Animal Cruelty Laws: Progress at Last!

In November, I posted this entry. Now, 4 months later, an Alberta MP is vying for Ottawa's attention to Canada's animal cruelty laws. Myron Thompson tabled over 111,000 signatures from 4 different petitions in an effort to get Canada's animal cruelty laws toughened.

The ball is rolling, thanks to all of you who signed the petition. The article mentions Bills S-213 and C-373. Tamara Chaney, the woman behind the petition I asked many of you to sign, is in favour of Bill C-373, and so am I. Having read both Bills, it is clear that Bill S-213 is insufficient change to the current animal cruelty laws. It is vague, and does not adequately address the issue of "property".

I encourage all of you to write to your MPs to endorse Bill C-373. This change has been 25 years in waiting, let's make it count.

Science vs Religion

What is your opinion on the recent seizure by the BC government of three of the surviving sextuplets to give them blood transfusions? Was it justified? Does the parents' choice of religion and beliefs prevail over the possibility that some of the children might die? Is this a black and white situation, or is there room for alternatives?

A short summary is this, the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion forbids the consumption of blood products, which includes blood transfusions. The sextuplets are 15 weeks premature and weighed in around 2.2lbs. Their chances of survival were slim. Two have since died, and the remaining children are in the care of their parents. A short while ago, the BC government seized three of the children and performed blood transfusions in order to keep them alive. The parents are now waging a battle against the BC government to ensure that this does not happen again.

This case is very similar to another case that took place here in Alberta. She died in September 2002.

These situations are very troubling. Primarily because they involve the lives of children, minors, who arguably are not in a position to understand the full implications of their choices. The Alberta girl, Bethany, was 17 at the time of her death. It is possible that she understood the full consequences of her refusal to undergo blood transfusions. It is also arguable that even after forcibly receiving blood transfusions, she died, making it possible that even with such treatment, the end result is inevitable.

The sextuplets, however, are not even close to such a situation, where they have had time to make a choice on religion, and whether or not their beliefs coincide with those of their parents. What if the children decide that being a Jehovah's Witness is not for them? What if they choose to accept blood transfusions despite their parents' protestations? These are babies, infants even, who cannot currently choose for themselves what is in their best interests. It is thus up to the parents to decide what to do.

I disagree with the parents, that religion and possibly eternal damnation, are more important than survival. I cannot understand what kind of God would want children to die because modern medicine is in conflict with a set of ancient beliefs. It is therefore up to the government of British Columbia to do what is necessary to keep these children alive and well until they can decide for themselves.

What kinds of parents would risk the lives of their children because of their beliefs? What kind of parents would allow their children to die without doing anything other than praying for their souls? What kind of parents would put their own beliefs before the lives of their children? I just don't understand how this can happen. I urge the BC government to continue to fight for the lives of these children, to ensure their well-being, and to make sure that they have a fighting chance at life, without the misguided beliefs of their parents.

Tory Concern

A news post on CBC.ca has revealed that Prime Minister Harper apparently wrote a letter back in 2002, that says he called the Kyoto Accord a "socialist scheme". At the time, he was leader of the Canadian Alliance party, now no longer in existence. He intended to fight then Prime Minister Chretien on the signing of the Kyoto Accord.

Now, with Canadians voicing concern over the environment, and Canada's role in the care of it, this comes as terrible news for the Conservatives. It casts a pall over the new Tory commitment to the Clean Air Act, and may sway the public more towards the Liberals. Not only does the Clean Air Act have undeniable similarities to the Liberals' own environmental plan, but the Conservatives have also been accused of ignoring Canada's signed commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

While I don't particularly agree with the idea of the Kyoto Accord being a "social scheme", I also find it hard to hold Harper's history against him. As a former leader of the Canadian Alliance party, it's clear that there would be a stockpile of things the Liberals might use to denounce Harper's commitment to the environment. This is something that could be done against any number of former opposition leaders.

The Liberals were the ones who endorsed the Kyoto Accord, but why is it that we're not approaching our targets 5 years after the agreement was ratified? Why is it that after promising and throwing billions of dollars at environmental clean-up plans, we are up nearly 30% past our 2012 targets? I really don't think the Liberals should be the ones calling on the Conservatives to clean-up their act.

We'll see how this plays out in the media. But I am still concerned that Harper may not be as committed to the environment as he should be.

SSMU Did Right By Us For Once...

The Student Society of McGill University (SSMU) has done right by us for once. Instead of shying away from the issue, or deferring it on account of its contentiousness, they have chosen to take a stand for the rights of a minority.

Effective immediately, the Shatner Ballroom at McGill University will no longer be host to Hema-Quebec's blood drives until the policy, deemed discriminatory towards gay men, is changed. This, in turn, means that Health Canada must give Hema-Quebec permission to change its policies.

In January, Hema-Quebec shut down a blood drive because they misinterpreted a protest to mean that donors should lie about their sexual activity. The risk of infecting the blood supply meant shutting down the blood drive until such time as it could be determined that only donors with honest intentions could be accepted. That time never came, and the blood drive was cancelled altogether. The radical group which initiated the protest, calling themselves the Second Cumming, fired back that the posters were not ambiguous and that any "misrepresentation" that a protester might attempt would be so obvious that screeners would easily be able to turn them away. For example, the poster read that protesters should "act faggy, do drag...and cause a commotion."

The incident caused an uproar in the McGill community as many members of the student body give blood each time Hema-Quebec is there. Many of those same students also see donating blood as a "privilege", the same stance taken by the Hema-Quebec director, Pierre Julien. But it is also clear from the students that many do not agree with Hema-Quebec's discriminatory policy. Queer McGill sets up a table at the doors to Shatner Ballroom to ask that students not give blood in light of the policy which asks male donors, "have you had sexual contact with another man since 1977?" However, the Second Cumming's actions opened the door to a highly controversial issue which requires the attention of a major student group like the SSMU.

The SSMU council voted 20 to 6 in favour of banning Hema-Quebec from McGill until the policies change, but that vote was not easily come by. Many of the councillors felt that they had been sandbagged by the tabled motion, with no time to discuss with their respective communities. And while I don't generally agree with sandbagging committees (with the power to decide on such issues as this) because it prevents proper debate and discussion, this has been a fresh topic for nearly a year now. The SSMU has had plenty of time to debate and decide, and then to take a stance on the issue. Additionally, voting on the issue meant interpreting the constitution. According to the constitutions, endeavours undertaken by the SSMU must be done "with full respect for human dignity and without discrimination on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics." Floh Herra-Vega, the SSMU's VP Clubs and Services, who tabled the motion, noted that Hema-Quebec's policy "singles out a single group of people, not a practice. That's why this motion is constitutional." She also noted that this is not simply a medical issue. "We shouldn't think of this as a blood drive; we should think of it like we would any other thing. We can't treat this differently because it's something that is crucial to life. I don't see how we can have blood drives and still respect ourselves as councillors."

During the January incident, the SSMU condemned the shutdown as "amateurish" and a "defamation of McGill students across Canada." They stood by us then, and they are doing so now. Thank you SSMU for doing what should have been done years ago. It's about time that someone stood up and said, enough is enough.

The Stories of Daisy Duke, Midnight, and Samus

I have a story to tell you. There once was a man who owned a kitten. The kitten needed a home where he could be given all the attention he desired. So the man put the kitten up for adoption and another man came to adopt him. This second man, seemingly nice, took the kitten that very night. The little kitten was never seen or heard from ever again. It is believed the adopting man either killed, tortured, or sold the kitten to a laboratory. That kitten was named Samus Aran. I was the owner.

While we have pursued the matter further with an investigation through the SPCA, nothing has come of it. We lack sufficient evidence to prove without a doubt that the adopter is a cat killer. There is, however, circumstantial evidence that indicates he has killed, tortured, and disposed of at least one cat that he adopted in the past 2 years. Without hard evidence against him, there is little we can do.

The problem is not so much our lack of evidence, as it is the minimal punishment this man will receive should he be charged with animal cruelty. The maximum penalty in Canada for animal abuse/cruelty is 6 months in jail, a $2,000 fine, and a ban on owning pets for 2 years. That's it. And keep in mind that it is 6 months in jail, JAIL NOT PRISON. Laws in Canada for the protection of animals are severely lacking. Not only haven't they been changed since 1982, but they are slaps on the wrist at best. There is nothing to stop such a person from waiting the 2 years and then doing it again.

Recently, there was a case in Didsbury, Alberta whereby 2 boys (one 19 and the other 17) duct taped a dog's muzzle and front and back paws, attached a tow-rope to her neck and then dragger her behind their car for at least 3 blocks. The damage was so severe that she was put down. That dog was Daisy Duke, and the boys are now being charged with animal abuse (see link below to CBC.ca).

In the U.S., laws against animal cruelty have much more fitting sentences. Fines can range between $250 and $100,000 (Colorado), and imprisonment can range from a couple of months to 15 years (Delaware). Some states have penalties that include community service, while other cases are left to the discretion of the court.

I have appended a link to a petition that is being sent to the Canadian government to lobby for the support of Bill C-373 (formerly known as C-50, C-17, C-15, C-15B, C-10, C-10B, C-22). Please sign it. The Canadian government is now in a position to make things right and to get this Bill moving along. Since its initial introduction in 1999, it has been bumped due to elections, and other Parliamentary obstacles. 7 years is too long to get a Bill passed! Way too long! Consider how many Canadians are pet owners. Now consider how many of them would be upset if someone else abused, tortured, or killed their pet. How many of you would be upset if someone abused your pet?

This means something to me, and I would appreciate it if y'all would sign. Should we ever get enough evidence to bust the guy who took Samus, we need these laws in place to make him pay for what he's done. So for Samus' sake, and for the sake of all pets, domestic and stray, please spread the word, sign the petition or write to your MP for support of Bill C-373.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/11/06/dog-courtapp.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/Midnite1/petition.html
http://cfhs.ca/law/federal_legislation/
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=89449

Why I Support Stephen Harper

Here are the facts, as they pertain to this entry:

- These are my personal opinions.
- I am not a political science student, nor do I have any extended knowledge about politics.
- I accept that news broadcasts are highly biased, and thus cannot be taken completely to heart.

People always ask me, "why do you support Stephen Harper and his Conservative party?" My answer is fairly simple, or at least it's simple to me. I understand that many Canadians believe Mr Harper to be the anti-christ. They believe his views align more closely with those of President Bush than is healthy for our country. They believe the Tories seek to restrain Canada's growth by imposing conservative values on the rest of the country. And finally, that the Tories have only the Western provinces' best interests in mind.

I support Mr Harper and his Tories for these reasons:

1) He promised to lower the GST by one percent immediately and by another percent in the near future. By God, we're now at 6% instead of at 7%. For those that don't know, GST was never intended to be a permanent thing. It was only supposed to be temporary, and its reduction inevitable. That the Tories actually did something about it, is impressive. The lowering of GST benefits all Canadians right away. Additionally, as an Albertan (who doesn't need to pay PST), the drop from 7% (in total) to 6% (again, in total) is fabulous.

2) He's getting rid of the costly and ineffective gun registry. The fact that this program is costing Canadians millions of dollars every year for very little return is reason enough to shut it down. We need a government that will recognize when an initiative is failing, cut the losses, and run. "Nip it in the bud" as they say. That the gun registry was supposed to help prevent incidents like the Dawson shooting is further proof that the system does not work.

3) He's pushing the opposition to explain themselves. Why should they oppose the tougher anti-crime legislation? Why would the opposition vote in favour of allowing arsonists, thieves and muggers to serve their sentences at home (under house arrest)? These kinds of people should be behind bars, where they belong.

4) The Conservatives have introduced the Clean Air Act. This piece of legislation has reasonable goals and objectives in mind. There will be consultations with the major players in the various industries which contribute most heavily to the green house gas emissions, and then goals will be set. The Clean Air Act has been coupled with the Energy Efficiency Act which will strive towards reducing wasted energy (in the form of heat).

5) Harper is pushing to put more police officers on the streets of Canada. I don't know about you, but I feel much safer knowing there are cops out on the streets watching us. They are there to serve and to protect. How can they protect the public if they're all sitting around in police stations doing paperwork? This is pursuant to the fact that street racing has become an even larger problem in recent years. Many deaths have resulted from street racing in Canada's major metropolitan cities, like Vancouver and Toronto. This rampant style of crime has to stop. We are all in danger if such things do not cease immediately.

6) Mr Harper has put Canada on the international stage with a more proactive role in peacekeeping missions and anti-terrorist activities. The Prime Minister has done nothing but support our troops in our military missions since he came into power. We have been embarrassed one too many times by failing Sea King helicopters that kill our own troops before even reaching the war zones. Investment in our military is important if we are to become less dependent on the United States for protection. Harper has also disallowed the press from creating media circuses out of the military funerals. By preventing them from using the footage to argue against the war, he has done our soldiers a great service. They voluntarily offer their lives to serve and protect us; all Canadians should be mindful of that. Yes, there will be casualties, that is the price of war. But we have been slow to realize this fact, that soldiers have in no way been coerced into doing things they shouldn't be doing. We don't employ conscription in Canada, and thus there is no argument in saying that soldiers are dying for a war they didn't want. They volunteered for Christ's sake! If they didn't want to go overseas to defend our country and the safety of our citizens, then they simply wouldn't go. Or better yet, they wouldn't sign up for service. The media has shamelessly used the deaths of our soldiers to wage a more subtle war against Mr Harper and his Conservative party. To turn the valiant sacrifices of our men and women fighting overseas into fodder for use against the Tories makes me sick. It really makes me sick.

7) Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. It is his job to represent all Canadians and to do what is in their best interests. He cannot govern this country with the support of only the Western provinces. He simply cannot. It is not possible, when the largest concentration of Canadians lies in Ontario around the Greater Toronto Area. And therefore, it is illogical to think that he would do things which only increase his popularity in the West. If anything, he's done everything he could to improve things equally for all Canadians. He wants what's best for us, all of us.

And that is why I support Stephen Harper. I invite you to criticize and comment on these seven points. Bring it on.