For some reason I happened to be watching CTV (aka Canada's Tory Voice) when the news came on this evening. One of the featured stories was about outrage over the White Poppy Campaign.
Rememberance Day is a Commonwealth holiday (also known as Poppy Day or Armistace Day) commemorating the sacrifices of members of the armed forces and civilians in times of war, specifically World War I, which ended with the signing of the German Armistice of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.
According to Canadian Centers for Teaching Peace, the Women's co-operative Guild in England chose to wear white poppies in 1933 to symbolize their commitment to work for peace and to end their complicity with militarism. The tradition is being adopted in many other communities now too. Many people are choosing to wear red poppies to remember veterans and white poppies to renew their commitment to work for peace and to remember the true costs and causes of war.
So who is outraged by this desire for true rememberance? Why, The Royal Canadian Legion of course. "It's remembrance season, it's not peace season. If they want to distribute something they can distribute a dove" said Legion spokesperson Bob Butt. I'd like to suggest he change his name to Ass, but that's neither here nor there.
The Royal Canadian Legion also made news this week when two white men attended a Halloween party at the Campbellford, Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion dressed as a member of the KKK and a prisoner in blackface, complete with noose. Not only were they not tossed out of the party, they won a prize for their costumes.
I won't be setting foot in a Royal Canadian Legion branch for a loooong time, I don't care how cheap the beer is. It also makes me think twice about throwing some change in the poppy boxes, which is sad because a lot of that money goes to provide much needed assistance to veterans and seniors.
For those interested in adding a white poppy to their red poppy, or maybe rocking a white poppy solo, here is some contact information courtesty of my friend Matt:
Toronto: Anna Lou Little 416/ *** **** UPDATE : Anna is no longer involved with the campaign. I am actively trying to find a Toronto/GTA contact.
Victoria, BC: Marya Nyland ph/fax 250/ 592 6484 philmar at islandnet.com & Terry Wolfwood ph/fax 250/ 595 7519 bbcf at islandnet.com
Halifax, NS: Jan Slakov 902/ 837 4980 jslakov at tartannet.ns.ca
Showing posts with label fucktards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fucktards. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
jailing more people = epic fail
Blogger Impudent Strumpet asked "What is the political motivation behind jailing more people?"
Oh boy. There's political motivation, ideological motivation, and greed motivation.
The political motivation is to appeal to people who think "tough on crime" policies will bring crime rates down and keep them safe. There's also the "fear factor", that if people are afraid of crime and believe the government will keep them safe they'll give the government a longer leash, perhaps even letting the government infringe on its citizens civil rights (ie. Patriot Act).
We have become a throwaway society. I see it every day. If animals or people have problems, or are inconvenient, our society is more likely to put them down or away - out of sight, out of mind. Never mind that the factors that cause animal overpopulation, or criminal behaviour (poverty, disenfranchisement, racism), can be addressed but are not, so the cycle begins again.
Therein lies the ideological rub. People with conservative ideologies generally don't acknowledge that social factors contribute to criminal activity, whereas people with progressive ideologies are more likely to address these problems.
Then there's the profit motive. There's big money to be made in locking people up - if the institution housing them is privately or corporately owned. This was touched upon in Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story" but it is happening in Canada too. The secure detention/treatment facility I volunteer at is part of the private sector, not public sector, but all of the youths are there by court order.
The US model of "supermax" prisons is an epic fail. It doesn't work. Locking people up for 23 hours a day is sure to contribute to mental/emotional disorders, and increase anxiety and aggression. I consider myself a fairly level, compassionate person but if I had to spend 23 hours a day in a cage for years on end I might become a completely different person.
Supermax prisons are inhumane. I believe that most people are good. Most people in the justice system are good, but have made really bad decisions. I've made really bad decisions. Who hasn't? As a society are we prepared to say that people who make bad decisions are no longer human? No longer thinking, feeling people and no longer entitled to dignity? A decent quality of life? An opportunity to overcome whatever social, mental, or emotional impediments led them to commit crimes? I wouldn't keep a dog in a cage 23 hours a day. I wouldn't do that to a human being either.
By contrast, there are some models in the US in which inmates with serious convictions, including murder, are detained in lower security facilities. They have the freedom to come and go from their cells, to interact with other inmates, to participate in programs. These are dangerous people. So why aren't they shanking each other and rioting and attacking guards? Because they know they have a good thing and they don't want to blow it. These inmates are easier to manage than inmates in so-called "supermax" prisons.
It's time to re-think the way we view people who commit crimes, and the way they live while incarcerated.
My two cents.
Oh boy. There's political motivation, ideological motivation, and greed motivation.
The political motivation is to appeal to people who think "tough on crime" policies will bring crime rates down and keep them safe. There's also the "fear factor", that if people are afraid of crime and believe the government will keep them safe they'll give the government a longer leash, perhaps even letting the government infringe on its citizens civil rights (ie. Patriot Act).
We have become a throwaway society. I see it every day. If animals or people have problems, or are inconvenient, our society is more likely to put them down or away - out of sight, out of mind. Never mind that the factors that cause animal overpopulation, or criminal behaviour (poverty, disenfranchisement, racism), can be addressed but are not, so the cycle begins again.
Therein lies the ideological rub. People with conservative ideologies generally don't acknowledge that social factors contribute to criminal activity, whereas people with progressive ideologies are more likely to address these problems.
Then there's the profit motive. There's big money to be made in locking people up - if the institution housing them is privately or corporately owned. This was touched upon in Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story" but it is happening in Canada too. The secure detention/treatment facility I volunteer at is part of the private sector, not public sector, but all of the youths are there by court order.
The US model of "supermax" prisons is an epic fail. It doesn't work. Locking people up for 23 hours a day is sure to contribute to mental/emotional disorders, and increase anxiety and aggression. I consider myself a fairly level, compassionate person but if I had to spend 23 hours a day in a cage for years on end I might become a completely different person.
Supermax prisons are inhumane. I believe that most people are good. Most people in the justice system are good, but have made really bad decisions. I've made really bad decisions. Who hasn't? As a society are we prepared to say that people who make bad decisions are no longer human? No longer thinking, feeling people and no longer entitled to dignity? A decent quality of life? An opportunity to overcome whatever social, mental, or emotional impediments led them to commit crimes? I wouldn't keep a dog in a cage 23 hours a day. I wouldn't do that to a human being either.
By contrast, there are some models in the US in which inmates with serious convictions, including murder, are detained in lower security facilities. They have the freedom to come and go from their cells, to interact with other inmates, to participate in programs. These are dangerous people. So why aren't they shanking each other and rioting and attacking guards? Because they know they have a good thing and they don't want to blow it. These inmates are easier to manage than inmates in so-called "supermax" prisons.
It's time to re-think the way we view people who commit crimes, and the way they live while incarcerated.
My two cents.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
logic FAIL
I read a post on an anti-BSL string on Facebook, the author argued that wearing faux fur is no better than wearing real fur, except there's no cruelty, because it still looks like fur and thus promotes the idea that it's ok to wear fur. That's hands down the stupidest argument I've ever read in my life.
To say that faux fur is just like fur "except for the cruelty", well that's a BIG exception to most of us. If we apply this logic to BSL, one could argue that owning a pitbull is the same as owning a fighting dog, "except for the cruelty", because pitbulls look like fighting dogs thus owning a pitbull promotes dog fighting. FAIL.
Say we stick to applying that logic to consumer products rather than companion animals. One could argue that eating meat substitutes like veggie chilli or veggie burgers is the same as eating chilli with ground beef, or beef hamburgers, "except for the cruelty", because it looks like meat and is used in place of meat thus vegetarian meals promote eating meat. FAIL.
I'm all for people having different philosophies and convictions but before publicly bitchslaping someone by claiming that his or her choice or position is unethical, which this poster did to another poster, make a sensible argument, ok?
To say that faux fur is just like fur "except for the cruelty", well that's a BIG exception to most of us. If we apply this logic to BSL, one could argue that owning a pitbull is the same as owning a fighting dog, "except for the cruelty", because pitbulls look like fighting dogs thus owning a pitbull promotes dog fighting. FAIL.
Say we stick to applying that logic to consumer products rather than companion animals. One could argue that eating meat substitutes like veggie chilli or veggie burgers is the same as eating chilli with ground beef, or beef hamburgers, "except for the cruelty", because it looks like meat and is used in place of meat thus vegetarian meals promote eating meat. FAIL.
I'm all for people having different philosophies and convictions but before publicly bitchslaping someone by claiming that his or her choice or position is unethical, which this poster did to another poster, make a sensible argument, ok?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
