Progress

One foot in front of another.  

One. Small. Step. At. A. Time.

Maybe, just maybe, we will get there someday.

When Words Fail Me ...

This video speaks for itself.

But the saddest scariest thing is this woman is not alone. She may be the only one brave enough to actually type and deliver such a letter, but I can guarantee you she's not the only one who thinks such thoughts.


 


Perhaps most of those who do would never suggest that a child, any child, should be euthanized or his "non-retarded body parts" donated to science. But they wouldn't hesitate to express their belief that such children should not be going to their neighbourhood schools, should not be participating in the same extracuricular activities as their "normal" children do; perhaps, even should not be taking up scarce dollars in our healthcare system.

We would like to believe that human beings are inherently good. That, most of the time, if we just give them the chance, they will do the "right thing".  Maybe we're right - maybe most are.

But something like this has to make a parent wonder how many more monsters are hiding in the darkness or behind the annonimity of their keyboards. And shudder at the thought.

H/T to Krista Lettues for the video

Cross-posted at A Primer on Special Needs and the Law

A Ray of Light in the Darkness

I have touched briefly on the years of Hell we went through when the Blue Jay was little - actually from the time she was 13 months until she was 10 years old. Although seizures may not have touched our lives, directly, for the past seven years, those memories are not just burnt into my brain but a part of the very fabric of our family.

Such is the laser-story of the background to my reaction to what I discovered on FaceBook yesterday. [Perhaps FaceBook does serve some useful purpose, after all. Who knew?]

So what did I discover that has so completely garnered my attention? See for yourself.




You know, a very large part of me has to wonder why ... why is the use of such a discovery a big deal at all? Why are families forced to pack up and move across the country to get their child the treatment they need?

Perhaps it is the fact that I live in the Great White UP, where we have a system for the approval of the use of medical marijuana. I gather the situation is a little more cloudy in the United States.

Whatever the reason, I can tell you that without a moment's hesitation I would have tried cannabis for the Blue Jay in our darkest days. Yes, for the part of that time, she was only a toddler, but those seizures were robbing her of her life.

Although the situations are not identical, I strongly identified with the two families profiled in the video above. When we were living through our own personal nightmare, the ketogenic diet was the new kid on the block, looked down upon by medical professionals, and not just completely misunderstood by the general public but pretty much totally unheard of (essentially a step down from being completely misunderstood).

The food was much too "unpalatable", how can a child possibly survive without going to birthday parties, it's a regiment that is impossible for a family to maintain, no child will put up with it and, of course, it was much, much too unhealthy - we heard it all and I have a response for each and every one of them, although I won't bore you with that at the moment. Let's just say that families do what needs to be done and can be incredibly innovative and creative when need be. And done with a little care and attention, there is no need for the ketogenic diet to be so unhealthy.

The diet was our "miracle drug" (although, of course, not a drug) at the time. And I have never regretted it for one moment. Not when I fought with the doctors for months to get them to agree to merely try try it; not when we fought daily with the Blue Jay, herself, when we initially tried to get her to accept it and worked for months with a child psychologist to convince her to actually eat the food; not when, after going almost two years seizure-free on the diet, we lost control and essentially had to start all over again; and not the second time we lost control thanks to a doctor's neglect and the Blue Jay ended up in the hospital, not just actively seizing again but with dangerously low potassium levels.

Hard? Hell, yes.

Sorry, we gave six years of our and the Blue Jay's life to it? Hell, no.

So now you have a much more complete background to my response to the above video. Perhaps that's why I can't see the issue with using medical marijuana in this way. Instead of horror or concern, I was elated to learn of a new epilepsy treatment and fascinated to learn how, instead of growing plants to maximize the THC (the chemical that makes you "high") content, they actually manipulate to increase the CBD content, which is the compound that is effective in stopping the seizures.

The original post I saw on FaceBook, accompanying the above video, read like this:

Washington Post covers medical cannabis for pediatric epilepsy. What are your thoughts? How far would you go to save your child? We were happy, and a little nervous to tell our story so publicly. But I feel it is absolutely necessary. Families need to know this is an option, and they can work with their medical team to make the best decision for their child. ♥ Heather

I must confess I had some trouble grasping exactly why this family was at all nervous to tell their story, why they weren't, instead, just singing it from the rooftops.

But, hey, I am a lawyer by training so not totally clueless - yeah, yeah, I get that whole "illegal in some states" thing compounded with the likely cries of "Oh my God, what kind of parent would give children as young as toddlers marijuana on a daily basis? For heaven sake, call Child Protective Services immediately!". There's some in every crowd, you know ... but that, too, is a story best saved for another day.


So. Shortly after watching (and raving) about the above video, I found this one in my news feed.



Now I might disagree with the good researcher when he states that they know how most of the current anti-epileptic drugs work or don't work (and, by the by, he actually contradicts himself later in the interview when he notes most of the most effective anti-epileptic drugs were discovered by accident and they don't have clearly defined mechanisms of action for many of today's drugs), but to me, that is much less relevant than his comments on the "ethical issue" of giving marijuana to toddlers

After the interviewer notes that at a "headline level", the issue was still very much giving medical marijuana for toddlers, he asks the good doctor if he had any "ethical" issues with this. Apparently he does, "very much so", in fact, based on a long-term New Zealand study of people who had used marijuana, which found that the only group that showed permanent cognitive damage was moderate to heavy users of marijuana during adolescence.

Like it or not, not exactly a surprising result. But as noted in the interview, this study was looking at the effects of THC. And as noted in the first video, these plants are being bred to specifically lower the level of THC and increase the level of CBD.

I can understand accept that doctors require their double-blind studies and believe they "need to know" how/why a substance works before recommending it to their patients. But it's one thing to clinically speak of the 35% of patients with "difficult to control seizures" and quite another to actually be one of that 35%.

Because, trust me, until you have actually lived that, You. Have. No. Clue.

I wonder how many people will only hear and remember those headline comments. I wonder how many people out there will actually listen to the entire interview, the defining moment of truth of which comes only at the end

When asked if he, personally, would use marijuana for his child, the answer was more than telling.

If that were my child and I had a child with difficult to control seizures and knowing the risk of uncontrolled seizures, if I had something that would control those seizures without any obvious major adverse effects on the child, that would be, as my personal decision, I would do it. Not as a clinical recommendation, as a parent myself.

. . . 

Now if that was a child of mine and somebody offered me a less than perfect but effective treatment, I am going to say yes to it.

Why? Because the good doctor is well aware of the risks of status epilepticus  and SUDEP (Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy - a phenomena they tend not to tell parents about, by the way) and that the risks of these things happening dramatically increase in a person with poorly controlled seizures.

End of the day (and you will, no doubt, be happy to know, end of this post), the bottom line in is that if a new treatment for epilepsy that has thing kind of success rate can be found, naysayers, busy bodies and governments need to get the hell out of the way. Because, believe me, unless you live it, you. have. no.clue.

Knee Meet Jerk

A knee jerk reaction is defined as:

an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.

Synonyms (or perhaps more accurately, symptoms) include:

pavlovian response, absence of thought, automatic reaction,gut reaction, involuntary impulse

So what do you think? Generally speaking ... a good or bad thing?

Now tell me what you think of this.

A 17-year-old high school student has been suspended (and might face expulsion) for writing a dark poem that mentioned the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Her "crime" was, perhaps, one line in the poem; namely a statement that she understood what drove Adam Lanza to do what he did.

But since I'm a big fan of context, let's see how the poem actually read.

They wanna hold me back.
I run, but they still attack.
My innocence, I won't get back.
I use to smile.
They took my kindness for weakness.
The silence the world will never get.
I understand the killings in Connecticut.
I know why he pulled the trigger.
The government is a shame.
Society never wants to take the blame.
Society puts these thoughts in our head.
Misery loves company.

Her poem actually reminds me of something I read in a high school English class. An assigned reading. I can't quite recall now whether it was meant to be a suicide note or something written and handed in by the young man as part of a class assignment, shortly before he hung himself but I believe the latter.

At any rate, that poem has stuck with me my whole life. Not the exact words, of course, but the ideas, the pictures and thoughts remain bright in my mind.

Written in the the third person, the poem told the story of a little boy who started school so full of energy, curiosity and a desire to learn. So full of life. It goes on to tell what the school experience was like from his perspective and although my memory falters in some places, the ending remains crystal clear. Essentially, from his perspective, school had sucked all the colour out of life (starting with things as simple as being repeatedly told to "colour within the lines" in the primary grades), emphasizing demanding conformity in writing, dress and actions. It the end, it sucked the very life out of him.

That was assigned reading in a high school English class and despite the subject matter, it was a very good poem. Both from the perspective of how it was written and because it accomplished what I believe literature, at its best, is meant to accomplish: it made you stop and think. To this day, that little boy still comes back to haunt me.

Now, you might quite rightly point out that poem was assigned in a different time - a time when "school shootings" were unheard of, at any level. In a more innocent time, a time when parents felt safe sending their children to school. When horrors such as Sandy Hook were unimaginable, even in the movies. So it was.

But one of my immediate reactions when I first read that poem (which has stuck with me to this day and makes me think that it was something the young man handed in at school before he took his own life) was to wonder why ... why no one had paid attention to what he had to say, why no one could hear his scream for help, why he was simply given a grade and handed the poem back.

Much like reading the article about Courtni Webb and her poem makes me wonder why.

Why, if the school took this matter so seriously, did they simply suspend her? Did anyone sit down and actually talk to her before this decision was made? Was the first question that crossed administration's mind really "Should we suspend her"? Really? Seriously?

Did it occur to anyone to actually express some concern about the girl, herself? If the poem is to be interpreted as the school so obviously has, shouldn't there have some concern for the state of her mental health? Did we learn nothing from Sandy Hook? Other than that lesson pounded into granite for so many years? Cover. Your. Ass.

But you know what?

I really doubt whether anyone talked too much to Courtni about what she may or may have been thinking when she wrote this poem. But realizing that I am only basing this on the short interview I've watched where Courtni explained the poem, how about if you tell me what you think.



Sociopathic killer? Potential mass murderer? Possibly, I suppose. We are all well aware that we live in a world where anything, indeed, is possible.

Or, perhaps, merely (an apparently bright) high school student using her writing to work through her feelings?

I didn't hear a threat of violence in her words. Which has to make me wonder if the blunt mechanism of suspension was not used because she supposedly somehow violated a zero-tolerance policy or because of a perceived threat of violence, as alleged but simply to "punish" the young woman for her lack of good taste in writing such things so soon after all those little children were so senselessly murdered.

Either way, whether Courtni was actually contemplating violence or simply writing a poem, threatening and intending to threaten no one, if that poem caused concern for those who knew her, the first priority should have been (and should continue to be) her mental health.

Knee. Meet. Jerk.

'Ask and You Shall Receive'

I've always suspected it. And now I have proof! All Some good things do come to those who wait.

Remember way back in the way back, some of those *fun* conversations we had at Lex"s? The ones about Canada's human rights system and how evil it was worked? About whether or not the so called "hate speech" provisions belonged in the federal Human Rights Act?

Well, they said they were going to do it. And, lo and behold, they actually did something right.

I must admit, I never thought I would find myself in agreement with these words.

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

Especially not with this Conservative government in power.

But be that as it may, I've repeatedly said that I don't think sec. 13 ever should have been added to the Human Rights Act. In my opinion, such matters are better dealt with in court - as either "hate speech" (inciting someone to violence) under the Criminal Code or, civilly, as a defamation claim for damages, if necessary.

Apparently, however, the Canadian Bar Association, who was in favour of the inclusion of s. 13 in the first place, disagrees. In a January 2010 report, it argued for the retention of the section, albeit without the penalty provisions that were attached. Their argument appearing to be that while the general "compensatory" damages provided for elsewhere in the Act are fine, the "punitive" sanctions attached to s. 13 are not.

Which, makes for an interesting argument/result, considering that, in general, the Act provides a much wider array of powers to a panel that has found discrimination in cases outside of sec. 13, both monetarily and otherwise, than it does for a violation of sec 13. But, hey, at least no one would be forced to pay a "penalty" (even if it is in a smaller amount than what can be ordered as damages for compensation for pain and suffering) as was allowed under sec. 54(3)(c). [Yeah, right, makes perfect sense to me, too.]

I am however in agreement with the CBA with it's concern that the debate surrounding sec. 13 was the start of a campaign to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

Tell me, please, does any of this sound familiar?

Of greater concern to the CBA is the fact that the debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country. Critics have decried human rights proceedings as "kangaroo courts" which provide only "drive through justice" and advocated that human rights tribunals and commissions should no longer be permitted to operate. We reject attacks of this kind and reiterate forcefully our support for the continued importance of the work undertaken by these human rights bodies to foster human rights in Canada. Legal protections for human rights have existed in Canada since 1947 when Saskatchewan enacted the first bill of human rights in North America.

Uh huh. Could that have been taken out of some of those comment threads at Lex's or what?

Of course, now that the deed's been done, we have those who fear "free speech boost will rally neo-Nazi cyberhate". Personally, that doesn't concern me too much - although we will, no doubt, always have such idiot groups in our midst, considering that Canadian police forces reported a 42 per cent rise of in hate-based incidents in 2009, as compared to 2008, and a 35 per cent jump the year year before that, it doesn't seem to me that sec. 13 was having much of the desired effect anyway.

So, boys and girls, I am happy to report that it looks like the system can (and indeed has) work as advertised, at least in this case.

I knew it could. I knew it could. I knew it could ...

Legal Edumucation

It looks like the South Shore Regional School Board finally got themselves some.

This story has received so much play over the past week that I seriously considered not wasting my life time with it, but ... really, I couldn't resist.

Not when I've waxed poetic (or not) so many times before on exactly this sort of thing. (Ah, the good old days ... the fun we would have had with this at Lex's. But I digress.)

"Whazzup now?", you ask.

Let me see ... how to explain this?

Oh, I don't know. What say we just cut right to the stupidity?

The dispute arose after Grade 12 student William Swinimer was suspended from his school in Chester Basin for continuing to wear a shirt with the slogan, ``Life is wasted without Jesus.''

He says on his Facebook site that he did it to stand up for the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Pynch-Worthylake says Swinimer and his pastor have agreed to take part in the debate that will look at how to ensure students' rights are not violated, while protecting other students from criticism.

She says it's not clear what the school will do if Swinimer wears the shirt when he returns to classes Monday.

Pynch-Worthylake said the school tried working out a solution with Swinimer before suspending him.

However, the 19-year-old says the school’s disciplinary action infringes on his right to freedom of religious expression.

“I do a lot of witnessing in school,” he said. “People talk to me and they ask me about my religion and I tell them.”

That has got him sent to the principal’s office in the past, Swinimer said.

“They say that it’s hate speech and that it hurts people’s feelings, but I don’t hate anybody.”
However, Pynch-Worthylake said the t-shirt's wording offends some people at the school because it tells them their beliefs are wrong.

“So let's recap, shall we?

A 19-year-old teen likes to take wear his favourite blankie T-shirt to school. Which just happens to read "Life is Wasted Without Jesus".  Apparently this T shirt makes at least some of the staff and students very, very unhappy. So unhappy that he is repeatedly asked not to wear said shirt. And when he doesn't heed these requests, he is given in-school suspensions. Repeated in-school suspensions.  Until this last 5-day out-of-school suspension given last week.

At which time he is warned, in no uncertain terms, that if he wears the T-shirt to school again, he will could be suspended for the rest of the year. The kid is in Grade 12. Hence, a suspension for the rest of the year means he would fail to graduate this year.

Want to hear the school board's reasoning in this regard?

If it said My Life is Wasted Without Jesus, that would be fine” because it expresses a personal belief, she said.

But the T-shirt he wore went further by telling non-Christians their lives are wasted, she said.

The school has asked Swinimer to replace it with a shirt that communicates his Christian faith without violating others’ beliefs, but he has refused, Pynch-Worthylake said.

Uh huh.

So it's okay to wear a shirt that says "My Life is Wasted Without Jesus"  but because the kid's shirt dares to state that "Life is Wasted Without Jesus", that might make someone else feel bad. And that's not just a problem.

Nope. It's A. Problem.

This whole thing is ridiculous in my mind but what really got me going on the subject was a news story last week stating that the Board intended to consult with a "human rights expert" on this issue.  I can only assume that they found someone with half a clue about human rights law, which is the reason they now say the kid can wear the T-shirt to school.

Really? Without a rest-of-the-year suspension?

Sure. With a little bit of back-tracking, of course.

“For us, it never really was about the one shirt,” Pynch-Worthylake said Friday.

Right. Gotchya.

Now, I realize that this kid might well have some other issues (around proselytizing witnessing to his peers). And I can fully understand how that might cause some problems at the school. But I think the Board was pretty clear in just about every news story - they wanted the shirt gone, it was wearing the shirt that got him suspended and would result in a further, harsher suspension.

So tell me, about that human rights edumucation. Just what will it take to get this simple concept through people's heads?

Listen carefully, class, I do not want to have to say this again.

And, yes, there will be an exam.

1. Although there is a right not to discriminated against (on certain enumerated grounds), there is no right not to offended.
2. And, as I've said before "... rude and insensitive remarks do not constitute discrimination. They are simply rude and insensitive remarks. Period. Full stop."

I know, I know. My snarkinesss is showing, Just a wee bit. My apologies but it's been a bit of a long life.

But seriously, people, should you doubt what we face .... yes, I do realize it's the "media", but please, I do expect somewhat better in Canada. The CTV Atlantic News ran a poll* the other day asking what people thought about this issue. 

The three choices looked something like this.

• It's okay. Everyone has the right to wear whatever they want to school. It's free speech.
• Religious messages are okay in school as long as they don't discriminate against another religion.
• No religious messages at all should be allowed at school.

Anybody see a problem with these choices?

The closest one that worked for me, personally, was No. 2. But that implied stated that a religious message could "discriminate" against another religion. And, frankly, I can't see how that could work. At any rate, it certainly didn't apply in this case.

Oh well, it's nice to see that at least some people in our Province are imbued with the least common sense of all. Which, by the way, would include a national atheists’ organization, the Atlantic Jewish Council, the Islamic Association of Nova Scotia and a provincial opposition leader.

Heh.

* For anyone truly worried about the state of "free speech" in Nova Scotia, you should be happy to know that close to 75% of the respondents to that CTV poll picked either No. 1 or 2, above. And the majority picked No. 1.

Frenemies

Wow, check this out - a man who was upset that a Tennessee couple unfriended his adult daughter has been charged with killing the couple.

Now I know there's got to be more to the story than this but ... I'm thinking you might want to think twice before you click that Confirm button, if you know what I mean.

Science Gone Mad

UPDATE: Pogue made some good points in a comment and finding it a little unwieldy to include all the links in a comment, I decided to go the update route.

So first, Pogue's comment:

OK, not having seen what the original research proposal was it's difficult to say what funding was specifically approved for. As I read the article, the form of H5N1 they worked with is not contagious to humans, so I don't know how it was made "more deadly" other than for headline effect. I doubt that the proposal was to make it an airborne pathogen. In my circles that is referred to as "weaponizing a virus" and I'm not surprised that there is discussion about classifying it. The technique is the issue, not the specific result. When we get into a "government shouldn't have funded that research" argument be careful what you wish for - almost any research may have some potentially dangerous applications, so we shouldn't support stem cell or HIV related research, right?

First, let me say, that for me, personally, the issue of who financed the research is much less of an issue than that scientists intentionally set out to do this. [See my previous comment re: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should actually do it.]  Although, I must say, seeing who the backer was does make me stop and shake my head more than a little bit.

Moving on, I think I see where/why you got the idea that this specific strain of H5N1 is not "contagious to humans". Unfortunately, the quote was a little misleading.

The researchers, led by Albert Osterhaus of the Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin, mutated the H5N1 strain of avain flu, which could not be transmitted between humans, to an "airborne" strain that can be transmitted in coughs and sneezes between laboratory ferrets, the best animal model of human flu.

What they were (rather badly) trying to say was that (prior to the present research) this strain of the virus was not transmittable between humans - from coughs or sneezes. However, although it's ability to infect humans was limited (transmission required direct contract with either infected poultry or contaminated surfaces) it has proven to be deadly when it does. In fact, you might recall back in 1997, when it spread through live-poultry markets in Hong Kong to humans, killing 6 of 18 infected people. So far, on average, it's killed roughly 60% of the humans it has infected. You can find a list of the confirmed human cases and mortality ratehere.

So as far as I am concerned both the technique and the result are the problem. I don't know whether they started out with the intention of "weaponizing the virus" (frankly, I have no idea what they might have been thinking at that point) but that certainly does appear to be the result.

I must admit I can't quite follow your comment about not supporting stem cell or HIV research because almost any research can have potentially dangerous applications. From what I know about stem cell research, the only down side is that some individuals have used aborted fetuses to harvest infant stem cells. Putting aside the fact that adult stem cells are suppose to work just as well (if not better, in most cases), I see that as a problem with how people choose to use new scientific knowledge as opposed to a problem with the research itself. And, quite frankly, I can't quite get my head around what you might be thinking about with HIV research.


Could somebody please explain this to me?

But, please, speak real slowly ... because you're going to have to work really hard to make me understand, let alone accept, this one.

A new report out Tuesday claims Dutch scientists have created a highly contagious, airborne form of the bird flu, which could potentially be capable of killing millions.

Unlike the normal H5N1 strain of avian influenza - which was only contagious through close personal contact with an infected person - this form can be spread by merely coughing or sneezing.

The lab-created bird flu strain was engineered by a team of scientists led by Ron Fouchier of Rotterdam's Erasmus Medical Centre. The researchers said the mutation only required a few variations to the original strain.

But wait ... it gets better!

The research was funded by ... wait for it ... the United States National Institutes of Idiocracy Health.  And ... and for the piece de resistance... officials of that same government have begged requested researchers not to release information concerning the virus to the scientific community.

Because ... you know ... if they did, well, maybe, just maybe, some terrorist group might get ahold of it. And you know, kill us all. The theory of unforeseen consequences always being at play and all.

But, hey, don't take my word for it.

The decision was made after the US government warned releasing the details could be kill millions of people if it was used as a weapon of biological warfare.

Of course, freedom of speech and scientific integrity being the laudable constructs they are, the idiots scientists involved have expressed concern "about withholding potentially important public-health information from responsible influenza researchers".

As to the justification for that concern - apparently, "many scientists within the influenza community have a bona fide need to know the details of this research in order to protect the public, especially if they currently are working with related strains of the virus".

Right, that.

And yet it seems rather self-obvious that there would be a lot less need to know and a lot less to protect the public from if this particular virus hadn't been so painstakingly created in the first place.

I mean just because you can do something ... does that always mean you should?

Just for giggles, I note that the scientific community isn't all that impressed with the request to have the research information withheld; first, because they note that, perhaps,the government ought not to have authorized the research if they did not know how to deal with it and, secondly, it's all a little too late considering that several details had already been shared with hundreds of researchers and governments in open meetings.

So, has everybody had their flu shot for this year?

Out of the Loop

Which, it would appear, is what I've most decidedly been as of late.

Not that I don't have my reasons, of course [like working flat out within the window of a six-month funding opportunity to develop my new business, while, of course, still keeping the old business (to say nothing of life) afloat] but that does nothing to change the fact that I'm often feeling a week day late and a hundred dollar short when it comes to keeping up with current events lately.

Such as, for example, when I came across reference to President Obama's proposed plan to protect the unemployed against a hiring bias by prohibiting employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are ... well ... unemployed.

Say what? Is this for real? Apparently so.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

First of all, I had no clue that this was even an issue, even occurring at all. Although I suppose that's what tends to happen when you cocoon yourself in your own little world, no?

Still, putting aside the cracks about this simply being a make-work project for trial lawyers who don't have enough work, this makes me shake my head on oh so many levels.

First things first, I have to ask, just how stupid are employers? 

Why would any employer intentionally risk shooting itself in the foot by basing hiring decisions simply on the fact that a person is unemployed or has been unemployed for a certain amount of time? 

Skills are skills and you either have them or you don't.  Just because you haven't been working for a while, whether from being laid off due to a sluggish economy or voluntarily removing yourself from the workplace for some period for personal/family reasons (to care for a sick relative, for example) doesn't change the fact that you're either qualified for a particular position or you're not.

I can certainly see the argument that someone who is currently employed will most likely have more up-to-date skills than someone who has been out of the workplace for an extended period (for whatever reason). That's a valid consideration.  But the relevance of that would seem to me to depend on how long a particular person has been unemployed. Not simply the fact that they are unemployed.  So is this actually an issue? For real?

Moving beyond that disconnect, I come to the legitimacy validity sensibleness of President Obama's proposed legislation.  Sorry, but kind of another WTF moment...

I'm pretty confident in saying that most industrialized countries (including the US) already offer protection in some form from discriminatory employment practices that have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin unless an employer can show that the particular practice is  what we in Canada like to refer to as a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement).

But we tend to protect potential employees on the basis of what are generally considered "inalienable characteristics" , in other words, characteristics that an individual has no choice or control over, such as their gender, their race, whether or not they have a disability...

Are they now proposing to create a new “protected class” ... the unemployed? Really?

That seems out of whack enough on its own, without even considering the potential consequences of such a move.  I mean, let's face it, American society (in particular) is simply just not litigious enough, right?/sarcasm off.

Quite the message that - "if you’re unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer".

Well, like I said, always good news for the litigation bar, I suppose.

Then, this evening, checking out what was new at Lex's (something I seem to do far too rarely these days), I came across this - protesters have been occupying the financial district in New York in opposition of "corporate greed? For the past three weeks?

And they have their own website?

And, and, and ... they could be like the Tea Party of the Left?

Wow... I mean, who knew?! Well, obviously not me ...

Left. Right. Is there actually a Centre? 

My apologies to my American friends but, say what you will, you have to admit that they're always entertaining, if nothing else... 

Although I must say, this commentary on their Declaration of Grievances Demands does strike a chord with me. (The commentary, that is. More so than the Declaration.)

For what that's worth.  Which I imagine is not that much, seeing as how woefully uninformed I appear to be at the moment.

Forget keeping up with the Jones'. This girl is struggling to keep up with The World.

WTF??!!

Ever have one of those moments when your life is chugging along like normal and all of a sudden you see, hear or read something that makes you go ... WTF?!  Did I just see/hear/read that right?!

Well, it happened to me as I flipped through today's paper and, quite frankly, I didn't don't know what to make of it.

So let's play a little game and see if anyone else sees anything [glaringly] wrong with this picture?

FURUDAL, Sweden — Mike Danton played the hero in his opening game of the Swedish league.

The former NHL player, who served five years behind bars for a failed murder-for-hire plot, rushed to the aid of IFK Ore teammate Marcus Bengtsson, who was convulsing on the ice after a hard hit in Sunday's season-opener.  

~  ~  ~

According to Danton's blog, Bengtsson took a late hit with about 14 minutes left in the game against Soderhamn/Ljusne. He lay on the ice suffering convulsions for six or seven minutes.

``As his eyes continued to roll into the back of his head, his mouth finally opened a bit,'' wrote Danton, who is captain of the Swedish team. ``It was at that time that I jammed my fingers into his mouth and clawed his tongue.''

Anybody? Anybody at all?

Now don't get me wrong, I've been rather impressed with this guy for a while now. I'm not a big hockey person by any stretch of the imagination but I followed with interest the story of this former NHL player after he was released from prison for conspiracy to commit murder following an attempted murder-for-hire plot.

What grabbed my attention was that following his imprisonment, he returned to Canada and enrolled at Saint Mary's University in Halifax. Where, yes, he played hockey. But where he also committed himself to his studies, working towards a degree in psychology and maintaining an A average.

So back to today's story ... can anyone tell me what caused my jaw to fall to the floor?

Let's try this ... does anyone know any basic first aid? You know, like the kind Danton says he picked up learned in prison?

First aid for seizures is pretty basic and straight-forward.  It's not like you need any specialized skill to help in such a situation.

1.Stay calm

2.Prevent injury
During the seizure, you can exercise your common sense by insuring there is nothing within reach that could harm the person if she struck it.

3.Pay attention to the length of the seizure

4.Make the person as comfortable as possible

5.Keep onlookers away

6.Do not hold the person down
If the person having a seizure thrashes around there is no need for you to restrain them. Remember to consider your safety as well

7.Do not put anything in the person's mouth

Contrary to popular belief, a person having a seizure is incapable of swallowing their tongue so you can breathe easy in the knowledge that you do not have to stick your fingers into the mouth of someone in this condition.

8.Do not give the person water, pills, or food until fully alert

9.If the seizure continues for longer than five minutes, call 911

10.Be sensitive and supportive, and ask others to do the same

Anybody? Anybody at all?

How about the FACT that you are NEVER suppose to put anything (including your hand) in a person's mouth during a seizure?

Not only is such a move dangerous to the idiot person trying to "help" (picure somebody in the midst of a seizure suddenly chomping down on your hand and not letting go - that's right, I said Not. Letting. Go.), but it can actually harm the individual who is seizing - jaw and face muscles often tighten during a seizure and if this happens when something is in their mouth, they may break and either choke on or swallow the object or, if you're lucky, maybe they will only break their teeth.

Come on, people, the only thing you accomplish by sticking anything in a person's mouth during a seizure is to obstruct airflow, which is potentially life threatening. 

Sound like a plan, Stan Mike?

Now I know it seems like no TV producer out there in La La Land can get this straight, but still ... Really?

It's too bad, really. Dalton could have actually been helpful and useful had he turned Bengtsson on his side (as other players did later), to prevent saliva from blocking his airway and help him breathe more easily. Trust me, Mike, if the guy was having trouble breathing, it wasn't because of his tongue.

And he could have helped people with epilepsy in general by explaining to the media after the fact exactly why he HADN'T tried to put his hand in the poor man's mouth!

So tell me, please, what kind of first aid course, supposedly certifying you in "first aid response" teaches a person to "jam their fingers" into the mouth of a person convulsing and "claw their tongue"?

And how, exactly, is it possible for this story to get international coverage without anybody picking up on the fact that it was only by virtue of simple dumb luck that our "hero" didn't seriously hurt himself or the other player?

So, yeah, as I was saying ... WTF??!!

But A Single Drop of Rain

Where, oh where, would I be without my car?  Without my vroom, vroom, beep, beep?  Trapped at home, of course.  And living in (at least a semi) rural area, that would most definitely not be good. 

Tell me that I can't drive but we need milk, eggs and cheese and, later, after I take your head off, I will let you know in no uncertain terms that you can damm well get the groceries yourself. 

The kids need to be picked up? Do it yourself. 

Tell me I really should get out there and do something to help support the family and ... Yeah, you get the picture.

Of course, I couldn't even imagine hearing such foolishness in the first place.  Let alone listening to it. What are you? Nuts or something?  Get out of the way.  That's my car, bought and (some day it will be) paid for.

So which is it? Have I grown up in a culture of entitlement or are those countries where women aren't "allowed" to drive stuck in the dark ages?  Maybe even the pre-dark ages?  Yeah, I'm not even gonna dignify that one with an answer.

And yet, given all the atrocities of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, apparently some would ask if this is the battle that should fought at the moment.

To which I reply ... Hell if I know. But who are we even think we have the right to judge that?

I mean I can't even begin to imagine what life must be like for women over there. True, the driving issue may not be the sexiest one of the lot but you and I aren't over there fighting any of those of other battles, are we?

I think we have to trust the women who live there, those that have the courage, the connections and the strength of their convictions to judge and decide what issue might be the tipping point for "the Kingdom". 

Yes, I know this very same thing was tried four years ago without results. Or at least not what you and I might consider results. It's easy enough to argue, perhaps quite legitimately, that the only "result" achieved by in 2007 was to scare women back into compliance. 

But that was a different time.  And we don't know what has and is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps, just perhaps, this time things will be different. 

After all, as a wise woman once said, the "rain starts with a single drop".

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

~ Margaret Mead

They Never Had A Chance

Our provincial newspaper has just wrapped up a five-part series looking at "care options available to vulnerable person with intellectual disabilities across Canada".  The series was well done (the writer, Canadian Press reporter Michael Tutton, writes a fair bit in regard to issues around persons with disabilities) and it was an interesting, albeit hard read.

From the woman in Nova Scotia whose 20-year-old grandson spent 15 days locked alone in a constantly lit room at the Braemore adult residential centre with only occasional breaks, urinating in a corner when he was unable to get a staff member’s attention...

... to the aging mother in Newfoundland who worries who will care for her severely-challenged adult son when is was no longer around to do so...

... to the 16-year-old with a severe case of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (making him impulsive, easily frustrated and with very little short-term memory) whose increasingly violent behaviour deteriorated to the point where his adoptive parents could no longer care for him in their home but whose current life in small group homes has been a disaster, allowing him to stay out all night, drinking and doing drugs...

... to the issues of aggression that can stem from poor housing options and lack of access to mental health services for those with intellectual disabilities (an issue I can personally speak to when it comes to the Blue Jay being denied access to our local child and adolescent mental health services for the simple fact that she is mentally challenged).

To the one bright spot, the what can could and should be - namely, the positive effects of housing and care options that actually work, like L'Arche.

A happy, safe home and community involvement - at some level, isn't that all any of us really want for our children when they mature into adults, whether they be mentally challenged or not?

And yet, I write not about any of those stories today. 

Instead I write about a baby boy "who never had a chance". 

His young mother squatted on the bathroom floor to deliver him while the baby's father stood in the doorway, smoking a cigarette and ignoring her pleas to call an ambulance. Finally she reached over to the bathroom sink, grabbed a pair of scissors she believes her boyfriend used for his dope and cut the umbilical cord.

The baby wasn’t crying. She left him on the floor, went out into the living room, sat on the chesterfield and watched television as Cunningham cleaned up the bathroom.

The infant was dead at birth, she said. "He wasn’t crying or breathing or nothing."

Oickle testified at Cunningham’s preliminary inquiry last December that she saw Cunningham put the baby into a box and then put the box in a derelict oven in the hallway outside their apartment.

The body stayed in the oven for five days until family members found out about the birth and persuaded Oickle to take the baby to nearby Queens General Hospital.

As sad (and depraved) as this is, unfortunately, it's not uncommon. And, thus, it was this part of the story that really grabbed and held my attention.

A neuropsychological assessment and a forensic report found Oickle fit to stand trial and criminally responsible for her actions, although she has an extremely low IQ — in the bottom one percentile of the population — and limited coping and problem-solving skills.

Bryson said those factors help explain Oickle’s actions.

Defence lawyer Franceen Romney, who represented Oickle, said the assessment shows Oickle is able to handle routine situations but not complex ones. In such cases, her reasoning, judgment and ability to make decisions are impaired.

An IQ in the bottom one percentile of the population means that this young woman "officially" qualifies as being "mentally challenged".

Given that we have no information about the boyfriend's "mental capacity", I can make no judgment in that regard although I must admit that a great deal of my anger is directed against him. He who callously stood by and refused to make a simple phone call (or even allow his girlfrind to do so) while his own child was dropped onto a bathroom floor and then scrubbed up that same floor, placed the baby's dead body in a box and leaving it in a derelict oven in the hallway of their apartment building.

I am deeply saddened by this young woman's story.  Fortunately, some sort of justice seems to have prevailed in that although she was convicted of failing to obtain assistance during childbirth, she was placed on probation for three years, during which time she must have no contact with her boyfriend, get mental health counselling and live with her parents.

Am I too easily "letting her off the hook" for her actions?

Or am I looking at my own 18-year-old daughter, with similar ability levels, for whom I fear a society that would just as easily manipulate and hurt her?  I must admit that I think that being "forced "to live with her parents is likely the best thing that could possibly happen to this young woman. 

After all, what other options are there for her?

"Twits" Expanding Definition of Online Hate Crime?

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I wrote about the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers, which attempts to help bloggers figure out and stay clear of some of the legal liability issues potentially involved in, well, blogging.

Now, as if there weren't enough to think about, today I came across this. 

I can't say it's really surprising - I mean if you're brainless enough to post something stupid on Facebook, Twitter or wherever, you probably deserve what you get. 

Anyone who hasn't yet figured out that police, reporters and future (and even current) employers will check up on what they're on to line ... well, let's just say they're not the brightest crayon in the box.

So, let's just hope all the twits tweeters out there remember that, too.

Although I must say that getting fired for simply stating what many might consider the obvious does seem a bit much.

Goddard landed in hot water last week after retweeting a comment by Twitter user @Uptownhockey, an account for Burlington, Ont.-based Uptown Sports Management, which stated: "Very sad to read Sean Avery’s misguided support of same-gender ‘marriage.’ Legal or not, it will always be wrong."

In his own tweet, Goddard wrote: "I completely and whole-heartedly support (Uptown’s) Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage."

Let's hope they have a lot more than that backing them up when they try to defend a wrongful dismissal suit. Free speech anybody?

But if you thought that was bad, you might just want to sit down for this one.

Are the federal Conservatives trying to kill use of the hyperlink in Canada?

As ludicrous as that sounds, pending legislation in Ottawa seeks to amend the Criminal Code in a way that would make people who hyperlink to other websites potentially guilty of a hate crime if those linked sites wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group.

The wording in question in Bill C-51 is as follows:

"Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.

The changes are touted by government as necessary to "modernize the Criminal Code in light of new technologies as well as to arm police with stronger powers to investigate computer-based crimes.

Yup, as crazy as it sounds, it appears that our esteemed Conservative government is seriously considering amending the Criminal Code so as to potentially make a blogger guilty of a "hate crime" for linking to a website that contains "hate material".

Now, I'm all for updating all manner of laws to deal with this brave new world we find ourselves in (including the rules of parenting!) but does anyone think this might be going just a little too far?

As pointed out by Mr. Schneidereit, what if the blogger didn't know the website she linked to contained such material? What if the material was posted to the second site after the link was established? What if the site linked to wasn't "hateful" but it (either now or later) linked to a site that was?  What if we've all gone down the rabbit hole?

And just as an aside, not that I am any fan of our current government, but doesn't "conservative" generally mean "less" government, not "more"?

 I mean I could see the federal NDPers trying something like this and giving all us "left leaners" a bad name. 

But the Conservatives?  Really?

Perhaps it's time we all put the mouse down and stepped away from the computer.

Headlines: Clarification

Just to clarify, what really irritates me about this is that nobody I am neither asking nor suggesting that any provincial government should be paying out for liberation therapy at the moment.

What we're talking about here is funding for clinical trials.

Clinical trials, people.

After all, isn't that what everyone has been talking about - you can't possibly expect us to provide funding for new treatments unless we know they're both safe and effective? Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it, right?

Okay, fair enough.

But.

Exactly how much research is going to occur if nobody funds it?

Then again, I am probably looking at this all wrong.

I mean what better way to slow the rising costs of health care budgets then to tell people that they must patiently wait for clinical trials? And then make sure those same trials never occur?

It's brilliant.

Headlines

Yesterday, the Province of Saskatchewan stepped forward as the first in Canada to fund clinical trials for the latest media darling in the treatment of MS, commonly known as "liberation therapy".

In a striking departure from his political counterparts across the country, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says his government will finance clinical trials of liberation therapy, a contentious experimental procedure for multiple
sclerosis patients.

“There isn’t unanimity on the issue, I understand that,” Mr. Wall said on Tuesday. “But ... the province of Saskatchewan is willing to play a funding role.”

The move shunts Saskatchewan to the forefront of Canadian efforts to introduce a treatment that has researchers, politicians and the MS community divided over the roots of the mysterious nerve-wasting disease and the pace of Canadian medical research.

By the by, Premier Wall noted that Saskatchewan "has the highest rate of MS in the country", the issue being somewhat personal for him, apparently. No doubt because "there isn’t anybody who doesn’t have a family member or friend who is battling it”.

Did I ever mention that yours truly I your humble scribe hail from Saskatchewan?

And based on today's news reports, it looks rathter unfortunate that I hadn't stayed there.

Ontario will not follow Saskatchewan’s lead and fund clinical trials of a new operation that offers hope to people with multiple sclerosis, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

* * *

Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger said Wednesday he won’t commit to funding trials of the liberation treatment.

Selinger said the Manitoba government is working with other provinces to continue to find the best ways to treat MS, but he wouldn’t commit to funding clinical trials.

No word on Nova Scotia yet ... Wait!

Wow, looks like a good thing I wasn't prepared to hold my breath.

So much for that idea.

One note of dark humour though (we might as well laugh, right?).

While slamming Nova Scotia's NDP party for this decision, the Liberal Health Critic might just have stepped in it.

Liberal health critic Diana Whalen said Nova Scotia has the highest per-capita rate of multiple sclerosis in Canada, so it makes sense to conduct the research in the province.

So, they can't both be right, can they?

I mean I couldn't possibly be that unlucky ... consider that I already live in a country known for having one of the highest prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis in the world.

Then, to add insult to injury, did I really move from the province with the highest per capita rate of MS in Canada to the province with the highest per capita rate of MS in Canada?

Geez, if it wasn't for bad luck, I would have no luck at all ...

And Just How Do We Honour the Victims?

"In Canada all girls and women are equal to men under the law and have the right to live free from violence and abuse."

Rona Ambrose, Minister responsible for the status of women

Let's a few minutes and talk about a practice called "honour killings".

That's right, honour killings - “murders carried out in order to cleanse the family name and restore the family honour.”

You can read some real horror stories surrounding honour killing (as if the practice, in and of itself, is not horrific enough) if you're so inclined, including the story of a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl who, after being raped was turned over to her tribe's judicial council in Pakistan. Where, even though the crime was reported to the police and the perpetrator was arrested, it was decided that she "had brought shame to her tribe". She was killed in front of a tribal gathering.

Then there's the story of Samia Imran, whose murder in broad daylight, was abetted by her mother (a doctor) and occurred in the office of a prominent Pakistani lawyer and the UN reporter on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.

Right, doesn't that have echoes of the United Nations electing Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest"?

But let's put that little unpleasantness aside for the moment and return to the subject at hand, shall we?

You remember, honour killings.

Unfortunately, Canada is not immune.

16-year-old Aqsa Parvez might be the most widely talked about [you can read Asqua's entire story here] case of honour killing in Canada but she is far from the first.

A 14-year-old female rape victim is strangled to death in March 2004 by her father and brother because she has supposedly tarnished the family name.

In April 2004, a man brutally kills his wife and daughter after finding out that his brother had previously molested them.

A teenage girl with a Turkish background has her throat cut by her father after he learns she has a Christian boyfriend.

Which brings us to the question - should "honour killing" be added as a separate criminal offence in Canada?

For better or for worse, apparently, that's the latest politcal buzz.

Following the release of a report from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (whoever the heck they are) this week entitled "Culturally-Driven Violence Against Women: A growing problem in Canada’s immigrant communities", Rona Ambrose, the minister responsible for the status of women, publicly stated that the government is "looking at" adding "honour killing" as a separate charge to the Criminal Code.

Apparently, she also "affirmed" the federal government's "zero-tolerance stance" against "honour killing," declaring such "barbaric cultural practices" as "heinous abuses" that have no place in Canadian society.

That whole zero tolerance thing kind of makes sense I suppose - considering Canada already has (as do all other civilized countries) a law or two on the books that tend to kick in whenever someone ends up "killing" somebody else. Yeah, that whole "killing" thing might just get you a raised eyebrow or two in some circles. It's all so ... distasteful, you know.

But, yeah, that whole idea that maybe honour killing would become a separate charge under the Criminal Code - they sort of backpedalled on that, really rather quickly, I would say.

She was asked if the government was considering such changes, and she replied that it was under consideration.

"I'll say that it's something that we're looking at," she said. "Nothing more than that at this time."

However, when contacted for more details about possible changes, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said in fact, that is not the case.

"There are currently no plans to do that," said Pamela Stephens.

"While we're always interested in new input into ways to improve the Criminal Code, currently honour killing suggests a certain motive or conduct. But regardless of the motive the law as it exists in Canada is clear that intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive."

Quite frankly, the idea of making "honour killing" an entirely separate criminal offence seems a little over the top to this tired little legal mind.

We already have provision for culpable homicide, murder (both first and second degree) and manslaughter. We deal separately with "contracted murder", "murder of a peace officer", death caused when a person is committing or attempting to commit a hijacking, sexual assault, kidnapping, criminal harassment, terrorist activity or intimidation and death caused "for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization".

Yeah, I think we pretty much got it covered. Don't you?

But where it might make more sense to make special provision for "honour killings" in our criminal justice system is in sentencing.

Under the so-called "hate crimes" amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1996, Canada considers evidence that an offence was "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor" to be an aggravating factor in sentencing. As is evidence that the offender abused their spouse or common-law partner, abused a person under the age of eighteen years or abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.

Which, although I suppose one or two of the above would no doubt be covered off under most honour killings anyway, why not just find some way to wordsmith honour killings (or any offence motivated by a desire to cleanse a family name and restore the family honour) in there while we're at it?

It's true enough that some among us will be appalled dare we do anything, including even dare to use the term "honour killing".

So where, exactly, would that leave us - trying to convince ourselves that honour killing isn't culture specific (that, you see, would be an example of "racial profiling") and that education would be “patronizing,” as the practice (if we are allowed to even call it that) is just part of the larger problem of crime and violence in general? Or, perhaps, just another example of garden-variety "domestic violence"?

We can bury our heads in the sand all we wish, I suppose. But that does nothing to assist (or honour - what a strange use of words) those women (many just in their teens) who are being murdered by their own families right here in Canada.

Including the fact that a murder is an honour killing as an aggravating factor in sentencing might well be only "symbolic", as some suggest.

But at least it will symbolize something.

At least it should get more Canadians talking about the issue.

At least, we will be taking one small first step forward in trying to ensure that Minister Ambrose's words actually mean more than paper they're written on - that in Canada all girls and women are equal to men under the law and have the right to live free from violence and abuse.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Over The Edge

I've watched with some degree of bemusement as racism seems to grow into a bigger and bigger issue on almost daily basis in the US. Or, perhaps I should not say so much a bigger and bigger issue as much as more and more the 'call of the day'. The only explanation for everything that happens.

After all, anyone who didn't vote for President Obama must have been a racist, right?

And we are know that the "tea baggers" are nothing but a bunch of racists ... even though the latest polls paint a slightly different picture, revealing that although they were slightly more likely to be employed, male and definitely more conservative, in several other respects, "their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."

But what do I know? I just find it strange is all.

Not that Canada is that much better.

As just one example, we have the complaints made on behalf of Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal to the Halifax Regional Police and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission about a 2008 cartoon in the Chronicle Herald. The police complaint was apparently made under under Section 318 of the Criminal Code, as "hate propaganda", more commonly known as a "hate crime".

Of course, whether you're default position is racism or some other form of discrimination, the result is really the same. Real racism and real discrimination do occur. But when we find it lurking under every rock or in every bizarre (uncaring, stupid, pick your word) comment someone makes, we are marginalizing the whole concept to the point of meaningless. And that is dangerous.

So why bring this up now?

Yesterday, I thought this story in the Chronicle Herald was a bit odd - two parents were more than a little upset about a comment made by Karen Hilchey, a substitute teacher, to their 12-year-old daughter. The teacher, who was filling in for a music class allegedly pointed at their daughter, who had been adopted from China, and said, "We are all white Christians here, except for you."

The child's mother not only wanted an apology from the school board, but had also contacted the RCMP and the provincial Education Department "seeking an investigation and a guarantee that the teacher will not be in the classroom again".

That was all of the story we had yesterday, no context to even try to explain the comment. Which, admittedly, struck me as more than a little strange and unusual for a teacher to make. What call would a music teacher have to even note such a thing? Yet alone point out the child in front of the whole class?

A stellar example of good teaching practice? Not so much.
Were the parents justified in seeking an explanation? Sure.

But racism?

The headline read "Racist Remark Sparks Outrage". The mother referred to never having experienced any racism before. And the police received a complaint and had visited the school as part of their investigation.

Today, we see the teacher scrambling madly to clarify the "misunderstanding" and give the comment some context. You can read her side of the story for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I would think that an apology to the child and an explanation to the parents are no doubt in order. Perhaps even some sensitivity training in assisting the teacher with implementing her good intentions in the classroom. Or perhaps not.

But here is what I don't get.

Tait [the mother] said she’s still bewildered about the classroom address. She is pursuing the matter with the RCMP to see if the incident with her daughter can be considered an alleged hate crime.

A hate crime?

Lord, give me strength.

"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years." [sec. 318, Criminal Code]

Right.

Because a comment that everyone in a room "are all white Christians", with the exception of one student, while it may be more than a little stupid and insensitive for a teacher to make, doesn't quite qualify as "advocating or promoting genocide", does it?

Does it?

I mean you can all but visualize the teacher handing out swords to the other students so they could rid the classroom of this little invader, can't you? [That was sarcasm, by the way. For anyone out there who couldn't tell. Of which I'm thinking there are probably a few.]

So tell me, have we all lost our minds?

Or have I simply went down the rabbit hole? Again?

Update: As pointed out in comments, other potentially relevant Criminal Code sections include s. 319 (1) and (2) ["public incitement of hatred" and "wilful promotion of hatred"].

Although, in my opinion, the singling of a person out as being of a different religion or race, without more, does not qualify as either inciting or promoting hatred, I note that two of the available defences to a charge of willful promotion of hatred are (a) "if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true"; or (b) "if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada". Both of which, I submit, might well apply here assuming the teacher's version of events is true.

But my real point is that so many different things have now been alleged as racist or hate crimes in the media that many some people don't even know what these words mean any more. And that, to me, is scary.