At least, he’s got plans for our friends in Britain.
LONDON — Social networking websites like Facebook could be forced to pass on details of users’ friends and contacts under British government proposals to fight terrorism.
Millions of Britons use sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace to chat with friends, but ministers are concerned the rapidly evolving technology could be exploited by extremists.
Critics have attacked the plans as more evidence of big government intruding into people’s lives.
When discussing politics, we – that is, society in general and the mainstream media – tend to talk in partisan terms. You’re either a Liberal or a Conservative. We root for our team, and waive our flag as we sling mud at the other team. It works the same in government – just watch question period. Instead of keeping their head in the game, politicians take part in the chanting and taunting coming from the stands. The media reports on the partisan attacks, rather than the issues that separate the parties, and public discourse follows. It’s a vicious cycle.
As politicians jockey for higher rankings in the polls, some people are left wondering “who’s standing up for the issues? who’s standing up for freedom?” Well, it’s up to us. We can continue waiving our banners in the stands, or we can get up, get engaged and behind those politicians whose priorities lie with the issues, instead of the team they play for in this game our political system has turned into. We need to get to know our candidates instead of blindly voting for the team they represent. Because the issue of freedom doesn’t fit neatly into any one party.
But, as Ron Paul has discovered, freedom has the power to unite when you put partisanship aside. In his book, The Revolution: A Manifsto, he writes:
By the end of 2007, more than twice as many Meetup groups had been formed in support of our campaign than for all the rest of the candidates in both major parties combined. I have never seen such a diverse coalition rallying to a single banner. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, constitutionalists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, antiwar activists, home-schoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers – all were not only involved, but enthusiastically so. And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.
The mainstream media had no idea what to make of it, since we were breaking all the rules and yet still attracting such a varied and passionate following. I began making this a central point of my public speeches: the reason all these different groups are rallying to the same banner, I said, is that freedom has a unique power to unite us.
In case that sounds like a cliché, it isn’t. It’s common sense. When we agree not to treat each other merely as a means to our own selfish ends, but to respect one another as individuals with rights and goals of our own, cooperation and goodwill suddenly become possible for the first time.
And that’s what needs to start happening here in Canada. There’s more to politics than partisanship.
There’s been a lot of buzz on social bookmarking sites like digg and reddit about yesterday’s announcement of a California bill that seeks to legalize marijuana. Those who introduced the bill and are defending it, as well as the hundreds (or thousands) of people who have been commenting on the story online, have listed a host of reasons the bill makes sense: it would allow the state to finally start profeiting from California’s largest cash crop and possibly fix its financial problems, it would take revenue away from criminals trafficing the plant on the black market, it would reduce crime enforcement costs, it would be great fun for pottheads…
While these are all great reasons to legalize pot, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone is talking about the most important issue: freedom.
Have we become so used to being babysat by the govenment that we don’t mind them telling us how to live our own lives? Are adults capable of weighing the risks versus the benefits of pot use on their own – or do we need the government to make that choice for us?
We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…
Update:
A Canadian Member of Parliament has also called for an end to prohibition. His reasoning: it would help to curb gang violence. Once again, no mention of freedom.
Update 2:
In light of increasing gang violence, the Conservative government in Canada is getting tougher on gang-related drug crime. Why not just legalize drugs and take the wind right out of the sails of gangs? Remember Al Capone? You don’t hear about gangsters killing people over alcohol now that it’s legal. It’s all drugs, now.
It seems it’s okay for everyone to have an advocacy group – except straight white men. At least that’s the case at Brandon University. And I’ve seen this issue come up many times (the I’m a White Minority @ Ryerson Facebook group controversy comes to mind). It seems a bit hypocritical that some of the same people who claim to be fighting for equality would rally against the right for men to have advocacy groups of their own – just like every other group has.
When Will Breen tried to form his campus group, he faced a lot of criticism:
One elected council member set the tone of debate, scoffing that Breen’s group would be nothing but a “pornography and cigar club.” As a man, he huffed, he didn’t require representation. Other speakers were miffed and simply couldn’t see the need. The motion was defeated.
At another forum, a female professor could barely tolerate hearing Breen’s reasons for starting a Men’s Collective. “She was saying that men do not have need of representation, that we have historically been the oppressors, that we have no position of disadvantage,” the fourth-year geology student recalled.
But Breen isn’t forming another group to compete for victim status. He questions why everyone thinks a group should be “disadvantaged” to have an advocacy group.
“Men have issues just like everyone else,” he maintained.
Imagine if someone called the Women’s group a “baking and knitting club.”
Breen eventually was granted the right to start his group, which will receive $400 in funding. That, compared to the $5,000 per year and $2,000 startup grant the Women’s Collective gets. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender Commission gets $2,000 per year.
Thanks to Fraser for bringing this story to my attention.
As Jimi Hendrix put it, “I’ve got my own life to live / I’m the one that’s gonna die when it’s time for me to die / So let me live my life the way I want to.” I wonder if he’d apply that same line of reasoning to death. But those in North America saying, “let me end my life the way I want to,” aren’t getting much of a response. Politicians will barely touch it. The right to die seems to be one of those issues too “icky” for some to even consider.
At least they’re talking about it in Europe.
PARIS — Right-to-die controversies are playing out in European media and parliaments in stark contrast to Canada where there is no momentum to amend Canada’s law that criminalizes assisted suicide and euthanasia, experts say.
In Italy, Eluana Englaro, left in a permanent vegetative state after a car accident 17 years ago, was allowed to die this past week amid a controversy that divided the nation.
I heard about these “dialogue facilitators” Queen’s University hired a while ago. Glad that’s over with.
Bravo to Queen’s University for abandoning the creepy “Intergroup Dialogue” program, whereby a small squadron of hired racism-sexism police was to be turned loose on student residences to survey, report on and intervene in incidents of offensive speech.