Breaking news: expedition to prove that the Earth is round

A group of prominent flat-earthers made a (very expensive) trip down to Antarctica to see first-hand whether there was indeed 24-hour sunlight there at this time of year.

For some reason, they seem to accept the premise that, if there is 24 hours of sun at the Pole, then that is sufficient evidence that the Earth is indeed round (spherical), not flat. Why they would accept that particular piece of evidence and not all the other evidence pointing towards a round earth is not clear. 

And why they felt the need to go to the South Pole, not the much more accessible (and much cheaper) North Pole at a different time of year, is also not clear. But then, they were not actually paying for it - some Colorado church was picking up the tab, again, for unknown reasons. And why they couldn't go just partway to the Pole and see the hours of sunlight increase to arrive at the same conclusion is likewise a mystery....

There are many more baffling aspects to this expedition, which are just too depressing to go into here. But, hey, this is not a scientific endeavour after all; logic need not apply. One of them explains, "Actually, what I am is somebody who has left the cult of science". But wait, testing a hypothesis by empirical observation? Isn't that pretty much the definition of the scientific method.

You'll be relieved to know that they did indeed find 24 hours of sunlight at the South Pole, and that at least some of them now accept that the Earth is indeed round. Phew!

Good riddance to Jordan Peterson

Right-wind firebrand Jordan Peterson is leaving Canada to live and work in the USA. He says of Canada, "It's become uncomfortable for me", both in his local neighbourhood and in his work as a psychologist. Uncomfortable for YOU? How do you think WE feel?

Good riddance! One less idiot to deal with here. I'm sure he'll be much happier in Trump's America. Hell, he'll probably get a cabinet position.

Doug Ford shows us what "unhelpful" really looks like

Speaking over overreach, the Canadian premiers are once again taking aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, this time when he had the audacity to question the wisdom of electing Donald Trump.

At a gala event for Equal Voice, Trudeau declared himself a proud feminist and bemoaned the fact that America had, for a second time, failed to elect a woman to the highest office in the land (not that Canada has actually ever done that...)

In doing so, of course, Trudeau effectively dissed Donald Trump, always a dangerous tactic but arguably one that should not be shied away from, where appropriate. Trump himself, who rarely lets an insult pass unanswered, has not bothered to respond specifically to that barb, suggesting that it's really not that important in the scheme of things. (Elon Musk did, but then he's even more anal about these things.)

But the premiers of Canada - who are supposed to be on Canada's side, but are really only on their own side - couldn't resist taking pot-shots at Trudeau, presumably to score a few cheap points towards their own re-election propects. Ontario's Doug Ford in particular came out swinging, saying repeatedly that Trudeau's comments were "not helpful at all".

But then, in a public presser about how to respond to Donald Trump's threat to impose hefty tariffs on Canada (and everyone else), Ford blustered about how Ontario will cut off all the electrical power the province exports to the USA. "It would turn off the lights to a million and half Americans". Ooh, scary!

Talk about "not helpful"! This once again shows just how naive Ford is, even in comparison with Trump, and what a poor grasp of international relations and negotiations he has. Somewhere in the first few pages of the manual it probably says, "Don't shoot your wad in the first two minutes".  Such a move would certainly risk much more economic damage to Ontario and Canada than the US would ever incur. As one public policy expert put it, "I'd be very careful about trying to get into a full war where they have a gun and we have a knife". 

Most of the other premiers quickly distanced themselves from Ford, Alberta's Danielle Smith being particularly vocal in assuring everyone that Alberta would never cut off its exports to the USA. At this point, it's mainly an exercise in damage limitation. Good job, Dougie.

Israel overreaches again, this time in Syria

I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been more push-back and outrage at Israel's latest enormities.

While Syria is going through tough times and social ructions in the political vacuum that has followed the ousting of dictator Bashar al-Assad, Israel has basically invaded the country, taking over the Golan Heights buffer zone and strategically important Mount Hermon, as well as bombing Syria's military assets, destroying an estimated 90% of its surface-to-air missiles among other targets.

Although Israel maintains the capture of Mount Hermon, which is a scant 35km from the Syrian capital Damascus, is a "temporary measure", all of its actions represent an immense overreach. Israel is not actually at war with Syria (or they weren't). So, what are they doing occupying parts of it, and destroying the miltary capability of a sovereign nation? And talk about kicking a guy when he's down!

Netanyahu intones, "We have no intention to intervene in Syria's internal affairs", but then who believes a word THAT guy says these days. Does destroying their military and occupying their territory not count as "intervention"? He further explains that the actions were necessary in order to "take care of our security". What about Syria's security? 

As usual, everyone is scared stiff of criticizing Israel for fear of being labelled anti-semitic. But this is an unconscionable overextension of Israel's already excessive power.

A surprising nunber of Canadians want to join the USA

Most people think that Donald Trump was joking when he suggested that Canada should become the 51st state of the USA, with Trudeau as its governor. But you never can tell with Trump.

Trudeau hasn't graced Trump's post with a response, jokey or otherwise. But a Leger poll about Canadian opinions on the matter is alarming to say the least. You might expect that precisely NO Canadians would want to become  minor part of the USA, but you would be wrong.

In fact, according to the poll, 13% of Canadians would apparently be quite happy being part of an American state, with 82% not. The demographic breakdown is even more alarming when you consider that 19% of men would vote in favour of such an arrangement (compared to just 7% of women). Perhaps predictably, the proportion of Conservative voters who want to be part of the experiment in neo-fascism down south is higher than Liberals (Conservatives 21%; Liberals 10%; NDP 6%; the People's Party, for what it's worth, 25%). Also not surprising, the Atlantic provinces are less enthusiastic (7%), Quebec and Ontario middling (12% and 11%), and the Prairie provinces and Alberta the most gung-ho (18% and 19%).

It comes as a salutary reminder that, however much we may disdain Americans for being taken in by Trump and his nonsense, Canada too has more than its fair share of idiots.

To read or not to read

There was a brave and impassioned article by celebrated Canadian author Lawrence Hill in the weekend Globe and Mail about his use of the N-word in his books (no, I'm not going to write it out - do you think I'm stupid?)

Still perhaps the single most loaded word in the English language, Hill explains that he includes it in his novels, as do many other Black authors like Austin Clarke, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, et al, for authenticity. But it does out schools looking to teach the books in a difficult position because the work can apparently be "triggering" for many young Black people, and school boards feel the need to "protect" their young people from such mental strain. Hill believes that they need to "own" the word, or "reclaim" it, and that readers - Black and White - should face up to the reality of its historical use.

The article was prompted by the many letters Mr. Hill receives about how various school boards have.not exactly banned his books - particularly The Book of Negroes, his best known and most-awarded book - but stipulated that they should not be used for mandatory coursework, only made available for voluntary use in the school library.

Mr. Hill, however, maintains that this is tantamount to a ban - an assertion I would probably diasagree with, on balance - and that such policies are depriving students of the opportunity to read some great books by Black authors, and depriving Black authors of a valuable new audience. 

Again, on balance, I would probably disagree. I didn't read any Black authors during my schooling in 1960s and 1970s England, but I have read and enjoyed many since then. Should students be FORCED to read Black and Indigenous authors for the good of their immortal souls? That would be a radical notion indeed. Should they even be allocated study spots in proportion to their demographic numbers? That would also get complicated when you start trying to be inclusive of the various Asian, African, Latino, etc, sub-sets, and women, queer authors, etc, no doubt also want their share of the market.

There are so many worthy and well-written works of literature out there - most of them written by dead white guys as it happens - it's a real quagmire deciding who should be studied by Canadian students. The bottom line, though, should be that this a study of English literature, not politics, sociology or anthropology. 

There are many great books that are relatively uncontentious and inoffensive (including by Black authors). We do not have to push the envelope all the time, andnwe can still learn about sentence construction, literary styles and grammar without having to go through all this hand-wringing and recrimination.

Presidential pardons are getting out of hand

The whole system of presidential pardons in America is broken and wrong. I know US presidents have been doing it since the year dot (well, since George Washington anyway), and I know it's enshrined in the US Constitution, but it doesn't make any real sense and it is quite clearly open to abuse.

Joe Biden, hot on the heels of his horrible and embarrassing decision to pardon his own son for his criminal acts (possibly the worst decision of his whole presidency, and a huge black stain on his legacy), has just pardoned 39 other criminals accused of non-violent crimes (mainly drug-related), and commuted the sentences of about 1,500 others (mainly those who had their prison sentences interrupted by OVID), in the largest single-day act of clemency in modern American history. And he may not be finished yet.

Donald Trump has already vowed to pardon the imprisoned January 6th Capitol rioters "on Day 1". These are convicted criminals, many of them violent, whom Trump seems to see as political prisoners and maligned patriots. Biden is also said to be mullling the idea of pre-emptively pardoning (now, THERE's a concept!) the legal investigators of the January 6th coup attempt, in the full knowledge that Trump will be coming after them (and unspecified other politcal opponents) as soon as he gains power. It's all getting a bit ridiculous.

People who are in American prison are there because the courts, after due deliberation and legal cases that are often lengthy and complex, deemed that they have broken the laws of the land. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good. Who are these presidents, who think they know better than the courts, or who rely on the partisan political advice of others, who are they to second-guess the whole system of due process and legal precedent?

Canada's Supreme Court to finally test excessive use of "notwithstanding clause"

Canadian courts are finally taking to task those provincial governments - like Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan - that are routinely and willfully using the "notwithstanding clause" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass legislation that is clearly contrary to human rights in the country.

Section 33 of the Charter, which effectively allows governments to override parts of the document, has always been a controversial element, and was always intended as a tool of last resort, only to be invoked in extremely rare circumstances. But, increasingly in recent years, some provincial governments have been using it to justify their own controversial motions, even invoking it pre-emptively, in the full knowledge that the legislation they are proposing is illegal under the Charter, as Ontario Premier Doug Ford did just this week. It has never been invoked at the federal level, but Pierre Poilievre - of course it would be him! - says he would be open to using it to push through dubious legislation on legal sentencing and bail.

It's frankly ridiculous that such a clause exists at all - it only exists to allow governments to break the law of the land - but given that it does, it should be used extremely sparingly and judiciously. The latest crop of (mainly conservative) populist politicians seem to feel this does not apply to them.

But now, finally, the Supreme Court of Canada is set to take on a case - brought by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and teacher Ichrak Nour el Hak - appealing Quebec's Bill 21 (which seeks to ban public service employees from wearing religious symbols like crosses or hijabs). As part of this case, the Supreme Court must look at whether Quebec can hide behind the notwithstanding clause to push through such legislation.

Bring it on, I say. The notwithstanding clause is an unconscionable anachronism, but, given that it exists, it should at least be limited to the kinds of extremely rare circumstances envisaged by the Charter's authors, not just to allow unscrupulous governments to pass bad legislation.