Just recently the US Pentagon (headquarters of the US Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia) released a report claiming that Climate Change multiplies existing threat factors such as flooding or drought probability or the incidence of terrorist activity. Internal blog link:
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/10/pentagon-preprares-for-climate-change.html?spref=fb
This week Canada has experienced the type of thing they were talking about: terrorism, the real thing (that is, here, in N. America affecting innocent Canadian citizens and their families).
Background: Canada has recently joined a coalition fighting the jihadist group Islamic State (IS). Canada has committed by sending a team of 600 and aircraft.
http://news.ubc.ca/2014/10/21/canada-joins-the-fight-against-isis/
IS responded to coalition air strikes by inciting sympathizers in coalition countries to attack members of their own national military forces on home ground. One message suggested using automobiles to run people down. The result?
October 20, 2014; St Jean sur Richelieu, Québec: Martin Rouleau, a 25 year old failed businessman and father of one, deliberately ran down two soldiers in a parking lot, killing one. Rouleau, once described as a party-boy, took a recent failed business venture very badly. Apparently lacking inner resilience, he turned to religion for solace and converted to Islam. Recently, he became radicalized and praised jihadists in conversations and on social media. How or by whom he was radicalized is not yet known. However, his family, disturbed by his behavior and attitudes, ratted him out to the RCMP (federal police). The RCMP investigated Rouleau and met with him on "many" occasions. Although no indictable activities were uncovered, Rouleau was assigned an elevated risk to join jihadist fighters overseas and his passport was confiscated. In his last meeting with the RCMP only weeks before the attack, Rouleau assured the cops and his family that he was reforming his ways.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/martin-couture-rouleau-hit-and-run-driver-arrested-by-rcmp-in-july-1.2807078
After running down the two soldiers, Rouleau led the police on a high speed car chase which terminated in armed confrontation. Police claim Rouleau attacked them with a "huge knife" and was shot dead.
October 22, 2014; Ottawa, Ontario: Breaking news. As I understand things, this morning, an armed man killed a soldier guarding the War Memorial. Action then moved up to the Parliament as the shooter somehow managed to enter the Parliament block (!!) Inside, he began shooting before being killed himself: another suicide mission. But do we bother asking why young men "with their lives ahead of them" do things like this..
As far as I can establish at the time of writing, two people have been killed: the shooter - a "man of interest" to the police for jihadist leanings and the soldier shot in the chest at the War Memorial. (Other news sources claim the dead shooter has not been identified - the situation, as the police say, is still "fluid".) A third person was injured. The police, this morning at least, seem to believe several shooters might be involved (and they are apparently still not certain if one or several shooters were involved - 10 hours later). The least once say: such situations generate confusion, chaos and fear (which, of course, is the intention of the terrorists).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/
what people made jittery by terrorism sound like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A52396964-0-2299-8b0d-1a11c21216&feature=iv&src_vid=XrGqoISd-do&v=aPmYlfq2qAI
what made this young man join the jihad:
http://news.yahoo.com/western-jihadist-syria-video-133603550.html
In general, our society has been described as anxiety generating (existentialism), disempowering (political Left and Right) or lacking in positive human values such as empathy, authenticity, etc. A good summary of these positions was recently posted by an "ecotherapist" on the site Climate Change: It's Personal:
"coming
from a counselling / ecopsychology perspective, i would say that we
have been collectively, intergenerationally traumatized by our removal
from our land. our civilization represents a disconnection from the
earth/nature - a broken relationship with
the Earth as a living other, which our psyches are unable to cope with -
it is not what we evolved to cope with. we respond with avoidance
behaviours such as addictive consumption, attempts at controlling others
and nature, childish behaviours like magical thinking (god will save
us, technology will save us ... ), blaming others, anger, depression,
denial, dissociation ... not to mention confusion and/or ignorance due
to having been manipulated. the same dysfunctional behaviours you see in
people with mental health problems in any other context, just operating
collectively in a society-earth context ... the answer at mind/soul
level lies in healing our relationship with the earth through
reconnection, which of course comes back to all the practical things
like restoring local community, conservation work, growing food,
experiencing the restorative beauty of the outdoors/nature ...
.. if
you view it as an addiction to consumption/technology, then i guess
people have been born addicted - analogous to babies born to
heroin-addicted mothers. or you can see it as the cycle of abuse - our
technological society abuses its citizens and we pass on the abuse to
the planet - just as children growing up in abusive families think the
abusive behaviour is normal"
This, of course, reflects a psychological truism: we repeat what we have been taught. If, however, it is our civilization itself that is "pathogenic", then we - somehow! - have to find a new perspective from which we can observe our self-destructive behaviors. Only then we will possess the wisdom and motivation to break the self-replicating cycle of "intergenerational violence to the earth" (and to ourselves, since we are Gaia's children..)
But how do we "rise to a higher perspective", obtain a bird's eye view of ourselves and our behaviors on the earth? Or, at least, how will a significant percentage of us rise to a higher perspective, where we finally grasp the damage we are doing to our planet, where we can realistically assess potential long term consequences? Will it take massive destruction of the planet's vital ecosystems with subsequent human die off? Is that what it will take? "Learning through pain" - have we not evolved beyond that? Probably not..
In the perspective of the drama unfolding in the nation's capitol today, the words of the Pentagon report, cited earlier, ring like a fire alarm in the night: climate change will be - already is - a "threat multiplier". And this includes the threat of terrorism, both foreign and "home grown" varieties..
conclusion of previous article: Left wing populism in Québec?
Straw polls in the Province suggest strongly that the population at large supports the PQ charter of values. In playing the populist card the PQ may have played cleverly - but did it play wisely? Qui vivra verra - time will tell..
Even though the charter is only a "proposed" piece of legislation, many voices are rising to claim that the cure is worse than the illness (and what, exactly, was the illness that needed treating anyway?)
PQ Minister for Democratic Institutions, Bernard Drainville, claims that a priority is to affirm the equality of men and women in Québécois society. Fine! but if the religious headgear is banned then many Muslim women working in day care centers will either lose their jobs or be forced to conform to a law which insults thir religion. How is equality of sexes being promoted when women will, most likely, be affected more than men?
The PQ like wisely claims to favor integration of the immigrant into the host society and its values. Fine! but the Muslim women - and there are not a few - who work in day cares and risk losing their jobs are, at least partly, integrated already. How will firing them, forcing them into social isolation (and perhaps welfare) improve their degree of integration?
The more one looks at the charter proposals, the flakier they seem - strengthening the hypothesis that this is an electoral ploy on the part of the PQ.
Case in point. Jewish professionals in universities and hospitals are used to wearing the kippah. These upper middle class professionals aren't going take the headgear ban lightly. En passant, middle class professionals are one of the traditional target groups the PQ tries to appeal to and recruit from. What was Madame Marois and her team thinking? Did they think - before shooting themselves in the foot?
Thus hijab wearing Muslim women, kippah wearing Jewish men and turban / kirpan wearing Sikhs are all antagonized by the proposed legislation. Cross bearing christians could be too - if the law were to be equitably applied. A ban on "ostentatious religious signs" in public institutions seems a simple enough proposition but the devil is always in the details. And there are lots of devils and details in this one to go around liberally..
Case in point. Headgear is out but what about beards worn as a religious sign? How, exactly, do you tell if a guy wears a beard out of religious conviction? Do we start measuring beard lengths as well as crucifix width to determine if they are ostentatious or not? The link below examines some of the confusing potential ramifications of the proposed charter.
religious symbol police?
There is also a seeming hypocrisy in the ban: religious signs in public spaces are out but not the crucifix in the Assemblée Nationale itself -!sic! - because of its "historical" value. Stooping to splitting hairs like this is not a good sign, definitely not good for social harmony. Sophistry is often a sign of intellectual or moral decadance.
And it gets weirder: representatives in the Assemblée may end up being exempt from charter provisions and free to wear religious signs at work, yesss..
In short, the charter promises to generate more problems than it solves (this is my personal issue with the legislation). It muddies the waters of social interaction and pits one social group against another.
Case in point. Some institutions are allowed to opt out of charter provisions - why? Such arbitrariness is a sure path to social strife and corruption. It is a generator of bureaucratic Red Tape, the same Red Tape our neo-con inspired leaders are so keen on cutting (when it comes to safety regulations or programs to assure social equity for the disadvantaged..) The proposed law says that wo/men are not all equal before it. This is in violation of our sacrosanct principle of Universal Justice. In the long run, stupid or arbitrary laws are unenforcable and breed contempt for the law: the best law is the simplest!
In defense of the PQ. Their actions are understandable if one considers the situation of Québec in North America: a francophone island in an English speaking sea: no better way to cultivate a streak of latent pranoia in the collective psyche. Québec is by nature a defensive or guarded - some say inward looking - society. In practice, such traits do not make for a closed or hostile society; they merely favor closure and hostility but do not assure them. Coming to Québec from outside, I have found Québécois society (generally) a bit less xenophobe than the anglophone surround, more open on gay and gender issues. Being demographically challenged, though, does establish an increased need to defend boundaries, physical, linguistic, cultural. These "personality" traits will remain as long as Québec continues to exist.
In addition, some "reasonable accomodations" have been abusive and require remediation: Sikhs refusing to wear a hard hat on construction sites (because of the turban). I contend that such an accomodation is not reasonable because of the (foreseeable) consequences: society will end up paying for the keep of brain damaged vegetables injured by refusal to wear legally required safety gear. Friction and conflict between groups is inevitable but is the charter of values a sensible way of addressing it? Is the cure worse than the illness it purportedly treats..
As a sociological experiment, the PQ charter of values project is fascinating (if disquieting). It is turning out to be a stunningly divisive issue. One could not have predicted the variety or the intensity of divisiveness.
1- Everybody has a fairly elaborated opinion, rare enough in these politcally apathetic (or cynical) times
2- Opinions are passionate and, interestingly, highly polarized. Nuancers exist: those who want stronger, more universal restrictions on those who are different or moderates who want weaker, more circumscribed restrictions. But even the nuancers are relatively passionate..
3- Most fascinating: one can be either for or against the charter, no matter where one stand on the politcal spectrum! This is quite an accomplishment - a sort of "uniting Left and Right in their disunity".. :-0
I fear, not so much the charter itself, as what it may be saying about our society. Have we engaged ourselves on a slippery slope to a very bad place?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bloc-kicks-out-mp-who-spoke-against-quebec-religious-symbols-ban/article14273942/
internal blog link:
left-wing-populism-in-quebec?
The Harper government promised us transparent government. At first, they actually seemed honest in their commitment. Alas! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..
The Harperites, keeping to their promise, appointed Kevin Page as the first parliamentary budget officer, a sort of watchdog who would ensure that the government was not wasting money (or doing worse things). But Page has recently stepped down in controversy. He has not pleased his masters and he wants to ensure "arms length" status of his office from the government and the cabinet. The following article suggests the feds are not in much of a hurry to replace him either. Power may corrupt - as a Law of Nature - but the rot seems to have set in quickly with this gang.. From transparency to opacity in such a short time. Gives pause for wonder..
Ottawa drags feet on Page replacement
