Tag: Canada

My top ten favourite things about living in Canada

I live in Quebec, which, despite what some people may say, is in Canada. In this post I will be listing some of my favourite things about living here, in no particular order.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

In Canada we have universal healthcare. Our essential medical needs are taken care of no matter what.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FOR WOMEN

Henry Morgentaler

Women in Canada can have an abortion if need be and it will be covered by Universal Healthcare.

WE ARE A SECULAR NATION

In Canada we have the separation of church and state… and we mean it.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

In Canada same sex marriage is legal. The LBGT community enjoys the same human rights as every other Canadian.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Canada has become a successful melting pot of people from all races. Sadly, we are not yet entirely free of racism, but we are working toward that goal.

THE FRIENDLY FACTOR

Canadians are known world wide for being a friendly people, and it’s true.

CUBAN CIGARS

One of my favourite New Year’s Eve rituals is a chilled glass of single malt scotch and a Cohiba cigar. In Canada we have no trade embargo with Cuba, so I can indulge all I want.

WIDE OPEN SPACES

I love time alone. In some countries it is next to impossible to escape the crowds. In Canada, there are still plenty of wide open spaces in which to enjoy your me time.

SCENERY

Canada has some of the most spectacular scenic views to inspire even the most jaded among us.

WILLIAM SHATNER

The geek in me (not so) secretly loves that we Canadians get to claim our country as the birthplace of Captain James Tiberius Kirk, himself, William Shatner. Sure there are many famous people who come from Canada, but in my eyes, none are cooler than Shatner.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS

CORNER GAS RE-RUNS

Along with Anne of Green Gables and the Beachcombers, Corner Gas takes it’s place among television shows that have achieved the status of Canadiana… plus it’s frickin’ funny as all get out.

CANADIAN TIRE

 

A store that sells literally everything under one roof. A store so big it even has it’s own money. What’s not to like?

I will leave you with this hilarious video of the aforementioned, William Shatner talking about being Canadian.

A moo point

Holy Cow

In my last blog, I talked about how I think assisted suicide should be legal. On Friday June 15, the British Columbia Supreme Court took the first step toward making that happen by calling the current law, which bans assisted suicide, unconstitutional. To read about the ruling, click here http://ca.news.yahoo.com/laws-banning-assisted-suicide-infringe-charter-rights-b-183058665.html I was very encouraged by this ruling. Then, today, I read on the Huffington Post that the Catholic Church is weighing in on the subject. While I do believe that they are entitled to voice their opinion (as I am doing right now), it is my fervent hope that the legislature sees it as just that… an opinion. To read the article, go here http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/16/archbishop-michael-miller-assisted-suicide_n_1603063.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

In Canada, a secular nation, we take the separation of church and state seriously. No election is ever won because of the religious beliefs of the candidate. In fact, I couldn’t tell you what religion Stephen Harper is, even if you had a gun to my head. There is no prayer in our public schools… and that’s the way we like it.

In the article Roman Catholic Archbishop Michael Miller states that  the decision “sadly reflects a distorted view of equality rights that emphasizes autonomy over human dignity and the value of life.” I don’t understand how he can say that it is more dignified to die in excruciating pain, begging for death with medicine prolonging the inevitable, than to die peacefully, without pain with help from a morphine drip… when YOU decide enough is enough. Of course, I am an atheist heathen who thinks that it’s my life and I will end it when I see fit and does not believe that a god exists… any god. But that’s also part of my point about the separation of church and state. I do not want any church telling me what I can and cannot do with my life, and thankfully, this is not something I have to worry about. The church’s opinion in this case is a moot point because the legislature must rule for everyone, not just those who believe in religious doctrine. The Church already has quite a few members who live their lives according to religious rules, why does it feel the need to tell the rest of us how to live… or die?

So speak up and voice your opinion all you want, Mister Archbishop. Thanks to the separation of church and state, the lawmakers will be forced to see it as they would a cow’s opinion… a moo point.

A day by any other name … is still a day off.

Tomorrow is Victoria Day in Canada, well, most of Canada. I live in Quebec, where tomorrow is called National Patriot’s Day and looks like this.

I can’t help but wonder if I am the only one who sees the irony of calling the holiday Patriot’s Day while, simultaneously, separating yourself from the rest of your country. That doesn’t seem very patriotic to me.

I have been wondering what the reasoning for this decision is for a while now. I would like to invite anyone who knows the historical reason to please post it in the comments section below. I am looking for the real reason, not insults about Quebec, or English speaking Canada. I am not trying to spark an argument. I really want to know the reason behind this.

Whether you call it Victoria Day or National Patriot’s Day, I hope your holiday weekend is a good one.

What’s stopping you?

 

 

The Occupy Movement seems to have spawned an odd backlash from rich people who are saying they want to be taxed more. In the United States both Warren Buffet http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20092380-503544.html and Bill Gates http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-gates-endorses-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-thats-just-justice/ have made this claim publicly. In Canada, last week, a group of doctors is saying the same thing http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mds-propose-tax-increases-wealthiest-canadians-starting-100-040307538.html

While I think that it’s great that there are rich people who are on board with paying higher taxes, what I wonder is…

WHAT’S STOPPING YOU?

What’s stopping you from writing an additional cheque to the government above and beyond your current tax payment along with a note stating that this is an additional tax payment because I am rich and feel that I should be paying more? Or even go one further and let the government know what you would like this additional cheque to go towards, like healthcare, the deficit, defense etc.

I can’t imagine that either government would turn down the extra cash and you could be proactive instead of just complaining that you’re not currently paying enough.

It’s all well and good to propose tax plans for yourself and your cronies when you know that your government likely won’t take you up on your offer, but why not put your money where your mouth is? Sure, the publicity your getting now is creating some good will, but imagine what kind of good will actually doing something would create.

Ashamed of my country

 

One of the things I love about Canada is that we are proud of our multiculturalism. When it comes to race, Canada is one of the more enlightened places to live. Which is why it sickens me when I see an ugly thread of racism still running through this country.

Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported on a white pride rally being held in Edmonton. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/24/edmonton-white-pride-rally_n_1377368.html

White Pride??? Really??? I thought we had come a lot further than this.

The only conclusion I can draw is that even the two dozen or so demonstrators were somewhat ashamed to be there as most of them were wearing masks to hide their identities. This puts me in mind of the KKK who all wear sheets and hoods. If you know what you’re doing is wrong, why do it at all? If you truly believe in what you’re rallying for then why not do it out in the open with your faces uncovered and your head held high? Your cowardice disgusts me almost as much as your white supremacist dogma. This rally comes under hate speech according to Canada’s Criminal Code and never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Canada has worked hard, as a nation, to avoid looking like this.

 

 

We prefer our public image to look like this.

 

 

 

 

It’s the little things

 

I quit smoking a little over 6 months ago. I was a pack a day smoker for 33 years. It was my choice to quit. No one else forced me to make that decision, try as they might over the years. I was just at a point where I was ready to stop, so I did. I still think that if people want to smoke, that it is their right to do so. I am a firm believer in my body, my choice. So when I read this article  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/14/cote-st-luc-smoking-bylaw_n_1276604.html?ref=canada  it put the wind up my skirt (or, in this case, the smoke). I understand banning smoking in indoor public places, what with ventilation being an issue and all, but OUTDOORS? I could even get on board with no smoking in playgrounds, if only to keep parents quiet. This smoking ban surprised me most of all, because it was put in place in a Montreal adjacent municipality. Yes, French Canadians are banning cigarette smoking outside. The last time I went to France (admittedly, it’s been a while), I got off the plane in Paris, went to the service desk, cigarette in hand, asked for a light and was immediately obliged. Smoking is practically mandatory in France. Have French Canadians been so watered down by Canadian political correctness that they are okay with banning smoking OUTSIDE? I expect this kind of erosion of personal freedoms in laces like California, where you are not allowed to smoke on the beach anymore… yes, the beach, nature’s ashtray. But Montreal? Really?

Then, on the very same day, from the other side of the very same country comes this story. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/14/former-bc-attorneys-general-pot-prohibition_n_1277040.html While I think this is potentially a good thing, what I would like to know is, if we can’t smoke cigarettes indoors or outdoors, just where will we be allowed to smoke pot? While one hand gives us freedom to do what we want to/with our body, the other hand takes it away by telling us we can do it, but only in designated areas, which are getting fewer by the minute. So for those of you who are excited by the prospect of legalized marijuana, don’t think you’ll be seeing this sign anytime soon.

 

 

Pot calling kettle

 

 

 

On January 3, Iran summoned Canada’s envoy to Tehran to protest Canada’s “blatant violation of human rights.”, just days before our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper fired back with this bon mot, “Iran is the world’s most serious threat to international peace.”

This is not the first time Iran has held Canada up as being in severe and consistent violation of human rights. In September of 2007, they distributed an entire booklet detailing Canadian human rights violations. Some of the accusations in that 70 page booklet were, that Ottawa denies Canadians everything from clean water, the right to food and the right to work. Yes these charges were laid against CANADA!?

It seems that Iran has decided to make Canada a target every time the United Nations Human Rights Council is about to convene in order to take attention away from blatant and heinous violations of human rights in their own country.

The question I ask myself, is why Canada? Yes we hold ourselves up as a standard-bearer of human rights, but we, admittedly, are still a work in progress. We also hold ourselves up to scrutiny from the United Nations because we feel we have nothing to hide and actually want violations to be pointed out to us so we can correct them. I assume the reason to slam Canada is to point out hypocrisy in our stance and therefore make the point that human rights violations occur everywhere so why is Iran singled out and berated for this so-called crime? There’s another answer to the why Canada question. Oil. We are also an oil selling nation and, therefore, competition.

Back in 2007, there were several other countries that sided with Iran and their booklet. Predictably, they were countries who were also some of the world’s worst violators.

This begs another question. Why is it that every country in the world is not striving to make sure that all human beings are granted basic human rights? Morally, this seems to be an obvious thing to do. Is it greed? (that’s very likely a big part of it) Is it fear? (fear of allowing the oppressed freedom, then having to face retribution from them) Is it religion? (or is that just the excuse they cloak the greed and fear in?)

In my opinion it’s the simple belief that the rich cannot exist without the poor. But must the poor need to suffer beating, rape, torture and humiliation so that the rich can be rich? The answer is a resounding NO. Rich and poor are relative terms. Just how poor do the poor have to be in order to make a rich man feel rich?

Canada is considered a medium income inequality country. We have the lowest income inequality in that category. (though the gap is growing) Canada is a country that still has a middle class. A country where the average person without a university education can still make a comfortable living and have a good quality of life. Yes, we have poor people, but as a socialist country, we have a huge amount of programs in place to help with housing, food and employment. We are also a country that provides welfare for those who need it. Are we a perfect country, no, that doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to improve.

So instead of bashing Canada on the world stage, perhaps Iran should focus on improving its own reputation.

Are we married or aren’t we?

 

 

 

 

Yesterday the news that gay marriages performed in Canada to couples who don’t live here may not be valid, swept the internet news sites and the blogosphere alike. As a Canadian and a supporter of gay marriage, the news made me a little sick to my stomach. This was the first article I saw on the story. In the last paragraph, the article quotes family law attorney Andrew Feldstein, of Toronto, as saying, “Where the Harper government should have approached this is: you are not a resident of Canada, you are not a taxpayer in Canada, why should we be using the court’s time, money, resources, taxpayers dollars for people who don’t live in Canada?”

My response to this comment is, it’s not taxpayers who pay for divorce proceedings, it’s the couple in question. Is Canada now so allergic to money that we will decline it just because it comes from another country… or is this a gay issue? Is gay money somehow not worth as much as straight money? And what about all the tourist dollars we get from the gay couples from all over the world who come here to get married, some with an entire wedding party in tow? Are we, as a country really in a position, in this economy to turn away revenue? I am purposefully responding to this topic from a financial view-point because that’s the only thing that lawyers and politicians seem to respect and understand. Financially, this just doesn’t make sense.

What about Canada’s reputation as a tolerant country? We are a country that famously touts our multicultural  status as something to be proud of… and it is. We are ahead of the curve when it comes to Human Rights… but Gay Rights ARE Human Rights.

One month ago, almost to the day, former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien posted a letter to the Liberal party website. In it he said, “The Conservatives already ended gun control and Kyoto. Next may be a woman’s right to choose, or gay marriage. Then might come capital punishment. And one by one, the values we cherish as Canadians will be gone.” Did he know something the rest of us didn’t? Of course the liberals are jumping all over this hot button issue. Interim liberal leader Bob Rae was quoted as saying. “It’s quite clear that we have enabled and allowed people to come to Canada to marry in Montreal, in Toronto and everywhere in the country. People came from the U.S. and elsewhere and that means very clearly they have the right to marry and have the right to divorce,” and he’s right.

Just one day later, the Federal Government has decided to change the law.

“We want to make it very clear that in our government’s view, these marriages should be valid,” a senior government official said on Friday. “That’s why we will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren’t recognized in the couple’s home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada.”

This is fantastic news and I’m sure it will be implemented quickly so as to nip this scandal in the bud.

I must admit I’m a little confused by something. Using the United States as an example, what about gay couples who marry in Vermont, but live in Florida? Their marriage isn’t recognized in the state they live in, so if one partner is in the hospital, for example, the other isn’t considered a family member, regardless of the marriage licence issued by Vermont. If this hypothetical couple wants to divorce, doesn’t the same problem rear its ugly head? Are they only married in Vermont and the other 5 states that allow gay marriage, but not married in the other 44 states that don’t?

It’s questions like these that I hope the GLBTQIA community south of the border is asking itself. I sincerely hope that this issue spurs more activism in the United States and around the world.

 

I hate people who hate

What is with all of this hate speech that is coursing through the veins of our society of late? It seems that people are spewing all sorts of heinous vitriol in the name-of their religion. Not that this is anything new. I had just hoped that society had come a bit further than this, since the days of the Inquisition.

Today, the Huffington Post reported on George Michael being hospitalized with pneumonia, which, in itself would have been worthy of a mention, however the story was accompanied by some truly disturbing hate speech. See for yourself here, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/george-michael-hospitalized-christians-for-a-moral-america_n_1118654.html?ref=tw

Also today, on twitter, a self professed Christian porn star had these choice words for a terminal cancer patient in her own industry.

Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
I hate to say this – but sometimes people with terminal diseases need to give it a rest & stop ruining other people’s happiness with their
Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
tragedy. If you have a terminal disease let your family and friends know. Bring awareness to the disease to help others – but then just live
Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
the rest of your life and stop draining others emotionally or otherwise. It’s wrong to do and very selfish.
Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
When God wanted to take out the trash in the old testament – plague and disease worked quite well. Considering all the satanism, demonic
Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
activity and evil in the world today (especially within the la porn circuit) God’s getting old testament gangster once more. Sickness &
Monica Foster

@MonicaFosterMonica Foster
disease isn’t random – quite often it’s God taking out the trash…  Christ is RIGHT!
In the United States, the law is part of the problem. The first amendment to the constitution protects free speech, unfortunately, in many cases this also includes hate speech. I’m sure quite a few of you have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church and their penchant for protesting the funerals of gays, soldiers and an innocently by-standing 9 year old girl. The fact that the Supreme Court of Kansas sided with them sickens me to the core.
This video is interesting. It was made for students of political science. It explains why/how hate speech is protected in America.
In Canada, however, where, yes, contrary to American opinion, we actually do have free speech, we also have laws against hate speech. Oh and we actually DO separate church and state.
Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada make it a criminal offence to:
  • advocate genocide
  • publicly incite hatred
  • wilfully promote hatred

against an “identifiable group.” 

 An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

  • colour
  • race
  • religion
  • ethnic origin
  • sexual orientation

The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions. 

For example, “advocating genocide” includes publicly arguing that members of an identifiable group should be killed. Willfully promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation. And inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place.

 Online communications that advocate genocide or willfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

This is something that Ann Coulter found out personally. When she wanted to speak at a university in Ontario recently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/sorry-ann-coulter-canadas_b_513865.html

Though, when she went back home, she claimed SHE was the victim of a hate crime.

I am a believer in freedom of speech, but not when it puts someone in harm’s way. Hate speech in the name of religion, well, if you’re going to claim to be better than the rest of us, then you shouldn’t be allowed to spread hatred, ignorance and obscenity like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian porn star and the ironically named Christians For A Moral America.

Although, if you keep it up, you’ll just be making more atheists like me.

What do women want?

As a feminist, it really puts the wind up my skirt when I hear another woman say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. If you believe in equal pay for equal work, the right to choose what to do with your own body, the right to vote, the right to education, the right to have a career and/or children and the right to own property, then you are a feminist. If you are against rape as a weapon of war, marital rape, sexual enslavement, genital mutilation (female circumcision), sexual discrimination and being treated as less than human, then you are a feminist.

Women want the same freedoms, rights and privileges that are afforded to men, no more, no less. I don’t see why that is so hard for some women to understand.

We have accomplished so much in a relatively short period of time, but change takes time and we still have battles yet to win. In North America alone, we are still struggling. As a matter of fact, just last week, after 28 years in the Canadian courts, Canada Post has finally lost a pay equity case. Yes, the Post Office fought for 28 years, taking this case all the way to the supreme court, spending far more than they would have spent if they had just abided by the first ruling against them. http://www.psac-afpc.com/news/2011/issues/20111117-e.shtml. It was just 1982 when the Canadian Equality Law went into effect.

In the United States, Nebraska was the first state to criminalize marital rape in 1976. It took until 1993, yes 1993 for the other 49 states to follow suit. In Canada, Bill C-127 came into effect on Jan. 4, 1983, making marital rape a criminal offence.

I hope that these examples will make women think twice the next time they want to say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. The more you distance yourself from the fight, the less likely it is that we will continue to win these kinds of battles. It’s only by standing united that we will continue to advance.