Where Are We Going?

November 11 Examined

2010-11-11T22:21:00.000-04:00

When did Remembrance Day get weird? I grew up attending Girl Guides, which meant that every November 11, I put on my uniform and lined up in the cold to march in a parade to the cenotaph behind the veterans in our little community. One of us laid a wreath while the rest of us stood still, and then the veterans led the way feebly into the legion for hot chocolate. I went to a community cenotaph today, and there were still over a thousand people crowded into the small space, although precious few veterans WWII veterans are left. I stood near an elderly man, two middle aged women, a family with children perhaps one and six years of age, and a couple police officers . It wasn’t weird during the ceremony, listening to the high school student perform the last post, wishing I knew the words to “Abide With Me,” and spending the moment of silence imagining the experiences of all the soldiers and those that loved them.

What was weird was earlier in the week, as I heard debate about purple poppies to remember the animals killed in the war, and white poppies to advocate for peace. I don’t imagine the people behind these movements meant offence, so I don’t bother to take any. I wonder though, if they have a distorted idea of why those of us sporting red poppies choose to do so.

I am not a military-minded person. If I was Prime Minister I would be working hard to avoid armed conflict. The truth is that war can’t always be avoided, at least not by the second party. If the all of the allied nations chose not to respond to Hitler’s Germany, many more than six million people would have been killed in concentration camps. We would have a very different world now without the actions of the soldiers who fought. Not all of the battles in Canadian history have been noble. The British and French fought over possession of the land, and in some cases the Europeans fought the Natives for the land too. Since Confederation, though, we have mostly served to protect people and ideals. Canadians are proud to be a peacekeeping nation. Warmongering often involves a great deal of idealizing and emotionalizing, unifying a people against a foe. I don’t always agree with the ideology used, but I respect the brave men and women who have supported their country. They acted in faith, doing what they believed was right. Thousands of them have died trying to protect our freedom, or the freedom of those in other nations.

The people who went over in WWI and WWII came back changed for life, if they returned at all. Most of them would not have wished such experiences on another generation. WWI was called the war to end all wars in part because so many people hoped it would. The poppy isn’t a “Support Our Troops” sign. For most it is worn in remembrance. We recognize the horrors that veterans endured, and that peacekeepers continue to endure. We thank them for the freedom they fought and often died for, so that it was not in vain. I believe most of the veterans would like to think that some day we actually will end all wars. Every child who grows up understanding the sacrifices made by others for the freedom she enjoys brings us a step closer to that day.

Yay for Bill C-288!

2007-02-15T14:40:00.001-04:00

I am so pleased to hear that the House of Commons passed a bill giving Harper 60 days to come up with a plan to meet the Kyoto Accord. The Tories have so far given hints that they plan to disregard the bill, which could lead to a no-confidence vote. A no-confidence vote sounds exciting to me because the majority of Canadians don’t like Harper, and perhaps an election would turn out differently now. On the other hand, we definitely can’t afford an election after only 14 months. I think perhaps the Harper government doesn’t realise how many Canadians are getting concerned about the environment. The conservative local papers have been publishing countless environmental stories this year, and it’s not out of altruistic interest. They know that it’s what their customers want to read about. Unfortunately Stephan Harper hasn’t been paying attention. He’s still too tuned into America to understand what his voters want Canada to be. Perhaps it’s time to write some letters to MPs and cabinet minister John Baird.

Christmas Thoughts

2006-12-28T18:13:00.000-04:00

I love Christmas. I love the music, the food, the trees, the opportunity to see friends who are home just for the holidays, and the traditions. It’s so great to give presents to friends and family, and to spend time eating, laughing and visiting together. I also find Christmas to have some stress mixed in with the fun though. It can be stressful to find good gifts for the many people on my list, and to get wrapping and card writing done in time. Then getting to all the parties and gatherings can even get a bit hairy. After New Year’s, I will feel poor, and overweight.

Christmas is a time when we value the important things in life, such as family, friendship, peace, love, joy, generosity, and for some of us, the nativity story. Unfortunately, we also spend a lot of time thinking about much less important things at Christmas too, such as ornaments, house wares, electronics, clothing, and toys. Of all the things I bought others for Christmas, and the things I received, how many were items that any of us needed? Let me list a few items: a hand bag, candles, hobby supplies, DVDs, CDs, framed photographs, calendars, a hand held mixer, pyjama pants, pot holders, puzzles, socks, books, electronic memory, and chocolates. Many of these were great presents, but not essential. The watch strap and the black trouser socks I asked for are important for my particular work environment, but not for my general survival. We start taking our decadent lifestyle for granted in North America, and this results in feeling that we need things that we really don’t. For example, yesterday, my boyfriend and I were considering what to go shopping for in the Boxing Day Sales. He said that of the things I had wanted for Christmas, the second thing I needed most was a memory card for my camera. My current card holds only 16MB, which takes 16 default-size pictures. I agreed that I wanted a bigger card, but it was hardly a necessity. Photography in general is a luxury item, never mind updated technology. When I compare what I have to other people, I think that I need more, but when I compare what I have to my concept of say, life in Uganda, or Nicaragua, I have more than plenty.

Most of my friends agree that Christmas is too commercial, but oddly enough, none of us really do anything about it. I hate the malls and all they represent, but I still want to give my friends something more tangible than my time to express my affection for them. Ideally, I would make all the presents I give, but I would need more time and talent for that, and I would still have to buy all the supplies for the presents. I made a few gifts this year, and I think I will make a bigger effort to do more of that next year. One aspect of Christmas that I don’t keep up with is decorations. I have some old wreaths from an aunt that I put around my flat, and I have a tree, but I have no outdoor lights. Lights are pretty, but they are a misuse of electricity to me, and they aren’t related to the people, love, joy or peace that I value at Christmas, so I choose not to conform in that way at this point in my life.

This year I have tried to be more mindful of the little moments of the season. I don’t want to be stressed as I prepare for a gathering, or try to get cards addressed. I want to focus on joy of the holidays, and the people that I have the chance to spend time with. When I find myself feeling hassled about something, I slow down, think about how great it is that it’s Christmastime, and then I smile, and keep going. I hope that you and yours are having a peace- and joy-filled holiday.

Violence Against Humans

2006-12-06T22:46:00.000-04:00

Today is the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. In 1989, a man killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique. He blamed women for many of his problems in life, including the fact that he had not been accepted into engineering. In our grief about the event, Canadians reacted against violence upon women in general.

December 6^th is all the anniversary of the Halifax Explosion, in 1917. It was the biggest explosion ever, until the arrival of the atomic bomb. The incident was caused by two ships colliding in the Halifax Harbour. Around two thousand people died, and nine thousand were injured or maimed. Much of the city, especially the North End was destroyed. While it was an accident, it can be considered an indirect result of WWI. Canada was spared the horror of the world wars, but this one event gave us a taste of the desolation of the war.

Today seems like an appropriate day to think about violence. Acts committed by individuals and acts carried out by militaries on the behalf of states are all devastating. In Halifax we are making efforts to educate students about abuse in relationships, as well as bullying and other forms of violence. On the global front there are often peace talks. Canada is a big defender of civil rights, and we have been famous for our peacekeeping efforts abroad. These sorts of strategies are good, but I think that they will not eradicate the problem.

We say that violence is wrong, but we don’t really believe it. Violence is actually valued in our popular culture. Last night I watched eight movie previews. Of the eight, five were overtly violent. One of those was a children’s movie, but it had a lot of slapstick slapping, hitting and crashing. Of the non-violent movies, Bobby ends with an assassination. Two of the violent movies were serial-killer stories. These movies are made because people will pay to see them. To some degree violence is equated with power. Brute force is a more tangible form of power to our society than intelligence or respect through social connections.

The value we place on violence is evident in our entertainment media, and perhaps we would find it evident in our language and behavioural patterns too, if we took the time to examine it. What messages are we exchanging? What messages are we sending to the next generation? If we want to stop abuse in our homes and neighbourhoods; if we want the nations of the world to stop fighting, then we have to change the way we view violence in small everyday ways.

Good News For the Earth and AIr

2006-12-05T19:44:00.001-04:00

Brazil announced today that they will protect a huge chunk of the rainforest. This newly protected portion is about 37 million acres. It will be the biggest rainforest reserve in the world. This will help to preserve important species of plants and animals including the northern bearded saki monkey, the jaguar, the giant anteater, and the giant otter. The area is apparently the home to just less than 20% of the world’s fresh water. Rainforests also do their part in the fight against global warming, by consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen.

I am excited about this news, and also relieved that high-tech satellites will be monitoring the area to ensure that the new laws are observed. Unfortunately, three million additional acres were hoped to be included in the new laws, and there was an injunction on that section. Thirty seven million acres is still a very impressive effort on the part of the Brazillian government.

Public Pressure Pays Off

2006-12-02T20:15:00.001-04:00

In August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not attend the World Aids Conference in Toronto, nor was his government represented in any way. Organizations were loudly critical of his lack of interest. Yesterday, on World AIDS Day, the Harper government finally acknowledged the planet’s AIDS crisis. International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner announced that Canada will give $120 million to the global fight against AIDS. They chose a few directions to funnel the money. Twenty million dollars will go to vaccine research, and $19 million to Haiti and Canadian agencies for prevention programs. Tanzania will receive $20 million for it’s HIV/AIDS plan, while McGill University will receive $2.5 million for research into preventing parent-child transmission in Zimbabwe.

Yesterday’s announcement is great news, but there is still more to be done. The generic AIDS medication promised to Africa years ago has still not left the country, for one thing. A hundred and twenty million dollars is good, but it is only a drop in the bucket.

Harper seemed distinctly unsympathetic to AIDS victims less than four months ago, but now he has changed his tune somewhat. I am sure that public outcry over his silence in August is a big factor in yesterday’s AIDS funding. The Conservatives are, well, extremely conservative, but they must respond to the majority of the people, or they will lose their power. This is especially true with a minority government like this one. Whatever your political concerns, it is always worthwhile to express them. We must continue to voice our opinions until the government is forced to act.

Give A Day's Pay

2006-11-27T07:26:00.001-04:00

This Friday, December 1, is World AIDS Day. Two years ago, a doctor in Markham, Ontario challenged the doctors at her hospital to donate a day’s pay to AIDS charity. Fifty doctors rose to the challenge. The next year the word had spread to eight hospitals, and this year they are extending the challenge to everyone. Click here to find out more.

If you have a steady annual income, please consider giving your pay for Friday to The Stephen Lewis Foundation or to Dignitas International. Perhaps December is a tight time with other giving. I expect that if you were able to give a day’s pay later in the year, either organization would gladly receive a cheque.

The Stephen Lewis Website describes the idea behind the give a day campaign nicely. “This movement to raise funds is driven by the firm conviction that whether you live or die with HIV must not be determined by your race, gender or citizenship. This is one part of the human family responding to the broader human family. This is a day to show global solidarity, human decency and compassion.”

Family Values

2006-11-21T21:05:00.001-04:00

I’ve never been fond of the term “family values.” The values themselves are fine, but I think they are disproportionably focused upon by politicians and interest groups. I find that many people who preach about family values are cold and uncaring to the poor and excluded people of our society. It is often those who endorse “family values” that treat sexual minorities with hostility, for example.

I was brought up in a home that valued family, although they didn’t spend much time preaching about it. My parents loved me and loved each other, and they made efforts to spend time together as a family and instill values in their children that they thought were important. They taught us about honesty and wholesomeness. When we were small children, they ensured that we watched non-violent television and movies, especially those with moral lessons that they agreed with. My parents made lifestyle choices based on what was good for children growing up. We ate three balanced meals a day, and we always had supper together around the same table. My parents were not drinkers. And they spent weekends and vacations doing things that we could all appreciate as a family, such as board games, car trips, and museums, rather than parties.

My parents upheld most of what the “family values” people hold dear, with one major difference. They didn’t see that as being enough. My parents also instilled community values in us. They taught us to help others, to be welcoming and respectful to the elderly and the ill, and all people of different beliefs and lifestyles. They encouraged us to consider other points of view, and to compromise and cooperate with others.

The reason that I dislike the “family values” buzzword is that it is too insular in nature. It promotes an “us versus them” mindset. Individuals protect their spouses and children from the surrounding influence that they consider negative. Although it might include members of their church, the focus is largely on themselves and what is theirs, but they’ve set up walls against the rest of society.

Part of family values is caring about what is best for loved ones. I think that’s important, but I don’t just want to love my parents and my close friends. I want to care about what’s best for the crack whore who works the nearby street, and the gay couple on my block with the yappy dog. I want to do what I can for the single mothers in my city, and the angry teens who keep appearing before my provincial courts.

I don’t know what it would look like to do what I can for everyone. Sure, I could get involved with soup kitchens and youth groups, but I think it would start with my attitude. I need to value the life and well-being of everyone I come in contact with, regardless of their creed or situation. When I have opportunities for dialogue, I want to listen to their views and stories, rather than attack their choices, or tell them what I think should be true for them.

So many people want governments and society in general to protect and promote what is good for their family. I can understand that, but family values will be better preserved if they are expanded to include community values. If everyone was to treat the poor and excluded of our society with compassion and acceptance, they might find that there is less to protect their family from.

Where Have All The Good Samaritans Gone?

2006-11-16T19:27:00.001-04:00

A teenager in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia who had been missing since leaving a party around 11:00 on Friday, November 3^rd was found dead yesterday afternoon. His body was found in a swamp. In typical Nova Scotian fashion, the rural community has rallied behind the family to search for the 19-year-old boy. Friends, relatives, neighbours, and even people who didn’t know him or his family searched for Christopher Parks. Other people brought food. Maritimers are known for their practical displays of compassion, and it is nice to see that this tradition continues, at least to some extent. The sad part of the story is that if there had been more of that compassion, Christopher Park probably wouldn’t be missing in the first place.

Christopher was involved in a fight at the party that he left the night he died. Some reports say that he had been beaten up by three or four people. It’s also rumoured that the dispute was over a girl. I could write about the growing problem of violence in my province, but there is another aspect of this boy’s death that I’m also concerned about.

After getting beat up Christopher Park walked out of the party along Lawrence Road, which is near a swamp. The CBC news report says “Some said he was last seen in a ditch by the side of the road.” This indicates that more than one person saw Chris in a ditch, and kept going. What happened to the days when people stopped to help someone they saw in a ditch?

I thought about this. Would I have stopped for him? What would cause a person to decide not to help him? There is a good chance that one or two of those who saw him in the ditch were coming from the party. Perhaps they had been involved in the fight with him and therefore didn’t want to help him. Perhaps he had been drunk and belligerent at the party, and those who saw him in the ditch felt uncomfortable about helping. Or maybe one was someone (especially a female) driving alone, who didn’t feel safe picking up any stranger. Even if they didn’t want to get out and help someone on the side of the road, they could place a phone call to someone who would. In a small place like Berwick, they might have known his friends, and could have called them. Anyone could have called 911 so that the police or an ambulance could have come to help them. I expect that the people who saw Chris in the ditch and kept going are feeling bad about it now. They will continue to feel bad much longer than it would have taken to call 911.

The newspapers have quotes about what a nice boy Christopher was. Even if he had been an angry drunken idiot though, he didn’t deserve to be left in a ditch. His family didn’t deserve to find his body in a swamp this week. Compassion makes a big difference.

Climate Change: Canada's record so far

2006-11-14T21:23:00.000-04:00

Canada is geographically the second largest country in the world, but it only had 33 million people. This means that we enjoy a great deal of open space. It is widely believed that Canada has copious amounts of fresh, clean water, and large forests. This is true, but perhaps not to the extent that people might think. Our wildlife is increasingly endangered by loss of habitat, and our rivers and lakes are quite polluted. Air from Southern Ontario and the United States floats to other more rural areas such as Nova Scotia, creating environmental sensitivities. Our environment is quite compromised, and it continues to get worse. In Halifax, we were the first Canadian city to make recycling and composting mandatory, but our sewers still lead directly to the harbour. We signed the Kyoto accord, but we still comsume more fossil fuels than most countries.

Yesterday in Kenya, at a UN conference on climate control, Canada’s efforts were criticized. Two environmental groups presented a list of 56 countries. The countries were ranked according to what they were doing about global warming. The first few nations on the list were Sweden, UK, Denmark, Malta, and Germany. Canada placed 51^st out of 56. The only countries that ranked lower were Kazakhstan, United States, China, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia.

This ranking does not suit my image of Canada, or what I want my country to be like. I want our country to do more to fight for our future on this planet. Some of the most beautiful places in the world are within our borders, and we are taking them for granted. We are depleting our resources and polluting our nation and globe. What are we going to do to stop it?

Micro-credit

2006-11-13T00:25:00.001-04:00

This week there is a Global Micro-credit Summit going on in Halifax. Delegates from 100 countries are meeting here to discuss their goal of helping 100 million of the world’s poorest families with small loans. There are so many things that I am completely ignorant of. I hadn’t heard anything about this until I saw signs welcoming the summit to my city. I didn’t know that the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Professor Muhammad Yumus and his Grameen Bank for their micro-credit program.

I tend to be a little cynical, so I googled the words “Grameen Bank” and “interest.” I found this article that explains the features of Grameen’s micro-credit programs.

I was thinking about Africa and the loans made to African countries that put them so badly into debt. They helped the lenders more than the borrowers. One major difference there was that countries were loaned humungous amounts of money, which accumulated huge sums of interest. With micro-credit, individuals were loaned rather small amounts of money to help them with business initiatives to support themselves. Another difference is that micro-credit loans are usually made through non-profit organizations or institutions that are primarily owned by the borrowers. The article goes on to explain that when it is through for-profit organizations, “efforts are made to keep the interest rate at a level which is close to a level commensurate with sustainability of the program rather than bringing attractive return for the investors.” No mention is made of the interest rate for non-profit organizations, so perhaps it is either non-existent or extremely low.

The website goes on to explain some of the philosophy behind Grameen Bank’s programs. They believe that the poor are not poor as a result of lack of skill, but as a result of policies and institutions that must be changed. I especially liked what the article said next.

“Grameen believes that charity is not an answer to poverty. It only helps poverty to continue. It creates dependency and takes away an individual's initiative to break through the wall of poverty. Unleashing of energy and creativity in each human being is the answer to poverty.”

This is not to say that if a poor person wants to get out of poverty badly enough, they should be expected to do it alone. There are obstacles in place that we need to change and remove, and in the meantime they need a hand as they step over them. A small loan with low interest is such a hand. I think that until impoverished people are able to support themselves, there will be a place for charity. It is good to give to the poor, but it is better to help people help themselves. This will break the cycle of poverty.

High Seas Trawling

2006-11-12T19:16:00.000-04:00

Here in Canada, we have long considered George Bush to be behind the times in environmental issues. After all, the man doesn’t believe in Global Warming. Occasionally though, he does make a good environmental choice. This fall he has agreed to support a trawling ban which will be discussed at the United Nations in New York. It is well known that dragging nets along the bottom of the ocean damages ecosystems. George Bush joins Autralia, Britain, New Zealand, Norway and Brazil in opposing trawling. I am pleased that Bush is speaking out against something ecologically unsound. Unfortunately, my own Prime Minister is opposing the ban. It is incredibly frustrating to have a government that is even less environmentally responsible than the United States. Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn claims that a trawling ban would be unenforceable, and would not do enough to protect the most vulnerable species. While that may be the case, it would at least be a start. The government also explains that no type of fishing gear is harmful if it is used properly. I’m not sure if this argument is valid or not, but if it is, then the fishing gear is most certainly not being used correctly and hasn’t for years. It makes sense to ban the use of the gear to prevent its misuse. There is a more likely explanation that Ottawa didn’t offer. It is that the ban threatens big fishing business, and the Harper government is working in the interest of these companies.

Lest We Forget

2006-11-11T16:34:00.001-04:00

This was the first year that I had mixed feelings about wearing a poppy. As a child and teenager, I saw Remembrance Day as a time to reflect on the horrors of war and to be grateful for the sacrifices that soldiers made for our freedom. Soldiers fought for different reasons. Many went out of a sense of duty and loyalty to Canada and Britain. Perhaps some went in the interest of doing what they could to restore justice to the situation. Others went seeking adventure. They had no idea just what a terrible sort of adventure it would be. My mother had an uncle who ran away and lied about his age to enlist when he was 16. He came back “shell shocked” and lived the rest of his life in institutions. My mother had to older uncles who went to war as well. One never spoke about his experiences. The other was proud to be a veteran, spoke with emotion about his memories, and took part in Legion activities. All three of these reactions to the war were common.

It’s tempting to think of those who fought in the world wars as unwitting pawns in a game between the world powers of the time. The little people thought what they were told to thought and did what they were told to do, and died doing it. I think it’s important to respect their courage to do what they considered was their duty, whether we believe in war or not.

In junior high, one of my teachers showed us a series of videos put out by the War Amps entitled Never Again. They depicted the horror of the war, and the importance of avoiding another war. I had always thought that Remembrance Day was about not wanting to repeat the experiences of the past. War was a painful mistake that we needed to learn about so that we would not make it again. Isn’t that what “Lest we forget” meant? Perhaps all that is meant by “Lest we forget” is that if we don’t honour the sacrifices of those who fought for Canada, they will have died in vain. I thought it also implied that if we forget what they went through, we would wind up in the same miserable situation. Remembrance Day for me has always included gratitude for the peace I experience in my life, and the desire to keep it that way.

Over the last year, I became aware that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was not our usual peace keeping ritual, but a war. We are at war against the Taliban. As much as I don’t like what the Taliban represents, or the life Afghanis had to bear under it’s rule, I don’t agree with warfare. My poppy can’t represent the War Amp’s slogan “Never Again” this year. We are at it again. We’ve been at it for four years, and I just wasn’t admitting it. Afghanistan is a much smaller war than those fought in Europe by our fathers and grandfathers, but it is a war all the same.

I commemorate the sacrifices made by WWI and WWII soldiers and their families for my country. Today I remember those who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, and those who love them. They are brave and committed people. I appreciate their sacrifices, but I don’t agree that they should be making them. To me, remembering war includes wanting to end it. It’s naïve to think that every individual on Earth will ever be committed to peace, but it’s a nice idea all the same. If every individual simply refused to participate in violence, there would be no one for the politicians to send to war. This seems like a disastrous idea, I know, because if we just refused to fight, what would stop other countries or terrorists from attacking us? I know those in our military are there because they want to defend Canada and the human rights that Canada stands for. On the other hand, the more people who refuse to fight, the closer the world would be to not having terrorists.

Remembrance Day is held on the 11^th of November every year, because on the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month of 1918, WWI officially ended. WWI was known at the time as the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, it didn’t end all wars. There are several different wars going on today. We can’t just blame Hitler and Saddam and the Taliban, etc for these subsequent wars. We have to take responsibility for our part in the conflicts. Canada has been a peace-keeping nation for decades, but we are back at war. Is that what we want? If not, what are we going to do about it?

Aids in Africa: Part 2

2006-11-10T20:00:00.001-04:00

Forty million Africans are infected with HIV or AIDS. Overwhelmed with hunger and warfare, the continent has not been able to deal with the AIDS crisis. For hundreds of years, Western civilization has been benefiting from African resources, but we are not doing enough to help them in their dire need.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or so the proverb goes. Non-governmental organizations are working hard to educate Africans about AIDS prevention. For example, they are rewriting the words to well-known religious and anti-apartheid songs to teach about safe sex. This is good news, but it’s not enough. Currently there are 3 condoms per year per sexually active male available in Africa. I don’t know too many men who only have sex three times a year. As for female condoms, there is only one available for every 250 women. Some organizations don’t believe in contraception at all, while others simply don’t want to promote premarital sex. While I respect their beliefs, I think it’s time for these organizations to reconsider their policy regarding condoms. Is this one moral issue more important to them than the lives of millions of people?

Much of the money meant to help with the AIDS crisis is spent on the wrong sorts of things. According to Oxfam Canada, last year in Mozambique, 350 million dollars was spent on consultants. These consultants were mostly white males from the West, and they included people from organizations such as the World Bank. Only 74 million dollars was spent on public systems that would directly help the people of Mozambique. There is so little money in African health systems that a large percentage of African medical health professionals are relocating to countries such as Canada and Britain. Even in places where they have drugs to available, there is a grave shortage of trained medical staff to administer them.

In May 2004, Canada passed a bill that was known at the time as “Jean Chetien’s Pledge to Africa,” but now it’s called “Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime”. The idea was that Canada would produce cheap generic medication to and send it to Africa. This was a progressive and proactive new plan and I remember being happy to hear about it at the time. After two and a half years, the number of cheap generic pills that have made their way from Canada to Africa is zero. Click here to read an article outlining the reasons for this inaction. Bureaucracy seems to be a big part of the problem, and perhaps greed as the process to get permission to make genetic versions of drugs is being delayed.

One problem with government aid is that governments change. While our past leaders didn’t exactly work miracles for the AIDS situation, at least they were talking about the problem. The international AIDS conference was held in Toronto in August, and the Harper government was not represented, nor did they make any public statements that week. A couple press conferences were made and cancelled throughout the week, while NGOs and the press harshly criticized the Tories for their silence. Finally Harper announced that there would be no announcement. He said that the situation was too politicized. As the elected Prime Minister of a nation, I would think that every situation he is expected to attend to is politicized. Such is the life of a politician.

We can't all rush off to Africa to administer drugs and help in safe sex education. What we can do is give money to NGOs like Oxfam and the Stephen Lewis Foundation. If you don't have any money there is still something you can do. You can also write to your MP and Harper demanding that they do something. Remember, writing to a federal politician doesn't even cost a stamp.

Why is Africa Our Problem?

2006-11-08T07:25:00.000-04:00

I plan to discuss what the West is doing and not doing about the AIDS crisis in Africa. If I had any readers at all though, they might be wondering why I assume that the West is obligated to do something about Africa. I recently read this aritcle in Walrus Magazine, which clearly listed reasons why with more authority and detail than I can. The West did not take AIDS to Africa, but it did render Africa unable to deal with a crisis like AIDS. Most of the ecconomic, political, and social problems in Africa are a result of colonialization and post-colonial exploitation by corporations and governments. The article lists specific actions of a variety of countries. For hundreds of years Western nations and companies have been getting rich from African resources (both natural and human) and inflicting policies that have had grievious effects on African societies. Even when the West has tried to help Africa, it has often been with certain conditions, which helped Western ecconomies and political agendas more than Africa. Helping the situation in Africa is not about charity. It's about righting hundreds of years of wrongs. Of course bringing justice to centries of injustice will be a slow process, but we owe it to them to try.

AIDS in Africa: Part 1

2006-11-06T21:19:00.000-04:00

The other night there was a panel discussion on the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa. I will write what I learned there in two posts. Tonight’s will highlight the situation, and the next will look at what is being done (or not done) about it. The speakers focused on women because women are much more vulnerable to AIDS than men, for biological, cultural and economic reasons. I was not aware that women are more likely to get HIV. Men are naturally less likely to contract HIV, and if they are circumcised, they are an additional 20% less likely to contract it. In some African cultures, women are still not allowed to look men in the eye, and they sit on the floor while men sit on chairs. This systemic hierarchy would inhibit women from demanding protection during sex. The inequality also contributes to the amount of violence and sexual violence against women. It also means that women receive less education, as they are often removed from school at an earlier age to become caregivers. Less education gives them less options to provide for themselves and their families, which limits their resources when AIDS does enter their lives.

One of the speakers was film writer and director Thom Fitzgerald, who made The Hanging Garden and Three Needles. Three Needles was filmed in Africa, among the Pondo Tribe. Thom told us about some of the unsafe practices that contribute to the spread of AIDS. For example, in this region of South Africa, 54% of school children are raped. Another example involves good intentions, but unfortunate results. Young men aged 15-18 undergo a ritual of manhood. They each build a grass hut for themselves. Then they are circumcised and spend the next several weeks living in their huts being taught things they will need to know to be a man. The disturbing part of this ritual is that the machete used for the circumcisions is not cleaned or sterilized at all between boys. Sometimes as many as 100 boys are circumcised at once.

Some regions of Africa are so ravaged by AIDS that they are forced to make some very difficult choices. For example, there are drugs available to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from parents to children, but the Pondo people prefer that children of those infected with HIV/AIDS contract AIDS. The reasoning behind this was that the region is overwhelmed with orphans as it is, so it would be easier if the children on AIDS patients died of AIDS too. Many African nations have severe shortages of medical professionals. Their nurses and doctors are working in Western countries such as Canada, the US, and Britain. Forty million people are infected with AIDS. As parents die, millions of grandmothers are left to take care of their grandchildren. Some grandmothers look after more than a dozen children. What is the West doing about this horrific situation?

Trust Funds

2006-11-05T20:07:00.001-04:00

It seems that the Tory government has finally done something I agree with. Lately big companies have been switching from being corporations to being trusts. This has some meaning for investments that I don’t understand, but it also meant that the companies didn’t have to pay taxes. Tim Horton’s, Bell Canada, and Tellus are examples of big corporations that became trusts so that they didn’t have to pay taxes. I learned about this trend earlier this summer, and had found it disheartening. Now that big companies were becoming trusts, the situation was getting even worse. The government was losing billions from these trusts. Canada need tax dollars. We complain all the time about the sorry state of health care, military, foreign aid and other programs. We cannot expect these programs to improve if we allow big business to have huge tax breaks. Long ago, individuals paid about 50% of Canada’s income revenue, while corporations paid the other 50%. Over the years corporations have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of the income revenue. Recently they have been paying about 25% of tax revenue, leaving individuals to pay 75%. The trust fund trend was bringing the percentage of business tax revenue even lower. It’s great news that this loop hole has been plugged. I am stunned that the Harper government has done something that I would have done if I was in office.

Unfortunately, the new rules were announced on Halloween, which was a Tuesday. Investors didn’t have a chance to process the information that night and they lost money the next day. There seems to be a great amount of anger in the country about that. Harper had also declared before being elected that he would not make such changes. It’s common for politicians to gain new understanding of issues once they assume leadership of the country. I’m more concerned about the decisions that politicians make in power than how consistent they are with their election promises. We should understand that it’s likely that sometimes leaders will need to change their minds when they see the details from the point of view of the seat of power. It’s a shame that so many people lost money on the changes. If the changes were announced on a Friday, the losses could have been prevented. One caller on “Cross Country Checkup” pointed out that they could have halted the stock exchange for a few days while the public learned of the changes. Most people who have investments are those who are pretty well off. The millions of people who use food banks do not have investment portfolios. They are the sort of people who suffer the most from loss of government tax revenue. I feel badly for those who suffered financial losses this week, but I hope that they can take comfort in knowing that this decision was the best thing for Canada in the long run.

Earth-friendly Matters

2006-10-31T17:00:00.000-04:00

I think at this point, everyone in Canada accepts the idea that there is an environmental crisis. I don't know if anyone actually doubts the existence of global warming anymore, or the hole in the Ozone layer, or acid rain. The only problem is that some people are more concerned about actually doing something about it than others. Last week when I read about the Conservative government's "Clean Air Act," I actually laughed out loud. It’s funny but also sad that anyone considers the proposed clean air act to be worth taking to the House of Commons. Most major environmental groups have been saying for months that all Canada has to do is use existing legislation to make real improvements. The government ignored this advice, slowing down changes by writing a new act. This new act only plans to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by half in the next 43 years. If we don’t make more radical changes to Western society, we might not be here in 2050. I have heard and read many complaints that the conservatives are willing to make individual Canadians pay to contribute to environmental changes, but not big business. If industry doesn’t change it’s ways, there is only so much the individual consumer can do.

It’s true that we can make more effort in our individual daily lives to make less environmental damage. Most of us are quite dependent on cars, for example, when we could be busing or car-pooling. It’s easy for us to think that the problem is so big that a few bad choices on our part aren’t going to make any difference. I think that most of us probably aren’t aware of how many bad choices we DO make without thinking about it, or even knowing it. Even if I recycle all my paper and plastics, and compost all my food products; even if I buy organic produce and turn off lights when I’m not using them, I am still taking part in one of the most energy and resource-consuming economies in the world. I am one of the 20% of the world’s population that consume 80% of the world’s resources. I don’t drive a car, but as a Nova Scotian, every time I use electricity I condone the burning of coal, which pollutes the Dartmouth’s air and contributes to Global Warming. I buy products and use services without any knowledge of what environmental impact the companies responsible might have. Whether they waster energy and pollute their region, or tread lightly on the earth, I endorse and support them with my purchases. If governments don’t enforce existing regulations, companies won’t change. Perhaps, if I did a lot of research, I could successfully boycott all the harmful companies, but until demand increases, I might not find environmentally friendly versions of everything I need.

Ever since I was a child, I’ve done little things to help the environment. I’m beginning to think that the little things are not enough. I think the people who got out on the land and practice sustainable subsistence living have the right idea. I’m not prepared to do that at this point in my life, but I’m not sure how short of that ideal I can come before I’m a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

Not Much Union in Communion

2006-10-02T21:46:00.000-03:00

I went to a tiny little church in the North End of Halifax yesterday. There were 17 people there, including the minister. The choir sang a song for us. There were four singers and the pianist sang too. I was a generation younger than the next youngest person in the room. I don’t go to church much anymore. I prefer to attend random churches than to get tangled up in one particular group.

Yesterday was World Communion Sunday. Apparently churches across the world celebrate our unity as Christians on this day. The minister preached an adequate sermon about it, but I’ve already forgotten most of it. It was the average "the church is a family" fare. The idea of World Communion Sunday got me thinking about the degree of unity amongst the churches, even if the sermon didn't. All the world's churches celebrating unity on the same day is a neat idea. I wonder how different it looks in each church of each denominations. I wonder if all denominations participate, or if some don't.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door the other day. Ignoring the fact that I don’t attend any church regularly, I told them that I have my own faith—that I am Baptist. That didn’t matter to them, apparently. They still continued with their mission to engage me in conversation about God. They asked me a few questions about what I thought, and I felt like they were quizzing me. I was polite to them because I know that they were just doing what they thought God wants, but I resented it. Their continued presence on my doorstep indicated that they had judged my Baptist faith to be insufficient. They still wanted to save me.

The first question the Jehovah’s Witness asked me was, “Do you think we will ever have just one religion?” That seems quite unlikely to me. I told him that if we did, it would have to incorporate all the faiths and religions of the world. I didn’t get into it, but I believe that all world religions contain different versions of the same big truth, and that no one religion, whether Buddhist or Muslim or “Pagan” had the entire truth exactly right. I had the impression that the man thought I got that answer wrong, although he didn’t say so. He just asked me another question. As he was leaving, the man told me that they wanted to have two-way conversation with people of other churches. I don’t believe this is true. A two-way conversation requires giving and taking. He and his partner were on my doorstep because they firmly believe that they have the Truth, and that everyone else is mistaken, even other types of Christians. If they think that they are absolutely right in their beliefs, how can they listen to and consider what I have to say?

I think that it’s important to have convictions and beliefs. I also think that convictions and beliefs can be problematic when we believe that we have everything completely figured out. It’s important to at least consider the possibility of being wrong. This allows one to be more open to the beliefs and ideas of other people, and enables true dialogue.

One of the few things I remember from yesterday’s sermon is that the minister used Paul’s metaphor about each person in the church being like the parts of the body. It occurred to me that it is possible to take that metaphor in another way. Each denomination is like a part of the body. The Pentacostals can be the nose, the Catholics the eyes, the United Church the hands. The nose can’t say to the eyes, I don’t need you, etc, because they are all different and important parts of the body. They each reach people of different mind-sets who relate to various aspects of church. It’s just an idea that crossed my mind. I don’t know how valid it is, but perhaps all denominations and variations of Christianity are valuable. I don’t believe anyone has the right to say they aren’t, no matter how different they are.

I find narrow-mindedness offensive. Perhaps I should learn to be more patient with such people, but I don’t see the benefit of declaring other churches and faiths to be wrong. It only hurts and alienates people. How do Christians expect others to join them in their faith, when they treat each other with contempt and contention?

Where to Begin?

2006-10-01T03:06:00.000-03:00

I'm writing this on a beautiful fall day. Fall is a season of change. A few weeks ago I started thinking about what I might want to change in my life, and what I've come up with so far is that I want to be more involved in the state of the world. This is a wonderful place we live in. I love my city, province, country, and planet. On the other hand, I look around and see that there is much that needs to change. I want to do something to improve the state that the world is in, but I don’t know which issue I would start with. Do I begin with the poverty in my neighbourhood, or the unsatisfactory politics of my province? Do I focus on bigger issues across the globe, like the crisis in the Middle East, AIDS in Africa, or global warming? I have wondered for a long time what issues I should get involved in, and before I usually ended up doing nothing. Now I am determined to do something, but I still don’t know where to begin. I think I need to look carefully around me, and learn as much as I can about what’s going on. Then I can figure out what I think of it all, and make more informed decisions. As I do that, I will use this blog to record my thoughts. I hope that it will spark dialogue. It could be that those of you that read this will have ideas and knowledge that I could benefit from. It could also happen that my thoughts could make other people think twice, and if that occurs, then I will already have made a bit of difference.