Status Update: Pauline Marois Still a Wad

You've probably heard about it already, though if I know you, my compatriots, as well as I believe I do then you have yet to read the actual wording of the Quebec Identity Act. This is a hateful piece of legislation which - while the rest of the modern world hurtles towards a more open and accepting society, replete with the freedoms and rights that Mill and his ilk yearned for one hundred and fifty years ago - seeks to turn back the clock of Québec's social development something on the order of two hundred years; minus the catholic church, of course.

It proposes a "Québec Citizenship" in which new applicants cannot "(1) run in municipal, school and legislative elections; (2) participate in the public funding of political parties; [or] (3) petition the National Assembly for the redress of grievances" unless they "(1) has been a Canadian citizen for at least three months; (2) is domiciled in Québec; (3) has effectively resided in Québec for six months, including the three months preceding the date of the person's application; (4) has an appropriate knowledge of the French language; and (5) has an appropriate knowledge of Québec and of the responsibilities and advantages of citizenship." This is essentially an attempt at exclusionism, an attempt to keep not only immigrants but also anglos moving from elsewhere in Canada from having any say in Québec's political process.

Besides the fervent nationalism, redundant ammendments to the Quebec Charter of Rights & the provocateur BS this bill - which is destined to die on the floor of the National Assembly - obviously represents, there are far more insidious motivations at work here than most people understand. This bill is an attempt at pushing further the meter of acceptable legislation in Québec, legislation being set up in order to further isolate - hermeticize - Québec's legal system from the Canadian one which - you no doubt anticipate me here - is another step towards, say it with me, referendum!

That's right, even from the back bench, the PQ is harping after their founding goal which, let's face it, most of us are fed up with hearing. So they don't talk about it out loud, instead they lay the scaffold & the foundation; they attempt to create a seperate and complete social, legal, judicial, diplomatic and political infrastructure within Québec so that it shall be a simple matter of cutting the umbilical when their prophecied national rapture pops back onto the provincial radar and we're once again - for the third time - asked to endorse an unrealistic and unfeasible goal which will, whether it passes or not, decimate our provincial economy for at least a decade thereafter.

Who else is tired of repeating history?

The Atheist Movement

There is a certain amount of steam building up behind the current global Atheist Movement (yes, capital letters, now. It's that big); there has always been good atheist material (hey, Thomas Jefferson questioned the validity of religion, that's a ways back. He weren't the first one, either) available to people, but not so much as has been available in the last 15 - 20 years; the advent of the internet has made much of that old material accessible & the outrage of that great network's denizens at the wool that has been pulled over the eyes of the world is becoming palpable.

This outrage has led to a more forceful, if not necessarily more widely accepted entrance of this debate into the public sphere & has brought about the works of such authors as Professor Richard Dawkins and the ever-surly, ever-petulant, though often sharp & quite intelligent Christopher Hitchens. The new (admittedly low - I wouldn't call it a flood) tide of writings on the subject has, itself, sparked further debate and brought the subject, aswell as the contrasts between religion & atheism further into the light of day; there's a ways left to go, but with reason, logic, research, determination, science and anger on our side, we'll continue making headway.

The debate isn't a semantic one; as little as the existence or non-existence of God affects anyone in their day-to-day life (I'm not talking about belief, which can make a, er... Tangible difference in a person's life), the argument for and against the continued existence of religion - and, let's face it, that's what it really is - has entered the sphere of science education, scientific research ethics, medical ethics, social attitudes with regards to sexuality & the propriety of certain types romance; it is there that real damage is being done. I won't go into any specifics right here (it would be redundant, Greta Christina has already taken care of that - see the anger link), but I think that, in some people's case, this is well & truly an infringement on their day-to-day lives. In such light, the need for mobilization becomes immediately apparent.

This Atheist Movement, while it certainly isn't new is definitely experiencing a rebirth &, one might argue, a growth spurt. I have been hesitant in the past to claim that there was a genuine movement afoot, for fear that it might be misunderstood as a faith-based movement, but the need for a change of attitudes - a paradigm shift, as they say - is undeniable and only an organized, concerted effort on our part can make that happen.

It must be said, if there was ever a social movement composed of more intelligent, rational and well-informed people, it has yet to be brought to my attention; I couldn't be prouder of belonging to a group of any meaningful import.

(Yes, I know, it's taken a while between posts; sorry)

Humility & Respect

I will not be at the commemoration ceremonies at Dawson today. I do not have the right to be there; I was not present 365 days ago when a monster opened fire on unarmed, defenceless students in one of the most evil acts I have witnessed in my lifetime – albeit remotely. The girl I love was, and she will be there today.

It is a terrifying thing that a single day can be forever tainted by the actions of a single man and I will not, as is my custom, oppose the social current with vehemence and anger. I have only sympathy & sadness & mourning in my heart, today. My memories of September 13^th, 2006 are crisp, clear and unbearably painful even a year after the fact.

One would be right in asking me how, if I was absent from the events themselves that can possibly be the case. The answer is not so difficult.

I believed that the woman I loved was dead.

For two hours, when I could not reach her and no one I could reach had seen or heard from her – when her mother called me, looking for her – I feared the worst. I became lame, useless at work and inconsolable. My boss; a kind, sympathetic & intelligent man, allowed my professional delinquency. I spent hours that seemed like days making frantic phone calls, tracking down every soul in the school who might know where she, my girlfriend, really was.

I was rude & insulting to very many friends, that day, hanging up the moment I got an answer – always one that I didn't want – and barking questions at them without ever saying hello, or asking about their welfare.

I am happy to say that they have since forgiven me; I may not have been so kind. I am proud to know these people who've overcome an experience which could not have been less than an order of magnitude worse than my own, if that might illustrate how horrific a day 9/13 truly was.

I tip my hat to them. I bow my head to them. I give them my mourning & respect and humble recognition of their right to be on Campus today; it is not mine and I have no wish to claim it. The way that these people have handled themselves in the wake of this horrible tragedy is exemplary and embarrassing in contrast to my own wracking survivor's guilt.

We mustn't forget this day. We cannot forget the grace and serenity with which those who lived through the attack have overcome terrible emotional anguish to be able to function in a world that moved on before it had a right to.

Most of all, we must never forget that the man who attacked students and young adults on that day was an evil monster, that the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy falls with him and that he must never be made a victim of the same society that created the exemplary people he injured.

Take it on Faith

The argument that atheism requires as much faith as religion to espouse & accept is a worn one; it is a perversion of the logical abilities of the human mind and a statement of pure, unadulterated ignorance. The atheist position, for many (no one can suppose to speak on behalf of that many atheists, as such a presumption would require some sort of central dogma, asserting... Well... Anything) is one of skepticism, not faith.

Blame Francis Bacon.

The scientific method is not only applicable to questions of physics and chemistry and biology. Sociologists & historians have applied it to society & culture. The belief, at least in my case & that of many I've spoken to, is that it's time we applied it to philosophy, theology and, in short, to human life.

We believe in evidence, not in a blind, unquestioning way - do not misunderstand my use of the word belief - but rather with an infinity of questions; every piece of evidence must be scrutinized, it's contribution to the argument judged against the rest of the evidence and all anecdotal evidence must be dismissed as irrelevant and biased as it always is.

The scientific method, applied to the problem of theology, tells us that it is immensely unlikely that there is any deity at the controls of this universe. Do not misunderstand, by saying it is unlikely I'm not covering my ass, I'm being honest; science can never completely prove a negative statement, all it can do is state probabilities based on evidence. No one has crunched all the numbers as yet, because much of the data is either qualitative, or simply difficult to quantify, but the probabilities we're dealing with here are in the billions & trillions to one.

Essentially, the God hypothesis is impossible, not because we have faith that it is, but because we have been forced, by logic & reasoning & analysis of the available evidence to conclude that it happens to be that way.

Accommodating Accommodation

The debate is officially in full swing; ignorant bigots debating with religious fundamentalists can actually be spotted on city buses calling each other liars and making outrageous claims as to the nature of the administration of foreign countries they have either never visited or know only from the biased propaganda of their own home countries.

I know, because I had to crank the volume on my CD player (yes, I'm a dangerous anachronism) up to dangerous levels just to tune them out whilst I read a very interesting book by late history writer, poet & novellist Martin Booth. Unfortunately, concerned as I am for my own hearing, I had to tolerate some intrusion into my personal bubble and I did glean one thing from their conversation; Québecois absolutely refuse to accept that the "they'd do it to us so it's okay to do it to them" argument just doesn't hold any water.

There is an undercurrent of bigotry in this province the likes of which we haven't seen in a very long and which every one of them will deny vociferously with the tried and true claim of "I'm not a racist! Some of my best friends are muslims!" Sound familiar? People have been saying that since the civil rights movement gained enough ground to establish its own taboos & stigmas.

It's enough. We've heard enough. Culture is not static and the Québec's insistence that it must be is counter to the nature of the human being as a social animal. Protectionism must end because its continued existence is a threat to peace in our country. It's a threat to decency in our country. It's a threat to civility in our country.

So, as I've asked before, as I've pleaded with my readers & will continue to plead with all Québecois, please, for the love of Mill & Nietzsche & Stirner & Locke & all the glorious intellectuals of our great, western civilization, stop.