Why Biblical Scholars Don’t Deserve Our Respect

The men of this, or of any age, studying the Judaeo-Christian canon of biblical books are social anthropologists, and not necessarily as divinely inspired as they would have us think.

Think about it: although there is conceivably such a thing as the Living Word that, I believe, is God’s communication with us directly through the Holy Spirit, theologians, however, in their desire to make sense of an A.D.E. world are only judging the book by its cover, literally. It’s called hermeneutics. If the bible is divinely inspired, then we don’t need middlemen. Yet era after era, the tradition persists. Men, predominantly, are favoured to tell us how to interpret the Holy Writ. Sigh. Let me get comfortable in my morning porridge first before I continue.

No single human being, or group of humans, holds the “correct world-view”, despite their emphatic Statements of Faith to justify themselves. Also when it comes to 2000+ years after Christ walked the earth and apostles wrote their epistles, the modern man is only digging around. That’s all. Social anthropology at its finest if we might allow that. What they have, without the Holy Spirit, is a dead stack of papers and their blank stares to try to make sense of today’s world according to two centuries after the words were written. They have no living knowledge of that world 2000 years ago; they weren’t there. They are so removed from the world of the apostles that they have to literally judge on the fragments of ancient text, cultural artifacts, and the many past and current versions of the Holy Bible.

And you know what? In the end, they still can’t agree with each other. The Truth, which is supposed to be absolute, depends on the variations of the culture then and now, and at all points in between. Polygamy was permissible since Genesis. Murderers got punished, then compensated. We THINK Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being gay and promiscuous, but really it was because they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned”, says the Good Book–which potentially describes anyone and everyone from any culture. And yet we have the nerve to look at the Bible within our cultural framework and just say, “polygamy was part of their culture then”. We don’t seem to let much of OUR evolving culture of sexual lifestyles have a say in the interpretation of the Word of God. Hence, when challenged, theologians will get upset and say we’re asking the wrong questions for which there are no answers. Then they shut you out and refuse to pray for you. Wow. Nice cop-out.

The question remains that if theologians, (I mean real ones and not amateurs), cannot answer the most palpable, the most relevant, and the most damning of biblical principles, that is whether sex outside of a unique and single spouse is wrong (adultery and fornication being preached against), how can we trust them with any other more metaphysical questions? If they are representatives of God on earth, and if all our questions can be answered by intense bible self-study, why are basic questions ridiculed? Isn’t that the basis of the abortion fight? The seed of all podium-toppling, infidelity scandals in any church?

Theology is the art of conjecturing what happened yesterday to apply misguidedly for today so we might have, we hope, our tomorrows in heaven, if we adhere. No thanks, as interesting the fanciful arguments may be (for what writer doesn’t like to hear stories being told). Even though we’ve progressed from the number of angels dancing on a pinhead to rights for the unborn, something is terribly out of sync. And you know, theologians and pastors and evangelists are cowards because over the last 75 years, the moral state of the Church regarding sexual sins committed by priests, pastors, male leaders and female accomplices have only gotten worse. In the end, a thought in the heart is as bad as the actual action, after all. ~V

©2017-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

What Banks Don’t Want You To Know…Especially, At Xmas

…That they are duping you to becoming delinquent while they play the disciplinarian at the same time. In other words, they are making you into a financially suicidal, indebted nervous wreck.

Let’s begin at the beginning. A bank rep might tell you in the midst of a phone call that you are eligible for a $2K limit credit card. They sweeten the deal with no fees, reward points, and halving your monthly banking package plan. Yes, you know, so you pay half of what you do to get dinged monthly on your debit card, cheques and withdrawals. All at a 19.5% annual interest. “All you have to do is buy coffee to keep the account live,” says the winsome banking rep.

Let me tell you what credit cards mean to banks. It is currently their bedrock of income revenue. It is how they pay for overhead, for their workers, for their parties, for their executives’ third luxury homes. They can’t live without a predictable source of revenue. And your minimal payments, with increasing compounding interest, provide for that. Also, many bankers are greedy despite showing up at “charity” functions and fundraisers.

You see, banks are in it for the profit. They don’t care if you suffer. They do care if you no longer have income, because then neither will they. But they want an army of debt-slaves, or why else would they go into banking? Your interest repayments are always variable too. The rates may technically remain the same, but it is calculated and compounded daily. So, when you ask a rep for the amount of interest you’d be paying that month, well they wouldn’t know. They don’t know how much you’d charge that month. And in the end, they can’t understand why you make stupid decisions, and can’t control your credit. They claim publicly that though they lured…oh, sorry…offered you the card, they’re not responsible for you making stupid and irresponsible decisions. It’s all your fault for being a defective human being. Makes sense right?

Now, if you don’t see what’s wrong with this picture, let me give you my personal understanding with credit debt. Let’s look at the situation behind credit. On our side, to cover the credit limit we agree to take on, we have to have at least that much in cash, and then some, to make sure we don’t go into debt-slavery. In fact, you need to make as much as twice as much of your credit limit to make sure you can survive and not depend on the revolving door of credit debt. With 4K+ every month, why not just use cash debit? Well, with 4K+ you wouldn’t need a credit card unless you also travel and need to book a hotel room. I suppose if you have the cash to travel, and can pay off your credit cards every month, then, all the power to you.

But, you see, the rich are not the only people banks target. They go after the desperate, too. They don’t want you to pay back your credit bill every month in full. They rely on your bouts of depression and compensatory shopping binges or electronics shopping. They depend on your isolation and confusion and loneliness and suggestibility and intellectual fragmentation for making that one extra purchase that sends you flying over your personal credit goals. I’ve been lucky enough to have had a saintly boyfriend who insisted I cut up my card and pay back $200 every month to my bank. It took me a year and my parents matching my last $200 to close that chapter of life. Now, gratefully out of that slavery, I am no longer suicidal or spending nights worrying. But, the damned bank keeps offering me credit cards, with a much higher limit. They entice me with partial discounts on my banking fees. I’d save $60 a year if I sign up for a $10K limit at 19.5% annual interest. Now, they thought this through. They delved into my situation in life, my spending habits, my psychology and my emotions, and my shopping patterns. They know $60 is a drop in the proverbial bucket for which they can claim a daily compounded yearly interest of 19.5% on $10K a year. It’s a no-brainer for them. Only, they think I don’t have a brain either.

Banks exist for a good reason in our economy. Without them, our markets would be a clusterfuck. But they are angling in on the poor. That, to me, is reprehensible. Yes, bankers deserve profit for doing their job. Yes, they need to pay their own business bills. Just don’t do it on the backs of the vulnerable. Don’t go for their jugular just because they no longer have people who care for them. Banks must get their ethics straight and revamp their story, or karma will come to visit them, too. It’s not that far from the top floor to the redundancy pavement. C’mon guys. The banks have our brightest minds and our best workers. They can do much better with their business ethic. They need to, because now we see through them. ~V

© 2016-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

The Permanent Mute Switch

Housing and treating the mentally ill have always been problematic. From tying them down to bed railing, to nailing shut the hut with the crazy person in there alive–to die slowly of starvation and self-harm–it is always the same response: society doesn’t know what to do with the mentally ill and doesn’t care enough to try. In this day and age, society is trying, if half-heartedly and with a little lip-service; but, now that the Segal Family, of Vancouver, Canada, have tried and seemingly failed to raise the monies needed to build a permanent hospital “resort” for the mentally ill, something else must be done.

Enter legislation for physician-assisted suicide for the “severely mentally ill”.

This tricky piece of legislation is telling us we can conceivably stop the suffering through ending life instead of healing it. Really what society is saying is that normaloids can live more convenient lifestyles if society just practices the good principle of eugenics. No longer will it be “kill the mind but save the flesh,” but, rather, as one policeman put it, “I don’t have time for this,” shooting the young schizophrenic man in distress in the head, unapologetically, and even framing it as a suicide.

Who cares? Why do research for a cure when you can warehouse death for the menaces to society? Why should you care, ye normaloids? What if your daughter or son had schizophrenia? Or your father, depression; your grandmamma, borderline personality disorder? What real difference would it make?

From my understanding, if I can be allowed to be as objective as possible for once, the principle and practice of eugenics is a good and reasonable thing, biologically speaking. If mental illness has a genetic component, it makes no sense to have a schizophrenic parent to pass his/her genes to an innocent and vulnerable young life, making that life more vulnerable as the child approaches adulthood and passing on to old age. Raising a child as a mentally ill person makes no sense, as instability and lack of parenting skills make him or her unlikely to pass on good tools to make well-adjusted adults out of their children (or, simply, well-adjusted and happy children). In fact this whole libertarian advocacy for letting the mentally-ill breed is right up there with advocacy to let all mentally-ill stop their medications if they should so desire (and they will!) It is irresponsible, unethical and downright harmful, if not dangerous. Breeding mentally-ill offspring is like blowing smoke into a child’s face continually during its first crucial decade of development. I can’t say enough about how breeding fragility into the human gene pool is completely and utterly self-defeating as a race.

Having said that, think of Vincent van Gogh. The prices you normaloids pay for his prints, or, even, if you’re extremely sophisticated, one of his originals, reflect the contribution that this man, the supposed consummate painter, has made–not just on the art scene–but to all of the whole world. Say if, after some counselling, he was told he had the option to die through doctor-assisted suicide, would he have painted “Starry, Starry Night”? Would he have painted things that made him truly happy? Would you have been impoverished of the joy from his work if he had logically decided life was not worth living? Eventually, yes, he did decide on suicide; but, if he had a cure, which we should have had by now, would he not have remained alive and painting prolifically? There you go. Eliminated from the gene pool: Talent, genius, compassion, and generosity of spirit from his genes are wiped out. Are not these things in themselves an enrichment to the gene pool, or rather to the human race?

Think of the practice of more or less, the random eugenics that doctor-assisted dying is, as a permanent mute switch for those whom you don’t understand and cannot bother trying to. Out go the van Goghs, the Christopher Smarts, the Virginia Woolfs, the John Nashes–the 20% of defective humanity who don’t fit your criteria of “fit minds” to warrant being alive. They deserve everything they get, after all. It is simply a matter of keeping the 80% untainted by insanity and any atrocities that unmedicated, mentally ill persons may or may not end up doing because the system is not equipped to handle them. Why? Because in times of austerity and in prosperity alike, the mentally ill are severely taxed and punished, or, at best, are of lowest priority. (After all, here in our province the provincial government already spends $5 billion dollars a year on mental health, so it seems as though our provincial Premier likes to advertise, but to what avail?)

To some, keeping the mentally ill alive means fostering entitlements. And countries in the first world are already up in arms about sharing their disgustingly lavish goods with those who have, literally, only a shopping cart filled with junk.

You can send an iPhone-sized spaceship to Alpha Centauri on a laser beam and give a great cheer! But, you can’t even meet the basic needs for stability, food, shelter, warmth and acceptance for the “defective” 20% whom Big Pharma has given up trying to cure and, in some cases, even treat.  What is left after eliminating that defective 20% from the gene pool? You are left with the calloused, the greedy, the mediocre, the competitive, the corrupt and inhumane leaders and sheep of tomorrow, who will still rape, riot, loot, murder, commit arson, thieve, abuse and assault others despite having passed as genetically sound and mentally fit to live. Congrats. You guys deserve everything you get. ~V

© 2016-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

From Mental Patient To University Graduate

Hertie, an older, religious, gum-chewing woman of vicious jealousy, asked, “Do you want to be like them? D’ya? D’ya?”

Looking wistfully at university students – shredded, determined, doing their utmost and more to scale the vertical wall after three-mile triathlon – I thought, “Hell, yeah!”

But I was a mental out-patient attending the Day Care Program at the campus Hospital. I was as much at the bottom rung of any ladder as I could be, never mind the academic ladder…Things weren’t looking too bright…

I spent a good eight months in that rehabilitation facility, learning to re-enter everyday life after the madness and meds had wiped my brain clean like a wretched, formatted hard-drive. It took a lot of tolerance and patience, both of which I eventually ran out. The final straw was when Hertie jealously goaded me in my soaking in campus life, and I thought, “One day, Veek, one day…”

Hertie finally claimed at one group session that she had joined the Franciscan order, while still sucking on her never-ending bag of high-quality hum-bugs. I left the facility with the excuse that I was going back to school. College, I thought, was the cheapest and easiest way to get reconditioned. The nurse on duty one night did say that life from now on will be retraining the neuron pathways to achieve the same goal. She got me to cross my arms the way I usually do. “OK, now cross them the other way. OK! Took a bit of thinking, but you did it.”

It took me eight years, eight bloody, long years, to get my BA. I majored in English and came out with a “B”average. (Same as good ol’ high school, a “B” student, as always I ever was.) That was a hard path though. Closer to the end, I had a near-breakdown. I wanted out. My mother, however, wouldn’t let me quit. “Even if you must do it one course at a time, daughter, you must do it. If you take a break from school, you might as well say bye-bye to your diploma.” She was right. I took it one course at a time, and with my framed diploma proudly in place on the wall behind me, I am a person with mental illness who went through her own obstacle course of sorts, finally scaling that wall until I, too, became, analogously, a bona fide “Ironman”.

I am now constantly readjusting like that. With the frontal lobes not working properly, I’ve had to use everything from objective logic to spatial/kinetic learning to solve problems. I do pray; I believe in most of the religious stuff that Hertie believes in. But, she was limited because the amount of damage and lack of proper therapy that the years had done to her. For her, the illness was more unkind. Only, I guess, that when you get sick over and over from going off meds, the brain doesn’t have the same elasticity as it had when in the previous state before quitting medicinal treatment once again. I am only surmising what might have happened in her case. I mean, she was emotionally intelligent enough to sense that I admired the students, and that I silently wished I was one of them. But in terms of wanting more, she was happy with her expensive bon-bons and didn’t want me to have anything better than her. My conceivable success was her discontent. However, I do not take kindly to mental bullying. Mindfuck me once, and I’ll have a word with you. Do it again, and I’ll ghost you. There won’t be a third time.

One thing that university taught me was the value of perseverance in all things. It’s almost like you throw all the years of coddling and pampering at its implacable and immobile coat-of-arms, and it deflects those years with the constant reminder that it’s all about what you make of it. It is as simple as that. You get out of things what you put into it. There are no shortcuts. I’ve said this before, I’m sure. But, it bears repeating for my own sake, mainly, even if you think it isn’t for yours. ~V

©2016-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

The Zeitgeist of 2017 (and beyond)

In our day and age, the one conclusion I’ve come to is that it is possible to interpret the present times as one where there is no authority higher than ourselves. With existentialism being passé and Romanticism being junked for cold, hard reality, we are living in a Zeitgeist where the individual self-references. Is it good for me? What do I think? What do I believe? Isn’t God’s Word just so boring and irrelevant? Wait a minute…that is existentialism and Romanticism. Eh?

We live in a world full of queries. The oppression we see across the world countered by our own “do-what-we-want-sunny-ways” makes the intelligent woman or man question the validity of rules, laws, regulations, commandments, and even truth, itself. “Fake, fake, fake!” cry the counter-media. But there are deeper questions than what can be tweeted in a couple hundred or so characters. The question might be, if our border allows all those within it to do this thing, then why would I be persecuted when crossing the imaginary line to the next country? Aren’t there absolutes? Aren’t there fixed points of reference? What exactly is a universal, human right? When does it apply when the “authorities” of the land says it does not? Or what do we do and whom do we believe when the very Nobel-winning face of a champion of human rights allows for so many deaths, so much suffering, and reprehensible ethnic persecution? Are we being fooled? And how do we know when to trust a leader, even if she is a “Canadian” three times over?

I had the same problem when confronted with what was touted as objective reporting. I still don’t know when our civic and national news centres are feeding us a spin or exaggerating the sins of important people. I mean, how much of the truth can you really pack in a sound byte? We all know that recording history, itself, is fraught with problems about its veracity. People forget. People lie. People have an agenda. People are mercenary. People are patronized by certain groups or by the wealthy and the powerful. People might have a gun to their head or their families may be in jeopardy. People are misguided. People are misunderstood. The list of possibilities continues. The point is, history itself isn’t objective, and nobody knows what really happened since we take it by artifacts and theories and hearsay. Even historians can’t tell at that moment of action because of the vast scope of unknowns, of which they only know their own point of view. Sure, we can synthesize, but synthesis implies “artificially” stitching disparate parts together that overlap somewhere, at times. Reality is not knowable; we simply weren’t there, nor were the historians conceivably at all possible angles.

It is the same with reporting. Nothing is knowable. Well, ok, that a man was shot point blank in the chest, while being pinned down, and that he was black and the officer who shot him was white, we can literally see that, nowadays. We can even watch little white guys in sunglasses gang up and choke a big, African-American man to death even when he’s done nothing but say he couldn’t breathe. We can watch the systematic racism of people from Hispanic and African origins being deported, while the British, the French, the Italians, the Slavs, the Caucasian Canadians breathe a collective sigh of relief. After all, as one policeman put it while being recorded by his own dash cam while stopping a very frightened white couple, “Don’t worry. We only go after blacks.”

Is God interested in our lives? Presuming some of us might disagree with Canada’s newly appointed Governor-General who mocks us simple folk for not believing in the Supremacy of Science. And furthermore, is there something inherently wrong with my thinking? I thought for about half a day that no leader, no authority figure, no clergy or family member, is above me. I am my own highest authority. I felt very uncomfortably out of my skin while trying to live that out. By the end of the day, I was back in my shell, begging God to please forgive me for erroneous thinking, much of which was influenced by seeds sown by therapists and the situation of the free world. We can depend on “sunny ways”, yet the law is the law. We have tremendous freedom, if we stay within current mores. We have a nation rich in tolerance and diversity, but the GG wants to shut down all “misinformation”, such as creationism, horoscopes, and all that she chooses to deem as such. Great! Now we will have state-sponsored censorship within a social democracy and constitutional monarchy where freedom of speech is still touted as a Canadian value. WTF??? No wonder, when encountering similar dichotomies decades ago, but under much different circumstances, I went schizo because I couldn’t resolve the cognitive dissonance. I took it seriously. See, that was the wrong thing to do. You’re not meant to take societal things seriously, Holden Caufield; you’re just meant to play the game. Truth-seekers, OUT!

You know, at the end of the day, it is the man with the most powerful gun/nuke who is the ultimate authority figure. By extension, I can see the day when all hell breaks loose and we devolve (sorry, Madam Payette) into tribal warfare. This world is not heading into a very good way. I hope most of us (again, sorry, Madam Payette) still remember to say our night-time “Now, I lay me down to sleep” prayer, because it looks like we’re gonna need it more than ever, now. ~V

©2017-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

It’s Not Easy Being Yellow

Face it, I am just as Canadian as the next person. I am an immigrant from southeast Asia, raised by hardworking, tax-paying parents, and having been a citizen for the last 43 years. But, you know, I had to teach myself English and achieved relative success. Yet, I still hide from society. Why? Nobody wants to hire an immigrant to Canada in the publishing world. Oh yes, it’s true. Think there isn’t discrimination in the workforce against the non-native speaker of English? Think again. Think real hard. In fact, explode…erm…indulge your brain a bit in my world.

I am a product of proper parents and a wild spirit of a colourful country, with colourful and harmless metaphors. However, I am seen as foreign, despite my almost impeccable English, because of the colour of my hair, the tinge of my skin, and the almond shape of my eyes – all dead giveaways that I am, well, NOT WHITE!! If you think, in your white-bread, middle-class, so-called open-minded Canadian-ness that appearance and language don’t designate worth in Canada, oh boy, are you in for a nice intro into “Canadiana 101”. (I don’t promise to be nice except that I will use the ‘eh?’ after every, ahem, colourful metaphor.)

First of all, we Asians bring “the worst” accents to the spoken English language. Only Russell Peters can make us laugh at that. (Thank you, Mr. Peters.) The rest of you suck hairy goat balls at bringing that to our attention, eh? Sayings like, “You stutter like a [insert nationality here] mongook,” still persist online against someone can’t speak or type in grammatically-correct English. With the past decades of political correctness, the insult has become more “civilized”, but nonetheless bold. They simply ask, “What’s with all this wing-wing-wong-wong?” Even if the person they’re asking is white-bred through and through. Kinda shitty, eh?

Secondly, there is the whole issue of incompatibility between East-Asian languages and English. Many of us can transition seamlessly between our family’s native tongue and our pared-down English replies (as any good immigrant kid can). Yet, we are forever stuck in a tense-less netherworld where our teachers love to pick at our lack of subject-verb agreement, and discrepancies with our dangling modifiers.

Also, we don’t DEBATE with our betters, (unless it’s with our parents), not even politely. To debate is Canadian, to challenge our teachers is insanity. To challenge any authority at school is unheard of in our generation. For instance, at home, we’re not even taught to think for ourselves in order to solve problems. We were simply told to follow a set way of doing things that have been passed down through the generations. All we had to “get” was the rationale behind our culture’s decorum. If it was good enough for our ancestors, there must be a reason. Or, at least, such is what our deep thinking comes to embrace by the time we’re twenty. Debate is insanity. Do you want to get whipped? Smacked across the face? Get yelled at and embarrassed in public? Do you want to dishonor your elders? Forbidden! (Yes, like any Western country, beatings were part of the Asian childhood experience back in the 1970s.)

So we make poor Arts Majors here in the land of the Great Debaters. After all, Canada was, and continues to be, established by debating issues, politely, of course. Though our sons and daughters, or at least yours, stood on guard for the country, so that we can have freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and all the blah blah Charter of Rights that nary a PM might dare to destroy – our youths, ours, not yours, find themselves unable to 1. understand the essay structure (based on a controversial thesis and subsequent arguments); 2. be motivated to learn anything Canadiana (the precious literature of our vast and varied population, most of all); 3. play professional ice hockey (though we love to take lessons, we just can’t get ourselves to impolitely body-check, so we take kung fu/tai chi instead); 4. become editors. Full stop.

You can’t blame anyone for that really. As I’ve said, it starts in childhood when we’re ingrained into believing we don’t and can’t know anything for ourselves until we follow what our elders tell us to do. Canadians hate that. Who can blame Canadians? After all, as Canadians ourselves, we were half-brought up to think for ourselves. Hence, the awful truth: too many of us Asian-Canadians are schizophrenic. Like, we’re screwed, eh?

When you are supposed to “switch gears” to challenge others when taught to quietly acquiesce at home; or to learn for yourselves to know where you “stand” while being told repeatedly you’re wrong if you don’t think like all the elders in your family…something’s gotta give. Hence, not many of us make it past the cultural starting gate. And, those who do, end up as assistants – helpers, not leaders.

After all, when an ad on LinkedIn says, “Only native-English speakers need apply”, and you KNOW you’re not a Canadian-Born-Anything, that is, a true banana – you then know something is amiss with the state of your essential being. ~V

© 2016-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved

Oh, Canadian Values, Eh?

I wonder at what Canadian values really are. Are they, um, white- Anglo-Saxon, Protestant type shit or is it simply a vague hodgepodge of discrimination against anything unfavourable for the non-ethnic, upper classes, be they high, middle, or pretentious? What is ethnicity, exactly?

We all know that everyone living on the North American continent is an immigrant, including individuals of Caucasian races. Even the current aborigines are immigrants who took over North America from the pre-aboriginals, who died off, etc. We know this to be true in Canada because of artifacts excavated from various burial mounds. One of them is on Simon Fraser University grounds in British Columbia. Archeologists have confirmed this.

Every single Canadian is an immigrant with non-pre-aboriginal, hence, non-Canadian values. I don’t know what the politicians here mean by sifting out and/or, by extension, deporting ethnicities who “don’t share Canadian values”. In other words, non-whites in Canada need not apply, and we coloured folk had better watch our backs. Welcome to the segregation of the early 20th Century, and to the coming of apartheid to Canada.

Does ethnicity denote more than just colour? If it did, then has the progress we made in multiculturalism for the past so many decades been a joke? But if people of colour embrace whatever that vague thing is that makes a Canadian, Canadian, then how exactly can you tell? Can they embrace Canadiana within the context of their culture? Or at least be coloured and still be Canadian? Will a Real Canadian adult or child in the room please stand up and tell us what Canadian values are?

As far as my impoverished, ethnic brain can tell, we Canadians, since 1982, are all protected under the Constitutional Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as written in the following:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
And that
Legal Rights

Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Marginal note:Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Marginal note:Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Marginal note:Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Marginal note:Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
Marginal note:Treatment or punishment

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Marginal note:Self-crimination

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Marginal note:Interpreter

14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights

Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84)

In short, Canadian values appear to be about tolerance, respect, and communication amongst the vast mosaic of ethnicities, believers, sexes and the disabled, whether or not you smoke dope or shoot up heroin, that make up Canada. Are these not sufficient as Canadian Values?

I honestly cannot see Canada, the Canada I have known as a toddler, to be a bigoted place. I have always called Canada home. I do not want to see it become a byword amongst nations as “that country that once was…” and now is a failure of the great multicultural experiment.

What I want to know, being the little ethnic and disabled shit-disturber that I am, is how many times have these rights and freedoms, guaranteed under the Constitution to every Canadian citizen, been violated, by whom, and to whom, and to what extent, in public and in private, high or low, since the Constitutional Act of 1982. I demand an exhaustive, public report, complete with records, stats, charts, comparisons, and an executive summary. Surely, that isn’t as crazy as whomever says that everyone should be screened for undefined and nebulous “Canadian values”, or else! Such data would be very revealing, and difficult to trust, if it were at all possible to mine.

©2017-2018 Veekwriter All Rights Reserved