God and the Charter

So last week I suggested that the Queen (British Crown) be phased out of Canadian law. As unlikely as that may seem, given the constitutional changes required, here is another windmill I'm going to tilt at.
Yesterday the National Post highlighted a discussion that occurred because of an unusual interpretation of the Charter by a Superior Court judge in Quebec.  The judge defended a private (sort of - they are funded 60% by Quebec) Jesuit high school of its right to teach Roman Catholic ethics and religion rather than the mandated Quebec provincial curriculum. The judge used the Preamble to the Charter ("Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law") to make his case.
This presented an opportunity for CFI to get some publicity and its executive director Justin Trottier to point out that the Preamble is inappropriate for about 25% of Canadians who are agnostics or atheists. Bloody right! Furthermore the Preamble and section 2 of the Charter are a bit contradictory. Section 2 states that everyone has fundamental freedoms including "freedom of conscience and religion" which of course does not preclude atheists but I hope you see what I mean.
Again this is not a big deal and nothing will happen as a result, but the last phrase in the Preamble is what makes Canada what it is. The rules are important and need to be tested and sometimes tweaked, and this document (as imperfect as it might be), and others need to be part of the fabric of daily life. 

Suicide, politics and economics

A study that appeared in the British Medical Journal this week suggests that the $6-million state-of-the-art suicide barrier built over the Bloor Street Viaduct in Toronto works wonderfully. No one has jumped from that bridge in the 4 years since the barrier was constructed, however those who wanted to jump went to other bridges. That's right, the number of suicides by jumping has not changed in the city (56.4 per year pre-barrier vs. 56.6 per year post-barrier). The entire very readable report is posted here.  On average 9.3 people per year jumped from the Bloor Viaduct, but in the macabre economics of suicide that number did not change. Interestingly the overall number of suicides in the city has decreased significantly over the same time span.
Hindsight is 20/20 sure, but politics in Canada on a city scale or a national scale is fairly predictable. The construction of the bridge barrier is a perfect example of how other people's money is misallocated daily by elected officials at all levels of government. To me this illustrates a phrase commonly used among Austrian economists "what is seen versus what is unseen". If you go to the Ludwig von Mises Institute's website (a wonderful place to explore) and type that phrase into the search box you will see it produces almost 150 results. It is a common theme in Austrian economics that refers to misappropriated resources. Yes, the $6-million solved the problem for the Bloor Viaduct (seen), but did not solve the overall problem of jumping from bridges and has left the city with fewer resources to solve other real problems (unseen).
As this story circulates through the media and gets bounced off a few "experts", you can be sure that no politician involved will admit this was in any way an error, but rather that more money needs to be spent going after the root problems of suicide prevention. Count on it.

The Royal Visit is a royal pain.

Imagine your young child asking about the visit of Elizabeth II to your hometown. What would you tell her?  Would you say this is an important person and then try and list off all the Queen's accomplishments? That list might present a problem, because the Queen's most outstanding accomplishment was being born into the right family at the right moment in time. Your child might ask why is the Queen important? Your answer might sound like this: Elizabeth II is important because she is the Queen; a lot like saying she is important because she is famous, like Paris Hilton only with more followers. Your child may or may not see through the circularity of this argument, but think about what she learns here, the Queen is important because people say she is important and people grant her that importance. You probably won't tell your child that she herself could never become the Canadian Head of State, because that position is reserved for the Queen or her progeny, not deserved, not earned, just because.

The Queen was in Toronto these past few days, probably not enjoying the heat and humidity much like the rest of us, she is human after all. She is also an anachronism and an expensive frill.
Sure I know why we have a Queen but as she has pointed out herself during this trip, Canada has grown up in her lifetime and I think its time to cut the umbilical with the Brits. The fact is Canada works, by-and-large so why mess with that? Many would say "it ain't broke" so leave it alone. Not only that imagine what the cost in stationary changes would be alone?  So no, I'm not advocating a referendum just yet, or looking for a more republican form of government yet; and then of course there are the constitutional issues. I'm getting a headache just thinking about what needs to be done.
So lets be economical here, cut the ties along the way as the Queen herself fades. That has been happening very, very slowly but it needs to be more deliberate.

The War on Drugs goes on "Take 2"

My previous post referred to the passage of Bill C-15 in the House of Commons. Apparently Bill C-15 has been reintroduced as Bill S-10 in The Senate. Here is the backgrounder from the Dept. of Justice regarding Bill S-10. The purpose of this legislation is to curtail the production and trafficking of all "illegal" drugs and particularly if it involves "organized crime". Below, I will present some of the arguments for and against these Bills and the prohibitions against drugs.
First let me be clear, I don't give a rat's ass about drugs or drug use. As far as I'm concerned people have the right to do whatever they like with their own body as long as they harm no one else. I personally do not advocate, use, promote or even like the fact that people use drugs. I don't see drug or alcohol use as virtuous, noble, fun or desirable and I would just as soon not have anything to do with the issue.    Furthermore, if users become dependent on the use of drugs or alcohol - so what?  It is still not my issue, I expect users to be responsible in their use and not affect those individuals who wish not to be affected. I have no right to tell people how they must live and neither does the state. There is no crime if there is no victim. Of course crossing that fine line between drug/alcohol self-abuse and the rights of others is a very different story, but not for now.
So why do I bother writing about this? All of us who live in this country and pay taxes are involved, all of us who pay for the police, the prisons and jails, the legal system; we are all involved whether we like it or not. The policies and laws implemented by the state determine to a large degree the safety of our streets. Look at what drug laws have done in Mexico and the United States, we don't need to copy those mistakes.
My problem is that I'm not onside with the anti-prohibition people in Canada or the US (from the evidence I see). Their opposition to prohibitions seem to be more pragmatic than principled. In Canada the people against Bill C-15 and S-10 point to empirical evidence - the science, that suggests that more Draconian policies and laws makes criminals of many and misspends scarce resources. Obviously I can't disagree with that, I just don't think the science is the reason to reduce or eliminate the prohibitions. Having said that, we can be allied in moving the policies in the right direction, so here are two videos that present arguments care of an anti-prohibition group:


Part 2: