Bilingual Rantings

Exigez la démission de ministre Tony Clement

2012-01-24T23:52:00.002-05:00

Il y a des preuves croissantes que le ministre Clement a délibérément tromper le peuple canadien et le Parlement du Canada de l'utilisation et l'appropriation des fonds d'infrastructure et d'héritage du G8. Les documents ont révélé par la loi sur l'accès à l'information, et démontre que le ministre Clement a eu un rôle dans le choix des projets qui seraient financés. Il est consternant qu'un ministre du cabinet canadien trompe délibérément le Parlement et le peuple canadien et nous exigeons qu'il démissionne immédiatement.

Signez la pétition pour exigez sa démission!

Demand Tony Clement resign!

2012-01-23T20:23:00.002-05:00

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

There is mounting evidence that Minister Clement has deliberately mislead the Canadian people and the Parliament of Canada of the use and appropriation of the G8 Legacy Fund. Documents have recently revealed, by the Access to Information Act, that Minister Clement had a role in choosing which projects would be funded. It is appalling that a Canadian Cabinet Minister would deliberately mislead Parliament and the Canadian people and we demand that he resign immediately.

Sign the petition to demand Clement's resignation!

Still waiting for gender equality in Canada

2012-01-15T18:00:00.003-05:00

Today my partner and I went braw-shopping at a department store in downtown Toronto. I had selected numerous styles and hoped to try them on. However, I was informed that my boyfriend was not allowed in the fitting room, because he's a male. I pointed out that the changerooms were not open concept, but single rooms, and thus he wouldn't be able to see anyone other than myself, but still they insisted it's store policy. One client entering the fitting room said "If a guy's in here then I'm not going in." as though somehow a male being on the other side of a locked and closed door would be even noticeable.

This situation upset me quite a bit, and I'd like to point out why:

1. I look like a female, but really I'm transgendered - does that mean I'm not allowed in the changerooms? I asked this and they insisted I was allowed, just not my boyfriend. Of course what's not being realised here is that they're not actually discriminating by sex, but instead by perception of sex. I look like a female, therefore my presence is welcome. My partner looks like a male, therefore his presence is unwelcome. Nevermind the fact that one of us is not actually what we appear to be.

2. What if a male wanted to try on a bra? If you're going to scoff and say "Men don't dress in women's clothing!" I must to redirect you to any episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I'm sure that these situations occur rarely, but I do believe they're worth fighting against.

Imagine this: You're a black person, and you want to try on an item of clothing. The staff inform you that the changerooms are only reserved for white persons and thus you're not welcome. If this happened today in Canada, there would be a slew of lawsuits. But it's the same situation. It IS still happening in Canada, but with sex and gender.

Membership drive for the Technocratic Party of Canada

2011-11-26T15:37:00.005-05:00

We're starting our membership drive for the Technocratic Party of Canada. It's a new political party which aims to improve the quality of life of Canadians using evidence based politics, rather than ideology. As technocrats, we wish to reform the ministry so that the ministers must be experts in their respective fields of governance. For instance, natives in charge of Native Affairs, and an oceanographer or ichthyologist as Minister of Oceans and F

You can read more here.

If you're interested, we would greatly appreciate it if you supported us by becoming a member. To do so, please send us an email at technocraticparty.ca@gmail.com

You can always ask me any questions you may have here, or follow us on facebook

Campagne d'adhésion pour le Parti Technocratique

2011-11-13T11:33:00.004-05:00

Nous débutons notre campagne d'adhésion pour le Parti Technocratique du Canada. C'est un nouveau parti politique qui a pour but d'améliorer la vie des Canadiens en utilisant les politiques à basent d'évidence et non d'idéologie. Dans la tradition technocratique, nous désirons réformer le ministère pourque les ministres soient des experts au sujets en quel ils gouvernent. Ça veux dirent, les autochtones en chargent du Ministre des Affaires indiennes, et que les océanographes ou ichtyologues soient en chargent du Ministre des Pêches et des Océans.

Vous pouvez en lire plus ici:
http://fr.technocraticparty.ca/

Si vous êtes intéresser, nous l'apprécierons grandement si vous nous supporterez en devenir un membre. SVP nous envoyer un courriel à technocraticparty.ca@gmail.com pour devenir un membre.

Toujours, vous pouvez me demander des questions ici à propos, ou nous joindre sur facebook!

Nouvelle pétition pour changer notre système électoral

2011-10-20T19:20:00.005-04:00

J'ai commencer une nouvelle pétition pour changer le système électoral du Canada à scrutin proportionnel plurinominal à liste ouverte. Vous pouvez signez la pétition ici. Notez que le texte de la pétition est en anglais seulement, mais j'espère bientôt la traduire en français.

Une brève explication de ce système:

Dans un système à scrutin proportionnel plurinominal, le pourcentage du vote populaire qu'un parti gagne est parallel au pourcentage des sièges parlementaires appointées à ce parti. Si un parti gagne 40% du vote populaire, il gagnera à peu près 40% des sièges parlemantaires. Il y a plusieurs méthodes d'atteindres ce but, un entre eux (avec quelques variations) c'est la liste ouverte. Avec la liste ouverte, les partis seraient permis de nominer plus qu'un candidat par circonscription électorale (jusqu'à un maximum déterminer par parlement et Élection Canada) et les électeurs peuvent nonseulement voter pour le parti de leur choix, mes aussi spécifiquement quel candidat.

Les différences entre notre système actuel et cel qui est proposé:

Notre système électoral actuel est uninominal. Comme ça marche, il y a une seule siège disponible par circonscription, et alors seulement un candidat peut gagner contrôle entier de ce circonscription. Si un candidat pour le PartiA gagne 30% du vote populaire d'une circonscription, et tous les autres candidats ont gagné moins que 30%, le candidat du PartiA gagnera 100% de la représentation pour cette circonscription, même s'il n'a pas gagné la majorité des votes. Tous les circonscriptions gagnés par un parti sont ajouter et le parti avec le plus de sièges gagne l'élection et forme le gouvernement. Notre système actuel permit un parti de former le gouvernement majoritaire avec seulement 30% du vote populaire.

Dans les circonscriptions sous le système proposé, il y a plus qu'une siège parlementaire disponible (et alors tacitement les circonscriptions sont redimensionnés). Les partis peuvent nominer plus qu'un candidat par circonscription. Les électeurs alors ne voteraient nonseulement pour le parti, mais aussi pour quel candidat en spécifique. Si il y a 10 sièges disponibles par circonscription, et PartiA gagne 10% du vote populaire local, il va gagner 1 de 10 sièges. Donc, dans le système proposé, les résultats nationales reflèts le vote populaire, et les électeurs on plus de choix disponibles.

Quels sont les avantages de changer le système?

Il y a en masse de raisons que le scrutin proportionnel plurinominal à list ouverte est un choix meilleur pour le Canada, y inclusent:

les résultats équitables
jamais un vote gaspiller
moins de partialité
les gouvernements majoritaires sont décernés seulement aux partis gagnants la majorité des votes
Plus de pouvoir pour les membres de l'Assemblées nationale, d'abord améliorer la responsabilisation du gouvernement.
Plus de choix viables
Cette change cera bénéficiale pour tous les électeurs, peu importe leur affiliation partisan

Bientôt (j'espère!) écrire un autre blog en répondant quelques questions probables. Par exemple "Si il y a 5 sièges disponibles et un parti gagne 30% du vote populaire, est-ce qu'il mérite 1 siège ou 2?" et aussi "Comment décider combiens de sièges cera disponibles par circonscription?"

Si vous avez des questions à propos des systèmes électorales s.v.p. me laissez un commentaire et je vouz réponderai aussi-tôt que possible.

Merci pour avoir signez la pétition et n'oubliez pas de l'envoyer à un ami!

I've been looking forward to this all week.

2011-10-06T17:01:00.000-04:00

Oh fuck I love election day.

New petition to change Canada's electoral system

2011-09-27T21:29:00.006-04:00

Hey everyone, I've started an online petition to change Canada's electoral system to open-list proportional representation. You can sign the petition here.

A brief explanation of this system:

Proportional representation means that whatever percentage of the popular vote is awarded to a party will be approximately the percentage of seats they hold in parliament. So if a party wins 40% of the vote they will garner approximately 40% of the seats in parliament. There are a numerous methods of achieving this outcome, one of which (with several variations) is open-list proportionality. The open-list means that in every riding, parties will be able to run more than one candidate (up to a certain maximum which would be decided by parliament and elections Canada) and voters will not only get to choose which party they're voting for, but specifically which candidate within a party.

How this differs from our current system:

Our current system is called First Past the Post. In this system, there is one seat available per riding, and thus only one party can win full control of that riding. If a candidate working for PartA wins 30% of the riding's popular vote, and all other candidates won less than that, then PartyA's candidate will win 100% of the representation for that riding, even though they didn't win a majority of the votes. All of the ridings won by a party will be added up and the party with the most ridings wins the election and forms government. Under tour current system, it's possible for a party to form a majority government with only 30% of the popular vote.

Watch an explanatory video of the two systems at work here.

Under open-list proportional representation, more than one seat is available per riding (thus the ridings are resized). Parties will be allowed to run more than one candidate per riding. Voters will thus not only get to choose which party to vote for, but specifically which candidate within a party. If there are 10 seats available in one riding, and PartyA wins 10% of the vote within that riding, then they will win 1 of the 10 seats. Therefore, in this system, the popular vote is well reflected in the parliamentary outcome, and voters have more choices available to them, while still having regional representation.

What are the benefits to making the switch?

There are a multitude of reasons that open-list proportional representation is a better choice for Canada.

An end to vote splitting
Equitable results
An end to wasted votes
Reduced partisanship
Majority governments awarded only to parties receiving a majority of the votes
Increased power given to members of the legislative assembly, thereby increasing government accountability
More viable choices

This change will benefit all voters, Conservatives and Liberals alike

Although many will point to the last election and say "Conservatives won a majority with 40% of the vote. The Liberals won 11% of the seats in parliament while actually winning 18% of the popular vote. These are the reasons we need proportional representation.", these comments only illustrate the manners in which the Liberal party will benefit from this change.

Two examples of how the change will benefit Conservatives:

In the 1993 election, for every Conservative seat in parliament, an average of 1 million Canadians voted for that seat. Meanwhile, every Liberal seat in parliament was elected on only 31,730 votes. So, a vote for the Liberal Party was 34 times more powerful than a vote for the Conservative Party. This situation is guaranteed to repeat itself, sooner than later (it may have already repeated itself, but I'm not going to bother tabulating data for previous elections right now) Under the proposed open-list proportional representation, every seat would be earned by nearly the same number of votes, regardless of the party.
Many Conservative Party voters are either blue tory/red tory or social conservative/ fiscal conservative. As a result, the Progressive Conservative party of the past split into two parties, forming a new Reform Party, in order to better represent the differences between the centre-right and the far-right. However, this division caused vote-splitting which yielded several Liberal majority governments. In 1995 Preston Manning (leader of the Reform Party) led the "unite the right" movement, to merge the two conservative parties into one, in order to win more elections. It worked, but still to this day there is no distinction between these two different ideologies. Nor is there any significant presence of the Libertarian Party. But the Conservative party cannot split to better represent these ideologies without handing the power over to the left - or at least not in our current system. In proportional representation, it would still be possible (and not at all unlikely) that conservative parties could still form government, even if they had two or three different manifestations. Thus, making the change to proportional representation would allow for more viable options on the right - both fiscal and social.

I will make another post in the nearish future (between homework sets!) answering some of the questions that may arise towards open-list proportional representation. For instance "What if a party wins 30% of the popular vote and there are only 5 seats available. Do they get 2 seats or 1?" and also "How would parliament and Elections Canada decide how many seats to allow per riding, and how big the ridings should be?".

If you have any questions about either of the electoral systems and their workings, please leave a comment and I will get back to you.

Thanks for signing the petition and don't forget to send it to a friend!

Jack Layton: requiescat in pace

2011-08-22T09:33:00.002-04:00

A wonderful politician and sincere human being passed away this morning. May his legacy live on. My condolences to his family. Requiescat in pace, Jack Layton.

Un politicien merveilleux et un être humain sincère n'est plus ce matin. Puis son patrimoine continue. J'offre mes condoléances à sa famille. Requiescat in pace, Jack Layton.

The immigrant as panacea is a myth

2011-08-07T17:39:00.001-04:00

When several columnists, and our Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney, are confronted with the questions "How do we deal with an ever-aging population?" and "How can we save the economy?" they answer "Accept more immigrants." Two articles on the subject can be found here and here.

They argue that more immigrants will fill the age gaps left by the ageing baby boomers, and that we are in need of skilled labourers.

The claims that a massive increase in immigrants (Kenney wants to see one million imigrants enter the country per year) are myth.

There is no bridging system in place to honour their skills. Canada accepts thousands of skilled immigrants every year. However, their credentials are frequently deemed inadequate to be put to use in Canada. During my time in Toronto I have met numerous children of immigrants, whose parents forfeited high paying jobs in their homelands so their children could study in Canada. They may be nuclear engineers from Russia, or surgeons from China. But for whatever reasons their degrees are not considered to be equivalent to ours, and so they are not allowed to practise the same professions they once had. The best course to remedy this would be to create a bridging program for skilled immigrant workers, allowing them to complete the few courses required for their degrees to be considered adequate. They could be offered direct entrance to these courses at a Canadian post-secondary institution, and thus, within as little as one semester, they would be able to seek the same positions they once held in their homelands. Without this bridging system, their skills go unused, and so there is no reason to seek these skilled labourers.
An increase in skilled labourers won't solve the problem of vanishing jobs. Canada's current unemployment rate is 7.2%. Our service sector has been ever-expanding for decades, while manufacturing and agriculture have been withering away. There is little question that the reason we have few skilled labourers in the workplace is not because there aren't enough of them, but because they have nowhere to work. If we want to improve Canada's economy, we should start by lowering the unemployment rate by creating jobs in our ailiing sectors, and then answer the shortage of skilled labourers with immigrants.
They will further burden our ailing social services. Currently, our infrastructure is crumbling, our health care deal is about to expire, and there aren't enough day care spaces. But until more money is put into upgrading our social services, we cannot afford to accept more clients. In fact, we are slowly unable to afford our existing clients. I am not at all calling for the sale of our public services, but rather an update. Admittedly, this is somewhat of a catch-22, since more immigrants would mean more revenue in taxes for the country, and thus more money to heal our services. But why should we offer our services to more people, if we cannot even afford to offer them to our own?
Canadians haven't learned to treat immigrants like Canadians. Many immigrants find it difficult to bring their immediate family members into the country. Given that they often live with their extended families, and not our nuclear forms, this is particularly painful for them. They have to work here and send money back home to their parents or siblings. I would venture that if we were to grant someone Canadian citizenship, they should be treated as Canadians, and not as immigrants. From our perspective, they are no longer "Peruvian-Canadians" or "Zambian-Canadians"; they are merely Canadians. And for that reason they must be treated as equals: they have the same rights, the same opportunities, and the same expectations. If we are going to continue to accept immigrants, we must not accuse them of terrorism, or "ruining our culture". One could argue the best way to overcome xenophobia is to open the floodgates, but with the war on terrorism and the Norwegian shootings, I would be afraid to see the uprising created. Immigrants are not an economic solution, they are people. Until we learn to accept immigrants as one of us, all the while allowing them to maintain their cultures, languages, and religions, we should be weary of increasing their numbers.

Les immigrants comme panacée est un mythe

2011-08-07T17:33:00.002-04:00

En confrontant quelques journalistes et le Ministre d'Immigration Jason Kenney avec les questions "Comment devrons-nous agir pour réparer une population vieillisante?" et "Comment sauver l'économie?" ils répondent "Accepter plus d'immigrants". Deux articles récents se trouvent ici et ici.

Ils soutiennent que plus d'immigrants peuvent remplir la difference d'âge laisser par les baby-boomers, et que nous avons besoins des ouvriers qualifiés.

Les réclamations qu'un gros augmentation d'immigrants (Kenney veut voir 1 milliard de plus par ans) remédiera ces problems sont un mythe.

Il n'y a pas de système en place pour accréditer leurs éducations et leurs qualifications. Le Canada accepte des milles d'immigrants par ans, mais leurs accréditions sont fréquenement cru comme insuffisent pour les utilisers ici. Pendant mes études à Toronto, j'ai connu plusieurs enfants d'immigrants en quel leurs parents avaient des positions riches dans leurs pays de nativité, mais ils ne peuvent pas les reclâmer ici. Par example, des ingénieurs nucléaires Russes ou des chirugiens Chinoises. Mais leurs diplômes n'ont pas les mêmes valeurs au Canada. Nous devrons créer une système pour les aider à finir les accréditions nécessaires à des instituts Canadiens, pour qu'ils peuvenet continuer leurs travailles ici. Sans un tel système, leurs qualifications ne seront pas utiles pour nous, et alors il n'y a pas de point d'accepter spécéfiquement des immigrants avec une éducation.
Une augmentation d'ouvriers qualifiés ne résoudra pas le problème d'une manque d'emplois. Le taux de chômage au Canada est 7,2%. Notre secteur de service agrandit depuis vignt ans, pendant que les secteurs industriel et de construction rétrécient. Une des raisons que nous n'avons pas assez d'ouvriers qualifiés travaillant au Canada n'est pas que nous n'avons pas assez d'ouvriers, mais qu'il n'y a pas assez d'emplois pour eux. Si nous désirons faire l'impreuve sur l'économie Canadienne nous devrons commencer par créer des emplois industriels et abaisser le taux de chômage. Après avoir accompli ceci nous pourions considérer accepter des immigrants comme ouvriers qualifiés.
Ils ajouteraient au fardeau de nos systèmes socials. Comme ça se fait, notre infrastructure détériore, l'accord pour nos soins de santés expire, et il n'y a pas assez d'espaces dans les modes de gardes d'enfants. Mais sans ajouter plus d'argent pour rémédier ces problèmes, nous ne pouvons pas se permettre d'accepter plus de clients. Je ne veux pas du tous voir la vente de nos services publiques, mais une améliorisation. En fait, c'est un paradoxe Catch-22, car plus d'immigrants apporteraient plus de revenues par les taxes, et alors aideraient à payer pour ces services. Mais pourquoi offrir nos services à plus de gens, si nous n'avons pas assez d'argent pour les offrir à nous mêmes?
Les Canadiens n'ont pas encore concéder à traiter les immigrants comme Canadiens. Plusieurs immigrants le trouvent difficile d'apporter leurs familles avec eux au Canada. En considérant que souvent ils vivent avec leurs familles élargies, et non une famille nucléaire, ça les cause beaucoup de peines. Ils doivent faire leurs argents ici et l'envoyer chez leurs parents ou leurs frères et soeurs. Je croix que si nous admettons quelqu'un comme citoyen Canadien, il faut lui respecter comme citoyen Canadien, et non le traité comme immigrant. À partir de notre point de vue, ils ne sont plus "Canadien Péruvien" ou "Canadien Zambien", mais tous simplement Canadien. Ils ont les mêmes droits, les mêmes attentes, et les mêmes opportunités que les Canadiens. Si nous continuons d'accepter les immigrants, il ne faut pas les accuser du terrorisme, ou de "ruiner notre culture". C'est possible de soutennir que la meilleure façon de combattre la xénophobie, c'est d'accepter des tas d'immigrants, mais avec la guerre sur le terrorisme et les muertres au Norvège, j'ai peur de voir les conséquences. Les immigrants ne sont pas une solution pour l'économie, ils sont des êtres humains. Si nous ne pouvons pas accepter les immigrants comme un parmi nous, pendant qu'ils conservent leurs religions, leurs cultures, et leurs langues, il faut être prudents en augmenter leurs présence.

Tous les options vous-rendent fou? Choiziser "aucun"!

2011-07-15T15:21:00.003-04:00

L'élection pour l'Ontario s'approche et se présente de plus en plus dans les médias, et je me demande pour qui pourrais-je voter?

Parmi les trois options primaires, il y a aucun entre eux en quel je peux me faire confiance: j'ai peur de Tim Hudak (Conservateur), il me semble que les promesses d'Andrea Horwath (NPD) sont inefficaces et inutiles, et je suis de l'opinion que Dalton McGuinty (Libéral) a purgé sa peine. Aussi je n'aime pas beaucoup le plateforme du Parti Vert.

Il y a aussi le Parti Libertaire et le Parti Communiste, mais je ne suis ni libertaire ni communiste. En dehors de ces options, il y a le Parti de la Coalition des Familles, qui n'a pas grand chauses à dire sauf que pour les valeurs de la famille. Et aussi le Freedom Party, qui veux ramener les ampoules incandescents et enlever les impôts sur le pétrole.

Alors que devrais-je faire comme électrice?

Il est illégale de gâter ton bulletin, et aussi de le manger (mais me ne demande pas comment j'ai appris ceci). Si je ne m'embête pas de voter, je serais identifiés avec tous les autres non-voteurs entre les âges de 18 et 35 ans, sous la catégorie d'apathique.

Heureusement, pour les citoyens de l'Ontario, il y existe un autre option. La loi électoral provisionne l'option de refuser le bulletin. Elle est effectué comme suit:
1. Rendez-vous à un bureau de scrutin itinérant, ou sur le jour de l'élection.
2. Acceptez le bulletin comme si vous avez l'intention de voter.
3. Retournez ton bulletin sans marque au scrutateur, en indiquant que vous le refusez. Il est essentiel que vous ne marquez rien sur le bulletin.
4. Le scrutatuer inscrit dans le registre de scrutin que un électeur anonyme a refusé le bulletin.

Il est important dans faire la distinction entre gâter le bulletin ou négliger de voter, et le refuser. Si vous le refusez, ton action est inscrit dans le registre, et alors vous avez votez contre les candidats.

Alors si vous désirez vous exprimez ce mois d'octobre, et vous ne peux pas vous envisionnez faire le vote pour n'importes de les candidats, considérez refuser ton bulletin.

La définition officielle d'un bulletin refusé se trouve ici.

Hate all the options? Choose "none of the above"!

2011-07-15T14:26:00.004-04:00

The Ontario election is coming up, increasing its presence in the media, and I find myself wondering just who I could possibly vote for.

Of the big three, none seem suitable to govern: I'm afraid of Tim Hudak (Conservative), Andrea Horwath (NDP) is making promises that would seem ineffective and wasteful, and I think Dalton McGuinty (Liberal) has served his time. I'm also not moved by the Green Party platform.

If I were to go beyond that, I would find myself considering more fringe options, such as the Libertarian Party or the Communist Party (of which I am neither). Then there's the Freedom Party, which wants to return incandescent lightbulbs to the market and remove taxes from gasoline. And the Family Coalition Party, which doesn't seem to have anything to say outside of family values.

So what's an eligible citizen to do?

It's illegal to spoil your ballot, and also to eat it (don't ask how I figured that one out). If I don't vote, then my voice will never be heard, and I'd be lumped with all of the other non-voters between the ages of 18 and 35, under the category of "apathetic".

Fortunately, for Ontario citizens, there exists another option. The Ontario Elections Act provides the option to decline a ballot. The action is performed as follows:
1. Go to the polling station on either election day or an advanced polling day.
2. Accept the ballot, as though you intend to vote.
3. Return your unmarked ballot to the deputy returning officer, indicating that you are declining your ballot. It is crucial that you do not mark anything on the ballot.
4. The deputy returning officer will record your declension anonymously in the poll, indicating that one more person has refused to vote.

There is a key distinction to be made between declining your ballot, and either spoiling it or not bothering to show up. That is, if you decline your ballot, the action is recorded, and thus you are actively voting against all candidates.

So if you want to be heard this October, and can't see yourself voting for any of the candidates, consider declining your ballot.

The official definition of a declined ballot can be found here.

Comprendre la loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics

2010-08-22T21:10:00.003-04:00

Le deux juin, Dalton McGuinty a passé une loi, qui a pour titre "Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics". La loi a été gardée secrète pour plus que vingt jours - elle a même pas été communiquer avec des avocats. Juste avant le G20 commença, la loi est rendu publique, et le média annonça que les citoyens doivent présenter leurs identifications et leurs noms, s'ils se trouvent dans cinq mètres du périmètre du G20. Le trois juillet, après que le G20 s'est fini, McGuinty admit qu'il mentit au publique et que la loi n'a jamais préscrit des détails de cinq mètres. Aussi, nous trouvâmes que le chef de police William Blair, connaissait tout au long que les lois qu'ils appliquaient pendant le weekend étaient qu'une fabrication.

J'aimerais vous fournir avec des détails sur cette loi:

La loi concevra en 1939, pour que des attaques de terroristes ne se passe pas dans certains ouvrages publiques, y comprend les hôpitals, les palais de justice, et les systèmes d’approvisionnement en gaz ou d’alimentations en eau. L'idée c'était de protéger les édifices cruciaux et les officier du publiques contre des attaques terroristes.

La loi ne changea pas pour 51 ans.

Les amendements que fit McGuinty non jamais été jugé par un tribunal de droits - ces amendements comprisent de changer le but de la loi, pour qu'elle protège non seulement contre des attaques terroristes, mais aussi pour entraver des protestations, et les libertés d'expression et d'association.

Voici la loi dès que 1990.
Et voici les amendements.

Si vous connaîtriez vos droits, vous sauriez que cette loi les enfreints.

Voici mon décomposition de la loi:

1. En dehors de la définition typique d'un "ouvrage public", la loi attribue aussi la définition "tout autre bâtiment, lieu ou ouvrage, désigné comme ouvrage public par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil". Ça signifie que, pour n'importe quels édifices dont le cabinet désigne comme "ouvrages publics", les protestations vont devenir interdits. Cette définition entrave sur la deuxième section de la charte
2.b) Liberté d'expression
2.c) Liberté de réunion pacifique
Ceux sont des libertés fondamentales.

2. La loi peut être renforcée par les officiers, mais aussi par "le président ou le responsable du conseil, de la commission ou de l’organisme qui a la propriété ou le contrôle de l’ouvrage public, ou la personne qui assume les fonctions du président ou du responsable.". N'importe qui que la commission ou le conseil appointe temporairement peut renforcé la loi, et aussi "Le gardien nommé en vertu du présent article est, pour l’application de la présente loi, investi des pouvoirs d’un agent de la paix.". Alors il va devenir, temporairement, un officier de la paix.

3.a. Cet officier de la paix va avoir le pouvoir de fouiller les possessions de ceux et celles qui entre l'ouvrage, et aussi demander pour d'identification. Par la huitième section du chartre, tous gens devront être sauf de les fouilles, perquisitions, et saisis sans raisons.

3.c. L'officier peut interdire à quiconques d'entrer l'ouvrage, et peut "user de la force nécessaire à cet effet". Car cet "force nécessaire" n'est pas fourni avec plus de détails, s'accorde des pouvoirs illimités aux officiers, y comprise battre les patrons, les emprisonner, et nier leurs droits fondamentales. Pendant le sommet, nous avons témoigner ces infractions quand les détenus ne pouvaient pas faire appel aux avocats, prendre leurs médicaments préscrits, ou manger suffisement.

4. L'acte lit "la déclaration relative aux limites d’un ouvrage public est une preuve concluante" Par section 11.d de la chartre, nous avons le droit d'être présumé innocent. Cette section viole ce droit.

5.1 Il ne faut pas refuser d'obéir la loi pour que les officiers vous détiennent - l'acte indique que du force peut être appliquer sur quiconque néglige d'obéir. La négligence y inclusent simplement pas entendre les ordres des officiers. Pendant le sommet, un homme sourd, Emomotimi Azorbo, passa par la parque. Il ne put pas entendre les ordres des officiers, et alors il fut battu. Par la quatorzième section du chartre, tous a droit à un interprète. Azorbo passa plusieurs heurs emprisonné sans interprète.

Voici une liste (malgré anglophone) pour vous aidez si jamais vous vous trouvez confrontés pas la police: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/whenstopped/

Liens externes:
http://www.g20defence.ca/
http://www.g20justice.com/crimes.html

Pour plus d'information, je vous implore de visiter ce vidéo. (Je m'excuse, mais le vidéo est offert seulement en anglais.)

McGuinty insists no inquiry is needed

2010-07-02T20:46:00.001-04:00

A few days ago, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair admit that there never was a five metre fence rule. Blair and McGuinty lied deliberately to the public, supposedly in hopes of "keeping the criminals out". Not only did it fail, since the criminals came out to play regardless, but one has to wonder if they lied to the police force as well. After all, the police should have known that they cannot request ID or search personal belongings on public property without a search warrant.

When attending a protest, it is important to know, as a citizen what one's rights are. One must know that, when arrested, you need only give your name, date of birth, and address. Any other information that you give can be used against you in a court of law. You also have the right to know the arresting officers' badge numbers and names. That being said, in hindsight, it would have been a near impossibility to ensure these rights are not violated at the G20. Imagine facing a group of five officers, wielding batons, who isolate you. They've removed their names and badge numbers - a move many protesters are claiming to have witnessed. They prompt you, illegally, for your ID and ask to search your possessions. No matter how many times you ask for their names, or their badge numbers, or how much you tell them it is a violation of your rights, they are not going to stop. The police have been given so much power, that they no longer have anything to fear. They know just how much they can get away with. Watch here, as one person refuses to be searched, but still they do not heed.

As mentioned in a previous posting, many are suspicious of the use of police provocateurs agents, and there are numerous questions surrounding the abandonment of the four police cars that were later set afire. There is surmounting evidence that there were undercover officers used, mingling with the crowd.

Who was giving the orders to the police? Take, for example, my Sunday night at Queen and Spadina. Was there a front line supervisor calling the shots? Someone watching from above? Someone from the encircling helicopter? It was clear that there was some sort of oversight, because the three groups of officers surrounded the protesters, from different directions, with several waves. Until we know who was calling the shots, we don't know who needs to be reprimanded.

This illustrates the necessity of a public inquiry. Today, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that he believes an inquiry is unwarranted, and that the police did a bang-up job. There are too many questions left unanswered - Were provocateurs used? Why were the Black Bloc not brought to justice? Was the 1 billion well spent? - indeed, we require a public inquiry, as well as the resignation of the officers known to have broken the law and abuse their power.

To tell your story and demand a public inquiry, visit www.g20inquiry.org (Thanks to commenter K.C. for linking)

To demand the resignation of Chief Bill Blair, visit chiefblair.resignnow.ca

Template letter to MPPs for G20 police brutality

2010-06-30T11:54:00.005-04:00

This is a template letter, for those who wish to send something to their MPPs in regards to the police treatment during the G20. Feel free to use parts of this template. If you feel that in any way, your rights have been abused during the G20, I emplore you to write a letter to your local member of parliament, your mayor, and anyone else you think should hear your story.

Dear Bruce Stanton and Olivia Chow,

I am a resident of both Simcoe North and Trinity-Spadina ridings, as well as a student at the University of Toronto. I attended several peaceful G20 protests, and I am very upset with the dismal treatment of many innocent civilians, on a part of the police.

I had heard about a secretive law passed by Dalton McGuinty, allowing police to search citizens, unwarranted, within five metres of the perimetre [1], which seems to violate section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [2]. It was only yesterday that I learned that in fact this law was a deliberate lie from Chief William Blair. [3]

I am demanding a public inquiry into the policing of the G20 protest, as well as the resignation of Chief William Blair, and Commissioner Julian Fantino. The primary objectives of an officer are to keep the peace and protect the citizens. Fantino and Blair failed to provide sufficient oversight of their officers. They allowed their officers to break the law [4] by demanding identification, and searching citizens throughout the city. As many have noted - citizens, storefront owners, and the media alike - in the few times that the protesters posed a threat, the police were no where to be found [5]. I was a witness to the first police cruiser burning on Queen street, with no mob of spectators - so there would not have been a problem getting ambulances, fire trucks nor more cruisers in - and not a single officer in sight for half an hour.

The police also used unecessary and threatening tactics towards the peaceful protesters, such as blocking them in and holding them on the streets [6], and charging the crowd without notice [7].

Finally, the conditions of the makeshift prison at Toronto Film Studios were abhorrent and inhumane. Youth were kept in adult cells, the cells were overcrowded, and there was insufficient water and food [8]. After all of this, we learn that over seventy percent of those arrested were found innocent [9].

I have written a more detailed blog post here:
http://bilingualrantings.blogspot.com/2010/06/toronto-g20-leaves-few-with-rights-and.html

For these reasons, I, and many others, feel that Chief Blair and Comissioner Fantino have failed to protect the citizens, and have demonstrated that they do not have the ability to organise nor control their officers. We would like an official apology from Mayor David Miller and Chief Blair, for refusing to apologise [10] and telling us they are proud of their officers. We are demanding a public inquiry. We deserve to know what went wrong.

Sincerely,

Britta Hansen
University of Toronto, department of Mathematics

[References]

Toronto G20 leaves few with rights, and fewer with dignity

2010-06-29T00:08:00.015-04:00

The people of Toronto, and indeed all Ontarians, should call for the resignation of Police Chief William Blair and Commissioner Julian Fantino, as well as demand a public inquiry into the policing during the G20.

The G8 and G20, particularly the latter, were highly anticipated, in terms of both fear and excitement. The end result was a dismal failure from every perspective - political, social, economic - and for everyone involved - citizens, police, politicians.

Reading the headlines, we see photos of burning police cruisers, riot gear, and vandalism. What the headlines fail to capture, however, is the true one-sidedness of this event.

In many ways, I really had to feel sorry for the police. I'm sure there were numerous officers who truly did not want to be there. It was hot, rainy, and after a one billion dollar pricetag, the police simply could not be embarrassed.

Sadly, they were embarrassed anyways, as were the protesters, the province, and the entire country, for that matter.

I understand how nerve-wracking it must be, as an officer, to finally see the day: dressed in riot gear, holding weapons you've only seen in simulations, faced with torrents of people, and honoured with the biggest job of the year. It must also be annoying that a handful of thugs and hooligans caused some actual damages. However, one of the primary duties of an officer of the law, is to keep the peace. Officers must be able to work under high pressure, strenuous conditions, and yet somehow, react in a controlled and responsible manner. I saw a major lack of civility among officers this weekend, and I'd like to shed light on a few important details.

1. In many instances, the police were provoking the crowd.

I had joined several groups, and I did not witness any violence amongst the crowd. At times, there were a few people up to shenanigans, shouting at the riot cops, and giving the finger, but it was just a nuisance.

I walked by the two abandoned cop cars on Queen street, long before they were set afire, and I noticed a few things. There were no police in sight, and no mob of people near the vehicles. Over an hour later I returned to see one of the cars on fire. I watched it burn for half an hour, with still, no mob of people (so there would not have been a problem getting police, ambulances, or fire trucks in), and no police anywhere to be seen. I wondered throughout, what the whereabout of the police were. I fail to understand how these two cars had come to be abandonned in the middle of a street.

Sunday night I joined a group of protesters at Queen and Spadina. They were singing "Oh Canada", so I joined in with a friend, and got about fifteen feet from the line of police. All of a sudden, they charged at us, with no warning. It was not only frightening, but unprovoked. They continued to push us back, in short bursts, always without warning. At one point, they kept a steady pace, yelling "Keep moving!". I was jogging away from them, when I felt one of them hit me in the back of the head with their shield. This was not a first sighting for me: I had seen the riot police regularly bully a few nearby individuals with their shields, doing so quite violently at times. I witnessed two people, at different times, trip, and be immediately swarmed by police, only then to be whisked away under arrest... for tripping.

Notice the photos here.
In all of the photos with the Black Bloc, and the vandalism, you will not see a single police officer, yet in every other photo of the G20, you can't seem to get them out of the picture. As many others have pointed out, including storefront owners, the police seemed to vanish at times when they were needed, and were far too provoking when there was nothing happening.

The police had many tactics aside from charging crowds, one of which includes cornering people.
Not only is this unnencessary for a small, outnumbered and non-violent crowd, it is highly intimidating to the public. I saw many police waiving weaponry around, some of which looked like vuvuzelas, and some of which looked like Fisher Price toys. Pointing a weapon into people's faces in a crowd, is extremely intimidating, and in every case I witnessed, utterly unnecessary.

This is easily the most shocking video I've seen so far.
A protestor, standing a safe distance away and reversing, yelling "peaceful protest" is shot at more than once using concentrated tear gas. This is, to my knowledge, the worst and most egregious display of excessive force. Alright Mayor Miller and Chief Blair, still think the police can do no wrong?

There were, unsurprisingly, undercover officers, dressed in plainclothes, keeping an eye from the inside. These officers, not in uniform, whip out batons to tame the crowd. I'm lucky I did not witness this, because if I had non-uniformed people threaten me with a baton, I'd immediatly defend myself by whatever means necessary. Officers need to identify themselves. When they pull out batons in plainclothes after posing as civilians, it's very easy to think that they are indeed civilians with weapons, attacking the crowd, as opposed to police officers attempting to tame the crowd.

2. Very few of the protestors were violent, and even fewer (if any) were actually anarchists.

People, media especially, like to use buzz words, such as "anarchy" "fascism" and "socialism". Their usage does not mean they know at all the meaning of the word. Causing destruction does not make you an anarchist. Noam Chomsky's an anarchist, and I don't see him blowing things up. Shame on the violent protestors for co-opting the term for their own use, as well as the media and the police for perpetuating the idea that they are in fact anarchists because of their dress and their actions.

3. The media perpetuates the wrong ideas.

The media has focused, tirelessly, on images of burning police cruisers. There is little in the mainstream media about the prison conditions, eyewitness accounts, or police brutality. Instead, the media has chosen to iconicise the proportionately scarce "anarchists" in the Black Bloc. Reading forums and news blog comments, I see countless people complain about why the protesters are all such violent hippies, yuppies, hoodlums, anarchists etc. This is how stereotypes are perpetuated in the popular mind, and the media needs to take more responsibility on this matter.

5. The police broke their own rules:

Dalton McGuinty, without notice, passed a law giving the poice the power to arrest anyone suspicious, or without identification, within five metres of the security perimeter.

Throughout Saturday and Sunday, I walked all over town. I traveled Queen street, Yonge, Bay, King, I walked all the way East of the DVP to Dundas and Pape, and then South to the prison, and then all the way back to Kensington Market. Never were my whereabouts within five metres of the fence (or even twenty metres), but I saw countless people searched and prompted for ID. It is not illegal to leave the house without identification, so why should people be taken into custody at King and Bay because they didn't bring their wallet? It is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to face random searches, with no warrants, no reasoning, no explanation, in the midst of the city, regardless of the special circumstances.

There is nothing illegal about standing on public property. So why were so many crowds and individuals bullied off of the sidewalks? Last time I checked, I don't need to "GET BACK" off the sidewalk, a few kilometres from the security fence, but I would have been arrested if I didn't skedaddle.

The makeshift prison, hosted without notice at Toronto Film Studios, presented inhumane conditions, for mostly innocent protesters. The cases in the link above detail lack of water, unsanitary conditions, denial of legal council and a phone call, threats, and extreme cold. Even teenagers as young as 15 were kept in cells with adults, and their parents weren't informed of their whereabouts.

Here is more evidence that human rights were trampled:

Here is footage of police plucking seemingly random people from a crowd at Queen's park.
Lord knows why they were in such large numbers at Queen's Park since there aren't any security fences in the vicinity.

Here are eyewitness accounts of police brutality.

Steve Paiken detailed his soirée on Twitter.
He saw Guardian reporter Jesse Rosenfeld beaten by police and arrested for asking too many questions.

Here are more of eyewitness accounts of arrests and the detainment centre.

There are also a plethora of videos to be found, in which people are highly suspicious that the vandals are in fact provocateurs.

Given that the security measures cost $1 billion dollars, and there was plenty of time to prepare the police for the G20, the officers seem to have minimal organization. When they were needed they weren't there. They came in tremendous excess when there were only peaceful protesters to be seen. They couldn't stop an outnumbered group of violent citizens from vandalising the streets, and their tactics throughout the weekend seem petty and
overboard.

The people must come forward. If you feel that your rights have been violated in any way, I implore you to make your case well known. Please contact your local MPs, share photos, write blogs. Whatever you do, just make sure this isn't forgotten. We have the right to protest, to stand on public property, to dress however we choose, and to let our voices be heard. Don't allow yourselves to be muzzled.

These egregious violations should shock us all into action:

1. to call for the resignation of Police Chief William Blair, for losing control of his officers, refusing to apologise, and turning a blind eye on all of the police mishaps during the G20.

2. to call for a public inquiry on the G20 policing, and I'd like to see a lawsuit against the provincial government for passing laws, against the Charter of Rights and freedoms, allowing the police to search unwarranted.

3. to call for the resignation of Commissioner Julian Fantino, for his lack of oversight during the summit.

Finally, many citizens would doubtless appreciate hearing official apologies from Stephen Harper, Mayor David Miller, and police Chief Blair, for so smugly telling the citizens everything is OK after their rights had so blatantly been stripped, and the police have commit numerous crimes.

Le peuple uni jamais ne sera vaincu

An open letter to the Ontario government

2009-12-01T07:39:00.003-05:00

If you haven't heard, Bill-179 is under consideration in Ontario, and it will grant prescription power to ill-trained naturopaths. Myself, and Steve Thoms (Editor in chief of Skeptic North), have come up with a template for an open letter to the Ontario government. We highly encourage to write in to you MPPs as soon as possible (like, right now). Feel free to copy and paste the letter, if you don't have the time to write your own. Be sure to CC your local MPP, and anyone else you feel is relevant.

Here is a list of MPPs:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&ord=Riding&dir=ASC&list_type=all_mpps

The template:

Dear Premier McGuinty and Minister Matthews,

As a student of science, I am very concerned at the prospect of Bill 179 passing, granting prescription power to dangerously under-skilled practicioners of the ill-defined "naturopathy". This discussion has been skillfully, yet dishonestly framed as a matter of choice and freedom for Ontario citizens, however, the actual matter is standards of care, education, and quality.

The Naturopathy Act, 2007, defines a naturopath as anyone who has graduated from a Naturopathic college, such as the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM). Naturopathic colleges require only four years of study before being accredited as a "naturopathic doctor", whereas medical students typically face eleven or more years of study. These colleges offer courses in homeopathy, accupuncture, hydrotherapy; pseudosciecnes which have been repeatedly disproven, and even demonstrated to endanger the health and wellbeing of the patients. Even now, during the H1N1 outbreak, the CCNM advises people to avoid the vaccination.

The list of drugs under consideration includes anti-coagulants, anti-biotics anti-inflammatories. Naturopaths wil have no access to patient medical history, and due to inadequate training, are likely to miss-disagnose ailments, prescribe the wrong medications, or the wrong dosage. If a patient is allergic to a particular antibiotic, and the naturopath is unaware, this could result in death. If a patient is suffering a bacterial infection, and an inadequate dosage of anti-biotic is prescribed, the bacteria will likely become immune to the drugs. There are numerous dangers to giving the power to prescribe to non-medical professionals.

When it comes to public health, I should tend to think that efficacy and safety trump freedom of choice. There is no law that prohibits citizens from accessing alternative health modalities, so this is not about freedom or choice. Granting naturopaths the right to prescribe via legislation (eg: not by the scientific process) is about granting political and legal legitimacy when the evidence and science does not support their methods.

While I recognize that many Ontario citizens freely choose to seek out naturopathic modalities (as is their right), this alone should not warrant practitioners to be able to prescribe science-based medicines that they have no expertise in: these are real drugs with real effects, and can be potentially fatal if prescribed by an untrained person. The consequences on the health care system of under-trained people dispensing medicines with real effects need hardly be discussed here. It's not too late to make a stand for the safety and health of Ontario citizens.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider the 2nd reading amendment which would expand prescription powers to naturopathic practitioners. The scientific and medical communities of the world are watching Ontario right now.

Sincerely,
Britta Hansen,
University of Toronto, department of Mathematics
Resident of Trinity-Spadina

Our all-too-common secrets

2009-09-28T20:40:00.005-04:00

Have you ever had sex? Have you ever participated in either cunnilingus, fellatio, or any other contact with the genitals? (please don't actually answer this on my blog) If so, there is a good chance you already have an STI.

"How so? I only have protected sex! My only partners were virgins! I don't have any symptoms!" I hear all too often these words from my friends, my colleagues. Odds are, that half of the given sexually active population has caught an STI. [1]

There is, now more than ever, abundant information on STIs, and condoms are stressed among doctors, parents, and teachers. There are vaccinations against the four most virulent strains of HPV (Gardasil [2]) et Hepatitis A&B. We can now cure Chlamydia, Syphilis, and Gonorrhea.

So how can it be that so many are infected?

1. People participate in oral sex, with the belief they cannot catch an STI.
Most people don't believe that it's still possible to catch an STI via oral sex, but, one can actually catch Hepatitis A [3], HPV, Herpes, Chlamydia [4], and Syphilis [5]. To minimise the risks of infection from oral sex, one can use a condom during fellatio, a dental dam during cunnilingus or analingus. For syphilis, herpes, and HPV, there doesn't even need to be an exchange of fluid, but any direct contact is sufficient to infect. Also, STIs which pass through blood can be caught by cunnilingus and fellatio if you have any form of cut in your mouth. It is thus advised not to participate in oral sex within thirty minutes of eating, brushing your teeth, or flossing.

2. Couples are preoccupied primarily with the idea of pregnancy, and not STIs
I have met so many people who tell me they don't have safe sex because they're on birth control that it's causing me to seriously doubt our sex-ed programs in Ontario! One must understand, that even if you're on the pill, you're just as susceptible to STIs as any one else.

3. In using condoms, we believe ourselves to be immune to STIs
It's true that condoms are unrivaled for the best over-all safe sex mechanism, but a) condoms can break or tear b) They do not stop all skin to skin contacts, so infections such as Herpes and HPV are often spread even with use of condoms.

4. Not all STIs will show themselves in test results
For Herpes and HPV, there is no determining test, unless if you're showing symptoms. If you have symptoms, a doctor can take a swab to tell you (although not with guaranteed certainty) whether you have the virus. You can have a virus like HPV for your entire life and never show any signs or symptoms. The danger is that you continue to pass it to your partners, unknowingly. Also, if you believe yourself to be at risk of infection and you run to the doctor's for some tests, keep in mind that many tests will not yield conclusive results for a few months (it can take up to six months for HIV to reveal itself).

5. Many who show symptoms of infection, deny all possibility
I knew a promiscuous person who, for all to see, had a big herpes cold sore on hirs face. Sie confided to me that one of hirs partners has herpes. I asked hir "Did you get the sore tested?" "No... should I?" "Yes, because if it's herpes, you shouldn't pass it along." "No. It's not herpes." "How can you say that if you've not been tested?" "No, I'm certain it's not herpes." And just like that, sie carried on with hirs life, content in hirs ignorance. I can assure you, that if one of hirs partners ask hir if sie has an STI, sie would deny all possibility, because sie will not even admit to hirself.

6. Certain people who know they have an STI, don't tell their partners
I've known another person, who knew sie had herpes, but sie continued with hirs promiscuous lifestyle. I asked hir "Why don't you tell your partners, so you can protect them?!" "Because, if they know, they wouldn't sleep with me." And so, STIs thrive.

Please, I beg of you to have yourselves tested at least once a year (this applies to all sexes), discuss STIs with your partners before having sex, be honest about your sexual history and your health, and, if ever you're feeling doubtfull, take the necessary precautions to protect yourself.

Bibliography:

[1] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm 2008/04/10
[2] http://www.gardasil.com/
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/index.htm
[4] http://www.chlamydiae.com/
[5] BBC Health http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/sexual_health/stis_syphilis.shtml 2009/09/11

External links:

http://www.cervicalcancer.org/hpvstatistics.html 2006/06/22
http://www.sidaweb.com/information/ist.htm

Nos secrets bien trops communs

2009-09-10T20:43:00.005-04:00

Avez-vous jamais eu du sexe? Avez-vous jamais participer dans sois le cunnilingus, la fellation, ou n'importe quelles contactes avec les organes génitaux? Si oui, il y a bonne chance que vous avez déja un IST.

Mais comment-ça? Moi, je foutre seulement avec un préservatif! Mon seul partenaire était vièrge! Je n'ai pas de symptômes! J'entends bien trops souvent ces paroles de mes amis, mes collègues. Les chances sont que la moitiée du peuple qui sont activent sexuellement ont attrappé un IST. [1]

Il y existent plus que jamais des renseignements sur les IST, et les préservatifs sont stressé parmis les médecins, les parents et les professeurs. Il y a des vaccins contre les quatres plus virulantes souches de VPH (Gardasil [2]) et l'hépatite A et B. Nous pouvons se guérir de chlamydiose, de la syphilis, et du gonorrhée.

Allors comment-ça ce peut que si beaucoup de gens on un IST?

1. Les gens participent dans un coït buccal en pensant qu'ils ne peuvent pas attrapper des maladies.
La plupart des gens ne croivent pas qu'il est encore possible d'attrapper un IST par un coït buccal, mais, vous pouvez, en réaliter, attrapper l'hépatite A [3], le VPH, l'herpès, chlamydiose [4], et la syphilis [5]. Pour diminuer les risques d'infections par coït buccal, vous pouvez utiliser un préservatif pendant la fellation, une digue dentale pendant le cunnilingus ou l'anulingus. Pour la syphilis, l'herpès et le VPH, il ne faut même pas avoir un échange de fluides du corps, mais tous simplement du contact peut transferrer l'infection. Des gants de Latex peuvent êtres utiliser si il y a risque d'infection. Aussi, les IST qui se déploie par le sang, peuvent êtres attrapper par le cunnilingus et la fellation si vous avez n'importe coupure dans la bouche. C'est alors conseillé de ne pas participer aux coït buccals pendants trente minutes après manger, brosser les dents, ou filler les dents.

2. Les couples sont préoccupé primairement par la fécondation, et non les IST.
J'ai rencontrée assez de gens qui me disent qu'ils ne pratiquent pas du sexe prudent car ils utilisent des contrôles de naissances que sa me fais douté du système d'éducation de santé à l'Ontario! Il faut comprendre, que même si vous êtes sur la pillule, vous êtes aussi prédisposés aux IST que les autres.

3. En utilisant les préservatifs, nous nous croyons immunisé aux IST.
C'est vraie que les préservatifs sont monumentales pour la pratique du sexe prudent, mais a) les préservatifs peuvent briser ou déchirer b) il ne bloque pas tous contacts avec la peau, et alors les infections comme l'herpès et le VPH sont souvent transmisent même en utilisant les préservatifs.

4. Tous les IST ne vont pas se montrer pas les tests.
Pour l'herpès et le VPH, il n'y a pas vraiment un test pour déterminer si vous avez le virus. Si vous avez des symptômes du virus, les médecins peuvent faire un test sur les blessures et vous dirent (mais pas certainement) si vous avez le virus. Vous pouver avoir un virus comme le VPH pour toute votre vie, et ne jamais démontrer des symptômes, et alors ne jamais savoir que vous l'avez. Le danger c'est que vous continuer de le passer à vos partenaires. Aussi, si vous vous croyer en risque d'un infection, et vous courrer aux médecin pour avoir un test, souvenez que les testes ne vont pas donner des résultats conclusive pour quelques mois (ça prends j'usqu'à six mois pour le SIDA)

5. Des gens qui démontrent des symptômes d'un infection, nient la possibilité.
Je connaissais un homme promiscuer qui avait, pour tous à voir, une grosse blessure herpatique sur son visage. Il m'as avouer qu'un de ses partenaires avait l'herpès. Je l'ai demander "Avez vous eu testé votre blessure?" "No... devrais-je?" "Oui, car si c'est herpatique vous ne devez pas le passer aux autres." "Non, ce n'est pas l'herpès." "Pourquoi que non si vous n'était pas tester?" "Non, je suis certain que ce n'est pas herpatique." Et comme cela, il continuait avec sa vie béate d'ignorance. Je vous le jure, que si un de ces partenaires lui demandait s'il avait un IST, il le niait, car il ne croit même pas que c'est possible.

6. Certains gens qui sachent qu'ils ont un IST, ne disent pas à leur partenaires.
Je connaissais un autre bonhomme, qui savait qu'il avait l'herpès, mais il cotinuait avec sa promiscuiter. Je l'ai demander "Pourquoi est-ce que vous ne dìtent pas à vôs partenaires, pour les protéger?!" "Car, s'ils savaient, il ne me baiseraient plus." Hélas, les IST continue.

S'il vous plaît, je vous en prie de vous faire tester au moins une fois par année (les males et les femeles tous de même) , d'en discuter les IST avec vôs partenaires avant avoir du sexe, d'être honnête à propos de votre histoire sexuelle et de votre santé, et, si jamais vous êtes en doutes, prennez tous les précautions nécessaire de vous protéger.

Bibliographie:

[1] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm 2008/04/10
[2] http://www.gardasil.com/
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/index.htm
[4] http://www.chlamydiae.com/
[5] BBC Health http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/sexual_health/stis_syphilis.shtml 2009/09/11

Liens externes:

http://www.cervicalcancer.org/hpvstatistics.html 2006/06/22
http://www.sidaweb.com/information/ist.htm

border="0" alt="Free Hit Counter">

HTML Hit Counters

MAT247 Problem Set 5 Alternate Solution

2009-03-15T21:26:00.001-04:00

Élevé des enfants dans un environnement polyamour

2008-10-23T21:56:00.007-04:00

J'ai conclu mon dernier blog par vous promettre de continuer le sujet du polyamour.

Alors, voici le question ultime: Comment élevé des enfants dans un environnement polyamour? En premier, je vous demande: pourquoi faut-il qu'on les lèves différemment que dans l'environnement nucléaire? Suppose qu'il y a trois adultes dans une relation polyamour, et deux d'entre eux ont un enfant. Peut-être que seulement les deux parents veulent élever l'enfant, et alors, il n'y a pas de problèmes; mais si le troisième veut aussi élever l'enfant, la situation devient plus compliquer. Lesquelles entre les trois est-ce que l'enfant demeurerait avec? Les modèles de quel(s) parent(s) formeraient la base de les morales et valeurs de l'enfant? Surement il y a possibilité que les trois parents ne sont pas en accord avec tous leurs morales. En effet, le plus de parents qu'il y a, le plus compliquer que la situation va devenir, et le plus difficile que ça va devenir que tous les parents soit en accord avec la façon et les méthodes d'élever l'enfant. Ou peut-être, ça serait meilleur pour l'enfant: si l'enfant a plusieurs parents, chaque avec leurs propres professions, talents, et morales, n'est-ce pas que l'enfant serait plus complet? L'enfant aurait plus de ressources disponibles; sa connaissance ne serait pas restreint aux maitrises de deux seuls parents, ça ouvrait les possibilités pour l'enfant. Je donne cet situation pour titre "enfant communautaire".

Cette question a semblance à celles des parents homosexuelles: N'est-ce pas que les enfants seront confus si les deux parents sont du même sexe?
Imagine pour un moment:
Si deux parents pratique une religion et l'autre pratique une autre, comment décider la religion de l'enfant? Je ne crois pas qu'il faut jamais décider la religion d'un enfant. N'est-ce pas que c'est la choix de l'enfant? Et vraiment si vous croyez qu'il y existe seulement un choix véritable, n'est-ce pas que si l'enfant est suffisamment intelligent qu'il choisirait correctement? Vous pouvez avoir plus de confiance en vos enfants. Encore, c'est un débat similaire à celui d'éducation: l'enfant aurait un expérience moins penchant si il a plusieurs ressources.

Maintenant, si il y a plus que deux parents, qui va avoir l'autorité parentale? Je ne suis pas équipée à discuter l'autorité parentale dans un sens légal, mais je prévois que des problèmes surmonteraient si tous les parents ne vivent pas ensembles. Il faudrait diviser le temps dépenser avec l'enfant entre les parents, et théoriquement la jalousie ne devrait pas devenir un problème entre les parents, car leurs objectifs devraient être une croissance idéale pour l'enfant, sans se soucier de leurs demandes égoïstes.

En fin, je crois que les enfants peuvent être élever dans un environnement polyamour, sauf que je ne crois pas qu'il y existe beaucoup de gens qui voudraient participer et qui auront assez d'abnégation pour avoir du succès.

Polyamoury

2008-10-19T21:57:00.006-04:00

I view monogamy as an unnecessary cruelty; to prohibit your partner, one whom you apparently love, from loving, caring for, or finding sexual attraction in any other than yourself. This is a selfish desire.

In no way is it kind or reasonable to restrict the number of people that an individual loves. It is abominably cruel to force someone to choose their most loved or their favourite of multiple loves. This is much like a common question posed among children, which parent do you love the most? Regardless of what the child answers, no one should ever have to question or rank their love for others, let alone actually choose one. Why then, would it be in any way less cruel to demand that your partner choose between yourself and any other persons they love? If we had to say this explicitly upon entering a relationship, I think it would become more obvious as to how ludicrous this notion is.

"Now I know you love me and you love her, but you can only be with one
of us, so you must choose wisely because you can also never change your
mind and you must from here on pretend to hold no emotions or
attraction for the loser of this competition or for any losers in our coming
future or I shall punish you."

Here it becomes apparent that this is a cruel and needless game to play.

So now what constitutes cheating? For some it means having sex with others, for some it means anything beyond and including kissing, it could mean expressing care or sexual attraction to others. The notion is different for everyone, and so it is of paramount importance to discuss this with your partners before entering a relationship with them. It cannot be expected that anyone know your rules and regulations without you having set them down. Once these expectations are made clear, if the partner chooses to continue with the relationship according to the regulations, I don't think there is any excuse for breaking these regulations. It would show a profound lack of respect for someone to "cheat"; however, it can only be considered cheating if the expectations are made clear in the first place.

It is also interesting to note the reactions of people who have been cheated on. Often, they devise a punishment for their partner. The punishment often takes the form of seeking revenge or ending the relationship. Either of these actions seem unreasonable and illogical, since they actively cause emotional pain to the partner, with whom you claimed to love and thus all of the fuss in the first place. If you claim you love someone, I can't fathom why you would ever want to hurt them, even if they hurt you, and I think everyone will agree that if someone commits a crime, it does not permit you to commit it.

I am aware that STDs (or STIs as the new politically correct term) are more likely to run rampant in polyamourous lifestyles. For this, I propose a few suggestions, which should be taken into consideration even by the monogamous. Always use a condom, gloves, or a dental dam with a new partner. Get tested for STDs and HIV at least once a year. Refrain from sexual intercourse, oral sex, or even kissing until the sexual history of yourself and the partner have been discussed. These suggestions, which, as mentioned previously, are easy to execute and should not be restricted to the polyamourous. They will help diminish the risks of contracting an STD and will prevent them from spreading it.

Polyamoury is as much a mindset as it is a practise. You do not need to practise polyamoury to be accepting of it. I do recall a logical fallacy that plagued my elementary and high schools. The fallacy went as follows:
A student would openly admit to being bisexual or homosexual (in this
case I will use the specific example of a bisexual male) Aside from the
usual and somewhat expected chiding, the male would often be faced
with the question "Have you ever had sex with another male" to which
the male would respond "no". The rebuttal from the peers was "well
then you're not bisexual". This argument is embarrassingly flawed.
A student in grade school is often correct in their instinct when they claim to be of a particular sexuality, however, very few grade school children are pubescent when they make this discovery, let alone sexually active; this does not mean they are incorrect. If it were true that one must have had sex with a particular gender to be of a specific orientation, then it would follow that all virgins are asexual, since they have not had sex with anyone. However, I think almost all virgins will agree that they are not asexual, they just haven't had sex yet. The same goes for bisexuality, you need not practise to be a bisexual. It is a mindset and a personal belief.

The definition of polyamoury does not require practise, but rather, practise, desire or acceptance of multiple intimate relationships; as it is for monogamy, just about everyone who reads this note, claims to be monogamous, but they're not necessarily in an intimate relationship. From this argument, it follows then, that people who do not practise polyamoury need not be monogamous. In fact, all I ask is that we begin to accept polyamoury as a lifestyle in others, I don't demand that anyone practise it.

It's truly all about the mindset. Couples who are in a monogomous relationship should allow for their partners to find other people attractive, to day dream about others, and they themselves should do the same. Only stress can result from suppressing thoughts in oneself about others, or from suppressing thoughts in your partner. You are going to find others sexually attractive. You are going to have thoughts and feelings straying from your partner. The only reasons we suppress them, is because we are taught that they are wrong, with no explanation as to why, and, because we are selfish critters who want our partners to lick our boots.

I understand that many people who practise monogamy will still allow and understand that their partners hold sexual and loving desires for others, they simply restrict any action taken upon these desires. I feel this is equally inadequate as restricting one's thoughts. This "you can look but you can't touch" policy is a teaser. Why hold back the grand prize if you're going to tell us what it is?

Sexuality and sexual impulses are necessary for sanity. If you are away from your partner for the duration of a year, why forbid hir from seeking sexual satisfaction in others? The root of this desire of prevention is jealousy, not love. We, through lack of self confidence, wish to feel as though we are the single most important, loved and attractive being in the eyes of our partner. This shows lack of love and respect for our peers - we wish to strip them of the title of "equally loved". It is obvious, that any sane person will find a multitude of people to be sexually attractive in their lifetime, it is inevitable. Therefore, since we are all aware of this fact, we are playing pretend when we claim to our partners that we find only them to be sexually attractive, and although our partners truly know else wise, this answer continues to satisfy them.

A question I am often posed in regards to this matter is that of raising children and custody in polyamoury. I will leave the answer to this to a later blog.

Thanks for reading my first blog! I intend to alternate between English and French entries.