Idiots! Idiots!
Canadian "Renewable Fuels" Association
Ethos [sic] Water

I don't know what to be more worried about...that people can be so money-grubbingly self-serving as to mislead people on such a scale...or that people are likely to be so misled.

You may have noticed that the brand of water (imagine: a brand of water!) that Starbucks is carrying lately is Ethos [ha!] Water. You may also have noticed obnoxious television ads talking about "Stephen Harper's promise", which apparently has something to do with ethanol. How are these related to each other? Let me tell you....

Both of these endeavours, these businesses, are doing things that on the surface are actually good. The one is using profits to work on clean-water projects in the Third World. The other is replacing a more noxious polluter with a less noxious one. Who wouldn't support these things?

The answer: anyone who gives the matter any thought at all.

Let's look at an analogous situation. My friend Tom has several times told me about Richard Dawkins's opinion of religious moderates. I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins, but his point on this matter is not useless. He argues (so I've been told) that religious moderates create and reënforce the situation that allows religious extremists to flourish. How? Because they are unwilling to say that religion can be dangerous. Religion is something they have a stake in - however half-heartedly - and so the occasional churchgoer, the person who's only in it for the high holidays, or the weddings, or the sunday babysitting, speaks up on behalf of the religious rights of the person who wants creationism taught in public schools.

Now back to the water and the fuel.

Commodification of nature (calling parts of systems "resources" and then selling those parts) is the prelude to destroying nature. Using petroleum to make plastic bottles to contain water, and using more petroleum to transport that bottle of water to me, does not help the situation of water pollution. If we would simply leave our water systems alone, they'd be drinkable and happy. More industrialization and capitalization can't help the water. Ethos Water might be sending 10 cents per bottle sold to clean-water projects. But my used bottle is going to go to a landfill, where it will turn into sketchy chemicals for someone else to drink....

Likewise, growing fuel for cars is a bad plan. Cars are made out of plastic and steel, in huge polluting factories. Ethanol is made out of industrial farming, which relies on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and diversion of water for irrigation. Sure, exhaust from ethanol-fueled cars might be 10% less climate-altering than other fuel, or whatever, but the idea that cars will ever be really environmentally friendly is absurd. Communities that rely on cars can't be environmentally friendly.

The ideas of car-lite and "friendly" bottled water prey upon both our First-World bleeding hearts and our laziness of thought and action. We get to feel good about driving our SUVs around because they aren't as bad as they were a decade ago. We get to feel good about commodifying water and enclosing it in chemical containers because it's for a good cause. We get to feel like ecological Anglicans, all condoms and the-bible-as-metaphor and gay, while our actions support the environmental equivalents of Evangelical crazies who think that the Rapture will happen sometime next week.

Idiots! Idiots!

the Night Has a Thousand Eyes
...and a thousand eyes can't help but see...
Toronto Police Services Board

So, I finally read the Toronto Public Space Committee's February newsletter, and I'm glad I did. It told me a bit about the already-decided-upon plan to introduce closed-curcuit television cameras onto Toronto's streets.

There are public consultations on this topic being held this week and next, but I'm busy during them, so to voice my opposition to this programme, I wrote to the Mayor and my City Councillor.

If you want to know what's going on, please follow the police link above and read about the CCTV programme. Proponents of this surveillance will tell you that it shouldn't matter to those not doing anything wrong. Opponents, like me, will tell you that it's another step towards living in a panopticon.

Here's the letter I'm sending out to the Mayor:

Dear Mayor Miller,

I am writing to you to express my opposition to the introduction of closed-curcuit television cameras onto our City's streets.

I understand that the intention of this programme is to increase the safety of the public in the affected areas. I understand that the areas chosen to be monitored will be areas that are unresponsive to traditional policing. I understand that the cameras will be clearly marked and will only survey open, public spaces. And I don't care.

It is my opinion that the introduction of CCTV cameras onto city streets oversteps the legitimate scope of the government.

It is my opinion that the introduction of CCTV cameras onto the streets tramples upon my rights.

I would rather have a corrupt city council and a useless, expensive and destructive fixed link to an ill-placed airport, than live in a police state.

It is my opinion that politicians who do not oppose CCTV cameras necessarily oppose freedom.

I would welcome any information you could send me about your views on this matter.

With thanks for your time,

Andrew

Laws upon Laws
...upon Laws upon Laws...
Opposition MPs Pass Kyoto Bill...

A strange, wacky, and perhaps amazing thing happened in Parliament today. The opposition parties got together and passed a bill that says that it's illegal for the Government to not have a plan for meeting Kyoto-Accord commitments.

The bill is expected to breeze through the Upper House, and we expect that Her Excellency Madame Jean will be so gracious as to sign it into Law soon.

The big question is: what then? Mr Harper's government has made it pretty clear that it won't take steps to meet its Kyoto targets.

Whatever happens, I don't see any easy way out of this for the Conservatives. Which means it's a good thing. Either they do come up with a plan, in which case they will have a) backed down from their position, and b) done something good for the planet (everyone wins!), or they don't come up with a plan, in which case they will a) look like the bad guys (legislators who ignore legislation!?!), and b) set the stage for an election.

Liquor License Issues

The other day, my city councillor, Joe Pantalone, emailed me (and a bunch of other people) out of the blue.

He emailed me to let me know that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had pushed back a public hearing from February to April. The hearing was to be about a bar called West Side BBQ, and whether it should keep its liquor license.

Why did my councillor email me about this? What's up with West Side BBQ, a bar that - apparently - is not too far from my house? Why was the hearing being pushed back? Why does my city councillor - who is very possibly the city councillor for the patrons and owners of West Side BBQ too - want to ruin their business? These were the questions I had. So I emailed back:

Dear Councillor Pantalone,

Thank you for keeping me up-to-date with this. I very much appreciate that you want to keep your constituents in the loop.

I would welcome any emails on any other initiatives you are taking part in or leading.

Nevertheless, I do not in principle support the regulation of alcohol sales, thus would like to speak against the revocation of any liquor license at any time.

I am not sure what the background issues are in this particular case, and would be happy to better inform myself if you would be so kind as to forward me more information.

With thanks,

-Andrew

His assistant wrote back promptly. He said that West Side BBQ was "a hotspot for criminal activity". He noted that this activity has included "violence, prostitution, [and] drug dealing". He then mentioned that "Over the years the bar has also violated the terms of its liquor license many times".

He wrote that "the situation at West Side BBQ is out of control".

This was how I responded:

Dear [assistant] and Councillor Pantalone,

Thank you for this response; I was so glad that you got back to me with useful and pertinent information (as an aside - I write to politicians often, and I find that you and your fellow Toronto city councillors are always the most prompt and helpful - the Prime Minister's Office could learn from you!).

I suspected that there were other issues at play aside from liquor license violations.

I would still argue that using liquor license violations as a means to shut down a bar that is problematic for other reasons is not ok. That is how police have historically harrassed the queer community in this city: shut down "undesirable" businesses by over-enforcing Ontario's (rather puritan) liquor laws. Definitely not ok.

I don't know what kind of drug dealing and prostitution are going on there, but many of Canada's drug prohibitions are unnecessary and counterproductive. Likewise, prostitution itself is not inherently problematic. By criminalizing prosititutes and recreational drug users, we create a socio-economic situation that breeds violence and "undesirable" businesses. These are the problems, and attacking these problems by harping on liquor license violations is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion: you just redistribute the problem to the next bar, the next "criminal", or the next neighbourhood. And that isn't very neighbourly.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my views; I hope that you will take them into account in the way you pursue this matter.

Yours,

-Andrew

I'll let you know when I get a response.

Hooray for the Family!
in case you haven't heard...

This week an Ontario court ruled that a child had three parents: his two moms and his biological dad. Of course, the "family" values crowd are rather upset by this because they only value one kind of family.

There are calls for an appeal. Of course, just as with equal marriage, there are those who feel that this is the end of Society As We Know It. Alarmists are doing their best to convince the public that the courts will be assigning every child dozens of parents starting next week. Some are pointing out that this could make custody battles very complicated (up until now, apparently, custody battles have all been very straightforward...). Different kinds of families are the handbasket that'll carry us to Hell.

As you might have guessed, I welcome any changes to family law that help strengthen the loving relationships Ontarians have with one another. So, I wrote to my MPP:

Dear Rosario Marchese,

I am writing to you in response to an Ontario Court's recognition this week of the fact that children can have more than two parents. I am delighted and encouraged to hear that Ontario is recognizing that families come in different shapes and sizes.

I am also writing to express to you the importance I place on this, as your constituent. There is talk that the ruling may be appealed. I believe that, on the contrary, the ruling should be celebrated.

I am interested to know what work you and your party are doing to ensure that no "definition" of family impedes the happiness and love shared by any set of Ontarians. If you could send me information about your stand on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.

With thanks for your work and attention,

-Andrew

Canada Still in the Club

Let's Review what just went on:

1. Equal marriage has always been a right. It was a right that was suppressed by our governments for a long time.

2. In 2003, Ontarian courts realized that we all had the right to get married.

3. 2005, and the issue has hit Parliament. Although then-Prime-Minister Paul Martin spoke in favour of upholding Charter rights, he was callous enough to allow his party (save Cabinet) to vote freely on the issue (the Conservative party had a likewise free vote). Thanks, Paul, for leaving my rights to be decided at the whims of your backbenchers. Taking a stand isn't taking a stand unless you take a stand.

By 2005, 28 million Canadians already lived in jurisdictions where their rights to equal marriage were acknowledged legally. In the Summer of that year, Parliament acknowledged that all 31 million of us had the same marital rights, and the Queen, through her Governor General, was gracious enough to agree.

4. In 2006, now-Prime-Minister Stephen Harper's party introduces a wishy-washy motion to revisit the issue. It is widely acknowledged that the motion won't carry. It is also widely acknowledged that Mr Harper isn't interested in the motion; it's merely a nod to the frightening bigots who elected him. The last thing the Conservatives want in their imminent campaigning is talk of the Gays.

So, if he introduces the motion, it looks like he cares about the bigoted craziness his supporters care about. And if he loses the motion, he gets to wash his hands of the whole thing.

5. Stéphane Dion, new leader of the Liberals, follows in Mr Martin's footsteps and allows his MPs to vote freely. He says that the Conservatives are "attacking" the Charter, but he doesn't seem to interested in rising to its defence. See above re.: stand-taking. He says that it's clear the motion won't carry, so he might as well let the backbenchers try to trample on rights if they feel like it.

6. The motion doesn't carry. Was this a waste of time? Not looked at like this: it's more and more clear to all of us now, how disingenuous and uncaring Canada's two major right-wing parties (i.e.: the Liberals and the Conservatives) are.

South Africa Joins the Club

South Africa became the fifth nation in the world to legislate marriage equality today! I was going to post up the still-new-ish South African flag to dress up this brief post, but Blogger's giving me grief.

Instead, this link is as fancy as this post is going to get.

PS a couple of days later, and Blogger's stopped giving me grief.