I met my wife exactly 20 years ago today on the morning of October 7, 1990. On a little apple-picking trip to a farm near Guelph, Ontario. It also happened to be the day before her 26th birthday, although at the time, nobody knew it, including me. Both of us were terribly unimpressed with each other then. She told me later of that first meeting, she thought I looked a bit on the creepy side, while I found her to be rather simple and ordinary. So we were quick to dismiss each other back then. She was just "one of the girls on the bus" to me. And to her, well, I was just me. But the funny thing I can remember about that day was, that we ended up being near each other a lot. We sat next to each other on top of the cart that drove us to the apple grove. And again, at the group picnic lunch, we were at each other's side. And if my memory serves me correctly, we even read the newspaper together at one point. Unusual, especially for two young people who were complete strangers to one another and who seemingly had no real interest in each other. Part of the reason could have been that I was scheming to get close to one of her friends on the trip. The other part could likely be no other than fate.
I saw her on a couple more occasions after that first fateful meeting. At a benefit dance, where we danced for the first time. The other was at a school christmas party in December later that year. We talked for a while on both times. And then, that was that. I would not see her again for another six months. I figured, as I did on the day I met her, " just one of those girls on the apple-picking bus ". One of those who you meet at random points in your life. One you won't care to remember as you go on. She probably said the same thing about me. And as I've said. That was that.
By the time spring arrived in 1991, I was on a totally different mindset. Certainly different from six months before. Less distracted. More attentive. Definitely at a much happier place. On a little eastend joyride with common friends, I managed to run into her again. Only this time, I wasn't scheming or looking at somebody else. I was just looking at her. It's amazing how people can see clearly without the distractions that blind them. Lost on me was the fact that I felt so comfortable being around her at our initial time together. Her magnetic warmth and the ease of just being with her. So I asked if I could see her sometime. And her answer was, well, you probably have a good idea what it was.
From the time we started seeing each other, we were always together. A couple in every sense of the word. We couldn't get enough of each other, so we did. Spending weekends together. The endless phone conversations that lasted for hours. Sneaking out of work. Sneaking into each other's room, when no one is looking. Our first summer together felt like nobody else existed. Just her and me. He and she. It seemed like the rest of the world didn't matter. But of course, it did. And the world has a way of making it's presence felt. In my case, it happened to be half a world away. My dad was dying back home in the Philippines. I had to see him one last time.
Coming back to Canada in April of 1992, after spending six weeks watching my father die everyday, I was, to say the least, a bit spent. Physically. Mentally. Emotionally. A broken man with a severely wounded heart. It was her that made me whole again. Running the gauntlet of my short fuse and indifference, she waited patiently when weaker human beings would have walked away. She understood that I needed time to heal and someone to heal me. And she did.
We got married in June of 1993. Through the highs and lows, as we vowed to each other. And nothing could be higher than the birth of our son in the spring of the following year. Watching him grow up before our eyes. The first words. The first steps. The first day in school. The first trip to the emergency ward. Seeing ourselves in every little thing about him. Young parents, who not so long ago were children themselves, now staking their own place in this world. Through thick and thin. Good times and bad. Laughter and tears. Anger and sadness. Lust and genuine, whole-hearted love for one another. Whatever we've gone through, I am so proud to say that she was always by my side. I wasn't alone. I was never alone the whole time.
Earlier this year, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Being the weaker partner in the relationship, my natural reaction was that of denial. In fact, to this day, there's this huge part of me that won't accept it. Or pretend that it's not there. But the sad part is, that it is. So, just like the cliche, we take it "one day at a time". Which is how we've lived our lives anyway. It has always been a struggle for my wife and me. From the very beginning to this very day. Yet, I have always been happy just being with her. From day 1 to every morning that I wake up and see her again. Whether we get it right or we get it wrong. As long as she's there. Right by my side.
A facebook friend of mine, a wise young sage named Jenna once typed these words for her status update; "Crying doesn't signify weakness. It signifies LIFE". Needless to say, I was one of many who "liked" it :-). And I'm crying now. Not for myself but for my wife. Because I know that she worries. Not about herself but about me. But as Jenna stated, it's okay to cry. As long as it's for the right reason. So the cry-baby that I am; I cry. Not out of sadness but out of joy. The joy of being here. Being alive. And being with my wife.
So, to the little girl from the Southern Philippines, who grew up to be such a devoted daughter, sister, wife, mother and friend; The constant target of my endless, pointless mocking; The recipient of my carnal lust and affection at the most inappropriate of times; Unselfish to a point of fault; My partner, lover and best friend; And the kindest person I have ever known in my life;
HAPPY BIRTHDAY NANAY.
I thank you for everything. But most of all, I thank you for making me want to be a better man.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Growing Up While Getting Old
I find it quite amusing how the baby boom generation and their natural offspring, the generation X crowd look at the state of age and the aging process in general. The whole attitude seems to revolve around the fear of being considered old or perhaps, the very reality of getting old itself. That's why we hear of these new axioms like " 40 is the new 30" and so on, and so forth. The thing that strikes me as funny is that there is this palpable disconnect to what these boomers and X-ers are saying and selling now, compared to the time when they were younger. In their days of youth, especially for the boomers, there was this very visible aura of contempt on their part for their elders' rather staid and somewhat autocratic generation. That said, history tells us that it was indeed the boomers themselves that laid the very foundation of our own open-minded and fast-progressing modern free society.
I am 47 years old today. Too young to be a boomer but too old for the genX crowd. I guess I'm what you call an In-Betweener. To my son and his generation, and certainly to the Xers, I'm an old fart. But do I really feel that old ? More importantly, do I consider myself as old ?
I would be lying if I say I don't feel old. At least physically, I do. I feel it every morning when I wake up and try to get up from my bed. The toll of existing for 47 years is very real to me. But besides the aches and pains that I have to endure with my morning drive and coffee, I don't really feel that much different from say, ten years ago. Or maybe even 20 years ago. I know I'm getting old but the real question is have I grown up ? Have I reached the zenith of maturity ? And is it all downhill from here ? I know the answer to the last question. Heck, I think the downward spiral began right after high school. But the first two, I am not quite sure.
I remember the time when my own dad turned fifty. I woke up especially early that day, so I could be the first one to greet him on that monumental morning. I found him sitting in his usual chair, reading the obituaries section. He told me that when people reach a certain age, one can't help but look at the "numbers index" on the everyday death notices. Try and see if death was getting close to your own doorstep, I suppose. And to me, I think that's the very thing a lot of these boomers and Xers and everybody else thinks and fears about. That every year you add up to your age, the closer you get to the inevitable. So some people just simply refuse to admit that 40 is actually being 40. Instead they build this myth around them, that they are still young and there's plenty of time ahead for them.
There's this new data out that says the marriage rate and the infancy rate is at an all-time high. It suggests that a lot of Xers are bypassing the time-honoured tradition of "the right time to settle down and start a family". With burgeoning careers and the appeal of independent and care-free lifestyles, especially for the women, they choose to put "settling down" and "commitment" on hold for the pleasures of not growing up at all. And who can really blame them ?
Twenty years ago, I would have hanged myself if faced with the competing pressures of holding down a job so I can keep up with the car and mortgage payments and other expenses while trying to raise a hard-headed teenager at the same time as trying to make a relationship with my wife work. Now, I just call it tuesday. So maybe I have grown up a tad or two ? But is that what you really call growing up ? Or is it just a matter of growing into your life ?
Personally, I don't really give it much of a thought. Whenever I look back at my life, I can't help but sometimes yearn for the days when I was young. When all I have to worry about was myself and the choices were simple. In my younger years, I used to think what kind of life I would have if I ever reached the age I am right now. Truth be told, I couldn't even imagine myself being this old. Maybe, it was out of lack of creative imagination. Or maybe fear. The fear of growing old. But I have come to accept the reality that there's now less of me going forward and more of what I've left behind. Just like my dad on the morning of his 50th birthday.
I was 13 years old when I personally witnessed the start of a brand new life for the very first time. My cousin Alexander, born in the afternoon of September 9th, 1977, three weeks before my 14th birthday. I was 17 when I saw the last gasp breath of my great-grandmother, Bernarda on November 25th, 1980. The first death I ever witnessed. I have seen both of my parents at their strongest and at their weakest. I remember the day when I finally got introduced to the very first girl that made my heart beat out of my chest. It was December 16th, 1977. It was at that point, the happiest day of my life. And I remember the night when I had to say goodbye to someone and let her go because we were simply too young to take each other seriously. It was March 7th, 1980. And needless to say, I cried myself to sleep that night.
I remember being engulfed in fear and anxiety on the morning of my own wedding, June 5, 1993. Ironically, it was the same feeling I felt in the moments before the birth of our son Joey, in the afternoon of March 9, 1994. And all the years in between and the ones leading up to what is now, I've had my own share of ups and downs, tears and laughter, anger and genuine happiness. So the question I should really ask myself is not whether I'm old or grown up ? But rather: "Am I happy with what I've become ?"
I'll answer it this way. Everyday that I come home from work, I dash through the side door. I would find my son, who in every which way is the younger version of me, in the basement, doing whatever the hell it is he's doing. And whatever it is, it's not even remotely close to schoolwork. In fact, I feel a certain air of disappointment if he's not down there or if he's doing something else outside of the ordinary. My wife would be doing the finishing touches for supper. Or paying the household bills. Or moping or sulking and worrying about the future. Sometimes we'd talk. Sometimes we'd argue. Sometimes we'd fight. But most of the time we'd just smile at each other. Glad that were both there for each other and for our child. Glad that we've made it inspite of it all. Glad that we're still alive. And maybe that's what life is all about, afterall. It's not about growing up or getting old. It's about living. And I live my life because I have something to live for. So to answer my own question: Am I happy ? As my favourite clown, Sarah Palin would say, "you betcha".
So, despite the constant yearning for more, let me just end in saying; "I am one content old fart".
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME.
I am 47 years old today. Too young to be a boomer but too old for the genX crowd. I guess I'm what you call an In-Betweener. To my son and his generation, and certainly to the Xers, I'm an old fart. But do I really feel that old ? More importantly, do I consider myself as old ?
I would be lying if I say I don't feel old. At least physically, I do. I feel it every morning when I wake up and try to get up from my bed. The toll of existing for 47 years is very real to me. But besides the aches and pains that I have to endure with my morning drive and coffee, I don't really feel that much different from say, ten years ago. Or maybe even 20 years ago. I know I'm getting old but the real question is have I grown up ? Have I reached the zenith of maturity ? And is it all downhill from here ? I know the answer to the last question. Heck, I think the downward spiral began right after high school. But the first two, I am not quite sure.
I remember the time when my own dad turned fifty. I woke up especially early that day, so I could be the first one to greet him on that monumental morning. I found him sitting in his usual chair, reading the obituaries section. He told me that when people reach a certain age, one can't help but look at the "numbers index" on the everyday death notices. Try and see if death was getting close to your own doorstep, I suppose. And to me, I think that's the very thing a lot of these boomers and Xers and everybody else thinks and fears about. That every year you add up to your age, the closer you get to the inevitable. So some people just simply refuse to admit that 40 is actually being 40. Instead they build this myth around them, that they are still young and there's plenty of time ahead for them.
There's this new data out that says the marriage rate and the infancy rate is at an all-time high. It suggests that a lot of Xers are bypassing the time-honoured tradition of "the right time to settle down and start a family". With burgeoning careers and the appeal of independent and care-free lifestyles, especially for the women, they choose to put "settling down" and "commitment" on hold for the pleasures of not growing up at all. And who can really blame them ?
Twenty years ago, I would have hanged myself if faced with the competing pressures of holding down a job so I can keep up with the car and mortgage payments and other expenses while trying to raise a hard-headed teenager at the same time as trying to make a relationship with my wife work. Now, I just call it tuesday. So maybe I have grown up a tad or two ? But is that what you really call growing up ? Or is it just a matter of growing into your life ?
Personally, I don't really give it much of a thought. Whenever I look back at my life, I can't help but sometimes yearn for the days when I was young. When all I have to worry about was myself and the choices were simple. In my younger years, I used to think what kind of life I would have if I ever reached the age I am right now. Truth be told, I couldn't even imagine myself being this old. Maybe, it was out of lack of creative imagination. Or maybe fear. The fear of growing old. But I have come to accept the reality that there's now less of me going forward and more of what I've left behind. Just like my dad on the morning of his 50th birthday.
I was 13 years old when I personally witnessed the start of a brand new life for the very first time. My cousin Alexander, born in the afternoon of September 9th, 1977, three weeks before my 14th birthday. I was 17 when I saw the last gasp breath of my great-grandmother, Bernarda on November 25th, 1980. The first death I ever witnessed. I have seen both of my parents at their strongest and at their weakest. I remember the day when I finally got introduced to the very first girl that made my heart beat out of my chest. It was December 16th, 1977. It was at that point, the happiest day of my life. And I remember the night when I had to say goodbye to someone and let her go because we were simply too young to take each other seriously. It was March 7th, 1980. And needless to say, I cried myself to sleep that night.
I remember being engulfed in fear and anxiety on the morning of my own wedding, June 5, 1993. Ironically, it was the same feeling I felt in the moments before the birth of our son Joey, in the afternoon of March 9, 1994. And all the years in between and the ones leading up to what is now, I've had my own share of ups and downs, tears and laughter, anger and genuine happiness. So the question I should really ask myself is not whether I'm old or grown up ? But rather: "Am I happy with what I've become ?"
I'll answer it this way. Everyday that I come home from work, I dash through the side door. I would find my son, who in every which way is the younger version of me, in the basement, doing whatever the hell it is he's doing. And whatever it is, it's not even remotely close to schoolwork. In fact, I feel a certain air of disappointment if he's not down there or if he's doing something else outside of the ordinary. My wife would be doing the finishing touches for supper. Or paying the household bills. Or moping or sulking and worrying about the future. Sometimes we'd talk. Sometimes we'd argue. Sometimes we'd fight. But most of the time we'd just smile at each other. Glad that were both there for each other and for our child. Glad that we've made it inspite of it all. Glad that we're still alive. And maybe that's what life is all about, afterall. It's not about growing up or getting old. It's about living. And I live my life because I have something to live for. So to answer my own question: Am I happy ? As my favourite clown, Sarah Palin would say, "you betcha".
So, despite the constant yearning for more, let me just end in saying; "I am one content old fart".
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
When Life Begins: an ethical look at the history of the abortion discussion
To fully understand the magnitude of the abortion debate, we must first look at it's history leading up to our modern times. The social discourse regarding abortion have been linked historically to issues involving family planning, state population control, religious and moral ideology and human rights. In ancient times, the practice of allowing or disallowing pregnancy terminations rested on a number of issues, including population and rape. Sometimes abortion was recommended in cases involving health complications or emotional immaturity for women.
It wasn't until the middle of the twelfth century that the moral implication of abortion procedure began to take root in social thinking. In 1140, the monk John Gratian completed the Concordia Discordantium Canonum which became the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the Vatican. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded that the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide. The next century saw Pope Innocent III declare that when "quickening" has occurred, then abortion was homicide. As the centuries passed by, denunciations against abortion increased, including accusations involving witchcraft and the occult, that in 1588, Pope Sixtus V, aligned church policy with St. Thomas Aquinas' belief that abortion was a sin against God and a crime against nature.
The political response to the religious outrage against abortion came some 200 years later, when the Parliament of England, in 1803 enacted the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime. This law was further reinforced some 60 years later in 1861 when Parliament passed the Offences Against The Person Act, outlawing abortion altogether. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance is a mortal sin and anyone who in any way participates in the act excommunicated him/herself. The same year saw the Parliament of Canada unify criminal laws in all provinces banning abortion.
In the United States, the passage of the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a crime to sell, distribute or own any abortion-related product and illegal to publish information on how to obtain them. By the early 1900s, through the efforts of legislators and the American Medical Association, abortion was effectively outlawed throughout the United States.
But the progressive strides taken toward the advancement of greater individual and social freedoms by the mid to late 20th century created an easing of people's attitudes toward abortion. Coupled with the declining influence of the church and religion on social policy caused a societal rethink on matters concerning abortion and human reproduction. With more and more women joining the workplace, it became increasingly obvious that due to economic necessities, the role of women in society should be redefined. And with the birth of the modern feminist movement and the clamour for increased independence among women, the social structure was forever changed.
The aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the resulting polemical discussion on abortion have created a kind of historical battlefield among ideological combatants on both sides of the argument. The forward-looking "Pro-Choice" movement, which I affiliate myself with, looks to safeguard not just women's emancipation rights but general individual freedoms that have taken centuries to achieve while engaging various religious and political interests in the fight for people's minds. The "Pro-Life" movement, a collection of religious and social organizations have spearheaded the fight against abortion rights and by default or ideological principle, aim to take back the social progress that have been made in the last 50 years. Aided by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the two movements have waged a war of principle with two very different agendas as a battle cry. The legal argument for pro-choice, backed by the language of the fundamental law, the moral argument for pro-life, with the long historical tradition of religious philosophy on it's side.
And central to this discussion is the question that has been centrifuge of this heated debate. "Where does life begin ?"
Last spring, I became engaged in an open-ended discussion (via the Facebook message board) with a Facebook friend, Vancouver pro-rights activist Meghan Cleary. The topic was a simple question. "Do we consider the fetus as life ?" My answer was no. Meg's answer, to my surprise was yes. Her definition was this: "A human fetus is life potential in embryonic form". The same way we look at bacteria as a life form, therefore a fetus is also a life form. After a slew of vehement protestations coming from me, Ms. Cleary responded that "there are people in Pro-Choice who are hesitant to concede the moral high ground to the other side, so as to hide this moral insecurity they deny this indisputable biological fact". Which generally meant that I was in denial.
So what does this all mean ? Do I cede the moral and ethical ground to a pro-lifer ? And stick to the legal status of abortion as my only argument ?
Meg's answer was no. Besides mentioning the competitive rights argument which legally holds the woman's interest ahead of the fetus in International Law regarding Reproductive Rights, she had this to say:
"Since we are all conceived, we do NOT have the Right of Choice with regards to our existence. And since we renounce our right of first choice, we must defer to the interest of our maternal host".
To which I concurred. This is the ethical argument for a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. A fetus in the womb is in the exclusive domain of the owner of the womb. The woman. Legally, ethically and morally. And the fundamental law dictates protection, not on existential right but on individual right. And the woman as an individual is sovereign in the eyes of the law.
By legal definition in Canada and the United States, the right to an abortion is a fundamental right. And by extension and due to biological and natural reality, abortion is solely a woman's decision. Both from an ethical and moral standpoint.
Thank you, Meg.
It wasn't until the middle of the twelfth century that the moral implication of abortion procedure began to take root in social thinking. In 1140, the monk John Gratian completed the Concordia Discordantium Canonum which became the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the Vatican. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded that the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide. The next century saw Pope Innocent III declare that when "quickening" has occurred, then abortion was homicide. As the centuries passed by, denunciations against abortion increased, including accusations involving witchcraft and the occult, that in 1588, Pope Sixtus V, aligned church policy with St. Thomas Aquinas' belief that abortion was a sin against God and a crime against nature.
The political response to the religious outrage against abortion came some 200 years later, when the Parliament of England, in 1803 enacted the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime. This law was further reinforced some 60 years later in 1861 when Parliament passed the Offences Against The Person Act, outlawing abortion altogether. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance is a mortal sin and anyone who in any way participates in the act excommunicated him/herself. The same year saw the Parliament of Canada unify criminal laws in all provinces banning abortion.
In the United States, the passage of the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a crime to sell, distribute or own any abortion-related product and illegal to publish information on how to obtain them. By the early 1900s, through the efforts of legislators and the American Medical Association, abortion was effectively outlawed throughout the United States.
But the progressive strides taken toward the advancement of greater individual and social freedoms by the mid to late 20th century created an easing of people's attitudes toward abortion. Coupled with the declining influence of the church and religion on social policy caused a societal rethink on matters concerning abortion and human reproduction. With more and more women joining the workplace, it became increasingly obvious that due to economic necessities, the role of women in society should be redefined. And with the birth of the modern feminist movement and the clamour for increased independence among women, the social structure was forever changed.
The aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the resulting polemical discussion on abortion have created a kind of historical battlefield among ideological combatants on both sides of the argument. The forward-looking "Pro-Choice" movement, which I affiliate myself with, looks to safeguard not just women's emancipation rights but general individual freedoms that have taken centuries to achieve while engaging various religious and political interests in the fight for people's minds. The "Pro-Life" movement, a collection of religious and social organizations have spearheaded the fight against abortion rights and by default or ideological principle, aim to take back the social progress that have been made in the last 50 years. Aided by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the two movements have waged a war of principle with two very different agendas as a battle cry. The legal argument for pro-choice, backed by the language of the fundamental law, the moral argument for pro-life, with the long historical tradition of religious philosophy on it's side.
And central to this discussion is the question that has been centrifuge of this heated debate. "Where does life begin ?"
Last spring, I became engaged in an open-ended discussion (via the Facebook message board) with a Facebook friend, Vancouver pro-rights activist Meghan Cleary. The topic was a simple question. "Do we consider the fetus as life ?" My answer was no. Meg's answer, to my surprise was yes. Her definition was this: "A human fetus is life potential in embryonic form". The same way we look at bacteria as a life form, therefore a fetus is also a life form. After a slew of vehement protestations coming from me, Ms. Cleary responded that "there are people in Pro-Choice who are hesitant to concede the moral high ground to the other side, so as to hide this moral insecurity they deny this indisputable biological fact". Which generally meant that I was in denial.
So what does this all mean ? Do I cede the moral and ethical ground to a pro-lifer ? And stick to the legal status of abortion as my only argument ?
Meg's answer was no. Besides mentioning the competitive rights argument which legally holds the woman's interest ahead of the fetus in International Law regarding Reproductive Rights, she had this to say:
"Since we are all conceived, we do NOT have the Right of Choice with regards to our existence. And since we renounce our right of first choice, we must defer to the interest of our maternal host".
To which I concurred. This is the ethical argument for a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. A fetus in the womb is in the exclusive domain of the owner of the womb. The woman. Legally, ethically and morally. And the fundamental law dictates protection, not on existential right but on individual right. And the woman as an individual is sovereign in the eyes of the law.
By legal definition in Canada and the United States, the right to an abortion is a fundamental right. And by extension and due to biological and natural reality, abortion is solely a woman's decision. Both from an ethical and moral standpoint.
Thank you, Meg.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Question of Choice
The discussion regarding the right to an abortion has long been a controversial subject in several societies around the world. Largely due to the fact that it involves questions of moral and ethical considerations. In the North American continent, it is in itself a political issue. In the United States, ever since the landmark Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in January 1973 (which effectively legalized procedural abortion), the abortion question has caused a firestorm within the political divide. In Canada, the Supreme Court in 1988 deemed the existing abortion law unconstitutional and struck it down thereby removing federal restrictions on abortion rights. The abortion question has also been a primary focus point on the issue of gender equality and the advancement of the independence of women in society.
The political wedge created by the abortion issue has been drawn between the lines that divide conservatism and liberalism. It would be foolhardy to think that the dividing line is clear, as there are several politicians in the realm of liberalist policy that argue against as well as there are prominent conservatives that are in favour. Yet the general rule of thumb is that, if you are a conservative, you are against and if you're a liberal, you're in favour. That is why there are deep political repercussions about the abortion issue, especially with regards to national identity politics. Particularly in the U.S., where the issue plays a huge part in the litmus test on presidential aspirations. Polarity is visible in canadian politics, too, although distinctly different. Canada, being a more moderate country often lacks the vitriol and venom which is representative of american political debate on abortion.
ROE v. WADE
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) was the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the question of abortion rights. It stated that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to obtain an abortion and that it is deemed a fundamental right, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to resrict and regulate it to a standard of strict scrutiny. Based on the Due Process principle found in the 9th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution requiring the government to respect all legal rights owed to a person in accordance with the law, the Court reserved the right of private citizens with respect to choice, free from coercion and intimidation by others.
R v. MORGENTALER
In 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court declared Section 287 of the Criminal Code (containing the abortion provision) to be of no force or effect because it was held to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived therof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"
In a separate court decision R v. Sullivan 1991 (1 SCR 489), the court confirmed that a fetus is not a person until it is born and fully outside the woman's body, thereby muting the anti-abortion rights movement's argument that the unborn are viable to the "right to life" language of Section 7 of the Charter.
Hence, Canada is one of the few nations in the world with no legal retrictions and regulations on medical access to abortion procedure.
I support abortion rights. Not because I consider myself a liberal. Not because I blatantly disregard anyone's religious, spiritual or moral apprehension with abortion procedure. I have my own moral reprehensions on the issue. But I can't let my own standard stand in the way of someone else's decision with regards to personal choice. I can't let my own moral trepidation infringe on another's freedom to think for herself.
I refuse to see the issue on abortion rights as simply a "woman's issue". To me, it is a question of fundamental rights, as supported by the words of the fundamental laws of both the U.S. and Canada. And the question is simple. "Would you rather have someone else ( the government, the church or some other entity) decide for you ? Or would you rather think, feel and speak for your own self ?"
It's your CHOICE.
The political wedge created by the abortion issue has been drawn between the lines that divide conservatism and liberalism. It would be foolhardy to think that the dividing line is clear, as there are several politicians in the realm of liberalist policy that argue against as well as there are prominent conservatives that are in favour. Yet the general rule of thumb is that, if you are a conservative, you are against and if you're a liberal, you're in favour. That is why there are deep political repercussions about the abortion issue, especially with regards to national identity politics. Particularly in the U.S., where the issue plays a huge part in the litmus test on presidential aspirations. Polarity is visible in canadian politics, too, although distinctly different. Canada, being a more moderate country often lacks the vitriol and venom which is representative of american political debate on abortion.
ROE v. WADE
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) was the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the question of abortion rights. It stated that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to obtain an abortion and that it is deemed a fundamental right, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to resrict and regulate it to a standard of strict scrutiny. Based on the Due Process principle found in the 9th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution requiring the government to respect all legal rights owed to a person in accordance with the law, the Court reserved the right of private citizens with respect to choice, free from coercion and intimidation by others.
R v. MORGENTALER
In 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court declared Section 287 of the Criminal Code (containing the abortion provision) to be of no force or effect because it was held to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived therof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"
In a separate court decision R v. Sullivan 1991 (1 SCR 489), the court confirmed that a fetus is not a person until it is born and fully outside the woman's body, thereby muting the anti-abortion rights movement's argument that the unborn are viable to the "right to life" language of Section 7 of the Charter.
Hence, Canada is one of the few nations in the world with no legal retrictions and regulations on medical access to abortion procedure.
I support abortion rights. Not because I consider myself a liberal. Not because I blatantly disregard anyone's religious, spiritual or moral apprehension with abortion procedure. I have my own moral reprehensions on the issue. But I can't let my own standard stand in the way of someone else's decision with regards to personal choice. I can't let my own moral trepidation infringe on another's freedom to think for herself.
I refuse to see the issue on abortion rights as simply a "woman's issue". To me, it is a question of fundamental rights, as supported by the words of the fundamental laws of both the U.S. and Canada. And the question is simple. "Would you rather have someone else ( the government, the church or some other entity) decide for you ? Or would you rather think, feel and speak for your own self ?"
It's your CHOICE.
Friday, September 10, 2010
A Socialist Perspective
Socialism, by general definition is the theory of cooperative ownership/management of the means of production. My limited education interprets it in as much as the state taking over the land, not for the motivation of profit, but for the use of it's people. In reciprocation, it's the people's responsibility to sustain the land to preserve the state. In clear terms, the state takes a resource in the name of the people, by the people and for the people. In the same terms do we define social democracy. A government of the people, by the people and for the people. So what is so wrong with the principles of socialism ?
Every time I turn on my T.V. these days, I witness the American conservative movement lurching further and farther into the right. It disturbs me quite deeply at the same time it amuses. Taking advantage of the settling despair caused by a crippled economy, these right-wing nut jobs have managed to crawl out of the dark fringes and find a steady place in the mainstream. They have even succeeded in resurrecting an old dormant bogeyman. The red menace. Ask any social, religious or hard right conservative what socialism is, and it might as well be satanism. And the likely reason(s) for their resistance will be as follows: it's un-godly, it's undemocratic, it's un-american. So let's examine those reasons, shall we ?
SOCIALISM IS UNGODLY:
SOCIALISM IS UNDEMOCRATIC:
SOCIALISM IS UN-AMERICAN:
Every time I turn on my T.V. these days, I witness the American conservative movement lurching further and farther into the right. It disturbs me quite deeply at the same time it amuses. Taking advantage of the settling despair caused by a crippled economy, these right-wing nut jobs have managed to crawl out of the dark fringes and find a steady place in the mainstream. They have even succeeded in resurrecting an old dormant bogeyman. The red menace. Ask any social, religious or hard right conservative what socialism is, and it might as well be satanism. And the likely reason(s) for their resistance will be as follows: it's un-godly, it's undemocratic, it's un-american. So let's examine those reasons, shall we ?
SOCIALISM IS UNGODLY:
Since most religious right-wingers are fundamentalist Christians, I would like to quote from the words of the Synoptic Gospels. In the parable of the rich man (Gospel of Luke 18 18: 30) To paraphrase; " a rich man asks Jesus what would bring him eternal life, Jesus replied ' follow God's commandments, give your possessions to the poor and follow me'. The rich man despaired for he is of great wealth. And Jesus proclaimed ' it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Jesus, as it is written about him in the gospels, championed the inclusion of the poor and the disenfranchised and disavowed hypocritical purity. He favoured pacifism instead of violence, mercy instead of vengeance and consolation over sorrow (Beatitudes). In most of his life's mission, he preached about love and respect for one's neighbour and foregoing personal interest in favour of someone else's. In doing so, a person can expect a just reward in heaven. A philosophy very similar to the socialist virtue of "my neighbour's best interest is mine as well". So while it's true that social justice principle is skewed towards secular humanist rather than religious philosophy, I can argue that the common good values in socialism is in many ways consistent with Jesus' teachings of moral rectitude.
SOCIALISM IS UNDEMOCRATIC:
The ideals of socialism do infringe on one freedom. The freedom of opportunity. In other words, the social value system is an impediment to greed. Self-preservation is a natural human instinct. So, as people, we are all prone to look after our own interest. But how much or how many do we really need ? Is it a natural need for a person to gain as much as he can ? Or does a governing body have the moral authority to limit what one can have so there's plenty of resources left for the others waiting in line ?
Capitalist economists argue that socialist policies are regressive and unsustainable ideas that undermine exponential economic growth. What they fail to tell us is that they are working on just one side of the economic ledger. The top side. In the top-down world of capitalism, gains and losses only project corporate and investor numbers, consumer indexes and market dividend reports as models for either growth or regression. So, as ordinary peasants, we are held slaves to private sector interests. If Big Oil is losing badly on Wall Street, then those losses gets passed on to the consumers by means of higher prices at the pumps. Is that democracy ?
Wouldn't it be in the best economic interest of the everybody if we are on top of the list of priorities. After all, we are the ones that power our consumer-driven economies. Wouldn't it be more democratic if we can have voice in determining our own economic destiny rather than have the powerful few who control capital decide for us ?
SOCIALISM IS UN-AMERICAN:
It frustrates me to no end when I hear someone like Sarah Palin describe the American Revolution as something that was borne out of Americans natural abhorrence to taxation. In her usual ignorant style preaching to her equally ignorant crowd, Palin defines government-specified taxes as evil, failing to note that while governor of her state, she drew her salary from government collected taxpayer money.
The Revolution did start with a simple tax revolt. But it was predicated by a number of other events and ideas that combined, led to a social and political insurrection that eventually formed a new republic.
Chief amongst those were the ideas of liberalism as understood by the virtues of Enlightenment. The motivational philosophy of republicanism, inspired by Rousseau's Enlightenment theory of "social contract" powered the revolution's political thinking on liberty and natural human rights. The revolution rejected the aristocratic oligarchies that dominated the prevailing mercantile economy of the time and championed the right to their own economic destiny.
John Adams, one of the founding fathers and second president of the United States, in one of his famous letters at the revolution's outbreak wrote: "There must be a public passion for the public good and the public interest. Honour, power and glory must be established in the minds of the people or there can be no republic or any liberty. Men must pride themselves in sacrificing private interests for the public good when they stand in competition with the rights of society ".
The revolution was founded with the simple idea that freedom is only attainable through social equality. And that perseverance of doctrinal social equality and justice is determined by the realization of the common good. The very doctrine that socialism ascribes to be.
So I ask the question one more time. What is so wrong with the principles of socialism ?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
My Aim is True: The Canadian Long-Gun Registry
I must apologize for my first post. Done in haste and at the spur of the moment, it was an instantaneous reaction to a heated discussion I had with some blogger named Robert. It lacked cohesive thought and structure (not to mention prose and eloquence, as commentator Leann Schriff wryly noted). Most importantly, it just delved into one side of an issue. My side. In no way did it represent both sides of the argument, giving it the stench of a propaganda essay. Call it a rookie mistake, but as in all mishaps, there is a lesson learned. So here it is. The story of the Canadian long-gun registry.
Bill C-68, or the Canadian Firearms Registry was introduced to the House of Commons by the newly minted Jean Chretien government in 1993. Passed by Parliament after a year of deliberations, it was given Royal Assent in 1995 and became, to this day the strictest gun-control law in Canadian history. It's aim was to curb a rising tide of gun-related crimes and violence by providing a database for government and law-enforcement officials to keep track of unaccounted for guns and weapons across the country. It included strict provisions on firearm and ammunition storage and required gun owners to coordinate with police agencies on matters of weapon transport. It was supported by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, various anti-crime and violence agencies, such as violence against women groups and a broad spectrum of representative interests among the general populace.
On the opposing side were gun-rights advocates. Gun afficionados, hunters and sportsmen. They argued about privacy issues. First, they said that a government that is allowed to keep a track record of it's citizens is tantamount to a creation of a police state. And that a government database that contains their names and addresses could leave them vulnerable to crimes such as robbery. Lastly, they said that a great majority of gun crimes are commited by people who don't have government issued gun licenses with unregistered illegal guns, therefore making the registry a rather useless and expensive program for fighting crime.
Support and opposition to this bill ran across regional, cultural and political lines. Passed by the then Liberal government, it was opposed heavily in the western and mostly conservative parts of the country (Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan). Support was equally overwhelming in Central Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Also it represented an urban/rural divide. Most urban dwellers, with a more cosmopolitan view support gun-control while rural residents, who are mostly social conservatives are opposed.
So what do I make out of this argument ?
There are conflicting reports with regards to the effectiveness of the gun registry. In a survey done by Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC), 74% of general duty police officers noted that having a registry database had proved beneficial in the outcome of major police operations. Edgar MacLeod, a former president of the police chiefs association noted that while the cost of the program has been an embarrassment, it has provided a valuable service. In typical domestic violence situtations for instance, central dispatch or on board computers on cruisers have alerted officers to the presence of registered firearms in the occupants' home and thereby limiting the risk of deadly confrontation between police and civilians.
A report that came out of the office of the Auditor General, however disputes the argument that the program is meeting it's stated goal of improving public safety. It noted that the CAFC does not collect the necessary data that can analyze the registry's effect on minimizing firearm related deaths or injuries.
But all this data, arguments and counter arguments are evidently pointless and immaterial. The main point of contention was, is and always will be- "SHOULD CIVILIANS BE ALLOWED TO ARM THEMSELVES WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS ?"
It is important to note that gun possesion in Canada is NOT a constitutionally mandated right. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain a clause analogous to the Second Amendment Right in the United States Constitution that succintly spells out the right of citizens to bear and keep firearms. However, based on the British North America Act of 1867, that paved the way for the creation of the Dominion of Canada, the country appropriated the 1689 English Bill of Rights that contained a provision (Protestant Rights) that entitled citizens of the Dominion limited rights on firearms aquisition subject to government restrictions.
So the argument by some gun-rights advocates that it is a Canadian birthright to own and posses a gun is completely disingenuous. Gun ownership is simply a form of privilege and not a basic right. And as with other privileges, it is subject to RULES and REGULATIONS and RESTRICTIONS.
It is, however in the general interest to keep the public safe. And the local police authorities, the civilian armed force charged with enforcing the law is part and parcel of that general public. And if the state uses the police service and chooses to put them in harm's way to protect the community, then it is the duty of every member of the community to assist the police and give them the necessary tools to do their job. And keeping a gun registry does exactly that. The registry database helps minimize the risk, not just for police officers but for the citizenry as well.
We all make choices in life. And with every choice, there is a corresponding responsibility and consequence. In a civilized and democratic community, we live by the rules, lettered by the laws that frame our society. I have my own rule. It states, "FIRST, DO NO HARM". It's a damn good rule to live by. For my own good. For the public good.
Bill C-68, or the Canadian Firearms Registry was introduced to the House of Commons by the newly minted Jean Chretien government in 1993. Passed by Parliament after a year of deliberations, it was given Royal Assent in 1995 and became, to this day the strictest gun-control law in Canadian history. It's aim was to curb a rising tide of gun-related crimes and violence by providing a database for government and law-enforcement officials to keep track of unaccounted for guns and weapons across the country. It included strict provisions on firearm and ammunition storage and required gun owners to coordinate with police agencies on matters of weapon transport. It was supported by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, various anti-crime and violence agencies, such as violence against women groups and a broad spectrum of representative interests among the general populace.
On the opposing side were gun-rights advocates. Gun afficionados, hunters and sportsmen. They argued about privacy issues. First, they said that a government that is allowed to keep a track record of it's citizens is tantamount to a creation of a police state. And that a government database that contains their names and addresses could leave them vulnerable to crimes such as robbery. Lastly, they said that a great majority of gun crimes are commited by people who don't have government issued gun licenses with unregistered illegal guns, therefore making the registry a rather useless and expensive program for fighting crime.
Support and opposition to this bill ran across regional, cultural and political lines. Passed by the then Liberal government, it was opposed heavily in the western and mostly conservative parts of the country (Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan). Support was equally overwhelming in Central Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Also it represented an urban/rural divide. Most urban dwellers, with a more cosmopolitan view support gun-control while rural residents, who are mostly social conservatives are opposed.
So what do I make out of this argument ?
There are conflicting reports with regards to the effectiveness of the gun registry. In a survey done by Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC), 74% of general duty police officers noted that having a registry database had proved beneficial in the outcome of major police operations. Edgar MacLeod, a former president of the police chiefs association noted that while the cost of the program has been an embarrassment, it has provided a valuable service. In typical domestic violence situtations for instance, central dispatch or on board computers on cruisers have alerted officers to the presence of registered firearms in the occupants' home and thereby limiting the risk of deadly confrontation between police and civilians.
A report that came out of the office of the Auditor General, however disputes the argument that the program is meeting it's stated goal of improving public safety. It noted that the CAFC does not collect the necessary data that can analyze the registry's effect on minimizing firearm related deaths or injuries.
But all this data, arguments and counter arguments are evidently pointless and immaterial. The main point of contention was, is and always will be- "SHOULD CIVILIANS BE ALLOWED TO ARM THEMSELVES WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS ?"
It is important to note that gun possesion in Canada is NOT a constitutionally mandated right. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not contain a clause analogous to the Second Amendment Right in the United States Constitution that succintly spells out the right of citizens to bear and keep firearms. However, based on the British North America Act of 1867, that paved the way for the creation of the Dominion of Canada, the country appropriated the 1689 English Bill of Rights that contained a provision (Protestant Rights) that entitled citizens of the Dominion limited rights on firearms aquisition subject to government restrictions.
So the argument by some gun-rights advocates that it is a Canadian birthright to own and posses a gun is completely disingenuous. Gun ownership is simply a form of privilege and not a basic right. And as with other privileges, it is subject to RULES and REGULATIONS and RESTRICTIONS.
It is, however in the general interest to keep the public safe. And the local police authorities, the civilian armed force charged with enforcing the law is part and parcel of that general public. And if the state uses the police service and chooses to put them in harm's way to protect the community, then it is the duty of every member of the community to assist the police and give them the necessary tools to do their job. And keeping a gun registry does exactly that. The registry database helps minimize the risk, not just for police officers but for the citizenry as well.
We all make choices in life. And with every choice, there is a corresponding responsibility and consequence. In a civilized and democratic community, we live by the rules, lettered by the laws that frame our society. I have my own rule. It states, "FIRST, DO NO HARM". It's a damn good rule to live by. For my own good. For the public good.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
an introduction to the blogosphere
I have always wanted to put my thoughts in writing. The closest I've ever had to a burning ambition was to be a journalist. Until my dad shot that dream down. "No money in that goddamn thing", he said. I was about ten years old at the time. I'm 46 now, and my father is long gone. So here I am, Internet beware.
So what do I write about now ? Politics ? Religion ? Sports ? Beauty contests ? Can't think of one particular topic that I care enough to dwell on, at the present moment. Even though there's plenty of stuff out there. New Orleans and the fifth year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina ? Glenn Beck's religion-as-politics rally in Washington, D.C. (on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's " I have a dream" civil rights speech) ? The hostage taking tragedy in the Philippines ? The trapped miners in Chile ? Hmmmmm.....
What about a recent debate I had (like, just this afternoon) with my own brother-in-law ? About gun-control regulations ? What about that ?
You see, what I don't understand about the opposition to registration by gun enthusiasts is their reason. Almost uniformly, they would state that registration is part of a government conspiracy to take away their right to own these deadly weapons. My brother-in-law's reason was that if he, for whatever reason, fail to renew his gun license, the Toronto SWAT team would come bearing down on his front door.
First of all, who could blame a police officer for approaching someone's property with extreme and utmost prejudice, if he or she knows there's a potential for deadly confrontation ? Secondly, if someone fails to renew something as important a gun license, who's fault is it ? The government ? Who's responsibility is it ? Isn't it primarily the holder of the said license ? So where does the conspiracy theory come into play ? Where is the deep, dark government agenda that aims to subvert people's freedoms ? If you fail to re-register, do you automatically lose the right to have a gun license ? I think not. I think my brother-in-law is just plain cuckoo.
I do think though that there's a hidden motive among anti-control advocates with regards to gun regulations. And it's the same reason why they feel the need to own these types of weapons in the first place. Empowerment based on fear. Of what, I have no idea. Maybe, it's their own political or social prejudices. Or their own personal insecurities. Who knows ? I'm just a guy typing his first blog entry.
But I do know that there's a great need for gun regulations. In the interest of public safety. For our own police officers' safety. For our own and our children's safety. Afterall, to be a part of decent society, we must sometimes look past our own interest and look after the greater need. It is not I but WE in a community, a city, a country. And the more the proper authorities can keep track of these deadly weapons, the less potential there is for conflict involving guns. And the lesser the conflict, the better WE evolve as a society. And the better WE feel about each other, the safer WE feel. And in great numbers, WE have nothing to fear.
So what do I write about now ? Politics ? Religion ? Sports ? Beauty contests ? Can't think of one particular topic that I care enough to dwell on, at the present moment. Even though there's plenty of stuff out there. New Orleans and the fifth year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina ? Glenn Beck's religion-as-politics rally in Washington, D.C. (on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's " I have a dream" civil rights speech) ? The hostage taking tragedy in the Philippines ? The trapped miners in Chile ? Hmmmmm.....
What about a recent debate I had (like, just this afternoon) with my own brother-in-law ? About gun-control regulations ? What about that ?
You see, what I don't understand about the opposition to registration by gun enthusiasts is their reason. Almost uniformly, they would state that registration is part of a government conspiracy to take away their right to own these deadly weapons. My brother-in-law's reason was that if he, for whatever reason, fail to renew his gun license, the Toronto SWAT team would come bearing down on his front door.
First of all, who could blame a police officer for approaching someone's property with extreme and utmost prejudice, if he or she knows there's a potential for deadly confrontation ? Secondly, if someone fails to renew something as important a gun license, who's fault is it ? The government ? Who's responsibility is it ? Isn't it primarily the holder of the said license ? So where does the conspiracy theory come into play ? Where is the deep, dark government agenda that aims to subvert people's freedoms ? If you fail to re-register, do you automatically lose the right to have a gun license ? I think not. I think my brother-in-law is just plain cuckoo.
I do think though that there's a hidden motive among anti-control advocates with regards to gun regulations. And it's the same reason why they feel the need to own these types of weapons in the first place. Empowerment based on fear. Of what, I have no idea. Maybe, it's their own political or social prejudices. Or their own personal insecurities. Who knows ? I'm just a guy typing his first blog entry.
But I do know that there's a great need for gun regulations. In the interest of public safety. For our own police officers' safety. For our own and our children's safety. Afterall, to be a part of decent society, we must sometimes look past our own interest and look after the greater need. It is not I but WE in a community, a city, a country. And the more the proper authorities can keep track of these deadly weapons, the less potential there is for conflict involving guns. And the lesser the conflict, the better WE evolve as a society. And the better WE feel about each other, the safer WE feel. And in great numbers, WE have nothing to fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)