Manufactured Landscapes

Here is the final draft version of my review of the Edward Burtynsky documentary “Manufactured Landscapes” for AND Magazine, issue 1, June 2007.

“
May I begin by asking what is the difference between natural and artificial, anyway? Then, can we just drop the pretense and acknowledge that we don’t know? Artificial, manufactured; these are words that signify things made or conceived by humans. Natural, by nature or God. But surely I’m not the only one who recognizes that all things come from nature, and no matter if humans form them and put them together, they never belong to us. In other words, the very distinction between nature and artifice is artificial. We made it up! Just like we made up words, beauty, cars, art, TV, politics, countries, objectivity, and coincidence.

This is all to say that the manufactured—the man-made—can be equally as beautiful as the natural; even those things that, when we hear about them in the news, we click our tongues and shake our heads at. And we have no objectivity; that is why when faced with something we disapprove of, we can have an entirely different reaction than if we only hear about it.

Edward Burtynsky is a photographer who can show us these confusing elements of the human being, and make them okay. He can make us find things we think atrocities of human excess to be the height of beauty, and it’s okay. At least that has been my experience of Burtynsky’s work. The documentary film, “Manufactured Landscapes,” directed by Jennifer Baichwal, is much the same. It explores Burtynsky’s work from the beginning of his Manufactured Landscapes period, starting with the brilliant orange-red veins of runoff from nickel mining set against dark earth in Sudbury, Ontario, and the immense empty footprint and incredible classical and abstract formations of stone quarries in Vermont, Italy, and India; she looks at fields of fractalized scrap metals and the great hulking shapes of gigantic oil tankers cut into bits in Bangladesh. From there she quickly moves to the film’s main focus: China and the radical changes taking place there due to industrialization and urbanization unprecedented in human history. It is a country where development is undeniable and unquestionable, and our Western, first world, moral arguments are out of place, irrelevant. Perhaps the perfect location for Burtynsky's neutral lens. The Three Gorges dam project, for example, has displaced over a million people in more than a dozen cities, many of whom were subsequently hired to demolish their own homes and neighbourhoods; but it will provide electricity (to the tune of 84.7 TWh per year by 2009) and facilitate the transportation of goods for the next generation of Chinese. Old, 20th century houses and quarters in Shanghai are torn down to make way for high-rises—condos we call them in Canada— their family tenants forced to move to more distant, cheaper homes, to make way for the next generation of economy-driving Chinese. Nearly unimaginably large factories, manufacturing plants, dominate vast tracts of land and house innumerable interchangeable labourers making products for who knows who now. Seas of coal sit waiting to heat the next generation of nuclear power plants.

This is where the documentary diverges from Burtynsky’s own project. Looking through Baichwal’s film lens, following Burtynsky on his unusual tour of China as he speaks with Chinese of the old and new economies, it is hard not to fall into judgments about the changes taking place there. While watching, I wanted to think that it’s wrong what we’re doing to the earth with our gross exploitation of its resources; it’s wrong to displace such a great amount of people no matter what perceived benefits; it’s backwards to think in such simple, short-sighted, and inefficient terms; et c. And surely there’s nothing wrong with thinking those things. If nobody ever did, there might not be human rights or environmental movements. But there are always at least two sides to a judgment: my side and the “other” side, and if there were not another side, we would have nothing to judge. I might look at these images and see atrocities, or I might see progress, and as soon as I pick one or the other, I create someone with whom I do not and often cannot agree: an enemy.

Burtynsky’s own works—his grand, silent, still images—don’t encourage such judgments with the same urgency. They merely present what’s there, and while perhaps we, as humans, cannot help but to judge one way or the other, I find these images at least initially give pause—a brief moment of freedom, a glimpse of objectivity. And in that moment I find I can choose whether to judge or not: whether to see what’s there—the bare beauty—or to see through a veil of judgment—the ugly, wrong, corrupt, immoral. The neutrality of this moment, this meeting with barefaced reality, is a position from which we can re-envision beauty and progress and most, if not all, of our moral concerns. Maybe beauty can sometimes look like ugliness, and the world can be beautiful just the way it is, with all the trouble and suffering that we cannot avoid; and maybe progress, too, can look ugly, but still be progress, and maybe it does here in the west as well. These ideas don't need to be attached to a single ideology or moral framework. My “right” doesn't have to be my enemy’s “wrong”, and indeed, our disagreement doesn't have to make us enemies. For I don’t know what's right or wrong or good or bad, and when I’m presented with images like those in the film, I don’t especially care. I'm simply ecstatic that somebody is taking the time and risk to capture these moments.

These are easily politicized images that Burtynsky has created, and in the end, it’s impressive the amount of restraint that Baichwal shows in her own take on their story. She makes her opinion known without propagandizing and without making the viewer feel guilty or stupid. Nonetheless, and I admit that this may be my guilty conscience speaking, she seems to me to be saying that what is happening in the world is wrong, and we, the decadents, for various reasons, are to blame. My opinion is only that you would do well to see this film and the photographs of Edward Burtynsky, and enjoy being suspended between your judgments and awe.
”

For more information on the Three Gorges Dam:

Three Gorges Probe Fact Box
Chinese Government Official Web Portal - The Three Gorges Dam Project Read on..!

First impressions of davenport candidates: the fringe

When I have a bit more time, I'd like to take a close look at what the candidates are saying about local issues, but in the mean time, let's take a quick look at what they and their parties are about.

Here are the fringe candidates in Davenport, from the Communist Party, the Freedom Party, and the Libertarian Party (in alphabetical order by name).

Paul Bedard, Ontario Libertarian Party

There's not much to say about Bedard at the moment. His profile on the Libertarian Party website says only that is top issue is "limited government". No surprise there. The party's platform expands on this idea a bit:

There are many areas in which the government of Ontario has interfered to the detriment of the citizens of this fine province. ... the only proper functions of government are national defence (protection from foreign invaders), the police (providing protection from criminals) and the courts settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed).

The party's website has lots of info for residents curious about how libertarianism works generally and where the party stands on broad issues like tax reform, education, health care, crime prevention, environment, child care/day care, employment equity/pay equity, poverty, and energy.

Franz Cauchi, Freedom Party of Ontario

There's not much info about Cauchi either, not even a top issue, but the party's website offers helpful information, including the party platform. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Freedom Party:

Instead of embracing the libertarian motto that "the government that governs least governs best", the Freedom Party asserts that "the purpose of government is to defend every individual's freedom, not to restrict it."

In other words, while the Freedom Party of Ontario might at first seem like a libertarian party, it is in fact an "objectivist" party. The distinction might not be obvious to anyone who is not a political philosophy scholar. At any rate, the party espouses capitalist policies based on reason, rational self-interest, and consent, and rejects appeals to altruism, irrationality, and the supernatural. The party's platform calls for eliminating various taxes and provincial bans, and perhaps most controversially, introducing medical cannabis centres.

Miguel Figueroa, Communist Party of Canada (Ontario branch)

Davenport is lucky to have the leader of the Communist Party's Ontario branch. Figueroa is the only one with a bio on his party's website, but it doesn't say anything about Davenport. The site does however offer this:

The aim of the Communist Party is a socialist Canada: a society in which the wealth is owned equitably by the working people who create it, and where exploitation and oppression of one human being by another is ended.

You don't need a degree to know that communism is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism and objectivism. The latter two call for as little government as necessary to defend the country, its citizens, and the law. Communism calls for government to regulate the economy and to provide a wide variety of social services to citizens. The Communist Party's platform calls for increased wages and employee benefits, enhanced labour rights and health and safety laws, electoral reform, improved access to quality affordable housing, improved public health care, education, and transit, sustainable energy and natural resource management, and food security.

That's it for the fringe candidates. To be clear, by "fringe" I only mean that their parties' ideas are at the edge of the mainstream. I don't mean to say that they are invalid in any way. Often ideas on the fringe slowly work their way into the mainstream.

Feel free to let me know what you think of any candidate! Read on..!

The internet always remembers?

Does the internet really remember everything? Do we need to teach computers how to forget?

I wonder if it won't just happen "naturally", like by attrition.

I imagine that sooner or later, irrelevant information will be pushed to the bottom of the pile (or search list) and then eventually be "forgotten", if not completely erased. Google already does this to a certain extent, arranging search results by relevance, estimated by factors like how many other sites link to the information and so on.

If a piece of information exists on a computer connected to the internet, but no website links to it, will anyone ever recover that obscure information? And what about when computers disconnect from the internet? Unless their data are cached somewhere (which, admittedly, Google and others do on a large scale), that information is no longer accessible. Also, over time, as formats and computer languages change, much more information will become inaccessible without translation.

Maybe it's just the same as with current information in "legacy" formats: there's a lot of it that exists, but which we are completely unaware of—like in dusty old tomes in libraries that we would have to spend hours or years searching for because it's not indexed. Still it's there.

I understand the ideal of going "off the grid", and avoiding trails of data that can tell others about one's daily habits or personal life. At its simplest, it means I can just go somewhere and no one will know where I am, or I can do something, and no one will know what I'm doing. Without such protection, we end up in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, never sure if someone is watching, always afraid to act.

It's not about living by the law or not. I'm sure that for many law-abiding citizens, once they believe that someone is watching their every move, they will reconsider some or many of their actions; they will become unnatural, separate from their desires, alienated from their selves.

Of course, time won't help if someone wants to remove some damning information from the internet right away. Facial recognition certainly won't make it any easier. It's almost enough to make me want to give up on Facebook. Sometimes I don't want to worry about someone seeing my photos or personal information (despite security measures).

I do believe that, in time, much digital information will be lost, in the ways I've mentioned and others. As disasters and time have destroyed copious past knowledge, so they will do to current and future knowledge. Most people probably have little to worry about when it comes to their personal information. That is, besides marketers, identity thieves, and future historians and archeologists, few people care about the average person's information. And for the time being, going off the grid can be as simple as leaving the house without your phone and wallet, and paying for things with cash.

We make much of our dependence on technology, and surely much of the talk is true. Perhaps fewer people each year could survive "in the wild"; and the idea doesn't interest them. Can we say that these people are worse off than others? Is it as dangerous as some say to trade our privacy for convenience? Is it harmful to trust technology with our secrets, some of which we would never even tell other people? Read on..!

The dangers of internet arrogance

So recently, my sister Jane performed one of the internet's cardinal sins and forwarded me an Unsubstantiated Public Service Announcement E-mail on the dangers of microwaving food in plastic containers. Naturally, being the good netizen that I try to be, I turned to Snopes to find the real story. I read the Snopes article, thought to myself: "Well, that little internet tidbit is clearly false", replied to my sister with the link, and smiled the smug smile of self-satisfaction one can only experience after lazily denouncing someone's valid attempt at discourse.

"Jane should know better than that", I thought, upon receiving the message. And maybe she should have. But I had fallen into a now-common trap that can blind even the very reasonable internet visitors among us, and certainly those more prone to tell people when they've done something "wrong" or stepped beyond the ephemeral bounds of netiquette (and there is no shortage of those—in fact, there are websites dedicated exclusively to telling people they're wrong; also, the comments on places like Digg are full of examples of people telling each other they're wrong in really awful ways).

My point is that Jane's chain e-mail activated my critical reflex, but I allowed Snopes to shut the reflex down, because I accept that site as a Reputable Depot for Information on Scams and Frauds and Unsubstantiated or Far-Fetched News Stories. It's not that I don't actually trust Snopes; even in this case, it's clear that the message itself is a fraud. But I had a reality check when I watched an episode of CBC's Doczone called "The Disappearing Male" that was about how certain chemicals which are widely used in plastics and other consumer products appear to be causing damage to the reproductive organs of male fetuses and eventually fertility problems in babies, boys, and men. The documentary presents strong evidence from numerous independent studies that this is in fact the case, and these chemicals—bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates—are extraordinarily dangerous, but at the same time points out that the United States Food and Drug Administration and other public bodies—guardians of the public health all—have preferred to rely on industry-sponsored studies for their judgments and recommendations about these chemicals (remember the tobacco debates?). The point being that Snopes defers to the FDA on the matter, and, usually, I would be suspicious of the government in any matter like this.

The Snopes article then goes on to quote a presumably reputable doctor advising: use plastics "specifically meant for cooking" if you must, because "whenever you heat something you increase the likelihood of pulling chemicals out", but it's best to cook with glass, ceramics, or stainless steel (obviously not the latter in the microwave, no matter how curious you might be). In other words, if not quite refuting, then certainly diluting the claim that plastics are safe for microwave (or general) use. This particular Snopes article is strange actually, because it tries to present a balanced view by debunking the form of the message (the fraud disguised as a PSA), but offering another side of the content of the message (the grain of truth in the fraud)—which is fine—but it seems to me that the researchers were maybe more interested in shooting down another bit of presumed internet nonsense rather than providing a public service. I think Snopes too fell prey to the same internet arrogance that prevented me from taking that next critical step.

Anyway, I recommend you watch "The Disappearing Male" and take a look at where these chemicals are around you. Canada recently banned the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles, where it was very common, but they remain in all sorts of products and in the environment at large. From the Doczone page: "Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called 'hormone mimicking' or 'endocrine disrupting' chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development."

So, sorry Jane! I still don't like chain e-mails, but I'll pay better attention next time, and not be so quick to judge.
Read on..!

Entering the fray

I find myself in a strange position relative to the upcoming Canadian election. The choice seems so starkly clear: progress or regress, acting boldly or procrastinating weakly. But in Canadian politics no choice is clear. There are always so many factors at play: four or five parties to choose from, four of which are arguably on the progressive side, either socially, economically, or both; past behaviour, which in the short term almost invariably plays against the reigning party; the numerous cultural divides—East and West and Centre, French and English, Rural and Urban; the not-so-creeping advance of "American-style" attack and smear politics; and principles, those poor mistreated things.

It almost makes one admire the simplicity of our neighbour's two-party republic, and it certainly highlights the failings of the first-past-the-post electoral system in the present day, in Canada at least. Let me say this: Canada has a de facto two-party system. It has always been this way, and it will likely remain this way until we demand some form of proportional representation. What I mean by that is that there are two strong national political parties in Canada, which generally trade turns governing the country. They do this not by winning the most votes, but by winning the most ridings, effectively preventing any other party from gaining a significant hold on power. They win the most ridings by either dividing the activists from the moderates, or by playing on our fears and dividing and conquering.

There are other parties; indeed there have been quite a number in Canada's great history, spanning the political spectrum. The current Conservative party was actually formed from a coalition of two previous "right-wing" parties. These alternative parties commonly win large percentages of the popular vote (the NDP won 17.5 percent in 2006...), which rarely amount to a similar number of actual seats in Parliament (...but only 9.4 percent of the seats).

One thing is: our existing system favours the major parties; only partly because they are more centrist in scope. Certainly, the greater part of Canada's population falls in the centre of the political spectrum, but clearly, given the voting results, many people look to other parties, for many possible reasons.

Another thing is: political partisanship in itself simplifies politics and encourages simplistic views and opinions, particularly at this media-drenched time. It encourages our representatives to insult us during elections by attacking, dividing and lying. Moreover, for some reason, our system discourages multi-party coalition governments, though to me, this seems like an ideal solution, considering our several progressive parties. Instead, the system demands strategic voting in order to encourage a majority win for one party. Often—and currently—in order to prevent an undesirable party from gaining a majority, voters have to choose between voting for their preferred candidate or voting for the party most likely to win. This is usually an evil choice, offering no satisfaction for the undecided, and the incumbent party can easily take advantage of the situation.

And another: the media distort the messages of all the parties to support the one they believe in. They show ads that are offensive and often highly dubious; they irresponsibly base so much of their election reporting on polls, knowing that in our system these cannot represent the final numbers; they collude to exclude dissenting voices from the political debate.

Such is the state of our confederation. But I'm not pessimistic about the outcome. I believe in the Canadian spirit and Canadian intelligence. We are better and smarter than the current level of debate happening in the country right now and I think we won't be cowed by scare tactics and insults. It seems clear that many or most of us have been inspired by the dignity Barack Obama has shown in the U.S. election campaign, and I'm sure we dream that we could have a candidate of similar stature and oratory skill. Canada has not seen such a person since Pierre Trudeau.

But no candidate is perfect, and certainly no political party is perfect. Certainly, they must earn our trust and act responsibly, but we also must think clearly and vote responsibly. In our case, unfortunately, this means examining what you want Canada to look like in the coming years, and how you think your vote might best achieve that end. It's "strategic", and I hate it, but it's where we are and who we are, and it's our duty. Read on..!

What Do I Know about Power? Part 1: Individuals

Lying awake in bed late Sunday night after Ken Reaume's CD release concert at Sneaky Dee's (which was awesome, by the way) when I should have been sleeping, I thought of Power and how it affects peoples' daily lives. I've thought about it for a few days now, and here is part of the result:

Obviously power always acts in our lives. Some say that all of our relationships are based on power, and I am inclined to agree. So why do we only talk about power at the fringes of daily life: in government, law, war, et c., and even then only offhandedly, as though it doesn't affect us? I think I say "we" fairly because I never have conversations about power with any of my friends or acquaintances, and I never see discussions about power on common internet forums. This may be because I don't initiate such talk, or perhaps there is a conspiracy afoot and all of my friends talk about power only when I'm out of the room. But I don't think so. I think that among the general populace, few talk about power except in the senses that I mentioned. That is, few seem interested in individual or even communal power. In fact, I think we actively avoid thoughts of power in our daily lives because they make us feel weak, insignificant, and unhappy (did you think that was just how it's supposed to be?).

Let me put it this way: as humans, we often feel that we have little to no control over the events in our lives. This seems natural to me, since there are countless things that happen to us daily for which it would be difficult for any person to assume full responsibility; e.g., slipping on an icy sidewalk and injuring oneself, winning the lottery, a family member or pet dying. These are events that we usually attribute to luck or chance and remove from the realm of choice. There are other things though, which are well within our power, that we also attribute to luck: certain sicknesses, the quality of our relationships, whether or not we get that promotion, et c. When we treat this latter type of occurrence as lucky, we detach ourselves from our own actions, we become passive, rather puppets being controlled by an unseen puppet master than actors giving life to our roles.

This has many negative effects. For example, feeling that I lack control in my life--that I do not have the power to make things go my way--makes me passive. As a result, I repress my desires since I feel like it is beyond my power to achieve them, and this makes me feel weak and sad. I look around and feel that everybody else has more power than me, and even the slightest sign of success in others decreases my confidence. So I look elsewhere to feel good about myself. I try to find other areas where I can exert control and feel powerful. This might be in the family through verbal or physical violence; it might be in the workplace through corruption or sexual harassment; it might be in the community through vandalism or theft. These are all recognizable areas where individuals step over the line, and for which they might be prosecuted. But there are more insidious avenues where I might more easily look to use my reduced power.

Rather than externalize my repression, I can internalize it and remove my attention from the outside world to the inside world. I can focus on pleasing myself rather than trying (inevitably unsuccessfully) to offer pleasure to the community. This, I believe, is the more common reaction; not surprisingly, because it is where power intersects and conflicts with identity--how we see ourselves and how we relate to others. I can shop (and I am assuming this to be the most popular sublimation, especially as it facilitates the others); I can watch TV; I can drink alcohol and take drugs; I can eat; I can have sex with a stranger or masturbate to pornography; I can play video games, which is increasingly commonly among both sexes and all ages; I can consume celebrity gossip; I can go online and build up my virtual persona or take part in a virtual community; I can gamble; and so on, and so on. These are all more or less socially acceptable activities, and (in my opinion) there's nothing wrong with them in and of themselves. They allow us to control our own immediate pleasure and take our minds off of our frightening feelings of insignificance. They allow us to feel alive and in control, if only for a while. However, they are also anti-social, by which I mean they focus on the individual and diminish community. They take our minds off of our real needs and desires--our creative and passionate impulses--and our responsibilities: to ourselves (mind, body, and soul), our families, our communities, our countries, and the world.

Increasingly, individuals are defined by the things they buy, the shows and movies they watch, the games they play, their appearance, their partners, et c., rather than by the things they do and believe; in turn, this determines how we interact with others, defining our relationships. Obviously, this factor plays a very important when it comes to society. And eventually, I'll get to that.
__

I'm speaking very generally still here, and I hope to go into much greater detail about interpersonal power dynamics at another time. Maybe after another pre-sleep inspiration. Also, I'm sure most or all of this is recorded in various philosophers' and psychologists' work; if anybody has any references, let me know and I'll try to incorporate them.
Read on..!

The Honourable Mr. Ernie Eves is a buffoon, and his government is full of idiots for supporting him

I e-mailed this message to several friends five years ago, with the subject: "Difficult times, do not read if easily angered by anti-dubya Bush sentiment". The title above was the title I gave the message.

It was still early in my "active" political life, and goings on in my world could still incite me to write an angry missive and forward it to people I though might care.

I didn't have a blog at the time, or I might have posted it there. And now, I found it languishing in my e-mail archive, and I thought I'd offer it a more worthwhile place.

Below is the full (but newly edited for typos) text.

"
Mr. Eves and his cabinet, unfortunately in power in Ontario, have gone the route of the Honourable Mr. Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, by sending word to the American Ambassador Mr. Paul Celucci that they fully support the United States war effort despite the federal government's condemnation thereof.

Although all the members of the Tory government will no doubt deny it, it is difficult to erase the perception that this support is based entirely on monetary concerns. Indeed it is nearly impossible to miss or mistake this notion, as the economies of Ontario and Alberta rely significantly on investment by our neighbours to the South.

Certainly we are all allowed to have a difference of opinion with our national government—this is the hallmark of proper democracy—but it is at times like these that further divisions of opinion at the higher levels of government reveal all the more cracks and leaks in our country’s political well being.

Why would any provincial government go out of its way to officially state its support for an illegal war that is none of our business? The answer, if it is not the one I described above, may be difficult to ascertain.

The Canadian (and American) public has spoken overwhelmingly against the war, and has supported the Liberals’ decision to remain outside the arena of war, so this is a tough issue to stand by on the electoral front, especially with a provincial election looming.

Mr. Eves said, in a letter to Mr. Celucci, “I want to reiterate that I share your expression of disappointment in the response of the Canadian government. Having grown up in a border community, I appreciate the close relations we in Ontario have with our American friends.”

Obviously, neither of them understands that close relations imply honesty, trust, support, and maybe even friendship; all of which we are more than willing to give of ourselves. Indeed our support and hospitality following the attacks on the WTC and pentagon was enormous, and if that is to be so quickly forgotten…

We cannot be guilted into joining an illegal, immoral offensive. The same rules that apply to us regular folk should apply to our higher-ups, and most would agree that we should not be cajoled into joining a compatriot in a theft or vandalism or a murder.

It is our duty as “close relations” to confront and challenge our friends, not to be yes-men. Those who play that role are merely adding to the perception of the U.S.A. as an international bully.

Apparently Mr. Celucci suggested that if Canada were to go to war, the United States would lend all the help it could. But this statement is foolish in this circumstance (and perhaps any) because the likelihood of Canada declaring war, especially under illegal conditions, is next to nil.

It seems clear that all of this talk of support for the war from select provincial cabinets really amounts to a lot of political grandstanding; but if not for the general population—those who will elect our next governments—who are against the war, then for whom? It is all for the industries who take advantage of our plentiful resources and our lax environmental enforcement; who lay off thousands while their CEOs take home record-setting bonuses; whose products we don't need…

There are plenty more problems fomenting and fermenting in Eves' Ontario these days, many of which seem to aid the rich (supposedly for the good of us all). So why, Mr. Eves, are you and your cabinet giving your official support to the U.S. government and its war?

As a related aside, one of my favourite cabinet ministers (and my preferred candidate in the Tory leadership campaign ;), the Honourable Mr. Jim Flaherty, said, Americans “were expecting us to act like friends in this time of crisis, that we would be there for them.”

This doublespeak seems prevalent among certain groups of our elected representatives these days, but what exactly is the “crisis” that he is speaking of? And if indeed there is one, of whose devising is it?

Also, it has turned out that Mr. Klein was premature in his letter to Mr. Celucci. In his letter, he suggested that he and his entire cabinet was behind the U.S., but not long after he was chastised by several members of his caucus who did not want their names attached to any such declaration.
"

Read on..!

I don't believe the public should fund Catholic (or other religious) schools

This is a letter I wrote six years ago and sent to all the local and provincial politicians I could find, and the media.


"
Dear Sirs or Madams,

An issue has come to my attention recently that has put various pieces of news into clearer perspective for me. Of all the devastating news from the political world in the last two years, this is the first that has made me feel it warrants contact with the government officials or media outlets. The issue is that of state-sponsored and publicly funded homophobic discrimination and homophobia. I think you or anybody would find it hard to disagree that this is an issue of local, provincial, and national importance with extremely far-reaching implications.

Part of what brought this to my attention were the recent and continuing events concerning Marc Hall, a student in the Durham district Catholic school board. He is a 17-year-old high school student whose school has denied him permission to attend his high school prom with his boyfriend, because, while the Catholic church now accepts homosexuals as people, it has yet to officially accept homosexual behaviour. The apparent doublespeak of this contradiction does not seem to bother the church as a whole, but we can be assured that more than a few members find the discrepancy downright absurd. For surely there can be no separation of the individual from the individual's behaviour, homosexual or otherwise.

I have no exceptional complaint with the Catholic church and no comment on the specific case of Marc Hall vs. the church, which should, as part of its right to freedom of religion, be allowed to believe, teach, and proselytize whatever it wishes. The problem, however, arises due to the fact that in Toronto, all over Ontario, and, I assume, many other jurisdictions across Canada, Catholic education is funded with taxpayers' dollars.

Which brings me to the other news clarifying this issue. That was the announcement by the provincial government in Ontario of tax credits for parents of private and religious school students, which would make all education in Ontario (private, religious, or public) funded at least partially by the taxpayer.

My personal view is that in today's multicultural Canada, there should be no direct relationship between the church (any denomination) and the state, and our official policy should be secular. This is partially due to the near impossibility of meeting the demands of dozens of distinct faiths, but mostly because all levels of government in Canada have enough tasks and duties to take care of and certainly enough to fund that it is unreasonable to expect the delegation of religious principles be included in their agenda. Especially if those principles are those of only one religion. Personal opinion aside, state-sponsored homophobic discrimination violates the Canadian Human Rights Act (as amended in 1996) and certainly doesn't fit into Canada's mandate for its people.

I can no longer support any political party or individual politician that does not consider this issue seriously and move to take immediate action to ameliorate the situation. The solution seems simple:

Publicly funded Catholic schools (and those of any denomination) must be sold or otherwise divested from the state portfolio, and
No religious or private education should be funded by taxpayer dollars now or in the future.

It is impossible to expect and unnecessary to hope for the Catholic church to change its policy of condemning the lifestyles of homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people, but it is absolutely despicable that the discrimination is supported by all levels of government and the taxpayers of Canada.

Thank you very much for your time,
Adam Gorley
" Read on..!