American Style Government? Yes Please.

 

 So today's musings are courtesy of last nights election results, in which a party that received only 40% of the vote will form a majority government with essentially dictatorial powers until the next election. I think it's time we change how we do things in Canada, don't you?

Next week, something frivolous. Promise.

It's Election Time

This week I kinda go off on all those complaining about having another federal election in Canada.

And there's also a cameo by Moira about halfway in.

Government Subsidizing Bad Medicine

A little reported story went by last week in my province of British Columbia. It seems that our government will now be providing financial assistance to families with an income of under 28 thousand who wish to receive acupuncture treatments. For whatever reason, and I suspect it's political, the government of BC is saying that acupuncture is a legitimate medical treatment, and as such should be covered under our health plan.

As you can imagine, this is something I have a huge issues with. First and most importantly in my opinion, this is wasting money on bogus pseudoscience. Instead of using this money to do something like, oh I dunno, reducing the cost of prescription medication or hiring more doctors or nurses, taxpayer money is instead going to a treatment that is at best, dubious.

As far as I'm aware there are no credible studies that prove that acupuncture has any health benefit whatsoever, perhaps apart from being a method to help one relax. And as far as practitioners claims that it balances the energy in a persons body, aiding in the body's healing, well, I think we all know that is just plain old bullshit. All of the other claims of acupuncture, such as curing cancer and HIV/AIDS have been systematically debunked by medical science, leaving only the nebulous claim that it promotes overall healing.

Now if people want to waste their time and money on acupuncture, I have no problem with it. My beef here is that by paying for these treatments, the government of BC is tacitly saying that acupuncture is a legitimate treatment option. What I want to know is where is the medical opposition to this? Why have I not heard a peep out of the BC College of Physicians? Are there no patient advocate groups that see the dangers in this?

On top of all that, this decision by the government creates a dangerous precedent for the future. If acupuncture gets the government seal of approval, why not homeopathy? Hell, it has just as much legitimate medical research to back it up as acupuncture, that being none.

So I urge anyone reading this who is a resident of British Columbia to contact your MLA and voice your displeasure at this move by the government. We don't want to go down the same road Great Britain has, with the state wasting billions on pseudo scientific bullshit.

Freedoms

In my community right now there is general outrage over one particular man. His name is Paul Callow, otherwise know as the Balcony Rapist. He was tried and convicted for a series of violent sexual assaults in the mid 1980's. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and upon his release was a free man. The problem is, he's anything but free.

I'd like to state for the record before I go any further that I absolutely condemn this mans actions, and in no way do I condone any of his previous brutal criminal acts.

That being said, there is an uproar in the Lower Mainland that this man has chosen to reside within it's communities. He is currently prohibited from living in his home province of Ontario, and has sought to start a new life here. But upon learning of his intent, several communities in Greater Vancouver have rallied to drive him out. I have a huge problem with this.
This man has served his time, and is a free man, and in Canada that freedom includes,

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

This is in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a document that as a Canadian I am incredibly proud of, much as any American is rightly proud of their Bill of Rights. Both these documents enshrine the rights of the individual. Rights that we as individuals should be loathe to relinquish to any degree.

But that's exactly what some people in British Columbia are trying to do. If Paul Callow is the menace that he's described to be by the authorities, then they should have kept him in prison, and there are laws on the books that do just that. He wasn't however consider dangerous enough to seek such measures, and therefore was released after serving his entire term in prison.Now I'll admit to not being fluent with the law on this, but I believe that once you are released after serving your entire sentence, (and not on parole where conditions can be set restricting your freedoms), you are then accorded the same basic rights as any other human being.

We as a society cannot start moving back the goalposts for ex convicts in our society, it's discriminatory for one thing. But more importantly, in my opinion, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If we're willing to take away a man's freedom based on his past actions, (which according to the laws of our society he's atoned for) what other freedoms are we willing to give away.

I know it sounds extreme, he's a convicted rapist, he's not a decent part of the community. But it doesn't matter. Our laws are blind to whether we find someone distasteful, and you cannot bring punitive measures against anyone for what they may do, In the States this is called prior restraint, and it's what George Orwell so eloquently called the Thought Police. No matter what this man, or anyone else, could possibly do in the future, they cannot, and must not be punished for it in the present.

I know that it's unpopular defending a rapist, but that's not what I'm defending. I'm defending the right for him to have a life to pursue.
Upholding the rights of children or the elderly, for example, is easy. But it's only in upholding the rights of the most unsavory of society that we can guarantee the rights of all.

My Drug Problem

Uncertainty would be more accurate.
I'm a Libertarian. I think people should be free to do whatever they please, whenever they feel like it, so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. My feelings towards drugs pretty much follows that idea, any individual should be free to put whatever they desire into their body, so long as they don't harm others.
That being said, I've suffered from addiction in the past, and while it's kinda fun getting addicted, but once you're addicted getting straightened out can be a nightmare.
I'm inclined to think that in the end everyone should have the freedom to do what they please, freedom includes the freedom to make stupid decisions.
On the other hand, what about those that don't choose their addiction? There are people, who through injury or other medical reasons, end up hooked on drugs that were prescribed by doctors treating a legitimate medical problem.
For me, I'm not quite sure where I stand. In principle, the more individual freedom the better, but seeing what drugs can do to people... I just don't know.
I think though, what questions like this really help to raise, is that it certainly isn't an either or solution. There are many shades of grey to this and other issues.
It's a shame that the public is usually only presented with the options of for or against.