Thank U Canada [aka the Great White UP*]

Okay, this is a little out date [ahem] - seven weeks after Canada Day and 10 months since my post [shhhh, I don't think anybody's noticed], but it's my blog and I'll thank Canada if I want to, eh?




PS Just for the record, this also proves that I'm still alive.

* In honour of our amazing (and greatly-missed) friend, Neptunus Lex.

From spring cleaning to Christmas decorating in one fell swoop.

What can I say? We don't waste any time around here.

Out with the old. In with the ... snow.
BRRRR

Election Season

Election season. I can just feel it coming.

The most wonderful time of the year. 

NOT.

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word."~ Charles de Gaulle

Canada's Rocket Man

I am currently reading (actually listening to - thank you Audible) "An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me about Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything" by Chris Hadfield. 

It's a really good read listen - generally, I'm not much of a fan of non-fiction but this is one of the few exceptions. I was first taken with Chris (Yes, that's right, we are on a first-name basis. Thanks for asking.) when I saw him briefly on a television news show with Stephen Harper, answering questions from school children. Yeah, Harper, let's just say Chris didn't have that much competition. But still, there was something intriguing about him.

Then I saw this video ** and the rest, as they say, was history.  I was hooked.

 


Now, I must admit that I have never had any particular interest in space travel. Flying fighters, sure, but space travel, not so much.

But I have been wanting to read An Astronaut's Guide to Life for some time now and I am very happy that I have finally gotten around to it. It's an autobiography of sorts but more than just listening to Chris tell his life story (one of the many advantages to audio books - very rarely, the narrator is the actual author and, even more rarely, they make a good narrator), it really does impart a lot of life lessons.

In fact, a little over halfway through the book, I realized that Chris reminded me of someone else I deeply admire. Those who know, know that is high praise indeed. Different countries, for sure, but they had a fair bit in common, even if Lex never made it to space.

And because I aspire to be a giver, here is a nice in-depth (or as in-depth as you can get in 15 minutes) look at Chris and what he does.



Canada's Rocket Man, indeed.

And last, but certainly not least, there is an interesting story here about the Space Oddity video.

He's Baaaaaaaack

HE'S BAAAAAAAAAAAACK

AND WE STILL LOVE HIM!!

And then, just because I can (and because Canada has had an absoloutely stellar few days at the Olympics), I offer you my all-time favourite Olympic song.

GO CANADA!!!

The Great White UP

I heard this on the radio this morning. And I haven't stopped chuckling since.

"Americans like to name their storms.
This last snow storm we had they called Hercules.
But as a Canadian, I prefer to call it winter."

Anti-Bullying Legislation a Good Thing, Right?

Following the debacle of the Rehteah Parsons case last year, I was a little unsure of how the noises being made by both the provincial and federal governments about tightening up both the law and the legal process around the issue of bullying were going to work out.

Unsure because, really, can you actually legislate bullying out of existence?

And as far as Rehteah's case went, a sexual assault is a sexual assault is a sexual assault, is it not? Even if the police refuse to properly investigate the matter?*

But be that as it may, I initially thought it was a good thing when the federal government recently announced changes to the Criminal Code making it a criminal offence to spread intimate pictures of someone without their consent. After all, what could go wrong with that, right?

A lot, apparently. At least, a lot when you're talking about a federal government that is willing to be more than a little sneaky and turn its self- this proclaimed anti-bullying legislation into ... what exactly?

Apparently only about one and a half pages of the 65-page Bill actually deal with making it illegal to spread an intimate picture of someone without their consent.

The rest of the Bill varies widely, much of it giving the police new powers to obtain digital information (including lowering the standard required to get a warrant to obtain such information from having "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" a crime has been committed to having "reasonable grounds to suspect" a crime has been committed). And let's not forget the provisions about obtaining production orders against financial institutions for banking records.

But, wait, there's even more.

One section of the bill makes it illegal to use a device to hook up to a telecommunications service without lawful payment. It’s not clear whether computer programs count as a device, or if the proposal could be broad enough to punish something as common as hooking up cable without paying for it or accessing a locked Wi-Fi signal. 

Now whether or not these amendments are "good ideas" is not really the point.

No, the point is this - how dare the government try to sneak in all these totally unrelated criminal provisions under the heading of "protecting children from cyber-bullying"? And how dare the media go along with that characterization, happily proclaiming the new legislation as being about protecting our children from cyber-bulling, full stop, until someone stood up and demanded that the truth be made known?

This is so whether or not one thinks these amendments are a good idea. And I say that despite the fact that one, in particular, I do believe is a very good, appropriate change. Just not one to be characterized as above.

You see, one of the amendments expands the definition of “identifiable groups” that can be the subject of hate speech to include a person’s age, sex, mental or physical disability and national origin. And this particular change, I firmly believe, is a very good thing.

One of the reasons why the writer of this vile hate-filled "letter" could not be prosecuted was because individuals with physical or mental disabilities were not included as an "identifiable group" under sec. 318 of the Criminal Code.  You see, while it is a crime in Canada to "advocate or promote genocide" based on colour, race, religion, ethnic original or sexual orientation, neither age, race, sex nor physical or mental disability was included. From which one can only (wrongly) presume that it is, indeed, okay with Canadians to advocate killing off, amongst others, persons with disabilities.

That it was only after this incident that the government stepped up to amend that section is sad. But the fact that they are willing to do so now is a good thing. Although apparently they were not so anxious for anyone to actually realize they are doing a good thing ... after all, they could have scored points with many Canadian citizens had they proclaimed the fact that they were making this change instead of hiding it among so many other hidden amendments.

By the by, no one should have any trouble with this particular amendment, should they?

Well, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, of all people, apparently is not in favour of this proposed amendment.

“Imagine your rant about children today. Your rant about men this, women that. The question is what on earth is contemplated here,” said Vonn. 

“Which is not to condone hate. We don’t do that. But we are talking about some very serious provisions of the Criminal Code. 

In particular, Vonn said she has heard concerns from the Palestinian community that protecting national origin could criminalize harsh criticism of Israel.

Perhaps some legal education is called for here.

First of all, "rants" are not criminalized. Neither before this proposed amendment nor afterwards.

What is (and, just for the record) has been criminalized) is "advocating or promoting genocide" and "publicly stirring up and inciting hatred" against an identifiable group. So unless someone would believe that you're seriously calling for the death of all children or all members of the (presumably) opposite sex you should be okay.

And about those Palestinians - correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) but aren't chances pretty good they were already covered by the term "ethnic origin"?

Then again, should I really be surprised?

After all, we have a government that is unethical enough to try to put this one over on the very people it has been elected to serve and a media who was either too complicit or too stupid lazy to actually do its homework (as in, actually read the proposed legislation) and initially call foul.

Why would I expect the BC Civil Liberties Association to be any better? My bad.

* The much-belated recent police investigation falling, in my mind, in the category of "Too Little. Too Late."

More Good News on the "Hate Speech" Front

You might recall that I was very pleased when the move was made to remove sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act last year.

Well, I was even more pleased when I learned today that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has now weighed in on the wording of a similar provision in Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code.

The facts of the case are notorious. After William Whatcott distributed flyers condemning homosexuality using very strong language, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found that that his actions breached sec. 14(1)(b) of the Code, which prohibits the publication of printed matter that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons” because of sexual orientation.

Although the SCC upheld part of that provision as constitutional and not a violation of Whatcott's freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it found that the prohibition against ridicule, belittlement or affronts to dignity did not meet constitutional muster.

The Court held that those words are not synonymous with hatred, which was defined as “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”. Thus, the Court made clear that it is unconstitutional to prohibit speech that is something less than detestation and vilification.

Finally, the SCC held that although freedom of religion (Whatcott argued that his flyers were motivated by his sincere religious beliefs) and religious speech have broad protection like the freedom of expression, at the same time, that speech cannot expose vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification, even if it is sincerely-held.

Although it will fall to the politicians to ultimately (hopefully) remove remaining "hate speech" provisions from Canadian human rights legislation, the SCC decision at least clarifies that

• the test of hatred must be applied objectively (i.e., the reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances), not based on the subjective views of the publisher or the victim; and
• “hatred” involves two concepts—detestation and vilification, which enforce the legislative objectives of anti-discrimination laws.  

I guess all we can do now is await the political process. Bill C-304, which would repeal the hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act (and which provision the Federal Court found largely constitutional in October, 2012),  has passed the House of Commons and is currently being debated in the Senate.

In Alberta, Premier Redford promised during her leadership campaign to repeal the equivalent Alberta provision.

Any other Province care to step forward and be heard?

~  ~  ~  ~

By the by, writing this post got me to thinking about our good friend (term used loosely), Rev. Stephen Boissoin, whose case (last we checked) was winding its way through the courts.

I am pleased to say that the good Reverend (again, using the term loosely) was successful, both in Alberta's Court of Queen Bench and the Court of Appeal, where the Court held that “matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum,” and “freedom of speech does not just protect polite speech.”

In the words of Jonathan Kay, "Just so".

He Has The Whole World in His Hand

I came across a picture today that I thought was kind of cool.

So, tell me, what do you think?

Yeah, sure, I know ... nice snap for sure but not really that big of deal, right? Certainly not enough to get an honourable blog mention.

Are you sure about that?

JEFF FRIESEN has jumped the rails with his version of taking the train across Canada.

Instead of getting aboard a Via Rail locomotive, he carries a miniature replica of a train with him, sets it down on a miniature track in a landscape and takes a picture for his series, The Canadian: Ghost Train Crossing Canada.

.  .  .

The train, five centimetres tall and not quite three metres long, is a replica of the 1959 Canadian, the first train to “almost cross Canada.” It went from Montreal to Vancouver. As a vintage train, it is “a ghost from another age.”

And he's photographed that same train streaking by the turquoise water of Lake Louise, crossing the canola fields of the Prairies, disappearing into a rock tunnel in Ontario and crossing a moss-covered log bridge in Quebec.

Apparently the photos have went viral in Europe and the US, which begs the question of why that hasn't yet occurred in Canada.

You have to admit, pretty cool, right?

And not bad for a Canadian, let alone a Nova Scotian, eh?

Belated Canada Day Tribute

What is this world coming to?

To think that I let Canada Day pass without nary a mention on the blog. Shameful...

But never fear, I shall make up for it in grand style today.  With two videos for our viewing pleasure.The first an oldie (had posted it to the blog a few years ago) but still a goodie.




I do realize that technically this next video is more or less ... shall we say ... insulting ... to Canada. But it's pretty funny.





And believe it or not, us Canucks have a great sense of humour, eh!

Humpty Dumpty Strikes Again

So, here we go again ... what's up with some people's apparent need to define words however they think they should be defined, either because it suits their own immediate purposes or ... it gets them in the news, perhaps? Hell, if I know.

My latest little rant involving a "study" (using the term somewhat loosely) by Canadian researchers on the effect "spanking" has on a child's future mental health. Which, apparently, is a two to seven per cent increase in the chance of said child later developing mental illness, such as mood and anxiety disorders, problems with alcohol and drugs and more.

Don`t believe me? Check this out:

Between two and five percent of disorders like depression, anxiety, bipolar, anorexia or bulimia were attributable to physical punishment as a child, the study said.

From four to seven percent of more serious problems including personality disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and intellectual disabilities were associated with such punishments in childhood.

Oh, where to begin?

First of all, I don't know how you might define the term "spanking" but to me it does not necessarily include "harsh physical punishment," or "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting as a form of punishment from elders".

To me (and, might I suggest, most sane people), a spanking means just that - "spanking" or striking a child's bottom, aka buttocks, aka rear end. Coincidentally, Wikepedia offers the same defintition. Now, I'm not among Wikepedia's hugest fans (then again, who exactly is?) but still ... it is what it is. And something tells me that definition would be very similar, if not exactly the same, for that of most people who stumble across this blog.

To be clear, in my mind, there is a huge difference between smacking a child on the bottom and smacking them up the side of the head; between smacking a child on the bottom and pushing or shoving them around. And I certainly don't equate the term "spanking" with "harsh physical punishment".

But who knows? Perhaps our Canadian researchers grew up in households where any kind of physical contact as discipline was taboo. Or, perhaps, they grew up in families where they were routinely "smacked around".

I suppose we should just be grateful that, unlike other supposed research studies on "spanking", this study actually excluded both sexual abuse and physical abuse "that left bruises, marks or caused injury". Wait, does that mean they included sexual and physical abuse that didn't leave bruises or marks or cause "injury"? You have got to be kidding...

But, presuming it's even possible to move past that little wrinkle, my point is that I'm pretty sure their definition of what constitutes a spanking does not equate with the majority of the world's or, at least, the majority of my generation.

But let's move on, shall we?

Very Interesting

I was cleaning out my inbox today (now there's a joke!) and came across this little tidbit from late last year.

Thought it was interesting.

A physics teacher in high school, once told the students that while one grasshopper on the railroad tracks wouldn't slow a train very much, a billion of them would.

With that thought in mind, read the following, obviously written by a good Canadian:

Shopping in Lowe's the other day for some reason and just for the fun of it I was looking at the hose attachments. They were all made in China. The next day I was in Home Hardware and just for the fun of it I checked the hose attachments there. They were made in Canada!

Start looking........

In our current economic situation, every little thing we buy or do affects someone else - even their job.

A quote from a consumer:...my grandson likes Hershey's candy. I noticed, though, that it is marked made in Mexico now. I do not buy it any more. My favourite toothpaste, Colgate, is made in Mexico now. I have switched to Crest. You have to read the labels on everything.

This past weekend I was at Wal-Mart. I needed 60W Light bulbs. I was in the light bulb aisle and right next to the GE brand I normally buy was an off-brand labelled, "Everyday Value". I picked up both types of bulbs and compared the stats - they were the same except for the Price. The GE bulbs were more money than the Everyday Value brand but the thing that surprised me the most was the fact that GE was made in MEXICO and the Everyday Value brand was made in - get ready for this - Canada at a company in Ontario . Their Equate Products are also made in Canada, and are very good.

Just to add my own experience on buying Made In Canada , I was looking for canned mushrooms that were made in Canada and could never find any, so I would buy fresh. But a miracle happened, when in our Foodland store I found Ravine mushrooms - made in Canada with a little red maple leaf on can. A little more money but when I opened the can I looked at mushrooms that look like real mushrooms, not a mushroom that looks like it was cleaned in bleach.

Another product I no longer buy is Del Monte or Dole canned Fruit. Del Monte is packaged in Taiwan and Dole is now a product of China. Why should we pay for their fruit when our growers are left with fruit rotting on the trees?. E.D. Smith is still made in Canada - buy theirs, at least you will know what is in it and have some quality control.

So throw out the myth that you can not find products you use every day that are made right here .

My challenge to you is to start reading the labels when you shop for everyday things and see what you can find that is made in Canada . The job you save may be your own or your neighbour's!(Your children's & grandchildren's, also)

If you accept this challenge, pass it on to others in your address book so we can all start buying Canadian, one light bulb at a time! Stop buying from overseas companies! (We should have awakened two decades ago.)

Let's get with the program. Help our fellow Canadians keep their jobs and create more jobs here in Canada.

BUY CANADIAN! Read the labels. Support Canadian jobs.

Do with it what you will. Or not.

'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 ...

Blog Fodder

I thought this was an interesting article considering the trouble I got into over in the comment section at Lex's once upon a time.

I'm just saying ...

UPDATE:  In the interests of fairness, Lex had some interesting follow up thoughts on the subject. Way back in the way back.

Still Hanuted by the Resdential School Scandal

This really saddens me.

Last month I shared the story of Jeremy Meawasige, the 16-year-old Native boy with severe and complex special needs who is at risk of being placed in institutional care, not because his family is saying they can no longer care for him but because the federal government refuses to provide the respite funding necessary for his mother, who is still recovering from a stroke, to care for him at home. 

This is something she has done without complaint all for all of Jeremy's life prior to her stroke (and from reading the news reports, it sounds like she had no help at all prior to her suffering a stroke) and is willing to continue to do, as her health allows her. 

It's extremely telling to me that Mom is not simply saying "I've had this stroke, now take care of my son for me here at home" (which, really, it's arguable she has every right to do).  No, now that she is able to get around somewhat with the help of a cane, she is asking for less support than that provided by her Band last year. The sense I get is that she is only looking for short-term assistance to tide her over for her recovery.  Not that, of course, she shouldn't be receiving a significant amount of help with Jeremy anyway, stroke or no stroke.

And yet now the plot thickens Jeremy's story turns even more tragic - not only is the solution seen as institutionalization but institutionalization outside of Nova Scotia.  Not just away from his mother and his home. Not just away from his culture. But in another Province, entirely. Not that we should be surprised, I suppose, given how dismally Nova Scotia has handled the issue of providing appropriate care for children with complex needs.

But, wait, this sad, sad story isn't over.

Now I read that there are more First Nations children in care at this moment than at the height of the residential school system. For any that don't know, the residential schools had a catastrophic impact on Natives and became Canada's national disgrace, for which Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in 2008.

The Home of My Heart ~ A Photo Blog

About those photos I took last summer on our trip to Cape Breton. I feel moved to share.

These were from where we stayed for the first couple of nights. Dundee Resort. Very nice.

Even nicer when the stay was a very generous uunexpected gift from someone else.

Then we went "on the road", traveling around the Island via the Cabot Trail.

Around the Trail we go.

Unfortunately, my pictures don't even come near capturing the majesty and beauty of the Cabot Trail but we all do what we can.

We spent the remainder of our time in Cape Breton at the Seaparrot,

a wonderful little resort on the ocean

Drinks anyone?

Ah, what is life without a hammock?

Sunning with some friends.

The decor.

But, alas, the time came to leave.

Don't laugh ... it you have a hankering for some excellent eats,

this is the place to be!

Next up ... Boston! I hope. Eventually.

Canada Day "In Action"

We all know that Canada is in Afghanistan as part of an UN-mandated, NATO-led mission with more than 60 other countries and international organizations, supposedly at the request of the Afghan government. That's old news.

But this year, July 1st marked the official pull-out of our combat troops, the day marking the end of combat operations for the Canadian military.

So I got to thinking - what was Canada Day like for those members of the Canadian military in theatre in Afghanistan this year?

Was July 1st a time of celebration? Reflection? Fond wishes? A passive goodbye party? Or was it just cause to celebrate as one of the few occasions they are allowed two beers and barbecued hamburgers?  Maybe all of the above?

For what it's worth, here's the view from Canada’s top commander on July 2nd as he bid farewell to combat troops in Kandahar.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk, in his final address before the formal end of operations, urged returning soldiers to watch their "battle buddies" and take care of each other as they begin the long journey back to regular life at home.

His remarks had a poignant ring for the soldiers of the 1st Battalion Royal 22e Regiment, as two of the four deaths in the last combat tour were suspected suicides.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, also spoke to the uncertainty most soldiers feel about the end of the Kandahar mission and what will become of an army that has evolved and takes enormous pride in being a fighting force.

The world is an unpredictable place and the general noted how no one would have expected at this time last year that CF-18s would be involved in a NATO-led bombing campaign over Libya.

"Who knows what the future will bring," he said.

And, of course, Peter MacKay had to chime in too.

His comments were echoed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who told troops during a town hall outside of the new Canada House at Kandahar Airfield that the mission in Afghanistan is not done, but simply evolving.

"We don’t leave tasks undone in Canada. We finish what we start," he said, referring to the training mission in the country’s north where up to 950 soldiers and support staff have started to deploy.

Says he.

Well, it may supposedly* be the end of "combat" for Canada but it's far from the end of Afghanistan.

From now until March 2014, our military is to be deployed in a non-combat role to train the Afghan National Army. And we are to be centred in Kabul instead of the "always volatitile Kandahar province" (which seemed to be its official media name). Up to 950 military personnel will be provided to train the Afghan National Army and up to 45 civilian police officers will be deployed to train the Afghan National Police.

That's nice. But Afghanistan remains a volatile and challenging environment - have we made any real progress over the past ten years?

Our key achievements so far are said to include building and repairing 50 schools in Kandahar province, rehabilitating the Dahla Dam and its irrigation system, and contributing to the eradication of polio across Afghanistan. 

And along with international partners we have helped train and mentor about 50,000 Afghan troops. The Afghan National Police now numbers almost 116,000, more than the 2010 goal of 109,000 set by the Afghan government and by the International Security Assistance Force. And, last but not least, our civilian and military police mentors have helped train and guide over 2,800 police officers since 2008.

We're told that through this work, we have provided necessary funding to build police stations, pay police salaries and equip officers. And as a result, a growing number of Afghans in Kandahar province say they feel safer in their communities. God, I hope so after all this.

But hey, as good as that sounds, we best not forget to add to our list of "accomplishments", finding and detonating (intentionally or not) a hell of a lot of IEDs. And routing out a lot of Taliban, some of whom later returned to the roost. After all, we paid dearly for that particular chunk of work.

But now we're told that our "new" role in that war-torn country will build on the accomplishments of our mission over the past 10 years. Our objective, we are told, remains the same: to help build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

To do that we will focus on four key areas:

•investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through development programming in education and health;

•advancing security, the rule of law and human rights, including through the provision of up to 950 trainers for Afghan security forces;
•promoting regional diplomacy; and

•helping deliver humanitarian assistance.

Funny, they say that hindsight is always 20/20.  And yet I'm not so sure about that at the moment.  Or perhaps we're just not far enough removed yet to develop that focus. Not I, anwyay.

Oh well, I'm glad it seems to be working out well for Prime Minitster Harper, anyway. /sarcasm off/

Forgive me I seem to be rambling. It's just that I probably am.

But I started this post wanting to wish a belated Happy Canada Day to our troops in Afghanistan, those soon on their way home, those just arriving to help pack things up and those who will remain behind to continue training the Afghan army, engage in development programming in education and health, promote regional diplomacy and help deliver humanitarian assistance. You know, what they said.

So, anyway, like Happy Canada Day, guys (and gals), eh.**

* I say "supposedly" because, call me crazy, but I just can't see how we can focus on the training or development work without engaging in security, aka combat.  I mean, isn't that how we got here in the first place?

** If I sound a bit ambivalent there at the last, it's probably because I am.  Not about wishing our troops a Happy Canada Day but about ... well, maybe it's kind of like how we speculate it might be for the troops, not sure if I'm feeling celebratory, reflective, or something else after writing this post. Perhaps a couple of beers coolers and a barbecued hamburger would help?

Uncaring, Unprincipled, Unacceptable

That I wrote about this very issue two years ago is a very sad commentary:

That a funding kerfuffle, that the federal and provincial governments cannot agree on who, exactly, is responsible to provide the funding necessary for aboriginal children with special needs to stay at home, with their families, where they belong is sadly, perhaps, not surprising.

But that this bit of 'government infighting' as it is so colloquially called has resulted in families being told that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care and federal and provincial governments can't agree on who should pay is beyond despicable.

And if it was unacceptable then, what is it now?

Two years ago, I questioned where the  Nova Scotia government stood when it comes to Jordan's Principle.  I guess now we have our answer.

Jeremy Meawasige loves music, sunny days at the beach and his mother.

But Jeremy has extensive physical and mental disabilities. And the failure to resolve a dispute between the Pictou Landing First Nation and the federal government over how his care is paid for may result in his institutionalization.

"It’ll be over my dead body," said Maurina Beadle of the possibility her 16-year-old son might be institutionalized.

Jeremy is diagnosed with autism, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy and spinal curvature.

For 15 years, Beadle provided 24-hour care for her son. She spoon fed him pureed foods, carried him, prevented his self-destructive tendencies and changed his diapers.

That, in itself, by itself, is unacceptable in my mind. That a parent should single-handedly have to provide 24-hour care for their child for all those years anywhere in Canada is quite simply unacceptable. 

But as if that wasn't bad enough, last year Jeremy's mother had a stroke.  Fortunately, the Pictou Landing First Nation stepped up to the plate, providing three hours of home care every day.  Last year that cost the First Nation $82,000.

But now, even as the cost decreases due to his mother being out of a wheelchair and now able to walk with the assistance of a cane, she is being told that her son might have to be institutionalized because no level of government is willing to pick up the cost of a small amount of home care. Home care to which Jeremy would be more than entitled to were he to live off-reserve in this Province.

Headwinds and Tailwinds *

I have become quite a fan of a new blog I discovered a few months back.  The name is Kilometres for Communication - you can find it on the sidebar.

What's it all about you ask?

This blog is about communication. It’s about a special kind of communication called AAC. (I personally struggle with this term; it stands for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, which is too much of a mouthful for me. AAC is simply an alternative way to communicate when someone has limited or no speech.) This blog is about disability, and navigation of disability in a society which orients itself towards people who are able-bodied. But this blog is also about ability, diversity, capability, possibility, hope. It is about our humanity, and about our connection–one person to another. It is about community and inclusion, and about how wrong it is for any of us to exclude and to make the decision that someone does not belong because he or she is different. So this blog is also about the importance of accessibility, because accessibility is a key to inclusion, belonging and community.

A family affair - the 17-year-old younger brother of "an artist, educator, social activist, writer, story teller, gardener, community facilitator [who] happens to travel in a wheelchair and communicate with AAC" proposes (family in tow) to cycle across Canada to ... well, how about if I let them tell you?

We would meet with people who speak in creative and diverse ways, and with the help of the media, introduce them to Canadians so that never again could they equate not being able to speak with not having anything to say. We would invite people to wheel, walk, run and cycle with us, and we would invite organizations, small groups of people and individuals to host events across Canada to raise public awareness and funds to empower voices and to make accessibility and inclusion a national priority for the more than 3 million Canadians with disabilities.

Although a lot of people have walked, ran, biked, etc. across Canada to raise money and awareness on issues like cancer and for other "good causes" and the man in motion is back at it (actually I'm not sure he ever really stopped), I've never heard of anybody doing quite this. I've never heard of anyone giving a voice to people who struggle to communicate in our world quite this way.

And, as if that weren't enough, Skye (the main writer of the blog) often amazes with such a beautiful voice for such a young man.

The blog sets out his cycling journey from West to East coast (he is currently in Manitoba) but he ends many of his posts by connecting the logistics of his travels to the point of his journey.  Such as he did on Day 4 - West Vancouver to Mission BC, traveling through the mountains in British Columbia.

We all need to be explored. It’s a tragedy that there are people on this planet whose speechlessly brilliant summit will never be discovered because the people around them don’t realize that the hike is worth it. Remember this: the hike is always worth it. Always assume ability, and listen with the patience, care, and effort that you would want anyone to listen to you. Often, the hike is the best part.

Even though I have friends whose young adult children are non-verbal, the world of AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) remains foreign to me.

And so it is that, as if through a lens, I follow Skye's blog and observe and learn and think more and more about what it must be like to have people assume you have nothing to say simply because you find it difficult to communicate or to have them walk away as you struggle to communicate because they don't realize that's what you're doing (or maybe they just don't care) - I mean, it's a busy, busy world we live in and I can only stand here and wait so long, you know.

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

But today's blog post was written by his mother, Gail, and titled "Headwinds, Tailwinds, Lessons Learned" (* hence the title of this post).  It was these two paragraphs that really caught my attention - and made me reflect on our own life with the Blue Jay.

It is now a number of days after I originally began writing this blog entry. I’m sitting in the RV by the side of the road in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, waiting for Skye to appear on this windy, rainy afternoon. By the time he arrives, he will have pedaled 48 kilometres since we last met. The promised tailwinds that are supposed to assist Skye on his journey have been elusive. Tomorrow, they are supposed to blow tomorrow, just as yesterday, they were supposed to blow today. It’s a mental challenge, waiting for these helpful tailwinds, yet getting back on the bike to pedal in the face of more headwinds.

In so many ways, this is the story and the feel of Kerr’s [Ed. Sky's brother] life—the hope and promise of helpful tailwinds; the disappointment when instead he is met with headwinds: the funding that doesn’t come through, the education that doesn’t happen, the waiting lists that never seem to get shorter, the well-trained assistants that need to move on in their lives. How does Kerr—and how do we with him—get back on the bike and keep pedaling?

Headwinds and tailwinds, indeed ... that would be a good way to describe our current experience with attempting to help our now 18-year-old daughter master that transition from childhood to adulthood, which can be hard enough for any adolescent but so much more challenging when you're ... well, challenged.

I must admit that I have felt somewhat like a bull in a china shop of late as I struggle mightily, furiously (and yet often it seems in vain) to help her access the services she currently so desperately needs.  Transition planning and more work on life skills at school.  And counselling or meds (but why would you choose medication when you have a pretty good hunch that counselling would do the trick, if only she could access it?) in managing her emotions, letting go of obsessive thoughts and learning better social skills.

But she's too high-functioning.  And yet not high-functioning enough.  She is too old.  Or she doesn't qualify because she's mentally challenged.  Or she doesn't meet some other criteria for service to this or that group because ... fill in the blank. I've pretty much heard it all as of late.

And yet, despite the headwinds I seem to battle, on a daily basis, at every turn, every once in a while I will find myself screaming talking to the right professional, a person who can and does seem willing to make that extra effort to find the Blue Jay the help she needs.

Talk, of course, is cheap.  And the proof is (and always will be) in the pudding.

But when I somehow stumble upon those rare individuals who actually seem to hold out hope (of doing baseline testing and setting appropriate work and life goals at school or the elusive referral to the psychiatrist that specializes in adolescents with various challenges or ... is it really too good to be true ...the possibility of a way to access funding for one-on-one counseling), it's like suddenly coming around a bend during a seeminly never-ending uphill climb and unexpectedly finding the headwind you've been battling might just be gone.  And perhaps, just perhaps, the wind might actually be at your back for a change.

I'm hoping Skye will soon find those elusive tailwinds.  And that people will pay attention to his cross-country journey and, more importantly, the reason he is doing what he is doing.

At the same time, I hope this isn't just some trick or sleight of hand and my own headwinds are finally diminishing.  Wish us all luck. We will need it.

"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.