Okay,

So I'm reading up on the whiny, whiny unforgivable sin of a non-muslim publishing a poor quality picture of Mohammad drawn by another non-muslim. How dare they refuse live by the teachings of a religion they don't belong to! They are bad, bad, bad, bad! Time to cut off their heads!

Well, that's the way it comes across in the media. As I see it there are a number of issues at play here. First is the issue of religious tolerance and respect. I don't think that anyone will disagree that at least one picture, that of Mohammad with a bomb turban, was viewed as disrespectful by a number of Muslims. This not only violates a 500 year old tennent of Islam but is also a provocation towards Muslims. I will not post a link to the picture as I have no desire to fuel the controversy but if anyone has seen the picture they will agree the picture is a provocation. That said the pictures are not a directed attack on Islam. They are a result of Islam going main stream. The western press has a history of lampooning religions. There is an entire industry devoted to disrespectful depictions and down right derision of Christianity. If you don't believe me google "religious right". The pictures published in a Danish newspaper are a result of Islam being more widely accepted in western society. I am not excusing the denigration of a faith, I am saying that they are not being singled out.

Second is freedom of the press in a secular society. The west holds the freedom of the press as fundamental to a free society. If the press is not free to expose, comment on, or inform the public hegemony and dictatorship, in its various forms will follow. This freedom can be misused or abused. The press wields tremendous influence society as it is the lens that people use to view their world. The almost comical depictions of religious groups in the press has led to the marginalization of the religious viewpoint as a counterbalance humanistic viewpoint that pervades our society. However, without that fundamental freedom there would be no counterbalance to the political and financial powers that influence our daily lives.

Third is the belief that foreign powers can dictate domestic policy. The protests in Turkey, Palestine, Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia and other Muslim countries is an attempt to influence domestic policy in Europe. It is a demand that we curtail the freedom of the press and bring it in line with their beliefs. These countries have no more say in the internal affairs of European nations than Europe has in the running of their countries. To think they do is the height of arrogance.

Fourth is the issue of a staged crisis. These pictures were first published in September 2005. They were obtained by Muslims and brought to Egypt in January 2006. The outrage and protests did not start until February 2006. And not only were those protests in Egypt. They were simultaneous and global. Countries as far away as Indonesia were well informed and organized when the crisis emerged. In fact, the only Muslims that seemed to be out of the loop were the ones in the West. They didn't seem to start protesting until after Friday's "call for a day of rage" by Muslim leaders. Why were those pictures brought to Egypt if not to insight people in the Arab world? This was a tempest in a tea pot until someone deliberately tipped the tea pot over. The outrage in the middle east was not spontaneous, it was planned and fueled by people with a political agenda.

So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with several questions to answer. First, will we curtail the freedom of the press in order not to offend Islamic beliefs? In order to do this we would need a legal framework in place in order to judge what could be considered offensive material. We would have to decide if this would be applied to all religious groups or only restricted to a few. We would need to ensure that it balances the desires of those religions with the publics right to free speech. Second, will we allow this issue to become a "wedge issue", allowing the beliefs of the Islamic faith dictate what we will allow in the public domain? This would certainly put other faiths at risk and allow powers outside our country and our legal system to dictate how we manage our own affairs. Third, can we find a lesson here? Just because the freedom of the press allows us to thumb our noses at people does that mean we should go ahead and do it? "I did it because I can" is a poor excuse for actual journalism and lessens the quality of the material produced. And fourth and finally do we practice self-censorship when it comes to the Muslim faith? This fiasco has taught us anything it has taught us that we don't know very much about Islam. Will this prevent us from talking about it at all? Can we take a critical look at the Muslim world without offending it or will all commentary by non-muslims end up in an orgy of hate and destruction?

On November 29, 2005 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal rendered judgment on a case between a same sex couple and the Knights of Columbus. In summary, the couple booked the Knights of Columbus hall for their wedding reception. The Knights, upon finding the the reception was for a gay couple canceled the booking, refunded the women their money and reimbursed the women for the cost of sending out new invitations and the difference in renting another hall. The women then referred the matter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal then rendered the following judgment:

1. the complaint against Ms. Hauser is dismissed;
2. a declaration pursuant to s. 37(2)(b) of the Code, that the Knights and Mr. Lazar, on behalf of the Knights, discriminated contrary to s. 8 of the Code;
3. pursuant to s. 37(2)(a) of the Code, that the Knights and Mr. Lazar are to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention of s. 8 the Code;
4. that pursuant to s. 37(2)(d)(ii) of the Code, the Knights and Mr. Lazar pay to the complainants the sum of $444.59 for expenses incurred as a result of the contravention of the Code, plus interest, from November 1, 2003 pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act; and
5. that pursuant to s. 37(2)(d)(iii) of the Code the Knights and Mr. Lazar to pay $1,000 to each of Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.

What this judgment basically says is that the section 8 of the Canadian Human Rights Act trumps the section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In simple terms it means that gay rights trump religious rights.

Okay, maybe that is a little bit of an oversimplification. What it means is that a religious organization can not discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. For the Knights this judgment means is that they can not refuse to allow their hall to be used for activities that are contrary to their beliefs; in this case they can not refuse to rent out their hall for the purposes of celebrating a gay marriage.

The link to the judgment is http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf
The link to the Canadian Human Rights Act is http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/31435.html
The link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Here's a little article to get you thinking. The University of Kansas is planning a new course named "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." Mythologies? I thought universities were there to open a persons mind not narrow it down to a pre-chosen path. I am not talking about the merits of Intelligent Design, I'm talking about the position the university has taken by targeting a belief as a "myth." There is something wrong when intellectual institutions ignore their mandate, that of training the next generation of intellectuals, and attempt to suppress the beliefs of a person, not through discourse, but through belittlement. Myth. Is there no longer the need to respect the beliefs of others? Is there no longer a need to train minds through and in the skills of logic and critical thinking? Is the opinion of the old guard so sacrosanct that it can not be questioned or arrived at through independent thought? Must the next generation be spoon fed the ideas of the current rather than be allowed to arrive at those conclusions on their own? Is there such a fear in academia that the current set of assumptions could be challenged or even, heaven forbid, disproved, that students must be directed in their thinking so that dissent can not raised without risking failure? It is indeed sad to think that our centres of learning could be transformed into centres of propaganda and spin in order to maintain the status quo. Could "Introduction to Politics" become "The Inferiority of Other Political Systems?" Could "Introduction to Macro Economics" become "The Inevitable Evolution to Market Based Economies?" It is difficult to see why these changes can not be made. If our mosaic of ideas can, through the "education" of our institutions of learning, be reduced to a single square, how will new ideas ever hope to see the light of day?

This makes me nervous. 1st Story Line Patent Published. It's true. Some is actually trying to patent a story idea. I have looked over the patent and it kind of looks like an old plot line from Star Trek: The Next Generation so it's not original but that's not the point. The point is that this is a blatant attempt to patent an idea. This has been an issue with software over the last ten years or so and now it seems to be spilling over into other creative areas as well. The question I have now is; if someone can patent a story line does that mean that someone can patent a jazz progression? A modernist style? Slang?

Patent law is supposed to be for the common good. By forcing "inventors" to expose their methods and devices others could, after a period of time, innovate and improve on the invention and in so doing benefit society. Patents are, in a literal sense, a government approved monopoly allowing the inventor to reap the rewards of hard labour. However, the monopoly is limited, allowing other inventors to extend and improve on the original invention after a period of time.

In the world of raw materials and production costs patents make sense. It costs a lot of money to build prototypes, set up a new production facilities, adhere to government regulations, etc. In short, in the physical world the risk is great so it makes sense that the reward also be great in order to attract people.

In the world of ideas, writing, music, sculpture and even mathematics, the risk is very low. Most software companies can build a throw away prototype for the cost of a few man weeks of labour. If the cost of failure is so cheap, why introduce a monopoly mechanism for a great reward. And more to the point, how does this monopoly benefit the common good? How can preventing anyone except the patent holder from writing about comatose amnesiacs for the next twenty years benefit society?

Is half a generation a reasonable amount of time for an idea to be withheld from the commons? In that time many things can change. Music can go out of style, technologies can be obsoleted, new scientific theories can conceived. How much will that slow if one person is prevented from building on the ideas of another?

Companies and individuals who fund the creation of new intellectual products should be rewarded for the risks they assume. However the reward should be proportional to the risk. Providing monopolies for economic advantage to individuals and corporations does not make sense if it is to the detriment of common good.

Bishop Henry, A bishop in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, was reciently raked across the coals in Canadian newspapers (i.e. Globe and Mail, CBC, The Star) and of course gay rights Web sites (365Gay.com). I decided to check out the Pastoral Letter myself. In my own opinion, the most damning quote from the letter, "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good" loses its original meaning when taken out of context and in isolation. The Bishop does not, as the the papers suggest, state that Ottawa should target gays. The Bishop does state however that citizens should "to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard". But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out Bishop Henry's Pastoral Letter yourself and, for balance, the response from the same sex community.

I read Shawn's comments from Thursday, December 16, 2004. I disagree with him. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once the definition of marriage is changed lawmakers will be very reluctant to change it back. But I do have this question; If we found every instance of the word marriage in Canadian law and changed it to another word, say "duck", would the gay community be satisfied if the definition of "duck" was to include the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. If the answer to this question is "no" than I would suggest that this is not a rights issue.

What got me thinking about this is a comment made by a gay rights activist during the CBC radio program, Cross Country Checkup. The person (I did not catch his name) referred to gay marriage as a wedge issue. A wedge issue for what? To the best of my knowledge gays already enjoy the same rights and protections under the law as all other citizens. They partake in all the same benefits as other Canadians, including spousal benefits. And this is before gay marriage legislation has been enacted. What other injustices are they faced with? I'll leave the answer to your speculation as I have no answer for you.

Since I'm on the marriage rant here are some other questions/speculations for you:

1. Can two brothers or two sisters get married?
2. Can a father marry his son? Can a mother marry her daughter? If the answer is no then why not?
3. If a mother can marry her daughter is it discrimination to prevent her from marrying her son?

Yes, these are some of the icky questions Canadian lawmakers must consider if they are going to do a half-decent job on the new marriage bill. Hope you're not one of them.

Big news in Britain. The Lords of Law have decided that its not nice to lock people up forever without at least telling them why. While I am against evil, nasty terrorists roaming the streets I do not believe that any authority should have the right to lock people up without telling them why. I'm wondering if a Geneva convention on terrorists may be in order. Here are some of the questions that could be answered by such conventions:

• On what grounds can individuals be classified as terrorists?
• What are the ground rules on methods of interrogation?
• On what grounds can an organization be classified as a terrorist organization?
• What are the legal rights of terrorists?
• What are the rules for acting premtively on terrorist threats?
• How long can terrorists be held and when and how can they be released?

There are probably lots of other good points to be addressed but I am to tired to worry about it right now.