Choices and Consequences

It's tragic that young people feel themselves invulnerable to harm, and entitled to exercise less caution than they should in the exuberance and celebration of their youth. Young men in particular - but not exclusively, between the ages of 16 and 24 appear to be particularly susceptible to the delusion that nothing will occur of an untoward nature as a result of any reckless behaviour they engage in. Life is an ongoing adventure, after all.

But not for everyone. Some people die in the pursuit of that adventure. And that's what happened to a privileged son of a former Canadian premier; he became the instrument of death for a close friend. This was an accident, there was nothing intentional about it, other than the intent to have fun. Having fun for so many is synonymous with alcohol consumption; it loosens up the social inhibitions and makes decision-making just so much easier.

Jack Tobin, son of Brian Tobin, really has no excuse for his behaviour that took the life of Alex Zolpis. They were having a Christmas Eve blast at Byward Market, isn't that what young guys do? Engage in exhibitionism, frighten the life out of more sober people around them, challenge others to join them in having fun.

Jack Tobin's act was a commission of stupidity; his attitude prevailed even before alcohol was consumed. If he believed while sober, before the night on the town with his buddies, that drinking and driving was a bad combination he would not have done just that while intoxicated. His privileged background and his obvious sense of intelligence and honesty, if anything, should have imposed an obligation of caution upon him.

He cannot be excused for the inexcusable. The tragedy that his stupid behaviour caused, with two friends caught under the vehicle he was wheeling about on the roof of a parking garage caused a death. One man dead, another man's life impaired. There is no doubt he has suffered the agony of self-blame. But he will also doubtless suffer the shame and blame that an act of free will however intellectually impaired causing death, deserves.

There was another trial that took place recently of a woman, Dominika Duris, found guilty of driving while impaired by alcohol, in the death of her 20-year-old friend who was a passenger in her vehicle. She had been acquitted in an earlier trial, and second time around she was found guilty and sentenced to a two-year conditional sentence, including house arrest.

Both she and Jack Tobin are guilty of vehicular homicide. They both chose to drive while under the influence of alcohol and both caused the death of friends. Conditional sentences, house arrest, speaking to school groups as part of their punishment, week-end jail terms are all alternate sentencing potentials for young people.

There is no punishment quite as sobering as, at the very least, a minimum incarceration as society attempts to teach shallow young minds that their choices have consequences.

Practising To Deceive

What is it that motivates high-powered alpha males who consider themselves to be so entitled that they cannot maintain their most intimate personal relationships intact? They claim and possibly believe that their love for their mates are absolute, yet they are unable to forego the piquancy of the pursuit. Sexual conquest and gratification seems to overcome all other needs, urging to be fulfilled.

It is a human enough trait to succumb to inner urges, but the adult in us also cautions against excess and the destruction of vital relationships.

There is a choice; to maintain what is of emotional stability and deep value, or to knowingly, through the compulsion of emotional adventure and satisfactions derived from the thrill of achieving illicit relationships, to charge their atmosphere with the potential of destruction of a marriage. The urge seems irresistible to men who consider themselves to be elevated above the concerns that instruct most men although it is certainly not commonly unknown among the general population.

And, of course, women are as susceptible as are their male counterparts to forging relationships outside the confines of their marriages that will, in the end, destroy their marriages. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes because of a course of events that can no longer be restrained. The scenarios and the events themselves are as varied in circumstance and reason as the reflection of human dynamism and individual emotions and needs fulfillment.

Men and women search for intimate companionship, love and sexual gratification in monogamous relationships, then tire of the monotony and predictability and look elsewhere for additional uplifts. It seems to be men, largely, whose predator's instincts draw them toward destroying their intimate partnerships and with them, often enough, their public careers. Since it is high-profile public figures that draw the attention of the curious.

From politicians to socialites, sport figures to entertainment celebrities, aristocrats to the fellow living around the block, peoples' fallibility in maintaining constancy and the obligations of protecting and valuing special relationships seem to fall casually by the wayside of impetuous desires fulfilled. Women can find it in them to overlook casual errors in judgement, often enough.

But when it is revealed that their trust has been betrayed over a prolonged period of time, the sting of betrayal, that what they represent in the deepest possible emotional terms has not been sufficient to satisfy the cravings and the satisfaction of their partner represents a rejection of their value as partners. To discover that one's husband has maintained a long-standing affair under the radar of discovery represents a monumental blow to elemental self-esteem.

It represents a hard blow to the belief that a deep love and trust and understanding has been equally shared. It is destructive of not only the relationship but the psychical sense of self-worth. What woman would view with equanimity the revelation that her husband of a quarter-century fathered a child with another woman at the very same time that he impregnated her with their youngest child?

It is an unforgivable affront to the dignity of the relationship, a betrayal at the deepest level of the trust and love inherent in such a relationship. The deep and lasting harm that people do to one another through these secret alliances cannot be ameliorated by any kind of remorse after the fact. The deed is done and the pain is lasting.

"Another guy gov admits 2 cheating on his wife. Maybe we need more women governors. Guys: Keep ur pants zipped, for Pete's sake." Jennifer Granholm.

It is only the public figures, the politicians and the socialites,the entertainers and the high-paid sport figures that cause a scandal when salacious reports of details are revealed through the media. But these scenarios with various squalid and disappointing details occur all too often within the lives of the general public, disrupting family life and leaving children to cope with deleterious emotional upheavals.

"This is a painful and heart-breaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal." Maria Shriver

It is not possible to confine the damage to one's inner sphere. Gossip on a grand scale, as in regularly updated media reports as details emerge occurs and the public is agog with disbelief at the status of those involved in the fall from public grace - revealing as in the case of those like John Kennedy, Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger that the emperor lost his dignity in a series of tawdry affairs.

"After leaving the governor's office, I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago. I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. there are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologize to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry." Arnold Schwarzenegger

And on the micro-level, young children are bewildered as their parents no longer resemble the adults they know and have depended upon for emotional security and stability. They see their modest homes with for-sale signs and strangers trampling through for inspection, as the neighbours talk quietly among themselves expressing society's collective sadness at yet another human failure.

Once Upon A Time

There was a time when Canada's immigrant population was far more homogeneous than it is now. Many of its immigrants came from English-speaking countries; Britain, Scotland, Ireland; the mother country. Many more came from Europe, they were Caucasian. Those who were brought into the country to labour mightily where no one else would, were often orientals and they faced great discrimination.

Canada was not kind to its visible minorities. Although black Americans, escaping slavery, made their way into parts of Ontario and Nova Scotia, they lived as free men and women, but still faced grave discrimination. Canada's native populations, the First Nations people, always faced bigoted discrimination. And Jews faced the legends "no Jews or dogs" for entry to private clubs and universities.

That was once upon a time. Now Canada celebrates itself as a tolerant, multicultural country whose pluralist society represents ethnic groups, cultures, and religions from across the world. Once upon a time there were no special social programs through government agencies that existed to assist immigrants to adjust to their new, adopted country. No language study groups, no social service agencies to provide introductions to society and social assistance.

Immigrants adapted, they learned the language, they worked at menial, subsistence jobs, they raised their children who attended schools and adopted Canadian customs with the language, and they melded into society. If they had assistance it was far more likely to come from those of similar backgrounds who saw it as a duty to help others. There was practical assimilation.

It is now far more costly for Canada itself to embrace, encourage and absorb immigrants. There is a recognized humanitarian aspect to immigration that did not exist in much earlier days, once upon a time. Family reunification, for example; before, family sponsored family by paying for every aspect of their emigration and taking responsibility for adjustment and investment in the future.

Once upon a time there was no universal health care, nor the broad social services seen today. Earlier immigrants had a difficult, often miserable time adjusting on their own, and they lived in helpful communities that offered support. New immigrants also live in communities that offer support, but support is there in many other ways, government-sponsored at every level.

And it is immensely costly. The cost underwritten by the taxpayer. A new study by the Fraser Institute points out that for every immigrant coming to the country it costs an average of $6,000 over what government spends for all Canadians in terms of social supports. Since 2004, it has been estimated the total cost of integrating immigrants reached $25-billion.

Family unification, bringing over parents and grandparents to join their adult children with young families is a costly affair because the parents and grandparents have nothing to offer to Canadian society. No language capability, nor working skills, and because of their advanced age, a need for health care and other services, and eventually old-age supplements.

Immigrants do not, even after their first decade of employment in the country, earn salaries commensurate with the average population, and therefore pay less taxes. They consume the same amount of social programs as other Canadians while adding less than the majority of the population to the tax base.

A longer-range thought process might come to the conclusion that eventually, with the second and the third generation, all those 'differences' will have been expunged; the children of immigrants, adapted into Canadian society and the workforce will earn what other Canadians do, and pay for their own social services.

And they all live happily ever after.

Till Irritation Do Us Part

Cool, polished, civil and civilized. To agree between a married couple that although they still like one another and perhaps even respect one another, it is time to part. For the elemental reason that their interests do not converge, perhaps never did. They are too unlike in their values and priorities to continue living together in harmony. And if the investment has been only three years, why then, parting is not all that difficult.

Couples make that kind of decision all the time. To part, that is. But rarely is the parting agreeable in nature. More often each blames the other for not living up to a psychological agreement that each would make an effort to respect one another's differences and appreciate what they have in common. The effort sometimes becomes too onerous and either one or both decide the experiment was a failure.

Sometimes it's an inattentive partner, or a philandering one that causes the anger to mount. Sometimes it's an attitude of incurable arrogance that causes one to feel he/she is superior to the other, and the alpha runs the show. Then there's the possibility that the physical attraction has evaporated. Or one of the tandem isn't wholly invested in matching the bacon the other brings home.

Whatever the reasons, what usually results is rancour and vituperation. One of the brace may be thunderstruck by the announcement of the other that it's time to call an end to the duo. One may still love the one who now denies there ever was love to begin with. The longer the irritation of living together continues before the final break, the more urgent the passion of disharmony becomes.

Unlike the oyster, irritated by the tiny grain of sand that he keeps oozing nacre over to eventually produce a pearl, the couple headed toward divorce seldom produce a pearl of acceptable behaviour toward one another. Separation and divorce are heralded by angry and ugly denunciations.

That's how most marriages end, in blame and anger, whatever the cause. But then, if someone has limitless wealth and a more blase attitude toward life, augmented by a balanced personality and a large social following, things can be done differently. A three-year marriage between a young, attractive woman and an older, moneyed man can result in invitations to celebrate a divorce.

As has been done by Charles and Bonnie Bronfman, who have invited their circle of friends to a night of cocktails and party chatter in New York City. Their invitation signs off with "fondly, Bonnie and Charles"; with the explanation that they look forward "to continuing these relationships with everyone."

Just not quite so intimately with one another.

Upholding Law and Order

The troubling, if not utterly pathetic story of the Mountie who couldn't distinguish right from wrong. How then, is he able to administer the notion of law and order, let alone justice? Amazing how aptly named he is, as well: Constable Wright, confused about right and wrong.

Are we expecting just too much from law enforcement officers? Are we being unreasonable, anticipating that they are imbued with a righteous sense of what is socially permissible and to avoid the illicit in their personal lives? Is their training apt? Are we prepared to accept that an officer of the law will hold us responsible for our anti-social and criminal acts, while blithely pursuing those acts themselves?

Constable Matt Wright was definitely not in his right mind - or perhaps he was - when he decided not to document taking possession of drugs and cash after a drug bust. It wasn't that he had no previous experience as a law enforcement officer, why the man had also served in the military prior to taking up his profession with the RCMP. He then must have known what he was about, and it would appear that he approved of what he was planning.

Leaving no logistical trace of the drugs and cash he had earlier seized he took the opportunity some months later to depart the Chilliwack detachment with files, his notebooks, RCMP I.D. card along with the cash and drugs he had taken possession of, but never documented. This was the result of a street arrest, after all, and no one would be any the wiser. Was the miscreant about to begin an investigation into the cash and drugs that he had been relieved of, at his arrest?

Off he set with the undocumented goods. And then he reported that those items which he had left in his vehicle had been taken by some no-good who had broken into his car. It was only a "thin wad" of cash, he explained, containing a $20 bill as a wrapper, and perhaps 50 blue pills. No great loss. But he was brought before an internal disciplinary hearing where he made an admission guilt of the allegations brought against him.

And for his misdemeanor was docked two days' pay representing due punishment for neglect of duty. "The lapse of judgement in the proper care, control and storage of an exhibit may be out of character; however, members must be vigilant in properly processing exhibits. The public and the courts expect nothing less than perfection", huffed the disciplinary board.

Months later it was revealed, Constable Wright's supervisor discovered that he had purchased a rifle a few years earlier from a retired member of the RCMP. He never got around to acquiring a firearms certificate, nor was the rifle registered to him. The superior officer took possession of the firearm, and Constable Wright was charged under the RCMP Act with disgraceful conduct.

And docked (gasp!) another three days' pay for having an unlicensed firearm. The disciplinary board stated: "We commit to uphold the law and by acquiring a firearm without the proper licensing, Constable Wright is breaking the very law he swore to enforce." This severe chastisement caused Constable Wright to apologize.

He has demonstrated contrition, and expresses deep regret for having embarrassed the national police force. The RCMP has experienced a great many occasions of late for being deeply embarrassed by the unprofessional and occasionally not very exemplary behaviour of its members in pursuing their duties. Constable Wright feels very badly about that, too.

He has assured his seniors that he is now scrupulous about processing all crime exhibits "meticulously". Good thing that is, too; restoring our confidence in the honesty and integrity of those whose duty it is to serve the public interest in upholding law and order.

Self Restraint?

Is that all it is, an inability to reign in one's inner beast? As though it is of no great moment. The occasional lapse in judgement. The surrender to one's instantaneous, baser instincts. A moment of madness. Lust that must be appeased. Sexual gratification at all costs. It has been said that powerful men who reach the heights of public acclaim for their prowess in many areas of accomplishment have a greater sexual appetite than other, more modestly endowed men.

Call it arrogance, a sense of entitlement that society owes them the kind of gratitude that will excuse moral lapses because of their reputations as great thinkers, military men, writers, poets, politicians, philanthropists - and economists. There is that about males who hail from countries where the Romance languages are common; they think of themselves as great lovers. They consider women as blatant objects of desire.

And they practise a societally-approved pursuit of women and girls. They are not considered lechers or predators, but rather celebrated as successful at seducing women. Frenchwomen have always been seen by other women elsewhere in the world as worldly, sophisticated, in control, mistresses of their own culture, inclusive of the boudoir. And the aristocratic, polished Frenchmen the very vision of courtesy.

These cosmopolitan, smoothly distinguished individuals, from the highest echelon of public affairs to the social elite are frank and free about sex. Unlike the prudish North Americans, for example. And what IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was able to get away with in France he could not do in the United States. Both countries are egalitarian in nature presumably, but where sexual violence is accepted in one, it is not in the other.

Position, fame and celebrity equal respect. And this Mr. Strauss-Kahn had in abundance. His prowess with women was well known and celebrated as well. Women who had been abused of their innocence in his presence did not pursue their grievance but were encouraged to put their experience with his passion-entitlements in the past and give him wide berth in the future. In France the man was able to behave as disgracefully as he wished; all was forgiven.

In North America violent sexual assault is not so readily overlooked. No one is entitled, irrespective of his other admirable qualities, to abuse and violate women at will because he will make no effort to discipline himself as a civil human being.

State-Funded Child Care

The Liberals and the NDP decry the Conservatives for not having launched a universal day-care plan, which both the Liberals and the NDP have mused about for a decade. Something that might be modelled after the Quebec day-care option, with $7-a-day, government sponsored and defrayed day care. Which the Conservatives years ago turned around and opted instead for a far less costly and less-intrusive yearly child-care support to parents to decide for themselves how the funding should be spent.

It's a nominal sum, serving as a recognition that some parents prefer to raise their children with one parent at home, rather than farm their children out to day-care providers. It is a tip of the hat to standard, old-fashioned parenting, in fact. And an admission that the Conservatives see it as impractical in the sense of becoming too great a financial burden for the taxpayer to support the concept of affordable, regulated, universal day-care. The public education system exists as a needful model of state-subsidized education.

As for the supposed effectiveness of state-subsidized day-care for the country's children, leaving parents not only free to get out into the workforce, but seeming to insist that they do so, since they have been freed by the state to do just that; parents feel the obligation they are under to leave the raising of their children to others. The end result of which can be far different than what those who encourage and demand it might anticipate, given the experience of a country which devoted itself to that very concept.

Sweden, with its long history of admired and often-emulated social welfare, had its universal, state-subsidized child-care system evaluated and the resulting study published in 2006 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked Sweden at the top and Canada at the bottom in child care provision. The comprehensive, affordable day care available in Sweden, and its history of gender equality has resulted in a very high percentage of women joining the paid workforce. After all, the demanding occupation of child care has been removed.

Because of a policy of generous parental leave of sixteen months after birth, mothers look after their babies for the first year-and-a-half. After that fully 92% of Swedish children from 18 months to five years are looked after in a day-care setting. Day-care subsidies are set at $20,000 annually per child. Which, among other things, explains why Swedish taxes represent among the highest in the world. The day-care system was initiated in 1975, and it took until the 1990s for an evaluation of the success of the program to be undertaken and recognized.

What was recognized was that Swedish health-care professionals cite the lack of parental involvement in their children's upbringing, and the parents' unfamiliarity with child rearing techniques as being responsible for socially dysfunctional children. Swedish youth are exhibiting psychological problems and disorders at a rate far accelerated over their European counterparts. As for educational progress in Swedish schools, they have descended from the top 30 years earlier to average among OECD nations.

Problem behaviours in Swedish schoolchildren far outdistance those of their European counterparts. The ratio of teachers to students is also increasing with deleterious outcomes. Quality service and care has been impeded by the simple fact that Sweden has been involved in a financial crisis. The bold and progressive experiment in state child-rearing has proven to be a failure.

Canadians should have no interest in going down that same dismal road.

Interesting Times

Britain is well known to have been completely infiltrated by rabidly fanatic Islamists. British Muslims famously attend mosques where visiting and home-grown imams constantly preach jihad. The natural outcome of which is that a good percentage of British Muslims harbour sympathy for violent jihad, and a small but significant proportion of British Muslims aspire to become involved themselves with violent jihad. Of that number a smaller yet number have travelled to Afghanistan for terror training, and some of have returned to Britain.

Muslims living in Britain who espouse and encourage views in the Muslim community that run entirely counter to the welfare and values of the country which has given them haven and citizenship, consider Britain a 'colonial Crusader' country hugely invested in conquering and occupying Arab and Muslim lands to continue controlling oil output. Britain's role in NATO and its relationship with the United States in joining to combat international jihad has created the anomalous situation of an immigrant community loathing the politics of its adopted country.

While leaders of the fanatic groups of Islamists dedicated to defaming and challenging Britain's government and its military in their forays abroad with NATO continue to denounce the government, many of them live entitled lives of welfare dependency. Now, with the country in celebratory mode in preparation for the royal wedding to take place at Westminster Abbey, security alert is at a high level. And people are being warned that there may be problems, while the police ask them to be aware and inform the police should they note anything out of character.

"We really need you to be our eyes and our ears. If you see anybody in the crowd that is acting suspiciously, please bring it to the earliest attention of our officers."

Recent WikiLeaks documents describing Britain as representing a "crucible of terrorism" over the past several decades have not exactly revealed anything not previously known. But they do highlight what is known, bringing the reality closer to the scrutiny of people who would prefer to wave it aside as irrelevant. Until the next home-grown terror attack occurs, leaving chaos and bloody slaughter in its wake.

Some things have certainly changed in Britain in the past few decades. Where once Britain had the headache of the Irish Republican Army to concern themselves with, they now are concerned with a lethally determined religious ideology of fiercely paranoid hatred. The footman riding the wedding coach of the royal couple will be a security officer, armed, and fully prepared to physically cover the royal couple with his own body should they happen to come under attack by anyone with sinister intent who might breach security.

Five thousand police officers will be on duty the day of the royal wedding. Of that number, one-fifth represent a rapid reaction force prepared to isolate and surround and de-activate violent protesters,whether they are anarchists or anarcho-Islamists. The threat level has been set at "severe", interpreted as meaning that British authorities consider a high potential for a terrorist attack is likely.

A radical Islamist group, Muslims Against Crusades, which has planned a protest against the "Nazi" Prince William, and which has been denied a permit to protest and banned from the area of the royal procession, still intends to gather for the purpose of "disrupting" the wedding ceremony and celebratory occasion. Their website incites followers to get out, gather and "protest" the crusading British military, along with the fascist royal family, labelled as "enemies to Allah and his Messenger".

Friday is fated to be an interesting day of polarized events and participation. Interesting in the sense of that old Chinese curse.

Pageants and Circuses

It's a nice event on the social calendar, to be sure. British royalty at it again. Those magnificent and outrageously grand ceremonials with all their pomp and regal presence are irresistible to many people. Representing celebrity at its utmost elevation. Queens and Princes and the commoner who is living the fairy tale of being selected by a real, live prince. Who may, if succession proceeds as planned, take the throne in the near-to-distant future.

Europe has plenty of royalty and those photographs of pomp and ceremony, brilliant smiles and lavishly extravagant gowns and festivities are always captivating in their way, at least for a brief period. But the amount of space taken up in the news media with details of the forthcoming marriage at Westminster Abbey, and preparations for the grand event tend to be somewhat gagging.

When is enough just that? Just about now.

This brace of young people who have spent the last eight years of intimacy together are now to be formally wed. There's a departure that the last generation has brought to tradition. And the memorabilia that will flood the market; everything from fine porcelain cups, to look-alike dolls, commemorative coins and tea towels with the photographs of the happy pair in pre-connubial bliss.

And then there's that shabby little bit of information that of the royal guests one member of that family has not received an invitation. Two of the Queen's grandchildren, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will be in attendance along with their father and all others. But not their mother. Quite so that Sarah, Duchess of York is a shabby character herself, but she is their mother.

All manner of foreign dignitaries, ambassadors to Britain from various countries of the world, including those in fairly questionable odour, have been invited, however. Diplomats who represent autocratic, tyrannical and dictatorial, theistic governments who oppress their people. Libya, however, is definitely out; no invitation for them, but Syria's all right.

Canadian Leadership Material

The Canadian electorate is facing up to its choices. At least it might seem that way, given the latest poll revelations. But then nothing is ever assured, and as the pundits say, things could turn on a dime. Predicting the nation's mood sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. With a full week left yet to voting day there's ample time for someone to impress and someone else to fail to.

It seems to the reasonable mind that a Conservative visible-minority candidate in British Columbia may not be too bright, too aware, less than capable when neither she nor her campaign advisers were quick enough to pick up a familiar-sounding name as trouble. Ignorance can be used as an excuse that Wai Young attended a public meeting in the presence of, and to be endorsed by Ripudaman Singh Malik acquitted of guilt in the Air India bombing.

But ignorance in general nor lack of diligence in whom one permits to endorse a candidature is not a very laudable quality in a political candidate. Nor does it reflect well on another partisan crowd attending a meeting with Stephen Harper, that protected him from responding to a reporter's question about the event.

On the other hand, it defies reason that a Conservative candidate, much less the party itself would court the support of a man whom a bungled RCMP investigation enabled a situation to evolve that allowed this Sikh-Canadian involved in the militant free-Khalistan movement to escape justice for his part in a home-grown terrorist attack. The answer is clear; neither would.

Then there's the campaign of Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, with the leader himself commiserating with Quebec over the plight of: "Too many families can't make ends meet, too many seniors are living in poverty - it's not right"; promising to fight for the interests of Quebecers. How are their interests any different than that of all Canadians?

Well, Quebec with its pride in clean-energy hydro thanks to the massive James Bay hydroelectric project is very receptive toward promises of further investment in clean-energy technologies. And Quebec's aging, crumbling infrastructure requiring the replacement of bridges is another item dear to the minds of the province's voters, and Jack Layton is responding.

"We offer to Quebecers the same thing we offer to Canadians, we will look after the issues of health care with your families. We will focus on job creation. we will work hard to provide economic security for seniors and we will try to take steps to make their lives a little more affordable", he promised.

Wait a minute: Jack Layton is differentiating Quebecers from Canadians? Amazing. Isn't it?

And there's Michael Ignatieff campaigning for the Liberal Party to be restored to its natural governing status. "If any of you are tempted to vote for the other party, take a look at the costing table at the back of the NDP program. They got $30 billion of spending. ...Don't go there folks. This is not wise."

Time out for campaigning against the Conservatives, focus needed on the NDP because they're splitting the vote. The gullible public is expected to handily forget all the costly promises being bandied about by the Liberals during this election campaign?

"We could have NDP amateur hour or we can have competent responsible government", Mr. Ignatieff warns his followers and the voting public at large. Liberals may swallow that message, but the uncommitted may gawp at the statements. Jack Layton cut his baby teeth on politics; he comes from a political family, he was deeply involved in Toronto municipal politics, and he has thus far had experience in running in three elections.

Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada from his sojourns abroad to be the saviour of the Liberal Party accustomed to governing as though they were the only party worth mentioning in the country. When, under the Liberals, regions that supported them were lavished with pork-barrelling, and when social programs Canadians depended on, got seriously cut back.

Yet Michael Ignatieff, who is a prime example of a democratic deficit in the very manner in which he was elevated to office can claim without blushing "People have a long memory here... They know that a Liberal government can govern." Sure, people have a long memory; long enough to recall the greed and corruption under the Liberals and the diminishment of social programs.

His stated strategy for the remainder of the campaign until voting day; "hope, hope, hope" and "optimism" is just what Canadians appear to have concluded, in very fact.

"The Notion of Justice"

The absurd conceit that there is a special absolution for thespians and artists who engage in hugely destructive acts of violence against others is nonsensical.

If a celebrity figure behaves in a socially egregious manner, let alone a violently aggressive one, that person is as guilty of criminal transgression as any other member of society. Their artistic talent does not in any way, shape or form exclude them from being judged under the law as any one else might be.

An artistic genius who surrenders to the incredible impulse to murder someone is still a murderer. A trial has just recently concluded where a film producer in Western Canada entrapped a stranger by enticing him to a meeting at a remote and isolated place where he could be murdered.

It would appear that the experience of having killed someone was undertaken to satisfy curiosity, artistic curiosity. So that the murderer could satisfy his theatrical muse by writing about the experience with the full benefit of first-hand knowledge of the emotions, the struggle, the passion, and the evil deed done.

In the case of the French musical rock star Bertrand Cantat who beat his French girlfriend actress to death, the Lebanese-Canadian playwright, Wajdi Mouawad, Cantat's friend, argues extenuation through artistic genius. French film star Marie Trintignant was ferociously beaten around the head in a Lithuanian hotel, dying later of swelling of the brain.

A Lithuanian court had sentenced Cantat to an eight-year prison term for murder, and he had served half that time due to "good behaviour". All now must be forgiven; he has paid his due to society, as the famous phrase and sentiment goes. And, having done so, he should be admitted to Canada through a special Minister's permit to grace a Canadian stage in a theatrical performance.

Decency decrees otherwise, however, considering it an outrage that someone who murdered can be so cavalierly excused and re-assume his former role as a popular entertainer. The absurdity of the man being engaged to compose music for a series of plays based on Greek tragedy on the brutalization of women, and to act in the play as well, to emphasize the dichotomy of one who kills and who later repents, is in itself rather unpalatably theatrical.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a prevailing condition among the arts-and-theatrical set that one so talented should be excused any excesses. Much like the French director Roman Polanski, having raped a young underage girl being excused on the basis of his artistic directing genius from legal prosecution for his crime.

The artists involved at the NAC in the theatrical production of Des Femmes are prepared to stage a "unified show of support" for Cantat as "one of their own". A display of arrogant entitlement to special considerations not reflected in the public's opinion of celebrating and elevating a man who surrendered to the impulse to beat a woman to death.

But this is theatre, cutting edge and forgivingly avant garde as exemplified by the highly respected and wonderfully talented National Arts Centre's French artistic director Wajdi Mouawad. Who finds it most inconvenient that women's groups have raised a protest over his friend's involvement in the production of Des Femmes.

When all is said and done, Mr. Mouawad denies the logic of the protests, defends his friend's artistic talent and his "right to climb on stage", for he is not a criminal, since he has paid his due through his prison sentence. He is a murderer, yes, but his artistry surmounts and overshadows his status as one who had taken the life of another.

And he feels confident that the controversy will serve to clear peoples' minds, that it will be the pivot around which an important social discussion on "the notion of justice" and "what an artist is".

Excessive Judgement

It is, without doubt, a transgression of a high moral order that represents what Denise (Dee) Harvey of Florida did to complicate her life and that of the 16-year-old boy whom she had sexual relations with. Herself a mother of a boy the same age who was a friend of the boy she had sex with on a number of occasions, this woman exercised extremely poor judgement.

That her marriage and her relationship with her son, let alone that with her husband, was not completely destroyed is a testament to their forgiveness of her absurdly unforgivable folly. Why on Earth would the mother of a 16-year-old boy succumb to the temptation (itself inexplicable) to have sex with a friend of her son, to begin with?

Obviously what we might consider to be normal inhibitions, a repugnance toward the very thought of something so morally wrong, did not constrain this woman. There can be little doubt that the people living in the community of Vero Beach, Florida, would not have thought very highly of this woman.

She was convicted by a Florida court in 2008 of the offence of having sex repeatedly with a minor. A personal shame and a public disgrace. Difficult for both families involved to live with. Her sentence was an egregious over-reaction, however. She was given the maximum penalty for the offence; 30 years in prison.

She chose to flee the sentence, as who might not? Compounding her original social offence. She and her family fled to a small town in Saskatchewan, and a cross-border hunt was mounted for the convicted sex offender. In the interim, the family lived for a year in Pike Lake, Saskatchewan. Where they seemed like any other compact little family.

It is not a crime in Canada for a 45-year-old woman to sleep with a 16-year-old boy, unless she was abusing a position of trust. This woman lived with her family in a bungalow next to the local Anglican Church, where she was a volunteer. People liked her, as a friendly neighbour. And, when she was arrested by the RCMP last week, they rallied to her support.

Her bizarre sentence was an over-reaction, the punishment did not fit the crime. A similar case that occurred in West Virgina where the age of consent is 16 and the boy involved was 15, ended with the woman who was the sexual predator being given a 30-day sentence. Quite a difference between a 30-day prison sentence, and a 30-year sentence.

In either case, the women involved were guilty of high stupidity and of disgracing themselves through offending the social compact, let alone the moral turpitude of older women preying on young boys for sexual adventures. When men do such things they are considered to be completely debauched, threats to society, detested pedophiles.

But the sentence handed out to this woman in this particular case offends reason and the equability of justice.

Judging The Judge

There is that about politics and elections and candidates; the leaders never quite know when an individual chosen by a riding association and often given the blessing of the party's head office, will issue a moronic statement that tends to smear the party in greasy embarrassment. Some statements can be overlooked as not being terribly damaging in a social-political context, and others simply cannot, because they reveal unacceptable social biases, even bigotry.

In Wild Rose, Alberta, former judge and Liberal candidate John Reilly stated his opinion based on his decades of experience as a judge that not all sexual offences fall into the same category and need not be treated the same; that minor sex offences did not necessarily warrant mandatory minimum prison sentences.

He may have understood where he was coming from, but to those who heard his statement it sounded as though sex offenders might have had a friend in this judge.

There have been several quite notable instances of late where judges have ruled that forced sex cases, cases of rape, revealed mitigating circumstances in that they claimed the women involved issued unspoken but fairly clear messages leading the rapists to believe the women invited assault. So, rape in these instances was to be considered the result of a simple misunderstanding, and you can't, after all, blame a fellow for thinking he had an all-clear, even while hearing the woman strenuously objecting.

This is a man, eager to become a Member of Parliament under the Liberal banner, whose website explains "He's so disgusted by the proposed Conservative Justice Initiatives that he has resigned his judicial appointment in order to take his concerns to Ottawa and better represent our riding." A conversion, in other words, from one who administers justice under set guidelines allowing a judge certain latitudes, to one who goes beyond the simple administration of the law to proposing changes in the law.

From provincial court judge to Parliament as a newly-minted lawmaker.

So what's the quality of this man's judgement? Well, he took it upon himself to take the Chief Judge of Alberta to court because he refused then-Judge Reilly's expense claim to a conference in Switzerland. The Chief Justice, in refusing Reilly's request explained that the proposed trip did not meet requirements for professional development, but he could go along if he paid for the trip himself, rather than do it on the public purse.

That response didn't suit John Reilly and he asked for a judicial review, lost, took his umbrage to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where the court ruled against him, and when he approached the Supreme Court, it decided against hearing his case. So, because this man felt he wanted to go to Switzerland in his capacity as a provincial court judge, and public payment was denied him, he tied up a layer of succeeding courts at huge public cost.

Are these the actions of a reasonable man capable of exercising sound judgemental capabilities?

Getting On With His Life

Thank you for the feedback. Report another imagePlease report the offensive image. CancelDoneHow does this sound? French rock star Bertrand Cantat, in a raging drunk, beat Marie Trintignant to death. Beating her with his bare hands he caused mortal brain damage to the young woman who was his girlfriend. That brutality, where the young woman suffered fractured facial bones through 19 strikes upon her face and head, cost Mr. Cantat four years of his life behind bars.

He had been convicted in a Lithuanian court and sentenced to 7 years in prison, but having served half his sentence, was released for good behaviour in 2007. The man is in the throes of reviving his illustrious career as one of France's most famous stars. Famous, then infamous, and striving once again for the mantle of fame.

He has been tapped by a personal friend, the Lebanese-Canadian playwright-director Wajdi Mouawad - whose origins accustomed him to violence and the need to get over it - to compose the score and sing, as part of the chorus in a rock adaptation of three Greek tragedies by Sophocles at the Theatre du Nouveau Monde, scheduled to open a year May.

Word does get out. Mr. Cantat's reputation has preceded him, angering theatre-goers and groups who work with abused women. They, if not the theatre communications director and others willing to forge ahead with their plans, can hardly believe that all can be forgiven in a spirit of theatrical "the-show-must-go-on" bravado since, after all, Mr. Cantat 'paid his dues' to society.

But as a convicted felon under Canada's Immigration Laws, anyone with the background that Mr. Cantat boasts is forbidden entry on a visa or by any other means to Canada, unless a sponsor persuades a Minister of the Crown to issue a special permit. And it is highly unlikely, if a Conservative-led government comes back to power, that any such special Minister's permit would be issued.

Despite that Mr. Cantat's friend is eager to aid with his rehabilitation: "Wajdi considers that it is also an opportunity for his friend to exorcise the horror of the act he committed .... To make amends in a show that denounces violence against women." (Theatre du Nouveau Monde director Lorraine Pintal)

Is that not too precious for words?

Missing Spine Recovered!

"It is not the privilege of any group to threaten to stop the work of the university. If any individual or group does not like the result of the serious deliberations of these bodies, there remains the right to make this point of view known in a respectful and peaceful fashion." Carleton University President Roseanne Runte

Finally, a response to the juvenile hysterics of student protesters on the campus of Carleton University. Students Against Israeli Apartheid insist that they be treated respectfully, their views and values taken into account by the university administration to the extent that the board of governors not only respect their motion for the university to divest funds from companies that do business with Israel, but to adopt and act upon that motion.

Their conclusions and remedies for a complex international situation to be taken seriously, respectfully, and instantly acted upon. Nothing more, nothing less. To do otherwise, as the university administration appears set on doing in their obviously misguided belief in fair judgement, is to invite further noisily nauseating disruptions in administration processes.

A week earlier, the university's board members were physically blocked from attending a scheduled meeting by several hundred protesting students representing campus groups Students Against Israeli Apartheid and the Graduate Students' Association. Who had taken umbrage at the administration decision to admit a representative few of their group in a chamber where the board meeting was to take place which could not accommodate the several hundred students who insisted on their right to attend the board meeting.

Consequently, the board meeting had to be cancelled. And the business that was to have been conducted could not proceed. "This must not occur again", an email from Carleton's president informed the student groups. "Those who have said they will interrupt meetings until they have their way are participating in inappropriate bullying tactics."

Those involved in preventing access or refusing to follow the thoughtfully outlined guidelines represented by campus security could anticipate being charged in future under Carleton's student code. Penalties, the email advised, could include suspension of privileges, inclusive of campus access, a monetary fine, or loss of academic status.

Finally, a clear and decisive instruction to students challenging the authority of the university administration that they are expected to proffer respect before they receive it; mutual accommodation. The tail should never be permitted to wag the dog. The two campus groups should understand clearly that they may endanger their student status and their academic credentials.

Nice to see the university administration standing resolutely tall and straight.

Mayerthorpe Report

All aggregate places of residence have their good people and their bad. There are sociopaths and psychopaths and those whose simmering anger against the world and their rejection of societal values render them amenable to psychotic outbreaks. They become petty criminals, they prey on the society around them.

And they resent and hate authority and those tasked with the security of society.

In Mayerthorpe, Alberta, James Roszko was generally recognized as someone who lived on the outskirts of polite society just as he lived on his farm outside Mayerthorpe. He had a criminal record ranging from shoplifting to harassment and threats, and sexual assault. Of the six convictions on his record 4 dated back 26 years, 1 was 14 years old, the last 9 years old.

No reason to continue considering him a real threat to society. He had served his time for his offences, and legally he had the right of any other free citizen in a free society. But the RCMP were investigating stolen vehicles, and entered his property for the purpose of looking around. While there they also discovered a marijuana grow operation.

They secured the property, awaiting the man's arrival back from wherever he had fled to. At nightfall, assisted by two friends who lived in Mayerthorpe, who dropped him off at his farm where four RCMP officers had settled in for the night to wait for his eventual appearance, he entered his Quonset hut to retrieve the semi-automatic markman's rifle he wanted.

And then he shot all four constables to death. And to finalize the violently bloody drama he shot himself. The gruesome discovery of the slaughter sunk the RCMP into a deep depression of self-doubt. How might they have prevented this horrible event from occurring? Four Mounties dead, in one fell swoop by a psychotic petty criminal.

Who might ever have suspected such a dreadful occurrence might happen? No one.

And finally a report issued by Judge Daniel Pahl released to Alberta's Justice Minister and Attorney-General clarified the situation in terms of its unavoidability. That a criminal mind could outfox the best-trained law-and-security officers through the sheer inability of normal minds to apprehend a psychotic break with reality.

Grudge-driven satisfaction in murdering police constables before taking his own life, a final revenge, withdrawing the possibility of closure for a stunned and grieving community.

Capricious Fate

Patrick Chareka, a quiet man, not much like his ebullient wife. They were both scholarly individuals, well educated and employed at St.Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. They were both originally from Zimbabwe. Otillia Chareka was a village girl determined to become educated. From a poverty-stricken family and village she stubbornly did receive an education.

First of her small village's clan to finish high school, first to attend university, obtaining a master's then a doctorate. When she arrived in Canada in early 1990 her teaching credentials were not recognized, so she furthered her education at the University of New Brunswick, paying her way through work as a hotel maid.

She thought of Canada as a country full of opportunities. She had a dynamic personality. "She was always laughing. In any type of situation she laughed. She entered a room with light." And she exited life with the darkness of an evil act.

For her husband, Patrick Chereka, father of the five daughters that Ottilia Chareka brought into the world, murdered his wife. He was an instructor at St.Francis Xavier's math department until his arrest on a charge of first-degree murder. No previous records of domestic violence in the home were on the books.

Professor Chereka was described by some of his students as "entertaining", "passionate", a "stylish dresser" and hard to "understand". To the entire town and the many people who knew and admired Ottilia Chareka, "understanding" Patrick Chereka and what drove him to murder his wife is a true dilemma.

Their daughters, all five of them, Praymore 23, Patience 18, Patricia 16, Primrose 14, and Prisca 3, will miss their mother dreadfully. Doubtless they will also miss their father. They are now, effectively, orphans. Their mother, who lectured as an associate professor of education, sent funding to a small village in Zimbabwe for medication and clothing for the indigent.

The girls have been left a legacy of unparalleled virtue. The town has been left to care for five young women instilled with the promise of their mother's character and the memory of their father's failure.

Forbidding Vulgarity

Really, it can be so annoying when a newspaper picks up a story say, from Agence-France Presse, and then doesn't bother to do a follow-up. In the sense that the story, as published, alerts the reader to a substantive issue, lays out in some detail what a certain country's lawmakers are grappling with in their attempts to serve the finer interests of their nation and their countrymen, and you're just left dangling.

There's no conclusion. There are no further stories, no updates, nothing to alert you to the reality that the issue has been resolved. Now, is that fair? Doesn't it make sense that if a story is worth news-time, if it's worth reporting on, of being published, and picked up by various newspapers in various countries of the world as an item of interest, then surely they and the reader have invested something in it?

Curiosity must be salved...

The issue becomes theirs too. They become curious. They want to know what occurred in that particular parliament. What on Earth happened to the issue? Doesn't the reading public have a right to know? Our interest has been aroused, and we're left dangling, as it were. That surely is not right.

This issue, for example: Malawi has a law that states:

"Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

"Guilty of a misdemeanor", now that sounds impressive. And the delicacy of that wording: "Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere..." Forgive our ignorance, but what might that mean? Ah, here it is: vitiate: vitiated - corrupted: ruined in character or quality. Someone then, who corrupts the atmosphere. By cursing? By behaving badly?

Ah, now it becomes clear. Soiling the air by intemperate passing of gas.

The debate in Malawi was all about a farting ban. There, it is said. A farting ban. "The government has a right to ensure public decency. We are entitled to introduce order in the country", said Justice and Constititutional Affairs Minister George Chaponda. "Would you like to see people farting in public anywhere?", he further added.

Why, no, we would not, and yes Mr. Chaponda, you do have a serious issue there. And President Bingu wa Mutharika's government has a legitimate concern over Malawians' incapability or unwillingness to control their farting: "They should go to the toilet instead of farting in public. Nature can be controlled ... it becomes a nuisance if people fart anywhere."

No, this is serious business. This cannot be seen as acceptable behaviour, soiling the atmosphere in such a manner. One wonders, are Malawians great bean eaters? Regardless of which, the country's Democratic Progressive Party (thank heavens for progressives everywhere) has a majority in their parliament that means to pass an amendment to the law first passed in 1929.

The amendment would make farting in public an offence. And so it should; the penal code should reflect such egregious odiferous insults to the public weal. Let's hear it for the good people of Malawi; they deserve better. They most surely do.

Polite social convention will triumph!

The Universal Sisterhood

It is truly difficult to understand why feminists have not organized a protest over the state of women's rights in the Islamic world. Of course there is the fact that feminism and leftist-orientation seem to feed off one another and the liberal-left seems inordinately devoted to non-judgemental treatment of other cultures. But cultural neutrality has its place. There are some values which are not amenable to prevarication.

Human rights and equality between the genders are not expendable in the interests of cultural sensitivity. If a heritage has evolved where women's gender rights are felt to be non-existent, where women are institutionally thought of as chattel, there is something inherently, seriously wrong with that evolution in social values. There are some social verities that cannot logically or emotionally or legally be exempted.

Equality under the law is not only a needful reality recognized in civilized countries, it is one that should be recognized as just and required as a basic commitment to human rights in all countries, in all cultures and all religions. Cultural relativism is an absurd concept, one that requires us to suspend intelligent judgement for the lesser good of not passing judgement on other societies' value choices.

But it is also a total abdication of responsibility toward other human beings, as well as their societies and cultures which consider it moral, feasible and reflective of intelligent judgement to treat one-half of the human race as inferior and undeserving of equal rights. Women who have fought hard for the recognition of their social, political and legal equality rights appear to have overlooked the universality of the imperative.

What is just and of urgent need for women from Western cultures is just as urgent to achieve for women and girls coming out of other cultures which have traditionally victimized and maltreated women simply because they are female and not male in traditional patriarchal-based societies. Whose cultures view women as completely subservient to men who 'own' their female relatives.

From the separation of men and women in society, and the demand that women become invisible in public, to child-brides, female genital mutilation, polygamy, arranged marriages, and honour killings, societies and cultures who practise this cruel and traditional treatments of women are clearly societally inferior. These practices are brought as honoured traditions when migration occurs to other countries, and re-established there.

In Islam in particular, the penalties meted out under Sharia law, and through time-honoured cultural practices holding women responsible for violence and rape they suffer as victims, are intolerable. Public stonings, hanging of women and children, beheadings, the jail, torture and rape of females who defy family traditions and demands are unforgivable assaults on justice.

Women who defy the universal Islamic edict to wear full-body garments, veils, to isolate themselves from men, to covert to other religions, to speak blasphemously, are considered to have committed grave offences for which capital punishment may be applied. Women who are incarcerated in Iran for purported affronts to the state or Islam will be gang-raped before execution to ensure they may not enter Paradise.

Where is the concerted effort on the part of privileged and intelligent and educated women of the West - who have been liberated from the relatively mild-by-comparison indignities of not being able to vote, having to take a man's surname on marriage, not being able to purchase property nor open a bank account without the consent of a male relative - advocating on behalf of their sisters?

Abusive societal mores and values seen in Islam most extensively but not exclusively, since purdah, arranged marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation and other offensive practices are also recognized in Hindi, Sikh and African communities. All of these dreadful abuses against girls and women should be addressed; why are they not?

An egregious, disturbing instance of competing politics.

Victim Surcharge

Those little news items and updates that appear now and then in the newspapers are so revealing, yet so irritatingly opaque do arrest one's attention. Little details such as a court order to a vicious criminal that he must pay a trifling reparation being ignored. Reparation in the sense that, as a result of his dreadful crimes a fine has been imposed, payable to a group that defends victims' rights.

And this man had many victims. Some paid the ultimate price for having innocently elicited his notice. Others paid a price that they will live with forever, in terms of horrible memories and the trauma that results from the actions that caused those memories being lived and relived incessantly throughout their lives.

There was a time when debts to society were seen as a responsibility of the immediate family of the debtor if he/she did not pay them. It was a matter of honour, and obligation to society. Obviously, no one any longer assumes responsibility in the same way as honour once demanded it be done. The issue at hand here is that of a once-respectable and -honoured man who conducted himself with psychotic brutality.

Former high-flying Col. Russell Williams whose long career in the Canadian air force culminated in his being targeted for elite military office. A man who scrupulously discharged his official duties with distinction, and went on to spread terror in Ontario communities through his deadly predatory escapades. Events so thoroughly shocking they still make the news.

The news he garnered as a murderer, while commander of CFB Trenton base besmirched an honourable profession. His odious predations on young girls, his vicious rapes of vulnerable women whom he stalked and tortured, and his murder of two young women certainly set him apart as a psychopathic brute.

Sentenced to life in prison, he still receives his military pension, which is considerable. Ordered by the judge who sentenced him to pay $8,000 into a fund for Ottawa Victim Services, it seems with the busy life he now leads, to have eluded his attention. Drawing attention to the remorse he must be reeling under for the tragedies he foisted on innocent families.

"This is a guy who probably is never going to walk out of prison again, so he doesn't have much to lose", said Steve Sullivan, executive director of Ottawa Victim Services. "If an offender is choosing not to pay when he can, it raises questions about how remorseful he is and how aware he is of the harm he has caused."

The man did have a reputedly secure and mutually loving marriage. His wife is now suing for divorce, and seeking to distance herself from this monster, formerly her beloved. She is actively attempting, through her lawyers, to legally hold no financial responsibilities toward one of her husband's victims, suing him for compensation for the unspeakable.

Remorse and conscience and a sense of responsibility can be called upon to spur people who have been involved, however tangentially, in tragedies. Is it too far-fetched for the man's now-estranged wife to offer to pay that $8,000 to the victims' fund as a gesture of compassion for her husband's victims and the sad plight of those still living?

Questions, no answers.