HUMAN RIGHTS NEEDS REMAIN STRONG

There is a lot of realism that goes on with the lives of people around us. I think this is what I particularly enjoy about my profession, the very realism of people's lives and their stories. This realism makes me want to do more about these things that revolve the lives of the folks I work with.

Unfortunately, however, apathy is the way of life of people in the region I live in, particularly the higher up you go. Apathy kills cities, kills nations. Apathy creates leaders that we do not want, and leads to the creation of situations whereupon our populace suffers more than it needs to. I live in a region of people that not only not want to pay their taxes, but want to pay as little as they can get away with, and then they blame the victims of failing infrastructure that are not being supported to the extent they should be, for their very needs.

It has always been a subject of debate as to how much infrastructure and "people" based services we need, or can do without. A disturbing feature of many people I work around is that they believe that if we had no infrastructure or support, our vulnerable people will magically re-emerge on their own and somehow "pull up their bootstraps", as the saying goes. We know this is not fact. We know what happened to many people after welfare rates were chopped by 22% not a minute too soon after Mike Harris took office in Ontario in 1995. Mike Harris is long gone, a party of a different stripe got elected, and more than seven years have past since his government left Queen's Park, yet as a society we are still dealing with the indifference, apathy and cruelty of the apparently sheltered part of our population. I see the results of this everyday in my work.

I work in a profession that is relatively recession-proof, and many people around me think I am lucky. However, they see none of the stress, none of the desperation, and none of the tragedy that I am called upon to do something about. When I genuinely can't do anything about it, I feel powerless and sad. The law is a tool that can only perform certain tasks, and apart from these tasks, the law is useless in addressing many of the issues that abound. The law is technical, procedurally-driven and objective to the point that it does not address emotion, sentimentality or sadness. It only picks winners and losers, and many times - the wrong side wins while the other loses.

The world of politics and law intersect, sometimes to a detrimental extent, as the rule of law cannot be based on demagoguery and majoritarianism. Important moral decisions cannot be decided by taking a vote around the table, and drawing from the majority of voters present. The majority of Canadians want to see capital punishment reinstated, yet nothing stops this population from feeling the same way when wrongly accused people are put to death. The majority of Canadians seem to feel there is a need to put more religion in our laws, but see nothing wrong with marginalizing the religions of a minority, or of those without a religion.

At one time, people felt slavery of blacks was an acceptable choice for society. As time evolved, we stopped making them slaves, but did not let them share our drinking fountains. Later on, we felt okay about blacks sharing our communities, we just didn't hire them. There is no shortage of writers that would blame the unemployment and poverty of blacks on the blacks themselves. They were said to have lower intelligence scores, had more children than whites, were more prone to criminal activities, and so on. Cutting welfare to blacks was thought to be a great idea, then they will become more like whites. We all know that didn't work. Society had to evolve to develop a respect for and inclusion of this part of our population, in order to enable this part of our community to grow and develop with us.

At one point the majority felt that it should be illegal for whites to marry blacks. If the majority ruled then, there would be a law barring the same. In fact, some societies had such a law. Was this law effective? What benefits did society derive from having such a law? I can't even find among the most prejudiced people that I know somebody that can identify a rational benefit that society derived from having these types of mores and laws, yet their prejudice prevails.

As a society, we had no choice but to pass human rights laws that prohibited this type of segregation. Many restaurants were known to exclude persons of colour, or even persons of certain creeds and religions. This had to stop. People can feel whatever they wanted to, but they had to act in a way that was lawful and tolerant. The rule of law is higher than society's majority and popular vote. The effect of these laws not only made people aware, but in many created a kind of cultural dissonance that resulted in a more tolerant society where persons from minority situations felt more comfortable to belong.

As society evolved, new prejudices are uncovered and people affected come to the light. I recall one time in my university days watching a film about the suffragette movement in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain. It began among women of propertied classes, and gradually moved to include all women, in solidarity for various goals. It was once accepted that women should not have the right to vote or run for public office. Women were not allowed to practice law, dentistry or medicine. However, over time, it was not the men in society that welcomed women in these roles, but women who asserted themselves into these roles, many times through marches and at times, violent demonstrations. In one of the films, it showed some of the women leaders getting arrested. They would go to jail to enforce their rights.

Today, too many women take these rights for granted and still do not understand the origins of the rule of law and how women became equal partners. I remember in one of my classes, there was a woman who often sat beside me that would ask a lot of questions of a female lecturer from a women's shelter that presented on the issue of family violence against women. She would keep asking about men's shelters. I know males are roughly equal in terms of their victimization, as the statistics are becoming more clear in this field; however, the point of this lecture was to inform the largely female student body how far we've come. If it were not for many of these women in the late 1800's and early 1900's putting up a major fight, getting arrested, jailed and sometimes even killed for their beliefs, none of us would be sitting in those chairs that day listening to this lecture.

Soon, the gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered community emerged from the closets of existence. People of Toronto remember the bath house raids of 1981, certain laws on the books prohibiting certain sexual behaviours, albeit between consenting adults. These individuals needed to form loosely knit organizations that would force the issue in many ways ... Society had one of two reactions to the "gay" community. One was to ignore them, and think if we did this long enough, homosexuality will go away. The second reaction was to show contempt and hatred for those claiming to belong to the "gay" community. If you listened to members of the LGBT community, as they call themselves today, many will speak of ostracism, being disowned by their families, fired from their jobs, to downright violence.

Eventually society had to learn that every member of the LGBT community was no different than the rest of us, apart from who they choose for their life partners. Unfortunately, there are still many people that feel members of this group are somehow less deserving, or are less moral, or less Christian, than the "rest of us". People that don't like human rights laws tend to point to a tribunal decision made sometime back involving a printer that refused to publish brochures for an organization representing the LGBT community, solely on the basis of his own "Christian beliefs", which likely included an opinion that members of this group were less Christian or moral than he was. Nevertheless, he was sued successfully and was made to compensate this organization for its embarrassment and infringement of their rights.

One of these people kept asking me why a business person has to be obligated to serve everybody. Why can't a business person do business with whomever he or she chooses? This argument may seem to be rational and simple. Of course, as a business, you have that freedom to work with who you want; however, this man's refusal to serve the LBGT organization was no different than the restaurants of the 1950's that refused to serve blacks. The person complaining to me about this thought all of these things should go to court. The decision against the printer was appealed by him, and the Divisional Court, as well as I believe, an appellate court, if I remember correctly, also upheld this decision. Human rights are integrated into the rule of law. You don't have to agree with the positions of the LGBT community on any of their issues, as that is also your right, but you don't have the right to treat them differently or deny them access to services normally afforded to the public.

There is also the question of persons with disabilities. Disability law, as well as human rights and constitutional law, have always been my tools to help me understand the world and how to integrate within it. These issues take up a large part of my practice. Persons with disabilities have unfortunately been slow to take up their rights, as many are too ill to fight. One's disability itself can be very disempowering, particularly if one tires easily or cannot communicate or express oneself the same way others do. Persons with disabilities are also disempowered by the charitable model of "receiving help", as opposed to learning to work the world around them and exercise their rights to equal treatment and access to goods and services. There is currently a multi-billion dollar business model out there that is designed to "help" people with disabilities, some of which is set up to search for a "cure" for some types of disabilities.

This is not an affront to the many men and women that work in organizations like Canadian Mental Health Association, Brain Injury Community Re-Entry, Multiple Sclerosis Society, etc. All of these organizations do have their benefits; however, the very structure that led to their creation is abysmal and anti-everything I stand for, especially when I attempt to fit persons with disabilities in my life within what I view as the rule of law, and how our Charter works. Some of these organizations themselves have begun to realize how much their "help" can actually hurt those they are attempting to support, so they strive to develop models of service delivery that are more responsive to the choice of those they work with.

For example, service providers within this structure must confront their own ideas about who the clients are that they work with. Do they understand the concept of consumer choice, the right to take risks and the right to fail? Do they believe any of their clients are capable of doing their jobs, or even the job of their bosses? The latter question tends to be difficult, as most people in helping professions have a hard time equalizing the people that come to them. Many are surprised when they learn a client has an advanced degree, and worked in positions much more senior to their own in the past. It is natural to feel threatened when this information is given. In my own experience, I learned that service providers confronted with this issue tend to not know what to do, how to address that person's needs or where to begin. This is not created by something bad, but there are always working biases people have when they attempt to learn about someone and the community they come from. My answer to this is to interact with the person, as though they were a neighbour or a friend and try to find out what THEY want.

In my work in the legal profession, I confront people of varying abilities, capacities for the English language, as well as political viewpoints, and so on. To me, what is important in serving anybody that comes to my door are: (a) the actual facts of the person's situation (what their legal problem actually is comprised of); (b) what that person wants to see happen with their legal issues; and (c) how we can best work together. For example, if somebody doesn't have strong English language comprehension, I try to arrange it so they have interpreters that they can trust. For legal proceedings, we find a professional certified to work with the courts. If somebody is using a wheelchair or scooter, I have ensured that my office can accommodate them. However it IS difficult with limited real estate options in my area to find 100% accessible space. If a person has a severe mental health issue, I still speak to them and have them make decisions with as much information as possible, as opposed to letting somebody else speak for them.

People have the right to instruct their OWN legal counsel, as far as I am concerned. They can also choose who they want with them, and who they don't want to work with ... I let them make this choice. My relationship with one client can be very different than it is with another client, specifically for these reasons, yet they are all getting service that recognizes their right to choose, their right to take risks, and their right to fail. I also treat them at my level, not at a level beneath me. I discuss things other than their legal case, show an interest in who they are, and listen. This does take about twice as much time for many of the people that come through my door, but this makes their experience a positive one, even if we are not successful.

This gets me to my final point, as I started to imply earlier about a pending backlash against human rights issues. Even some of my colleagues are reluctant to deal with human rights issues. Human rights issues are seen by many to be representative of a form of "political correctness", or in some extreme cases, some see it as an infringement of their freedom of speech and association. These people don't want to take these laws as part of life; many want to dismantle them. They forget the violence, the riots, the lawsuits and other conflicts that got us to this point. Many want us to return to an age when we could once again discriminate against whoever we want, hire whoever we want, rent to whomever we want, etc. without a fear of getting sued.

Their leaders want to dismantle the human rights system as we know it in Ontario. While they say they simply want to ensure it fulfills its "original purposes", we know they are saying they do not want to be told what to do. Unfortunately, "those days" that many of these folks are dreaming about are days when our society was more homogeneous than it is now, when interest articulation and balancing of competing perspectives are an issue. Majority rules might have worked at one time, but as history dictated, it only lasted awhile each time, until somebody outside of the majority made those in power uncomfortable.

PC Leader Tim Hudak has mused about dismantling the Tribunal altogether, not recognizing that a specialized Tribunal such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, probably can cut the wheat from the chaff much better than the civil courts, and as such, it IS more accessible to persons concerned about "access to justice" issues. In a regular court, you are confronted with even a bigger maze of rules and regulations, labyrinths of disclosure, deadlines, forms, etc. that mean nothing to you, and are hard to find online. If you can't do it in a court by yourself, you have to hire a lawyer, which is costly. In a Tribunal, the hearings are set not only to be evidence-based, but they do have the benefit of informal structures that are flexible enough to address self-represented litigants. Further, licensed paralegals can represent individuals at this Tribunal that cannot afford a lawyer, but do need representation. In my time with this Tribunal, respondents have been able to represent themselves, or use paralegals, and have been able to deal with the facts of an issue readily without going into unnecessary constitutional arguments, which if done by a lawyer, can run into tens of thousands of dollars.

Hudak and many others want to throw this all away. The Tribunal certainly has a lot of problems, but these are not problems that would be resolved by tossing the Tribunal itself out of the window. To me, this can only work in favour of those that do the discriminating. That is, it would be a boon for employers, landlords, businesses, and others, that do not want people that look different, think differently, or act or move or communicate differently in their lives. To me, this is a battle against people with disabilities, as well as members from other protected categories.

My office receives twenty to thirty phone calls a day. It can be exhausting taking these calls, and trying to sort through who has a case, and who does not. The stories people tell are horrific - so horrific, I cannot repeat them here. As a professional that works with people, I have to protect myself, as their stories can become my nightmares, my veil of depression, and my sorrow. By protecting myself, I am able to take what is the law from each of these cases, and place the circumstances into the right venue, and if I can't do it, I know somebody that can. At some point, I might write about what a typical day looks like for me, so people can become aware of why human rights and the rule of law still matter today, just as it did when the suffragettes and inspired leaders like Rosa Parks were around to make us understand that all of us are equal under the rule of law.

Comments?

IS RELIGION THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES?

I am not a fan of Karl Marx, as there are many viewpoints -- some of which I shared on here -- and others I have yet to share -- that reflect my preference for a market-based economy, as opposed to a socialist one.

That does not mean I do not support viable programs of government intervention or support where the market fails to deliver or cannot meaningfully deliver in the public interest; it simply means I support people's freedoms and have a preference for promoting positive choices for themselves.

However, that being said, Marx did say something interesting about religion. Religion was thought to be the tool of the power elites to convince the masses to placate themselves about the state of being they are forced to live in. The thought of a higher power and a 'better place' is supposed to promote the so-called proletariat to consider their misery on this Earth as temporary and that after they die, they will be in a 'better place' and blessed by God.

I don't buy religion. It is not that I am against it. I just don't have a religious belief or faith to call my own. This doesn't mean that if you are being harassed or attacked because of your own religious beliefs, my firm will not fight its damnedest to ensure you maintain your right to uphold and practise your faith. I have defended various people, ranging from Muslims to Hindus to Rastafrarians to even a Jehovah's Witness. Many times, certain tenets of a person's faith gets them into trouble with their employment, their housing or even in the community. To me, we cannot have real freedoms in our society if we do not have the right to practise and express our faith.

However, that being said, I also support the separation of church and state. In countries where religion and faith dictate the law, there is no such freedom of religion. You must adhere to the state's religion or be subject to harassment and in some cases, even torture and imprisonment. To me, that is wrong. I am related to some members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and while I am not engaged in this faith, I see the happiness this faith brings to its adherents. There are countries of the world where people of this faith were at best barred from practising and ministering this faith; many were put in prison and tortured. I read about cases where small groups of Jehovah's Witnesses would meet in people's basements to sneak in their Bible study and prayer ... and have to hide themselves from authorities that did not allow this form of religion from being practised.

I prefer a country where people can openly practise whatever religion they choose and minister to others in their community and express their faith openly. Jehovah's Witnesses have specific tenets for example in their religion that they feel strongly about. One is blood transfusions. We have heard stories in the media where members of this faith had lost custody of a child to the state where the child was then forced to endure blood transfusions, usually for treatment of some disorder or injury. These stories are often followed up by people who condemn the religion for its belief and query loudly as to why a loving parent may deny their child a "life saving" treatment. The Jehovah's Witnesses feel very strongly about this issue and in fact, have advanced medical research to the extent that would make blood transfusions in most cases unnecessary, if alternatives were explored.

In this situation, how do I feel about it? To me, to force somebody to act against their faith by forcing them to take a blood transfusion when they have made an informed decision not to is equivalent to rape. People have the right to their faith to that extent and I would back them 100% on it. This also applies to other religions as well, as many religions have dietary issues, clothing issues, as well as sacred Holy days. Fridays are the Holy Day for those of the Muslim faith. Adherents to this faith pray five times a day and this needs to be accommodated in situations of employment and study.

However, strong adherents to any religion tend to believe members of other religions are foolish or hoodwinked into having their beliefs. To me, these are beliefs. Just because I may not share these beliefs does not make them less legitimate for those that do have them. For many adherents, these beliefs are more important than other vital issues in our lives, such as having enough money or keeping certain friendships. Because there are people of many faiths in our country, we have to be tolerant and develop a barrier-free society for folks that choose to practice their religion (as long as the practice is not harming other people).

Only in a free society can people be provided with the opportunity to explore, study and make informed decisions as to what faith (or any faith) they will choose. Many faiths provide "open houses" to their religious services at certain times of the year to give members of the public an opportunity to learn about what they believe. I am fortunate that in my profession, I encounter people of a variety of faiths and many are quite pleased to share with me their customs and ideas. I learned a lot about many different faiths and hold no prejudice against any of them; in fact, there is probably more in common between the different faiths than there are differences.

However, to me it is important that faith not be part of any political or legal processes. Once this becomes the case, freedom of to have and to practise one's own religion becomes restricted and accurate information about unsupported faiths (e.g. faiths the government does not include in its political or legal processes) is difficult to find. In cases where a state religion is present, it may be next to impossible to even practice a different faith. If you find this hard to believe, try being a Christian and ministering the Bible in an Islamic country, or try to bring the Qu'aran to a strictly Jewish state and impose this view. State religions force people to hate those that are different. In some countries -- even today -- even the defence of freedom of religion is barred.

I read a very depressing article in today's Toronto Star about how China wants to present itself as a state that adheres to the "rule of law" and independence of the legal profession. In countries like our own (Canada, Great Britain and the U.S.), the legal profession is independent and the "rule of law" is intact. That means that in Canada, Great Britain, the U.S., and several other countries as well, its legal profession can challenge the laws that are passed, fight for minority interests against the state and use the legislative/judicial system to force the state to do things it might not otherwise choose to do. With an independent legal profession and judiciary, legal advocates can oppose the state on many matters and not suffer any personal harm or consequences for this act alone. An independent profession can defend the rights of a minority -- even somebody whose practises are offensive to the state -- to allow that person to engage in their practises and beliefs.

In China, there is not an independent bar. Legal professionals are trained and licensed in China, but they are expected to respect and support the practises of the Communist government. Their executive, legislative and judiciary are not independent of one another, but are fused with the interests of the state. If a lawyer in China goes on the limb on human rights cases, they can be abducted, imprisoned, tortured and disbarred -- simply for taking on the state and challenging its interests. In Canada and other western democracies, I think we take this for granted at times ... we laugh at people filing human rights complaints against the RCMP, for example, so they can be allowed to wear a turban or think an employer is playing favourites if they permit an employee to take Sundays off to participate in their Christian faith.

In places like China, this type of dialogue is not allowed. The state knows best. Minority religions, such as those of Tibet and the Falun Gong are prohibited and its practitioners are barred from practising their religion. If they choose to challenge the state by hiring a lawyer, for example, and taking the government to court - their lawyer is doing this at great personal risk to themselves. Therefore, most members of the profession would not engage in anything as controversial as pushing for such freedoms or human rights of the minority. In Pakistan, when its leader recently declared its state of emergency, it suspended the rule of law and put the Chief Justice under house arrest. The first participants to challenge this leader were members of the legal profession. When "rule of law" is suspended, so are our freedoms. So is just about every human right you take for granted and enjoy today ...

While I am not particularly a person of faith, I can understand the need for it. One of the reasons I don't get too involved in religion is because each religion presents a world view that its adherents are expected to believe. I don't believe in anything just on faith ... I have to see and understand things for myself, sometimes choosing ideas from different religions, sometimes ideas strictly from science and nature. This collage of a belief system to me is just as important as having as any particular formal belief system. Further, I have trouble with many religions as they predict some type of 'doomsday' that is supposed to come around "soon" because we all sinned and we evolved from Adam and Eve, or their equivalents in other faiths. This doomsday is the 'storming of the Bastille' so to speak, the condemnation of the money changers from the temple at a larger scale ... we are all going to go through it, so by high waters -- join whatever faith that is describing your doom to be and you will be 'saved'.

At the same time as predicting doom and gloom and thereafter, a very positive future for everybody that sustains themselves through this predicted turbulence, these same faiths prefer their adherents not to become involved politically, as some say this is attaching oneself too closely to the ways of the world and others, being more gentle, simply feel that any forward action by individuals or groups is either going to move us more quickly toward doomsday or not make a difference in our fate whatsoever. This kind of thinking has its origins, although its reasoning and promises have changed over time. During the days of the feudal state, its serfs were discouraged from uprising against the system because to change the order of things could only lead to disaster. Some of this was thought to be an extreme version of thinking from Edmund Burke on the French Revolution, but even Burke can be saved as he did not promote passive acceptance - he promoted gradual and consensual change of the order. To have the serfs rise up would not necessarily destroy the 'order' of things but would simply challenge the role of the lords and the monarchy.

Religious beliefs at the time were that people who were in the monarchy were somehow deserving of their status and were more worthy than the serfdom. The idea that a serf or a group of serfs can replace them in status and value was feared and not spoken of. Religion provided a world view for the wealthy classes that preserved a sense of order, while religion for the serfs preserved a sense of the deserving afterlife. Sure, this life sucks -- but after you are gone, things would be so much Holier for you. All religion is rooted in some form of order and the preservation of this order. It is not that order is not important to me; it is just that with the type of order this originates from, there can be no freedom.

I question everything. To me, that is only a natural thing to do. And yes, sometimes it is best that there be some form of preservation of order in place to ensure some protection and confidence of society. For example, I tend to be conservative in some of my views, which drives some people around me crazy. They can't understand how I support a regulated environment and "rule of law" with the supremacy of authority arising from competing forces of the executive, judiciary and legislature. The key word for me here is 'competing'. As each of these forces and centres of power evolve and 'dialogue' as one might mildly say, progress is initiated. We become concerned about the environment, but somehow don't want to pay the price of gas ... so somebody invents biofuels. Then we don't want to face the ultimate food crisis this may lead to, so somebody else is researching other alternatives ... so that perhaps, one day we may not be dependent on any fossil fuel for example but have a choice from a number of alternatives that through a strange form of market competition, can both keep their prices in check and protect the interests of the environment at the same time.

I look to evolution of technology and the constant conflict arising from Karl Popper's analysis of how scientific questions are asked and answered and how the answer may not necessarily be the same one next year as it is this year. All progress in this direction is based on the hypothesis, testing and replication of experimentation and keen skills of observation. I don't believe in doomsday. I believe that since the origin of human kind, there was always a crisis in the making, whether that crisis be the invention of fire (and the subsequent struggle and final success in learning how to control it), hunting and gathering of animals in the wild (and the very risk that we ourselves can become prey just the same), the discovery and conquering of many diseases (and subsequent discovery and elimination or amelioration of the same by vaccine or other means), the destruction of our environment (and the growing technology that is becoming more based on renewable resources), as well as other incidents -- which have always been unintended consequences of earlier discoveries and "cures". As humankind is imperfect, it is always going to struggle. Our struggles will only be different at one point of time to the next, where for awhile there may appear to be no solution other then pending apocalypse for the faithful (until some genius finds a new trick that will deal with the pending disaster).

However, some religious folks don't like the idea of there always being a crisis. They fear a crisis because a crisis represents the very dissolution of order that they try so hard to maintain. In the 1930's, nobody could ever imagine, for example, how almost every home in the western world is inhabited by at least one PC. Nobody really knew what a PC was or could even imagine what power and authority it could represent. Some religious folks point to the huge generation of knowledge and how it has geometrically grown in the past hundred or so years ... but these folks are only thinking from our generation. They did not think the way people did in 4 BC, for example, and try to imagine what life would be like in 1400 AD (where in fact knowledge has also geometrically increased) The invention of the printing press has opened a brand new world that never existed before that. We hear of people talk about the horrible and evil things lurking in our society and how much they claim this has not been the case before ... the fact is, it always was the case. Because time moved on from a very primitive sphere where knowledge about the outside world was very limited to a time where knowledge expanded exponentially, we become more aware of these horrible things ... and in turn, because of the increased access to communication and media devices, people with these horrible ideas are in a greater position to communicate them to others.

Even if we went back to Biblical times, there were very horrible people living back then. What about King Herod who issued a decree to kill all babies under two in the country? How about the one of two references given to birthdays in the Bible where the head of John the Baptist was offered on a plate? How about the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah? How about the folks that dared pollute the church with the engagement of the money changers? Further, Jesus was said at the time to be surrounded by prostitutes, thieves and other criminals - all living among those at the time who were more saintly. Times haven't changed much; our way of communicating information or receiving information about these issues has. I don't think human kind is going to figure out how to become less sinful and greedy; however, societal problems will all eventually be dealt with through the efforts of individuals or groups of individuals that can develop better technology or ideas. An example of this is the "discovery" and present status of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). When it was first discovered, it appeared in a cluster of gay men in a particular community and later spread to other communities, even across continents. The causes or transmission of AIDS was soon discovered and while it started out as almost always deadly and fatal within a few years at most, it has now been developed into a chronic disease that is treatable. We are on the way to finding a vaccine where it may be possible to even eliminate AIDS. Yes, new diseases will appear ... but we've been afflicted that way throughout all of history ... the Black Plague, Yellow Fever, Tuberculous, Small Pox, Polio ... all busted.

It is perhaps my own system of beliefs that keep me actively interested. I also believe that we have to be active politically to ensure there is progress in the structures we consider important in our society. If we decide not to vote, for example, or just avoid politics (because nothing will ever change), we will fulfil that prediction by not acting and for sure, nothing changes. We did not always have the "rule of law". Remember such historical events as the Crusades, the Holocaust, various wars over the ages ... and the fact that slavery of Blacks was once considered an acceptable part of Christian society in the U.S. and parts of Canada ... and only half a century ago, it was okay to annihilate whole populations of people on the basis that they were "life unworthy of life". These ideas were put forth and accepted by the world religions, not opposed. To me, we have to ask questions and keep right on asking them and take NOTHING on faith ... because I know where faith can sometimes lead.

We all know what road was paved with good intentions. My good intention however is to keep right on asking.