On ageing and ageism

I discovered recently that I am getting older. In a sense I have always known that, but lately the signs of old age are becoming more noticeable. My back now hurts more frequently, and when I wake up in the morning I am stiffer than I used to be. I admit that my eyes have never been great, so I think that doesn't count, but many other signs do point in that direction.

For many of us ageing is the prologue to our death. Two things, it is said, are inevitable: death and taxes, but while the latter can be evaded by some, the former cannot. The mortality rate of the human race is 100%. All of us will die some day. In fact, we start dying the day we are born. Aging points the way to the grave.

Aging is not only an actuarial problem but it is also political. In today's post the political aspect is my special concern. Ageism involves several related phenomena: prejudicial attitudes towards older people, old age and the ageing process; discriminatory practices against older people; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about older people.

Although the term has also been used to describe discrimination against children and adolescents, it refers especially to older people and the prejudice and outright discrimination they often face. That is the sense I am using it now, in part because I fall into that category. One day, need I remind you, you will too.

I am acutely aware of the problem because I have lived for decades in many countries where older people are respected for their experience and wisdom. Not so in western societies, however, where ageism is now the most pervasive (and acceptable) form of discrimination.

In the West ageism is rarely blatant, but it is widely practiced. In the workplace it is very common, even if it is illegal. It is found everywhere in society. This is a subtle prejudice, but it is nevertheless a widely accepted reality in western countries, and increasingly elsewhere too.

It is accepted because of myths and stereotypes about older people, especially workers, that permeate much of western society. In the work place those over 50 are regarded as resistant to change, technophobic, less energetic, less creative and less innovative, are unwilling to learn new skills and new processes, and are just putting in time until retirement.

That stereotype may be true of some elderly people, but it is not true of all. It is myth that is often used to justify getting rid of older workers, and thus allowing younger ones to take their place.

Speaking personally, I have become more creative and open to new ways of thinking in the last few years. I received my PhD rather late in life, and I became more innovative since then. It was a liberating experience, and I have not looked back since.

However, I did find it difficult to find new employment because of my age. I was too old for some jobs, or so it was thought. Eventually, I did find a job where my age and experience were considered an asset, not a liability. But that took a few years of being rejected for reasons that, although not stated, were age-related.

Younger people also experience discrimination in finding employment. They are often rejected because of a lack of experience. While older workers may take early retirement, and thus permit younger persons to be hired, that is only one solution. Many older workers do not have the pensions that would allow them to step aside. Is it fair to sideline workers who are either unwilling or unable to be dismissed?

Ageism, whether directed against the young or the old, is a very serious problem that is not easily solved. Certainly legislation is not going to eradicate it in the workplace. Just as racism cannot be eliminated through legislation, the eradication of ageism will involve a change in social attitudes, so that people will not be discriminated against because of their age.

After retirement, and even before, there is discrimination against the elderly in health care. Many physicians and other health care providers do not show the same care towards older patients that they do to younger ones. Elderly people are less likely than younger people to be screened for cancers and, due to the lack of this preventative measure, are less likely to be diagnosed at early stages of their conditions.

After being diagnosed with a disease that may be potentially curable, older people are further discriminated against. Although there may be surgeries or operations with high survival rates that might cure their condition, studies have shown that older patients are less likely than younger ones to receive the necessary treatments.

The treatment of older people is often based on managing the disease rather than preventing or curing it. Because of ageism, the expectation is that the quality of health will decrease anyway, and thus there is no point in trying to prevent the inevitable decline of old age, and costly treatments are deemed unwarranted.

It is argued that in an era of belt-tightening, scarce resources should be apportioned to those who can best benefit from expensive treatments: the young, and those who still have a long life ahead of them. 

These are complex issues that are not easily resolved, but such decisions should not be based only on age. Yet is someone who is young, but has led a poor lifestyle, more deserving of receiving an organ donation than an elderly person who is still healthy otherwise?

Ageism has significant effects on the elderly. It affects their self-esteem and behavior. After repeatedly being told that they are useless, older people may begin to agree that they do not deserve better treatment, whether in the workplace or in the health system.

These are just a few of my thoughts on ageism prompted by my realization of ageing. There is much more that I could and should write about ageism. I hove not yet touched on the problem of how western societies tend to shunt the elderly into nursing homes, many of which are good, albeit expensive, but a few are places where elder abuse is rampant. Aside even from the abuse, is this the best way to treat elderly parents?

Ageism is a long-standing problem in western societies. In other societies, the elderly are generally respected and treated reverentially. Now that some members of the boomer generation have started to become seniors some attitudes may change. That generation made new rules all along, and they may do so again. 

But ageism is never going to disappear entirely. Old people will continue to experience discrimination, as will the young, but in time ageism will become as socially unacceptable as racism is today. Let us pray that both will be reduced and eventually disappear. 

That day is still a long time off, however. In the meantime, all of us who are elderly (or getting there) should enjoy ourselves. Every age has its joys and its drawbacks. Getting old is indeed a problem, but consider the alternative.

       

Did the US go too far?

I feel sorry for Edward Snowden. For me, he is a hero for blowing the whistle on the PRISM surveillance program in the US that allowed the monitoring of many phone conversations, as well as demanding the e-mails and the internet use of people all over the world to be revealed. I also feel sorry for those people, which includes many Americans, who have been monitored in this way.

But I feel only disgust for American politicians, whether Republicans or Democrats, who have tried to paint Snowden as a traitor. That is grossly unfair. When Snowden exposed the surveillance that the US does, he did nothing that is treacherous. Most Americans, it seems, would agree; according to a Quinnipiac University poll, 55 per cent, as compared to 33 percent, regard him as a whistleblower, not a traitor.

President Obama’s comment that such forms of monitoring are only“modest encroachments” on privacy does not seem to be playing well with the American public. While such surveillance is legal under the US Patriot Act and Congress, or at least the intelligence committee, has been kept abreast of this surveillance, Americans were shocked to lean about its extent. Probably most people in North America, and presumably many elsewhere in the world, have been caught up in this enormous sieve.

Snowden was charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person. In other words, espionage. These charges are far-fetched. The American public is quickly waking up to this fact.

What he did may be called a political crime, but that does not make him a traitor. He did not use violence. He did not do it to seek personal enrichment. He did not sell US secrets to foreign governments. What he did do was expose serious NSA wrongdoing, but he committed no crime by doing that. Instead, he is a whistleblower in the best tradition of doing the right thing for his nation. Thus he deserves high praise, not persecution.

Snowden is not a criminal. Instead, he is champion of law and order. He is a heroic whistleblower, as Daniel Ellsberg said of him:“he’s done an enormous service. It can’t be overestimated.”

Snowen's own government has gone out of its way to bring Snowden to justice. After he fled to Hong Kong, his passport was revoked, yet he did manage to fly to Moscow, where he is still (as this is being written) in a hotel in the transit area at Sheremetyevo airport. This is in the new terminal, which is good, since the old one was a totally depressing place, as I know from numerous trips to Russia during the 90's and later.

The US then put pressure on Russia to arrest Snowden, but the Russian government has thus far refused to do so. He applied to several countries for asylum. Many countries turned him down under pressure from the US. Only Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua offered him asylum.

Unfortunately, Snowden is unable to travel to any of these countries, especially after the plane carrying the president of Bolivia was forced to land in Austria, after several other European countries had refused to let the plane use their air space. This no doubt under pressure from the US, which believed that Snowden was on board and thus could be turned over to American authorities.

How would the US respond if Air Force One were denied the use of air space and were forced to land somewhere? The US does not practice reciprocity, but it imposes its own terms on the rest of the world. 

Snowden' held a press conference in Moscow, where he addressed human rights groups a out his situation. He announced his intention to ask for temporary asylum in Russia. He asked for their assistance with getting to Latin America and asylum in Russia until his safe travel could be assured. President Putin later said that the US had blocked all travel options for Snowden, who had planned only a transit stop in Moscow.

Obama called Putin after the news conference in which Snowden's status was also discussed. The White House later commented: that Snowden “will be afforded full due process” if he returned. But the US has already declared him guilty by accusation. Where is the presumption of innocence? The expectation is that Snowden will not receive a fair trial, but will be treated mercilessly like Bradley Manning.

The US position contradicts its own long-standing practice of refusing to give up those who are wanted for political crimes, including in some instances even shielding people who were charged with terrorist activity. 

Luis Posada Carrilles

The most notorious example is that of Luis Posada Carrilles, an exile from Cuba, who has a long record of involvement in anti-Castro terrorist activity and is alleged to have blown up a Cuban passenger plane in 1976 with 73 persons on board. Yet Posada continues to live without legal difficulties in Florida.

It should hardly be surprising that such diplomatic hard ball angers Latin American countries, as well as many other,who are justifiably sensitive about the willingness of the US to encroach upon their sovereign rights in a manner that would not be tolerated if the situation was reversed.

After 9/11, the US imposed its stringent rules on other countries. I learned about American extraterritoriality first when, some years ago, shortly after I boarded a Dutch plane in Amsterdam that was flying to Toronto but did not involve flying over US territory, I was shocked to hear this announcement: "The Department of Homeland Security requires . . . " 

The Snowden case is a blatant case of extra-territoriality that no other country enjoys. The US claims of extraterritoriality demonstrate that the Monroe Doctrine is not yet dead. This is yet another example of "gun boat" diplomacy. Will the US punish Venezuela, if Snowden ever manages to reach that country? 

Chen Gunagchen

The US also manifests an imperial unwillingness to reciprocate with other countries. For example,would the US turn over the blind Chinese human rights activist, Chen Gunagchen, for prosecution under a Chinese law that criminalizes deliberate harm to the country's public image?

Of course not, would be the American response, and that is a good thing. Sovereign states should welcome the exemption of political crimes from cooperative law enforcement. So should the US in the Snowden case. The US would not return a Chinese Snowden, if such a person were being prosecuted for political reasons.

The US has gone too far with Snowden. He deserves universal support. However, Washington wants him silenced. It wants him hunted down ruthlessly. But that is the way imperially-minded nations operate. 

Americans should ask themselves if their government should now set limits on governmental surveillance and extraterritorial security claims instead of seeking to punish an individual of conscience who chose bravely to risk the fury of a state because some of its unseemly secrets were being made public.

           

Who is a saint?

St. Peter's Basilica

The declaration by the Vatican that Popes John XXIII and John-Paul II would very soon both become saints was not entirely a surprise. At the funeral of John-Paul II in 2005, some mourners called out, "Santo subito!", which translates roughly as "Sainthood now!"

The Vatican has approved the the last miracle necessary to confirm John Paul II’s sainthood. All that is still needed is the signature of Pope Francis. Both miracles must be “instantaneous, permanent, and with no scientific explanation.”

Unfortunately, only one miracle has thus far been attributed to John XXIII. But that did not deter Francis who would like both men to be declared saints at the same time, probably later this year.

The speedy process for John-Paul II, who represented the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church, would be balanced by John XXIII's recognition at the same time. Francis feels especially close to John XXIII, who spearheaded Vatican II and introduced many reforms.

Pope John-Paul II

This declaration has brought this question to the forefront again:  "Who is a saint?" Do these popes deserve to be called saints more than other believers? Is every believer a saint, or does the word mean someone who is special in some way?

In the New Testament, saint did not refer to deceased people who have been granted sainthood, but to living   people, to entire congregations. The Apostle Paul addresses many of his letters to the "saints" in . . .

The English word saint is a translation of the Greek ἅγιος (hagios), derived from the verb ἁγιάζω (hagiazo), which means "to set apart", "to sanctify" or "to make holy." Saint describes every believer who is in the process of being made holy by God. Every Christian, whether in heaven or on earth, is therefore a saint.

In the Orthodox and Catholic churches, all Christian who are in heaven are saints, but some are worthy of greater honor, and are officially recognized as such. This is process is called canonization.

The Catholic church teaches that it does not make or create saints, but rather, recognizes or canonizes them. They are therefore believed to be in heaven.  They are venerated. Although, properly speaking, they are not worshiped, they can be prayed to, since they are in heaven, where they can intercede for those who are still on earth.

Orthodox churches consider everyone who is in heaven a saint, whether they are recognized officially as such or not. As in the Catholic church, the Church does not make a saint, the person already was a saint, and the Church merely recognizes it. God reveals his saints through answered prayers and miracles.

Protestant churches regard anyone who is a Christian as a saint. But some Protestants specify that they must be "born-again" Christians. With the exception of some Anglicans, most Protestants reject praying to saints.

Many religions other than Christianity also have saints, although they often use other terms that may have a different meaning. Nevertheless, these terms are often translated into English as saints.

Many ideas of sainthood are specific to certain individuals who led exemplary lives, possessed miraculous powers, and had a transforming influence on others. Such saints are few and far between. They are rare.

But to call all Christians saints democratizes sainthood so much that it has little meaning at the everyday level. God may consider all of them as his saints, but many of us might question that description, certainly of some people we know. 

I know that I am not a saint in the Catholic sense. My wife and children remind me of that regularly. In fact, very few of us would qualify in that sense. I wonder how some of the saints throughout history may have been like to live with. Too bad we cannot ask the Apostle Peter's wife. But we already know from the Bible that he had many weaknesses. We all do, yet some of us are truly saints.

Most of us would call Mother Theresa a saint for her work in the slums of Kolkata, yet I doubt that anyone would ever label Josef Stalin a saint, even though he was a seminarian in his youth.

Christians do not have a monopoly on sainthood. There are numerous representatives of every religions whom the whole world would call saints. Their exemplary lives are truly models for everyone. One does not have to be a Christian to be considered a saint.

Who is a saint? There are many people today who are saints. There are countless fathers and mothers who slave away everyday so that their children may be fed and clothed, receive an education, and grow up to become good parents in turn. They will never be canonized, but they are as truly saints as any recognized saint in any religion.

John XXIII and John-Paul II may have been excellent popes, who provided great spiritual  leadership for the Catholic church, but are they more deserving to be called saints that these fathers and mothers were? The latter shall always remain anonymous, but that does not diminish their sainthood in any way.

In his papacy, John-Paul wanted to see more married couples, single people and non-Europeans recognized as saints. He canonized hundreds of lay people. But he still operated within the stringent rules laid down by the Catholic church, including the emphasis on miracles.

In our skeptical, secularized age, miracles are questioned anyway. So, why add a legalistic requirement which is hard, if not impossible, to prove. What these fathers and mothers have done is nothing short of miraculous. Yet, if they were asked, they would respond that they were only doing their duty as parents.

Who is a saint? You decide! Please nominate someone whom you think deserves to be called a saint. It may be your mom. It may be anyone. Disregard the rule of two miracles, as Pope Francis has done in the case of John XXIII, who so far has only one to his credit. So you can too. Send me your nominations, and I may even publish some of them.

     

Sunni vs Shia: is this the correct prism for viewing the Middle East?

A recent poll on Al Jazeera Arabic's website asked who was responsible for turning the Syrian revolution into a sectarian conflict: the Sunnis or the Shia? Around 95% of those who voted blamed the deterioration on the Shia. Whether that was fair or not is not the issue, but whether Sunni and Shi'a should be contrasted in this way. Is the Sunni-Shi'a prism the correct one for viewing the Syrian conflict?

Not just Al Jazeera but also many segments of the Arab and the international media have been occupied with the supposedly growing clash between Sunni and Shia Islam both in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

Even The Economist has contributed an article describing this conflict in sectarian terms, although it concedes that the clashes between Sunnis and Shias have been the exception rather than the rule, since many Muslims disdain this confrontation.

However, this simplistic reduction of the Syrian war, and indeed many other struggles in the Middle East, to a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shi'a is both unfortunate and wrong. It reflects a wide-spread tendency to reduce many wars to religious conflicts. Instead, many of them are largely political in nature.

The civil war in Syria, though it has escalated tremendously since it first started more than two years ago, remains essentially a clash between an authoritarian, ruthless leadership, and the established, corrupt elite that supports it, on  the one hand, and the disenfranchised masses on the other.

This is a political struggle between people who are predominantly Muslims, either Sunni (74%) or Shia (13%). Both sides in this struggle have their supporters in other Middle Eastern countries, but Sunnis and Shias are represented on each. President Bashar al-Assad's family is Alawite, who make up the largest part (11%) of the Shias in Syria.

Syria's official ideology is pan-Arabist, secular Ba'athism, which although authoritarian is, in principle, is blind to ethnicity and religion. The original Ba'ath party was established by a Christian (Michel Aflaq), a Sunni (Salah al-Din al-Bitar) and an Alawite (Zaki al-Arsuzi).

If this sectarian interpretation of the Syrian war continues, it is likely tear the country apart once the Assad regime is defeated, derailing future efforts to rebuild the country. Once the guns fall silent, the hapless Alawite minority could pay a heavy price for this supposed clash if the Sunnis decide to blame this sect for Assad's abuses, conveniently forgetting the fact that most of the regime is Sunni.

Without going further into the complexities of the Syrian war, which has been dissected repeatedly lately by journalists, I only want to comment on the journalistic propensity to interpret events as if, especially in that part of the world, they were all or predominantly sectarian. But that is not a fair way to characterize these events, most of which are exceedingly complex.

Religious sectarianism is only one factor among many. Yet, since religion is very visible in the Middle East, it is easily identifiable, whereas other factors are generally too numerous and too difficult to be discussed in newspapers and on TV. Thus religion is what is identified.

Map of Europe 1618-1648  (Click to enlarge)

Many centuries ago, the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), which was actually a series of wars that ultimately involved most of the countries of Europe, may have started as a religious conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but local political disputes played a leading role. As the war continued, however, it became increasingly a continuation of the struggle between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs for political preeminence in Europe.

To characterize the Thirty Years' War as primarily a religious or sectarian war, as is still often done, is not merited by the historical facts. These factors were much more complex than they are often presented, though this war did mark the end of the major religious wars that began with the Protestant Reformation.

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. Then the question of who was to take over the leadership immediately arose. Sunni Muslims agreed with the position that the new leader should be elected from among those who are the most capable.

This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and adviser, Abu Bakr, became the first caliph of the Muslim umma or community. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, Shias believe that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's family, specifically, his cousin and son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. Throughout history, Shias do not recognize the authority of elected Muslim leaders, but instead follow Imams who have been directly appointed by Muhammad or God. 

The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).

Sunnis make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shi'as can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities exist in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon. While political leadership was the original issue, many aspects of spiritual life have been affected.

Despite some differences in theology and practice, Shias and Sunnis share the main articles of Islamic belief. Most Muslims do not claim membership in any particular group, but simply call themselves "Muslims."

If the Syrian conflict continues to be viewed through a Sunni-Shia prism, there is the danger that this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and further ignite the flames of sectarianism throughout the Middle East.

Conflicts throughout the Middle East are political, but not in the first place about the ancient feud regarding the status of Ali. They are essentially battles between disenfranchised populations and the entrenched and corrupt establishments that desperately wants to hold onto power, and will stop at nothing, even massacring  their own people, as in Syria, to retain it.

While sectarian conflict is not unknown in the Middle East, as it was in Europe during the Thirty Years' War, such conflicts should not be viewed primarily from a Sunni-Shia prism. Instead, we must acknowledge the complexity of the many factors that contribute to them and avoid any reductionism.

To reduce these conflicts to the sectarian is not only wrong but may, in fact, stoke these conflicts and make them worse. Thus these reductions are turned into self-fulfilling prophecies. We must avoid at all cost making the Middle East even more explosive than it already is. One way to do that is to stop using that prism.

     

Global warming is real -- more evidence

The recent floods in Canada and India have provided more evidence -- if more were still needed! -- of the consequences of global warming. If I restrict myself now to the floods in Alberta, the flooding there has been described as the worst that was ever recorded.

The preliminary estimate of the cost of repairs has been put at between $3 to 5 billion, not counting the hit to the Albertan economy, which has been estimated at $1.5 billion. About 120,000 people were forced out of their homes due to the flooding. The floods in Alberta have set a record for flood damage in Canada.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, a Conservative MP, who represents a Calgary riding, has dismissed suggestions that climate change has anything to do with the magnitude of flooding in southern Alberta. He has dismissed the flooding as “a once-in-a-century event.” 

Yet others have noted that the 2005 floods in Alberta, which seems like a trickle of water in comparison was described as a once-in-a-century event. That would make this the second once-in-a-century flood in less than a decade.

According to polls, Albertans tend to be the most skeptical among Canadians that climate change is a real problem. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who as MP also represents a Calgary riding, and his government have tended to reinforce that skepticism.

However, now the enormous price tag of this flood may finally force skeptics to come to terms with reality. One can debate the causes of climate change, but it is indisputable that the planet is warming. This is setting off more frequent and more extreme weather events: floods, tornadoes, drought, freezing rain, prolonged heat waves or cold snaps. Often people hardly notice the effects of global warming until these incredible events take place. The southern Alberta floods may change all this, but I still have some lingering doubts.

While it is difficult to connect any particular weather event to global warming, David Suzuki, the noted Canadian environmentalist, explains how burning fossil fuels and pumping carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere causes the surface temperature of the Earth to rise. That warming leads to climate change, which generates increased extreme weather-related events.

Those events, according to the World Meteorological Organisation's "Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2012," include "major heatwaves and extreme high temperatures, drought and wildfires, extreme precipitation and floods, snow and extreme cold, and tropical cyclones."

"Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes," the report adds, "but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change."

Scientists agree that climate change is especially about water. For every one degree increase in temperature, the atmosphere's ability to hold water increases seven per cent. They note that massive amounts of water from melting ice sheets are being liberated while evaporation increases from oceans that cover 70 per cent of Earth's surface.

In the meantime, greater turbulence and instability of the atmosphere and jet stream dump heavier loads of water and increase the frequency of extreme events like tornadoes and hurricanes. I read recently that wild shifting of the jet stream has resulted in record-high temperatures in Alaska lately.

In spite what we currently know about climate change, and even though less than one per cent of climate scientists dispute the prevailing research behind human-caused warming, news outlets, industry and others continue trying to convince us that it is not happening or that it is not a big deal. Governments are complicit in this cover-up by their refusal to act in any meaningful way.

Suzuki concludes by asking whether the recent flooding and extreme weather in southern Alberta were caused by global warming? Maybe not, he carefully notes, but he warns that we should expect more of the same, and worse, if we do not do something to get our emissions under control. 

David Suzuki

As many scientists warn, climate change is not just coming; it is already here. We may be able to adapt to and cope with some of its current effects, but it will become increasingly difficult if we continue to ignore the need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, through conservation and switching to cleaner energy.

Global warming did not cause these floods, at least not directly. But man-made climate change is intensifying flooding, and our land use and development practices are worsening its impact. It is irresponsible to diminish the factors that contribute to climate change at enormous economic cost and disruption of people's lives. 

Suzuki reminds us that air, water and land are intimately and complexly interconnected in ways that we still barely comprehend. He notes that for years the insurance industry has warned us that exploding costs of climate-related claims must be met with greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Thus he adds: "it's shocking, after so many years of denial that human-induced climate change is real, to hear some pundits now calling for adaptation rather than demanding a massive program to slow climate change."

President Obama in a speech at Georgetown University went further than any previous US president in outlining a comprehensive strategy for dealing with climate change. He also said he would continue to make the issue a priority in his second term even in the face of implacable opposition from Republicans in Congress.

"I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that's beyond fixing,"  he told a gathering of students. He outlined a broad range of measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of renewable energy, protect coastlines and cities from flooding and sea-level rise, and encourage efforts to reach a global climate deal.

Canadian governments have thus far been skeptical about climate change and thus been reluctant to speak out on it in the the forthright manner that Obama has. The consequences of global warming are now readily apparent for all to see -- except for those who keep their heads stuck in the sandbags.

I am thankful that Obama has the courage to speak out on climate change, but I am disillusioned by the political conniving by many governments in Canada that deny the reality of it and prevent them from taking the necessary measures to alleviate the effects of global warming.

The Alberta government must find ways to stop drilling for more oil and gas and, instead, leave fossil fuels in the ground as much as possible. Not likely, perhaps, but this would be a much needed measure to reduce the consequences of climate change. Does Alberta need two "once-in-a century floods" in less than a decade?

How many more floods in his own backyard will it take before Prime Minister Harper recognizes the reality of global warming and addresses this issue in a similar manner to what Obama just did? The flood in 2005 did not change his mind, but will the flood of 2013 do so? I doubt it. Too bad for the people of Alberta! Too bad for all Canadians! Too bad for the whole world!

     

Why the current pressure for assisted suicide?

The Province of Quebec recently tabled a bill that, while carefully avoiding the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide, would allow physicians to administer lethal drugs to bring on death at the request of fully competent adults who are suffering from an incurable serious illness.

But there are several conditions attached. They must be in “an advanced state of irreversible decline” and “suffer from constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain” that cannot be relieved. In addition, the doctor's decision must be supported by an independent physician. The bill specifies as well that health professionals can refuse to assist “for reasons of conscience.”

It would also expand access to palliative services across the province, and bring formal rules that will govern how and when doctors can sedate patients until they die of natural causes.

This bill would make Quebec the first Canadian province to legalize doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Despite being a highly contentious issue that has divided Canadians for a long time already, it has drawn support from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly and is expected to become law shortly.

Several US states -- Vermont, Oregon, Montana and Washington  -- have already legalized the procedure, but under these laws physicians are limited to prescribing lethal drugs to their patient. The new law in Quebec will allow doctors to administer the life-ending medication themselves.

Why the pressure for assisted suicide now? Canada decriminalized suicide attempts 41 years ago, yet this issue remains highly controversial throughout Canada. and indeed in many other countries.

The Criminal Code of Canada explicitly prohibits assisted suicide:“No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him.” It adds: “and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.”

The Canadian Medical Association opposes both euthanasia -- where a doctor administers a lethal dose of drugs -- and assisted suicide -- where a doctor prescribes a lethal dose for the patient to take -- on ethical grounds. Instead the CMA argues for improved end-of-life care, including full medication against pain, to let people die with dignity.

In addition, many people who are advocates for the disabled are also opposed. In spite of all this opposition, a 2012 study by the Royal Society of Canada recommended legalizing euthanasia and making changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. 

But the federal government has said it had no intention of doing that. A federal court challenge to the new law in Quebec seems a certainty. The government in Ottawa is already fighting a British Columbia court ruling that said prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide in the province is unconstitutional.

Sue Rodriguez

Terminally ill people such as Sue Rodriguez and Gloria Taylor battled for the right to assisted suicide because of their illnesses. In 1993 the Supreme Court was split in the Rodriguez case, ruling 5 to 4 against letting her seek help to die. Later, with the help of an anonymous physician, Rodriguez did kill herself.

In the Taylor case, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s ban on assisted suicide was an affront to her Charter rights. The court gave Ottawa a year to change the law and gave Taylor the legal nod to seek help to end her life. The BC Court of Appeal has now upheld the decision that struck down the ban. Taylor died of natural causes before the case could be concluded.

There is a legitimate concern that once euthanasia or assisted suicide is allowed for competent, suffering, terminally ill people there may be a Charter case for extending it as well to those who are not terminally ill or suffering. There is also a concern that elderly, disabled or other vulnerable people might be coerced into ending their lives.

There is another reason that is rarely talked about: money. Thomas Walkom discusses this in an article in the Toronto Star. In a period of austerity, this reason is becoming increasingly prevalent. 

In Canada provincial governments are responsible for health care. But, like governments everywhere, they too are finding the growing number of sick, old people extremely costly. The new law proposed by Quebec would allow terminally ill individuals to die with dignity, but it would also save governments a lot of money. 

To put it crassly: governments can save a lot of money by killing seriously ill people than keeping them alive in hospitals, nursing homes or hospices.

Therefore, it is no accident that euthanasia has become a topic of public debate again. Thanks to aging baby boomers, the number of old people in Canada is growing rapidly. Nursing homes are overwhelmed, but they are very expensive to operate. And new ones need to be built.

Also, new technology allows the seriously ill to stay alive longer. I know many elderly people who are alive only because of such technology. Should we therefore kill them because they have become too expensive?

Acute-care hospitals cannot cope with all the terminally ill clogging their limited number of beds. Yet deficit-obsessed governments are reluctant to expand funding for nursing homes. They are equally reluctant to risk the wrath of voters by raising taxes. Thus death for the the frail and elderly is a much cheaper solution.

The Quebec bill is carefully crafted, setting strict eligibility criteria and attempting to ensure that the person being killed really wants death, but let us be honest about what is going on. This is not only about giving people in agonizing pain the right to die it is also about saving money. Maybe primarily so, even if few people are ready to admit it.

In the ongoing debate, let us not lose sight of the issue of money. Governments want to sweep it under the carpet, but their departments of finance are well aware of it, and are actively seeking ways to reduce their deficits. But this should not be done over the bodies of the most vulnerable members of society: the sick and elderly.

Thus we must not allow money, or rather the lack of it, to become accepted as a reason for people in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada to advocate this bill. They may deny this, but it is the unvarnished truth. 

Is this the sort of society we want to live in? Remember, all of us may one day become old and sick. Is this the sort of future we want for ourselves? I certainly do not!

     

Big Brother

In 1949 George Orwell published 1984, a dystopian novel that introduced "Big Brother," the tyrannical ruler of a totalitarian state where everyone is under constant surveillance, and the phrase, "Big Brother is watching you." Big Brother has since then become synonymous with the abuse of government power, the loss of civil liberties, and specifically mass surveillance. The title is probably an inversion of 1948, the year it was written.

Now, decades later, mass surveillance has apparently become a reality in the United States and maybe many other countries, according to the revelations made by Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old high school dropout and former National Security Agency analyst. He leaked some of the NSA's most precious secrets: how it is compiling and storing lists of domestic phone calls and accessing huge volumes of emails and other electronic data that can originate anywhere in the world.

Daniel Ellsberg calls this the most important leak in the history of the US, including his own release of the Pentagon Papers.  Ellsberg leaked these papers to end what he regarded as a "wrongful war."

When Snowden made these disclosures, he was holed up in a hotel in Hong Kong, but he is now on the lam.  At last report, he is still in Hong Kong. He sacrificed his salary, girlfriend, family and home. He may also lose his freedom. The US is looking for him so that it can extradite him and put him on trial.

Snowden boldly declared, "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building." See also the video interview.

Edward Snowden

What will happen to Snowden or whether he will become a hero or not only time will tell. What he has accomplished so far is to reopen the debate on national security versus personal privacy. To judge by the editorials thus far, people are taking sides. President Obama has already stated, "I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy." The intelligence community, however, thinks otherwise.

Public opinion too is divided. About 62% of Americans say it is important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy, while 56% consider it acceptable for the NSA to access American telephone records, and 45% want the government to go further and monitor everyone's internet activity.

Since 9/11, the American government has increased the surveillance not only of foreigners but also Americans in order to curb terrorism. At first secretly but increasingly openly civil rights have been revoked. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

Is such intrusion into the lives of ordinary American citizens justifiable in order to protect society against terrorism? That is the issue that will be debated for a long time. Many people will continue to argue that, especially after 9/11, and more recently the Boston Marathon bombing, the threat of an attack by al Qaeda on American soil requires aggressive intelligence gathering.

However, does that include mining the phone calls and emails of ordinary citizens, who are not suspected of any subversive activity? Even with effective congressional supervision, which does not seem to be the case currently, can such aggressive tactics be justified? Some lawyers argue that this data-mining is illegal.

What is left of personal privacy? Admittedly today, the extensive use of social media, has left large segments of the population totally exposed. They have sacrificed much of their privacy in the name of friendship. But should the last shreds of privacy be torn away from them?

Not only are American citizens involved in this data-mining but also the citizens of many other countries where stricter laws regarding the extent and means of surveillance prevail. If this information is passed on to these other countries, does that not possibly break their laws?

Is there any evidence that this surveillance thus far thwarted any terrorist plots on US soil? If it has, then that might sway public opinion further in supporting such surveillance? Admittedly, not all such evidence can be made public, so as to protect sources, but surely enough can be to explain why such extensive surveillance is necessary.

What will eventually happen to the person who leaked these secrets? If Snowden is caught and is alive, will he be jailed like Brad Manning, without bail and incommunicado?

I am only raising a few questions now. I do not have many answers, although my sympathies are readily apparent. I am not an expert in security matters. I am not even an American. But I too am affected, since my very innocent phone calls to my daughter in Massachusetts have no doubt have been logged, and so have my emails, even if sent to people here in Canada, since much of that traffic goes through American hubs.

There are many more questions that can and should be asked about this surveillance. which has gone on for a long time already, although perhaps not on the current scale. Thus all these questions need to be asked and a public debate initiated as soon as possible.

In camera discussions in the name of national security should not be tolerated. Unless an open and public debate is initiated, this surveillance will only increase. No one wants the US to become a totalitarian state where Big Brother controls everyone through mass surveillance. Would you want to live in such a state?

In Canada, surveillance has been common for almost a decade, although it has been repeatedly denied. The Communications Security Establishment Canada has tracked internet and phone data since 2005, with only a short interruption, in order to thwart terrorism.

Also, I am concerned as a Christian that the God who, among other things, sees everything would be viewed by our society as the Big Brother who has everyone under constant surveillance. That would seem to diminish the God that I worship. He is a loving God who desires our love in return. In contrast, Big Brother is neither loving nor does he ask for love. He only wants to know what we are doing.

In addition, I want to put my trust in God, who has promised to protect me, not in government agencies that are motivated by fear and will do anything they can to remove that fear. In a previous post, I wrote about "The 'terrorization' of life". By that I meant that our lives today are increasingly shaped by fear. I want to conclude by quoting the last few sentences of that post.

We must not permit our lives to become terrorized. Thus we must not give in to the fears that others have induced in us. If that happens, the terrorists who plant bombs and attack us in other ways will have won. Then they will have achieved their goal. We must never allow that to happen.

The Bible teaches an important lesson in 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear." Let us love one another and cast out those fears.