious pressure to lower its crippling charges. If we unite in a global outcry now, we can expose its predatory practices when its carefully crafted, family-friendly image is most vulnerable: the giving season.

Josh's generosity -- and that of millions of workers around the world -- shouldn't go to waste! Let's call on Western Union to lower its fees to 5% for the poorest countries, and when the petition reaches 250,000 we’ll deliver it to the company’s image-sensitive board of directors. Sign now and then forward this petition to family and friends.

Does This Pass The Critical Thinker's Smell Test?

2010-12-30T15:15:00.001-05:00

“All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.” So said Doctor Pangloss in what is probably Voltaire's best-known satirical work, Candide. And perhaps it is understandable that I briefly thought that The Hamilton Spectator had decided to devote part of its op-ed page to French literature upon seeing the title, 'All in all, things are getting a whole lot better' (Dec.30).

Written by David Seymour, described as a senior analyst for the Frontier Centre, a conservative/libertarian organization whose website boasts the article's original title, 'Cheer Up- The World Is A Wonderful Place,' the article extols the tremendous advances the world has made in a number of fields, including economic growth (hasn't Ebay enriched all of our lives immeasurably?) sanitation and longevity. At the same time Seymour hints at something deeply pathological about those who do not see the glass as half-full, dismissing them as 'the glum,' 'the moaners, and 'merchants of doom.'

To the reader with critical-thinking skills, perhaps most risible is Seymour's assertions “that everyone is getting wealthier and the environment is generally improving ...” and that “ freer and wealthier countries are better environmental custodians. “

Hmm... In his worldview, the writer has conveniently omitted that pesky problem of climate change which almost all balanced studies suggest will ultimately engulf low-lying lands in catastrophic flooding, make many parts of the world much more vulnerable to drought and consequent starvation, and cost world economies many many billions of dollars. Indeed, although no single year's volatile weather can be attributed to climate change, one cannot help but begin to see a pattern emerging in hotter summers worldwide, record snowfalls and freezes in Europe, and massive disruptions in travel throughout the world.

Indeed, I suspect that few would argue that it is the industrialized, free and wealthy countries who are responsible for the massive buildup of greenhouse gases at the root of these changes, the same nations that are proving quite intractable in their refusal to lower their emission rates in order to slow down the rate of earth's degradation.

And yet, according to Mr. Seymour, things just keep getting better for our species.

Would I prefer to live in an earlier time, before the advances of which the writer speaks? Of course not. But let's not kid ourselves that a world offering us greater longevity, sanitation, opportunity and technological marvels is one separate from the world of poverty, child labour, human exploitation, starvation, disease and early death that are constant realities for a significant percentage of our fellow human beings.

But let's face it. There is something beguilingly attractive about Seymour's premise that we can enjoy and exploit the world, guilt-free, because after all, things are so much better now than they were in ages past. Indeed, that nettlesome small warning voice in our heads can finally be put to rest – as long as we are also willing to cast out any sense of morality and concern for those less fortunate who have to pay a very heavy price for our indulgences.

Ottawa Police Parody

2010-12-29T17:46:00.003-05:00

The following video is making the news spoofing, as it does, the timid reaction and political pandering of management in light of the Tracy Bonds strip search. Reminds me of the sorts of pranks we would pull on management at every opportunity:

A Very Graphic Video on the Dangers of Drinking and Driving

2010-12-20T11:16:00.002-05:00

This kind of graphic video from Australia depicting the dangers of drinking and driving perhaps has a place on our North American networks:

For Those Who Appreciate Satire

2010-12-20T10:33:00.001-05:00

I just cribbed this from someone else's website. Enjoy, and remember that it is done in the spirit of satire:

A Timely Word About Kiva

2010-12-20T08:19:00.000-05:00

Like me, I suspect many in the blogosphere are deeply cynical about governments both domestic and foreign. We tend, for example, to despair of governments' capacity to bring about meaningful change when it receives or gives foreign aid. The recent imbroglio over the termination of CIDA support for KAIROS is but one example of many that come to mind. The slow nature of the reconstruction efforts in Haiti is another.

In this season of giving, many turn their thoughts to philanthropy that benefits people in other parts of the world. For those seeking such an opportunity, I would like to suggest an entity that has a tremendous track record and one which I volunteer with. That entity is Kiva.

A fine example of an NGO doing tremendous work in the developing world, Kiva uses a particular model of microfinance that will appeal to many. For as little as $25, a person can lend to an entrepreneur from an extensive list of people seeking to better their lives and the lives of their families through a slow and gradual development and expansion of their businesses.

One of the exciting aspects of Kiva is that all of the money lent goes to the recipient through a finance organization in the target country. Each financial entity, before becoming a partner with Kiva, is carefully vetted, with Kiva performing all of the due diligence to determine its viability and adherence to philanthropic lending policy. Once the loan is repaid, the lender has the option of either receiving back the money or re-lending. (I should warn you that the lending can become addictive!)

Kiva receives nothing from the loan, depending extensively on both donations and a large network of volunteers to do most its work, including the translation and editing of loan descriptions.

So if you a seeking a worthy cause that requires only a small commitment of funds, I heartily recommend and endorse Kiva.

A C.B.C. Petition

2010-12-15T17:07:00.002-05:00

A Young British Student Speaks

2010-12-13T09:12:00.004-05:00

I love this young man's passion. It seems to me that his words, based on police reaction to the student demonstrations in Britain, are equally applicable to what many experienced during the G20 police repression of protesters.

">

An Internet Scam Warning

2010-12-07T10:11:00.002-05:00

I imagine that all Internet users at one time or another have experienced a browser popup claiming that they have won one of the many technological baubles that seem to dominate our culture, be it an IPad, Ipod, or whatever. Recently I decided to click on a claim that I had won an Ipad, just to see where it would take me. My advice is simple: resist the urge.

It initially seemed innocent enough, a rather challenging IQ test (the kind of test I generally resist taking, lest they confirm my worst cognitive fears). After taking it, I had to enter my cellphone number to receive the results. What followed were two more questions, on the cellphone, to which I did not respond.

We then went away for a week to Cuba, having left the cellphone behind since it doesn't work there. Upon my return, I was appalled to find that I had insufficient balance left on the prepaid to make a call. Upon investigating the balance online, I saw that I had received several more messages from the Internet company that had provided the IQ test, each with a charge of $2.

I called my cellphone provider to ask it to block the messages and to restore the funds to my account. While they did the latter with alacrity, they said that I was listed as subscribing to a service from skill2thrill.com, and provided me with a number to call to halt the emails. The number is 1-866-257-4586.

All is now restored and the messages have stopped, but what I most object to is the fact that there was nothing obvious that I saw on the site stating that by providing my cellphone number, I was in fact entering into a contract with skill2thrill.com

Personally, I would like to see some kind of CRTC regulation governing such misleading and unethical practices.

Just a word to the wise from someone who should have known better.

We've Finally Cut the Cord

2010-11-19T13:31:00.001-05:00

It is with some sadness that I announce the termination of our subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper that we have subscribed to continuously since our return to Ontario in 1988. Prior to that, in the 70's my wife was a Globe reader.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, since we wanted to give every chance to the 'new and improved' Globe. Unfortunately, our vision of a good paper sharply diverges from John Stackhouse's, in that it has become obvious to us that the paper is trying to ensure its long-term viability by appealing to a younger and more politically conservative demographic. The most recent inkling of the latter came with the dismissal of long-time columnist Rick Salutin, who had a unique and original perspective on the people and events that make the news. With his dismissal came the elevation of Neil Reynolds, whose libertarian views seem tiresomely repetitive and predictable - he clearly lacks the wide-ranging intellect of Mr. Salutin.

In terms of the Arts and the Life section, the fact that most of the topics are of little interest to my wife and me seems to confirm the shift to a younger demographic. Personally, I think the Globe's strategy is a mistake, given that it is we baby boomers who have the most disposable income. It also ignores the fact that young people today tend to get most of their news from the Internet in general and social media in particular.

On a final note, I think we also recognize that as we get older, we inevitably have less and less influence on the world around us. That is, I suppose, the natural progression of things, and while I hardly begrudge younger generations the opportunity to exert their own influence on things, I wish, in the case of the new Globe and Mail, a better balance had been struck.

Student Assessment

2010-11-04T11:34:00.005-04:00

My daughter, a graduate student, was recently relaying an experience with a student who was trying to get her to raise the mark on an essay she had evaluated. The story brought back memories of my teaching days, so I wrote the following for her, and thought I would share it on my blog, since many of the observations are equally applicable to the experience of high school teachers:

A Retired Educator's Guide to Essay-Markers Dealing with Importunate Students (i.e., those who try to wheedle marks they don't deserve)

The first thing to remember is that the importunate come in all shapes and sizes, from the most vocal to the quietest student. They share a common characteristic in that they all want elevated marks for a host of reasons, and, assuming that the marker has been diligent in the original assessment of their work, are almost uniformly undeserving of such consideration.

These are some of the wheedlers' most common strategies:

1. They may insist that this is the lowest mark they have ever received in any course, and reminisce fondly about their high school glory days, when they allege never having “received a mark below 85%. ”

2. Importunate students may try to enlist your sympathies by talking about how important a higher mark is to their future plans, be it grad school, medical school, or law school. This can be a remarkably successful ploy, given that the marker of the work in question is usually a grad student as well.

3. Should this stratagem not yield the desired effect, the more tenacious may begin to embark upon a form of psychological warfare, the goal being to undermine the assessor's self-confidence or self-esteem, as in the following scenarios:

a) The wheedler may suggest that you are being unnaturally obdurate in your refusal to raise the mark, thereby implying a dark defect of personality or character, an inability to relate to the goals and aspirations of a fellow human being.

b) The whiner may attempt to undermine your judgement and/or intellect by implying that you have failed to understand the remarkable insights he/she has offered in an essay that would be obvious to most people but is perhaps just 'beyond you.'

c) The even more aggressive student may take issue with specific comments you have made on his/her paper, although this approach is less frequently utilized since it would require him/her to actually have taken the time to read your comments rather than simply look at the mark.

How to Deal with Importunate Students:

First, a note of caution: one should always be prepared to listen to student objections, because even though it might be a rare occurrence, occasionally they may actually raise some valid issues. The more diligent the marker is, however, the less likely this is to happen. But one always wants to be certain not to fall into the trap of arrogance by making blanket statements such as “All marks are final.”

Probably the easiest and best way to deal with wheedlers is to tell them that they can always appeal the mark to the professor, but warn them that they will have to present specific academic reasons for their appeal; in other words, they have to offer specific arguments, based on their actual essay, for a mark reconsideration. Ergo, the common strategies of the wheedler listed in the first part of this document cannot be used. The fact that most of them will have no legitimate reason for the mark to be raised means that they are most unlikely to launch an appeal.

Should the professor wind up awarding the person a higher mark, do not allow the decision to undermine your self-confidence. Frequently such decisions are made for political or career reasons, or simply as a matter of expediency and have nothing to do with your judgement.

If you are determined to deal with the matter yourself, you can make a similar stipulation, but my feeling is that since the professor doesn't have to mark a classroom of papers, he/she should at least have to read the occasional one and deal with some of the messier aspects of academia.

Please feel free to distribute this document to whomever you think might benefit from it.

A Solution from Ebay

2010-11-01T14:42:00.002-04:00

My last two posts outlined the situation I had with Ebay regarding an allegely unpaid item. I am happy to report that the problem has been solved. Below is the email I received this morning from them:

Thank you for contacting eBay concerning the Unpaid Item strike you
received.

Our records indicate that this is the first Unpaid Item strike you have
appealed. Based on your effort to contact us, and the information you
have provided, we have removed the Strike from your file.

To assist you as well, we are providing the following information
regarding our Unpaid Item policy. Should you have any concern not
addressed in this response, please contact the appropriate department
through the Trust and Safety web form, located at the end of this email.

Since any future strikes could negatively affect your account, please
take a moment to review our Unpaid Item overview, and our Unpaid Item
Appeal information page, at the following web addresses:

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/policies/unpaid-item.html

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/buy/appeal-unpaid-item.html

If you have a problem communicating with a seller through email, you can
request your trading partner's contact information (including a phone
number) through the following web address:

http://shop.ebay.ca/ebayadvsearch/_W0QQ_sofindtypeZ9

If you have sent payment for the item in question and have not received
it, please review our Fraud Protection Program for a list of options to
consider at the following web address:

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/buy/protection-programs.html

To help ensure success in future transactions we would like to provide
you with a few suggestions:

1. Carefully review each listing description. If you have any questions
about an item, be sure to use the "ask a seller a question" feature
before placing a bid.

2. Please review the shipping details and item description to make sure
you are eligible to bid on the item according to seller's terms. If you
live outside the seller's stated shipping area or the seller requests
that bidders with negative feedback not bid (and you have negative
feedback) do not place a bid.

3. If you have computer or connection problems, please remember that you
can access your eBay account through any computer with Internet access.
Your bids can be monitored through your "My eBay" page. To log into "My
eBay," simply click the "My eBay" link located at the top of any eBay
page. Then enter your User ID and password on the following page and
click the "Sign In" button.

If you have additional concerns, please contact us through the Trust and
Safety Webform below:

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/contact_us/_base/index.html

We appreciate the time you took to resolve this matter and wish you all
the best with your future eBay transactions.

Regards,

eBay Customer Support

Ebay - Part 2

2010-10-29T11:26:00.006-04:00

Despite the fact that I really don't care if Ebay freezes my account or removes me from their books, (there are many e-merchants to do business with on the Internet), I continue to be nettled by what I see as unfair practices on its part. Compounding my irritation is the frustration of being unable to communicate my objections to its corporate arrogance to an actual person.

I realized yesterday that there is little likelihood of an Ebay representative actually reading my reply to the company's email demanding payment for the scale they allege that I bought. I therefore tried to post something to them through a complaint form on their website. After filling out all of the required fields, I tried to send it but got the message that all required fields had to be completed. I tried to do it a second time with the same result.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that Ebay, in its digital arrogance, really is not interested in hearing from anyone. They seem to expect unquestioning compliance from their members.

While that may work with some, it forks no lightning with me. As a result, after reading Ellen Roseman's column in today's Star about how to use Twitter to get redress, I started an account and posted my first Tweet, not bad for a someone of my generation! The efficacy of the post is yet to be seen, but Roseman suggests it can be quite effective, given that a company's name is bound to be noticed in a Tweet. Since I don't really understand the mechanism involved in that, I will take her at her word and see what happens.

A Warning About Ebay

2010-10-28T08:45:00.005-04:00

I recently contemplated purchasing a scale, one recommended by Consumer Reports, from the Ebay store, as it seemed to be unavailable in Canada. However, after reviewing the details, I decided not to complete the purchase, as the shipping costs, about $32 U.S., were almost equal to the product's cost. I assumed, since I hadn't gotten to the parts that are common in e-commerce business practices, the review of the purchase, the payment method, and final confirmation, that I was under no obligation to complete the transaction. At the time, I could see nothing on the site to actually formally cancel the order.

What follows is the email I received from Ebay. After that, I post my response to that email:

Hi lorne,

eBay opened an unpaid item case for Taylor 7506 Lithium Digital Bath Scale w/ Glass Platfor, because wholesalepointinc either hasn't recorded your payment or didn't receive it yet.

The seller needs to receive your payment no later than Sunday, Oct 31, 2010 16:18:45 EDT.If the seller doesn't receive your payment, an unpaid item will be recorded on your account and your account privileges may be limited or suspended. Remember, when you place a winning bid or click the Buy It Now button in a listing, you've committed to paying for that item. Learn more about our policy.

If you forgot to pay, please pay now so that we can close this case and the seller can ship the item to you.

If you paid for the item already or have questions, please contact the seller.

If you have proof that you paid for the item, don't worry. You can appeal to remove the unpaid item after the case closes.

Taylor 7506 Lithium Digital Bath Scale w/ Glass Platfor
Item # 400154613774
End time: 20-Oct-10 16:28:51 EDT
Seller: wholesalepointinc
Case opened: Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 16:18:45 EDT

My Reply:

I take strong exception to the threat implied in this email. Since this was to be my first transaction with Ebay, I assumed the procedure followed by most e-merchants would attend, i.e., that there would have been a review of the purchase with all the details, followed by a confirmation of the order, with payment information, before the purchase was irrevocable. The reason I decided to cancel the order was the realization, not clear until I had the full details on the screen, that the shipping costs were highly inflated and almost equal to the price of the product I had intended to purchase.

If you are serious about keeping the item on my account as unpaid, then please remove me entirely form your database, as I will no longer even think about using your services again. As well, I will make certain I inform my friends and colleagues of your inflexible and misleading practices.

Share The Proof

2010-10-22T14:16:00.001-04:00

I received this in my email today. I think the short video speaks for itself.

Share the Proof from ONE Campaign on Vimeo.

For the Love of Elephants

2010-10-16T15:28:00.007-04:00

The other night, on David Suzuki's The Nature of Things, I watching a fascinating documentary, about 45 minutes in length, called For the Love of Elephants. Now available online at the C.B.C website, it is a film that I urge everyone to take a look at.

The documentary revolves around a sanctuary outside of Nairobi, Kenya called The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust that takes in orphaned baby elephants who have usually lost their mothers through poaching. The more I watch documentaries about animals, the more I wonder about what really distinguishes us from them, other than the ability to speak. For example, like us, elephants grieve when confronting loss, young ones have a strong urge to play, and they are quite attached to matriarchs. Like ours, elephant culture has a strong need to be part of a group. Indeed, without such support, young elephants usually do not survive.

The other compelling aspect of the show is the tremendous love that so obviously exists between the keepers and the elephants. As is evident in the documentary, the job of the keepers requires long-term commitment, their ultimate goal being reintroducing the orphaned elephants into the wild years hence.

For the Love of Elephants is aptly named as it becomes obvious that the love the keepers show the elephants is a love that is ultimately reciprocated. I hope you will check it out.

Do You Know Where Your Charity Dollars Are Going?

2010-09-23T19:25:00.002-04:00

I doubt there are many amongst us who have not experienced the following: You are sitting down for a mid-evening meal, or perhaps settling in to watch an hour of television when the phone rings. At the other end of the line is someone calling on behalf of a charity, either one you currently patronize or one seeking your support. You do one of three things: you either agree to increase your support, say you can't give more, or agree to sponsor the new charity.

It may surprise you to know that in some cases, the person you have just dealt with is not necessarily a volunteer calling on behalf of the charity, but rather an employee of a professional fundraising company that will be receiving anywhere from 35 to 80% of your donation.

These startling facts were presented on last night's edition of C.B.C.'s The National in a report by Diana Swain. The value of the report lies not in discouraging us from contributing to worthwhile causes, but rather in allowing us to make better-informed decisions as to where to allot our philanthropic dollars.

The full report, with links to a searchable database breaking down the expenditures of registered charities, can be found on the C.B.C. website

The Perennial Problem of Student Cheating

2010-09-14T11:37:00.005-04:00

One of the many reasons I am happy to be retired is that I no longer have to spend time tracking down sources in cases of suspected cheating. In my time, it happened periodically, and, as I used to tell my students, I was a pitbull when it came to academic dishonesty. If I suspected it, I would spend however long it took to track it down.

As my career was winding down, academic dishonesty was becoming just another of the many issues that had become 'political', in the sense that administration would have liked to wish the problem away, as parental anger over a student getting zero for cheating often caused them headaches.

A recent story from the Toronto Star is well worth reading, as it examines the problems being confronted at the university level, where cheating seems to have become widespread and relatively sophisticated. I am reproducing the story below:

Student cheaters have plenty of tricks up their sleeves
September 11, 2010

LOUISE BROWN
EDUCATION REPORTER

One panic-stricken student bought an essay for a course, only to leave the credit card bill among the pages when she handed it in.

Another student in an economics exam attracted a bit too much attention by whispering questions up his sleeve, where a forbidden cellphone taped to his arm was transmitting answers from a friend off-site.

Then there were the cheating lovers – literally; two female students unaware they were dating the same sly male classmate who sweet-talked both into writing tests and papers under his name. When love turned sour and the two University of Toronto undergrads discovered the scam, not only did they turn on their ex – they turned him in.

“In the end he faced 67 different charges of academic misconduct and was expelled,” recalled Professor Edith Hillan, the U of T’s vice-provost of faculty and academic life. “It was one of the more egregious examples of academic misconduct we’ve seen.”
As classes start Monday, Canada’s largest university is stepping up its campaign against cheating.

Dramatic displays of dishonesty are on the rise at the U of T, where the highest academic court – which hears only the most severe cases – received 38 new complaints in 2008-9, up from 21 the year before. The surge may partly reflect a larger trend cited recently in the report “Liars, Fraudsters and Cheats” by the Canadian Council on Learning, which found nearly three in four students in this country say they have cheated at least once, thanks to the cut-and-paste wizardry of the web and the trend to file-sharing almost everything.

But the U of T also is becoming more proactive against those who play dirty.
Leading the charge against cheating is the university’s leafy Mississauga campus, where a new full-time honesty watchdog began three summers ago to give instructors in all 15 departments a compulsory crash course in how to discourage, detect and deal with everything from plagiarism to paying for papers.

In the three years since academic affairs officer Lucy Gaspini began the training, campus charges have more than doubled to 388 in 2009-10 from 182 in 2006-7.

“It’s partly because instructors are being more vigilant, but I’m afraid it’s also because students are feeling more pressure to do really, really well now that almost everyone seems to go on to university and there’s real competition to get an edge,” said Gaspini. “We see cases of cheating even in fourth year because they’re battling to get into grad school.”

Often students who are caught tell Gaspini they just forgot to cite their sources; it was midnight, three essays were due and there was the Internet at their fingertips. Some plead too many deadlines and not enough time, the pressure of part-time jobs and financial worries. Others believed shortcuts were the only way to ensure a particular mark they needed.

“If they’d just invest the time doing the work and studying that they do on all these other tactics, they’d be fine,” said Gaspini. She met this fall for the first time with international students to talk about the perils of plagiarism, warning against such popular tricks as using a Morse code-style system of pen clicks to share answers on a multiple-choice test.

“We have a case now where students clicked their pens a certain number of times to indicate the question number, and then clicked again to indicate whether the answer was a, b, c or d,” said Gaspini. “Even if you’re the one giving the answer, you’re providing unauthorized aid to someone else and you’re guilty of academic dishonesty.”
Mississauga’s student council joined the awareness campaign last week by producing student tipsheets about cheating which it tucked into Frosh kits, and plans its first plagiarism workshop for students this fall.

“A lot more grey areas are coming up now. When I sold a text book last year I made a little extra money by throwing in my course notes but what if the person who bought them used them the wrong way?” wondered Grayce Yuen, the student union’s vice-president of university affairs and a co-author of the pamphlet. “I’d be more cautious next time.”

Yet it’s not all grey, stressed Gaspini in a recent workshop for some 10 instructors from the historical studies department. She warned about such tricks as printing notes on the inside of a water-bottle label, or the rim of a ball cap, or even between a student’s fingers.

“One instructor photocopied a student’s hand as evidence of crib notes before they could be washed off,” said Gaspini. Others have been rumoured to jot notes on parts of their bodies too intimate for an instructor to check.

Professor Sarianna Metso recalled marking one essay which footnoted a scholar she knew personally – saying something that simply didn’t sound like him.

“I was surprised, so I pulled my copy of his book off my own shelf and turned to the page cited on the footnote, which didn’t have that passage at all. It turns out all the footnotes were fiction,” she said. “The quotes were just made up off-the-cuff.
“But if you knowingly let an offence pass through your fingers (without discipline), you yourself have committed an academic offence,” she said. “You’re not doing anyone a favour, and the student just thinks they can do it again in another class without penalty.”

Cheating horror stories at U of T

• A tutorial assistant charged three students $1,500 each to slip them the answer sheet when he escorted them to the washroom during the exam. Ruling: suspended for five years.
• A student plagiarized an essay, then forged a doctor’s letter saying he was too sick to hand in a second essay on time. He then plagiarized it and handed it in late, followed by a third plagiarized essay. Ruling: recommended for expulsion.
• After agreeing to write an essay for $120 for a classmate, a student then plagiarized the essay so his customer failed the course. When she tried to get a refund, an ensuing fistfight brought the essay-writer to the attention of the university, which learned he had been selling essays for years. Ruling: suspended for five years.
• One student plagiarized an essay from a website for a course called Philosophy of Language, in the same term as she plagiarized an essay for another course. Essay topic? Artificial Intelligence. Ruling: suspended for three years.
• One student submitted an essay written originally by a professor at Purdue University whose name, sadly, she failed to include on her essay bibliography. Ruling: suspended for two years.

The Politics of Student Part-Time Work - Part One

2010-08-26T11:27:00.002-04:00

Having taught high school for 30 years, one of the issues of interest that I carried over into retirement is whether or not students should work part-time. While students have always worked for any number of reasons, ranging from saving for post-secondary education to purchasing things their parents either wouldn't or couldn't buy for them, over the years it was my perception that the number of hours young people were devoting to their jobs rose significantly. A recent article in the Globe and Mail addressed the problem, and some interesting and startling conclusions were reached.

Jorgen Hansen, an associate professor of economics at Montreal’s Concordia University, used data from Statistics Canada’s Youth in Transition Survey, a survey that follows cohorts of students over a number of years. His conclusion: working part-time hurts grades. The more you work part-time, the greater the harm to grades.

According to Wendy Patton, a dean of the faculty of education at Queensland University at Brisbane, Australia, the upper limit should be 12 hours per week. Other studies showed a deterioration in academic performance commensurate with the number of hours worked.

From my own personal experience, it was not unusual to have some students, usually seniors, working almost the equivalent of full-time jobs, and, of course, their grades, homework completion rates, and assignments all suffered. Plaintively, they would tell me they had to work to save for university; my usual response was that if they continued to put in those kinds of hours, they likely wouldn't be going to university anyway, as they wouldn't have the marks. Such harsh observations generally, of course, fell on deaf ears.

And this is where we come to the political aspect of the equation. For a number of reasons that I will outline in my next post, I strongly believe that government has a role to play in regulating how many hours high school students can work.

An Article on Critical Thinking

2010-08-21T17:34:00.001-04:00

Allan Levine, a history professor from Manitoba, has written an excellent article on critical thinking in today's Globe. An excerpt from the article offers a clear and concise explanation of the concept, and what its goals are:

“Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way,” explains Linda Elder, an educational psychologist and president of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. “People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably and empathically. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason.”

Illustrating its importance by examining the current controversy surrounding the building of a mosque a few blocks from the twin towers' terrorist attack, Levine demonstrates that those lofty goals are well-worth striving for throughout our lives, even if complete attainment eludes us.

Criticizing the Harper Government Can be Harmful to Career Prospects

2010-08-19T11:32:00.000-04:00

I was going to write a post exploring the casualty list of those whose criticisms of specific Harper Government policies have resulted in dismissals, demotions, or resignations, but the Globe and Mail has already done it this morning in its online Political Notebook.

The latest victim is RCMP Marty Cheliak, whose vigorous support of the long gun registry has earned him much praise and recognition amongst police forces across the country but apparently incurred the ire of Harper, who dearly wants to eliminate it, no doubt another sop to his hardcore constituency. While the Government denies any role in the matter, citing it as an RCMP decision, his removal as head of the Canadian Firearms Program, nine months after his appointment, does not pass the smell test and appears to be part of the growing pattern of intolerance of criticism that Mr. Harper is known for.

The official reason for Cheliak's removal? He is not bilingual. Funny, that didn't seem to be an issue until now.

Message received loud and clear, Mr. Harper.

Ontario To Allow Mixed Martial Arts

2010-08-14T14:06:00.000-04:00

My son just sent me a link to a story that says the Ontario McGuinty Government has changed its mind and will allow MMA fighting beginning next year. According to Consumer Services Minister Sophia Aggelonitis, regulating MMA is the best way to keep the fighters safe.

Hmm... not to mention the revenue the government will accrue from it and the online gambling it is about to get into as well.

Oh well, bloodsports and gambling may be two effective ways to assuage people should they grow vexed over their increasingly high utility and gasoline bills thanks to the HST, despite the fact that the latter will be applied to these latest questionable and diversionary McGuinty policy decisions.

How Do We Assess Information?

2010-08-12T20:34:00.000-04:00

The other day I had an interesting and spirited discussion with a colleague at the food bank where I volunteer. Initially the conversation revolved around the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and the possible loss of the team with City Council's decision to proceed with the West Harbour as the site of the new stadium over the objections of team owner Bob Young.

The discussion then progressed to how we evaluate the information we receive. My position, using two illustrations, was and is as follows: Because whatever personal expertise we may possess is usually very limited in scope, it becomes incumbent upon us to be very much influenced by experts in any given field.

Take, for example, the Conservative Government's decision to abandon the mandatory long census form. To be quite honest, the topic of the census, until the controversy erupted, was of no interest to me. The subject of statistics is like a foreign language to me, and seemingly of no pertinence to my life. However, after the almost universal condemnation of the Harper decision by a wealth of experts, critical thinking demands that I accept as true that it is a very bad decision that should be reversed.

We then went on to talk about, and disagree upon, climate change. Her position was that she wants to decide the truth for herself, through research on the Internet. That may well be a sound approach if she has enough time and the ability to evaluate the sources of her information, something that is very hard for a lay person to do on issues with a high degree of technical information.

Nonetheless, I have already accepted the truth of climate change, not just because of the worldwide evidence of something happening at an unprecedented rate of change, but also because, again, the overwhelming majority of experts in the field say that it is essentially indisputable. I italicized the word experts because a favorite ploy of climate change deniers is to have people whose credentials lie elsewhere to call into question the analyses of the real experts, thus sowing doubt amongst the lay people.

In fact, that is the tack regularly employed by Globe and Mail writer Neil Reynolds who, in his last column on climate change, cited the opinion of some environmental economists to support his thesis, and in a previous piece used the 'expertise' of a Nobel Prize-wining physicist.

Bringing these issues into sharp relief is writer Antony black, who had a column in today's Hamilton Spectator. I urge those of you interested in critical thinking to take a few moments to read it, as the evidence he presents to undermine the climate change deniers is quite interesting. I urge those of you interested in critical thinking to take a few moments to read it, as the evidence he presents to undermine the climate change deniers is quite interesting.

A Morally and Financially Bankrupt Provincial Government

2010-08-10T19:51:00.003-04:00

Some days, it is almost more than I can do to muster even a modicum of faith in our political system. Confronted as we are on an almost daily basis with evidence of corruption, betrayal of the public trust, and reminders that we, the voters, count only at election time, it is difficult to affix any credibility to the utterances of our 'representatives'. Currently, my ire is particularly directed at the Ontario Provincial Liberals, led by Dalton McGuinty.

My acute disaffection with the Premier began in late June, during the G20 summit. It was only after the summit was over that the Premier revealed that the so-called five-meter fence law allowing police to demand that people show their identities and the contents of their knapsacks did not actually exist. This, despite the fact that Bill Blair, the Toronto Police Chief, was trumpeting its importance since the day before the Summit actually began, and Dalton McGuinty was enthusiastically agreeing with him in the press that such extraordinary measures were necessary to provide an adequate level of security for the delegates.

After it was all over, McGuinty simply said that they “could have done a better job in communication” and facilely dismissed the idea of a public inquiry, despite the fact that he had obviously colluded with the police to deprive citizens of their Charter Rights guaranteeing freedom of movement and association.

My disaffection with him has deepened given the events that transpired over the weekend regarding the site for the Pan Am stadium in Hamilton, which I have already written about.

And now comes the announcement that the Provincial Government is going to move into the lucrative field of on-line gambling, whereby they hope to realize a minimum of $400 million dollars annually, choosing to ignore, despite whatever public-relations gestures that will be forthcoming, the gambling addiction of many Ontarians and willfully exploiting that weakness to enrich government coffers.

So now, in a province that is almost financially bankrupt, we have seen, in at least three different ways, its declaration of moral bankruptcy.

One can only hope that voters will take notice and remember during the next election campaign.

Munir Sheikh''s Suggestion

2010-08-10T12:42:00.000-04:00

Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada whose integrity demanded that he resign rather than be a party to the dismantling of meaningful data through the elimination of the mandatory long census form, has an article on the op-ed page of today's Globe and Mail.

The article's well-reasoned nature guarantees that it will be ignored by the Harper Government.

The Difference between the Conservative and Liberal Mind

2010-08-09T16:17:00.001-04:00

About three years ago, a scientific study was undertaken to examine some of the differences between the conservative and the liberal mind. One of the conclusions emerging from the study was that liberal people tend to be able to handle ambiguity and nuance better than conservative people, processing new information that might challenge some of their beliefs, incorporating that information and even altering their thinking on a subject as a result. Conservative minds, on the other hand, tend to adhere to beliefs and convictions despite evidence that call them into question.

I can't help but wonder if that might be at play in many of Conservative Government's policy decisions. For example, despite the fact that the abolition of the mandatory long form census is opposed by almost everyone, Stockwell Day insists he has only heard three complaints about it.

Many people insist that the Government's intractability stems from an ideologically-driven agenda, but I think it is legitimate to wonder whether an inability to incorporate new and contrary information might also be at work here.

Is There a Federal Prison in Your Future?

2010-08-04T08:52:00.001-04:00

Contemplating any petty crime or vandalism in the near future? I would strongly suggest that you abandon such anti-social considerations, especially given the Globe and Mail's amplification of Treasure Board President Stockwell Day's comments during yesterday's puzzling press conference.

You may recall his assertion that statistics showing significant declines in crime rates are misleading, given the number of crimes that go unreported. While it is a little hard for me to get my head around the concept of statistics for unreported transgressions, (almost as difficult as understanding the justification for spending $9 billion for new prisons to contain this phantom explosion of crime), in today's paper Day explains that voluntary surveys establish these crimes as fact. There seem to be only two problems with his explanation: the last survey of this nature was done in 2004, and in comparing it to the previous one done in 1999, there was no increase of unreported violent crime, only a small rise in unreported vandalism and petty theft.

With the upcoming multi-billion dollar expenditure for new federal prisons, the Conservatives are sending a very clear and powerful message: steal your neighbour's hedgeclippers or take a spray can to a wall, and you'll feel the full weight of the law.

A New Blog

2010-08-03T14:22:00.003-04:00

Because most of what I have been posting of late has been political in nature, I have started a new blog entitled Politics and Its Discontents. While I will cross-post for the time being, it is my intention to reserve this blog for educational matters only.

I hope you will check out my new site.

The Need for Critical Thinking

2010-08-03T14:17:00.001-04:00

While Prime Minister Harper has kept a decidedly low profile this summer, Treasury Board President Stockwell Day did surface long enough for a press conference in Ottawa today to talk about 'how well' the government's Economic Action Plan is working for Canadians. Unfortunately for him, reporters had other things on their mind, including questions about the elimination of the mandatory long census form and his assertion that crime statistics are misleading, that there are many crimes that Candians are not reporting. For a change, it sounds like journalists were thinking critically and asking the hard questions that challenge the blithe claims that politicians are only too happy to make

You can read the full story here.

Recommendation for Another James Travers' Column

2010-07-31T14:53:00.002-04:00

I'm sure everyone has heard that the key to cooking a frog is to slowly raise the water temperature so that it doesn't jump out of the pot. In his column today, James Travers suggests that is the key to understanding how the Harper Government has largely succeeded in taking the country in a direction it really is not philosophically in tune with: incremental conservatism over a sustained period of time. Click here to read the article.

More Commentary on The Census

2010-07-30T16:26:00.003-04:00

If you got the opportunity to read the James Travers article I recommended in my last post, the details of a poll commissioned by the Globe might interest you. The results show that 75% of the prominent economists surveyed oppose the elimination of the compulsory long census form. The specifics can be found by clicking here.

James Travers' Thoughts on Recent Conservative Missteps

2010-07-30T08:11:00.003-04:00

The Toronto Star's James Travers has written an interesting analysis on recent mistakes made by the ideologically-driven Harper Conservatives that have driven down their poll numbers. Please click here to read it.

Jacmel, Haiti, Six Months Later

2010-07-29T18:53:00.004-04:00

There is a lovely photo essay on the Globe and Mail website that I invite you to look at. If you have the time, read each of the captions accompanying the photos. Reading them almost guarantees you the pleasure of a broad smile when you get to the last photo. Let me know if I am wrong.

John Ibbitson on Munir Sheikh's Integrity

2010-07-27T21:25:00.004-04:00

I wrote the other day on my admiration for the courage and integrity of Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada who resigned to protect the organization's integrity and reputation after Industry Minister Tony Clement spoke falsely when he clained that StatsCan had essentially given its blessing to the change to a voluntary completion of the long census form. In the following article, the Globe's John Ibbitson writes in detail on that decision:

Munir Sheikh shows us what integrity
and leadership look like

John Ibbitson

Munir Sheikh’s testimony before the Commons industry committee reminded us of something that too many forget: He did not resign as deputy minister responsible for Statistics Canada for the wrong reason; he resigned for the right reason.

Journalism sometimes distorts through conflation. So while the initial stories concerning Mr. Sheikh’s departure correctly explained what caused the first deputy minister to resign on a question of principle, as days passed, a crucial distinction became blurred.

The impression gained ground that Mr. Sheikh quit because the Conservative government decided to scrap the mandatory long-form version of the 2011 census, replacing it with a voluntary survey. That’s not true.

It is true that Mr. Sheikh advised the government that scrapping the mandatory census would lead to less accurate results.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took that advice, rejected it and ordered a voluntary survey. As a public servant, Mr. Sheikh was obliged to carry out that instruction. If cabinet wants to undermine the integrity of the census, then that’s the right of cabinet. It is the professional duty of the public service to carry out the directions of the government of the day, whatever its members might think of those directions.

Mr. Sheikh only resigned when Industry Minister Tony Clement claimed something he should never have claimed. In a July 16 story on The Globe and Mail’s front page, Mr. Clement stated in an interview that Statistics Canada had assured him a voluntary survey, sent to a larger group of people, would yield satisfactory results.

“I asked [Statistics Canada] specifically, ‘Are you confident you can do your job?'” he told Steven Chase. “They said ‘If you do these extra things: the extra advertising and the extra sample size, then yes, we can do our job.' “

That could not be true: if people who are poorer or less educated are not filling out a census because they don’t understand its importance, increasing the number of people receiving the form won’t help one whit. Either Mr. Sheikh did not give that assurance, or he gave it knowing it to be false. Rather than permit the latter impression to take hold, damaging both his integrity and that of Statistics Canada, he resigned.

“The fact that in the media and in the public that there was this perception that Statistics Canada was supporting a decision that no statistician would, it really casts doubt on the integrity of that agency, and I as head of that agency cannot survive in that job,” Mr. Sheikh told the committee.

It is one thing to quit your job because you don’t agree with the boss. It is something quite different to quit your job rather than see the integrity of the people you lead compromised. There aren’t many of us who would do such a thing. But Munir Sheikh would, and did.

Michael Valpy's View on the Census Fiasco

2010-07-26T19:35:00.005-04:00

The Globe's Michael Valpy has an interesting article in today's paper on reasons behind the census decision of the Harper Government, a decision condemned by almost everyone thus far. It is well-worth reading:

Harper’s census push months in the making

Scrapping the mandatory long form stems from libertarian convictions, insiders say

Michael Valpy

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Jul. 26, 2010 3:00AM EDT Last updated on Monday, Jul. 26, 2010 10:56AM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided at the end of December to scrap the mandatory long-form census despite being told by Statistics Canada officials that important data would likely be lost or impaired as a result.

He considered going further by making the whole census voluntary, people familiar with what transpired have revealed. On the long census form, he overrode objections from his own officials in the Privy Council Office and senior finance department staff, although Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on the weekend that he thinks census data can be collected voluntarily without being compromised.

The government announced at the end of June that the long form would be voluntary in the 2011 census.

Opposition MPs will get their first chance to question Industry Minister Tony Clement, the minister responsible for Statscan, and former chief statistician Munir Sheikh, who has quit in protest against the change, when they appear before a parliamentary panel on Tuesday.

Mr. Harper’s decision has baffled political analysts familiar with his thinking – people including political scientist Tom Flanagan, who played a key role in Mr. Harper becoming prime minister – but not University of Calgary economist Frank Atkins, his graduate thesis supervisor.

While careful to stress he is not putting words in the Prime Minister’s mouth, Prof. Atkins suggested Mr. Harper acted from a deep philosophical conviction – a libertarian view of the mandatory long-form census, which has been in use since 1971, as a Big Brother manifestation of the intrusive state.

Mr. Harper has indicated previously that he has philosophical problems with Statscan.

At a cabinet meeting at least 18 months ago, then-foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier – who has assumed a lead role in defending the government’s long-form decision – proposed major cuts to Statscan based on ideological libertarianism. The Prime Minister was reported to be supportive (while then-clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch was not).

Said Prof. Atkins: “I would agree with this census decision from a libertarian point of view. People like me look on this as the thin edge of the wedge, sort of ‘Big Brother’s around the corner,’ if you’re forcing people to reveal knowledge even though the knowledge isn’t going to be attached to them.”

That accords with the Prime Minister’s Office statement: “The government made this decision because we do not believe Canadians should be forced, under threat of fines, jail, or both, to disclose extensive private and personal information.”

In fact, there are two faces to the controversy: the compulsory collection of information and the purposes for which the data may be used.

Academics and others have categorized what pollster Allan Gregg last week called “a classic culture war cleavage” as a clash between the role of knowledge, evidence and reason and the role of intuition, “common sense” and “decency.” In this view, the elimination of the mandatory long form is seen by Mr. Harper’s philosophical critics as an expression of the current small-c conservative ideological tendency to value belief and conviction over “data” and rationality.

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning points out that conservatives see a battle as well: against the ideology of “social engineering” in the data-and-rationality camp.

In Harper’s Team, his book on Mr. Harper’s journey to power, Mr. Flanagan wrote that winning elections and controlling the government as much as possible is the most effective way of shifting the public philosophy.

“If you control the government, you choose judges, appoint the senior civil service, fund or de-fund advocacy groups, and do many other things that gradually influence the climate of opinion,” he said.

Writing in the online publication The Mark, University of Ottawa political scientist Paul Saurette said: “This is a remarkable statement. [Mr.] Flanagan is suggesting that … electoral victory is important primarily as a tool in the service of a much greater and longer-term ideological goal: the transformation of the broad public philosophy of Canada and the cultivation of an enduring set of conservative values and philosophical principles in Canadians.

“Once one appreciates that this perspective is quite likely shared by some of the key decision-makers in the current government, the policy shift towards a voluntary long census makes a lot more sense.”

Munir Sheikh

2010-07-23T09:23:00.003-04:00

Although it is highly unlikely Munir Sheikh will ever read this brief blog post, I would like to take a moment to express my admiration for a man who, in tendering his resignation as the head of Statistics Canada over the Harper Government's scrapping of the compulsory long census form, made what must have been the most difficult professional decision of his life. By deciding that the price to be paid for continuing in a job he must have relished, a job that represented the pinnacle of a 42-year career, Mr. Sheikh has shown that both personal and professional integrity are still alive in the world today.

In a country and a world where such public displays are lamentably rare, his example shines a piercing light on what is possible when human beings decide to act with honour and dignity for the greater good rather than the usual self-interest that defines so many of us.

May his principled choice provide inspiration for others in times to come.

The Furor Over the Census

2010-07-22T14:42:00.022-04:00

I will be the first to admit that higher mathematics, including statistical analysis, is not my forte. However, the almost universal condemnation the Harper Government has received for its decision to scrap compulsory completion of the long census form by 20% of the population has convinced me of the vital role it plays in, among other things, social and economic planning, both of which are essential to Canada's well-being. The matter is of such import that the head of Statistics Canada, Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh, in a lamentably rare demonstration of public integrity, has resigned over the issue. Indeed, the entire census debacle has led me to consider a number of things, not the least of which are a citizen's responsibilities within a democracy.

In an obvious nod to the Tories' reactionary power base, Industry Minister Tony Clement claims justification for ending the compulsory aspect of the long census form by asserting it is too intrusive upon people's privacy, yet another instance of government interference in citizens' lives. In fact, he claims that both Statistics Canada and the Government have fielded many complaints from people about this intrusion. Ironically, statistics do not support his claim, as both the Government and Statistics Canada have received only about three complaints each.

Nonetheless, even if it had received a large volume of complaints, would the Government have been justified in eliminating it? It is this question that got me pondering both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

The majority of us, I assume, are aware of our rights under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (especially in light of the fact that several of them were willfully violated by both the Government and the police during the recent G20 in Toronto). However, how often do we consider the obligations citizenship entails, along with the fact that we generally discharge those obligations faithfully, whether we like them or not?

Take, for example, jury duty. I have never known anyone who goes to the mailbox hoping to receive a summons for duty along with its potential to disrupt the normal flow of daily life, sometimes even for months at a time, with little or no financial compensation. Yet in spite of its intrusiveness, we accept it as one of our responsibilities under the law, one that helps to ensure a fair trial for the accused.

Similarly, despite a seemingly almost universal belief that taxes are too high, most of us, again in recognition of their importance in maintaining a society reflective of our values, pay them instead of attempting to defraud the government.

As well, whether they be municipal bylaws requiring us to clean up after our dogs or maintain our property to certain standards, traffic laws that forbid the running of red lights, provincial or federal laws prescribing penalties for criminal acts against property and people, the vast majority of us obey and support these intrusions, in no small measure because, once again, we appreciate their vital role in civil society, where the inclinations of the few do not trump the needs and values of the many.

So to live in society, by definition, requires reasonable limitations on personal freedoms; those limitations, in turn, entail a measure of government intrusion into our lives. However, by pandering to the worst instincts of a minority of the population, the Harper Government is once more undermining values that Canadians hold dear, thereby once again demonstrating its contempt for true democracy and the people it was elected to serve, yet two more reasons that the Conservatives are, in my opinion, unfit to continue to hold public office.

Reader Commentary on The Globe and Mail Website

2010-07-19T11:50:00.010-04:00

Although I subscribe to The Globe and Mail, I find myself checking its website several times a day, both for updates and content that is only available online. Despite its shortcomings, it really is the newspaper of record for me.

That being said, I have been profoundly disappointed with the 'semi-moderation' of their reader comment boards. It seems that almost anything can be posted, and it is only by alerting the moderator to some truly objectionable comments that they may be removed.

While the first few comments on any given story may contain some insightful observations, it never takes very long for the reactionary crowd, almost all of whom hide behind pseudonyms, to post their vile, often racist and completely nonconstructive comments, leading to an inevitable spiral downward into name-calling, labelling, and ad hominems.

While I almost never bother to read the comments anymore, I did yesterday. A story had run about Nelson Mandela's 92nd birthday; because he is a man I revere, I posted my own thoughts about him and what he represents, partly to offset the minority comments about him being a terrorist and communist, etc. One poster, whose comments were later removed, expressed the birthday wish that he “rot in hell.” I'm sure I wasn't the only one to alert the moderator about his offensiveness.

Why the Globe doesn't tighten up its comments policy is beyond me. To allow the drivel that these people post diminishes any chance of meaningful discussion and debases the paper itself. In my mind, a good start would be to require registration under one's actual name, with verification required before posting is allowed. After all, anonymous letters are not printed in the paper, and requiring actual identification of the poster would deter many of these cowardly hate-spewers.

To do nothing will only contribute to the spread of even more invective, thereby limiting the possibilities of civilized and constructive discourse.

More on G20 Charter Violations

2010-07-17T08:06:00.002-04:00

Today, several cities are planning rallies calling for any independent inquiry into police and government behaviour during the G20 Summit. Take a look at this video for yet another reason this is worth caring about.

Another Failure on the Part of the Liberal Party of Canada

2010-07-13T08:38:00.008-04:00

That I am not a supporter of the Harper Conservatives does not blind me to the many deficiencies of the Ignatief-led Liberals. When they had the chance to stop the Conservative omnibus budget bill, which contains myriad provisions wholly unrelated to budget matters (loosening up of environmental regulations and assessments, selling off AEC, privatizing parts of the Post Office service, etc.), the Liberals ensured they had insufficient members in the House so that they could vote against the bill without triggering an election, a budget being a confidence measure.

It then went on to the Senate, which putative Liberal Leader aspirant Bob Rae described as "the best place to amend the bill." Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, when the final vote came in the Senate yesterday, guess what, again there was an inadequate number of Liberal Senators in the Red Chamber to block the bill.

Could this have anything to do with last week's threat by Conservative Senator and former Conservative Party campaign chairman Doug Findley's threat that an election would ensue if the Senate didn't pass the entire bill intact?

Below is the full story from this morning's online Globe:

Senators skip town after Liberals fail budget-bill test

Gloria Galloway

1. School's out for summer. It took a long night and many words of despair from both Liberals and independents but the Senate passed a contentious omnibus budget bill Monday that contains measures its detractors say have little to do with the budget.

Bill C-9 is now law after opposition attempts to amend it were defeated by a vote of 48 to 42. It received royal assent late Monday night and the senators have been released to begin their summer vacations.

The Liberals and three of the four Senators who are not aligned with either major party opposed the bill, saying the minority Conservative government was burying measures within the 900 pages that it could not have pushed through the House of Commons as stand-alone items. Liberals in the House had allowed the bill to pass to avoid an election.

The legislation provides, among other things, for the sell-off of the power division of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the privatization of part of Canada Post and a major restructuring of environmental assessments.

Late Monday afternoon, the Conservatives moved to close debate on the issue and listened quietly as Liberals and independents rose to oppose it. Several hours later, the Tories managed to defeat amendments from the Senate finance committee, which would have hived off the controversial portions. And, finally, late in the evening, the bill was passed.

The Liberals say they tried to get enough of their members in their seats to stop the bill. Senator Terry Mercer of Nova Scotia, who has been laid up with a bad back and was not expected to make it to Ottawa for the vote, was in the chamber. But seven of his Liberal colleagues did not show up.

So, even though there were five Conservatives missing (independent Senator Jean-Claude Rivest voted with the Tories to pass the bill), the Liberals could not muster the forces to defeat it or change it.

But James Cowan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, spoke out against it.

“Selling off AECL, watering down environmental assessments, changing the authorities of the post office – these are significant policy issues that should be brought individually before Parliament so that interested Canadians can make their views known, and then Parliament can decide on their merit,” Mr. Cowan told the Red Chamber.

“Honourable senators, good public policy is not made this way. If these provisions did not belong in a budget bill before, then they certainly do not belong there now.”

What Will the Federal Conservatives Decide?

2010-07-12T12:33:00.003-04:00

Whether or not the House of Commons public safety committee examines the issues arising from the Charter Rights violations during the G20 Summit is in the hands of the Conservatives, as pointed out in the accompanying story. According to NDP MP Don Davies, who has pushed for an investigation, Conservative committee members aren't opposed, but aren't happy at the prospect of having to return to Ottawa for hearings.

Given that each year, our elected representatives seem to spend less and less time conducting Parliamentary business (my guess would be about 7 months this year, what with proroguing and a protracted summer recess), their carping rings a bit hollow.

MPs tackle summit security;

Gloria Galloway

1. Human rights at home. The question, NDP MP Don Davies says, is how to properly handle dissent and public assembly in Canada.

Mr. Davies, with the consent of the Liberals and the Bloc, has forced a meeting Monday of the Commons public safety committee to study the security and human-rights issues around last month’s G20 summit in Toronto.

Canada has fallen into an unhealthy pattern over the last 10 years of international political events, Mr. Davies argues. “There is increasingly substantial security and outbreaks of violence” as well as an escalation in interference with lawful protest, he told The Globe.

“I want us to move to a place where we can let people peacefully assemble.”
But it will be up to the Conservatives on the public safety committee to determine if the study Mr. Davies wants to conduct will go ahead.

The government could suggest to Tory committee chair Garry Breitkreuz that he call in sick. In that case a member of the opposition parties would have to take over Mr. Breitkreuz’s duties and, if the Conservatives provide a substitute for their absent member, they would gain a majority vote at the meeting.

Mr. Davies said Conservative committee members have indicated they do not oppose a study of the issues surrounding the summit. But, he said, they were not happy about the timing – this is the second time this month the members of the public safety committee have been recalled from their ridings for a special hearing.

So the first hour of the meeting will be devoted to the issue of whether there should be a meeting in the first place. If the answer is yes, Mr. Davies has lined up Nathalie Des Rosiers, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as a first witness.

Mr. Davies said he hopes the committee will commence the study while the events are still fresh in the minds of witnesses. He envisions multiple meetings and hopes to call witnesses including Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, RCMP Commission William Elliott and a representative of Ontario’s Liberal government.

Mr. Davies told the Hill Times that some prosecutors have suggested making it illegal for demonstrators to wear balaclavas — a tactic used by the Black Bloc demonstrators as they committed acts of vandalism in the streets of Toronto.
"I'm not suggesting that, I'm not proposing that, but we should be analysing these things, with a view to see how can we as a society, a modern democracy, be a model to the world," Mr. Davies told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, the union that represents many of the journalists who covered the event, including those at The Globe and Mail, has written to the committee to demand an independent federal inquiry of police actions at the summit.

“The inquiry should go beyond that initiated by the Toronto Police Services Board earlier this week,” the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild said in its letter.

“After all, this was a federally-coordinated police response so it only makes sense that the investigation be at the federal level. Otherwise, questions will be met with the classic ‘not my department’ response and the public will never get to the truth and crucial lessons will never be learned.”

How Long Can McGuinty and Harper Ignore the People?

2010-07-10T12:45:00.003-04:00

Given the fact that the Toronto Police Board and the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman are each going to launch probes, however narrow, into the violation of Charter Rights at the G20 Summit, the following story about an impending mass rally today at Queen's Park demanding a public inquiry into the fiasco leads one to wonder how long Messieurs McGuinty and Harper can ignore the legitimate concerns of the people. The key, it seems to me, is to keep the issue in the spotlight as long as possible.

Thousands expected at G20 public inquiry rally

Demonstration at the Ontario Legislature to protest police crackdown during the summit

Toronto — The Canadian Press Published on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:33AM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 10, 2010 11:38AM EDT

Two weeks after police cracked down on G20 demonstrations in Toronto, protesters will march again.

Thousands are expected to gather at the Ontario Legislature this afternoon to demand an independent public inquiry into security costs and police actions during the G20 summit.
Provincial New Democrat Party leader Andrea Horwath is expected to speak at the rally, which begins at 1 p.m.

Demonstrators are expected to march through the downtown core.

Almost 1,000 people were arrested during the summit weekend, after a group of vandals broke away from protesters, smashing windows and burning police cars.
Demonstrations are also expected in Halifax, Kingston and Montreal.

Some Heartening News

2010-07-09T11:50:00.005-04:00

The Globe and Mail reports that the Office of the Ombudsman, led by Andre Marin, is launching an investigation into the 'secret powers' granted to police for the G20 Summit. A tenacious and thorough individual, we can only hope that Marin is able to get to the bottom of the McGuinty Government's role in the entire shameful episode:

Ontario ombudsman to investigate secret G20 law

Probe to look at origin and communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed ahead of June summit

Karen Howlett
Toronto — Globe and Mail Update Published on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 10:45AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 09, 2010 11:39AM EDT

Ombudsman André Marin announced on Friday that his office is launching an investigation into sweeping new powers for police secretly approved by the McGuinty government.

The controversial rules allowed police to question and potentially arrest anyone near the security zone for the G20 summit in Toronto who refused to produce identification or be searched.

Mr. Marin said his office will probe the origin and subsequent communication of the sweeping changes to civil liberties in downtown Toronto, passed by the province prior to the June 26-27 G20 summit.

His office has received 22 complaints relating to the G20, including several alleging that a lack of transparency and public communication about the regulation led to an atmosphere of secrecy and confusion and contributed to violations of civil liberties.

“The complaints we’ve received so far raise serious concerns about this regulation and the way it was communicated, and I think there is a very strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened and how that affected the rest of the events of the G20 weekend,” Mr. Marin said in a news release.

In his first comments to the media this week about the regulation, Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged that his government could have done a better job to clear up confusion surrounding it.

His government has come under criticism from civil liberties experts and opposition members for failing to tell people that their rights had changed.
New Democratic Party justice critic has said: “This law was not only passed in secret, it was kept secret.”

The law was approved June 2 through an order-in-council, with no debate in the legislature. The regulatory amendment was quietly posted June 16 on the government's e-laws website. It came to light only after a York University student was held for five hours on June 25 for refusing to show identification near the security fence.
Mr. Marin said his office expects to complete its investigation within 90 days.

He is inviting anyone who has a complaint or relevant information to call 1-800-263-1830 during business hours or complete an online complaint form at www.ombudsman.on.ca .

Adam Radwanski is Still Working the G20 Charter Rights' Violation File

2010-07-08T09:23:00.003-04:00

It is reassuring to know that The Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski is continuing to pursue the very troubling questions that remain regarding the violation of Charter Rights during the G20 Summit in Toronto. Below I am reproducing one of his online columns that demonstrate his ongoing concern about these issues and why they matter. I have put in bold a few of his more salient points:

Why the 'five metres' mattered

Although it got a more positive response than I'd expected, a few people have asked me why I spent so much time last week covering the "five-metre" law that didn't really exist. After all, it wasn't what was used in most of the dubious arrests during the G20, which happened much further away from the security perimeter.

In her Saturday column, Christie Blatchford more or less summed up that line of thinking (though I have no idea if it was even remotely directed at me):

...in Toronto Star lingo, since “the sweeping powers” granted the police via the “secret” law saw them, according to Toronto Chief Bill Blair, arrest exactly one (1) person under the temporary regulation to the Public Works Protection Act, isn’t the angst-ridden, hyperbolic debate rendered, as someone brighter than me remarked recently, nothing but an intellectual exercise?

It would quite one thing if the 1,000 folks who were detained on G20 weekend were detained under the temporary regulation. The discussion would be meaningful.
But when it’s all said and done, it will turn out that most of those detained were arrested for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace, which is an arrest authority, not a criminal charge.

In my view, it’s a vile authority too, generally speaking easily misused by police, and it may have been misused here as well.

But the point is, it wasn’t under the new secret sweeping power, which was only partly secret and not very sweeping. It was under long-established common-law police authorities, such as arresting people for breach of the peace or to prevent a breach of the peace that has yet to take place, that most people were picked up.

You want to be angry about something, be angry about that.

Minor quibbles aside (it seems likely to me that at least two people were arrested under the new law), this seems as good an opportunity as any to explain why holding the province to account over the Public Works Protection Act is more than just an "intellectual exercise."

Admittedly, it happens to be the post-G20 angle I'm best-positioned to cover. Provincial politics is my beat, and this - unlike most of the other things that happened both inside and outside the perimeter - is where Dalton McGuinty's government played a role, and deserves to be held to account. That's especially important because, as I explained toward the end of one of my columns last week, the Liberals' lax handling of the police file has not been restricted to the G20.

But beyond that, it seems to me that the abdication of provincial responsibility in announcing and interpreting the temporary law speaks to a broader phenomenon: the choice of governments, through both their actions and inactions, to give police gratuitous leeway in securing these kinds of international summits.

I wrote about this in the week leading up to the summit, and my former colleagues on the editorial board followed up on it last week. I'll spare you a full rehash of those arguments, and leave it at this: When given a chance early last decade to set out parameters for what police can and can't do to ensure the security of events like the G20, the federal government instead wrote legislation that basically told the police to do whatever they want.

So the message from governments to police, even before the saga over the provincial regulation, was that politicians preferred a no-questions-asked approach to security. Then McGuinty's Liberals took it to new extremes - leaving it to the police to announce a temporary law that could lead to arrests, then failing to publicly correct them when they misinterpreted and misrepresented that law.

As it happened, the province got lucky. If more of the action had been closer to the perimeter, the consequences would have been much greater.

But to some degree, the Liberals' blind faith in the police - including the Premier's unqualified support for Chief Bill Blair in the middle of the controversy - had to reinforce the sense that they had free rein to do as they saw fit, whatever part of downtown Toronto they happened to be in.

Was it the most important story out of the G20? Almost certainly not. But these things didn't all happen in isolation. And if there's any hope that our governments will take more responsibility for the liberties/security balance before the next big international event rolls around, it's necessary to underscore how little responsibility they took this time.

Demagoguery is Alive and Well in the Ontario 'Progressive' Conservative Party

2010-07-07T19:49:00.005-04:00

As a guest columnist in the Toronto Sun, using demagogic rhetoric reminiscent of his mentor, former Premier Mike Harris, Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak amply demonstrates why he and his party are not ready to form the next government in Ontario. I have bolded certain parts of the following to underscore his inflammatory appeal to the extreme right wing of his party's supporters as he conveniently casts aside any consideration of Charter Rights, as if those rights should be available only to those with whom he agrees. Indeed, the perceptive reader will notice that not once does he address the violence perpetrated on peaceful protesters unjustly arrested and incarcerated, instead concentrating only on those who committed crimes, their actions somehow justifying everything the police did.

His final paragraph, you may notice, is rich in irony, likely unintentional.

Don’t blame cops for G20 mayhem

It wasn’t frontline police officers who smashed storefront windows and torched police cars

By Tim Hudak, Guest Columnist

The downtown core of Toronto was turned into a conflict zone by a group of lawless hooligans a little more than a week ago.

These reckless thugs were not in Toronto to protest a legitimate political cause. Instead they are part of a circuit of criminals who travel to international summits with one goal in mind — to destroy property, incite mayhem and terrorize law-abiding citizens.

Sadly, in the wake of the violence, a number of usual-suspect special interest groups are attempting to pin blame, not on the hooligans, but instead on our police services or the federal government.

But it wasn’t frontline police officers who spent a weekend smashing in storefront windows, and it wasn’t federal government officials who torched police cars.
Instead these were the acts of violent anarchists, with a long history of using “peaceful” protest marches at international summits as cover for reckless acts of extreme violence.

That is why I oppose the orchestrated attempt by these activists to demonize our police services in the wake of the G20 violence. I proudly stand behind the men and women of our police services that were faced with a daunting and difficult task of protecting the public against these professional vandals and hooligans.

After a week of silence on the G20, I hope Dalton McGuinty will join me in clearly supporting our men and women in uniform.

McGuinty should also have the courage to finally explain why his government passed a secret law to expand police powers during the G20 summit. I believe the public would have understood the necessity of these new powers to contain the violent thugs, but that does not mean McGuinty had the right to hide these new powers from the public.

We all know Ontario’s police officers have two fundamental responsibilities:
First, they are expected to preserve order and protect law-abiding families and businesses from criminal activity.

Second, they are expected to bring those responsible for criminal acts to justice.
It is on this second responsibility that we should now focus our attention.

We must make sure the thugs and hooligans who trashed downtown Toronto are held accountable for their crimes. The right to speak must never be confused with the right to vandalize property that tarnishes the reputation of our city and province.

The McGuinty government must do everything in its power to ensure the criminals behind this violence are caught, tried to the fullest extent of the law and held personally financially responsible for the cost of the damage they have caused.
In addition, the authorities should co-operate with any resident or business that wishes to pursue a civil action against the individuals and groups responsible for this violence.

In the meantime, the senior levels of government should establish a fund to compensate small business owners for property damages and the interruption of business caused by repairing the damages.

The hooligans behind the G20 violence gave our city a black eye on the world stage. We must not let special interest sideshows distract our attention from holding these criminals accountable for the harm they caused.

Now is the time for us to reclaim the reputation of our city and make it clear to the world that in Toronto, law-abiding citizens get protected, criminals get punished, and justice always gets done.

— Hudak is Ontario PC
Party Leader

A Brief Explanation

2010-07-07T15:39:00.005-04:00

Although anyone who happens to read my blog on a regular basis might be wondering if I have somehow lost my balance in that all recent posts have revolved around either news stories, my own commentary or that of others regarding the violation of Charter Rights during the G20, I feel the need to offer a small explanation and justification.

First, I have an almost lifelong interest in politics, especially local, provincial, and national. The entire G20 Summit, whether we are talking about the gathering of heads of state or the actions on the street, were political in nature, in that they affect us on both a micro and macro level.

Secondly, the abuse of authority is something that has preoccupied me since my days as both an elementary and secondary student within the Catholic school system, years during which I and many others were both psychologically and physically abused by nuns, priests, and lay teachers. But that topic deserves its own series of posts, which I may get to one of these days.

The third reason for my seeming obsession with the G20 fiasco is that how we define ourselves as Canadians is in no small part contingent upon the freedoms that we enjoy and far too often take for granted. While all of them are essential rights of citizenship, several of them were curtailed and, I would submit, unconstitutionally violated during the G20 in Toronto: freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.

One of the things I find especially troubling is the fact that many people, while enjoying their freedom of expression, have weighed in on these violations as if their inappropriateness is dependent upon whether or not we agree with the protesters. Several have said that peaceful protesters should have stayed away, that law-abiding citizens move when a police officer tell them to move, etc. Such comments seem to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of civil rights. Whether or not we agree with a cause has nothing to do with permitting the expression of that cause, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the law.

And that to me is the crux of the matter: there is ample evidence emerging that countless people committing no crimes were swept up in often violent mass arrests. This fact is not something to be facilely dismissed by anyone, whether you are a Premier, a police chief, a journalist or a private citizen, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. To do so is to further diminish those rights, leaving them open to the possibility of even worse abuse in the future.

So as long as questions remain and answers are withheld, I will be writing about this topic frequently. As well, I shall continue to reproduce stories from newspapers that I think are relevant, largely because most of those stories tend to be archived after seven days and thus no longer readily available.

Enough said for now.

A Shocking Story From the G20

2010-07-06T14:45:00.004-04:00

I just found a shocking story of a 57-year-old Thorold amputee who suffered incredible abuse at the hands of police while sitting at Queens Park on June 26th with his daughter and two other young people.

Click here to read about it.

Public Pressure is Paying Off

2010-07-06T11:33:00.005-04:00

Public pressure seems to be getting some results, judging by the decision of the Toronto Police Services Board to call for an independent inquiry into police abuse of authority during the G20 Summit in Toronto. This marks a reversal from last week, when the head of the board said no inquiry was needed, echoing the sentiments of both Police Chief Bill Blair and Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Here is the story from today's Globe and Mail:

Independent review of Toronto Police G20 conduct moves ahead

Turnabout comes just days after chair denied the need for civilian probe; Will look at ‘oversight, governance and policy’ on summit security

Anna Mehler Paperny

Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 9:58AM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 10:03AM EDT

In an about-face, Toronto police are moving to establish an independent civilian review of police conduct during the G20.

Alok Mukherjee, chair of the civilian body that oversees the police, put the motion forward just days after he said he sees no need for an external review despite strident calls to the contrary.

The review, which would scrutinize issues related to police “oversight, governance and policy” during and leading up to the summit weekend, when police arrested more than 1,000 people – only 263 of whom were charged with anything other than breach of peace.

Both police chief Bill Blair and Toronto Mayor David Miller defended police actions last week; in an interview with The Globe, Mr. Mukherjee said last week there was no need for an independent review after the force announced it was conducting its own inspection.

But he added that police may have made a mistake by failing to tell the public they'd misinterpreted added powers given police by the province.

Tuesday's move is a “prompt response” to reactions to G20 policing, Mr. Mukherjee told the police services board.

“This is a fairly complex issue we're trying to deal with,” he said. “It was a federal event and it presents some interesting issues of oversight and governance. This is just the first step in that process.”

What Rights were Abused During the G8 In Huntsville?

2010-07-05T12:28:00.006-04:00

Very little has been written about any problems during the G8 Summit in Hunts ville, partly, I suspect, because access into the town was very tightly controlled by the authorities, and the town of Huntsville, part of Federal Industry and Trade Minister Tony Clement's riding, benefited from substantial taxpayer dollar infusions to spruce up the town, including extensive renovations to its hockey rink and a $53,000 cabana.

However, as reported on CHCH TV, one of the property owners in the area offered some insight into the tactics used to gain legal permission to be on people's private property. During an interview, the man (whose name I do not recall) told the reporter that the police were going from home to home having people sign a waiver granting this permission. In a tactic reminiscent of the ancient Roman fire brigades that would not put out fires unless the property owners paid them, the man was told by the officer that if he didn't sign the waiver, in the event of trouble, the police would “not be able to offer him any protection.”

Besides being extortionate, that coercive tactic was an obvious lie, since, unless there has been a drastic change in the law, police do not need a homeowner's permission to enter the property if a crime is being committed.

Yet another example of police abuse of authority, and yet another reason that Dalton McGuinty's refusal to call an inquiry makes the Premier complicit in this abuse.

Video Evidence of Police G20 Transgressions

2010-07-05T08:42:00.005-04:00

While much of the videos of the Toronto G20 Summit depict acts by vandals or police moving in to arrest peaceful protesters, the following is different, in that it clearly shows violations of Charter Rights, and with absolutely no provocation. I suspect the York Region officers depicted therein will be disciplined by their superiors, not for their actions, but for the fact that they allowed the entire shameful episode to be captured on video. You be the judge:

">

Yet Another Damning Assessment of G20 Police Abuse

2010-07-04T14:49:00.003-04:00

The Globe's Tabeitha Southey has a personal account of her experience and observations on the street during last weekend's G20, an account that once again underscore's the inadequacy of Dalton McGuinty's response to calls for an inquiry into the whole ugly episode. I have bolded certain parts of the account:

Of a million G20 stories in this taken city, this was mine
If anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual

Tabatha Southey

From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:05PM EDT Last updated on Friday, Jul. 02, 2010 5:09PM EDT

I observed a confrontation between police and protesters last Saturday evening from both sides of the police line.

The protesters (vastly outnumbered by the riot police, a frequent sight that weekend) were on Queen Street West in Toronto, chanting, “Peaceful protest!” Many people were merely observing or passing by.

I didn't see any sign that property was being destroyed. And if anything, there was less black being worn on Queen than usual. Hipster cottage weekend or something, I guess.

People seemed mostly to want the right to be on the street and while I haven't particularly wanted to hang out on Queen Street West since 1992, as soon as a police officer told me that I couldn't, I wanted to do just that.

An officer threatened to arrest me for standing on the street (I was with a journalist and a photographer who lives in the building that we were in front of), but after two days of the G20 in Toronto, I was almost as inured to that threat as I was to the random searches I saw going on, everywhere, blocks away from the designated high-security zone.

Earlier that day, well before the much-publicized destruction on Yonge Street, I'd been threatened with arrest for “obstructing” a search by trying to take a picture (at a respectful distance) of two young men being searched.

An officer there had tried to grab my cellphone. Other officers had crowded around. They boisterously mocked the psychiatric patients coming out of the mental-health hospital behind me.

When I eventually, after a heated exchange, asked the officer for a badge number, he walked toward me repeatedly, sticking his chest out so that, if I didn't step back quickly, I'd be hit. As he did this, he yelled, “You want my badge number? You want my badge number? You want my badge number?”

I was scared. I didn't get the badge number. It's a tiny story beside many much more alarming ones, but these stories have filled this town up.

I spoke to the two shaken men afterward. They said they had been randomly searched. The police had confiscated from their backpacks a black T-shirt (which genuinely seemed to confuse them, apparently unaware of the Black Bloc clique of rioters), their tent poles and a package of tea, while repeatedly threatening to arrest them and accusing them of being members of groups the names of which they couldn't remember.

They had been struck by the fact that the officers were gratuitously rude to passersby, noting the mocking of the psychiatric patients as well. “It's like they really wanted a fight,” one said.

That had been my sense. I'll admit that my well-developed civic pride and years of watching Toronto police frequently show not merely restraint but compassion, with some truly patience-testing people, made me reflexively, if unfairly, wonder whether these officers were from out of town.

Later, at the checkout of a Mexican grocery store in the Kensington Market area, I heard the woman at the counter say that several days before, she had been stopped, asked for ID and searched.

None of this seemed helpful to me. Unless its purpose was to set a tone. Like the hundreds of riot police I saw charging toward a mostly peaceful protest at Queen's Park later that day, banging their shields, it escalated the tension – as did, I believe, those riot police, many mounted, I saw Saturday night on Queen Street, retreating from unarmed protesters with their weapons drawn.

Toward the end of that standoff, word went through the crowd that the “sound cannon” was being brought in, but instead the police simply left, to cheers, for no apparent reason.

A colourful ending to this story would be that a block of Queen Street then descended into anarchistic rule, from which it may never recover. But that's not what happened.

My friends and I may never forget how terrified we were as we stood there, after the police left, watching that angry mob try to figure out where to jump on the streetcar, maybe grab a cab. We saw first-hand the panic that always sets in when someone in Toronto says, “Yeah, me too. But where should we eat?”

Those kinds of standoffs can last for hours in this town. Usually, only the deployment of the “okay, seriously, the kitchen is closing soon, so we have to make a decision” cannon can resolve them.

I'm certain that we need a public (not police) inquiry to determine why we didn't have more of that kind of standoff last weekend.

Thomas Walkom's View of the G20 Violation of Charter Rights

2010-07-03T18:41:00.003-04:00

I'm pleased to see the press continuing to examine the abuses of authority that took place last week in Toronto, especially given Premier McGuinty's facile dismissal of the seriousness of the Charter Rights violations. I have highlighted in bold certain parts of Walkom's column that I think warrant particular attention:

Walkom: The G20 summit’s grim lessons for civil liberties

By Thomas Walkom National Affairs Columnist

Two things stand out from the street riots and subsequent police actions that swept downtown Toronto last weekend.

The first is the state blatantly abused its powers. Summits legitimately require security; but in this one, governments went over the top.

The federal government transformed the city’s downtown into a no-go zone. The provincial government secretly passed new regulations to give police extraordinary search and seizure powers and then, when citizens found out, pretended that it hadn’t. The police used their authority to prevent breaches of the peace as an excuse to jail citizens who were committing no crimes.

The second is that most people don’t care. Polls show that more than 70 per cent of Torontonians approve of these abuses.

For that we can thank the small group of rioters who burned police cars and smashed store windows last Saturday. The logic behind those actions (and yes there is a logic) flows from the theory that capitalism is based on violence, albeit violence that is usually veiled. By provoking the state, this intrinsic violence will be revealed, thereby radicalizing the population against both capitalism and the state.
The problem with this theory, as the Red Brigades and other left-wing terrorists found in the 1970s, is that such provocations drive the general population to authoritarianism, not revolution.

Faced with a choice between order and civil liberties, people almost invariably choose order. Think the Nazis in 1930s Germany; think the PATRIOT Act in post 9/11 America.

In last weekend’s brouhaha, governments and the so-called anarchists fed on and supported one another. By threatening to disrupt the summit, the anarchists ensured that the fence would be built. By building the fence, the government ensured that the anarchists would try to attack it. Each side kept upping the ante until the events of last weekend became almost inevitable.

In the end, the violence that always lies behind state authority did show itself to those who had assumed they were immune.

Andrew MacIsaac, a 24-year-old lawyer observing the demonstrations for the Law Union, was swept up by police early Sunday morning and held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for almost 20 hours. He tells a now-familiar story.

MacIsaac says he and others in the peaceful protest were arrested under the broad authority of police to detain those they think might be about to engage in a breach of the peace.

He was not permitted to contact a lawyer; he was kept handcuffed in a cage with others. He was given two cheese sandwiches over the period and three styrofoam cups of water. The open portable toilet in his cage had no toilet paper (MacIsaac tore off part of his shirt sleeve to help a fellow inmate); he was never formally notified of the charges—if any—levied against him.

In police state terms, this is relatively minor. MacIsaac wasn’t chained in stress positions, as he might have been at Guantanamo Bay. Nor was he flayed with rubber cables, as he might have been in Egypt.

But what’s interesting is that some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms. He was kept deliberately disoriented; usually, he didn’t know what time it was. He was kept uncomfortable; the combination of bound wrists and concrete floor made it impossible for him to sleep. His sense of self-worth was undermined by an array of minor indignities such as the lack of toilet paper.

In particular, he was kept isolated from the outside world. Requests to call a lawyer were never formally denied, just put off to some undefined and never-reached point in the future.

At one point, an official in plain-clothes told him that the federal government had declared martial law.

When he was released, MacIsaac phoned his mother (it was her birthday). Then, in what may be a fitting epitaph for the entire Toronto G20 Summit disaster, he describes what he did next.

“I took a cab home and I wept.”

Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.

A Mother's Lament

2010-07-03T13:08:00.002-04:00

There is a fine letter in today's Hamilton Spectator which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. Eloquently expressed, the writer addresses the abuses of authority that transpired in Toronto last weekend, but hers is a very personal, as well as philosophical, expression of concern over our basic rights.

Mourning Canadian democracy

July 03, 2010
Roberta McQuade
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Jul 3, 2010)

Re: G20 summit and policing

The fallout from the debacle of the G20 will felt by all Canadians for some time to come. Today, I mourn the loss of my innocence, in believing I live in a democracy. I did not celebrate Canada Day. That morning at dawn, I removed all my Canada Day flags and decorations from my property.

By virtue of my profession, I travel the world. I have seen first-hand the police actions in third world countries directed at those who would "dare to speak out" and have their voices heard.

To think I would see the "trampling" of our collective rights and the right to "free speech" being discarded is devastating to me as a once proud Canadian. The actions of police in arresting and charging those who were peacefully exercising their rights is something I would expect to witness anywhere else but Canada.

The words "the true north strong and free" of our national anthem are now a mockery.
My youngest daughter was a victim of this suspension of our rights. She was arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and obstruct police. This young woman headed the largest ever contingent of university students to post-Katrina New Orleans, on a Habitat build, this young woman slept in -30C temps outdoors to highlight the plight of the homeless, this young woman volunteers with a soup kitchen. This young woman is a dedicated pacifist who would not even kill a bug.

And this young woman is the daughter of a policeman who was on G20 duty. The police officer who beat her with his/her baton would not have known that. Not everyone was an "anarchist" and armed. Some like my daughter were just there to suport their causes in a peaceful, lawful manner.

I for one will be asking the hard questions of my MPP and MP. And I will voice my outrage and "punish" those who allowed this travesty to happen by my vote in the next elections.

Nothing less than a public inquiry is in order. Canada's reputation for freedom and democracy has suffered a black eye in the court of public opinion, not only here at home, but worldwide.

The Premier Comes Out of Hiding

2010-07-02T20:29:00.001-04:00

Well, Premier McGuinty has finally emerged from hiding, likely having seen the Angus Reid poll revealing that “73 per cent of Torontonians and two-thirds of Canadians believe police treatment of protesters was justified during the G20 summit. “

His confidence thus bolstered that there will be minimal political fallout from last weekend's Charter Rights' violations by the Toronto Police, and his Government's failure to correct the fallacies about 'non-existent' powers, McGuinty's performance (seven days in the making!) suggested a man somewhat truculent and completely unapologetic for the incredibly serious abuses of ordinary citizens' rights last week. Adamant in his refusal to call an inquiry, McGuinty said that those who felt their rights had been 'abridged' (I love that euphemism) have adequate avenues for redress. Sadly, this is yet another instance of the Premier's failure of leadership in that his 'solution' does nothing to shed light on the systemic failure that led to the aforementioned 'abridgement' of Charter Rights. Until the reasons for that failure are known, Canadians dare not rest easy.

BTW, my nose is still raw.

Adam Radwanski - Part 2

2010-07-02T14:08:00.003-04:00

I was pleased to see that the Globe's Adam Radwanski is continuing to ask the questions that need to be asked about the abuse of power and the trammeling of our Chart Rights at last weekend's G20 Summit. Below I am reproducing the note I sent him this morning commending his efforts thus far, followed by today's column:

Dear Mr. Radwanski,

Just a short note to thank you for your ongoing analysis of the actions of the police and the McGuinty Government during Toronto's G20 Summit. While it is undoubtedly the hope of both Chief Blair and Premiere McGuinty that this issue will soon fade from Canadians' consciousness, journalistic efforts such as yours will go a long way toward ensuring this doesn't happen. You and the Globe are to be commended for your continued examination of last weekend's very troubling curtailment of Charter Rights, police and government deception, and betrayal of public trust.

Keep up the excellent work.

A timeline on the G20 five-metre rule that didn’t exist

How the law on the summit security fence was misinterpreted is shrouded in confusion

Adam Radwanski

From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 7:36PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 10:44PM EDT

The story around a G20 security regulation quietly passed by the Ontario government has continually changed.

Both the province and Toronto police now acknowledge there was no rule that people merely passing by the summit’s security fence were required to submit to searches and identification checks, and could be arrested if they failed to comply. But how the law was misinterpreted by police, and why the public was allowed to believe until the summit’s conclusion that it was still being enforced, remains shrouded in confusion.

What follows is a timeline of the secret law that wasn’t, taking into account the recent revelation that police were finally told by the province – after at least a couple of arrests – that they were wrongly interpreting the regulation they themselves had asked for.

June 2: On the request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, Dalton McGuinty's cabinet approves a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act. Its aim is to ensure that police are legally authorized to search and demand identification of anyone attempting to enter the security perimeter in downtown Toronto during the G20 summit. There is no announcement.

June 16: The regulation is quietly posted on the government's e-Laws website, but passes unnoticed. (It's not slated to be published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.)

June 22: When explicitly asked by The Globe and Mail which laws provide for the security measures taken during the G20, two spokespeople for the Integrated G20 Security Unit – including at least one member of the Toronto police – fail to mention the Public Works Protection Act.

June 24: The regulation first comes to light, as at least two activists are arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Neither appears to have been trying to enter the perimeter. In both cases, police cite a rule that extends their identification and search powers to five metres outside the security fence.

June 25: It's widely reported that, under the provincial regulation, individuals passing by up to five metres outside the security fence can be arrested by police if they fail to show identification or consent to a search. (The regulation, on first glance, appears to confirm this power.)

June 25: At a news conference, Chief Blair says, “The five-metre zone around the fence is for the protection of the security barrier.”

June 25: In an interview, Mr. McGuinty seems to confirm a major change to the law by referring to “something extraordinary happening inside our province,” while affirming his faith in Chief Blair.

June 25: Police realize they'd misinterpreted the regulation, and the “five metres” actually refers to an area inside the fence. (It’s later reported that it was the province that informed them – see below.)

June 26-27: Despite continued media coverage of the “five-metre” rule, no attempt is made by either the province or the police to make clear that it doesn't exist. As a result, Torontonians and visitors remain under the impression that they can be arrested just for passing by the security fence without identification.

June 27: To counter complaints that Ontarians weren't made aware of the new law, the government directs reporters to an advertisement taken out by Toronto police in some newspapers prior to the summit. The ad, titled “What you need to know about the G20 Summit,” makes no mention of the Public Works Protection Act, any recent provincial decisions, or a five-metre rule.

June 28: When contacted, the Premier’s Office discusses the five-metre rule without indicating that it didn't actually exist.

June 29: Chief Blair acknowledges that the five-metre rule never existed, but hints that he didn't correct the record because he “was trying to keep the criminals out.”

June 29: When asked by The Globe and Mail whether any action was taken by the government to get police to stop wrongly enforcing the regulation, a provincial spokesperson responds: “The application of the regulation over the weekend was operational in nature, and we do not interfere in police operational decisions.” The spokesperson also insists “the language of the regulation is very clear.”

June 29: Another government official acknowledges that the regulation was “confusing,” but says that – despite contradictory video evidence – the government does not believe there were any arrests under the non-existent rule.

June 30: The Police Services Board tells The Globe and Mail that, in fact, it was the province that informed police on June 25 – following the arrests – that the regulation was being wrongly interpreted.

That, at least, is the version of events as it currently stands. Given the number of times that the official accounts have shifted over the past week, it may well change again before long.

Will Dalton See His Shadow Today?

2010-07-02T08:41:00.000-04:00

It has now been seven days since Premier McGuinty last communicated with Ontarians. Like the elusive Wiarton Willy, one wonders when he does finally emerge from his lair whether he will see his metaphorical shadow and go back into hiding, or feel it is safe politically to once more walk among us.

Canada Day 2010

2010-07-01T08:35:00.005-04:00

I would like to wish my fellow Canadians a Happy Canada Day, but unfortunately I am not in a celebratory mood, the events of last weekend in Toronto still weighing very heavily on my mind. I was listening to some of the spin being offered by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair yesterday on CFRB as he was being interviewed by the host, failed politician John Tory. Mr. Tory presented him with questions that, on one level seemed reasonable enough, but upon hearing Bill Blair's responses, I realized were only props to offer the Chief a platform from which he uttered his too pat explanations for the actions of his police as well as his failure to inform the public of the 'fact' that the sweeping powers he allegedly requested months earlier from the MCGuinty Government did not exist. (The latter was explained by telling the audience that he was too busy with protesters to set the record straight.)

As well, interestingly enough, at least in the 45 minutes of the show I heard, no mention was made of the failure of the McGuinty Government to inform the public of the 'truth' about the 5 metre rule.

Incidently, it is now Day 6 since Premiere McGuinty has been heard from, apparently in too many meetings to be able to spend a moment to address some very troubling questions. Or is he hoping that the public has an extraordinarily short attention span and that all will be forgotten by next week?

This morning I read the Globe and Mail's Facts and Arguments page, which offers an eyewitness account of the police storming the peaceful assembly of citizens outside of the detention centre where so many protesters, none of whom were Black Bloc anarchists as far as I know, were being held after having had their Charter Rights violated.

Here is the the essay:

Swept from a peaceful protest

It was like a Sunday school picnic outside the G20 detention centre. Then police officers stormed the crowd of protesters. There was smoke and sounds of shooting

Cinders McLeod

From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:27PM EDT

It was a slow start to the day. My teenaged son and daughter turned on the television to find that the number of G20 protest-related arrests had risen to 400 from 70 since the Saturday night before.

Craig Kielburger of Me to We and Free the Children fame was interviewing a young woman who was joining a march to the temporary detention centre in Toronto’s east end because her friend had been arrested the night before. My son Diarmid had wanted me to walk with him on Saturday, but it had been some time since I had marched.
I had gone on quite a few during the years I lived in London and Glasgow – including the infamous poll tax march of 1990. I still had my yellow “The Enemy Within” button from the Thatcher days. (My community took ironic possession of her insult). So I knew the spirit wasn’t completely lost. We had spent most of Saturday in front of the TV. Now Diarmid and Anya were asking me if we could join the group at the detention centre.

I had watched that centre grow over the past few months – watched them bring in the concrete ramparts and fencing and witnessed the growing police presence. It was a menacing landmark in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I didn’t feel good about it from the start. I didn’t feel good about the swell of arrests overnight. And I didn’t feel good about teaching my children that we should just sit and let the world be interpreted to us by TV. Did good citizens stay home and mimic the broadcasters or endeavour to find the truth out for themselves?

I thought since the detention centre was local and far away from the G20 security zone, it would be a gentle introduction into the peaceful art of protest. I cared for the community, I cared for the people who were unjustly detained and I cared that my children cared too.

So we got together a knapsack with water and cameras and walked the 15 minutes to the detention centre. My partner David was going to walk our puppy first, then join us.

It was warm and we were chatty as we walked to be part of something. When we arrived, we stood back from the small crowd. Some were sitting, some standing, all facing the police lined up in front of the detention centre. Some were singing, some chanting, some drawing birds in chalk on the pavement. There were young folk, folk my age, folk with dogs, folk with children on their shoulders, older folk and media.
I think there were three releases from the prison in the hour we were there. Every time someone was released, the crowd cheered and the media swarmed. It reminded me of the Sunday school picnic feeling that existed in Trafalgar Square before the horses stormed 20 years ago.

I should have listened to my parallel thinking, for with no warning, there was a sudden penetration and retreat in the crowd. The police had moved in for a couple of arrests.

I called Diarmid and Anya in closer. David was there now. He was our anchor as we moved in and out to take pictures. Tensions eased a little.

Then, without warning, police officers stormed the peaceful crowd, swinging their sticks and throwing people to the ground.

I saw Anya being pushed by one of the group of police. I screamed out her name. They threw the young man next to her to the ground. Diarmid ran toward the skirmish just as a kind boy pulled Anya out of the policemen’s path. She looked so thin and vulnerable and 14 in her short shorts beside the black, violent swarm.
The front line of protesters sat down again, hands held in the air in peace signs, chanting, “We are peaceful, how ’bout you.”

Someone called out to take care because a line of police officers was approaching from the other end of the street. I had just enough time to take in the notion that we were surrounded when a line of riot police moved in on the crowd. There was smoke and sounds of shooting. Diarmid and Anya ran to us and we all turned to run down a side alley. I felt a punch on my back and calmly thought, “Oh, that’s what a rubber bullet feels like.”

We found our way to the nearest street and headed for home. Diarmid and Anya walked side by side, all sibling rivalry forgotten. They now had a common enemy: injustice. They knew the police had a job to do, but what they had witnessed wasn’t it.

There were three haunting moments for me. One was seeing a young girl being slung to the ground and then forced, skinny limbs everywhere, into an unmarked police van. Another was seeing my daughter stand beside danger. That moment will never leave me. And the last was seeing people walking up the street, hands above their heads in surrender as if they had committed some terrible crime. Walking? Talking? Caring? We didn’t commit the criminal act, unless the laws have secretly changed overnight and the powers that be have neglected to inform us of those changes too.

Once home, we downloaded our photos, posted them online and listened to the news tell us what we knew not to be true (that there were no rubber bullets fired). Anya was on the phone to a local news station wanting to tell her story, but she never got through. I understand why it was so important to her, for the same reason I wrote this.

We tell our stories to regain our sense of self and our sense of our rights after they have been so brutally, and without warning, taken away from us. We tell them to protect the values we feel are Canadian. To serve and protect. Whom? What? O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Tell me: Who are the guards of Canada?

Cinders McLeod is a design editor at The Globe and Mail and lives in Toronto.

Thank God for People Like Adam Radwanski

2010-06-30T10:20:00.002-04:00

Even though the front page of today's Globe has been taken over by other news, within its pages is an incisive article by Adam Radwanski that is highly critical of both the McGuinty Government and Police Chief Bill Blair. The article follows:

McGuinty washes his hands of police mistreatment allegations

Ontario Liberals prepared to give police carte blanche

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010 10:29PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 10:03AM EDT

It’s even worse than it originally appeared.

Not only did Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals place limits on civil liberties without telling anyone – but they also then washed their hands as police misrepresented and misused their new powers.

It’s a glaring abdication of responsibility, reflective of a government overly content to give police carte blanche even in the most volatile situations.
In this instance that free rein seems to have been abused, not least by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.

For several days, most everyone was under the impression that the province – through a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act – had very quietly given police the power to conduct searches and demand identification up to five metres outside the security fence erected for last weekend’s G20 summit. They were under that impression because police acted as though it was the case.

The legislation was cited in last Thursday’s arrests of at least two activists, neither of whom seems to have tried to enter the zone. There is video evidence of officers citing the five-metre rule as they demanded that one of those activists, a rather harmless-looking, megaphone-wielding member of a group calling itself “the Love Police,” stop filming video well outside the fence.

Chief Blair, who requested the regulation in the first place, now claims that he only realized last Friday that the “five metres” refers to an area inside the fence, at which point he told his officers to stop invoking it. But he seemingly implied to a reporter Tuesday that he was willing to allow the public to continue to think through the weekend that police powers existed where they really didn’t, because he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”

Clearly, Chief Blair has a lot to answer for. But it was the Liberals who set this mess in motion, and declined to put an end to it when they had ample chance.
First, the government failed to announce its new law. A simple press release could have explained what the regulation, which is worded in such a way that even police claim to have been confused by it, did and didn’t cover. Instead, the province buried it on a government website, such that nobody heard about it until an arrest was made.

Worse, the Liberals made no effort over the weekend to set the record straight, even though virtually every media outlet was reporting that people merely passing by the fence could find themselves in deep trouble. Mr. McGuinty could have stepped forward and reassured the public that the liberties of anyone not trying to enter the security zone were intact. Instead, he offered only “a lot of confidence in Chief Blair” and “very strong support of this time-limited extraordinary measure,” which reinforced the impression that the latter included the zone’s surrounding area.

Now, the Liberals are ducking any responsibility for the fact that they effectively (if inadvertently) gave police powers they were never intended to have. “The language of the regulation is very clear,” a spokesperson said, even as other senior Liberals acknowledged that they themselves were confused by it. Meanwhile, the Premier is nowhere to be seen, having not talked to reporters yet this week.

Behind the Liberals’ nonchalance about the whole affair lies what seems to be a wild overreaction to behaviour of the previous government.

Mike Harris’s Conservatives were accused of helping to overheat the standoff with aboriginals in Ipperwash Provincial Park, at which unarmed protester Dudley George was killed by the Ontario Provincial Police. So the Liberals came to office vowing never to interfere with police tactics – a policy they’ve maintained with religious conviction ever since.

It’s raised eyebrows before, particularly when the government seemed indifferent to the controversial way the OPP handled another standoff with natives in Caledonia.

But it’s now been taken to new and absurd extremes.

Nobody else will be arrested under this month’s botched regulation. But the message to police is clear: The current government couldn't care less how they do their jobs, even when they’re doing them wrong - and wrongly applying that government's decisions in the process.

Police Chiefs and Premiers

2010-06-29T20:04:00.010-04:00

I have to confess that my nose is presently feeling quite abraded and raw, not surprising given its strenuous workout in today’s smell tests, beginning with the spectacle of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair displaying a cache of ‘weapons’ seized from protesters that turned out to be less than claimed. First, an astute CBC reporter asked about the cross bow that was given prominence. Hadn’t that, in fact, been seized from a car before the summit began and determined to have nothing to do with the G20? Well yes, the good chief sheepishly admitted that it shouldn’t have been there, as reported in The Globe and Mail:

A car search last Friday netted a cross bow and chain saw but they were not determined to be G20 related, and no charges were laid. When this was pointed out, Chief Blair acknowledged the items should not have been displayed but said “everything else” was seized from summit protesters.

However, police also included objects taken from a Whitby, Ont., man who was heading to a role playing fantasy game in Centennial Park Saturday morning. As was reported by the Globe on Saturday, Brian Barrett, 25, was stopped at Union Station for wearing chain mail and carrying a bag with an archery bow, shield and graphite swords. His jousting gear was seized by police, but was on display Tuesday, even though he was not charged and police told a Globe reporter it was a case of bad timing.

The critical thinker, of course, would have even more reason after this display to question the veracity of what he or she was being told. But then things got worse. Blair announced that there was no five-metre rule in place allowing police to search bags and demand identification from interlopers who had violated the police’s ‘comfort zone.’ His justification for this alleged lie: “I was trying to keep the criminals out.”

I say alleged lie, because this came only after an announcement from the Ministry of Community Safety made an announcement that “all the cabinet did was update the law that governs entry to such things as court houses to include specific areas inside the G20 fences — not outside.

A ministry spokeswoman says the change was about property, not police powers, and did not include any mention of a zone five metres outside the G20 security perimeter. “

However — and my nose was really starting to hurt by this point — we remember Dalton McGuinty’s statement of support for the police on Friday after word got out about the secret order-in-council suspending some of our Charter Rights:

Premier Dalton McGuinty denies it was an abuse of power for his government to secretly approve sweeping new powers for police.

“I just think it’s in keeping with the values and standards of Ontarians,” McGuinty told the Toronto Star on Friday amid a battery of complaints from opposition parties, city councillors, civil libertarians and regular Torontonians that the new rules were kept secret and, some say, may go too far.

The rules allow police to arrest and potentially jail anyone refusing to produce identification or be searched within 5 metres of the G20 security zone.

“Most Ontarians understand that there’s something extraordinary happening inside our province,” the Premier said. “We’ve tried to limit the intrusiveness to a specific secure zone as much as we can by working together with our police.”

Despite the fact that it was front page news on several of Ontario’s dailies, Premier McGuinty did nothing to disabuse the public about this seemingly inaccurate information, which leads me to conclude a number of limited possibilities:

He is so inept a Premier that, despite the alleged regulation having been passed secretly by his Cabinet, he knew none of the details;

Chief Blair was lying about these special powers, promulgated throughout the media and eliciting mass confusion and outrage. Were this so, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon McGuinty to immediately terminate the Chief, having gone far beyond anything General Stanley McCrystal did to warrant firing?

He was colluding with the police to continue to perpetrate this ‘falsehood,’ a possibility that would justify our asking how committed the Premier is to Charter Rights and basic democracy;

The regulation was as everyone understood it, but because of the widespread revulsion it inspired, the Liberal Government, realizing the potential political consequences to be so very costly, disavowed any relationship to the odious regulation, therefore requiring Bill Blair to ‘fall on his sword’ over this issue.

The fact that the position of Chief of Police is, de facto, a political one, would likely have convinced Blair that his future would be far better served by obeying his political masters than hewing to the path of integrity.

Further evidence of government and police lying to the public emerges as the McGuinty Government is now stating that no one was arrested under any extended laws, but only regular criminal laws. The critical thinking public will, of course, want to know why 31-year-old Dave Vasey was arrested when he ventured within the allegedly non-existent boundary, refusing to either show his i.d. or allow his bag to be searched, believing he was only enjoying his basic rights of citizenship. Told he would then have to leave, he refused, after which he was arrested under this ‘non-existent’ rule. What then, was the offense for which he was arrested?

These and other questions must be forcefully asked and re-asked in the days to come. To do anything less would be criminal.

Summit Update

2010-06-26T16:44:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, violence has now erupted in Toronto, apparently caused by about 50 anarchists. I've never understood what they think is accomplished by setting cars on fire, breaking windows, etc.

Unfortunately, those who see things in a simplistic manner will now likely say that the violence validates the suspension of our civil liberties by the McGuinty Government, conveniently ignoring the fact that police already have sufficient powers without those draconian measures.

Waldo Has Been Found

2010-06-26T12:14:00.002-04:00

Apparently, Premiere McGuinty, contrary to my assertion in my last post, did emerge from hiding to make the following statement:

Premier Dalton McGuinty denies it was an abuse of power for his government to secretly approve sweeping new powers for police.

“I just think it’s in keeping with the values and standards of Ontarians,” McGuinty told the Toronto Star on Friday amid a battery of complaints from opposition parties, city councillors, civil libertarians and regular Torontonians that the new rules were kept secret and, some say, may go too far.

The rules allow police to arrest and potentially jail anyone refusing to produce identification or be searched within 5 metres of the G20 security zone.

“Most Ontarians understand that there’s something extraordinary happening inside our province,” the Premier said. “We’ve tried to limit the intrusiveness to a specific secure zone as much as we can by working together with our police.”

You can read the entire account in The Toronto Star.

Where's Waldo (a.ka. Premier McGuinty)?

2010-06-26T09:17:00.004-04:00

Despite the fact that over 24 hours have passed since the revelation that the McGuinty Government secretly passed a law giving the police unprecedented powers of arrest for those venturing within 5 metres of the perimeter fence at Toronto's G20 summit, the Premier, as far as I have been able to determine, is nowhere to be found. Is this leadership? Or does he vainly hope that people will quickly forget this issue when these extraordinary powers are rescinded on June 28th?

Below is the message I left for him on his website

I was absolutely disgusted to learn that your government, through an order-in-council, secretly passed a law allowing for the arrest of people coming within 5 metres of the security perimeter at the G20 should they refuse to provide identification to police. Compounding this unwarranted abrogation of our Charter Rights is the fact that your Government kept this information from the citizens who have always understood they were not subject to arbitrary arrest in this country.

This action, and the cowardly attempt to conceal it, has shaken my confidence in your leadership, and is leading me to reassess my choices come next election.

His website does require you to leave your personal information, but I didn't see any harm in that ….. Just a moment, who are those men at the front door, knocking so loudly?

More On Our Fragile Charter Rights

2010-06-25T11:20:00.002-04:00

My last two posts have tried to address the issue of the sudden abrogation of Canadian Charter Rights during the G8 summit in Huntsville and the G20 in Toronto. The following article reveals that things are even worse than I thought, in that the McGuinty Liberal Government of Ontario passed secret enabling legislation, known as an order-in-council, allowing for the arrest of anyone who comes within five metres of the security fence and refuses to provide identification to the authorities. The law provides for fines and jail time upon conviction. Again, this was passed secretly, and the public WAS NOT INFORMED! SHAME ON THEM. One person has already been arrested.

G20 law gives police sweeping powers to arrest people

Jennifer Yang Staff Reporter

The province has secretly passed an unprecedented regulation that empowers police to arrest anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify themselves or agree to a police search.

A 31-year-old man has already been arrested under the new regulation, which was quietly passed by the provincial cabinet on June 2.

The regulation was made under Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act and was not debated in the Legislature. According to a provincial spokesperson, the cabinet action came in response to an “extraordinary request” by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who wanted additional policing powers shortly after learning the G20 was coming to Toronto.

The regulation kicked in Monday and will expire June 28, the day after the summit ends. While the new regulation appeared without notice on the province’s e-Laws online database last week, it won’t be officially published in The Ontario Gazette until July 3 — one week after the regulation expires.

“It’s just unbelievable you would have this kind of abuse of power where the cabinet can create this offence without having it debated in the Legislature,” said Howard Morton, the lawyer representing Dave Vasey, who was arrested Thursday under the sweeping new police powers.

“It was just done surreptitiously, like a mushroom growing under a rock at night.”
According to the new regulation, “guards” appointed under the act can arrest anyone who, in specific areas, comes within five metres of the security zone.

Within those areas, police can demand identification from anyone coming within five metres of the fence perimeter and search them. If they refuse, they face arrest. Anyone convicted under the regulation could also face up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

“It reminds me a little bit of the War Measures Act,” said lawyer Nathalie Des Rosiers of the new regulation. Des Rosiers is a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been working to monitor arrests during the summit. “This is highly unusual to have this declaration done by order-in-council without many people knowing about it.”

Des Rosiers learned of the regulation Thursday afternoon, shortly after Vasey was arrested while standing near the security fence.

Vasey said he was exploring the G20 security perimeter with a friend when they were stopped by police and asked for identification. Vasey says he had also been searched by police the night before.

According to Vasey, police explained there was a bylaw in place obligating him to provide identification but he refused, acting on the advice of a “Know Your Rights” information pamphlet given to him by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, a group assisting protesters.

The York University master’s student was taken into custody at around 4 p.m. He was brought to the Eastern Ave. detention centre, a former movie studio that has been temporarily converted into a prisoner holding pen. According to his charge sheet, he was charged with refusing to comply with a peace officer under the act.

Vasey said he only learned of the new regulation after his release, at around 9 p.m. The summit’s Integrated Security Unit did not respond to interview requests from the Star.

According to Vasey’s lawyer, neither he nor his colleagues at the law union were aware of this draconian new regulation. Des Rosiers said the CCLA and protesters have met with summit officials on several occasions and the regulation was never mentioned.

“They don’t even have signs up saying you can’t be within five metres or you’re subject to the following,” Morton said. “If they really wanted to keep the peace, they would have announced the regulation.”

According to Laura Blondeau, an aide to Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci, the regulation “ensures that police have the legal authority” they need for such a massive security zone.

“They really wanted to ensure they could provide a certain level of security,” Blondeau said Thursday. “The regulation does not include private residences or businesses. It’s for certain streets and sidewalks in the security perimeter.”
Blondeau said “rightly or wrongly,” the new regulation can be compared with airport security.

“You don’t have to get on that plane if you don’t want to be searched and wanded,” she said, adding that Bartolucci carefully weighed public safety and civil liberty concerns before agreeing to the one-time amendment.

“It was an extraordinary request. This is just for Toronto, just for the G20,” she said. “Given the environment that the police were expecting, they needed to be prepared.”

Blondeau emphasized the law only affects those trying to enter the security zone and applies solely to police officers, not to private security guards contracted for the summit.

If someone declines to comply it empowers the police to turn them away — or face being searched.

According to government lawyers, the regulation was passed by cabinet using what is known as a “covering” order-in-council.

“The authority for the regulation is contained in the PWPA (Public Works Protection Act). The PWPA authorizes the designation by cabinet of places as ‘public works,’” the lawyers said.

The Public Works Protection Act was created in 1990 and defines a “public work” as everything from a railway to a bridge or a provincial building. The act says any other building, place or work can also be “designated a public work by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Morton said he’s unaware of any precedents to such a regulation being passed in Ontario and questions if it is even constitutional.

Des Rosiers said the regulation runs contrary to the Charter of Rights because it prohibits people from generally circulating on public land.

The G20 security fence has been a magnet for passersby and protesters alike, with many people approaching to take pictures or just quench their curiosity.

For Des Rosiers, she is especially worried because most people, including protesters, will operate under the assumption they have a right to refuse handing over identification to police.

“Protesters would have been told that the law of the land is that you don’t have to talk to police officers if you don’t want to,” she said. “This changes things because even if you attempt to approach, it gives the power to the guard to demand identification.

“It’s a significant intrusion on people’s rights.”

An Update on My G20 Summit Inquiry

2010-06-24T08:35:00.002-04:00

In my last posting, I questioned the legality of the stern security measures imposed for the G20 summit in Toronto. In yesterday's Globe and Mail, columnist Adam Radwanski finally addressed the issue, but his explanation of the legislation that allows for the suspension of our Charter rights is hardly reassuring, suggesting that Canadian democracy is at best an ethereal concept, and at worst, fragile and ephemeral.

When it comes to summit security, police answer to no one

Police make their presence known Tuesday on the streets of Toronto. Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail

With neither legislation nor precedent to limit their powers, the rights of Canadians come off second best

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 8:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2010 11:14AM EDT

It's known as the “red zone.” But given the extent to which police are being left to their own devices in locking down a large swath of Toronto for the G20, the “grey zone” might be more apt.

The federal government did police and local residents few favours by sticking the summit smack in the middle of downtown. That it’s in an area more difficult to secure than other available locations, such as the city’s Exhibition grounds, forced more heavy-handed enforcement than should have been necessary.

But it doesn’t help that, as officers are expected to balance security with civil liberties, there’s neither legislation nor clear legal precedent specifying what they can and can’t do. From the handling of protesters to the requirement of identification to enter public spaces and private homes, it’s left to their discretion.

Since each summit is different, there’s no choice but to be somewhat ad hoc in handling them. But civil liberties experts argue that it didn’t need to be quite this ad hoc.

On that front, the responsibility seems to lie more with a past government than the current one.

Following widespread criticism of how the RCMP handled security at the 1997 APEC meeting in Vancouver and (to a lesser extent) the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, there was pressure on Ottawa to set ground rules for how such events should be policed. Instead, Jean Chrétien’s government opted to amend the existing Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act in a vague manner that, if anything, gave police further carte blanche.

“For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility [to secure multi-state conferences],” the amendment stated, “the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.”

It’s not clear to what extent that legislation was considered as security plans were made for the G20. (A spokesman for the Summit Integrated Security Unit, the joint force headed by the RCMP, was quicker to cite the basic duty to keep the peace.) But it would at least be used to justify any tactics called into question.

Appearing before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee in November, 2001, University of British Columbia law professor Wesley Pue called the amendment “a terribly unfortunate piece of legislation” that “simultaneously reaches too far and is inconclusive.” His complaint that it failed to consider how police powers would be balanced with the rights of Canadians to move freely, to express themselves, to assemble, to enjoy their property, and to “go lawfully about one’s daily life without interruption or harassment by the police,” might strike Torontonians as prescient.

It’s debatable whether the law would withstand a court challenge. But part of the reason there’s so little precedent on police powers at international gatherings (a problem extensively documented in a study late last year by Dr. Pue and Capilano University professor Robert Diab) is that there’s rarely much incentive for anyone to bother with cases after the fact. Probably the most relevant decision came when a Quebec judge ruled against a lawyer’s complaint that the Summit of the Americas barriers infringed upon his right to move freely and protest peacefully – this just days before the event’s start, when ruling the other way might have forced its cancellation.

In fairness to the RCMP, it seems to have come a long way on securing national events since the APEC days of pepper-spraying students; by most accounts, its conduct around this year’s Vancouver Olympics was encouraging. But the G20 is in a whole other realm.

Most Torontonians probably wouldn’t fault police for erring on the side of caution. But the fact that they’re operating without any real restrictions, however noble individual officers’ intentions, could cause a bit of alarm.

For a few days, the related rights questions might get some attention. But history suggests they’ll soon be forgotten, at least until next time.

The G20 Summit

2010-06-19T11:57:00.012-04:00

This past week we visited our son in Toronto, and after an enjoyable visit I was once more reminded of the restrictions being imposed due to the impending G20 conference in Ontario's capital. Because the security perimeter has already been established, we had a rather difficult time getting to the Gardiner Expressway, obstructed as it was by concrete bunker type bases anchoring the huge fences designed to keep protesters and ordinary citizens at bay. The plan is to deny access to the restricted zone unless people can produce a passport or other photo i.d. as well as a compelling reason for entry, e.g. work, having the misfortune of living in the area, etc.

The restricted zone is quite large, encompassing many hotels and businesses, all of which will lose substantial sums of money because of lost patronage during the summit. The Harper Government is on record as saying there will be no compensation offered to those affected. As well, GO trains with Toronto destinations will have all their washrooms locked up except for one for the handicapped. Travellers are being told to expect substantial delays. Let's hope the delays won't be too long, given GO's decision.

The security for the G20 and the G8 (to be held in Huntsville) combined will cost $1 billion in tax dollars, and most of the public's outrage has been directed at that outrageous amount, while it seems that something more fundamental and basic to Canadians has been virtually ignored in the press: the fact that our Charter Rights, most notably our freedom of movement, has essentially been suspended for the duration of the summit.

My question is simple: how can any democratic government simply suspend those Charter Rights under the guise of security? The thoughtful reader will doubtless understand the implications of such an action.

An Article on the Importance of Critical Thinking

2010-06-12T14:49:00.009-04:00

I was pleased to see that today's Globe and Mail has an interview with Martha Nussbaum who has just published a book entitled Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, which discusses how a healthy and functioning society needs to step back from the current obsession with education that teaches the acquisition of 'hard skills' to the almost total exclusion of any respect for the arts, arguing that the later are equally necessary in order to strike a proper balance and ensure an informed and critically-thinking populace.

Here is the interview:

Teaching the humanities: Vital to society?

Acclaimed philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues it is. She’s the latest sage to raise the alarm against higher education's growing obsession with knowledge you can take to the bank.

By John Allemang
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 4:45PM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jun. 12, 2010 1:56PM EDT

University students worried about getting a job see the study of the humanities as a waste of precious time. Research funding (of the new $200-million Canada Excellence Research Chairs, for example) overwhelmingly favour the useful sciences, politicians see technical skills as the key to global economic success and cultural commentators bash the liberal arts as a naval-gazing luxury. Times are hard for humanists.

But when economic growth becomes the focus of education, both democracy and human decency are in jeopardy. In her new book, Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton), acclaimed University of Chicago philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum argues that our culture of market-driven schooling is headed for a fall.

As the critical thinking taught by the humanities is replaced by the unexamined life of the job-seekers, our ability to argue rights and wrongs is silenced. In a society of unreflective, undiscerning yes-men and yes-women, politics becomes meaner and business can invite disasters such as the economic meltdown or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

As Prof. Nussbaum explains in this question-and-answer session from Chicago, our faltering democracies need the intellectual strength that only the humanities can supply.

Question: How can the study of the humanities improve our political system?

Answer: The first thing you get from the humanities, when they're well taught, is critical thinking.

Philosophy in particular can play that role, not just in universities but in schools as well. Thinking about the logical structure of an argument is something we know children can do quite young.

The second thing you get from the humanities is a greater understanding of the world, its different groups of people, their histories, the way they interact.
The third thing you get is the training of the imagination.

You can't have a democracy when people don't learn to put themselves in the shoes of another person, who can't think what their policies mean for others.

Yet the governments prefer to fund technical education – which tells me that practical, marketable skills are considered more valuable in our democracies.
People may believe that, but they haven't thought hard enough. First of all, we badly need people who can think critically about authority and tradition.

And that's what democracy has always required, ever since the time of Socrates – not just accepting what's passed down from some kind of authority, but thinking critically about it, examining yourself and figuring out what you really want to stand for. And then having debates in that spirit of respectful critical inquiry with other people – you can't have a democracy that's run simply by sound bites and cultural authorities. And I'm afraid that's what we're increasingly slipping into.

Yes, we call our governments democracies, but I think they're functioning badly now. The atmosphere of vilification is so bad that good people steer clear of the political process. And if they get in, their lives are made miserable.

Do you think there's something inherently anti-democratic about the study of science, technology, engineering?

Not at all, if they're taught well with an attention to the basic structures of thought and inquiry.

But what we're getting now is the demand for a quick fix for economic problems using highly applied technical skills but without the focus on basic scientific education – learning about argument, scientific method. So it's that debased version of science that's particularly dangerous.

Who's doing the debasing?

It's a lot of people, starting with the politicians who are demanding a greater share of the global economy and are demanding more technical education. But I also see it in parents who want their children to get ahead – there's tremendous pressure to cut the arts and focus on useful marketable skills.

Their feeling is that we need to prune away useless frills to make sure our children remain competitive. Of course, it's very difficult to get into college now, and people equate that with a focus on narrowly marketable skills. But that's the wrong position to take because colleges want well-rounded people – people who excel in the arts are actually going to enhance their college profile.

When you're advocating for the humanities, it seems that you always have to make a case for their applied value – what's wrong with art for art's sake?

I think you do have to say what their role is in society, but I don't think you have to portray them as instrumental to some economic end. My gambit in Not for Profit is to say they have tremendous value as elements in a political culture.

Because even if people are not sold on the humanities and the arts intrinsically, they do value a healthy democracy. But of course the arts and humanities have value much more broadly in making lives that are rich in meaning, in illuminating aspects of the world, like giving us an understanding of human sexuality, or giving us an understanding of racial differences. All of these things are humanly important quite apart from their contribution to political culture.

Do you really believe our leaders want us all to improve our critical thinking? Surely a servile populace suits the needs of many.

For a while they can coast along in that belief, but something blows up in the end.
NASA, the space administration, is a good example of that. My colleague and I teach about NASA's experience in a course called Decision-making – how a culture of yes-people produced the disaster of the space shuttle Challenger:

You could see in the data that the O-rings were dangerous at a certain temperature, but no one was willing to point that out, and they packaged data the way they thought the leaders would want to hear it.

Now, NASA has reformed its culture and is much more encouraging of dissent.
People are saying BP and all the other oil companies should take a page out of NASA's book and reform their internal culture.

It's graduation time, and the people who've spent their university years studying the humanities are going into the world. Do you feel obliged to prepare them for the big surprise when their values of critical thinking don't fit the needs of the workplace?

I'm giving the graduation address at our law school, and I'm thinking of these wonderful people so full of critical ideas who are going to work for law firms. They'll be under great pressure to narrow themselves and do less of that searching. So our responsibility is to strengthen the side of the personality that wants to stay focused on that goal and help them fight the forces in life, including overwork, that militate against that need.

And then prepare them to be fired from their law firm for doing so?

You just have to figure out how you in your particular situation are going to do it. It might be through being a critical voice in your law firm. It might be by writing short stories if you can carve out a space. It might be through being a productive alum of your university. Or it might be by bringing up children who can think critically.

When Is A Decision Not A Decision?

2010-05-11T08:02:00.002-04:00

In a move that can only be seen as prompted by fear of political retribution from retired teachers instead of concern for struggling new teachers, the Ontario Government has changed the number of days retired instructors can teach without having their pensions suspended. The current law allows for 95 days for three years, followed by 20 days a year thereafter.

The Liberal Government, in its wisdom, will now allow retirees 50 days per year until, well, until pensioners decide they don't want to do it anymore. However, the change will be reviewed in 2015, after the province has had time to collect pertinent data.

Read all about this shameful decision in today's Globe and Mail article, reproduced below:

Kate Hammer and Caroline Alphonso
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, May. 10, 2010 7:49PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, May. 11, 2010 6:27AM EDT

For the first time, Ontario will closely track the supply teaching work done by retirees, after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed a system rife with loopholes that cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

Under new rules announced Monday, many pensioners will see an increase in the number of supply days they are allowed to work while the government and its teachers union collect data and prepare to re-evaluate the limits again in 2015.

As of 2012, all retirees will be allowed to work 50 days a school year while collecting their pensions, compared to the current rule of 95 days for three years and 20 days thereafter.

The province and its teachers union promised to review the limits after The Globe’s nine-month investigation, published in April, found that the Ontario government is spending millions of dollars bringing pensioners back into the classroom. The 20-year-old limits, which were put in place to address a long-evaporated teacher shortage, meant that young grads were struggling to find work while retirees padded their pension incomes.

“The 50-day limit is going to open up more opportunities, I think, for the new graduates because 50 days is less than a term,” said Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky, who added that many long-term occasional supply contracts last a full term or semester and that under the new limits retirees will be prevented from working many of these jobs.

The biggest change is that the number of days that retirees work will now be monitored, as opposed to the old system that relied on self-reporting. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan also will begin compiling and reporting data once the new limit is in full swing, in 2012. The data collection will continue over three school years, and a review will begin in 2015.

“I am happy that we are going to review it in 2015 and I’m happy that we will actually have some data … that will be very helpful and useful and instructive,” Ms. Dombroswky said. “I think for all the people that have been at the table that has been a struggle, in terms of understanding what is a fair number, what is reasonable.”

But those lobbying for changes to the policy expressed skepticism that the new limits would keep retirees out of long-term contracts, especially when the change will actually increase the amount most pensioners are allowed to work.

Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals, The Globe found that retirees often earn twice as much as their newly certified colleagues, and the province’s 10 largest school boards alone could have saved $16.7-million last school year by offering long-term contracts to new teachers instead of pensioners.
When the new rules come into effect in 2012, loopholes will enable retirees to finish out the calendar month after they have worked their 50th day, padding their pensions with contribution-free income.

“It’s disgraceful. They’ve certainly sold out the interests of young teachers looking for work,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. “The 50 days, which may well go to 70 days depending on what day of the month the 50th day comes up, it going to just make the problem even worse.”

For years retired teachers were limited to working 20 days while collecting their pensions. Then in 1990, in the face of a dire teacher shortage, the limits were raised to 95 days for three post-retirement working years.

Twenty years later, there are two newly certified teachers for every job in Ontario, but decreasing the limits or closing loopholes would be seen as “impinging on people’s livelihoods,” according to Reno Melatti, president of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

Fifty, “it’s not a perfect number, but it’s between zero and 95,” he said. “Some may say it was an increase … but it’s a compromise to get some information and clear data and at the same time respond to some of the concerns.”

The current limits only apply to teachers returning to the classroom, but as of next school year, they will also apply to any retired teachers working for the ministry. Neither the union nor the ministry could provide the number of retirees on the government payroll.

RETIRED TEACHERS AND THEIR PENSIONS
• The 10 school boards spent $108.3-million on retired teachers returning to work as long-term and daily supply teachers in the 2008-09 school year.
• The boards would have saved $16.7-million if they gave long-term supply contracts to recently certified teachers instead of retirees.
• The average day rate for a retiree on a long-term supply contract with the York Catholic District School Board was $432.69, compared to $227.36 for the average teacher certified within the past three years.
• Retirees worked 2,861 supply assignments for the Toronto District School Board last year, while new graduates received 1,638 assignments.
• About 6,500 new jobs become available each year, according to the Ontario College of Teachers, but the college certified 12,774 new members in 2008.

Ontario schools crack down on retirees who ‘double-dip’ with supply jobs

2010-04-26T09:21:00.003-04:00

Here is the latest results of the Globe and Mail's investigation into retired teachers 'double-dipping', thereby depriving new teachers of work and costing the school boards, i.e., the taxpayer, needless extra millions of dollars:

Globe investigation revealed having pensioners return to teach has cost the education system millions of dollars

Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 9:02PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 3:43AM EDT

While the Ontario government works to address the disproportionate amount of supply work that goes to retired teachers, some school boards are taking the matter into their own hands.

After realizing it was losing millions of dollars by replacing teachers in the $60,000 pay-range with retired teachers who earned more than $80,000, the Windsor-Essex Catholic district school board has stopped adding retirees to its supply list.

“You can spin it any way you want to, but it's wrong – allowing retirees to double-dip is wrong,” said Paul Picard, superintendent of human resources for the board.

The government last week vowed to crack down on the rules around pensioners returning to supply-teach after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that a system rife with loopholes is costing Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars. A 20-year-old policy meant to deal with teacher shortage that has since evaporated allows retirees to teach as much as half the school year, or 95 days, in the first three post-retirement working years and 20 days in following years.

Mr. Picard said that he was always under the impression that the loosened work limits were temporary, and that the rule would return to the 20-day maximum that was in place before 1990. That never happened, and retirees take a big slice of the supply-work pie in some school districts.

In British Columbia , a province that, like Ontario, has grappled with tensions around retirees taking supply-teaching jobs from new teachers, one superintendent said retired teachers should only return to the classroom when there’s no one else with the expertise to do the work.

Keven Elder, superintendent of the school district in Saanich, B.C., said his schools only hire retired teachers to cover subject areas where there’s a shortage, and they regularly monitor the amount of work retirees receive.

“I would advise that the reasons for re-engagement of a retired teacher be clear and limited,” Mr. Elder said. “To me it isn’t about limiting the number of days, it’s about limiting the conditions upon which that person is reemployed as a teacher, and then adhering to those requirements.”

Sources say that one of the options being discussed in Ontario involves permitting retirees to work 50 days in the first three years, and 20 days indefinitely. The government and the teachers’ federation have not indicated whether changes are coming to the self-policing system and loopholes that allow teachers to work beyond any allotted days without their pensions being affected.

The Saanich school district isn’t alone in giving preference to working teachers over retirees on its supply list. Some school divisions in Saskatchewan will only hire retirees if no other substitutes are available. And in Prince Edward Island, retirees who take on long-term supply-teaching contracts have their pension payments stopped during the time of their employment.

The concerns raised in Ontario over retirees padding their pensions and pushing other supply teachers out of the classroom have also been voiced in B.C. A task force formed by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation last year found the concerns were misplaced and that denying retirees work was ageist. The heart of any struggles supply teachers face getting work, the task force concluded, was that some districts placed too many of them on supply lists.

At his board, Mr. Elder said that retirees are generally denied a chance to teach if working teachers have similar qualifications. Teachers call in their own replacements, but if the district discovers that a retiree is getting much of the work, teachers are asked to look at other candidates.

“If there are a large number of people out there with your qualifications ready to fill in as you retire, you should expect that when you retire, you won’t be working any more. To me that’s just what a dynamic work force is all about,” Mr. Elder said.

A nine-month Globe and Mail investigation found supply assignments in Ontario were not divvied up evenly among the work force. Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals to 10 of Ontario's largest boards, The Globe revealed last week that retirees worked just as many days in daily supply positions as newly certified teachers, all while picking up their government-subsidized pension cheques averaging $40,000 a year. The biggest school boards alone spent $108.3-million in 2008-09 on hiring retired teachers.

Although both groups earn the same in daily supply roles, retirees earned double the new teachers' rate for long-term assignments. The 10 boards would have saved $16.7-million in the past academic year had they placed new teachers in the classroom.

The Plight of Young Teachers Today

2010-04-25T15:37:00.003-04:00

In Ontario, the various faculties of education are continuing to churn out 7500 new teachers per year, despite the fact that there are very few jobs available. This, along with the selfish practice of retired teachers taking supply and long-term contracts, means lean times for young teachers. Below is another article from the Globe and Mail series dealing with the scourge of retired teachers who won't give up the classroom.

Few openings for young teachers

7,500 more new teachers produced each year than there are retirements, official says

Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:35AM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:36AM EDT

In his search for work, Sid Nurcombe has been forced to cast a wide net – he is contemplating a move to South Korea.

The 27-year-old teachers’ college graduate has been struggling for a year to win one of the highly coveted spots on a school boards’ supply list. Openings are few and far between, and despite applying to two different boards near his parents’ home in Shelburne, Ont., he remains unemployed. While younger teachers on the supply lists aspire to move on to full-time positions, retirees can linger there for years.

“For me, it’s a huge impediment to getting in the system,” said Mr. Nurcombe, who added that he has a “significant” debt and still lives with his parents.

Young graduates need experience to land a full-time job, but supply-teaching opportunities often go to retirees padding their pensions with contribution-free income. Part of the modest income of the young teachers that do make it onto the supply list goes toward a pension plan that’s facing an imbalance: For each beneficiary, there are only 1.5 paying members, and that ratio is expected to decline to 1.2 within the next decade.

“It’s a real morale buster,” said Laura Drexler, a 37-year-old supply teacher who lives in a one-bedroom student apartment in Waterloo, Ont. Despite the broad expertise of three university degrees and her willingness to drive between three school boards to find work, Ms. Drexler earns a quarter of what she could earn full-time.

“There aren’t the jobs out there. There really aren’t,” she said.

Frank McIntyre, manager of human resources at the Ontario College of Teachers, said a number of changes designed to help alleviate a teacher shortage in the early 1990s, have been left unchecked for too long. “Now we’re producing about 7,500 more new teachers than there are retirements every year,” he said. “Nobody has put the brakes on.”

And there’s more at risk than just the livelihoods of aspiring teachers. Annie Kidder, a spokeswoman for the parent group People for Education, said there needs to be a balance between experience and fresh energy in the classroom.

“New teachers bring new ideas, perhaps more energy,” Ms. Kidder said. “They may not be quite so worn.”

The Problems of Retired Teachers Continuing to Teach

2010-04-23T12:44:00.006-04:00

I have written in the past about my heartfelt opposition to teaching after retirement, mainly because it deprives young people of much-needed opportunities to get started in their careers. This past week the Globe and Mail has had a series of articles addressing this issue, the first of which I am reproducing below:

Ontario school boards squander $16.7-million by hanging on to retirees April 16, 2010.

Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 11:31AM EDT

Ontario’s largest cash-strapped school boards squandered $16.7-million in the last academic year by enabling retirees to pad their pensions with supply-teaching work rather than hiring new teachers, a Globe and Mail investigation has found.

Retired teachers working in 10 school boards, representing half the student population, collected $108.3-million in the 2008-09 school year from taxpayers on top of their government-subsidized pensions, taking advantage of a system rife with loopholes that leaves new teachers scrambling for crumbs.

The investigation revealed widespread overspending, with boards favouring retirees over new teachers for supply assignments at a higher pay scale that, in some cases, doubled the cost to the taxpayer. One retiree working in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board worked a total of 106 days in 2008-09, earning an estimated $47,000 on top of what is already one of the most generous pensions in the country.

Other provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, have reined in such largesse by stopping pension payments when a teacher takes a long-term supply assignment. But in Ontario, even as Premier Dalton McGuinty has been lambasting postsecondary institutions for loose spending, the policing system to make sure retirees aren’t milking the education budget relies on an honour system.

The issue has angered new teachers who can’t get work, and sparked ongoing discussions between the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the government – yet nothing has changed. Even the architect of the original policy that allowed retired teachers to work more supply days while collecting their pensions recognizes the time for it has come and gone.

Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky acknowledged the current policy poses challenges, particularly for new teachers, but added that retirees bring much-needed expertise to the job. She said parents have expressed concern that an inexperienced supply teacher doesn’t have the necessary skills to lead a classroom.

“I’m not going to debate your numbers other than to say sometimes behind the numbers there are very particular situations and circumstances that might require a board to consider engaging someone who is retired,” she said. “I think that both the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the province are aware that there are areas where we have challenges ... And we are working with the teachers’ federation to see how we can address those going forward.”

But those longing for change are tired of waiting while school boards overspend by millions of dollars each year.

“The system has been abused by some retirees,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, who has been petitioning the province to change the rules. “A number of people are at fault here. School boards are at fault for hiring retirees in the first place. The second fault is they don’t monitor the number of days retirees work ... And [at fault are] individual members who take advantage of the rules.”

The current system was designed two decades ago to address a teacher shortage. Prior to 1990, retired teachers were allowed to teach a maximum of 20 days a year before their pensions were affected. A change allowed for 95 days in the first three working years after retirement, and 20 days indefinitely thereafter. The shortage of the 1990s, however, has long evaporated – for every job, there are about two newly certified teachers graduating each year.

Chris Ward, the province's former minister of education who introduced the bill that led to that change, believes the policy is no longer needed and should be abandoned.
“[With] the current environment in Ontario, I would have to say that it makes little sense to me that retired teachers would be able to spend as many as 95 days in the classroom,” said Mr. Ward, who served as minister in the David Peterson government. “Frankly that’s just keeping young teachers out of the system and we need more young teachers coming in.”

The Globe’s nine-month investigation, which included multiple access-to-information requests, has for the first time determined the practice’s cost to taxpayers. The Toronto District School Board, for example, doled out almost twice as many supply assignments to retirees than to new teachers in 2008-09. These veterans earned double the new teachers’ rate for long-term assignments without paying into the pension plan. (Both groups earn the same for daily supply work, the bulk of which goes to retirees).

Had it hired new teachers for those jobs instead, the TDSB could have saved $7.6-million dollars. The Peel District School Board could have banked $3.4-million and both York Region boards could have set aside more than $1.4-million each, the data reveal. The total savings amounted to more than $16.7-million for 10 of Ontario’s 72 boards. Retirees in long-term contracts, to fill in for a teacher who is, for example, ill or on maternity leave, earn, on average, $400 a day, because pay grids negotiated between boards and the unions take into account a teachers expertise and years of experience.

According to the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, retired teachers in the province make on average $40,000 a year, and generally bow out of the 9-to-5 grind by age 57. Retirees also don’t see pension deductions from their paycheques – a further drain on the pension plan into which taxpayers make half the contributions.

The onus is on teachers to declare when they have crossed the yearly limit of days worked, and their pension cheques should be stopped. The OTPP said that there were 629 pension suspensions last year, and while the majority were self-declared, it declined to divulge how it tracked down the others.

“Self-reporting was adopted … because it was considered to be the same concept as income tax , which sees individuals being responsible for filing their own returns,” said spokeswoman Deborah Allan. She added that procedures are regularly reviewed.
Ron Crocco, principal at Jean Vanier Catholic High School in Richmond Hill, Ont., said school administrators often seek out retired teachers for their familiarity and experience. “I’m torn in some ways because I want to give the new teachers some work, and yet, when I have a person who is going to be off, I want to make sure that I have someone who can teach the classes,” Mr. Crocco said.

In the minds of many retirees, the perks are warranted.

“If you couldn’t supply teach, most of us wouldn’t retire because you just can’t afford to go cold. It’s a huge drop in pay,” said retired teacher Corrine Donnelly, who is in her sixth year of substitute teaching in Bradford, after working full-time for 32 years. “You’re assuming that we can all afford never to work again,” she said.

She said she was passionate about teaching, and justified her decision to keep working postretirement. “I did retire early from my own job. I did free up a permanent job for somebody.”

Prime Minister Harper and You Tube – More Than an Attempt to Burnish the Tory Brand?

2010-03-15T14:55:00.002-04:00

Much has been made recently of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has invited Canadians to submit questions via You Tube, some of which he will answer on March 16. While many see this as just another stunt to make Harper look more human and accessible (who can forget his performance of “I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends”?), I see something potentially much more sinister in this ploy.

Call me paranoid if you will, but given the contempt the Harper government has shown to Parliamentary democracy, e.g., proroguing Parliament twice within a year for no good reason, refusing to hand over the reports on Afghanistan torture to Parliament, I can’t help but think that this so-called exercise in direct democracy is but a Machiavellian way of subtly conveying to the people of Canada that our elected representatives really are not important, and that his government’s disdain for our constitutional democracy is nothing to be concerned about, since he wants to interact with us without that pesky intermediary called Parliament.

Of course, any interaction is illusory, since there will be no opportunity for follow-up questions and, of course, he will be free to put any spin he likes on each query, after having had adequate time with his advisers to prepare his rhetoric.

All in all, an empty exercise, but quite possibly a dangerous one, given his on-going animus toward true accountability.

One of Canada's Unsavoury Truths

2010-02-13T08:57:00.006-05:00

While I shall always be proud to be a Canadian, I have never subscribed to the mantra, "My country, right or wrong," which to me means uncritical acceptance of every action taken by one's country simply because it is one's country. In my mind, such a philosophy is an abdication of one of the responsibilities of citizenship, not an expression of it.

With that in mind, I am reproducing below an article from today's Globe and Mail that addresses an issue of fundamental wrongdoing, the export of asbestos to developing countries. As most people know, asbestos is a leading cause of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining that is invariably fatal. In fact, it is what killed the actor Steve McQueen many years ago. Despite the well-established link between asbestos inhalation and this cancer, the Quebec provincial government, aided and abetted by the federal government, continues to mine and export it, the result being increased rates of mesothelioma and other lung cancers in places such as Mexico, where it is used as an additive to strengthen cement. No amount of jobs (700 in Quebec) can justify this export of death.

Controversy brews over asbestos deaths in Mexico

Martin Mittelstaedt
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Feb. 12, 2010 10:55PM EST Last updated on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2010 3:29AM EST

The death toll from mesothelioma, a rare cancer almost always caused by asbestos exposure, is rising rapidly in Mexico, a major market for Canada's exports of the mineral, and could be as high as 500 a year.

The figure – an estimate by doctors at the Mexican Institute of Social Security, a government health agency – is likely to spur further controversy over Canada's aggressive promotion of the cancer-causing material in the developing world. Concerns over asbestos were a focus of attention during Quebec Premier Jean Charest's recent trade mission to India. He defended the mineral, which is mined in his province and supports about 700 jobs.

Guadalupe Aguilar, an occupational health expert who led the team that conducted the research, said the full impact of asbestos may be even greater because medical surveys have found that for every mesothelioma death, there are likely an additional 2.3 fatal cases of lung cancer due to inhalation of the mineral. The total number of asbestos-caused deaths in Mexico is probably around 1,500 annually, Dr. Aguilar said.

The researchers published the mortality estimate in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Industrial Medicine. They said the “major type of asbestos” used in Mexico “is chrysotile imported from Canada.” And they called the asbestos trade a “deplorable example of the manner in which dangerous industries are being deliberately exported to Mexico and less industrialized countries.”
Developing countries use asbestos as an additive to strengthen cement.

Critics of the asbestos industry contend the Mexican findings call into question the federal and Quebec governments' view that the mineral can be used with little risk, and suggest an even higher health toll because Canada exports it to many other countries.

“The evidence is clear that chrysotile asbestos around the world is causing devastating health impacts,” said Kathleen Ruff, senior human-rights adviser at the Rideau Institute, a left-leaning Ottawa think tank.

The federal government said the new research doesn't alter its view that asbestos can be used safely, and that it is tightly regulated in Mexico.

“The risks associated with its use can be managed under controlled conditions. Banning chrysotile is neither necessary nor appropriate,” Natural Resources Canada said in a statement. It contended the Mexican deaths were due to past uses of asbestos that are now prohibited.

But the study disputed the federal view, and the doctors said they found many Mexican workers aren't aware of the dangers posed by asbestos. It concluded a ban is the only way “to prevent the epidemic clearly shown using national mortality data.”
The Canadian position is also at odds with the World Health Organization, which says no known safe threshold exists for asbestos exposure, and the most effective way to eliminate the health hazard is to stop using it.

Asbestos is considered so dangerous that some provinces, such as Ontario, limit exposure to a maximum of one dust-like fibre in 10 cubic centimetres of air, something that requires highly sophisticated monitoring and ventilation equipment.

Because of health and litigation risks, Canada doesn't use much asbestos. About 95 per cent of Quebec's output is exported, virtually all of it to the developing world. Canada is a dominant seller in Mexico, accounting for about one-third of the market in 2008.

The United States and Haiti

2010-01-24T11:29:00.004-05:00

While the world has watched with horror at the terrible devastation wrought by Haiti's recent earthquake, many see the leadership role taken by the United States in disaster relief as heroic. Unfortunately, appearances can be deceiving, and an article in today's Toronto Star suggests that the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for the violence and poverty that are the perennial companions of the Haitians. Click here to read a very thought-provoking article about the pernicious influence of a country that professes to be so interested in bringing democracy to other parts of the world.

Fury and Criticism of Harper Grows

2010-01-07T14:21:00.004-05:00

In addition to the growing numbers who have joined the Facebook group protesting the Prime Minister's prorogation of Parliament, editorials, both domestic and international, are condemning his cowardice. The British magazine, The Economist, has an editorial that seems to address several of the truths of what Harper has done.

Click here to view it.

Parliamentary Democracy to be Suspended for More Than Two Months

2009-12-30T17:03:00.003-05:00

As reported online in today’s Globe and Mail, our sinister Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, plans to suspend Parliament until March. Although he will have to ask permission of the Governor-General, Michele Jean, this is considered a formality, and, indeed, a forgone conclusion given her collusion with the government just over a year ago when she agreed to a Parliamentary ‘time- out’ to prevent the government from falling and being replaced by a coalition consisting of the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP.

What is the Harper government fleeing from this time? The answer lies in the parliamentary committee examining alleged government knowledge that our military was contravening the Geneva Convention in handing over Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities who commonly practice torture on its prisoners. Recent testimony by Richard Colvin clearly suggests a cover-up about this knowledge, and the fact that the government has refused the committee’s request for unredacted documents is the most obvious catalyst for this contemptible move by a craven Prime Minister. Harper is doubtlessly counting on the public’s short attention span to be his biggest ally in this shameful attack on freedom of information in particular and democracy in general.

Animal Shows, Human Nature, and Chris Hedges

2009-12-29T10:39:00.003-05:00

I recently had the pleasure of watching a Nova special on PBS entitled The Last Great Ape, which profiled the bonobo ape, an endangered species found exclusively in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aside from its intelligence, the most remarkable aspect of the bonobo is that its matriarchal culture operates on co-operation, not the confrontation and violence that defines its chimpanzee cousin’s way of life. The program tells us that the two species diverged about two million years ago. Given the fact that we all evolved from a common primate ancestor, the program reminds us that human society has elements of both species in its makeup, both the capacity for terrible aggression and life-affirming co-operative behaviour.

So why is this so important to appreciate? I just read a thought-provoking book by Chris Hedges called I Don’t Believe in Atheists, the thesis of which is that both religious fundamentalists and the new atheists (people such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,) are equally dangerous in that both cling to ideologies that ignore some basic truths about human nature. While the fundamentalists prescribe a very narrow set of beliefs as the way to salvation, condemning all others to the fiery pit of hell, scientist- atheists such as Hitchens and Harris argue for the perfectibility of humanity through scientific progress, going so far as to advocate the extermination of Muslims because of the extremist element responsible for terrorism. What makes both polarities so dangerous is the intolerance of all opposing beliefs, the arrogant belief in the absolute truth of their own positions, and the failure to recognize that humans, by their divided animal nature, can never achieve perfection, either through the acceptance of religious or scientific doctrine.

I found both the program and the book refreshing. As implied in the Nova documentary, and made explicit in Hedges’ book, until we confront and completely acknowledge the immutability of the animal side of our natures, real progress (but never perfectibility) in the human condition is not achievable, and we will be forever susceptible to those demagogues, both religious and secular, who try to convince us that salvation is to be found in a set of beliefs, a set of actions, or a ‘final solution.’

Ah, The Sweet Smell of Integrity

2009-12-20T15:50:00.002-05:00

It’s hard, when looking at local, provincial, national and international political behaviour, not to be deeply cynical about human nature. The failure of the Copenhagen Summit is but the latest example of our short-sightedness as a species. But occasionally, something happens that confirms the human capacity for principled and honourable choices. Two such examples are to be found in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.

Entitled “The day the music died,” the article tells of two defections from the opening and closing 2010 Winter Olympics to be held in British Columbia. The Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, led by conductor Bramwell Tovey, has decided not to be part of the opening ceremonies because it was asked this week to prerecord its music that would then be mimed by other performers during the spectacle. Seeing this as a gross public deception, Mr. Tovey compared it to Ben Johnson’s victory in 1988, winning gold but later stripped of the medal when he tested positive for steroids that enhanced his performance.

The second defection is by Terry Dove, a performer who auditioned to march and dance in the closing ceremonies. An enthusiast of the Olympics, his ardour has been diminished by the recent treatment of those who oppose them for a variety of reasons. One such person, Marla Renn, faced a long delay and intrusive questioning at the Canada-U.S border, simply because she is known as an anti-Olympics activist.

Both Tovey and Dovey have made very difficult choices here, ones that I think we would find hard to make were we in similar situations. God bless them for their integrity, something the modern Olympics lost many years ago. They are real heroes in my eyes.

Typical Institutional Behaviour

2009-11-19T10:17:00.003-05:00

As I travel further into retirement and have more time to devote to newspaper reading, it occurs to me that I have now lived long enough to see through the majority of attempts by the media and by government to manipulate the public. The latest case in point which I would like to address should be obvious even to the most casual thinker; I refer to the ongoing testimony of Richard Colvin, who was Canada’s second-highest diplomat stationed in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, to a House of Commons committee.

According to Colvin, a whistle-blower in the noblest sense of the word, he tried to alert the Canadian government repeatedly to the fact that Afghans turned over by the Canadian military to Afghan authorities were regularly tortured, despite the fact that most of them had no ties to terrorism, being simple villagers, taxi-drivers, etc., innocent victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, it reached such a point that he was told by his ‘bosses’ in Ottawa to no longer put in writing his allegations.

The Conservative Government’s stance for several years has been that it had no knowledge of such activity, despite the urgent reports sent by Colvin to senior civil servants in the Prime Minister’s Office, General Hillier, who was the Commander of the troops at the time, and various politicians. In trying to handle the damage being done by Colvin’s testimony, the Conservative Government members on the committee are engaging in a classic ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy, trying to impugn him by saying that since he never personally witnessed torture, such evidence he is presenting would not stand up in a court of law. As well, Conservative (former NDPer) Cheryl Gallant is lamenting that his talk of abuse of prisoners is undermining public support for the Afghan mission, a mission that I think very few Canadians now support given the terrible toll of young lives lost to support a corrupt regime, in essence sacrificing their lives for absolutely nothing.

Nonetheless, her statement, and the attitude of the Conservatives on the committee serve only to try to divert thinking Canadians from forcing them to address the real issues here. If it is true that, as claimed, former Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor, and current Defense Minister Peter Mackay knew nothing about these allegations of abuse, what does that say about their competence as ministers? Indeed, can’t the case be cogently argued that Mackay has a moral duty to resign since, if he is telling the truth and did not receive any reports, he is incompetent to head the Ministry of Defense?

Of course, such an act of integrity will never happen, politicians knowing that if they attack the messenger vigorously enough, and let enough time elapse, the public will forget.

With principles so sorely lacking in public life, is it any wonder that only a minority of Canadians vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections?

Revenue Canada and the Culture of Corporate Concealment

2009-09-17T08:43:00.006-04:00

I have written blog postings in the past on organizational behaviour and the tendency to conceal unpalatable facts that may affect the public's view of the organization. My years in teaching yielded many examples of such conduct. There is a story in today’s Globe and Mail of malfeasance concealed within Revenue Canada, uncovered only after a freedom of information request by a researcher.

Apparently, in 2008, two employees created fictitious tax returns, one netting $300,000, the other $100,000. I can almost hear the conversation that must have ensued after discovery of the crimes, which, by the way, also entailed the invasion of privacy of many taxpayers as the miscreants plumbed their tax records to facilitate their crimes. Undoubtedly the argument for concealment was made on the basis of these crimes being 'aberrations,’ and that letting the public know about them would serve only to undermine confidence in an institution that ‘operates so well.’

Despite the fact that these crimes have been uncovered, Revenue Canada refuses to answer any questions regarding what happened to the errant employees, other than to say they no longer work for Revenue Canada. They would not reveal whether they were charged (unlikely, since there would then be a public record) or whether the criminals made restitution. Our government agency justified its refusal to provide details, saying to do so would “violate privacy laws.” I wonder if the spokesperson realizes the irony of such a risible declaration.

If you would like to read the full story, I am reproducing it below:

Steven Chase

Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009 08:21AM EDT

Two Canada Revenue Agency bureaucrats siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ottawa's coffers by filing fraudulent tax returns and diverting refunds and related benefit payments to their personal bank accounts.

The tax collection agency, which uncovered the fraud in 2008, kept news of it from going public for more than a year, until the facts were released through a request under access-to-information law.

In one case, a veteran male Revenue employee routed $300,000 generated from illegitimate returns into his bank accounts. In an apparently unrelated matter, a female staffer racked up $100,000 using similar means of tricking the government into issuing refunds and payments to accounts she controlled.

The two facilitated this by snooping through taxpayer records – using invasive database searches that, among other things, grant access to Canadians' social insurance numbers.

It was heavy use of some searches that caught the eye of investigators.

On Wednesday, the Canada Revenue Agency refused to name the fraudsters or reveal whether they were fired or charged and convicted, saying that to identify them would violate privacy law. It also could not say if the money was recovered after the fraud was discovered last year.

Revenue spokeswoman Caitlin Workman would reveal only that the two individuals have left the tax collection business. “They no longer work here,” she said.

She dismissed the notion the two cases represent a problem with the corporate culture of Canada Revenue Agency, which is trusted to handle the confidential files of millions of taxpayers.

“We have close to 45,000 employees here, and they deal with millions of tax and benefit files on a daily basis. And here we are talking about two individuals,” Ms. Workman said. “Yes, we take it very seriously, but it should also be put in perspective.”

The male employee took more than $300,000 by routing bogus refunds and related Canada Child Tax Benefit and GST credit payments to personal accounts, just-released Canada Revenue Agency memos say.

The staffer was an expert on these benefits and “could have created fictitious accounts without any assistance,” the internal investigation found.

“For the last eight years, at least, he had filed tax returns and claimed [benefits and credits] for individuals he did not know,” the probe said.

The male staffer used dozens of taxpayer accounts for his fraud.

“Based on the information gained [from the investigation] and the list of social insurance numbers found at his workstation, it is reasonable to believe that [he] may have had a role to play in the issuance of illegitimate refunds on more than 50 accounts,” investigators found.

The female Canada Revenue Agency worker, who had eight years on the job, prepared and filed hundreds of illegitimate returns, ensuring the tax refunds and goods and services tax credits were routed to her own bank accounts.

The records from this investigation were obtained through access-to-information requests by researcher Ken Rubin.

Other Revenue employees became suspicious in the $300,000 fraud case when they tried to verify some of the claims and could not reach the taxpayers.

“After reviewing the motor vehicle records and conducting credit bureau checks ... [a staffer] was unable to determine the whereabouts of the taxpayers involved and could not establish whether or not they actually existed,” the probe reported.

Ms. Workman said internal fraud of this magnitude is very infrequent, but couldn't provide a historical record.

“I don't have any numbers for you but they are very rare.”

Both fraudsters made thousands of unauthorized searches into taxpayers' files, investigators found. The male staffer's transgressions included gaining access to his own files, and those of his spouse and his stepchildren.

Why Aren't the Newspapers Covering This Story?

2009-08-27T14:32:00.006-04:00

A report released yesterday, entitled Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern, concludes that there is a significant risk of brain tumors arising from cellphone use. Compiled by doctors and scientists, its conclusions are derived from scientific findings from a variety of studies that have been conducted, including one funded by the telecommunications industry which, to no one's surprise, found no elevated risk. As this report points out, the telecom-funded study has design flaws that skewed the results to show no danger.

It is sad to note that thus far, despite the fact that the report has been sent to governments and the media, no newspapers have reported the findings. One can't help but wonder whether the fact that cellphone companies advertise heavily in newspapers could be a factor in this failure to report.

I am providing a link to the pdf file for anyone interested in reading the report, which should spur all of us to be much more careful in our use of these mobile devices.