Hot on the heels of an entry about corporations taking the lead in renewable energy investment, comes news that big business is at the forefront of the American fight against sexual discrimination.
Several states have passed, or at least attempted to pass, legislation aimed at curbing LGBT rights in recent months. North Carolina's "bathroom bill" HB2 (which bars local LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances, and stipulates that transgender people must use the washrooms appropriate for their birth sex) has received the most press, but South Carolina. Mississippi, South Dakota, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee (yes, the predictably conservative redneck states) have all either passed such laws recently, or are in the process of attempting to.
Enter the politically correct modern corporation: PayPal and Lionsgate both cancelled plans to build a new operations centre in North Carolina over the issue, Deutsche Bank suspended plans for expansion there, Apple, American Airlinesty and Wells Fargo Bank have weighed in on the matter, and over 100 executives from companies like Goldman Sachs, Hyatt Hotels and Bank of America have signed an open letter opposing the new bill; Disney has threatened to pull out of Georgia over a bill to allow businesses to deny services to individuals based on the business owners' religious beliefs, as did AMC studio and tech giant Salesforce (the state's Governor later vetoed the bill based on these interventions).
Other big players have also made their views known: the NFL put an Atlanta, Georgia Super Bowl in jeopardy over the issue; rock stars like Bruce Springsteen, Bryan Adams, Ringo Starr and Jimmy Buffet (effectively corporations in their own right) have cancelled or postponed shows in some of the offending states; local governments in cities like New York and Boston have made a stand, directing government employees to effectively boycott the states; etc.
Some people seem a bit concerned that unelected corporations meddling in politics is in some way undemocratic. Me, I'm all for it. I see it as a bit of pay-back for all the undemocratic politicking perpetrated by the big oil and gas companies for all these years.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Did these books change science fiction and fantasy forever?
On perusing Gizmodo Australia's 21 Books That Changed Science Fiction and Fantasy Forever, I was quite gratified - as no more than a sporadic sci-fi/fantasy reader - to find that I had read 18 out of the 21. I'm not a huge fan of these "X Somethings That Changed History" or "Y Somethings You Should Something Before You Die" websites, but sometimes I can't resist a peek, even if only to see how much I disagree, or to look at the inane comments they generate.
Anyway, for what it's worth, the list includes:
I actually thought that this was as good a stab as any at what is essentially an Impossible Task. Several commentators bristled at the inclusion of the likes of Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and A Game of Thrones. Yes, these are largely Young Adults books, and not necessarily ground-breaking or even great literature per se, (hell, neither is much of Robert Heinlein or Ray Bradbury for that matter). But if "changing fiction" involves changing reader habits, influencing popular culture, and/or generating copy-cats, then I think they earn their places.
If it were up to me, I might have extended the list to 25 or even 30 and included Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and perhaps something by Olaf Stapledon (Last and First Men or The Star Maker), Philip K. Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or The Man in the High Castle), Iain M. Banks (Consider Phlebas), John Wyndham, (The Crysalids), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (The Coming Race), or George Orwell (1984), and maybe even Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels) or François Rabelais (Gargantua and Pantagruel).
No list is ever going to satisfy everyone, though. My own list would probably not even satisfy me.
Anyway, for what it's worth, the list includes:
- The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
- 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea by Jules Verne
- Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delaney
- Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein
- War Of The Worlds by H.G. Wells
- Foundation by Isaac Asimov
- Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert Heinlein
- Dangerous Visions Edited by Harlan Ellison
- Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke
- Ringworld by Larry Niven
- The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin
- Neuromancer by Wiliam Gibson
- Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
- A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin
- Kindred by Octavia Butler
- Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling
- The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
- Wind-up Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi
- The Forever War by Joe Haldeman
- Slaughter-House Five by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
- The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury
- Dune by Frank Herbert
I actually thought that this was as good a stab as any at what is essentially an Impossible Task. Several commentators bristled at the inclusion of the likes of Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and A Game of Thrones. Yes, these are largely Young Adults books, and not necessarily ground-breaking or even great literature per se, (hell, neither is much of Robert Heinlein or Ray Bradbury for that matter). But if "changing fiction" involves changing reader habits, influencing popular culture, and/or generating copy-cats, then I think they earn their places.
If it were up to me, I might have extended the list to 25 or even 30 and included Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and perhaps something by Olaf Stapledon (Last and First Men or The Star Maker), Philip K. Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or The Man in the High Castle), Iain M. Banks (Consider Phlebas), John Wyndham, (The Crysalids), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (The Coming Race), or George Orwell (1984), and maybe even Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels) or François Rabelais (Gargantua and Pantagruel).
No list is ever going to satisfy everyone, though. My own list would probably not even satisfy me.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Corporations are now investing heavily in renewable energy
It's interesting to note that a major trend in renewable energy in the USA is for corporations, municipalities, universities and other "non-utility customers" to buy up new generating capacity from wind and solar farms.
2015 was a bumper year for renewables in the USA (and elsewhere for that matter). For example, although wind power only makes up about 5% of total American generating capacity (as compared to coal and gas which represent about 33% each), it accounted for 41% of the new capacity added last year. And about half of that was bought up by big corporations like Google. Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, Dow Chemical, etc.
This is partly out of environmental (and associated PR) concerns - Google and Walmart, for example, both have explicit 100% renewable energy goals. But it is also because wind and solar power have now got to the stage where they make financial sense - they are good economic propositions in and of themslves.
And that can only bode well for the future of the renewable energy sector, and of the planet itself.
2015 was a bumper year for renewables in the USA (and elsewhere for that matter). For example, although wind power only makes up about 5% of total American generating capacity (as compared to coal and gas which represent about 33% each), it accounted for 41% of the new capacity added last year. And about half of that was bought up by big corporations like Google. Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, Dow Chemical, etc.
This is partly out of environmental (and associated PR) concerns - Google and Walmart, for example, both have explicit 100% renewable energy goals. But it is also because wind and solar power have now got to the stage where they make financial sense - they are good economic propositions in and of themslves.
And that can only bode well for the future of the renewable energy sector, and of the planet itself.
Life is cheap in Canada in some contexts
Three separate articles on the front page of today's Globe and Mail all relate to Canadians dying for the "wrong" reasons (the only "right" reasons being old age and illness).
One describes a purported "suicide pact" among young people in Attawapiskat First Nation, a tiny, remote Cree settlement way up in northern Ontario, which has also been in the news in recent years for its housing crisis and its tainted water. A state of emergency has been established in the town after no fewer than 11 teenagers tried to take their own lives on Saturday night alone. There have been over 100 suicide attempts in the small community of just 2,000 inhabitants since last September, although thankfully just one actual death.
This may have been a deliberate conspiracy or pact (some of the children had apparently been overheard discussing some kind of a loose plan to commit suicide) in what passes for high jinks in the wilds of northern Ontario. Or it may have been a kind of mass hysteria more reminiscent of 17th century Salem than 21st century Canada. Or, I even wonder if some of the blame can't be laid at the door of the local water problems - Attawapiskat's water supply is laced with naturally occurring bromide and other organic contaminants, to the extent that the local water purification plant is not able to filter it, and even boiling does not fully fix the problem.
As I mentioned in a previous post on Cross Lake Reserve, another isolated community suffering from a plague of youth suicides, do we really need to have reserves in such inaccessible and inhospitable places in this day and age?
Another article deals with the burgeoning challenge of fentanyl overdoses after two more overdoses from the drug were reported in Winnipeg over the weekend. This is one I have real problems getting my head around. Fentanyl seems to be the drug du jour, even though (or perhaps because) it is forty to fifty times more potent than heroin, and has already led to hundreds in deaths in the short time it has been available (418 deaths in 2015 alone in British Columbia and Alberta, which is where the current craze began in Canada). Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate painkiller, a prescription drug that has became a "recreational" option, particularly after Oxycontin was discontinued in Canada in 2012 for the same reason. The illicit fentanyl currently doing the rounds in Canada is manufactured in China, and usually cut into cocaine or heroin, and it is gradually making its way eastward across the country. The fentanyl experience also brings into sharp relief the whole problem of the ongoing over-prescription of opiates in Canada. There are now apocalyptic warnings of a new drug called W-18 (I'm sure a better street name will be coined soon), which is apparently up to 100 times stronger than even fentanyl.
How can people be so desperate as to need this kind of "recreation"? This not some kind of a pleasant buzz, a way of forgetting day-to-day cares and concerns; this is more like being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and about as safe. In my cocooned middle-class life, I am just completely unable to relate to this, and I wish someone would explain it to me.
The third article relates to pre-natal sex selection among Indian immigrants in Canada, the abortion of female fetuses out of a preference for male offspring. This arguably does not involve killing per se, depending on your definitions and beliefs, but is nevertheless a despicable custom. The practice is well-documented in India, but a couple of recent studies in the Canadian Medical Association Journal have shown the extent of the practice in Canada, something that was only hinted at by anecdotal evidence until now. The very idea of it has always been extremely contentious here in multi-culti, politically-correct Canada.
While couples in this demographic may accept a daughter as their first, or even second, child, this changes dramatically with the third child: one study showed 138 boys born to Indian-born mothers for every 100 girls, and 166 boys for every girl for a fourth child. The other study revealed even greater discrepancies of 196:100 for a third child after two daughters, and a huge 326:100 for Indian-born mothers who already had two daughters and also already had an abortion before their third child.
It is hard to know what can be done about the problem. Suggestions have included banning disclosure of the sex of a fetus until 30 weeks (after which abortions are only performed in rare circumstances), but this is heavy-handed and difficult to enforce. Targeting specific groups for practising sex selection is clearly discriminatory, however conclusive and justifiable it may appear to be in other respects. It also gives one pause to think what might transpire when genetic testing for other traits becomes widely available, as it probably will one day.
Canada, unlike some other countries actively encourages immigrants to bring their cultures with them, but this particular one we can do without, thank you.
One describes a purported "suicide pact" among young people in Attawapiskat First Nation, a tiny, remote Cree settlement way up in northern Ontario, which has also been in the news in recent years for its housing crisis and its tainted water. A state of emergency has been established in the town after no fewer than 11 teenagers tried to take their own lives on Saturday night alone. There have been over 100 suicide attempts in the small community of just 2,000 inhabitants since last September, although thankfully just one actual death.
This may have been a deliberate conspiracy or pact (some of the children had apparently been overheard discussing some kind of a loose plan to commit suicide) in what passes for high jinks in the wilds of northern Ontario. Or it may have been a kind of mass hysteria more reminiscent of 17th century Salem than 21st century Canada. Or, I even wonder if some of the blame can't be laid at the door of the local water problems - Attawapiskat's water supply is laced with naturally occurring bromide and other organic contaminants, to the extent that the local water purification plant is not able to filter it, and even boiling does not fully fix the problem.
As I mentioned in a previous post on Cross Lake Reserve, another isolated community suffering from a plague of youth suicides, do we really need to have reserves in such inaccessible and inhospitable places in this day and age?
Another article deals with the burgeoning challenge of fentanyl overdoses after two more overdoses from the drug were reported in Winnipeg over the weekend. This is one I have real problems getting my head around. Fentanyl seems to be the drug du jour, even though (or perhaps because) it is forty to fifty times more potent than heroin, and has already led to hundreds in deaths in the short time it has been available (418 deaths in 2015 alone in British Columbia and Alberta, which is where the current craze began in Canada). Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate painkiller, a prescription drug that has became a "recreational" option, particularly after Oxycontin was discontinued in Canada in 2012 for the same reason. The illicit fentanyl currently doing the rounds in Canada is manufactured in China, and usually cut into cocaine or heroin, and it is gradually making its way eastward across the country. The fentanyl experience also brings into sharp relief the whole problem of the ongoing over-prescription of opiates in Canada. There are now apocalyptic warnings of a new drug called W-18 (I'm sure a better street name will be coined soon), which is apparently up to 100 times stronger than even fentanyl.
How can people be so desperate as to need this kind of "recreation"? This not some kind of a pleasant buzz, a way of forgetting day-to-day cares and concerns; this is more like being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and about as safe. In my cocooned middle-class life, I am just completely unable to relate to this, and I wish someone would explain it to me.
The third article relates to pre-natal sex selection among Indian immigrants in Canada, the abortion of female fetuses out of a preference for male offspring. This arguably does not involve killing per se, depending on your definitions and beliefs, but is nevertheless a despicable custom. The practice is well-documented in India, but a couple of recent studies in the Canadian Medical Association Journal have shown the extent of the practice in Canada, something that was only hinted at by anecdotal evidence until now. The very idea of it has always been extremely contentious here in multi-culti, politically-correct Canada.
While couples in this demographic may accept a daughter as their first, or even second, child, this changes dramatically with the third child: one study showed 138 boys born to Indian-born mothers for every 100 girls, and 166 boys for every girl for a fourth child. The other study revealed even greater discrepancies of 196:100 for a third child after two daughters, and a huge 326:100 for Indian-born mothers who already had two daughters and also already had an abortion before their third child.
It is hard to know what can be done about the problem. Suggestions have included banning disclosure of the sex of a fetus until 30 weeks (after which abortions are only performed in rare circumstances), but this is heavy-handed and difficult to enforce. Targeting specific groups for practising sex selection is clearly discriminatory, however conclusive and justifiable it may appear to be in other respects. It also gives one pause to think what might transpire when genetic testing for other traits becomes widely available, as it probably will one day.
Canada, unlike some other countries actively encourages immigrants to bring their cultures with them, but this particular one we can do without, thank you.
Monday, April 11, 2016
"The Joy of Love" is definitely not "The Joy of Sex"
I have to admit, I had exactly the same thought when I first read the title. Maybe it's one of those titles that loses something in the translation, and it may perhaps be safer to stick to the Latin, "Amoris Laetitia".
I'm not totally convinced that the document represents a "paradigm shift" with the "potential to shape the church’s response to the family for generations to come", as some would have it. But it is at least a little more hopeful for the Catholic LGBT community than anything else to have come out of the One True Church, calling at one point for the church to "reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration", even if it stops short of pushing for a change in actual church doctrine, or of actually condoning gay marriages.
In the same way, divorcees are still only accepted grudgingly, and without a call for any change in church rules, and abortion and fertility treatment are definitely still beyond the Catholic pale.
So, all in all, "The Joy of Love" can definitely not be mistaken for "The Joy of Sex". Ah well, baby steps...
Friday, April 08, 2016
Is using a tax haven legally, or just morally, wrong?
In all the furore surrounding the so-called Panama Papers, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly who are the real crooks and where the real blame lies.
The Panama Papers refer to a huge leak of data (and when I say "huge", we are talking about 11.5 million documents, or about 1,500 times as large as the famous Wikileaks leak of 2010 in terms of actual data) from a secretive Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca. This firm is just one of many in Panama and elsewhere that specialize in "international tax planning", including setting up shell companies (empty shells or fronts, whose sole purpose is to manage the money in it, while effectively hiding who owns the money), bearer bonds (anonymous bonds, useful for transferring large amounts of money around without indicating ownership), etc, in order to help their clients to evade tax, dodge sanctions and launder dirty money. The Panama Papers have already implicated at least 12 current or former heads of state and government, including several dictators accused of looting their own countries, as well as more than 60 relatives and associates of heads of state and other politicians. The leak is still being explored, and more discoveries will no doubt come to light over time.
The Panama Papers, though, barely scratch the surface of the overall problem, and just offer us a small glimpse into the shady dealings going on all the time throughout the world. By some estimates, the total sum hidden away in low-tax, low-regulation jurisdictions around the world could be as much as $21 trillion (about as much as the total annual economic output of the United States and Japan combined).
Many small countries - including Panama, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Macao, Seychelles, Jersey, Luxembourg, Ireland, and many others - operate as tax havens (or "Offshore Financial Centres"), but people often forget that even some US states (Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming) can be included on this list. While most of the financial services in these jurisdictions are actually perfectly legal, they tend to have a great deal of banking secrecy, weak or restricted regulation systems, and very low or non-existent taxes on financial transactions, all of which makes them very attractive to tax evaders and crooks the world over.
What I have been trying to get my head around, though, is: To what extent is a company like Mossack Fonseca operating illegally? Are tax haven countries like Panama or Luxembourg actually doing anything wrong? Or, does the legal responsibility lie purely with the individuals themselves? What constitutes tax evasion (illegal) and what tax avoidance (technically legal, but often on dubious moral ground)?
All those Third World dictators, Russian cellists and Icelandic prime ministers implicated by the Panama Papers are no doubt morally very bad people for not declaring all of their worldwide incomes for tax purposes in their countries of residence. It seems that funds, ill-gotten or not, can be legally moved around the world from one jurisdiction to another, until they sit in a country that will not give away personal information to the tax authorities of other countries. It then becomes a personal ethical decision for the investor whether or not to make a full disclosure of their earnings.
In most, but not all, countries, though, it is also a legal duty. The vast majority of countries require their residents to report (and be taxed on) their foreign income, as well as local income, which would therefore include income generated in tax havens. The USA and, strangely, Eritrea, are the only two countries that go even further, and also have a legal requirement to disclose the foreign income of citizens even if they live abroad. So, unless you are from a country that either has no income tax at all (like Bermuda, UAE, Monaco, etc), or one of those countries (like Panama itself, Hong Kong, Singapore, Syria, etc) which only taxes local income, then the legal responsibility is clear: not to disclose the income is tax evasion, not tax avoidance, and it is illegal. (If you are interested, Wikipedia has a good breakdown of which countries fall into each of these categories.)
The Panamanian legal firm Mossack Fonseca maintains that it has been operating for 40 year now without reproach, and that it is actually doing nothing wrong, and certainly nothing illegal. As far as I can see, this is true: they are merely fulfilling a legal service for the their clients in setting up shell companies, etc, and they have no legal responsibility to ask those clients what they intend to do with their companies or their money. You can perhaps argue that they might have a moral responsibility, but then you could point the same finger at any number of businesses in all manner of fields for a variety of different reasons. No-one ever claimed that businesses are moral animals.
Do countries have a responsibility to eliminate, or at least discourage, the evasion of tax by foreign individuals or companies? Legally, probably not. They are essentially offering foreign investors and businesses a politically and economically stable environment in which to invest their money, with little, or often no, tax liability, and enhanced secrecy and disclosure laws. There is nothing intrinsically illegal in providing the structure for tax evasion, or even in hiding the true owners or origins of money. Morally reprehensible? Sure! But then so is so much else in the big, bad world of high finance.
So, it seems that facilitating companies like Mossack Fonseca and tax haven countries like Panama are not actually doing anything wrong from a legal point of view. Those individuals who make use of these services and then do not report the income for taxation purposes, however, ARE breaking the law, except in a handful of cases where their country laws allow it.
Either way, though, it's a dirty old business. If tax havens and tax planning companies are not actively criminal, they are at the very least guilty of aiding and abetting.
The Panama Papers refer to a huge leak of data (and when I say "huge", we are talking about 11.5 million documents, or about 1,500 times as large as the famous Wikileaks leak of 2010 in terms of actual data) from a secretive Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca. This firm is just one of many in Panama and elsewhere that specialize in "international tax planning", including setting up shell companies (empty shells or fronts, whose sole purpose is to manage the money in it, while effectively hiding who owns the money), bearer bonds (anonymous bonds, useful for transferring large amounts of money around without indicating ownership), etc, in order to help their clients to evade tax, dodge sanctions and launder dirty money. The Panama Papers have already implicated at least 12 current or former heads of state and government, including several dictators accused of looting their own countries, as well as more than 60 relatives and associates of heads of state and other politicians. The leak is still being explored, and more discoveries will no doubt come to light over time.
The Panama Papers, though, barely scratch the surface of the overall problem, and just offer us a small glimpse into the shady dealings going on all the time throughout the world. By some estimates, the total sum hidden away in low-tax, low-regulation jurisdictions around the world could be as much as $21 trillion (about as much as the total annual economic output of the United States and Japan combined).
Many small countries - including Panama, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Macao, Seychelles, Jersey, Luxembourg, Ireland, and many others - operate as tax havens (or "Offshore Financial Centres"), but people often forget that even some US states (Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming) can be included on this list. While most of the financial services in these jurisdictions are actually perfectly legal, they tend to have a great deal of banking secrecy, weak or restricted regulation systems, and very low or non-existent taxes on financial transactions, all of which makes them very attractive to tax evaders and crooks the world over.
What I have been trying to get my head around, though, is: To what extent is a company like Mossack Fonseca operating illegally? Are tax haven countries like Panama or Luxembourg actually doing anything wrong? Or, does the legal responsibility lie purely with the individuals themselves? What constitutes tax evasion (illegal) and what tax avoidance (technically legal, but often on dubious moral ground)?
All those Third World dictators, Russian cellists and Icelandic prime ministers implicated by the Panama Papers are no doubt morally very bad people for not declaring all of their worldwide incomes for tax purposes in their countries of residence. It seems that funds, ill-gotten or not, can be legally moved around the world from one jurisdiction to another, until they sit in a country that will not give away personal information to the tax authorities of other countries. It then becomes a personal ethical decision for the investor whether or not to make a full disclosure of their earnings.
In most, but not all, countries, though, it is also a legal duty. The vast majority of countries require their residents to report (and be taxed on) their foreign income, as well as local income, which would therefore include income generated in tax havens. The USA and, strangely, Eritrea, are the only two countries that go even further, and also have a legal requirement to disclose the foreign income of citizens even if they live abroad. So, unless you are from a country that either has no income tax at all (like Bermuda, UAE, Monaco, etc), or one of those countries (like Panama itself, Hong Kong, Singapore, Syria, etc) which only taxes local income, then the legal responsibility is clear: not to disclose the income is tax evasion, not tax avoidance, and it is illegal. (If you are interested, Wikipedia has a good breakdown of which countries fall into each of these categories.)
The Panamanian legal firm Mossack Fonseca maintains that it has been operating for 40 year now without reproach, and that it is actually doing nothing wrong, and certainly nothing illegal. As far as I can see, this is true: they are merely fulfilling a legal service for the their clients in setting up shell companies, etc, and they have no legal responsibility to ask those clients what they intend to do with their companies or their money. You can perhaps argue that they might have a moral responsibility, but then you could point the same finger at any number of businesses in all manner of fields for a variety of different reasons. No-one ever claimed that businesses are moral animals.
Do countries have a responsibility to eliminate, or at least discourage, the evasion of tax by foreign individuals or companies? Legally, probably not. They are essentially offering foreign investors and businesses a politically and economically stable environment in which to invest their money, with little, or often no, tax liability, and enhanced secrecy and disclosure laws. There is nothing intrinsically illegal in providing the structure for tax evasion, or even in hiding the true owners or origins of money. Morally reprehensible? Sure! But then so is so much else in the big, bad world of high finance.
So, it seems that facilitating companies like Mossack Fonseca and tax haven countries like Panama are not actually doing anything wrong from a legal point of view. Those individuals who make use of these services and then do not report the income for taxation purposes, however, ARE breaking the law, except in a handful of cases where their country laws allow it.
Either way, though, it's a dirty old business. If tax havens and tax planning companies are not actively criminal, they are at the very least guilty of aiding and abetting.
Racism and walking the tightrope of conflicting interests
While I would be automatically suspicious of any blog entry starting with "I'm not racist but...", I am beginning to wonder whether there isn't some element of sacred-cowism (yes, that's my own word) in discussions of racism in modern, multicultural, progressive Canada. It is some years now since I was involved in the Camden Council Anti-Racism Task Force (is that even what it was called? I can't actually remember exactly) back in England, so my credentials are a bit rusty to say the least. But, the more I read, the more I worry that politicians these days are caught in a political correctness trap of their own devising.
I refer more specifically to the whole Black Lives Matter movement, and even more specifically to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's recent comments about policing in Toronto, which have the police force understandably upset.
Yes, of course black lives matter as much as white ones (and vice versa), and yes, individual police officers have made mistakes under pressure (viz. Sammy Yatim, Andrew Loku, Jermaine Carby). Yes, police officers are probably still under-trained and over-armed, despite decades of attempts to confront and deal with any possible systemic prejudice in the force. Yes, the numbers of black and aboriginal people in prison or subject to police attentions are much higher than their demographic representation might warrant, but there may also be some good reasons for that (relative poverty, different cultural norms, gang culture, drugs culture, etc, etc), and this does not in itself point to police racism. Individuals like Carby, Yatim and Loku may not have deserved to die, but, despite the protestations of their families, they were certainly no angels, nor were they "good boys" unfairly picked on by the police.
But for Ms. Wynne to claim, as she did the other day, that there is "systemic racism" and "anti-black racism" in Ontario society, implying (given that she was specifically discussing policing at the time) racism in the police force, is taking generalization and extrapolation to an unjustifiable, even dangerous, level. To tar a whole society, or even a whole police force for that matter, with such a sweeping brush, smacks to me of political correctness gone crazy.
I actually think that Ontario society is one of the least racist, and most inclusive, I have ever lived in. This is not to say that every single individual (including every single police officer) is colour-blind and infinitely accepting of differences: that's just not how societies work. But to call us - as a society or as a police force - racist belies decades of improvements, and the efforts of millions of people to put such attitudes behind us.
The problem is that politicians such as Ms. Wynne (who, despite our differences, I still believe to be entirely sincere and to have her heart in the right place) are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are under intense political pressure to make the right anti-racist noises, and to show that they are taking organizations like Black Lives Matter (whose heart is also in the right place, despite its own mistakes, viz. distinctly iffy incendiary tweets from co-founders) seriously. To publicly voice any opposition to an anti-racist organization is political suicide for those in power, and even for me to question the orthodoxy in a blog like this is difficult, and kind of feels wrong. In supporting activist groups over-zealously or unthinkingly, though, politicians risk alienating the rest of the population.
Politics these days is, and I suppose always has been to some extent, a balancing act, a tightrope above a quagmire of conflicting causes, lobby groups and special interests. I sometimes wonder why anyone goes in to it in the first place.
I refer more specifically to the whole Black Lives Matter movement, and even more specifically to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's recent comments about policing in Toronto, which have the police force understandably upset.
Yes, of course black lives matter as much as white ones (and vice versa), and yes, individual police officers have made mistakes under pressure (viz. Sammy Yatim, Andrew Loku, Jermaine Carby). Yes, police officers are probably still under-trained and over-armed, despite decades of attempts to confront and deal with any possible systemic prejudice in the force. Yes, the numbers of black and aboriginal people in prison or subject to police attentions are much higher than their demographic representation might warrant, but there may also be some good reasons for that (relative poverty, different cultural norms, gang culture, drugs culture, etc, etc), and this does not in itself point to police racism. Individuals like Carby, Yatim and Loku may not have deserved to die, but, despite the protestations of their families, they were certainly no angels, nor were they "good boys" unfairly picked on by the police.
But for Ms. Wynne to claim, as she did the other day, that there is "systemic racism" and "anti-black racism" in Ontario society, implying (given that she was specifically discussing policing at the time) racism in the police force, is taking generalization and extrapolation to an unjustifiable, even dangerous, level. To tar a whole society, or even a whole police force for that matter, with such a sweeping brush, smacks to me of political correctness gone crazy.
I actually think that Ontario society is one of the least racist, and most inclusive, I have ever lived in. This is not to say that every single individual (including every single police officer) is colour-blind and infinitely accepting of differences: that's just not how societies work. But to call us - as a society or as a police force - racist belies decades of improvements, and the efforts of millions of people to put such attitudes behind us.
The problem is that politicians such as Ms. Wynne (who, despite our differences, I still believe to be entirely sincere and to have her heart in the right place) are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are under intense political pressure to make the right anti-racist noises, and to show that they are taking organizations like Black Lives Matter (whose heart is also in the right place, despite its own mistakes, viz. distinctly iffy incendiary tweets from co-founders) seriously. To publicly voice any opposition to an anti-racist organization is political suicide for those in power, and even for me to question the orthodoxy in a blog like this is difficult, and kind of feels wrong. In supporting activist groups over-zealously or unthinkingly, though, politicians risk alienating the rest of the population.
Politics these days is, and I suppose always has been to some extent, a balancing act, a tightrope above a quagmire of conflicting causes, lobby groups and special interests. I sometimes wonder why anyone goes in to it in the first place.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
The atheist church minister
I thought I had already posted a blog entry some time ago on the atheist United Church minister, Gretta Vosper, who is making waves in Canada's religious establishment. It seems I was mistaken. Another article, in the latest edition of The Walrus magazine, has reminded me of my omission.
The United Church of Canada has been a refuge for progressive liberal Protestants for almost a century now, since its establishment in 1925 out of a union of Canadian Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists. It is unapologetically radical, has no official creed, and is more interested in political and social activism than in the spiritual lives of worshippers. It is also unapologetically Canadian, with a made-in-Canada vision of inclusivity, and is considered by many to be effectively Canada's national church. Over the years, it has been at the forefront of, and outspoken on, issues like gay rights, same sex marriage, indigenous residential schools, nuclear disarmament, anti-poverty initiatives, Palestinian self-determination, medically assisted suicide, etc, etc. It is one of the very few religious organizations that I have any respect for at all.
However, the Church, like most other Christian denominations in Canada and elsewhere, has been struggling. Just six years after its founding, in 1931, its membership was about 2 million out of a Canadian population of 10 million (20%); by 2013, its active membership was down to about 500,000 out of a population of 35 million (barely over 1%). Its budget and its staff have been slashed in recent years, and the profiles of both its ministers and its attendees get a little bit older every year. It no longer has the ear of influential politicians and the movers and shakers of the country, and the divisions between the traditionalists and the activists within the Church are becoming ever more apparent.
Into this scenario, enter Gretta Vosper. She was brought up in the United Church, graduated from Queen's University theology school, was first ordained as a minister in 1993, and became minister of the West Hill United Church in eastern Scarborough in 1997. In 2001, she first revealed to her congregation her long-held beliefs: that there was actually no such thing as a God that answered prayers, that the Bible is not the word of God; that Jesus was not the divine son of God; that we probably don't go to Heaven after death. In her view, all religions are mere human constructions, and the existence of God is essentially unprovable and, more importantly, unnecessary. In Ms. Vosper's church and its services (or "gatherings"), then, there are no prayers, no liturgical readings, not even any mention of God or Jesus or the Bible. In spite of all this, though, her congregation has doggedly stuck with her, and she even attracts attendees from far away.
Progressive and tolerant though the United Church may be, many within the Church find Ms. Vosper's views distinctly uncomfortable. It is, after all, at least nominally a Christian organization. In 2005, a committee to review her beliefs was proposed but ultimately came to nothing. In 2015, though, a more serious challenge was mounted, with a committee established to review the "effectiveness" of her ministry, which as far as I am aware is still ongoing. So far, her battle has already cost her $60,000 in legal fees.
Ms. Vosper is not alone in her views. 24% of United Church ministers responded (anonymously) to a 2011 United Church Observer survey on whether they believed in God with "Depends what you mean by 'God' ", and some think the real number may be closer to 50%. Two other United Church ministers have openly admitted in recent years that they had lost their faith in God, although both then resigned (or were asked to resign) from the ministry. Several belong to The Clergy Project, an "anonymous online community for former and active religious professionals who no longer hold to supernatural beliefs".
Ms. Vosper's case, though, is quite different qualitatively. She views her lack of belief in the supernatural as a positive thing, and sees it as her mission to help the United Church change and adapt to new circumstances, in order to allow it to continue its work into an uncertain future. She claims to be, in her words, "irritating the church into the 21st century".
She is clearly disappointed in the Church that she grew up in, the Church that, as she puts it, gave her the tools to explore and encouraged her to ask difficult questions and to challenge the status quo. She is also disappointed in, even understandably resentful of, her fellow ministers, many of whom she knows to be sympathetic to her views, for their lack of public support.
However the review into her ministry may turn out, Ms. Vospers is articulate, passionate and compelling. Watch an interview here.
The United Church of Canada has been a refuge for progressive liberal Protestants for almost a century now, since its establishment in 1925 out of a union of Canadian Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists. It is unapologetically radical, has no official creed, and is more interested in political and social activism than in the spiritual lives of worshippers. It is also unapologetically Canadian, with a made-in-Canada vision of inclusivity, and is considered by many to be effectively Canada's national church. Over the years, it has been at the forefront of, and outspoken on, issues like gay rights, same sex marriage, indigenous residential schools, nuclear disarmament, anti-poverty initiatives, Palestinian self-determination, medically assisted suicide, etc, etc. It is one of the very few religious organizations that I have any respect for at all.
However, the Church, like most other Christian denominations in Canada and elsewhere, has been struggling. Just six years after its founding, in 1931, its membership was about 2 million out of a Canadian population of 10 million (20%); by 2013, its active membership was down to about 500,000 out of a population of 35 million (barely over 1%). Its budget and its staff have been slashed in recent years, and the profiles of both its ministers and its attendees get a little bit older every year. It no longer has the ear of influential politicians and the movers and shakers of the country, and the divisions between the traditionalists and the activists within the Church are becoming ever more apparent.
Into this scenario, enter Gretta Vosper. She was brought up in the United Church, graduated from Queen's University theology school, was first ordained as a minister in 1993, and became minister of the West Hill United Church in eastern Scarborough in 1997. In 2001, she first revealed to her congregation her long-held beliefs: that there was actually no such thing as a God that answered prayers, that the Bible is not the word of God; that Jesus was not the divine son of God; that we probably don't go to Heaven after death. In her view, all religions are mere human constructions, and the existence of God is essentially unprovable and, more importantly, unnecessary. In Ms. Vosper's church and its services (or "gatherings"), then, there are no prayers, no liturgical readings, not even any mention of God or Jesus or the Bible. In spite of all this, though, her congregation has doggedly stuck with her, and she even attracts attendees from far away.
Progressive and tolerant though the United Church may be, many within the Church find Ms. Vosper's views distinctly uncomfortable. It is, after all, at least nominally a Christian organization. In 2005, a committee to review her beliefs was proposed but ultimately came to nothing. In 2015, though, a more serious challenge was mounted, with a committee established to review the "effectiveness" of her ministry, which as far as I am aware is still ongoing. So far, her battle has already cost her $60,000 in legal fees.
Ms. Vosper is not alone in her views. 24% of United Church ministers responded (anonymously) to a 2011 United Church Observer survey on whether they believed in God with "Depends what you mean by 'God' ", and some think the real number may be closer to 50%. Two other United Church ministers have openly admitted in recent years that they had lost their faith in God, although both then resigned (or were asked to resign) from the ministry. Several belong to The Clergy Project, an "anonymous online community for former and active religious professionals who no longer hold to supernatural beliefs".
Ms. Vosper's case, though, is quite different qualitatively. She views her lack of belief in the supernatural as a positive thing, and sees it as her mission to help the United Church change and adapt to new circumstances, in order to allow it to continue its work into an uncertain future. She claims to be, in her words, "irritating the church into the 21st century".
She is clearly disappointed in the Church that she grew up in, the Church that, as she puts it, gave her the tools to explore and encouraged her to ask difficult questions and to challenge the status quo. She is also disappointed in, even understandably resentful of, her fellow ministers, many of whom she knows to be sympathetic to her views, for their lack of public support.
However the review into her ministry may turn out, Ms. Vospers is articulate, passionate and compelling. Watch an interview here.