Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2020

The Covid-19 Pandemic - an excuse to strangle the practice of religion?

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, September 24th - 6:40 p.m. 

So the meeting will be tomorrow between the reps of the Table Interreligieuse du Québec and the Directeur de la Santé Publique. You know, we many not often say it, but we consistently pray for our governors, for those who hold public office and serve the common good. Well should we pray for them for their burdens of responsibility are often very heavy when they are not crushing. Saint Paul made it clear that, while we have been given a true belonging to the Kingdom of God initiated by Jesus; we nevertheless live in this world and for this reason we have a serious burden of responsibility to daily pray for those who govern us, our families and our communities. So, if you haven't already been doing it, please, join us in praying with sincere minds and enthusiastic hearts for the health, prosperity, and wisdom of our governors and the welfare of their families, not only tonight and tomorrow, but every day let us heartily pray for our political leaders and civil servants in our city, province, and nation. Peace to you and your families. 

Wednesday, September 23rd - 4:20 p.m. 

Well, many people have used up considerable quantities of ink and saliva these past few days about all these developments here in Québec. Finally, there is to be on Friday a meeting of the director of public health in Québec with representatives of the interreligious table in Québec. This will be the first time that a member of our provincial government will exchange words directly with representatives of the R.C. Church in Québec, the AEQ, the Assembly of Bishops of Québec since I don't know when, at least in the last six months. Yet, as Cardinal Lacroix recently explained, since the beginning of the outbreak of the Pandemic in Québec the bishops have tried to speak directly with the government but without success, without so much as a reply to their calls, and messages, and all attempts to communicate.

The proof came a few days ago with the government's unilateral decision to reduce the limit of the number of people to be allowed to gather for religious services from 250 to 50 and in orange zone to 25 despite the fact that until now no case of infection or contagion has been documented as a result of church Sunday services anywhere in Quebec in any of our churches. If the government had taken into account the actual measures in fact put into place everywhere in Québec in all of our churches they would have realized that there continues to be no danger of propagation in our churches themselves. For them to take it out on the churches and Sunday gatherings is a flagrant injustice and frankly a decision that is incomprehensible.

We acknowledge with gratitude the sense of social responsibility demonstrated by our government since the beginning of the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Quebec. We listened and watched with great interest and assiduity the daily televised conferences by the director of public health and his colleauges. We sympathize with the social pressure that once again weighs heavily on their shoulders and wish to continue to support them as responsible partners. Besides, the bishops and all our churches were among the first to not only follow the public health protocols but in some instances we even anticipated them or surpassed them.

We call on our governors to target the actual active hot spots of contagion of the virus. If there is some concern over spontaneous gatherings that might take place after certain religious events; well then let's target those and leave Sunday services alone. None of our churches have had after Mass coffee since before the Pandemic outbreak. Since March our churches have actually forbidden such gatherings as those that might take place after Baptisms, weddings, funerals, Confirmations, first Confession, first Communion, and so on. Until recently these religious events were indefinitely postponed.

So since March there have been no such gatherings neither in our churches nor in our halls or even outside, neither planned nor spontaneously. Until the recent deconfinement our churches rather looked like places haunted only by ghosts where only priests, a few staff and volunteers dared to venture in order to set up and transmit on social media a Sunday or weekday Mass. As for the deconfinement itself, it was done gradually to the point that some churches still haven't reopened. We have only just begun in some places to plan for and allow funerals, weddings, and other sacraments. In any event, whenever such events are held it is always with rigorous implementation of public health protocols.

Furthermore, each person welcomed into our churches are met by carefully formed volunteers who assure they sanitize their hands and then explain to them where to go and how to maintain social distancing and keeping on their mask at all times while moving about or replying to the few dialogues during the Liturgy, walking in the aisles only in the direction indicated by the arrows on the floor, avoiding the closed benches, only members of the same household being able to sit together, and so on. 

Unlike bars and brasseries and restaurants, our churches don't welcome people who just spontaneously decide to go or who plan to go once in a while. Sunday Mass is an obligation and a necessity of faith for catholic christians because it is an integral part of their life as believers, as it is no doubt also for those who are believers in other religious traditions. The practice of the faith is not a private activity for our citizens but it is an integral part of their social life and of their belonging to our society. Any and all actions which forbid or render impossible the practice of the faith is a serious prejudice against the human and civil rights of every citizen. 

We sincerely and energetically want to cooperate with our governors, but please no longer take any measures which would have as direct effect making it impossible for citizens to practice their faith and, by the same token, strangle to death our churches instead of properly targetting the actual hot spots of the virus and its propagation.

Monday, September 21st, 2020 - 7:12 p.m. Montreal. Greetings dear Reader. By now you are no doubt aware of the measures taken yesterday and today to put severe restrictions on religious assemblies all over the province. This morning, in a state of shock, I first wrote my reflections in French on my blogue of that language in order to give expression to the anger if not rage that I felt under the effects of that shock. 

Before I give free rein to my thoughts in English, you may want to read - if you haven't already done so - the media statement of the Assembly of Québec Bishops - AEQ - released this morning. It catches the general sense of grave injustice created by the public health's severe restrictions on religious assemblies just published and intended to take immediate effect. Practically speaking, the Bishops of Québec are united in declaring that no changes will be made by any of the churches under their jurisdiction in the direction of further restrictions. They are quite satisfied with the already sufficiently drastic health measures that have so carefully been put into practice in all their churches; that they deem no further restrictions are necessary and that the hot spots of contagion are to be found elsewhere than in churches.

First, before going any further, let it be eminently clear that we generally are extremely grateful to our governments at all levels, to all our public servants, and to all those at the service of the general population for their devoted service and considerable efforts in promoting and defending the common good and the good health of all citizens in this land. We especially wish to thank and affirm the various agents of the public health system and the provincial leadership for public health for their untiring efforts since the outbreak of this Pandemic in Québec. To all of you, and you know who you are, THANK YOU! 

However, the fact remains that this latest policy of the public health leadership to further restrict religious assemblies throughout the province is a glaring act of public injustice to the point of being scandalous! 

Consider for a moment the general behaviour of citizens in our western democratic societies. Where do you expect to find the greatest contempt for the regulations published by public health authorities? In bars and brasseries or in churches, synagogues, and mosques? After sports events at the emptying of arenas or after religious services at the emptying of places of worship? I have nothing against bars and brasseries or sports arenas and fields as such, having frequented such establishments and places myself.

The fact remains that no emptying of a church has generated riots in which crowds smash windows and loot businesses as has happened more than once in this city after Canadiens' hockey games. No religious service in western religious traditions keeps people in worship longer than around 60 minutes, unlike the 1 to 3 hours people will generally spend in a bar or brasserie or sports event. No one leaving a place of worship after attending and participating in religious worship is at risk to leave intoxicated or in any other way debilitated or likely to pose a threat to public order and security.

Since the start of the Pandemic and the subsequent deconfinement you will no longer see gatherings around the coffee urn to chat and share news in the parish hall - there are no longer any spontaneous gatherings - in contrast to the many liberties taken by many citizens all over the province on sports fields and in all kinds of scheduled, planned and spontaneous events, coinciding with the upspike in cases of Covid-19 infections in Québec. In fact our religious leaders are still laboring over when and how to permit funerals, weddings, baptisms and other ESSENTIAL religious celebrations in the lives of people whose only "crime" is to have the audacity to have no choice but be different from general trends by wanting to practice their faith and religion.

I will be so bold as to declare my sincere belief that no gathering of citizens has imposed the public health measures with more rigour than the religious gatherings for worship of God in our churches since the beginning of the deconfinement: sterilization of hands on entering and leaving and before receiving Holy Communion; wearing of the mask during the entire celebration except for consuming the host; social distancing in the pews and also while moving around; no boiserous singing but only muted singing behind the mask; and no touching of others at the sign of peace. In short, worship has become very muted and subdued in comparison to before the Pandemic. 

A dear friend of mine is on the organizing committee of a Protestant church and, early on before the actual deconfinement was fully implemented everywhere, asked me to send him the protocols drawn up by the Diocese of Montreal, knowing as he did from experience how thorough and stringent our leaders have been in the past and continue to be today; even to the point of going beyond what is expected. He knew that with our protocols his local church would be ahead of the game and find itself well placed to put into place their own protocols for deconfinement.

As for Catholic parishes in the Diocese of Montreal, I have heard that some churches allow people to remove their mask while seated quietly in their pew, knowing full well that some people - especially the elderly but also those with respiratory restrictions - will breathe more easily without their mask. The only condition very clearly explained and enforced is that people put their mask back on for speaking their parts of the few dialogues during the service and before moving out of their pew for Communion or to otherwise move around.

From the sanctuary, very well distanced from the assembly, the priest, deacon if any, the reader(s), and singer remove their mask in order to be heard and then put it back on especially when about to move towards others, such as for the distribution of Holy Communion.

Altar servers have been banished from the sanctuary altogether and the priest alone prepares the offerings and accessories at the altar, first washing his hands before touching anything. The hosts to be distributed as Holy Communion after the consecration are placed before Mass at the end of the altar and far from where the priest will be standing; so that his breath will be a good meter away and not land on them. 

Despite all these measures carefully and strictly observed in our churches, in the past 24 hours or so civil authorities to all appearances casually targetted religious institutions as though churches and other places of worship had been deemed to be burning furnaces of contagion and the hotbeds of irresponsible and revolutionary behaviours. Where are the reports of misdemeanours on the part of any churches which supposedly might have failed to observe the protocols of public health? Where are the facts concerning the infection of members of churches or their personnel or volunteers? Which are those churches that, if they had cases of infection among their members or personnel or volunteers did not immediately put them in quarantine? Where are the data to substantiate this drastic claw back in deconfinement drastically reducing the limits for religious assemblies from 250 to 50 and even 25?

This situation is simply illogical. How are we to understand these restrictive measures targetting with no proven justification all places of religious worship without showing any effort to report facts and draw intelligent conclusions? Is there actual medical surveillance evidence clearly identifying churches as hotbeds of contagion? If not, then on what basis have these restrictive measures been taken? Could there be some hidden, even dark, agenda at work, perhaps even without the overt knowledge of the civil authorities or perhaps subconsciously determined to target and strangle the very practice of religion as such? Such an agenda would be dark indeed.

One can understand and grant how people for whom the practice of religion might be strange and incomprehensible could in their eyes see the practice of religion as a relic from the past when humanity was given to ignorance and superstition. It may even be that for such a person the practice of religion as such might be considered a dangerous rival to the institution of government for the attention of the population. In other words, certain people might conceive of the practice of religion as a threatening competitor for power in society, or even as an obstacle to governance, as a sort of threat to the effective unfolding of political and social power to govern. 

Notwithstanding some historical social abuses often quoted by the opponents of religion - and these aberrations were for the most part abuses that took place in the political and economic spheres when populations looked to church leaders to protect them from the excesses of exploitation by kings and princes and emperors - the historical record in fact shows that in Christianity - especially in Catholic Christianity - nothing could be further from the truth. Of course wherever you have people you will find differences of opinion. 

However, the fact remains that people who legitimately practice their religion - not those who simply claim to do so while practicing all manner of crime and abuse and violence while claiming to do so in the name of the deity - but those who are actually practicing their religion, and most especially those who are following Jesus and putting into practice his teachings and commands; well, such people are generally among the first to serve public order and peace. Many such people gave their lives during the declared wars of the 20th century and many of their names adorn memorials on the walls of their places of worship. 

We who are citizens of our country here would therefore we well situated to expect from those who hold power and govern the common good to take into account all these facts, the actual facts, and the actual behaviour of all those who continue to have the audacity to practice their faith and religion. Let them abstain from "taking it out on" and targetting religious assemblies of worship in what can only appear to be a vain and misguided attempt to contain the latest new outbreaks of Covid-19 infection. 

The actual causes of new cases of infection are most certainly to be found anywhere else than in our churches on Sunday mornings or Saturday afternoons or even during the week. I cannot speak for synagogues and mosques, but I suspect that their leaders and members could probably have the same assurance. So please, stop picking so randomly and unjustly on your fellow citizens who have the audacity and temerity to insist on practicing their faith and religion.

Here was the end of my first reflection in French this morning. Then, after a good lunch, conversation with fellow residents, and the opportunity to "take a step back", I added a few more thoughts which follow here below.

13:45... having taken a step back...

 If you don't already know it, dear Reader, please let me assure you that we Catholic Christians are pacifists. This morning while still in shock I wrote my consternation at these sudden restrictive measures specifically targetting churches and other places of religious worship. Failing the presentation of any factual evidence to support such restrictions which the public authorities could very well have provided, I could only ask myself a great number of questions on what possible motives might have spawned these drastic measures. 

Normally, the Catholic Christian outlook will give the benefit of the doubt when trying to understand the perplexing behaviour of others before questioning their intentions. At this point there appears to be no reason to believe that the cause is ignorance regarding the reality or identity or nature or behaviours of those folks who dare to practice their faith and religion. 

Having put aside ignorance, at this point we might also put aside malice as potential motivation for these restrictive measures; that is, the deliberate intention of strangling the civil rights of ordinary folks who dare to practice their faith and religion. 

So if it isn't ignorance or malice, one might conceive of unconsciousness or forgetfulness. It could just be an error of perspective, since churches are so many and so different one from the other. Under normal circumstances churches would welcome anywhere from 25 to over 1,000 people at any one time for a single religious service. This might cause churches as such to be a general category that might be difficult to define without giving it greater attention, observation, time, and care. One could see how it might seem easier when under great pressure to just sweep them all away with a single stroke, and "BAM!" Let's impose more restrictions on them all.

Now, without passing judgment on anyone's intentions, the fact remains that these sudden new restrictions  on assemblies for the purpose of religious worship remain incomprehensible, unjust, negatively discriminatory, and indefensible. They are nothing short of a public scandal. However, as it is a normal faculty of human beings to make mistakes from time to time; one can expect institutions governed by human beings to also make mistakes.

For this reason, we fully expect the public health authority to realize the unintended effects of these sudden and baseless restrictions to limit the number of people to be admitted to worship assemblies, and that it is highly desirable to rescind these new restrictions as soon as possible, even before we get to the days for worship this coming weekend: Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews, and Saturday afternoon and Sunday for Christians.

Here then is a sincere and good hearted plea to all levels of our public health institutions and all of their leaders - particularly at the provincial level - to make a public show of wisdom and solidarity with all of their fellow citizens who dare to practice their faith and religion and whose only "crime" is to insist on practicing their faith and religion publicly and not merely in the privacy of their homes. 

To retract these measures publicly will in no way be an admission of weakness on the part of public health authorities, but on the contrary, will be plainly seen as evidence of wisdom and humility, those qualities that are without doubt most desirable for every person at the service of the general population. Your public stature in our eyes will not be diminished in doing so, but on the contrary, will be greatly enhanced.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

How can high level bankers and financiers hold their heads high in public?



My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------


I thought I'd open a savings account today until I received over a dozen sheets of paper, printed on both sides, from the bank with more fine print than it would take a lawyer to figure out. When I got to the tables indicating the interest rates, at first it looked really good. If I could manage to put together $5,000 I'd get 5% interest per year, which nowadays is pretty good, right? It seemed too good to be true; so I looked more closely and discovered that, in fact, that was too good to be true.

What is really being offered is 0.05% on a balance of over $5,000. That works out to 5 hundreths of one percent, or, to be even clearer, 5 ten thousandths. So for $5,000 that would amount to total interest per year of $2.50. I had to double check with the calculator, and sure enough, multiply 5,000 by 0.05% and that is what you get, $2.50.

It's a joke. The high level bankers are playing with the hard-earned money of the entire population of our countries and making record-breaking profits - I hate to think of how they must be treating their employees - and giving us just about nothing in return, except perhaps some security and guarantee against robbery and fraud. These past decades, banks have made insane profits, which may explain the foolhardiness with which they made speculative investments, some of which caused the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Those who made and promoted those risky investiments obviously didn't care about the people whose money they WERE PLAYING WITH. It was all about GREED and CAREERISM. 

The next step we might anticipate is that banks'll try to convince us that we should PAY THEM for the privilege of allowing them to play with our money, our hard-earned savings. That would be the limit. 

All that is because our entire financial and economic system is based on the principle of debt and credit. When you start out in life you have all your potential before you: youth, strength, ability to learn, ability and willingness to apply yourself to tasks and jobs, and much more. In the eyes of our financial and economic system, all of that - all of YOU - is worth NOTHING.

You have to take out a loan, to apply for credit, in order to have any value at all, and your value is only as much as you OWE. It's a new or old form of slavery which defines your worth by what value you have to the one who holds over you a debt. That is as close a definition of slavery as I can think of, with the exception of freedom of movement and of speech; although in many places these are limited as well. 

I recall reading somewhere that when industrialists and capitalists of the industrial revolution first offered salaries to workers - a specific wage for a specific duration of time worked - that citizens generally balked at the offer. They were actually offended because common sense told them that this arrangement was nothing more than a volunary form of slavery because their time would no longer be their own and they would, in effect, belong to the owners for the duration of their work period.

In actual fact, initially and for a number of decades, working conditions grew increasingly horrendous as capitalist industrialist owners of factories put the "squeeze" on workers to extract as much labor and output from them as they possibly could for as little remuneration as they could get away with in return. Typical factory, store, and restaurant workers in the early decades of the 20th century would work six days at 10 to 12 hours a day for $7 a week. It often cost them $6 a week to share a bed with other workers, which left them with only $1 a week to eat, clothe themselves, and buy medicine. Many poor women who were single parents had to "sell" themselves in order to feed their children. 

Original catholic activists like Dorothy Day and Catherine Doherty cried out loud on behalf of the poor. even embarrassing Church leaders - bishops and pastors - to finally come to recognize that the Church was doing NOTHING for the poor and poor workers. Before and after the "Great Crash" of 1929 there was nothing like health care, employment insurance, social welfare, retirement funds, or even soup kitchens. At best there was only a bit of simple neighborly help by those good people willing to notice and bring some limited comfort to the trouble of their neighbours. 

The very first soup kitchens were set up by Dorothy Day at the Catholic Worker New York in 1933 and by Catherine Doherty at Friendship House in Toronto in 1931, in Ottawa in 1936, in Harlem, New York in 1938, and in Chicago in 1941. Those movements rose and fell and engendered many others as social awarness and responsibility grew in the general population of our countries and in other lands as well. 

These prophetic leaders and activists and the movements they generated arose from their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Lord, and by prayerfully looking to Him, his life, death and resurrection; seeking from the Gospels light that could be shed on the many ethical and social issues of the day that were having deleterious impacts on the lives of the general population: war and peace, wealth and poverty, the privileges of the rich and powerful versus the constraints on the poor and helpless, issues of exploitation and violence, the insensitivity of public and private institutions and of the ordinary citizen to the trials, tribulations, and suffering of the disenfranchized. 

Originally, Dorothy Day was caught up with the work, writings, speeches, and public manifestations by communist and socialist activists, but she shortly experienced a religious conversion and from then on she followed none other than Jesus Christ. Such as the faith and motivation of Catherine Doherty, who unlike Dorothy, followed Jesus Christ from her childhood. Having experienced the "downside" of communism in Russia from 1917 to 1920, Catherine strove all her life to bring the Gospel to bear on the troubles of the poor and oppressed in order to bring a better light to bear on their lives than anything that communists and socialists might claim to bring. 

Catherine read what the popes had been writing since the beginning of the industrial revolution about the plight of exploited workers and she won the approval of popes she met who encouraged her to persevere in her labours. Pope Paul VI even said to her that on her and her work and others like her depended the survival and progress of the Church herself. That is why she became such a thorn in the sides of bishops, cardinals, and priests who had not caught up to the rapidly deteriorating living conditions of ordinary people from the mid-1800's to the mid-1900's. It took time, but church people increasingly became aware and mobilized into action for the poor and dispossessed of the Earth. 

-------------------------------------------

Health Care - in Canada: Medical Care Act of 1966 - in Saskatchewan 1st provincial hospitalization plan in 1957 - in U.S.A. teachers set up first plan in Texas in 1929; Blue Cross began in 1936 and Blue Shield in 1939; Medicare and Medicaid came in 1965

Employment Insurance - in Canada: Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1940 and 1971 - in U.S.A. the federal-state Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program created in 1935

Social Welfare - in Canada: Social Welfare created in 1940's; in Québec in 1958; in Ontario the first step was the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1914 for destitute persons over 70 - in U.S.A. the National Welfare system was created in 1935; from 1910 to 1915 32 states enacted workers' compensation insurance 

Retirement Programs - in Canada: the Registered Retirement Annuity was created in 1957; followed by the Canada Pension Plan in 1965 by Lester B. Pearson - in U.S.A. the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad established in 1884 the first pension plan by a major employer (at 65 workers for 10+ years could retire for 20 to 35% of wages; in 1875 American Express created the first private pension plan for the elderly and disabled; by 1926 there were around 200 private pensions by larger employers. Plans continued to develop in the 1900's but less and less employers offered them since the 1990's. The U.S.A. never developed a country-wide pension plan, reflecting its capitalist foundations and principles. It's every man for himself and every woman for herself. You don't plan, you don't get. 

-------------------------------------------

We have forgotten the original reasons why people were willing to suffer brutality at the hands of police called by the capitalists when workers began to demonstrate in order to convince fellow workers to unite and form unions. They desperately wanted to win the authority to negotiate with the capitalist owners on behalf of the workers in order to seek better hours, safer working conditions, and better pay.

Human nature being what it is, many unions developed into caricatures of what they were originally intended and designed to be, trying to control plants and production and to dictate conditions to the owners without reference to the costs of production and the profit margins. In the past several decades many factories and businesses have closed or sold out because of unreasonable demands by unions, whose representatives lived on the union dues paid by the very workers whose jobs they destroyed. 

The best balance I have ever seen between workers, owners, and bankers is in the entirely worker owned and operated collection of companies developed originally in the Basque country of Spain in the 1950's by Catholics which has become a multinational corporation. Workers actually own the various companies and the supervisors and managers must report to them. 

Instead of companies being owned by a handful of people, who can sell the company and dismiss the workforce at any time and retire with their profits to the Caribbean, the companies are actually entirely owned, operated, and managed by the workers themselves. We're not talking about communists or socialists here, because initially these were good Catholics and I would suspect that a good number of them still are. They haven't upset political institutions but on the contrary have been the economic and social backbone of their peoples and states.

No worker loses his or her job unless they don't want to work, and they are evaluated by all the workers at general meetings. No one earns more than 5 or 6 times the one who earns the least. Their collective profits and pension funds are reinvested into more development, education, and savings. They have developed their own university, and all the towns in which they have companies and workers are doing very well because of the great benefits generated by this cooperative movement. This amazing, creative, and cooperative movement is called Mondragon Corporation. Check it out. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

It may be legal, but it remains offensive

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The year was 1969

Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation and Hydro-Québec signed a deal with the latter investing about half and taking the added risk of covering potential cost overruns in exchange for a long term fixed rate which, at the time, indicated no risk for the CFLCo due to the fact that energy prices in the world had been stable since 1950. It took a few years for the dam to be built and for electricity to begin to flow out, but already by then the world had dramatically changed.

The Montreal La Presse on February 16, 1971 reported the signing of an international deal initiated by OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which - following on the Middle-East conflicts involving the State of Israel - decided to stop letting the world push them around. They had oil and the West wanted it; so they decided it was time for the West to pay the piper, as it were.

I recall seeing - from 1969 to 1972, the year that I learned to drive - the price of gasoline go from $0.29 to $0.39 and then to $0.49 for one imperial gallon. Around 1980 we went metric; so that would have been $0.064 to $0.086 to $0.108 per litre! We're talking 10 cents a litre here! Then during the '70's the price kept creeping upwards with OPEC firmly holding the reins: $0.54 per imperial gallon in 1973; $0.63 in 1974; $0.80 in 1975; $0.87 in 1977; $0.92 a gallon in 1978; and finally, in 1980, we went metric and now it was $0.296 a litre = $1.34,6 for one imperial gallon; while in the UK and Europe and even in the U.S.A. it was twice or three times that much.

Our world had radically changed in just a few years

So, while the ink on the agreement was barely dry and the electricity started flowing out of Churchill Falls, Hydro-Québec was making a mint and Churchill Falls Labrador was getting crumbs. It was a swift kick to the head and they realized they were screwed, and screwed for the next 65 years! Meanwhile, Hydro-Québec was waltzing to the bank like someone holding a humongous winning lottery ticket.

In the best of all possible worlds, either Hydro-Québec or Québec leaders or the population itself might have realized the lopsided stakes here, and someone could have taken the bull by the horns and said to Churchill Falls, "Look, I know we have a signed agreement, and we're not obligated to do any more, but, this is ridiculous. Here's what we'd like to do. You're stuck at the 1969 price which is now increasing geometrically with no sign of stopping. We have to pay back our investment, but it won't kill us to increase what you get to 10% maybe as much as 20% of whatever increases in price we get. If the price goes down, so will yours, of course." I don't know, anything along those lines would have been a civilized thing to do, a gentleman's offer and gesture, a sign that we still have some class.

But no. On the Québec side, we walked away like the proverbial lotto winner or casino winner, laughing all the way to the bank. As for the people on the other side, "f.... 'em!" "They signed just as we did; so they can live with it now." Yeah, right.

What we did is worthy of the worst rogue capitalism for which North America is known, and more especially, our immediate neighbours to the south. Just look at and listen to their leader, President Trump, and you'll see this brand of rogue capitalism at work. Any competitor is a enemy to crush to the ground so that it will never rise again.

Does this make any sense, but at all?

What about the facts?

Admittedly, without Hydro-Québec taking the risks and investing as it did, Churchill Falls would never have been built, and Newfoundland-Labrador would have nothing at all to show. So, according to the letter of the law, Hydro-Québec was and is fully entitled to a good return on their investment and proper compensation for taking the risks by assuming any potential cost overruns. It could have decided to invest on Québec territory instead. The "new Québec" after Jean Lesage's win in 1960 was only 9 years old and there was a lot of work to do to bring the province into the 20th century in many ways. Still, though, according to the CBC to Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation's $2 billion in profits, Hydro-Québec has taken in $28 billion! That's 1,400 %! That's a humongous amount of profit... no kidding!

To laugh at the other partner for a few years would be quite understandable and forgivable, but to "stick it to them" for the past 50 years and to go on "sticking it to them" until 2041 is a bit much, don't you think? Hell, we could triple their take at $6 billion and still get $24 billion for Hydro-Québec's coffers, according to those reports. That's doable. Clearly, we could do much better, which would help Newfoundlanders solve their current extreme financial crisis, and we'd still be taking in billions in PROFITS, because the price of electricity isn't showing any signs of collapsing!

How to understand this?

Clearly, the players here are not interested in being or living or acting as gentlemen. Heck, not even as people of the same species living on the same planet! It's all about making the maximum profit and to hell with everybody else.... "Hey Mom, look at how well we're doing over here!"

I have always been proud to be Canadian, proud to be a Quebecer, proud to be a Montrealer, but today, I am ashamed. I have friends in Newfoundland-Labrador, and when I see their questioning looks, I have no answer to give them, and I can only hang my head, because I have been silent for all this time in the face of a social scandal of human proportions. And this is only one of the many scandals and incongruities of our generations that we have witnessed and about which we have done little or nothing. Well, no more....

Sadly, it's past the time to wake up and smell our planet falling apart

The glaciers are melting at an exponential rate, to the point that scientists are embarrassed to make any predictions about how fast it will accelerate, but the writing is on the wall: sooner than we think, hundreds of millions of people living along ocean coasts will be flooded out and displaced. We think we've been in crisis mode with Covid-19? We haven't seen anything yet! Just wait until those millions of people cross into neighbouring countries just to survive and see what happens then....

We're like people in a rowboat on the ocean having an argument, and one guy decides to stick it to the others and punches a hole in the boat... "So there! That will show you who's boss around here!" Not so smart, as water quickly rises in the boat and the sharks circle around just on the other side...."

Even kids know all about getting along and cooperating. We were kids once and we learned that lesson, but we've forgotten it. Well, it's high time we learn it again, because time is running out. We of the human species currently occupying Planet Earth, we are in actual danger of going extinct, and it could very well happen in our lifetime; unless we wake up fast and start working together.

So, Hydro-Québec, buckle up and start talking nice to the other guys and gals

Okay, so I may be sounding naive here, right? But I'm a believer; so that means that I live primarily driven by hope. Why? Because I know that very soon we will all find ourselves standing in the presence of the Creator of the Universe, the One from whom we come and to whom we are all going, whether we believe that or not, and whether we like that or not. He is kind and gracious, but also just. He was warned us that if we are harsh to others, then we will get the same treatment. If we are kind to others, then we can expect to find kindness from Him as well.

So, Hydro, it's never too late! You can still come out of this smelling like a proverbial rose if you take the initiative and "make Churchill Falls Labrador Corp. an offer they can't refuse"... to give our good neighbors in Newfoundland-Labrador a break they sorely need and surely deserve. It's high time we do the right thing so we can look at ourselves in the mirror and, finally, not have reason to feel bad, to be ashamed of our cavalier treatment - FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS - of these good people. Yes, we took risks and were assured a good deal, but this has gone WAY, WAY, WAY beyond that. It's time.

Feel free to pass this on, to "pay it forward"

Even if we're stuck to a wheel chair and only able to type on a keyboard with the look of our eyes through an adapter, there's a lot we can each do to help make this world a little better. We can do a lot through just a few words at the right time, in the right place, to the right people.

As Pope Francis keeps saying, the Earth is our common home. So, I say, let's not treat it like a toilet, because that would mean that we are living in a toilet. Let's not treat it like a garbage dump, because that would mean that we are living in a garbage dump. Neither of those attitudes would reflect very well on us; so let's encourage one another to "rise to the occasion" and make a difference.

Check out the film "Tomorrow. Demain." to see how many people are already choosing a proactive course of action in their lives and improving the world around them for others.

Pope Francis will be receiving young people who want to make the world better be constructing an economy that puts people and our common home first, ahead of profits, and certainly not profits at all cost, even at the cost of destroying our common home. Check it out - the gathering planned for November 19-21, 2020 is being called "Economy of Francesco".

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Monday, January 13, 2020

Boeing 737 Max - What about the common good?


My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

What are we to think of the ongoing crisis in aviation concerning the Boeing 737 Max? Evidence in the U.S.A. is accumulating that there is something structurally wrong with this model, which was a redesign in order to put in larger engines in response to its competitor in Europe. The result appears to have been that the plane tends to put its nose down instead of gliding effortlessly; as planes are supposed to do. Rather than solve this mechanical fault it was decided to make a software solution which would require new training for pilots. The result has been two fatal crashes and for now the planes are all grounded. There is a wrestling match between Boeing and the FAA regulating agency and, now, public opinion.

So what are we to think? There is a growing groundswell of advice for people to avoid any flights on any Boeing 737 but with flight cancellations and changes this may be beyond anyone's control.

For me the underlying issue is much deeper and much more serious, because it stems from the human condition. Charles Dickens was so taken with it that he wrote many novels to express all the human trouble he observed. It comes down to each individual's choice in the face of their human limitations, faults, and disturbing inclinations.

A person either chooses to make relentless daily efforts to master their impulses, inclinations, passions, bad habits, weaknesses, sins... or they don't. The person who settles with their faults, shuts down their conscience by considering moral questions as irrelevant, and sets out to look after their own interests first or exclusively becomes a person who represents a very real and serious threat to the rest of society, because this is a person who sets out to use, manipulate, and exploit others. To use an analogy, that person becomes a shark that considers all other people as so many fish on the "menu" to be consumed at will.

In a society as sophisticated as the U.S.A., this scenario is taken to complex levels in which the legal system, the medical system, the political system, the banking and financial system, government agencies, and transnational corporations, become transformed by a preponderance of "sharks" who employ the full weight of their resources - such as teams of lawyers, engineers, architects, and other professionals - to obtain results which are the complete opposite of the common good originally intended by human laws and customs. The rich, powerful, and influential push their own agendas and "to hell" with everyone else.

The Boeing problem is a mere pimple on the rear end of American society, but the real problem is far worse and much more serious a threat to the common good. America boasts it is the best society in the world, but its form of democracy and capitalism favors the less than one percent who are the rich, the powerful, and the influential who grab the levers of control of the dynamics of the whole society in order to look after their own interests, euphemistically called "American interests", but they turn events away from the common good and toward their own private interests. In public they create a mirage of the opposite, declaring unashamedly that they are doing everything in their power to serve the common good, but in private and in practice, the opposite is true.
The results are everywhere visible in the U.S.A. Consider "Corporate America" and the growing number of thriving little towns turned into ghost towns after the Walmarts of this world have squeezed all the juice out, put all the little businesses out of work, and abandoned their empty store to move on to another town in order to do the same there. American corporations are securely locked into a form of capitalism whose only interests are the profit and well being of the owners, board members and officers, and the controlling share holders. The profit and well being of everyone else, including all their workers, are of little or no consequence; such that with little or no notice they move jobs out of the country or eliminate them altogether with no apology or any sense of wrongdoing.

Then there is the medical system and public health. There are the 1 out of 4 Americans who don't have health coverage at all - the "working poor" - whose values prevent them from taking welfare but who can't afford health insurance. The bulk of Americans who do have health insurance are often told their condition isn't covered. Insurance companies - life as well as health and others too - have lots of staff whose job is to full exploit the exclusions in the contract to save the company as much money as possible and refuse as many claims as possible.

Then there is the legal system which tolerates hordes of "ambulance chasing lawyers", sharks, who encourage desperate people to sue for almost anything, whether legitimate or reasonable or not, and the judiciary system that tolerates and allows wrongful suits, driving the legal costs way out into space. People with the money to hire teams of lawyers trained in all the ways of exploiting laws to profit their employers destroy the lives of people they sue, and the judiciary is often without the wisdom of Solomon and gives its stamp of approval to such miscarriage of justice.
Then there is the food industry which has so industrialized agriculture that they are depleting the soils and turning them into deserts while producing foods that are less and less nutritious, also taking pains and employing lawyers to pressure small farmers out of their family farms in order to seize their property and turn it into huge agribusiness fields. A new strategy is the biological modification and copyrighting of seeds and suing small farmers out of their right to use normal seeds and in the end causing them to lose their farms so they can grab them.

Then there is big pharma which has industrialized medicine and exerts considerable power over the medical system and has pressured, bought, or sued legitimate alternative medical practices and practitioners out of existence, going so far as to create by malicious rumor suspicion of alternative doctors and going so far as to destroy their practices and even drive them to mysterious deaths.
Then there is the banking and financial system that in the U.S.A. has one of the most if not the most unforgiving rule book. All too often contracts clearly state that should the borrower default in their payments beyond a certain limit that their property reverts to the bank or financial institution and they are out on the street. Any number of life crises as indicated above can put people in a situation of hardship where they are unable for a time to pay their mortgage or taxes. When that happens, if they have no rich relatives to help them or insufficient income, they are consumed by the "sharks" and join the ranks of the homeless.

In society that final recourse rests on government. It is the role of government to rule the nation on behalf of its citizens and to ensure the common good by regulating the many rabid human tendencies which tend to exploit the weak and helpless. America came closest to having such a government as an outcome of WW II when in the 1950's a large middle class came into being with an abundance of well paid jobs, good homes, and good health care. Then from the 1960's and 1970's on - coinciding with the government's insane warmongering in Viet Nam and subsequently other nations - American presidents led governments that progressively deregulated all of these fields of action in order to favor the rich, powerful, and influential by simultaneously disenfranchising the common citizen.

One of the results of all of these situations can be observed on late night TV in the "GREAT U.S.A." where people sell schemes for getting rich by gobbling up homes and properties of people who have fallen on hard times and are very late in paying their mortgages or taxes. Banks and financial institutions are the first to take over properties in default of their mortgage payments, but when the banks haven't already seized people's homes, entrepreneurs can grab them simply by paying the back taxes and the people who owned those homes are on the street.

A second result is the poor condition of infrastructures all over the U.S.A. - decrepit utility grids, bridges, dams, roads, sewage systems, and so on - because the rich, powerful, and influential refuse to pay their fair share and insist the burden fall squarely on the common citizen and taxpayer. Rather than do that, governments allow conditions to further deteriorate. Remember what happened to New Orleans when the poor condition of the levees allowed the hurricane to destroy much of the city and make permanently homeless any number of residents.

This is just a brief sketch of the scandalous condition of America's public institutions, and the Boeing problem appears to be wrong in the eyes of public America only because the callous disregard of its agents for the common good was so negligent that they exposed to public view what all the other sharks manage to keep hidden from view. The proof of that is how the current president manages to persuade much of the population that he is acting in their interests at the very same time that he is acting on behalf of all the rich, powerful, and influential and not at all for the common good. There are a few exceptions, such as the way in which at the United Nations he leads the American presence and delegation in hindering the efforts of those bent on forcing the nations into adopting abortion policies against their own nations' values in favor of preserving human life.

Please don't get me wrong... I have met many Americans during my seven decades of life on Planet Earth, both in the U.S.A. and elsewhere around the world, but especially here in Canada. Rarely have I not liked or even admired those Americans I have known. It is ironic that there can be so many very fine Americans while they endure such perverse public institutions. Their government buildings have emulated Greek architecture, as the Romans also did, in part because from the beginning they have seen themselves as successors to the Roman Empire.

Like them, they now interfere worldwide in the affairs of other nations, going so far as to bring down governments they consider unfavorable to their interests. No governments anywhere can be permitted to truly serve the common good in the genuine interests of the general population, because in their view the supreme interests are those of the rich, the powerful, and the influential. The general population can only be allowed the crumbs that fall from the tables of the rich, if there are any, but if not; then that's just too bad.

American public institutions are not particularly more blameworthy than you or I, because they are simply more visible manifestations of the human condition, and what Christians call the original sin. Once human beings turn away from the benevolent will of their Creator and God, they no longer have any solid moral grounds for their thoughts or feelings, for their choices or decisions, for their deeds or behavior. Once we treat God as if He doesn't exist, the way is clear for us to take his place. America makes this most eloquently clear by constantly deciding what is to be considered good or evil, but always in accord with its current definition of American interests.

We in Canada are not far behind with our frenzied public enthusiasm for doing away with unwanted babies and anyone who may be tired of suffering or even of living, just as easily as we are publicly eager to redefine not only marriage but even what it means to be a human person, a man or woman. Without God there can be no moral compass, and I feel deep pity for people without God. It is still good news, no, great news, that God does not so easily abandon us as we abandon Him. During these Days of Christmas we have found once again great joy in celebrating the One who came to dwell among us - Emmanuel - Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Messiah, the true Savior of the world.

DISCLAIMER:    It is possible that I may have been inaccurate in one or other of my statements above or in the details. What I have written is nothing of my own but simply an accumulation of other people's observations as reported in countless articles, reports, public inquiries, public investigations, books by professionals, public scandals, American citizens I've been privileged to meet and know, other eye witnesses, and other reliable sources of information that I have been privileged over the past 5 decades to see, hear, or read. Where I am in error, I apologize, and am quite eager to receive authentic evidence to the contrary; upon reception of which I will gladly revise my views.

Peace to you and your family, and a very Happy, Healthy, and Holy New Year 2020!

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

True dialogue on moral issues for developing public policy in a democracy like Canada

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------


There are many issues and considerations driving election campaigns. May I put a suggestion for more open and respectful dialogue among citizens and politicians, among political parties and in government, and also for a more effective development of policies for the common good?

Over the years on several occasions I would have liked to vote for one party or another but at times I didn't because on certain ethical issues I could not find in that party's platform sufficient distinction between policy and ideology. Whenever I tried to communicate with party representatives it turned out that significant dialogue was not to be had. Perhaps everyone was too busy. I am referring to various elements of life in society that touch on moral issues. Please allow me to be specific.

I grant that in a democracy each citizen, each person has the right to their own view on moral issues and both social and personal matters, but for the sake of democracy and effective dialogue in view of striving together for the common good, we need to be able to get beyond ideology to a level of policy, where dialogue and even compromise are more possible than with ideology alone. Ideology has value because without clarity about what we think and believe true dialogue becomes impossible. However, when we are driven by ideology alone it is difficult when not impossible to remain open to different points of view. At worst, we end up with dictatorships, fascism, marxism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism where only the authorized view is permitted.

I and most Roman Catholics today readily admit that even our own Church went through periods when ideology so dominated public order that there resulted a form of totalitarianism wherein lives were snuffed out in the interest of defending the truth, without realizing at the time that the greatest damage was being done to freedom of conscience. As difficult as it is for us moderns to understand such a divergent point of view, the expressed motivation of the Church at the height of repression known today as the Spanish Inquisition, the institutional motivation was the salvation of souls. 

Yes, that's right. There was such a fear of eternal damnation that when someone was discovered to hold a belief or manifest a behavior that was perceived to be evil or a perversion of all that is good and held to be true, all means were deemed acceptable to try to persuade that person to reform their beliefs and behavior and embrace the truth as it was to be found in Sacred Scripture and Church commandments.

Tragically, what was lacking to officials of the Church at that time, as in other times and in other public institutions, was a deeper understanding of God and the "ways of the Lord". In God is to be found perfect justice, that is true, but also perfect mercy. Christians believe that in God we find both divine justice and divine mercy and a perfect balance in their application. Another biblical principle is that judgement belongs to God alone and that Jesus is given God's authority to judge.

God is the judge: "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you - who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12. Jesus shows He has God's authority to judge: “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." Matthew 5:28-30. See other references in Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 75:7; and Hebrews 10:30. 

Jesus commanded us not to judge, for we are incompetent to judge. Unlike God, we are necessarily biased and lack the full knowledge and wisdom which God alone possesses. Jesus gave a teaching about how we are to avoid judging one another in Matthew 7:1-6. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Paul advised the Corinthians "not to associate with immoral people" which requires a form of judgement or at least observation of behavior. He declares that "outsiders" come under God's judgement but that the faith community must "put outside" the evil doer from within their midst. In other words, those who believe in Jesus and try to be his disciples must love and support one another and, regarding those who insist on doing what is declared evil by God, those who are unrepentant are to be put out of the assembly of believers and not to be associated with.

This is a form of judgement oriented to preservation of self and of the common good; yet it actually respects the choices of those who disagree or want to behave in ways that are unacceptable. This is a form of respect for the freedom of conscience. When the bishops of the universal Roman Catholic Church met in Rome from 1962-65 four years in a row for a month or so in October at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, they robustly declared the universal right to freedom of conscience with the obligation to inform and form well one's conscience (sections 1776-1802) as well as the freedom and responsibility to hold, practice, and live in accord with one's own faith or beliefs (1730-1748).

The extreme measures of the Spanish Inquisition are no longer possible in the contemporary Church given that those practices arose in the context of a medieval society where they understood public order to include all that could impinge on the eternal destiny of individuals and they believed they were under the obligation to impose right order and right belief by force. Throughout the world there remain cultures, civilizations, peoples, and nations where the rule of force is still employed. We have only to watch the evening news to verify how true this is.In a sense, many societies and pockets of societies are still locked into medieval outlooks by which rule can only be maintained by force.

In contrast to those individuals and societies that mistakenly think that it is up to them to impose public order and belief, when the followers of Jesus as individuals and as institutions are well aligned with Jesus' teaching and example, they fearlessly proclaim Him and the truth He taught and conduct themselves as Jesus did. They do so fearlessly even to the point of laying down their lives as so many countless thousands and millions have done throughout the centuries down to our own day. Christ and his followers are bold to give witness to the truth but leave those who hear them free to embrace that truth or not; they don't impose anything.

As a Roman Catholic Christian it is true that I am committed to promoting by my words and actions the value of human life, from conception to natural death. However, I can still respect the right of others to hold different views. I also entertain the hope that through open and respectful dialogue we can progress together in our understanding of the issues and develop ever better policies that truly serve the common good as well as allowing for individual differences. The irritating thing about freedom of conscience is that life lived under this principle is not monolithic, with whole populations walking in locked steps.

The human conscience is ever in a process of being formed as it considers ever more widely and deeply the various elements that need to enter into any moral consideration. The human person needs to have access to ever more complete information as well as to ever better understand itself and to discern what importance to give to various considerations. The links between facts and views need to be ever updated so that our views remain firmly anchored in the facts.

In addition, there are other sources of truth beside the visible and manifest facts. The human sciences may not be able to measure interior or spiritual human experience; yet that experience remains no less real and its impact on human life and society is undeniable and great. All who acknowledge the existence of God, the Creator of the universe, come to understand more about reality through the truths revealed by God to people who have received such communication and recorded it for general distribution. One truth held by adherents to the Judeo-Christian religious traditions relates to the inalienable value of a human life. Because God is the giver of life, only He has authority over it, as it is set down in the "ten commandments" in the Torah or first five books of the Jewish Scriptures.

It is evident to everyone that belief in God contributes to the differences of view on moral issues, given that those who don't believe in God would tend to dismiss God as a viable and legitimate source of knowledge about the full truth regarding human life and all life in general. In the absence of God, any given human being can then lay claim to superiority of view and policy on moral matters, with the result that policy is set in such a godless universe by courts, legislatures, and any other authority with the conviction it has the power to impose its view on the general population. We are not strangers to such dictations of moral policy from above throughout human history, including from church authorities. The difference today is that church authorities appeal to consciences rather than attempt to impose by any show of whatever force.

----------------------------------------------------------------

For example, on the issue of abortion and the right of people, women in particular, to exercise freedom of choice, I support those people admittedly pro-life who try to offer thoughts in favor of life to the prospective clients of abortion clinics simply in the hope that their presence there might open up more options for those who, in going to an abortion clinic, often are oppressed by the fatalistic impression that they "have no other choice".

It is ironic that many who claim to be PRO CHOICE actually seem not to want to allow people in such desperate straights to even know about all their practical options, to truly be able to make a well-informed choice. In addition, many women who have abortions suffer all manner of painful consequences that either manifest themselves immediately or only later in various forms of guilt. For that reason alone it makes perfect sense that those contemplating an abortion should take the possible consequences into consideration. Alas, all too often the abortion procedure is promoted quite intensively as a "consequence-free procedure" through such statements as "the abortion will solve your problems" and "you'll be able to go back to the way you were before getting pregnant".

Those who identify themselves as PRO-CHOICE tend to believe that there is no guilt associated with the abortion procedure but that, if there is any guilt following the abortion, that feeling of guilt is entirely and exclusively caused by the repressive and dictatorial declarations of people whom they consider against choice and against abortion. In this view, all those who identify themselves as PRO-LIFE are actually ANTI-CHOICE. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pro-lifers recognize from personal experience that far too many women who get an abortion are under duress and pressure from their entourage and actually feel like they have no choice, that there are no other options.

Not all guilty feelings are artificially provoked by other people and ideologies. An abortion actually does kill an unborn infant human being and when guilt feelings manifest themselves, these feelings follow directly upon the action that has been taken independently of whatever others may say about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear fellow citizen, there are other moral issues - such as palliative care and euthanasia - that similarly touch on complex human life situations that require on our part and certainly on the part of government to remain open to dialogue, to the complete findings from scientific and medical research, and that seek above all in the interests of the common good to promote open and honest dialogue and that also allow elected members of Parliament to vote in accord with their own conscience as well as in dialogue with their own constituents.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Fellow Canadians, it's time to stand up for local television

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------


Do you know our cable and satellite companies pay for the right to broadcast American local television signals but by law have free access to Canadian local television signals; so that CRTC regulations under the authority of the Canadian government are directly depriving our local Canadian television stations of any revenue from Canadian broadcasting cable and satellite companies? Part of the money we pay for our cable and satellite services are in turn paid out to US television companies but not to Canadian television companies. What's wrong with this picture?
 

You too can get the basic text of this letter and make it your own. Click here. 

Secretary General Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 

Dear Secretary General: 

RE: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-614 

Most of the factual information in my letter to you has been prepared by local television broadcasters, but I have informed myself and make my own the general direction of this information and lobbying campaign. In that light, please accept the following comments in response to the above-referenced Notice of Consultation. 

Local television is where people in communities across Canada come together to learn about events that touch our everyday lives. Without local television, we would lose part of our voice, and viewers would have fewer choices in quality programming that reflects our unique Canadian identity. 

It is not entirely clear to me how it came about in the beginning that laws and rules were put in place to give cable and satellite companies free access to local television broadcasters' signals for distribution through their wired and wireless broadcasting services. 

Perhaps it made sense to give what were then new broadcasting services an initial advantage to allow them to take off. If that is the case, then one would think it is time to revisit this legal protection. Cable and satellite companies are no longer fledglings, and their preferential treatment is now jeopardizing the local television companies that allowed them to begin operation to begin with. 

Local television can no longer share our communities' stories on advertising alone. To compete with the hundreds of channels currently on the dial, our system needs to evolve and allow local TV stations to negotiate with Canada's cable and satellite companies for a fair market price for their signals. 

As a Canadian citizen I find it an outrage that local TV is obliged to offer their signal free to cable and satellite companies, while these are willing to play the game differently across the border and pay US TV companies fair market value. What's wrong with this picture? 

Moreover, I am deeply concerned that my cable company is already charging me for local television service through my basic cable rate, and yet, is threatening to charge me more for local television. I believe it's time for the CRTC to protect consumers like me by regulating basic cable rates. 

This solution will provide more transparency and prevent cable and satellite companies from increasing my basic cable rate whenever they wish. I urge the CRTC to do what is right and fix our broken television model by providing local TV stations with the right to negotiate for their signals and to protect consumers with the regulation of basic cable rates. 

I authorize you to consider me personally represented by those Canadian citizens who are currently requesting the opportunity to appear before the Commission in person at the December hearings to further elaborate on these issues. 

Yours sincerely, 

Gilles A. Surprenant, Canadian, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, QC

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to help spread the contributions of a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +