Segacs’s World I Know

That pretty much sums up the anticlimactic end of the student strike. The Liberals continued their tradition of being utterly incapable of defending an unpopular decision or having any backbone whatsoever. The student unions learned that violence and disruption is effective.

In the meantime, the students continued to make asses of themselves and an unholy mess of things as they protested at Wal-Mart. This was an obvious repayment to the labour unions for all the money they gave them to fund the protests in effort to topple Charest’s government and restore their buddies the PQ into power. Not that it would require much effort at this point. Roadkill would have an easier time getting re-elected than Charest, who is down to a 23% approval rating according to the latest CROP poll.

Anyway, there were reports of women and children shopping at Wal-Mart being pushed and shoved around. The protesters blocked entrance to the store with shopping carts and decided to provoke police yet again. Traffic was tied up on the Decarie Expressway for hours.

The bottom line is that this “victory” for the students is actually a massive loss for Quebec. No government will try again to cut bursaries for years. And nobody will even dare suggest lifting the tuition freeze; they’ll be too scared. That means that Quebec’s postsecondary education will remain chronically underfunded and will continue to fall behind the rest of North America in terms of quality.

What many students fail to understand about education is that it’s an investment. And, like any investment, you have to put in some money and effort up front to get a payoff later. Ironically, if tuition was double or triple what it is (in other words, a bit closer to what it should be), we wouldn’t see such massive strikes and protests. Students who had to cough up serious money for their classes would actually attend rather than engage in a massive strike where the chief victims are themselves.

The unions know exactly what they’re doing. But most of the students who are tacitly or overtly supporting them don’t understand. They think it’s “cool” to fight for the communist ideal, but I can’t imagine any of them would ever want to experience life under true communism. They talk about “accessible” education, but have no concept of the notion of accessible quality education.

To Jean Charest: grow a spine. Quickly. You desperately need one.

To the students: You love communism so much? Fine, go live in a communist country and quit hassling Wal-Mart shoppers and Friday afternoon commuters… you know, people with actual jobs. Come to think of it, just get a friggin’ job and quit griping about a measly $2,000 in university tuition.

With my convenient little pocket 35mm point-and-shoot camera stolen in Costa Rica, I’m faced with the prospect of having to replace it. And that means it’s decision-time: do I stick with the film I know and love, thus declaring myself firmly as a dinosaur, or do I make the leap to digital?

Sure, digital is the “wave of the future”, it’s rapidly replacing film except in a few circumstances, and people look at me with that sad, sympathetic look when I mention I’m considering buying another film camera. And the perks are sorely tempting: being able to instantly see shots and retake them if they don’t come out, convenient cropping and editing, posting online and e-mailing to friends, and all the cool features and extras.

But as I started to investigate, I really started to question the whole thing. I have a fair idea of what I want in a camera. The trouble is, it doesn’t seem to exist. Anywhere.

I’ve been reading reviews until my eyes are spinning, and every time I think I find a good camera for my needs, there’s some sort of “catch” that ruins it for me. Low resolution. Low optical zoom. Long shutter lag. Poor low-light performance. Proprietary batteries that require travelling with a charger. Lack of a viewfinder. Bulkiness. Poor image quality. And the list goes on. Not to mention that with the speed at which digital technology is evolving, whatever I choose today will be obsolete by next year.

I figured I’d have to compromise, and narrowed it down to a few cameras with flaws I figured I could live with. But when I think about it, I don’t have to live with any of those shortcomings at all! I can just buy another film camera and get everything I want – and for much less money, too.

So is digital really all it’s cracked up to be? Or is it kind of like the Emperor’s New Clothes, where film is still much better but nobody is willing to admit it? I can’t help but wonder.

Israeli President Moshe Katsav shook hands with Syrian President Basher Assad and with Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, at the funeral for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican today:

Israeli President Moshe Katsav shook hands and chatted briefly Friday with the leaders of Israel’s arch-enemies, Syria and Iran, during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the president’s office said.

Katsav’s spokeswoman, Hagit Cohen, said it was too early to say whether the handshakes would yield diplomatic fruits, but called the exchanges historic. “There is no doubt that this is a precedent, it was a historic moment and unique opportunity,” Cohen said.

Is this an encouraging sign of a future thaw? Positive news on a Friday afternoon is always welcome, and colour me crazy but I’m tempted to view this in an optimistic light, despite my better judgment. A baby step, to be sure, but a step nonetheless.

I can’t help but wonder what reaction will be like in Syria and Iran at the news.

Update: Well, I didn’t have to wonder long. Khatami is denying the handshakes took place, claiming it’s – what else? – a fabrication of the “Zionist media”. Can’t say that surprises me too much. (Via Meryl Yourish).

Native leader and antisemite extraordinaire David Ahenakew’s hate trial is underway.

I’ve always been torn on the issue of hate speech legislation. Restricting freedom of speech can have potentially dangerous consequences for a free society, and it’s not something to take lightly. After all, restricting free speech means that someone has the power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t. This opens the door for things like this, when those in power can muzzle their political opponents by attacking different opinions as “hate speech”. Deny a freedom to your enemies, and you open the door for your enemies denying that same freedom to you if the tables should turn.

And one could argue – convincingly – that people like Ahenakew should be encouraged to say what they really think, so at least we know what they really think and can judge them on that basis. And if political ostracism for hate speech isn’t disincentive enough for someone to shoot off their mouth in public, then it’s doubtful hate legislation will be either.

On the other hand, wilfully and publicly promoting hatred against a group of people, when left unchecked, can allow the hatred to grow and spread like a cancer. It’s like advertising; repeat something often enough and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

There are no easy answers here. However, the Ahenakew trial is just barely underway and it’s already leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

First of all, there’s the ridiculous defence argument that Ahenakew said what he did because he was on medication:

“He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn’t have said these things if he was feeling well,” [Defence lawyer Doug] Christie said.

“His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.

“I think in those circumstances it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t measuring his words the way he would normally do.”

Basically the lawyers are arguing a technicality: hatred is okay, but expressing it isn’t. That’s the way the law is written after all. This isn’t Orwell’s 1984 and we’re not about to start prosecuting thoughtcrime. So this defence argument of utter nonsense actually might work here.

This raises the question of what happens if Ahenakew is acquitted. Some people will use that mere fact as vindication for their hateful and antisemitic views. Ahenakew would become an underground hero of the antisemitic fringe. In many ways, an acquittal could have worse consequences for Canadian society than a lack of trial in the first place.

Then there’s the issue of the media coverage of Ahenakew’s trial actually becoming an additional vehicle for Ahenakew’s vile views to be spread. Every time a clip of Ahenakew’s despicable statements about Jews is shown on the news, millions of Canadians are hearing it. One hopes that most people react to what they hear with distaste, but some people may be reacting by agreeing. After all, it’s this exposure of such views that hate speech legislation was designed to prevent.

Now that Ahenakew is on trial, only a conviction would send a message to Canadians that promotion of such hatred is unacceptable. Only a conviction will deter further spreading of the cancer of hatred. Which is why I’m hoping for this outcome. It’s kind of like the war in Iraq; agree or disagree with it at first, now that the US is there, they have to finish the job.

But there are a lot of tricky questions here, and I don’t think the sour taste is going away anytime soon.

The NHLPA rejected 2 more proposals by NHL owners. Yawn.

It’s sad but I hardly even care anymore. This does not bode well for the league’s future, when even fans like me are losing interest.

Legal notice: There are no links whatsoever in this post.

Ok, now that I’ve covered that… the publication ban on certain testimony at the Gomery Inquiry is the big story right now. Or, make that the big non-story. It’s almost amusing watching media outlets fall all over each other to report on how they’re “not allowed to report” what most people already know by reading certain American websites. Or to watch Canadian bloggers get threatened with lawsuits for linking to these websites. As if anyone who reads a blog can’t figure out how to find the information online on their own.

But hey, governments are usually way behind the times, especially when it comes to the Internet.

So, given the impossibility of putting a genie back into a bottle, are publication bans outdated notions that have no practical application in today’s reality?

Well, no, not entirely. There are still circumstances that argue for a publication ban. Not reporting the name of a minor rape victim, for example. Not publishing information of a sensitive nature in terms of national security. There are times that warrant media discretion, and since the media isn’t known for being discreet, sometimes a judge has to impose that discretion.

So is this one of those cases? Well, no. That’s the short answer.

As Canadian taxpayers, we’re all the victims of the sponsorship scandal. The whole point of having an inquiry in the first place is to get the details out in the open, so that we can avoid government cover-ups and learn exactly what happened to all this money. It’s absurd that our government could be on the verge of collapse, but ordinary Canadians aren’t allowed to know what’s going on or why.

Irony: everyone was sick and tired of hearing about the inquiry… until we no longer had access to information about it. Now we’re all scrambling for information about it because someone told us we can’t have any. It’s enough to make me wonder if that was the point…

The upshot is that arguments about tainting a potential jury pool just don’t wash here. The future of our government should not be decided in seclusion in a back room somewhere. The whole principle of democracy says that the people have a right to be involved. This affects us. And with the traditional media barred from reporting on this story, people will seek out information on American blogs or wherever else they can find it, rendering the publication ban useless and counter-productive.

So come on, Justice Gomery: lift the publication ban so we can all go happily back to ignoring the inquiry, just like before.

According to Vatican spokespeople, it’s official: Pope John Paul II has passed away.

Yep, it’s that time of year again. April 1st. The day when salt in your coffee and sugar on your eggs doesn’t mean senility has set in early.

Since I’m not motivated enough to think up a gag, I’ll just wish everyone a good “poisson d’avril”… and if you’re a teacher, be especially sure to check your back for signs and check your seat for super-glue.

North Korea has the world’s worst human rights record, according to British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell. He urged the UN Human Rights Commission to pass a resolution condemning the country:

Kim Tae Jin, a North Korean who was imprisoned by the government before defecting in 1997, told the commission that “there is absolutely no freedom in North Korea.”

“In a political prison camp in North Korea, one must forget that he or she is a human being,” said Kim, who spent five years in a camp and endured eight months of torture and interrogation.

“There were numerous people who spent 20 to 30 years in the prison camp simply because of some ludicrous crime their grandfather allegedly committed,” said Kim.

Mr Rammell said that the European Union will sponsor a resolution at the commission to condemn North Korea’s record of abuses, adding that he expects it to be passed by a large majority.

I’m absolutely shocked… not that North Korea’s human rights record is unimaginably bad, but that the UN Human Rights Commission would consider taking a 5-minute break from its full-time Israel-bashing activities to actually comment.

I’ll believe it when I see it.