Tue 15 Aug 2006
This will be a normal annoying blog…because I’m in pain.
I had an emergency dental exam yesterday because my tooth ache just got unbearable. It’s been sore for 3 weeks but I’ve been busy and don’t have a dentist here, so I just didn’t go. So I was finally fed up and googled Windsor dentists. There just so happened to be one down the road from my work and they had two dentists (so I thought it would be easier to get in quick). I was right, and they offered an appointment 1 hour later. So I went there and quickly got in, got x-rays and talked to the dentist, and he believes it was a little mistake with a filling I had 5 weeks ago. He took out his drill and relieved some pressure (note: no anesthetic…which is not very pleasant for someone complaining of searing tooth pain). Either way, it seems to have helped because it already feels better. I have a follow up appointment next week.
I forgot to mention before that Lyle called me from Victoria (where he’s doing Navy Training for the summer) on the long weekend. It was nice to hear from him. I didn’t even recognize his voice, partly because of the reception, and partly because no one ever calls me in Windsor so I assume automatically it’s just for my roommates. I didn’t even think people had my phone number here. (I know my grandparents always seem to phone the wrong city…that’s the problem with moving every 4 months…that and not having your dentist nearby.) I think Lyle only has 2 weeks more in Victoria as well.
I had an interesting weekend, with Council and all. I was pleased that my motion for the Feds to support a Positive Space initiative on campus and draft a formal policy passed. It was funny though that it’s discussion was 3 times longer than the budget. Oh…informative interjection…Student Unions are activist organizations. There is a reason why 10’s of thousands of dollars of student fees go to CASA and OUSA. It’s also activist on campus, representing student interests. Why the interjection? Because Sai Kit said during the debate on my motion that Feds should not be involved in political activism. [insert maniacal laughter here] I wonder what our Vice President Education would have said if he was there…
I have thought of an interesting topic which might warrant a law paper being written on it. It has to do with Employment Equity and self-identification. Put yourself in my situation; where I do not support Employment Equity on grounds that while its intentions are commendable, its methods are reverse-discriminatory. This poses a dilemma in which I may not wish to self identify on applications (such as for school or employment) because I know that that identification will be used to support Employment Equity actions, but I have been given the option to self identify and with the option given I should be allowed to. By using my self identification for the purpose of advancing employment equity at an organization it seems to me to prevent me from choosing the stance against employment equity.
I guess what needs to be investigated is if it is constitutional to allow self identification for use in Employment Equity initiatives without offering the option beside it to refuse (I guess it should be a question in the affirmative, authorizing use) the rights for the information being used for Employment Equity. If it is not, then it might require that thousands of companies change the options on their application forms. How I see it is if you are offering the option to identify (thus associating yourself with that group), you should be allowed to without supporting a cause (e.g. employment equity). The Charter ensures you the right of association (Section 2.(d)) while ensuring you the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, etc. (Section 2.(b)).
In a totally unrelated direction, I take you to the matter of youth criminal prosecution. The Conservative government is seeking to lower the age of criminal responsibility for children from 12 to 10. A previous version of the article stated that “The Tories said anyone over 14 years of age should automatically face adult sentencing for serious violent or repeat offences.” (It seems to me to be very unjournalistic of the Globe and Mail to quietly remove this instead of just issuing a retraction of the phrase) It is also worth noting that the Conservative platform stated “Anyone 14 years or older who is charged with a serious violent or repeat offences is “automatically” subject to adult sentences” which is slightly different from the article’s original claim.
While I believe I agree with this (I have faith in minors abilities to make decisions, though many people do not), I am very upset over the hypocritical position of the Conservative government. This is because last month the Conservative government said that they want to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. If you are going to acknowledge that a 14 year old has the mental capacity to be criminally responsible, should they not also be allowed to have sexual relationships? Heck, the government allows people as young as 12 to possess firearms! Yet they don’t have the capacity to make relationship decisions? The Conservative government should not be allowed to pick and choose what topics it can impose age restrictions on.
Along with that, why not allow the right to vote for people as young as 14? Around that time is when students (in Ontario at least) take a Civics course, and many are more informed than their adult counterparts. Maybe if students got the chance that early to get politically involved then they might be more likely to continue being involved as they get older. There is a lot of youth apathy since they are prevented from participating. It may be part of a solution to the large scale problem of low voter turnout. Well, I’m a little off topic from the original dentist story…I’ll blame it on the pain. And popped collars.
Currently Listening to: George Gershwin – Rhapsody in Blue
Random Wikipedia Article: Book of Concord
I see where you’re coming from with the hypocrisy claim, but their reasoning is that it’s probably a completely different crowd of 13 year olds that are out killing each other from the ones that are in school learning about their government.
And you can’t honestly be suggesting that a high-school Civics course prepares one to vote, can you? Voters at that age would simply be proxies for their parents, or worse, their educators.
School-aged votes would basically just vote as a bloc for parties that support high funding to educational needs, without any real consideration for the viability or sustainability of the rest of the platform.
The voting age was my own addition. They never mentioned it at all. The hypocrisy I pointed out was criminal responsibility and sexual independance. They use oppose logic to support going either way.
I believe I was very knowledgable and informed to be able to have voted at 14. I know you are scared of the liberal bias in teachers (which I believe does exist). Though an argument could be used that on the other side you have people coached by their churches to vote a certain way. I believe that people’s views don’t change much between 14 and 18. I never shared the same political view of my parents, and they differed from the majority of my teachers.
And really, is it not up to them to decide if they think funding to education, etc. is worth voting for? You vote for what you believe at the present. That’s what a vote is for, is to represent you now. Nothing says you can’t change your focus later on. I do believe the civics class contributes to helping you to vote, but you do need to read the platforms and stay up with current events as well.
All I can say is that if you think that the civics course has merit yours was obviously much different than mine. I suspect that the course at Garneau was adjusted to compensate for the fact that 75%+ of the student body was born outside of Canada. Making those of us who grew up in Canada bored with the course because we already knew everything…
And as much as I hate exposing my ignorance – what is Postive Space?
I thought mine was pretty good. We learned all the basics and had a few discussions on current events and political issues at the time. It made it all the more interesting that 9/11 happened during my class (actually during one…first thing in the morning class, but then discussion for a few days after).
Christine: One word – Google.
You may know it by “Safe Space”.
I get annoyed by the “positive space” stuff simply because it creates that “for us or against us” mentality:
The point is to get people to be intentional about not being prejudiced, but it still feels like an opportunity for shrill voices to be raised on the “peripheral issues”.
You took that quote out of context though. It was addressing the concern that by displaying the sticker people may believe you are part of the LGBTQ community. The “must decide” is a personal question for people already in the program if they want to display the sticker or not (recognizing that it’s presence may cause some people to assume possibly untrue things). You can be part of a Positive Space campaign without displaying such things. The main part of it is the education and awareness part. GLOW’s program runs info sessions. I would agree that it would be wrong if it was a “for us or against us” mentality, but that is not the case if you read the quote in context.
In council I addressed this by saying that just because I’m not part of Students for Palistinian Rights, Students for Life or Campus Crusade for Cheese doesn’t mean I’m against Rights, or exclusively pro-choice, or hate gouda. Lack of participation (or in this case public display of support) does not imply that you are against. Granted there will be people against it, such as the person last term who hung a noose in the GLOW meeting room with a note saying “If you just can’t take it anymore, place neck here”.
Also, it’s hard to comment on exactly what details it will be because Positive Space in Feds policy won’t just be for the LGBTQ community (from what I observe). It will be expanded to all minorities, such as Christians and Muslims. It’s action as opposed to a policy saying we support diversity. So wait a bit before condemming my motion…since you haven’t seen it or what we are planning.
UW is not Queens.
Okay, very well. But as long as the logo is a rainbow triangle, it’ll be a tough sell persuading people that it includes any other minority besides LGBTQQ.
Perhaps you could come up with a more neutral mark? I propose a white plus-sign inside a black circle. Get it, plus for positive, a circle for inclusion? I mean, yeah, it’s almost a cross of St. George, but picking a symbol that’s not the mark of their own kind would be an excellent goodwill gesture from GLOW to the other clubs on campus.
As for the assertion that it’s not a factioning thing, I’ll remain respectfully skeptical. Remember the hate-meeting thing last term, where the clubs that showed up got their name published in the Imprint ad? Did those meetings ever spawn any action, or was it just a show of solidarity? You know, so they could suspiciously cast their eyes upon those clubs that didn’t choose to participate?