Islamic States ask UN to explore ‘Freedom of Expression’ & ‘Incitement to Religious Hatred’

On 2/3 October, over 200 national delegates and NGO representatives attended a unique two-day expert seminar at the UN Geneva to discuss limits to Freedom of Expression. Convened by The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the request of the Islamic States, a dozen experts and many other speakers took the floor to explore the links between Freedom of Expression and incitement to religious hatred.

Many of the experts urged caution in proposing new legislation that could have negative consequences for the very people whose rights we are striving to protect, and while implementation of the existing legislation permitted under Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR (The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is still so patchy in its adoption.

Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia and the representative of the OIC were joined by former UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Doudou Diene, in calling for a review of Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, and tighter restrictions on Freedom Expression in the aftermath of 9/11 which, they argued, has created an entirely new set of circumstances. This view was strongly opposed by several Western delegations (as well as IHEU) on the grounds that today’s tensions are nothing new, that the limits already offered by Articles 19 and 20 are entirely adequate – and in any case have still to be fully adopted by many states.

Said IHEU representative, Roy Brown, after the meeting: “It is outrageous that many of those States pushing for changes in international law are among the worst offenders themselves when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities”.

It now seems probable, however, that following this meeting The OIC will have achieved another of its objectives and The Human Rights Committee, the UN body of experts charged with monitoring the implementation of The ICCPR, will be asked to consider revisiting its recommendation of 1980 that restrictions on Freedom of Expression should not impair the enjoyment of that freedom itself.

In a warning for the future, it became clear that the Islamic States, having won the battle in both The Human Rights Council and The UN General Assembly over combating defamation of religion, are shifting their attack to a new battle front: what they call “the West’s double standards” over outlawing Holocaust denial while permitting insults to religion. Their demands for “a level playing field” will focus not on repealing laws against Holocaust denial, but on using these laws as models to prohibit any speech critical of Islam!

A detailed summary of the seminar can be found here.

Statement by Roy Brown, International Humanist and Ethical Union to Expert Seminar on Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, Palais des Nations, Geneva, 2/3 October 2008

“…I must thank the organisers for giving NGOs the opportunity to participate in this important seminar. I have listened very carefully to the debate and I want to thank the experts for the clarity of their analyses, and several of the other contributors for the points they have raised.

The debate has looked at three main issues so far, but it is clear that cutting across these are two quite different schools of thought: those who believe that the existing restrictions on freedom of expression as set out in Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR are already adequate, and those who believe that freedom of expression is being misused to single out a particular group for attack.

It was suggested by some speakers that the ICCPR is a child of the Cold War, that 9/11 has created an entirely new set of circumstances and that a review of articles 19 and 20 may therefore be necessary. But the ICCPR is actually a child of the Universal Declaration, and even in 1966 memories of the Holocaust were still fresh. It was the intention of those who drafted the UDHR and the ICCPR that those events should never be repeated – against any group. Had they wished to go further in restricting freedom of expression in order ensure no repetition they would most certainly have done so.

The intention of those who drafted articles 19 and 20 was clearly to help prevent incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against any group, however they might be characterised. I would argue that Article 20 should be broadly construed. It does not go far enough if the explicit reference to nationalities, races and religions is taken as delimiting its scope. This paragraph should be widely interpreted. I do not think we can exclude incitement to hatred of other groups identified, for example, by gender, sexual orientation, class, caste, or even allegiance to a particular football club. Surely, it is incitement to hatred that is the problem, regardless of who may be the target.

My second point is this. There is an elephant in the room, but perhaps I see a different elephant from others. Articles 19 and 20 differ widely in their application both from country to country and from group to group within countries. In some States, as is well known, draconian penalties await critics of the government or of the state religion even when that criticism may be factual and justified. Yet in those same states it is open season on incitement to hatred of other religious groups, and of one group in particular.

We should be extremely cautious in tinkering with articles 19 and 20 when some States already disregard them within their own jurisdictions. I believe the greater problem is lack of uniformity in the application of articles 19 and 20, not the articles themselves. The essence of international law is surely that it be applied internationally and not selectively.

Doudou Diene has argued that we need to revisit the norms and their interpretation. Surely equally important is their adoption and implementation. As one speaker has pointed out, we have tools we have not used. Let us first explore their use.

We should also be cautious about changes that could lead to legitimising unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that exist in certain countries – and extending those restrictions to other states where freedom of expression has become one of the cornerstones, indeed one of the principle safeguards, of liberal democracy…”

~~~~End of Mr. Brown’s statement~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, JimmyMack, after an October 8, 2008, article carried by The International Humanist and Ethical Union blog

Barack Obama Steers Clear of Muslims across-the-river in Michigan

Experts say candidate attempting to sidestep controversy, but at his peril

The cover of this week’s New Yorker magazine may explain why Barack Obama isn’t reaching out to Michigan’s Muslims.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is shown in the Oval Office, wearing a turban and bumping fists with his wife, Michelle, who is in combat boots with a rifle slung over her shoulder. The cartoon, intended as satire, is a reminder of the dangers of any association with Muslims for Mr. Obama, who has fought false rumours that his middle name, Hussein, indicates he was born into the Islamic faith.

Muslim- and Arab-Americans represent four per cent of the vote in Michigan, a battleground in this year’s US election.

Yet Mr. Obama, who has held 13 events in the state during the presidential campaign, hasn’t visited a mosque or met with Muslim leaders.

Bill Ballenger, editor of the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Michigan Politics, said Mr. Obama, 46, has to strike a delicate balance. The Illinois senator “doesn’t have to pander” to such voters, who are likely to back him anyway, though he can ill-afford to “dismiss them in an arrogant fashion.”

While Mr. Obama is leading in Michigan polls, some politicians said it would be a mistake for him not to actively court the state’s Muslim voters, who went for Democrat John Kerry four years ago and Republican George W. Bush in 2000.

The Democrats “do this at their own peril,” said David Bonior, a former Michigan congressman who is advising Mr. Obama.

Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News in Dearborn, complained that Mr. Obama’s arms-length approach demonstrates that he views Muslims as “a liability.” Many Muslims who once leaned Republican have been turned off by the Iraq war and the law enforcement scrutiny of their community put in place after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Third-party candidate Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese descent, was on the ballot in Michigan in 2004, and is petitioning to do so again this year. He could hurt Mr. Obama by peeling off 25 per cent of the Arab community’s vote, said Morley Winograd, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party.

“You have in Ralph Nader’s candidacy a genuine Arab-American who has a lot of notoriety and publicity,” he said. It “would be detrimental to Obama’s candidacy.”

Muslims in and around Detroit said they have been worried by several recent controversies, particularly a report last month that Obama campaign aides removed two young women wearing Muslim headscarves, called Hijabs, from his camera backdrop. The candidate later called the women to apologize.

Hassan Habhab, a 28-year-old Democrat who works at a Dearborn mall, said he supported Mr. Obama until the incident, though he hadn’t heard about the apology.

“I don’t know if I should vote for somebody like that,” he said.

Some of Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy stances also have raised concern. Last month, he was criticized by Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, after he told the Washington-based American Israel Public Affairs Council, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group, that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel.

“As long as he believes this way, I do not believe he is going to get the overwhelming support of our community,” said Osama Siblani, who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Matt Achine, after a July 16, 2008 article by Heidi Przybyla over The Bloomberg Service

The God Inclusion – O Canada

O Canada sheet music

Yesterday, with perhaps more fervour than usual, many Canadians proudly sang O Canada as we, collectively and individually, reflected upon our national identity and heritage.

But a growing number of Canadians either gritted their teeth and mouthed a line or two, or fell silent when others sang the phrases “God keep our land glorious and free!” or, in the French version, “car ton bras sait porter l’épée, it sait porter la croix.”

Reflecting our history, both versions of the anthem have a clear religious, even Christian wording.

Yet, as Canada becomes ever more multinational and pluralistic, are those words still appropriate?

It’s a fascinating debate with wide-ranging implications.

The globeandmail.com invited their regular panel from several major faith-based communities and a representative of the atheist/humanist/free thinker groups to debate these questions:

Given Canada’s history of intertwined politics and religion, and given Canada’s increasing multicultural nature, should all references to “God” be removed from our national anthem, O Canada? What does the inclusion of “God” say about our country? What would its elimination say about our country?

As usual, the panelists each have written a short essay and have answered questions from our readers — all of which you can read at the bottom of this page.

The members of our panel are:

1) Michael W. Higgins – President of St. Thomas University in Fredericton and past president of St. Jerome’s University in the University of Waterloo. Dr. Higgins is a broadcaster, author and co-author of numerous books and CBC Ideas series, including Heretic Blood, The Muted Voice, Power and Peril and Stalking the Holy.

2) Jennifer A. Harris is an Anglican Christian. She is assistant professor of Christianity and Culture at the University of Toronto. Her teaching interests include Christianity and contemporary popular culture, sacred space, and the Bible in medieval society.

3) Lorna Dueck is an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe. She is also executive producer of Listen Up TV, a weekly newsmagazine on spiritual perspectives in current events, seen Sundays on Global TV, and Thursdays on CTS, Salt and Light TV and Christian Channel.

4) Sheema Khan also writes a monthly column for The Globe. She has a Masters degree in physics and a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Harvard. She has worked in R&D, is an inventor and has worked at law firms in intellectual property law. Ms. Khan also served as chair of The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) from 2000-2005.

5) Justin Trottier is executive director of The Centre for Inquiry Ontario, making him the first full-time paid staff member at the first venue dedicated to humanists and freethinkers in Canada. He is co-founder of the political advocacy group Canadian Secular Alliance, as well as president of the multimedia outreach group Freethought Association of Canada.

Michael Higgins: Although in a multicultural, multiracial and multifaith society, one should always be attentive to the particular nuances, needs and sensitivities of all the constituent parts, the temptation to eradicate difference in the interests of a common harmony is a false irenicism.

True harmony — not the ersatz kind preferred by ideologues — is built on the pillars of mutual respect, intelligent discernment of history, and genuine openness to correction.

The erasure, temporary or permanent, of God in our national vocabulary — anthem, Constitution, Charter, etc. — is hardly enlightenment.

The passion to do so has the whiff of Robespierre about it: Temple of the Goddess of Reason, the radical emergence of a new calendar, the extirpation of historical memory.

Not a Canada Day comfort.

God, for me at least, is not a static or single-definition concept. It admits of infinite — well not quite Infinite — variety and resonance.

If we mean by “God” a transcendent reality that attaches greater significance to our life as a community-in-time than historical record alone can guarantee, if we mean by “God” the attendant recognition of our collective dependence on an encompassing power that perudres beyond our numberless “isms” and sovereign entities, and if we mean by “God” a centre or locus of meaning that is trans-historical, then I am for its retention and celebration.

If, however, the inclusion of “God” in our national vocabulary and in the rituals that define us as a people is theologically specific, intolerant of personal interpretation, and invoked by political authorities to validate their judgments and decisions, then I am for its elimination.

God as hostage to political whim is a fearful reality. We know its kind in our time. The identification of God with the state is an invitation to misrule. We have seen the results.

But this is not the Canadian context. The calculated effort to delete God from our national discourse is itself a form of misplaced zeal.

Leave God alone. The alternatives, as George Steiner reminds us, can be quite grisly.

Jennifer Harris: When I was growing up in Toronto, there was no reference to God in O Canada.

The original set of English lyrics, by R. S. Weir, makes no such mention in its opening verse, and this was the version sung in my school, at hockey games, etc. Even the old Anglican hymn book, which includes our national anthem, made no mention of God in the popular first verse. Where we now sing “God keep our land glorious and free,” we once sang “O Canada, glorious and free.“

I am not exactly sure when the words were changed. No doubt, it had something to do with the creation of O Canada as our official national anthem in the 1980s. The French-language version has always been explicitly Christian.

This reference to “God” in the English-language version is as blandly theistic as possible, allowing for the vast majority of people in Canada to sing our anthem convincingly. There is something quite Canadian about this desire for inclusion.

While the removal of this reference would indeed be even more inclusive, something would be lost. The newer lyric says something significant that the older version, written at the turn of the “Canadian Century,” does not: that Canada’s glory and freedom needs protecting. And this is a truth worth noting!

Certainly, we can debate about who protects Canada’s glory and freedom.

I, for one, believe that this task falls to its citizens. The request that God keep our land free need not (indeed, does not) abrogate our responsibility to an unknown, unseen force.

Rather, it reminds us, every time we sing our national anthem, that there is something very precious about Canada that requires our labour to protect. In an age of increasing fundamentalisms (religious, secular, and otherwise), this particular statement of God’s work in our land seems particularly fitting. The “God” we sing about reminds us to keep Canada and Canadians free.

The removal of “God” from the national anthem would be another step in the evacuation of religion from the public sphere.

The so-called separation of church and state is an American invention that has no real place in Canada’s heritage. And we have only to look to the United States to see how ineffective such a vision is.

Canada, on the other hand, should continue to maintain a respectful balance where religion is welcomed in the public domain (in schools, etc.), so long as it is not evangelistic and harmful.

This is the kind of freedom that makes Canada the fine country it is and well worth singing about.

Lorna Dueck…
I am sorry I’m going to be answering this important debate on my BlackBerry as my husband drives me to Ottawa so I can finally sing O Canada on Parliament Hill.

We’ve long wanted to co-ordinate summer travel around the ceremonies in the capital, so we’re on our way. As the fireworks burst over the Jacques Cartier Park, I will pray that God would keep our land glorious and free.

That would include a freedom which allows people of faith to vocalize their belief in God in our national anthem. Asking, as it were, for help in defending glorious freedom that humanity has shown it is incapable of maintaining.

More than 80% of Canadians profess to believe in God, and the non-specific wording about the deity in the English national anthem can cover all our interpretations of who this God is.

That is freedom, freedom to associate your faith with your expression of what it is to be a Canadian. It is an integrated, respectful reality that acknowledges Canadians who are believers in God.

The French version carries the phrase “car ton bras sait porter l’épée, it sait porter la croix.” (“since you can carry the sword, you can carry the cross”) and I, too, wish it could be modernized, or replaced with a phrase from the fourth and final stanza of O Canada which reads:

Ruler Supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our Dominion, in thy loving care.
Help us to find, O God, in thee,
A lasting rich reward.
As waiting for the better day,
We ever stand on guard.
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

That old stanza was introduced to me not in Christian schools I attended in Canada but during the revival of grass roots prayer movements that sprung up for the nation around 2000.

It’s an interesting question Jennifer raises about how did “God keep our land” make its way into our anthem?

It was the Jesuit-educated Prime Minister Trudeau who proposed that we include a mention of God in our Constitution, an ecumenical group lobbied to help his idea survive, (thus acknowledging the supremacy of God is in our Constitutional preamble) and here we are today, still lobbying to keep a public expression of God in our country’s ideals.

To lose it would be a step away from freedom.

Sheema Khan…
On a personal note, my eyes begin to overflow every time I hear it. On Canada Day. At hockey games. At my children’s’ schools.

Our anthem begin with unassuming dignity and resonates with an expansiveness that parallels our glorious landscape and limitless human potential. O Canada has come to represent so much of what I love of this nation.

La belle province of Québec figures prominently in the origins of our national anthem. The score was completed in 1880 by Québec composer Calixa Lavallée, and the French language version soon thereafter by Adolphe-Basile Routhier. That version remains with us today.

In 1908, Robert Weir composed an English language version on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Québec City. A few slight changes were made over the years resulting in the current version.

The reference to “God” in the English version is in harmony with the preamble of our Charter. It reflects a recognition of the sovereignty of God to sustain and protect this land.

Most Canadians, I believe, have no issue with this reference. In fact, a few years ago, when then-MP Svend Robinson attempted to introduce a motion to remove any reference to “God” in the Charter, Canadians responded overwhelmingly against the idea.

If the reference were to be removed, it would signify a sharp departure from the acknowledgement of a spiritual connection that is part and parcel of our past and present.

While many Canadians may not ascribe all that much to organized religion, I believe that many do recognize that spiritual connection within — especially when contemplating our incredible landscape. And, when reflecting upon the many bounties that we have here, such as peace and freedom, let’s not forget that this spiritual base serves to lay a moral foundation for many Canadians as well.

Recognition of a greater entity — God — as sovereign, is also a sign of humility.

I do, however, have a problem with the following passage in the French version: “Car ton bras sait porter l épée, il sait porter la croix,” which roughly translates as “Since you can carry the sword, you can carry the cross.”

It presents a crusading image, that is completely out of synch with the present reality. It also refers exclusively to Christianity — a reflection of the religious landscape of 1880, but not that of the 21st century.

And, it is insensitive to the experience of our aboriginal peoples at the hands of the church and state.

Should the words to our anthem be amended? At some point, yes. Some believe the reference to “all thy sons’ command” should be amended to become more inclusive (I agree).

I once came across a t-shirt that said “O Canada, our home on native land.” Our anthem was composed without any recognition of the Inuit and First Nations communities.

Given the recent historic apology to our aboriginal communities, we should have an anthem that includes the rich legacy of aboriginal peoples — who are the original inhabitants of this land. This may mean amending the reference to God, to also include reference to aboriginal beliefs.

Hopefully, Canadians will be open to such changes as we learn more about aboriginal history, and from the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Justin Trottier…
The inclusion of “God” in our national anthem should be removed, as should all reference to a deity (eg. government prayers and our constitutional preamble) that a quarter of Canadians reject and which is offensive, disrespectful and intolerant to those citizens who are non-theistic.

How would the anthem sound if this were done? Why, just like the original.

Forgive the history lesson, but it is crucial to realize that the national anthem has evolved considerably over time. Many English versions were drafted since 1880. One that happened to gain popularity was written in 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir, lawyer and Recorder of the City of Montréal. This version had the line simply “O Canada, glorious and free.” That held fast until 1980 when the National Anthem Act officially modified it to “God keep our land glorious and free.”

Incidentally, it was around this time that God found its way into the constitutional preamble.

Let me anticipate charges that Canada was founded on the Christian tradition. If we look at our founding values soberly, we might have to admit they include invasion, oppression and genocide, but I trust those are not the values one is referring to here.

Firstly, it seems racist to ignore the contribution of First Nations by instead focusing on a religion that was from the earliest days forced upon them.

Such revisionist history also ignores the complex set of forces that propelled the settling of Canada, including trade, commerce, exploration and imperialism.

Religion was certainly part of that mix, but it was not instrumental and it was often divisive (consider Protestant Upper Canada and Catholic Lower Canada).

More important, I believe, is our legal framework — provided by British common law, the French civil code and parliamentary government, all based on some form of church-state separation, where religion was up to a citizen’s private conscience.

Besides, are all traditions worthy of everlasting life? Consider slavery, atrocious child labour practices, or inhuman public punishments like drawing and quartering. These traditions are all as old as religion, certainly older then Christianity. Does that speak in their favour?

Consider the conclusion we’d reach if every change to our society was seen as counter to Christianity. That would have to imply female suffrage was anti-Christian.

Since I’m already in over my head and as we’ve seen that traditional can change, let me make the bold suggestion that several passages in our anthem are in need of review. These include the sexism of “in all thy sons’ command” and the immigrant-unfriendly “our home and native land!”

Canada needs an anthem that will unite our citizens, regardless of sex, religiosity, spoken language or place of birth.

Let’s uphold the traditions of evolving our sphere of equality and of government neutrality with respect to religion and conscience, rather than upholding a single word in a document as young as me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, JimmyMac, after a July 2, 2008 article in The Globe And Mail

Unborn Victims Bill A Tough Sell – Québec Abortion Rights Advocates Accused by Conservative MP Ken Epp

Insisting he has no “hidden agenda” on abortion, Conservative MP Ken Epp stepped up efforts Tuesday to sell his proposed private member’s bill to recognize fetuses as separate victims when killed or harmed in attacks on pregnant women.

The Sherwood Park MP accused opponents, especially those in Québec, of engaging in a “massive misinformation campaign” about its potential effect on abortion rights in hopes of derailing the bill that passed second reading in the Commons in March.  Contrary to what they are saying, the bill specifically states it doesn’t apply to abortion, he told reporters on Parliament Hill.

“To those of you actively campaigning against this bill, I say this: Please stop frightening Canadians about the effect of the bill based on your misreading of it,” he said during a news conference.

Mr. Epp admitted the event was orchestrated to reach out to Québecers, who he says are being subjected to an aggressive misinformation campaign by abortion rights advocates and their allies.

Mr. Epp was joined on the platform by several French-speaking supporters of the bill. Among them were Salman Sesen, who lost his daughter Aysun Sesen and his unborn granddaughter when Aysun Sesen was stabbed to death by her partner last year in Toronto; and Ulrika Drevniok, a graduate nursing student in Montréal who appealed to the medical profession to get behind the bill on grounds it will act as a deterrent to potential abusers of pregnant women and their unborn children.

A trio of Bloc Québecois MPs followed Mr. Epp to the podium, where they portrayed the legislation as a “back-door” route to give the fetus rights and make abortions more difficult to get in Canada.

The bill, titled The Unborn Victims of Crime Act, would amend the Criminal Code to make it a crime to injure or take the life of a fetus against the will of the mother.

It was given second reading approval by a vote of 147 to 133, thanks in part to the support of a score of Liberal MPs. Of the handful of Conservatives who voted against the legislation, three were from Québec — Josée Verner, Lawrence Cannon and Sylvie Boucher.

The bill, which is unlikely to come to a final vote before the fall or winter, would impose penalties of up to life in prison for anyone who directly or indirectly causes the death of an unborn child while attempting to harm the mother. Penalties for injuring the fetus would be up to 14 years in prison.

Bloc MP Nicole Demers said she is concerned the bill could slip through because she suspects Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s recently stated opposition to it will not have much influence with members of his caucus who are adamant opponents of abortion.

Ms. Demers said there is fierce opposition in the province because Québecers are not fooled by Mr. Epp’s assurances that the bill does nothing to undermine abortion rights.

Creating a special status for the fetus opens the door for those wanting to recriminalize abortion, she said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Matt Achine, after a June 11, 2008 article by Norma Greenaway in The Edmonton Journal

The Lord’s Prayer Crashes Ontario Gov’t Website

A proposal to scrap the reading of the Lord’s Prayer in the legislature has prompted 5,700 submissions from the public – temporarily crashing the legislature’s website – and hundreds of phone calls from many who want to preserve the Christian tradition.

While Premier Dalton McGuinty says it’s time to open the province’s legislative debate with a more inclusive prayer, politicians tasked with sifting through the varied opinions say the majority don’t want to see Ontario fall in line with other provinces by replacing the Lord’s Prayer.

Speaker Steve Peters, who is chairing the committee to examine replacing the prayer with another reading, said the response through the legislature’s website has been overwhelming.

The traffic was so great when the committee first set up the online form that it temporarily crashed the website, resulting in hundreds of calls to Mr. Peters’ office. More than half the Conservative caucus have presented petitions in the house on the topic and the committee has yet to hear from about 50 different faith groups.

Those handpicked organizations, from The Assembly of First Nations to atheists to Christian denominations, have until the end of the month to make their case.

“The committee is going to have a lot of information to review,” Mr. Peters said.

But other committee members say the message from the submissions so far is pretty clear – keep the Lord’s Prayer.

Conservative Garfield Dunlop said some don’t mind alternating the Lord’s Prayer with other readings but the vast majority don’t want to see it scrapped altogether.

“The Lord’s Prayer is inclusive enough that it covers a lot of different religions,” said Mr. Dunlop, adding the reading is part of Ontario’s history. “You have to take that into account. It’s not just about religion. It’s about tradition.”

The last time the legislature debated replacing the Lord’s Prayer, in 2001, Mr. Dunlop said there was a similar outcry. The debate sparked by the Conservative proposal to fund all religious schools in the last election is further proof, Mr. Dunlop said.

“You don’t tamper too much with what you’ve got,” he said. “This really irks a lot of people and gets under their skin.”

People weren’t clamouring to talk again about the Lord’s Prayer’s place in the legislature before Premier McGuinty raised the issue in February, but New Democrat Cheri DiNovo says they are now.

“About 80 per cent of them are in favour of keeping the Lord’s Prayer. Now he’s getting his groundswell,” said the United Church minister. “The background of all of this is a province with one-in-eight children living in poverty. We could be spending all this money and all this time addressing that.”

The last time the Ontario legislature updated its daily prayer was in 1969, when it changed the preamble to the Lord’s Prayer. It is one of the few remaining provinces – along with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick – still reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

Both the House of Commons and the Senate recite non-denominational prayers.

(Moderator’s Note: You can make your opinion known to the Ontatio Legislative Assembly here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Matt Achine, after A May 5, 2008 article by Chinta Puxley over The Canadian Press

Windsor “Most Polluted City in North America” – Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Michigan companies sued by Kennedy’s watchdog group “RiverKeepers”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Sunday at a forum of The Rotary World Peace Summit in Windsor that U.S. companies have made Windsor “the most polluted city in North America,” and he’s taking them to court to answer for the health toll they’ve taken.

RiverKeepers, Mr Kennedy’s environmental watchdog group, is taking Michigan companies, including power company DTE Energy, to court alleging they’re “damaging quality of life and public health here,” he said during a stop in Windsor.

“Mainly, the problem is Windsor is downwind from Detroit,” Mr. Kennedy told reporters. “A lot of the industries in Detroit, the air emissions make their way to Windsor. Windsor has some of the highest cancer rates, particularly thyroid cancer rates. Many other respiratory illnesses that are associated with pollution are more prevalent here than any other place in Canada. The air quality is regularly the worst in Canada. Windsor is downwind of a lot of really bad polluters.”

According to data from Cancer Care Ontario, the government-funded agency that provides cancer treatment, Windsor’s overall cancer rates are about the same as the provincial rate, although there are variations depending on the type of cancer. The incidence of lung cancer, for example, is higher here. The reasons for the variations have been the subject of debate among experts, some of whom point to emissions from diesel trucks, pollution from across the river, or pollution from coal-fired power plants in the Ohio valley.

Mr. Kennedy, an environmental activist, was in Windsor for the final day of The Rotary World Peace Summit. It brought 1,000 delegates here from around the world.

After an interfaith service with singing and prayers from the world’s major religions, Mr. Kennedy gave a speech called Our Environmental Destiny. He talked about the U.S. oil “addiction” that has caused wars and devastated America’s economy, prosperity and international prestige.

He lamented the practice of using up the world’s resources “for a few years of pollution-based prosperity.

“Our children are going to pay for our joy ride,” said Mr. Kennedy, nephew of the late president, John F. Kennedy. “Environmental injury is deficit spending. It’s a way of loading today’s prosperity on the backs of our children.”

He also talked about Windsor. Afterward, he told reporters his group is charging DTE Energy in Canada under Canada’s Fisheries Act, which states it’s illegal to pollute the waterways and allows citizens to independently prosecute offenders in criminal courts.

“If somebody does pollute and the government fails to enforce, then any citizen can step into the shoes of the Crown attorney and prosecute that polluter themselves,” Mr. Kennedy told reporters. “It’s a very powerful statute.”

RiverKeepers alleges the company’s power plants are depositing mercury into the Canadian side of the St. Clair River.

Contacted Sunday night, DTE Energy spokeswoman Lorie Kessler said because her firm is involved in litigation in Canada with Mr. Kennedy’s organization, she couldn’t comment on the allegations, but added all of DTE’s operations are in “full compliance” with state and federal emission regulations.

Ms. Kessler said she’s “somewhat baffled,” by the allegations. She said her firm is spending $1 billion to reduce emissions of mercury and other pollutants from its plants, including its plants on the water that are closest to Windsor.

Also, she said, DTE is “fully supportive” of State of Michigan measures to bring in mercury emission standards.

Mr. Kennedy said RiverKeepers has used the statute before in Canada. But this is the first time they’ve used it to charge an American company for pollution that was created in the United States and made its way to Canada. It’s something the government should be doing, he said.

“We would love the government to enforce the law themselves,” he said. “I wish the provincial government was suing Detroit Edison and prosecuting criminally. I wish the provincial government was suing all these corporations in Detroit who are diminishing the quality of life and injuring the health of children and adults here in Windsor.”

Mercury and lead exposure to children can reduce IQ, said Mr. Kennedy. He called it “child abuse.”

He said pollution here is also causing cancer.

“That’s assault and battery, and worse, because you can die from it,” Mr. Kennedy said. “And what’s the difference if you die from a brain tumour or if you die from a bullet? There’s no difference. This is crime — it’s real crime and it’s real victims. The province ought to be prosecuting it. We ought to be prosecuting it in Michigan.”

Allan Rock, a former federal justice minister and ambassador to the UN, said fixing pollution in Windsor’s waterways requires individuals becoming more aware of the challenges and what they can do, as well as pressuring governments to act.

He said governments must exercise their authority to reduce and eliminate “the pollution that’s all around us.

“The third thing it’s going to take is discovering a new way of doing things without the coal burning power plants, without the CO2 emissions from automobiles,” said Mr. Rock, honorary chairman of the summit. “Finding ways to use technology to bring greater economy prosperity while producing a cleaner environment.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Alexander Neil, after an April 28, 2008 article by Trevor Wilhelm in The Windsor Star

Premier Orders Review of “Lord’s Prayer” at Beginning of Legislative Sessions

The Lord’s Prayer, recited by the Speaker at the beginning of each Ontario legislative session, doesn’t reflect the province’s diversity, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday as he called for a new approach to begin daily proceedings.

Premier McGuinty said it was time to “move beyond” the Lord’s Prayer to a more inclusive custom that better reflects Ontario’s multiculturalism.

In a letter to opposition leaders, the premier called for an all-party legislative committee that would seek input from citizens and religious groups before making recommendations to the legislature.

According to the 2006 census, one-third of Ontario’s population was born outside Canada.

In the Toronto region, more than half the population was born in another country.

Premier McGuinty said the province has not changed its daily recitation since 1969, while other jurisdictions have moved to adjust their customs to better reflect changing times.

The premier denied the changes were proposed to smooth tensions left over from election rhetoric that saw faith-based school funding hotly debated.

“No, like the modernization of the house itself, I think it’s a reflection of the times,” Premier McGuinty said. “We’re much more than just Protestants and Catholics today. We have all the world’s faiths represented here. If they’re represented outside the legislature, I think we ought to find a way to ensure that their diversity is reflected inside the legislature as well.”

Earlier this week, the Liberals proposed to start daily proceedings in the upcoming session at 9:30 a.m. instead of the current 1:30 p.m., while eliminating evening sittings to make the legislature more family friendly.

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said his party was open to looking at new morning customs but Premier McGuinty’s letter implied the Lord’s Prayer would be replaced altogether.

“That is completely unacceptable to us,” John Tory said. “Part of respecting the tradition of the legislature is keeping the Lord’s Prayer. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be open to other prayers being added.”

New Democratic House Leader Peter Kormos said the NDP would also take part in the discussions, but warned the premier might see a movement to remove any reference to religion.

“The premier is trying to show how pluralistic he’s prepared to be when it comes to faith communities,” Peter Kormos said. “But I think he’d better be careful because there are going to be folks from the humanist perspective who are going to argue well, if you open that box, then let’s not have any prayer at all.”

A federal all-party committee agreed on the wording for a new nonsectarian prayer for the House of Commons in 1994.

It was first used in 2004 while the Senate formalized rules around prayer in 1991.

Newfoundland and Labrador has no daily prayer while Québec has a daily moment of reflection.

Alberta uses a selection of non-denominational prayers and on certain occasions uses special prayers.

In British Columbia the practice is to rotate among members who can use a set list of non-denominational prayers.

Saskatchewan has used the same prayer, which was established by an all-party committee in 1931, while Manitoba also has a daily prayer that was established years ago.

The Speaker of the Nova Scotia assembly recites a prayer written in 1972 followed by the Lord’s Prayer.

In New Brunswick’s legislature the same prayer has been recited since 1801 by a chaplain or the Speaker, followed by the Lord’s Prayer.

The Lord’s Prayer is also recited in P.E.I.’s legislature before doors are open to the public. Prayers are also offered for the Queen and members of the legislative assembly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Alexander Neil, after a February 14, 2008 article by Jordana Huber in The National Post

World AIDS Day: The Quackery Tour

If you were going to be actuarial about media coverage – an eighth of a column inch for each premature death perhaps – then this paper would be filled with diarrhoea and Aids. Today is World Aids Day: so come with me on a world tour of Aids quackery.South Africa is traditionally where we would start such a voyage, headed as it is by President Thabo Mbeki, a man who remains an HIV denialist and recently told a biographer that he regrets withdrawing from publicly discussing his beliefs. He has compared Aids scientists to Nazi concentration camp doctors and portrayed black people who accepted orthodox Aids science as “self-repressed” victims of a slave mentality.

President Mbeki pursued his own investigations on Aids therapies, resulting in government endorsement of Virodene, a home grown South African drug. Medical treatment for Aids cost $1,200 a month, but Virodene cost $6, “medicine developed in Africa for Africa”. Virodene was in fact based on the industrial solvent dimethylformamide, which is toxic, potentially lethal, and with – bizarrely – no proof of efficacy against HIV.

The Democratic Alliance is putting questions in parliament to the presidency about the ANC’s possible financial involvement in the drug, following fresh recent allegations that tens of millions of rand in cash were ferried from the party to the Virodene company.

Meanwhile The Namibia Economist reports that a product using the same industrial solvent is about to be shipped to several health facilities in the Congo. Gambian President Yahya Jammeh claims he can cure HIV, Aids and asthma, using charisma, magic, herbs, and charms. “The cure is a day’s treatment,” he says, “asthma, five minutes.”

In Nigeria Jeremiah Abalaka, a general surgeon working independently, is selling large quantities of a vaccine and a treatment for Aids. He self-administered the vaccine before dramatically injecting himself with HIV-positive blood on six separate occasions. The Nigerian Academy of Science visited his clinic and concluded his claim could not be verified, although Dr. Abalaka is now suing the Academy. “Abalaka hasn’t even got the facilities in the lab to produce any vaccine,” says Professor Olusegun Oke, vice-president of the academy. “His lab is virtually bare.”

Before non-Africans start feeling smug and superior, the Society of Homeopaths are holding a conference in London today featuring the work of Peter Chappell, who also claims he can make an immediate impact on the Aids epidemic using music encoded with his Aids remedies.

“Right now,” he says, “Aids in Africa could be significantly ameliorated by a simple tune played on the radio.” Damningly, contemptibly, not one single person from the homeopathy community has spoken out to criticise this lunacy.

And of course the rather grand Patrick Holford, Britain’s leading nutritionist, who sells bottles of vitamin pills with his beaming face printed on them, writes, in the “fully revised and updated” 2004 edition of his 500,000 copy best seller “The Optimum Nutrition Bible”, the alarming words: AZT, a drug still routinely used alongside other drugs in Aids treatment, “is proving less effective than vitamin C”.

Aids funding from the US to developing countries routinely comes with religiously motivated edicts that Aids workers should not engage with prostitutes, and of course needle exchanges for drug users are frowned upon. And finally, most evilly, multinational pharmaceutical companies fight tooth and nail against countries who try to manufacture Aids drugs off-licence in public health emergencies, even when using the perfectly legitimate Doha Declaration. Nationalize the lot, I say.

Peddlers of nonsense treatments – and newspapers – trade in emotive anecdotes. Three million people died last year of Aids, and that figure elicits insufficient emotion, outrage, and coverage, because it is the polar opposite of an emotive anecdote. Nature outguns any man-made weapon, and it remains our greatest challenge. Our greatest impediment is wishful, brutal stupidity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Alexander Neil, after a December 1, 2007 article by Ben Goldacre in The Guardian

Wyandotte Street billboard depicting Hezbollah leader splits Lebanese, riles Jews

Members of the Jewish and Lebanese Christian communities in Windsor are outraged by the appearance of a billboard that appears to promote Hezbollah — an organization the Canadian government considers terrorist.

“That organization is banned in Canada,” said Harvey Kessler, executive director of the Windsor Jewish Community Centre. “How can that billboard be up in Windsor when it represents a terrorist organization which is banned under the laws of Canada?”

Located at the southwest corner of Marion Avenue and Wyandotte Street East, the billboard does not mention Hezbollah by name, but features a central image of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the controversial political and military group that represents Lebanese Shia Muslims and has clashed with Israeli troops for more than 20 years.

Mr. Kessler said he feels Hassan Nasrallah represents “the opposite of peace.”

“It should be offensive to all people living in Windsor. It should be offensive not only to the Jewish community, but to any Canadian.”

Emile Nabbout, president of the Windsor branch of the Lebanese Christian political group Kataeb, said he also thinks Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and he feels the billboard creates a misconception of the views of Windsor’s Lebanese community.

“We really are not in support or in favour of that billboard and it should be removed ASAP,” Mr. Nabbout said.

The image of Hassan Nasrallah is flanked by four other Lebanese political figures. “All those individuals in that picture… they are in opposition to the Lebanese government right now,” Mr. Nabbout said.

“By just analyzing the picture, there is no doubt in my mind this is a Hezbollah activity,” he added.

Printed in English on the left side of the billboard are the words: “Lebanese and Arab communities in Windsor city congratulate the Lebanese people for their steadfastness and endeavor to establish peace in Lebanon.”

But Mr. Nabbout said that Arabic writing which appears on the right side of the billboard does not match the English translation. According to Mr. Nabbout, the Arabic writing makes a reference to fighting.

“What they mean by ‘fight’ is basically ‘guerrilla’ — using arms and weapons,” Mr. Nabbout said. “Basically, there is a very specific word… That is a definite difference between the Arabic and the English.”

Contacted on Friday night, Mayor Eddie Francis said he was made aware of the billboard earlier in the day. Asked if he is concerned about its presence, Mayor Francis said: “The politics of Lebanon belong in Lebanon, not on the streets of Windsor.”

Mayor Francis said he has no idea who was responsible for the billboard, but the city is now looking into whether its content violates any rules.

Mr. Kessler said he has talked to Chief Glenn Stannard of Windsor police about the billboard, as well as the mayor. He said he has made calls to councillors, the city’s race and ethnocultural relations committee, RCMP and CSIS.

“I understand that everyone is looking at strategies under the Canadian law to get it down. Because it is not appropriate,” Mr. Kessler said.

Mr. Nabbout said members of the Lebanese Christian community have made calls to local MPs Joe Comartin and Brian Masse about the issue.

But Sam Ali, a 39-year-old Lebanese-born Windsor resident, said he supports the billboard’s message, and he believes many in the city’s Lebanese population feel the same way.

According to Mr. Ali, the accusations that Hezbollah is terrorist are untrue. “Hezbollah is freedom fighting. Whoever calls them terrorist is a liar,” he said.

Mr. Ali, a Muslim, said Hassan Nasrallah has done good things, helping people with hospitals and medicine. “When Nasrallah speaks in Lebanon, a million and a half or two million people go into the street to listen.”

Fellow Lebanese native and Muslim Ghina Maawie said she doesn’t understand why anyone would be offended by the billboard. “When I saw it, I felt so happy and so proud of it,” she said. “In Canada, we have freedom of speech.”

Ms. Maawie also dismissed the criticisms of Hezbollah. “For anyone to defend Lebanon, they call them terrorist. All we did is defend our country.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by a Windsor Humanist, Alexander Hodgins, after a July 11, 2007 article by Dalson Chen in The Windsor Star

George Bush ‘upholds US moral values’ and vetoes embryonic stem cell research bill

Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, US President George Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on US federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

“Our innovative spirit is making possible incredible advances in medicine that can save lives and cure diseases,” the US president told an invited audience in the East Room.

“America is also a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred. And our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values,” he said.

US Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president’s decision.

“This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, a candidate for the US Democratic presidential nomination, told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

Sen. Barack Obama, another Democratic presidential hopeful, said Bush was “deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives.”

And former Sen. John Edwards, also vying for the US Democratic presidential nomination, said the president “had a simple choice today: direct the full force of American scientific ingenuity towards responsible, life-saving medical research or pander to a narrow segment of his political base.”

“With his veto, he made the wrong choice,” he said in a statement.

To blunt criticism, US Preesident Bush issued an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that — like human embryonic stem cells — also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.

If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history — to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.

Spokesman Tony Snow said George Bush’s executive order encouraged scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines — that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos — to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.

“The president does not believe it’s appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes,” Mr. Snow said. “That’s a line he will not cross.”

This was the third veto of George Bush’s presidency. His first occurred last year when he rejected legislation to allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells — a measure that passed over the objections of Republicans then in control. The second legislation he vetoed would have set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override George Bush’s veto.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the US National Institute of Health says. There were no federal funds for the work until George Bush announced on August 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

States and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of August 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Opponents of the latest stem cell measure insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds — and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically. These opponents, who applaud President George Bush’s veto, cite breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involves the destruction of a human embryo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by a Windsor Humanist (N.Hod) after a June 20, 2007 article on the CNN Website