What About Privacy?

When I hear about cases like Jamie Hubley’s, it really saddens me. Maybe it is because most of my friends are gay that it moves me like that, for I saw most of them suffer of this difference; not knowing how to tell their parents or friends, afraid of being rejected. Now things have been spoken, without big tragedy for most of them. Some are openly gay, others never tell if not asked, it depends on how they have accepted who they are.

Of course, homosexuality is not the big taboo it used to be, but there is still a lot of work to do before it becomes well accepted. However, the fact is that there is no effective mean to radically change a society’s moral. This makes me wonder on the relevance of Rick Mercer’s suggestion. Of course, we live in a society where “celebrities” are THE reference on everything and everybody wants to be like them, but as many well-known persons often already have a big part of their life exposed, shouldn’t they have the right to have a little privacy? Should they bear this whole issue on their own shoulders? I really don’t think so! Not everybody wants to militate for causes even if it touches them on the first level and it is not because you are publically known that you have accepted your situation.

I think that this responsibility belongs to everybody and as my parents thought me to accept homosexuality as a normal thing (I really do believe it is), I oppose every time that I hear homophobic comments or insults. I think that governments should develop more programs to educate people on homosexuality and that schools should act in order to reprimand homophobic acts. After all, we mostly condemn racist acts, now it should be time to reprove more severely, homophobic acts. However, change cannot happen on itself and leaving the task to well-known gay people seems absurd to me. It belongs to the whole society to militate in every way possible against homophobia.

Youth crime

A society without criminality is an utopia and there is no need to think much to realize that. There are no magic pills to “clean up the soul” or to eradicate “evil” but there are, at least, means that can be taken to reduce criminality. Of course, as there are many different mentalities, these means can be contested, even more when they have been proven to be inefficient or less effective than others. The bill C-10 proposed by the conservative government that intends to reduce youth criminal activities is a good example of contestable means, for it has already been proven to be ineffective, and the costs surrounding this law are to be way higher than they are now.

            I think that what scandalizes me the most in this issue is that the conservative Government keeps ignoring facts in order to follow its convictions on its interpretation of justice and the Justice Minister said it clearly: “We’re not governing on the basis of the latest statistics; we’re governing on the basis of what’s right to better protect victims and law-abiding Canadians.”[1] How legitimate is this to make laws, not in order to improve the justice system, but to make it in agreement with your principles and beliefs? In my opinion, this is inadmissible.

 Moreover, the government doesn’t consider the long term repercussions of this law on a social point of view. They intend to give more severe sentences to young offenders instead of focusing on prevention and rehabilitation programs. The fact is that prisons don’t make criminals become better citizens. It is like putting a bandage on an infected wound; it hides the problem but doesn’t solve it. This is exactly what forensic psychologist Dr. Teresa May-Williams expresses as she says: 'We can't ignore the fact that our "tough on crime" stance that puts a person in prison and assumes that their drug problem will somehow magically disappear while they're incarcerated and they'll never get out again and offend, is ridiculous!'[2] Also, how can you fully integrate a society if for 20 years you have had only contacts with criminals?  Would you feel as you belong to the community or to the criminal world?   From this perspective, prevention and rehabilitation programs aren’t means that can be ignored.

The fact that building new prisons is more expensive than prevention and rehabilitation programs makes me also think that the bill C-10 is not a brilliant idea. As we know that “Many programs that prevent youth crime or assist youth in the community are far less expensive than incarceration” [3], shouldn’t it be more rational, in an economic and reasoning way, to abandon this law project and try to improve an effective system that is already in place? How can previous cases be ignored like that when the financial issues are supposed to be the conservative government’s first concern? Many state governments of the United States like Texas have abandoned these ways “as it spent a fraction of the $2 billion those prisons would have cost — about $300 million — to beef up drug treatment programs, mental health centers, probation services and community supervision for prisoners out on parole.”[4] When Texas, a state known for its very conservative mentality, becomes more innovative then Canada as it is going in the opposite direction, we can start talking about serious regression.

After what I have heard and read, I can only come to the conclusion that this crime strategy is going to be a failure. Not only Harper government is denying the facts that its strategy could lead to long term social and financial issues but its reasoning on the subject is paradoxical to its economic policy. In my opinion, the real conservative government’s issue is not about improving the justice system, it is about unfounded convictions and beliefs and such  beliefs have no place in politics. I find it unethical and disrespectful toward the Canadian people and I find it shameful that it is done in the name of a so called security. This whole situation makes me wonder if we are not going to enter another “ Great Darkness” as Quebec have been between 1936 and 1959. After all, this is not the only case where Harper government is making Canada regress. I doubt that a total regression would be very plausible, but I think that we should be more attentive to what is going on with this government as it, in my opinion, doesn’t seem to act in order to improve our society.

---

[1] Chase, S. (2011, September 20). Weighty Tory crime bill targets drugs, sex offenders, and ‘out-of-control’ youth. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ weighty-tory-crime-bill-targets-drugs-refugees-parolees-and-terror/article2172621/

[2]  Milewski, T. C. (2011, October 17). Texas conservatives reject Harper’s crime plan. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from CBC NEWS- Politics: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas- crime.html

[3] Centre for research on youth at risk . (n.d.). Fact Sheet. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from Myths About Youth Crime in Canada: http://www.stthomasu.ca/research/youth/myths.htm

[4] Milewski, T. C. (2011, October 17). Texas conservatives reject Harper’s crime plan. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from CBC NEWS- Politics: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas- crime.html

Community Service

Why is there a lack of participation?

I think that before answering this question we should ask ourselves why people get involved in community services in the first place. In fact, people get involved for a myriad of reasons like simply helping their community, wanting to know people and make bonds or because they are attached to a cause. Actually, according to many studies, the only cause that seems to motivate Generation Y is their very own person[1] and that may come as an obstacle when comes the time to get involved for the “Greater Good”. We are a generation that grew in a society where money rules everything and from what I’ve heard and seen, this might be one of the reasons why our generation doesn’t get involved; community service doesn’t pay much. There also seems to be a disillusion as to the real impact of one’s involvement as many people never get involved. In other words, as people are becoming more self-centered, they might help less and that creates a vicious circle, for some might think that they have no reason to do their part if the majority doesn’t; but always waiting for the others to act first is only the easiest way to be socially disengaged. Moreover, to get involved in something often implies that it means something to ourselves or at least, it is more likely to be less painful if we take this involvement at heart. If so, the fact that the Generation Y is less empathetic than the previous generations[2] might be one of the reasons why there is a lack of participation in community service; to be called by a cause implies caring and it is impossible to care with a cold heart.

           

Which is better? Volunteering or service learning?

            In my opinion, both volunteering and service learning have their pros and cons. Service learning sort of intends to instigate the students ‘reflection on their community as they get involved in it. It also brings an active way of learning which can be more interesting and practical than theory alone, and it surely helps to teach civic responsibilities as it can make students feel bonded to their community. However, every student might not enjoy this kind of learning and forcing someone to get involved in the community is not to help one’s vision on community service; it could turn against community’s advantage. On the other hand, volunteering is based on a person’s desire to get involved and this can only help one’s motivation for community service. Volunteers are more likely to volunteer for more than personal interests, it surely can bring pride and satisfaction to help others, but the effect on society can be more meaningful.

What is the best way to encourage people to get involved?

            I think that the best way to get people involved is to find issues that appeal them; no one can feel totally unconcerned about everything. However, the task of pleasing everyone might be a little more complicated as everybody’s interests may differ, but with the myriad of organisations that exists it would be difficult not to find something that suits the majority. As I first mentioned, a person’s interest is more likely to push this person to get involved; if someone’s relative dies of cancer, this person is more likely to get involve in cancer’s fund raising organisations than someone that has never seen the ravages of this disease.  As there are people that naturally get involved in community services, there are people that will never feel the need to volunteer and I guess it is part of living in a community.

---

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/is-the-me-generation-less-empathetic

[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/is-the-me-generation-less-empathetic