I wonder if anyone notices the things I notice anymore. Look around you, middle class of the West. We're having a whole dialogue without even seeing each other, sometimes without even having met each other. We live in such exciting times, where technology continues to make our lives so much simpler than they were, so much better than they were.
Except for the people we've left behind, the people who don't have what we have, who can't have what we have because the money simply isn't there. Things haven't gotten better for them, things haven't even stayed the same for the poor. This is our shame as a society, or it should be our shame. These people, they are no different from you or I, save for the circumstances of their lives. But to see how we treat them as a society and as individuals how we react to them, you would think there was something wrong with them. Its wrong. Its not the Canadian way. Its not what my grandfather fought and died for. We have, and without cause, forsaken them in our quest for a simpler life.
Earlier this week, I encountered someone who exemplefies my point exactly. I say encounter since we never got to talk, never got to understand and introduce ourselves to the other. He simply passed through my life, without knowing the impact he made that night. He was a panhandler, you've seen them everywhere and he was no different from any other. He wanted to wash the car I was in, my partner and driver suggested that he move on and that she wasn't interested. What struck me was how he responded. There wasn't a mean or selfish thought to him, all he said was God bless us, and he moved along without asking for a single thing from either of us. Here was this person, a person with far less than either occupants of the car, and rather than begging or demanding something, he simply accepted his fate without protest. It shocked me. I got to really look at the person before he left my field of vision, and for the first time in many years, I knew fear. Not fear that he would cause me harm, I could see he wasn't that kind of person. No, this was a more basic fear, this was a fear that I could have been that person. He looked like me, and it made me realize that it could have been me, and that maybe in another life it was me. Here was someone who was not even in the prime of his life, forced to curtail any possible potential he may have had simply so that he could find food and shelter for a cold winter's night. I tried to find him not even half an hour later; it breaks my heart to know that the person in question was gone, and so was the police vehicle I had spotted in that same area in my initial passage through the area. I can never know what actually happened, but it breaks my heart to think that this person, a child in reality and no older than myself, could have been taken away for doing what was necessary in order to survive.
How can we, as a society, accept such things as a reality? We have so much, and the homeless and destitute have so little. How can we accept a society and a reality that has children grifting in order to survive through the night. What does it say about us as a culture where, instead of offering aid to these people, we treat them as though they were beneath our contempt. As young children, we were taught simple lessons by our parents and by our schools; be kind to others. Share what you have. See the best in people, instead of the worst. But somewhere, we all in society have forgotten those simple, classic messages. I look to you, my readers, to help change this. You are the future, we all remember those lectures and lessons in some fashion or another, now is the time that we have to start acting on them instead of betraying the promises we made to our families. Because these people are our family too, we are all family in this world and what we have done is to let down those members of our family who aren't as lucky as we are. We need to start being kind to these people instead of fearing them. We need to start sharing what we have with them instead of hoarding what we can spare to people in true need. we need to see the homeless as people, not as things to be avoided. In this way, we can form a more perfect world, one where no one need fear being left alone, left without a means of reaching their potential.
I call on you all, my readers and my friends; stand up and look around. Look at what we have wrought in this world, what we claim is an equitable society but in reality leaves more and more of our most vulnerable behind. Change a life. All it takes is one person to change a life and save our poor from the worst of life. Help me, help them, help our society reach its potential.
Showing posts with label Social issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social issues. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Unqualified Nominee to social work board
A woman by the name of Heather Stilwell has recently been appointed to the BC College of Social Workers. This is a disappointing appointment that will drag British Columbia back into the past, not further into the future. Miss Stilwell is or has been a member of five separate anti-abortion groups, and has spent decades trying to take away a woman’s right to choose. She was also a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party, which emphasizes extreme right wing social viewpoints. Of course, this is the nominee of BC Liberal Minister Mary Polak, so there isn’t as much surprise about the nomination, considering the two of them worked together as members of the Surrey School Board to try and ban books depicting same-sex couples in a positive manner. Her tenure on the Surrey School Board was categorized by her extreme positions. Perhaps her most damning work on the school board was her vote to ban sex education and condom distribution in Surrey classrooms. Studies have shown that sex education and easily obtained condoms reduces the rate of accidental pregnancies and STI transmission, but those facts mean nothing for Miss Stilwell, whose right wing agenda would rather pass on ignorance to students, rather than giving them the tools they need to make informed decisions regarding their sexual health.
The nominee has taken other controversial positions in the past, positions that will not resonate with the majority of British Columbians. Among her more outstanding beliefs are the ideas that global warming is not real, going so far as to pass a motion that if Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is shown in classes, videos which dispute global warming must also be shown, regardless of their scientific merit.
Members of the College are appointed to the board for a single year, but in a year much can be done to reverse the gains our society has fought for decades to achieve. Write to Minister Polak and tell her that it’s not acceptable for her to nominate her unqualified friends to sit on a board that determines the work of our social workers. Give us a nominee and a board that will do its work without a hidden agenda Minister, not one that can impose your own right wing worldview on the rest of us.
The nominee has taken other controversial positions in the past, positions that will not resonate with the majority of British Columbians. Among her more outstanding beliefs are the ideas that global warming is not real, going so far as to pass a motion that if Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is shown in classes, videos which dispute global warming must also be shown, regardless of their scientific merit.
Members of the College are appointed to the board for a single year, but in a year much can be done to reverse the gains our society has fought for decades to achieve. Write to Minister Polak and tell her that it’s not acceptable for her to nominate her unqualified friends to sit on a board that determines the work of our social workers. Give us a nominee and a board that will do its work without a hidden agenda Minister, not one that can impose your own right wing worldview on the rest of us.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Child Labour, far from slavery?
The newest reports on child labour have been released this week, and the information is truly startling.
Questions have to be asked of our BC Liberal government as to why they’ve allowed things to become as bad as they are for today’s youth.
Child labour has become more accepted, as youths require more money to do the things they enjoy, and to support their families in these tough economic times.
So why is it that the government refuses to enact means to protect our most vulnerable workers.
I would like to ask Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this relates to their cabinet portfolios.
First:
Why do you support a law that allows youths from 12 to 14 to work if they have written parental consent, when more than 58 per cent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer?
Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld?
Second:
For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada.
How are you working to end child poverty in B.C.?
Finally:
Why does the government not create legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in?
British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work.
How can this government claim to care about youth and put them first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people?
Questions have to be asked of our BC Liberal government as to why they’ve allowed things to become as bad as they are for today’s youth.
Child labour has become more accepted, as youths require more money to do the things they enjoy, and to support their families in these tough economic times.
So why is it that the government refuses to enact means to protect our most vulnerable workers.
I would like to ask Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this relates to their cabinet portfolios.
First:
Why do you support a law that allows youths from 12 to 14 to work if they have written parental consent, when more than 58 per cent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer?
Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld?
Second:
For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada.
How are you working to end child poverty in B.C.?
Finally:
Why does the government not create legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in?
British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work.
How can this government claim to care about youth and put them first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A lament for no affordable housing
As the laws currently stand, there is no national plan for affordable housing in Canada.
Every other first-world country in the world has a strategy of some manner to reduce homelessness and poverty, except for Canada.
Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, would provide Canadians with the housing they need to start building up from poverty and the social safety nets they have had to rely on.
This private member’s bill has passed second reading and is now in committee. We have a bill here that would ensure that every last man, woman and child has a chance to live with a roof over their head and four walls to keep them warm.
Now that it is in committee, every single MP will be needed to pull their weight to pass the bill, since out of the 145 Conservative Members of Parliament, only one voted in favour of ensuring that Canadians could have homes to live in as a right.
I urge everyone to read the bill—it’s easily googled or searched for on the official government web site.
And please, urge your Member of Parliament, no matter what party they are from, to pass this bill and give a chance for our least fortunate to have at least some small measure of dignity, the dignity of a home.
Every other first-world country in the world has a strategy of some manner to reduce homelessness and poverty, except for Canada.
Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, would provide Canadians with the housing they need to start building up from poverty and the social safety nets they have had to rely on.
This private member’s bill has passed second reading and is now in committee. We have a bill here that would ensure that every last man, woman and child has a chance to live with a roof over their head and four walls to keep them warm.
Now that it is in committee, every single MP will be needed to pull their weight to pass the bill, since out of the 145 Conservative Members of Parliament, only one voted in favour of ensuring that Canadians could have homes to live in as a right.
I urge everyone to read the bill—it’s easily googled or searched for on the official government web site.
And please, urge your Member of Parliament, no matter what party they are from, to pass this bill and give a chance for our least fortunate to have at least some small measure of dignity, the dignity of a home.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Early Childhood Development
Early child development in British Columbia
Whereas child poverty in British Columbia remains the highest in Canada
And Whereas poverty creates an unnecessary burden upon the state
And Whereas ensuring all British Columbians should have a minimum standard of living
Let it be resolved that a BC NDP government will create a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will adopt policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression by the state or by corporations
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will devote significant time and funds towards building AND maintaining low income housing for use by homeless persons and recovering addicts
And Let it be finally resolved that a BC NDP government will urge the federal government to work in conjunction with a BC NDP government to provide early childhood education and aid in the elimination of the causes of poverty, which are including but not exclusively limited to drug addiction, mental or physical disability or forced emancipation from the home
Resolution 1; creating a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
• This task force should focus mainly upon mitigating those causes which are likely to exacerbate the problems of poverty both within children and within the adult population
• This task force should provide support to the Ministry of Child and Family Development in order to improve the quality of life for lower income families and individuals
Resolution 2; adaptation of policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression
• The BC NDP shall oppose the HST, which disproportionately harms lower income citizens and those on a fixed income, for whom the increasing price of goods will most greatly affect
• The BC NDP shall advocate for an increase of the minimum wage to at least ten dollars per hour, in order to allow wages to increase enough to purchase the absolute needs of a citizen in British Columbia
• The BC NDP shall advocate that wages automatically increase at a level at least comparable to inflation for that budget year, in order to ensure that purchasing power for lower income citizens does not suffer through inflationary effects
• The BC NDP shall advocate for greater tenents rights for renters and shall allow a short grace period on rent payments for those in government subsidized housing
• The BC NDP shall restore funding to aid organizations that work in local communities in order to aid those who are most at need
Resolution 3; devotion of funds for low income housing
• The BC NDP should spend money to provide three thousand rooms of low income housing, spread through the major urban centers of British Columbia
• These low income housing spaces would be owned and operated by the provincial government, and any rent would be paid directly to the provincial government to reduce cost
• These low income housing spaces shall be used specifically for those persons who are either recovering from addiction, or are otherwise forced into a position of poverty and/or homelessness
Resolution 4; cooperation with between the federal and provincial governments regarding a poverty elimination strategy
• Federal and provincial governments can work together to provide housing and daycare programs to impovershed families, so that parents can return to work instead of losing wages watching their children
• Federal and provincial governments can share information from front line workers and prevent overlapping ministries from expending resources outside their jurisdiction
Whereas child poverty in British Columbia remains the highest in Canada
And Whereas poverty creates an unnecessary burden upon the state
And Whereas ensuring all British Columbians should have a minimum standard of living
Let it be resolved that a BC NDP government will create a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will adopt policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression by the state or by corporations
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will devote significant time and funds towards building AND maintaining low income housing for use by homeless persons and recovering addicts
And Let it be finally resolved that a BC NDP government will urge the federal government to work in conjunction with a BC NDP government to provide early childhood education and aid in the elimination of the causes of poverty, which are including but not exclusively limited to drug addiction, mental or physical disability or forced emancipation from the home
Resolution 1; creating a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
• This task force should focus mainly upon mitigating those causes which are likely to exacerbate the problems of poverty both within children and within the adult population
• This task force should provide support to the Ministry of Child and Family Development in order to improve the quality of life for lower income families and individuals
Resolution 2; adaptation of policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression
• The BC NDP shall oppose the HST, which disproportionately harms lower income citizens and those on a fixed income, for whom the increasing price of goods will most greatly affect
• The BC NDP shall advocate for an increase of the minimum wage to at least ten dollars per hour, in order to allow wages to increase enough to purchase the absolute needs of a citizen in British Columbia
• The BC NDP shall advocate that wages automatically increase at a level at least comparable to inflation for that budget year, in order to ensure that purchasing power for lower income citizens does not suffer through inflationary effects
• The BC NDP shall advocate for greater tenents rights for renters and shall allow a short grace period on rent payments for those in government subsidized housing
• The BC NDP shall restore funding to aid organizations that work in local communities in order to aid those who are most at need
Resolution 3; devotion of funds for low income housing
• The BC NDP should spend money to provide three thousand rooms of low income housing, spread through the major urban centers of British Columbia
• These low income housing spaces would be owned and operated by the provincial government, and any rent would be paid directly to the provincial government to reduce cost
• These low income housing spaces shall be used specifically for those persons who are either recovering from addiction, or are otherwise forced into a position of poverty and/or homelessness
Resolution 4; cooperation with between the federal and provincial governments regarding a poverty elimination strategy
• Federal and provincial governments can work together to provide housing and daycare programs to impovershed families, so that parents can return to work instead of losing wages watching their children
• Federal and provincial governments can share information from front line workers and prevent overlapping ministries from expending resources outside their jurisdiction
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Homelessness and Poverty
Poverty in British Columbia is becoming a persistant black mark against our province. For the past six years, all years of BC Liberal governance, British Columbia has ranked as the province with the highest child poverty rates in Canada. Furthermore, in the city of Burnaby where I so happily reside, 29.2% of all children live in poverty. This is heartbreaking on so many levels and needs to be rectified immediately.
There are so many things that can be done, at local, provincial and national levels of government, and even just by regular people reaching out and lending a hand.
Local governments can pitch in by raising awareness of the issues within the city, and re-zoning buildings to be used for social housing or emergency shelters for those who need help getting back on their feet.
Provincial Government; this is the time to start building up social housing in major cities and in every other city in your provinces. We've all been given an influx of cash from the stimulus package, use this money to construct low cost housing for the most vulnerable in society instead of things that can't help allieviate a problem that the United Nations now calls a national emergency.
The Federal Government need to start putting together a comprehensive plan to tackle the problem in a systematic, uniform method that all the provinces can work with. Canada is now the only industrialized nation without a national plan, and it shows in the statistics regarding our poverty levels.
The three levels of government have to start working together to solve this problem, because its not going to solve itself, and these are lives that are being ruined in poverty instead of contributing to society.
For individuals who want to get involved, stick with non-profit organizations, there are charity groups in every city and town just desperate for more volunteers to help feed those in need. Especially since this is now getting into winter, any kind of donation to charitable organizations is welcome, or even a donation of money if you don't have non-perishable food or warm clothes to donate.
The only societies that have poverty are those that allow poverty to exist. Together as citizens and as government organizations, we can work together and defeat poverty in our lifetimes.
There are so many things that can be done, at local, provincial and national levels of government, and even just by regular people reaching out and lending a hand.
Local governments can pitch in by raising awareness of the issues within the city, and re-zoning buildings to be used for social housing or emergency shelters for those who need help getting back on their feet.
Provincial Government; this is the time to start building up social housing in major cities and in every other city in your provinces. We've all been given an influx of cash from the stimulus package, use this money to construct low cost housing for the most vulnerable in society instead of things that can't help allieviate a problem that the United Nations now calls a national emergency.
The Federal Government need to start putting together a comprehensive plan to tackle the problem in a systematic, uniform method that all the provinces can work with. Canada is now the only industrialized nation without a national plan, and it shows in the statistics regarding our poverty levels.
The three levels of government have to start working together to solve this problem, because its not going to solve itself, and these are lives that are being ruined in poverty instead of contributing to society.
For individuals who want to get involved, stick with non-profit organizations, there are charity groups in every city and town just desperate for more volunteers to help feed those in need. Especially since this is now getting into winter, any kind of donation to charitable organizations is welcome, or even a donation of money if you don't have non-perishable food or warm clothes to donate.
The only societies that have poverty are those that allow poverty to exist. Together as citizens and as government organizations, we can work together and defeat poverty in our lifetimes.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Questions to a Cabinet Minister, or two.
The newest reports on child labour have been released today, and the information held within is truly startling. Startling enough that questions have to be asked of our Liberal Government as to why they've allowed things to become as bad as they are for today's youths. Child labour has become more accepted, as youths require more money to do the things they enjoy, and to support their families in these tough economic times, so why is it that the Government refuses to enact means to protect our most vulnerable workers.
So I would like to ask the Honourable Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and the honourable Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this does relate to their Cabinet portfolios.
First; Why is it that you are supportive of the law that allows youths from the ages of twelve to fourteen to work if they have written parental consent when over fifty-eight percent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer? Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld? Our youth deserve better than to possibly be working without their parents' knowledge or consent.
Second; For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada. How are you working to end child poverty in British Columbia, and why have we constantly been ranked as the worst province under your watch? Children should not have to worry about food on their plates or a roof over their heads, but under your governance and guidance, more and more of our youths have to decide between housing and eating everyday, and British Columbians deserve to know why its becoming more of a problem instead of less of one, and what you will do to alter the dismal record your government has created.
Third; The limitations on how long a young person can work in a week are well thought out, but I would like to ask the Honourable Ministers how this is enforced. How does the Government expect British Columbians to believe they can adequately check on the number of hours worked by a youth in a week when they eliminated the only means available to the Government to even know how many youths were in the workforce? Can it please be explained how the Ministers and their staffs are to protect people they do not know are working. Citizens deserve to know how enforcement of youth protections is carried out when the Government cannot possibly be aware of how many youths there are working.
Finally; Why does the Government not legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in? British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work. How can this Government claim to care about youths and put youths first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people.
Thank you Ministers, I hope that you will respond and tell British Columbians that their children are indeed safe in the workplace, and show us how true that statement is with some facts.
So I would like to ask the Honourable Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and the honourable Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this does relate to their Cabinet portfolios.
First; Why is it that you are supportive of the law that allows youths from the ages of twelve to fourteen to work if they have written parental consent when over fifty-eight percent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer? Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld? Our youth deserve better than to possibly be working without their parents' knowledge or consent.
Second; For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada. How are you working to end child poverty in British Columbia, and why have we constantly been ranked as the worst province under your watch? Children should not have to worry about food on their plates or a roof over their heads, but under your governance and guidance, more and more of our youths have to decide between housing and eating everyday, and British Columbians deserve to know why its becoming more of a problem instead of less of one, and what you will do to alter the dismal record your government has created.
Third; The limitations on how long a young person can work in a week are well thought out, but I would like to ask the Honourable Ministers how this is enforced. How does the Government expect British Columbians to believe they can adequately check on the number of hours worked by a youth in a week when they eliminated the only means available to the Government to even know how many youths were in the workforce? Can it please be explained how the Ministers and their staffs are to protect people they do not know are working. Citizens deserve to know how enforcement of youth protections is carried out when the Government cannot possibly be aware of how many youths there are working.
Finally; Why does the Government not legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in? British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work. How can this Government claim to care about youths and put youths first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people.
Thank you Ministers, I hope that you will respond and tell British Columbians that their children are indeed safe in the workplace, and show us how true that statement is with some facts.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Blood banks lack blood, sanity
It seems that equality is not yet something that we can all take for a given, at least not when it comes to giving the gift of life.
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.
Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.
Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.
As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?
Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.
Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.
Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.
As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?
Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm
Friday, March 27, 2009
Proposition eight and Vermont
Earlier this week, the Vermont State Senate voted almost unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage in their state, shedding some positive news in an otherwise grim year for the movement towards equality in America and Abroad. The full article can be found here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-23-vermont-marriage_N.htm and the below are my thoughts on the issue.
I think its disappointing that something like marriage has become so cheap and commercial, that its become something that people can take ownership of instead of it being a celebration of two people's feelings for one another. We've taken the most beautiful of emotion in the whole world and stolen it from each other, simply because they're different...and that's sad that as a society, this is acceptable.
Keith Olbermann said it best when he said that this isn't about yelling or politics, its about the human heart. And its sad that something so beautiful has become something that can polarize a world and split people. And for what? Because some people don't want us to have the same chance at permanence and happiness in this life.
I'm sorry if I sound upset or anything, but I cannot understand why this is something that can be voted on, that can be challenged. What is being defended by preventing same-sex marriage, what is so terrible about two people who want to share their love with the world that they would commit to that love in a ceremony and contract? I keep hearing that America is the greatest country in the world, where everyone is equal and its the "land of opportunity"; so where is it? In a world as barren and devoid of love as the one we have, why, why are we still living in a place where people can take away that love because a religion tells people this is wrong. How does your conscience abide this decision to ban love between people, how does your HEART not cry out when you extinguish love so that your own love can feel just a little bit more important?
As I finish this rant, I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to think about one thing. Think of the people you love in your life, the people who you call family, that you call inseparable from your life and tell me, why should any of them be denied that special right to share their love, to express their love, and to be celebrated for their love? Because its not just some nameless person who gets hurt by taking away same sex marriages; its someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew, somebody's mother, father, uncle, aunt who's been condemned to a life without love, because that's what society tells us is right.
I leave as my final comment Kieth Olbermann's special commentary on proposition 8, from whom I receive my inspiration to write this last rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
I think its disappointing that something like marriage has become so cheap and commercial, that its become something that people can take ownership of instead of it being a celebration of two people's feelings for one another. We've taken the most beautiful of emotion in the whole world and stolen it from each other, simply because they're different...and that's sad that as a society, this is acceptable.
Keith Olbermann said it best when he said that this isn't about yelling or politics, its about the human heart. And its sad that something so beautiful has become something that can polarize a world and split people. And for what? Because some people don't want us to have the same chance at permanence and happiness in this life.
I'm sorry if I sound upset or anything, but I cannot understand why this is something that can be voted on, that can be challenged. What is being defended by preventing same-sex marriage, what is so terrible about two people who want to share their love with the world that they would commit to that love in a ceremony and contract? I keep hearing that America is the greatest country in the world, where everyone is equal and its the "land of opportunity"; so where is it? In a world as barren and devoid of love as the one we have, why, why are we still living in a place where people can take away that love because a religion tells people this is wrong. How does your conscience abide this decision to ban love between people, how does your HEART not cry out when you extinguish love so that your own love can feel just a little bit more important?
As I finish this rant, I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to think about one thing. Think of the people you love in your life, the people who you call family, that you call inseparable from your life and tell me, why should any of them be denied that special right to share their love, to express their love, and to be celebrated for their love? Because its not just some nameless person who gets hurt by taking away same sex marriages; its someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew, somebody's mother, father, uncle, aunt who's been condemned to a life without love, because that's what society tells us is right.
I leave as my final comment Kieth Olbermann's special commentary on proposition 8, from whom I receive my inspiration to write this last rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
What is right about Gay Marriage
Marriage, it’s supposed to be a term that evokes a sense of merriment and wonder. A term we use to describe the union of two people who love each other. Yet, when this word is used to describe that very same union of two people who are of the same gender, displaying this same happiness to the world, the word takes on a negative, divisive connotation. It is about rights, about dignity, and about equality; and it crushes me to know that there are people who oppose this concept that is cherished by those oppressing the few who cannot yet achieve this union.
Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.
To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.
It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.
It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?
We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.
Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.
To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.
It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.
It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?
We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)