Naked Culture: On Canada's First Homegrown Porn Channel

The media has been mulling over a recent CRTC decision made early this week over Canada's first homegrown pornography channel. The channel will be known as Northern Peaks, and is based out of Edmonton. The CRTC was originally created by the Trudeau government as a federal tool for maintaining Canadian culture. For the most part, this has involved and endless string of tired CBC shows about Muslims living in Saskatchewan, comedy shows that air well past their prime, and bizarre movies that nobody will see. Why the CRTC feels that Canada now needs its own porn channel is a bit of a mystery to me. Do we really need a homegrown alternative to Playboy? The debate recently has got me thinking about the nature of our naked culture that we have in North America today.

I feel that we in the west are drowning in our own sexuality. Today, sex is easier to get than ever, and its not just the "world's oldest profession" that's flourishing. Since the mid 1990s, anyone with an internet connection can now log on and see as many men and women as they like doing acts that are said to border on art to stuff that's downright vomit inducing. The problem is that the proliferation of pornography has desensitized our society to sex. When Playboy first hit news stands in the 1950s, it was considered to be scandalous but its now pretty tame compared to what else is being offered. Pornography no longer needs to be purchased and hidden notwithstanding a quick clear of your browser cache.
Religious groups and radical feminists have long been declaring that pornography is evil and should be banned. (For the record, this is about adults over 18, not child pornography) Their reasons for doing so vary though I believe they are largely correct, though it's the solution that I have a problem with. You can argue all sorts of moral and ethical reasons to ban porn. Others have plenty of reasons not to ban it. One of the most common reasons against banning it is that it features consenting adults and in a sexually liberated world, they should be able to do and make money however they choose. The problem I have is with the term "consenting". One of the sad realities is that many of these so called consenting adults are college students desperate for money, or those who are victims of human trafficking. In the case of the former, many girls who need money for school or other habits will often turn to selling their bodies for hardcore sex filmed on camera. Its a quick and easy way to make a lot of money. The latter opens the window to a much darker world. Impoverished and naive girls, from South-East Asia (Thailand and the Philippines being particularly infamous for this, but it is more widespread) and Eastern Europe (former Soviet Bloc) get roped in to sex slavery. Some are sold by their own parents, those who are too uneducated and poor to know what they're getting their daughters into. In this case, they may be adults over the age of consent, but they certainly are not willing participants. We cannot confuse these young men and women with the likes of Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jamason who have made livings and enjoy doing it. Unfortunately, the desensitized public doesn't want that anymore as they seek more and more to fill in their high. For those who consume pornography, it becomes all to easy to forget that there is a thinking, feeling human being on the other end of the camera. I think we all to often focus on those consuming porn rather than those being used in pornography's production. Consumers though are victims in a way. Many men and women have become addicted to chasing the high pornography gives, thus further spreading the misery it fuels. Pornography is a cold, heartless, and mechanical mode of entertainment. Consumers are ultimately the reason for it to exist in the first place.

Clearly pornography is morally and ethically wrong on many levels. However, should it be banned? I have been staunchly anti-censorship for many other cases but this is one of those issues that leaves me conflicted. Banning adult pornography is not going to get rid of it. A ban in this case is simply not realistic. If you ban something like that, you run the risk of pushing it underground. In that case, it can open the door for all sorts of horrific abuses and further increase human trafficking. The demand will still be there, and as long as there is demand somebody will always be there to fill the market. It is currently a legal product and at current, we can exercise some control over it. We can require domestic producers by law to protect their employees from STDs, pay them fairly, and treat them well. The problem is the stuff we can't control; that is porn produced in foreign countries using human slavery and other less-than-willing subjects. In that case, it should be treated in the same way in which we have demonized other negative social habits such as drunk driving and cigarette smoking. Unfortunately, you cannot realistically criminalize it since it's not as black and white as child pornography is. It would be impossible to prove whether the person knew or not that the subject was a sex slave who was being abused. The public should be made blatantly aware of the mistreatment that goes on in an attempt to discourage people from consuming it. More government control should be exerted over domestic pornography produces, not to censor what they are doing, but to make sure employees are not being abused.

So what about Northern Peaks? I can't say I approve of this channel but for the reasons I mentioned, it allows some government control over what the producers are doing in order to keep employees safe. I don't think they should stop them since its their freedom of expression to air that content. By the same token, they should not be openly encouraged to do so by the government. They should also not receive any federal funding to produce "Canadian content" on the station. As Trudeau famously said, the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation. However, it should also not be providing fuel for the home fires either.

read more...

Liquid Smokes: Bottled Water the new Cigarettes?

Back in the 1990s, someone got the idea to take a product we get for almost free out of our taps and then packaged it for sale on grocery shelves. The water was significantly more expensive than tap water but it was great in a pinch when you were on the go and needed a swish of the elixir of life. We bought into it, big time. I've been drinking it for years. This is mostly due to the poor quality of Milton tap water, which has developed a swimming pool flavour due to the overuse of chlorine at the town's groundwater reservoirs. We actually had ours tested by the Region to prove it. Since then, bottled water has become public enemy number one for environmentalists. Many conservative news outlets have referred to it as being the new cigarettes. Does bottled water cause cancer? Well, it depends on who you ask. Does it bother other people? Same answer. A lot of the eco-nutters have viewed the drinking of bottled water in North America as a decadent activity. More recently, however, its not the water itself that has come under attack but rather what contains it. Namely those plastic PETE bottles.

Plastic was once considered a miracle product. Its stronger than glass, cheaper than metal, and can be moulded into any shape you want. The problem with plastic is that its not biodegradable and that its produced from oil. As such, it has recently been labelled a major danger to the environment. Other reports have come out recently that the plastics used in some water bottles may leach carcinogenic chemicals into your drink. Thus it's not surprising that they have become equated with cigarettes. Some environmentalists have suggested demonizing people who drink bottled water in the same way as we demonized smokers. Others want bottled water banned outright. In London Ontario, the city has decided to ban bottled water from vending machines and concession stands at all city owned properties. Toronto is currently mulling over the idea and premier Dalton McGuinty has suggested following London's lead by taking the ban province wide. McGuinty and Miller are no strangers to the ban. Perfectly safe pesticides have been banned in Toronto for a couple of years now and a province wide ban of the same chemicals will go into effect next year. These bans get put into place for a couple of reasons. First off, its politicians bending to the will of whatever happens to be politically correct at the time. Secondly, politicians like to abuse their banning powers to get rid of things they personally don't like.

Of course, there as an a major case of irony with the proposed bottled water bans. Plastic is a fully recyclable product. In fact, Canadians are known for recycling more used water bottles than our European counterparts by a significant amount. I believe it's around 75% for us and less than 66% for Europe. This goes against the banners' reasoning that Canadians are sending tons of used water bottles to the dump. Canadians are recycling. Another question to ask is why are environmentalists only going after bottled water when other beverages such as soft drinks come in the same kind of plastic bottle? The bans are taking away a healthy drink like water yet they are leaving unhealthy, sugary pops in the vending machines untouched. Wasn't our society nuts about the obesity crisis just last month? When you actually start to pick apart these bans, you quickly realize how ludicrous they are. Rather than banning water, they should be encouraging people to recycle their used bottles. How many times have you seen a recycling bin at a municipal park or building?

read more...

Tales of a Missing Mayor & Musings on Sunrise

On August 10th, Toronto suffered its worst disaster since the SARS outbreak back in 2003. The Sunrise Propane facility located on Murray road just south of CFB Downsview exploded, killing two people and forcing thousands out of their homes. Nearly two weeks later and some people still are not allowed back. Toronto fire and police did an admirable job in controlling the blaze but questions still linger as to whether the bureaucrats handled the disaster properly and if it could have been prevented in the first place. First of all, I agree that the location of the Sunrise facility was a highly inappropriate place. As you can see from the map (the propane facility is centred), a large residential area was right across the street from Sunrise. It's also not far from an active runway, since I presume that Bombardier still uses it for moving their planes. Furthermore, the satellite image, according to Toronto media outlets, shows Sunrise storing more propane on site than they should have. It is worth noting that Google's satellite information for the GTA is a couple of years old so we don't know how much was being stored at the facility at the time of the blast. Reports have also come out that the company was engaging in illegal and dangerous truck to truck transfers of propane and had be warned by the TSSA in 2006 to cease and desist that action. However, there is substantial evidence that points to the practice being continued. Though the cause of the blast has not been identified yet, there are strong rumors that seem to suggest that a truck-to-truck transfer was going on at the time of the explosion. Despite this though, there was a plan on the table that would have seen the facility be allowed to further expand (significantly) the amount of propane that was being stored on Murray Rd. An additional problem, which the media hasn't brought up, is asbestos. As you probably know, asbestos is a mineral fiber that is used as a fire retardant. The problem is that it's highly carcinogenic if it gets into the lungs. When the facility exploded, it sent asbestos into the air, littering the nearby neighbourhood. This is one of the main reasons why some people are still not being allowed back home. In the United States, asbestos has been banned so it begs the question, why was it being used at the Sunrise facility?

In my opinion, the Sunrise incident represents an all too common problem with municipal zoning laws that allow certain things to move into inappropriate areas. A propane tank at a gas station is one thing but a propane facility as large as the one on Murray Rd should never have been allowed in a residential area. However, I can think of several other cases like this. For example, I know of a large natural gas depot in Mississauga that is right next door to not one, but two schools. I won't mention the name and location for legal reasons but they know who they are. The facility is at least as large as the Sunrise one and is located in a densely populated residential area. I'm not saying that this one is prone to blow too but it makes you think. It's always a possibility. The question is why the TSSA was not conducting more inspections of these facilities when they found that Sunrise had been conducting illegal operations. Don't start doing these inspections now after the fact. They should have been doing them all along. Your're dealing with a highly explosive fuel here, and a lot of it to boot. When the TSSA caught Sunrise preforming an illegal activity in 2006, all they did was send them a sternly worded letter. Their excuse for not doing anything further? Well, some people just won't obey the laws no matter what you do. Really? So if a guy keeps robbing banks, we should stop arresting him because he doesn't want to obey the law? I've heard some doozies over the years but this takes the cake as the stupidest excuse I've heard. Since our family construction business deals with the provincial bureaucracy on an almost daily basis, I can attest that this attitude is very typical. Obviously the TSSA needs some reforms to make it more potent in dealing with infractions. Illegal transfers should have resulted in an automatic shutdown of the plant back in 2006 until they could prove they cleaned up their act. That did not happen. If the TSSA did have the power to do that, then it's a failure of bureaucracy and heads need to roll to prevent this from happening again.


The second part of this story has to deal with how the City of Toronto dealt with the disaster. The local media has been praising Deputy Mayor Shelly Caroll for her actions during the blast, which is hardly deserved. Caroll had told Downsview residents that they could return to their homes without first consulting police. This points to a major communications issue between the city and emergency services. Then we had the city councilor tell a constituent to "shut up" during a press rally. That is the height of unprofessional behaviour. I don't care if you're under stress. Someone in that position should be able to maintain composure and if they can't, then they are in the wrong line of work. The grievances of the constituents were legitimate. She decided to hold her own public meeting just because she didn't like the guy holding the other one. How old are is she? Five?

Then there was the tale of the missing mayor. For over a week following the blast, Toronto Mayor David Miller was nowhere to be seen. Where was he? Miller was in BC enjoying a little Miller time with his family. It was his daughter's 13th birthday so he says. In all fairness, the mayor briefly interrupted his vacation to check things out back here but returned to BC very soon after. However, Miller was not there for the clean up, or the investigation, or to attend the funeral of a firefighter, or even to rally the public. When it comes to mayoral legacies, Miller is certainly not going to be remembered as a Hazel or Giuliani. While being mayor has numerous official duties, the job also entails acting as a rallying figure in good times and bad. Family is very important but Miller still has obligations back in Toronto that simply cannot be shaken off. I'm sure his daughter, at 13, would be old enough to understand that her dad has an important job. I'm sure his family would be understanding and the time could have been made up later. However, Miller chose to go AWOL and left Caroll and his other cronies holding the bag. It shows weak leadership, which is hypocritical coming from a man who promised to clean up city hall, broom in hand. Of course, Miller did find time to end his vacation for a photo op celebrating the opening of a new film studio in the city. This is terribly poor leadership on Millers part. If he cannot be there to support the city in its worst disaster in five years, he should not be mayor.

read more...

China: It's Ok to Hold Olympic Protests, As Long as It's in the Gulag

This story both angers and delights me at the same time. It angers me because of how disgraceful it is that the Chinese government is abusing its people despite promises not to. It delights me because it has definitively proved the people who opposed an Olympic boycott wrong. During the Olympics, the Chinese government set up special "protest areas" and required those wanting to hold a protest during the games to register. Of course, any person with half a brain would know that this was just a dragnet to capture political dissidents. However, us fools in the West bought it hook, line, and sinker as a sign that the Chinese government was finally opening up and granting its people more basic human rights.

So here's the story, two women in their 70s have been arrested and sentenced to force labour and "re-education" after registering for a protest. Wu Dianyuan, 79, and her neighbour Wang Xiuying, 77 were arrested after registering to hold a protest during the Olympics. The protest would have been over the two women being forced out of their homes, which are to be demolished for redevelopment. They have not been sent to prison yet according to the story but are currently under watch. Given their age, it is unlikely they would be made to do forced labour. One of the women was said to be blind and almost disabled.

Of the 77 applicants who applied to hold protests, none were accepted and so far, no protests have been held in the designated areas. As I said, China has utterly failed to hide their true intentions from the world, yet there are still plenty of people who think that we, as the West, can put pressure on them with simple words. This Olympics should have been boycotted. Now, this is a terrible story and some would like to chop up to a one off, but it's the stuff we don't know about that's more disturbing. I believe it is time to take a much harsher approach with the Chinese government by slapping them with economic sanctions until they can get their act together and start practising what they preach. Taiwan also needs to be made a full UN member and recognized as the independent nation that it is. The coddling of this savage government by the West needs to stop. China has little to offer us and the sooner they realize that, the better. If they want to keep doing business with us, they will need to get their house in order. If we truly are superpowers, we need to start acting like it. We need some world leader get the courage to finally tell the People's Republic that what they're doing is wrong, and then follow through on threats.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

There is an Advisory Board for Judges?!

About a year ago, I wrote an article about the how judges were granting bail inappropriately. That is, letting dangerous repeat offenders out on bail. One of my suggestions was to create an independent judicial advisory board run by civilians to handle cases in which a judge made an inappropriate ruling. I feel a little embarrassed now because apparently this already exists. In fact, NDP MPP Peter Kormos wants one judge hauled in front of this panel. One of the biggest stories to break recently was the murder of Katelynn Sampson in Toronto. It has been called one of the most extreme cases of child abuse in the city's history. You can't help be feel sad for this poor child. Her mother is a drug addict, the father is nowhere to be seen, and her foster parents who are charged with the murder are well known violent criminals. The latter is what has one particular judge in hot water. Justice Debra Paulseth was the sitting judge in the custody case who handed Katelynn over to Donna Irving, the alleged killer. Despite a lengthly criminal record, the justice did not preform a background check or any sort of check to make sure the foster parents were suitable. The mother had been the one who suggested Irving, so she is not entirely off the hook. However, the judge confirming it without doing her job is the final nail in the coffin to our disgraced justice system.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. More often than not it takes a death for people to wake up to long festering problems like these. In the National Post a couple months ago was an article that noted how Native children were being put with unsiutable Native families in order to protect their culture. They were often repeatedly put into homes with known alcoholics who abused the children. Meanwhile, loving non-natives were clamoring to adopt these children but were not allowed to since its somehow considered a form of "cultural-genocide" by the courts. Of course, there are heaps more examples of similar issues.

If we actually have an institution that examines the rulings of judges, I think we need to start using it. The examples of justices abusing and neglecting their powers are staggaring. In my opinion, Justice Debra Paulseth should be made an example of. Of course, nothing has been proven in court yet but it is clear that a message needs to be sent. It should not take the death of a child before we start taking these issues seriously.

read more...