Canadian Iconoclast

New website

2008-03-05T08:19:00.005-05:00

I've moved by blog in order to take advantage of more controls and a better layout. I imported all my posts into the new site so there is no reason to use this site anymore.

However, the comments didn't import and I couldn't find a way to copy and paste them so they will remain on this site.

New Site

Free Speech vs. Fascism at Wilfrid Laurier University

2008-02-04T17:47:00.001-05:00

I don't normally confirm Godwin's Law this early in a post, but I couldn't help it this time.

As many of you are aware, the Wilfrid Laurier University Student's Union has rejected the application by the Laurier Freethought Alliance (LFA) to affiliate as a campus club.

The reasons? Apparently, the union decided that a group dedicated to promoting "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" is offensive. Never mind that they already have quite a few religious and racist organizations that are offensive to intelligent people.

The real question is why does a union (that all students are forced to be a member of and support through tuition fees) have this much power? The presence of overzealous school unions that flaunt their left-wing politically correct bullshit isn't anything new (every university seems to have them) but it is interesting how much power this one has wrestled from the students and the administration. They have even managed to obtain financial control over the individual campus clubs. This is obviously a case of a new group not fitting into the socialist utopia that the union has created for itself and should thus be prevented from freely expressing itself.

Although I am sure the organizers of the still-unofficial LFA will continue to fight to get official status (and the funding that comes with them, courtesy, of course, of the tuition-paying students and taxpayers who have no control over how the money is being spent), I wonder if we should be looking at the bigger picture and attack the unions themselves.

What is the purpose of campus unions? Throughout my university years at Ryerson, $300 a year of my tuition fees went to my union. When I asked to opt out because it violated my freedom of association clause set out in the Charter (contrary to popular belief, the Charter can sometimes be used to fight liberal ideology, although I don’t know of any successful cases), I was told that I couldn't be a student unless I was part of the union. The union then went on to fund protests of the Iraq war, gay marriage, NDP candidates who supported lowering tuition fees, and other ridiculous non-academic ventures (like prayer space for Muslims, even though there is a Mosque across the street).

I encourage all university students to look up how much money they contribute to their unions and to compare that to what the union actually accomplishes. Remember that the Canadian Federation of Students is rolling in the cash they have stolen from hard working students who are trying to learn the skills required so that they never have to be part of a union.

For more information check out The Frame Problem for a list of other blogs supporting this cause.

The TDSB to Give Racists Their Own School

2008-02-02T08:05:00.001-05:00

As Black History month kicks off, the Toronto District School Board has caved to the racist minority lobby and approved afrocentric schools.

The term 'afrocentric' is confusing since most black people in Toronto are Canadian with roots that go back to the Caribbean. I don't understand why black Canadians seem to think they have the monopoly on what is 'African' since there are many white people with roots from South Africa and Arabs from the Mediterranean nations who are just as ‘African’. For example, a white woman born and raised in South Africa is technically more ‘African’ than a black man born and raised in Toronto, but that’s not what the racists want you to think. Using the same reasoning, I could classify myself as an African-Canadian, since my ancestors came from Africa (albeit about 60 000 years ago).

This is a clear case of how a small percentage of a small minority has managed to twist the facts to serve their agenda. Proponents of segregated schools argue that it would curb the dropout rate for black youths in the city (that hovers around an astounding 40%) because they claim the kids will feel more comfortable learning with people of the same cultural background, thus preventing them from leaving and joining organized crime. This is like saying that 40% of black youths are racist and we should support their racist views because it’s better that they are in a school and not outside stealing our cars. Of course, I reject this notion and believe that most black people, like everyone else in the city, want to live a peaceful and happy life getting along with their neighbours.

It's too bad the racist bigots who can't get along with people of other races (and their sympathizers at the TDSB) weren't seen for what they really were. The majority of the vocal opponents of race-based schools were black people (because no one else was allowed an opinion for fear of being labelled a racist) who couldn't understand why anyone would want to decend back to the 1950's. I admire all the decent people who put up a good fight but I noticed that the opponents of segregated schools didn't label their opponents as racist, which is unfortunate since I would have enjoyed the reaction (i.e. "In not a racist, many of my friends are white" etc.)

I wonder how an afrocentric school will work. Proponents argue that a focus on afrocentric history will keep the students engaged, since they will find learning about their history more interesting. Yet, which ‘afrocentric’ history are they going to choose? There are 53 countries in Africa. Most of them were colonized by European countries before they became independent so in order to present an African history, you also have to teach European history, which, of course, is in the same context in how Canadian history is taught. I wonder what will happen if the program works and less black students dropout. Wouldn't it prove that those black people are racists?

Being that this is a libertarian blog, I’ll have to somehow blame socialists and the government for the problem. Why is it that schools have to teach people’s individual culture? Public schools should teach math, science, Canadian history, English, and French (if you choose), since these form the basis for success in Canada. It’s up to parents to teach their children about their culture and religion using their own history and experiences, since no one else can really understand the issues. The real problem is that parents are too busy, lazy, or stupid to take responsibility for their children and so they expect the government to raise them instead. We can’t stop parents from indoctrinating children but we can say that the government has no business getting involved in people’s personal lives.

People face discrimination in life. Some people face more than others and that sucks. However, people can’t segregate themselves and hope the problem will go away. If I apply for a job with the government (ha!) but am denied because they have already surpassed their white male quota, I wouldn’t shrug it off and look elsewhere. I would file a human rights complaint and sue the government for discrimination (It would be thrown out because Trudeau’s bullshit Charter of Rights doesn’t treat all Canadians equally, but that’s a topic for another post). I just think the world would be a better place if people learned to live together with their differences. The conversations that arise from intelligent people with different opinions are what I think makes life worth living.

David Colquhoun at U of T

2008-01-28T20:20:00.001-05:00

Last Friday, January 25 2008, UK science professor David Colquhoun presented a talk at the University of Toronto, hosted by CFI:Ontario and the UofT Secular Alliance, entitled "Science in an Age of Endarkenment". While the silly title with a made-up word was alone enough to make me skip the talk, I attended the bi-weekly series with an open mind (as always) .

CFI exec Justin Trottier’s introduction was much quicker than usual, which was surprising and welcomed, and I sensed that he is getting a lot better at what must be a boring and repetitive task for him. The UTSA rep that followed was hesitant and awkward but you have to start somewhere and no one was listening anyways.

Colquhoun started his talk with a shriek of the microphone and continued with a gargling sound coughing every two seconds until one of the hosts stood up and adjusted the system. His inability to use his own powerpoint slides was distracting and I chuckled as I kept comparing him to a mumbling, bumbling grandpa who enjoyed ranting against everything he hates.

Although, to be fair, the topic was interesting (although CFI hosted a similar talk two weeks ago). Even though the speaker couldn’t articulate his position I felt he did a good job describing the homeopathic industry and how they scam some of the most vulnerable of today’s society. He continued by rallying against the university system for allowing these quacks to promote their trade (although he said he wouldn’t have a problem with them if they had the same rigorous scientific protocols that real science classes had to follow). He lost me when he started blaming the state of universities on corporations, which I found ironic since he is a pharmacologist whose career hinges on the drug industry.

He concluded by mentioning the power of the internet to affect change, with a special emphasis on bloggers, to which I almost felt bad comparing him to a mumbling, bumbling grandpa, especially since he joined us afterwards at a local pub.

Overall, the event was successful, filling three hundred seats, and, I hope, picking up a few more supporters for CFI. When I asked, most people found the topic interesting but didn’t think the speaker was very good. I’d like to see if CFI can find a speaker who hasn’t been brainwashed by socialism but I guess even a lonely young libertarian, stuck in a cesspool of economic ignorance, should be allowed his own utopian fantasies.

For some more positive reviews, see The Frame Problem, and Liberal Debutante.

Also check out the National Post article that appeared the day after the talk.

Institute for Liberal Studies seminar in Toronto

2008-01-21T20:52:00.001-05:00

On Saturday, January 19, 2008, I attended a seminar presented by the Institute for Liberal Studies (ILS). I had never heard of the organization and only discovered it a few weeks ago when I searched "libertarian" in facebook and came across the group. Since they were hosting an event, I thought it would be nice to check them out to see if ,indeed, it were possible for libertarians to organize themselves. The theme of the day-long seminar was environmental issues and featured three speakers: Jim Harris (former Green Party leader), Dr. Pierre Desrochers of UofT, and Dr. Glenn Fox from the University of Guelph. The topic was appealing, since I am frustrated at the lack of debate in our society surrounding environmental issues, and I thought it would be nice to finally find some people who can cut through the socialist bullshit that has infected the environmental movement to present realistic and effective solutions to some of the problems we are facing.

Jim Harris spoke first and his presentation was almost exactly as I had predicted. As a motivational speaker by trade, he tried to tailor his talk to how we can use market forces to better the environment. While I agreed with his points about why industry can become more efficient when faced with increasing resource costs, he still seemed to think that more government legislation is the solution. His analysis of the peak oil phenomena (and how he thinks we are there now) was unconvincing but I applaud the effort since I'm sure he knew he was speaking to a skeptical audience. I liked how he demonstrated how some corporations have increased profits by reducing waste. I always thought environmental groups should focus their efforts on promoting innovation and efficiencies in industry rather than resorting to bullying corporations and whining to governments and Harris seemed to want to almost echo this idea.

The next presentation by Dr Desrochers (entitled "The Environmental Responsibility of Firms to Increase Profit") was entertaining and informative (especially for someone like me who has never taken economics classes). He began his talk by saying that there was no market failure (in direct opposition to the previous speaker), and quickly criticizes those who think that capitalism revolves around profits at the expense of the environment. This is obviously wrong since by destroying the environment, capitalists would destroy their market (thus eliminating profit, the sole objective of any capitalist). If you want to lose weight, you don't cut off your leg, he says in as an analogy. With this in mind, in an homage to Adam Smith, Dr. Desrochers presents the 'invisible green thumb', basically a symbol of how free market forces will protect the environment better than anything else. Again, efficiency is the key to improving the environment and he outlines examples of how a centrally planned system (and it's inherent inefficiencies) produces more waste and environmental degradation that a free market system. He criticized politicians and environmentalists for supporting inefficiencies and he offered the 100 mile diet as an example of how you could be producing more waste by trying to be environmentally conscious. He wonderfully concludes his presentation by saying that if we let people be creative and reward them for innovation and effort, we can rely on a decentralized system to protect the environment.

The third presentation by Dr. Glenn Fox was similar to the previous in that it was primarily presented as a basic economics lecture. He focused on how property rights is the key to a cleaner environment. By letting people own sections of our environment, we can trust them to not destroy it. He points to the privatization of the fishing industry in Iceland as an example. When the Icelandic government assigned shares to every fishing company (that can be bought and sold), and let them set their own quotas, the result was a decrease in fish catches, since the industry knew that they would profit more in the future if they let the fish stocks grow (hey Newfoundland, look this up!). He concludes by saying that the free market is often misunderstood and that it has an ethical component that its opponents neglect.

Overall, I enjoyed the three presentations and I gathered that they were also well received by the audience. My only advice, from an activist's point of view, is that we can't focus solely on economics to prove our point. If we are to convince people to take more responsibility for their lives and reduce government, we can't throw a bunch of fancy terminology in their faces because people are far too busy with their own lives to teach themselves basic economic theory. The introductions were short and to the point, which is normally appreciated. However, I would have liked more details about the hosting organization (who they are, what they represent, what they plan on doing, etc.) for newbies like me, and the absence of these details led me to believe that most people in the room knew each other already, thus giving the place an eerie cult-like feeling but the discussion groups that followed each presentation helped liven things up (and were as interesting as the presentations themselves). I wish the ILS luck and hope to see many similar seminars in the future.

James Alcock speaks at CFI:Ontario

2008-01-12T10:05:00.001-05:00

Last night, January 11, 2008, psychology professor James Alcock presented a talk entitled "The Appeal of Alternative Medicine at CFI:Ontario.

I don’t see much threat in alternative medicine since, to me; the believers are the only ones who are getting hurt. People should be free to waste their lives and money on whatever they want and I have enough things happening in my life to care about yours. Since I’ve also taken more than my fair share of science lectures in university, I assumed this would be another boring talk about a boring subject.

For the most part, my predictions were accurate, although the talk was still entertaining and I sensed that the almost full house found the subject interesting.

Throughout the longer-than-necessary introductions about upcoming events at CFI (anyone can look them up on the website), James Alcock’s numerous credentials and experiences were laid out ad nauseum to a point where I sometimes think these talks are more about promoting the speakers than promoting the subject.

Alcock introduced his talk with a movie he took in China about a Qi Gong master who looks more like the guy at the night club on Special K than an ancient healer. The powerpoint slides that contained the bulk of the lecture were a little lame (Don’t ever attach sound to your presentation!) although he routinely included applicable cartoons that lightened an otherwise dull performance.

Alcock presented a good history of the medical profession, noting that we really haven’t changed much over the last thousand years. He noted how magic developed in ancient times to fill the gaps of our knowledge and how these eventually evolved into religion.

I dozed off a little throughout the history bits but from what I understood, the Greeks were the first to use evidence based techniques to solve problems but the Romans didn’t continue these techniques so when the Christians took over, Europe had lost most of its problem solving skills. Luckily, the (comparatively) progressive Islamic nations held onto the old Greek textbooks while Europe buried itself under Christianity for a few hundred years. Alcock did like to throw in some useless but interesting trivia every few minutes (Did you know that Muslims built the first mental hospital?).

Alcock continued with the rise of university-based education that eventually led to the famous Flexner’s Report that states that doctors should be trained by scientists, not by doctors (it was previously customary for doctors to train by apprenticeship). Next was the rise of pharmaceuticals where doctors now seem to prescribe a drug for everything rather than actually treating patients.

Alcock’s main thesis was that alternative medicine’s current popularity is due to the lack of patient care. Doctors today tend to ask you a few questions and then prescribe you a drug. There is little patient contact and people tend to leave the doctor’s office confused. Since alternative medicine practitioners seem to actually care about the patient, the patient automatically feels more comfortable, completely ignoring the fact that the medicinal part is complete bullshit. This is an interesting point, since it leads to the argument that if we were to privatize our health care industry, the doctors might want to actually find out what’s wrong with you rather than push you out as quickly as possible (under our socialist system, doctors get paid on the quantity of care, not the quality).

In his section about the current state of universities, Alcock attacked post-modernism, which seemed out of place but not surprising since science-minded people hate others who rely on emotion rather than facts. He also criticized his students for having lost the ability to write which I agree completely since I can remember trying to proofread my engineering classmates’ undergrad thesis papers only a few years ago.

Alcock concludes by criticizing the government’s self-regulation rules that give pseudo-scientific ‘professions’ like chiropractors their own government funded agency, thus also giving them legitimacy in the eyes of the people. His overall message seemed to be that people want to avoid pain, rather than work hard for a cure. I interpret this message as people are too stupid and lazy to treat themselves effectively, so they look for whatever is the quickest and easiest way that makes them feel better even though they really never will.

Oh well, as my first paragraph mentions, as long as people want to waste their own time and money, they should be free to do as they please. My only complaint is that since our health care is publically funded, I end up paying when these alternative methods fail and people end up visiting the real doctors too late, thus making treatment more expensive.

Overall, Alcock stayed within his area of expertise and seldom strayed even when asked by members of the audience (he was often asked questions only a doctor should answer. Alcock is a Psychologist). During the Q and A, he answered the questions effectively and with confidence and always seemed in control throughout his presentation. Although I didn't find the topic interesting, Alcock did a good job presenting his ideas and most people seemed to enjoy themselves so I imagine the evening was successful.

Hitchens on Bhutto

2007-12-29T07:34:00.001-05:00

Daughter of Destiny

Christopher Hitchens reminds us in this short article that he once had a real job. Falling back to his roots as an investigative journalist, Hitchens recalls an interview he did with Benazir Bhutto in 1988 and comments on her recent death. It's a good read, especially for those of you who aren't familiar with Pakistani history.

I've been a little wary of the media coverage on Pakistan over the last year since they seem to always paint Bhutto as a revolutionary bent on saving Pakistan from military rule when I always saw her as a politician bent on reclaiming power through populist means. In his tradmark style, Hitchens doesn't hesitate to criticise Bhutto but offers some well deserved praise.

An evangelical's Christmas....

2007-12-24T15:00:00.001-05:00

'Twas the night before Christmas in the old religious house,
Not a synapse was stirring, more brains in a mouse.
No teachings of science, no paying of tax,
They promote their own ignorance to shield them from facts.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of false gods implant in their heads.
Then mamma and her bible and I with my gun,
Set out to find heathens to have some good fun.

When out in the street there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my crouch to silence the matter.
Through the window I heard the heretic speak,
Of a world without God but a future not bleak.

He spoke without reverance and a complete lack of fear,
As he attacked each and all things I've always held dear.
Away from the window I flew like a flash,
Unsheathing my blade, I started to slash.

But the little old humanist was lively and quick.
I knew at that moment it must be a trick.
Why doesn't my god in his own righteous desire,
Strike down this old heathen with a huge ball of fire.

But it's not up to me to question my Lord,
Even though his dumb teachings leave me tired and bored.
After all it is useless to ignore what is taught.
In this life who needs to use critical thought?

But I pause for a moment to consider the truth.
Should my god exist without any proof?
Does the belief in old fables written ages ago,
Have all the answers to all I should know?

Perhaps religion is a colossal mistake,
Or a tool uses by tyrants to take and to take.
An excuse for my laziness and my own feeble mind,
So that I can act without conscience and walk like I'm blind.

Maybe it's time to give God a rest,
And to use my own brain to decide what is best.
Now I can claim to have truly seen the light,
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

Dr. Nader Hashemi speaks at CFI: Ontario

2007-12-23T17:10:00.001-05:00

On Friday, December 23, 2007, CFI:Ontario hosted Dr Nader Hashemi who gave a talk entitled "Reflections on Religion and Politics in the Islamic World: Why Muslim Skepticism of Secularism is Warranted" .

I found the topic to be unclear as the event was being advertised and I had never heard of the speaker, so naturally I was unsure what to expect as the talk began. However, I found it to be far more informative than I had expected and was glad I had attended.

Dr Hashemi has a PhD in political science from the University of Toronto and has spent the last few years researching comparative politics of the Middle East. His talk focussed on why we can't expect Muslim societies to embrace secularism in the same way as western societies define them. His main point was that because secularism in the Middle East has always accompanied brutal dictatorships, it is entirely rational that Muslim societies will continue to oppose reforms.

Cultural problems seem to be apparent since there is no translation for the word 'secularism' in Muslim societies. Therefore it is difficult to convince the average citizen of its advantages. Like in Canada, people in the Middle East incorrectly define secularism as atheism even though every secular activist on the planet defines it as a simple separation of religion and government, so any attempts at reforms anywhere are met with hostility by the people who are afraid they will lose the ability to practice their religion. However, Dr Hashemi argues that the problems surrounding secularism in Muslim societies is not a question of definition, but rather of the actual experiences of the average citizen living under previous secular regimes.

While I do find it annoying when my opponents point to brutal dictatorships as a consequence of atheism, I can understand this justification in the context of the Middle East. The history of secularism in the Middle East includes colonialism, imperialism, and an elite class of rulers who lived a separate life away from its citizens. Thus, secularism was a product of the state and not of the individual choices of the people and the brutal secular regimes (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, for example) are how people interpret secularism today.

Dr Hashemi concludes that secular liberal democracies cannot be imposed by force or extortion but must be created the citizens themselves who live under the oppression of religious totalitarianism. Secular democracies of the West were only created by the victims of centuries of religious oppression so we shouldn't expect Muslims to secularize until they have had the opportunity to live under tyranical rule. I have always advocated that the best way to teach someone something was to let them figure it out for themselves and I prefer not to interfere in other people's learning process so I was surprised to finally hear a speaker at CFI who had similar thoughts. Dr Hashemi was saying that we should leave the Muslim societies alone at let themselves be ruled by oppressive and brutal religions as this is the only way they can learn to appreciate the merits of a secular democracy. This is counter to the socialist/humanist philosophy of most of the audience who generally favour intervention on the basis of human rights and it was nice to have a speaker who was actually promoting less government involvement instead of more.

Overall, Dr Hashemi was a clear speaker and projected confidence and knowledge throughout the presentation. I found that he relied too heavily on historical facts, so the average listener who wasn't very well read on Middle Eastern history would have had a hard time following the topics being discussed and I noted his frustration during the QandA when he was trying to explain certain historical events to people who don't understand the complexities of the Middle East. Although he may have only been playing to the crowd, he did make a few jabs at Bush and Harper that were trivial and out of place given the broader context of the presentation and his direct praise for Dalton McGuinty and his endorsement of Barack Obama highlighted his political bias towards partisan liberals that soured an otherwise objective lecture. However, he promotes realistic solutions (as opposed to the perfection and idealism supported by some of the more vocal secular activists) so he has my support and I hope that, someday, his message will be understood by everyone. I look forward to his book to be released next year.

Philip Pullman Gets More Free Press

2007-12-20T18:07:00.001-05:00

It's official. The Halton Catholic School board has pulled "The Golden Compass" from its shelves. Apparently it's "not in line with our governing values", says the board. Perhaps they decided that there's enough fantasy and immorality in the Bible that it wouldn't be in the children's best interest to read anymore.

the Star
CBC

The real problem is, of course, that the Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers and I hate the notion that a government bureaucracy, rather than the parents, is deciding what's best for our children.

Oh well, like everyone else,kids get their information from the internet anyway, so the big fuss only highlights their backwardness and adds another entry to the ever-increasing list to eliminate this archaic bureaucracy. As fellow heretic blogger Ron Brown notes, "Your spineless insecurity and Big Brotherish ways are a continuing source of inspiration" Amen.

"Like the Jesuits, the CBC likes to get 'em while they're young"

2007-12-08T15:40:00.002-05:00

Yesterday morning I was listening to CBC Radio One in the car on my way to work and was amazed (although not surprised) to hear the host, Andy Barrie, utter the title phrase when talking to a young child who was attending the radio broadcast (the CBC was hosting an annual fundraiser yesterday for the Daily Bread Foodbank by hosting the entire day's programming in public).

Obviously the statement was a joke but I couldn't help thinking about the irony of the statement. Is the CBC a religious organization? Given its ability to ignore facts and its reluctance to debate the reasons for its existence, the CBC behaves much like a religious organization.

Which is odd since Andy Barrie is an atheist, but some atheists tend to replace theistic religions with political equivalents. They may not believe that gods rule our lives, but they have no problems believing that governments should.

Which is why I hope that someday, when Canada becomes a secular nation, I stop funding the CBC. I have no problems with its existence, but I do have problems using my money to fund religious beliefs so I hope that our government funded propaganda machine is privatized alongside every other religious belief so that those who support such an initiative can fund it out of their own pockets.

Introduction

2007-12-08T10:53:00.001-05:00

After about a year of berating by friends and colleagues, I have finally gotten around to starting a blog. Thanks to everyone and I hope I don't disappoint.

I hope to use this blog to link and comment on Canadian politics with a sense of positivism that most political bloggers lack. I will attempt to highlight the hypocrisy and dogma inherent in today's system, whether it is from politicians, the media, pundits, or activists.

I am not sure why I chose to use 'Iconoclast' in my title. Most likely it was because I am late entering the blogosphere all the good names are taken. However, the term aptly suits my outlook in life since I think that most traditions and beliefs deserve to be criticized, although I always hope their adherents are given the opportunity to defend themselves. I love to point out the logical flaws in people's reasoning, whatever their topics or beliefs are and hope that in doing so, people can rethink some of their beliefs (or at least come up with better reasons for believing what they do).

I find Canadian liberals to be the most hypocritical and bigoted people on this planet. Perhaps this sounds harsh but living in the city surrounded by socialists who want to tell me how I should live and spend my money doing it, I tend to get overtly annoyed and defensive. I hope this blog can give comfort to Canadians knowing that somewhere in the collectivist cesspool we call Toronto; there are people who are working at dismantling the statist attitude that is holding back society.

Although I am often accused of being a militant atheist, I generally believe that people should have the ability to think and act for themselves. Keeping that in mind I classify myself as a militant secularist, since I will advocate for people’s ability to believe in whatever they want, as long as those beliefs are not forced upon others through government support. Since I spend most of my spare time with atheist activists, I hope to use this blog to link and comment on the new atheist movement and how I hope it moves forward.