Terahertz

After some prodding from friends who read my initial post on the possibility of creating a political party for the 2011 Vancouver civic election, I’ve realized that there is a growing demand for a grassroots secular-based political group.

So with that I’ve created a Facebook goup and WordPress blog (for those not on Facebook), to act as gauges of interest in the project.

The responses that I’ve gotten have fallen into two categories.

First, there’s the people already active in politics who are worried that any new political party will split the vote and give united conservative or religious groups the advantage.

Second, there’s people who are entirely disenfranchised with existing options and see this as a project that they could actually get interested and involved in.

While the first group’s concerns are valid, I have a few responses. First, at the Vancouver civic level, we don’t have to worry as much about splitting the progressive vote, since it represents a large majority of voters. Even further, if we run one (or any number less than a full slate of) candidate(s) for council, then we can still have a progressive voice while also bringing our issues into the discussion. In many cases, third (or fourth) parties are created often as single issue parties just to get their voice to the table (see the Nude Garden Party or the Work Less Party). So I believe there is value in creating these parties.

Of course, even if we don’t create a political party, we can always transform this group into a political lobby group that advocates for secular issues at various levels.

Finally, as I’m already the secretary for both CFI Vancouver and the BC Humanists, the VP External for the Freethought Association of Canada, and the treasurer for the SFU Skeptics (on top of being a full-time masters student in physics), I don’t currently have the time to launch this full time, and will be relying on volunteers coming forward who want to see this project get off the ground.

So with that said, join the Facebook group, check out the blog (and offer to write for it), or email me to help out.

Secularists are fond of complaining about politicians over-endorsing religion and school boards not defending evolution against creationist onslaughts.

So perhaps it’s time to for those who want to preserve church-state separation to go on the offensive.

Actually, Australians have already beat me to it and created the Secular Party of Australia.

However, while national politics involves many pressing issues (including natural health product regulations in Canada), many of the greatest effects are seen at the local level. So perhaps it’s time for a Secular Party of Vancouver.

Vancouver is one of the few cities where municipal politics involves political parties, so it’s prime level for a group of like-minded people to run a slate of candidates for the city council, parks board and school board.

At the council level, Secular councillors can advocate for an end to property tax exemptions for churches which only proselytize. There is already precedent in the BC town of Gibsons for ending such exemptions, and it’s time for Vancouver, with a non-religious population of over 40% to follow suit.

The next civic election in Vancouver is in November 2011, so there’s time to get things organized (provided there’s interest and money). Anyone with me?

Reason made a brief appearance in the bowels of bureaucracy recently, it last just long enough for the BC Local Elections Task Force to soundly reject the calls for the re-establishment of the corporate vote in municipal elections.

The corporations still plan to lobby for it, but I think the public has spoken.

I just got back from the Kitsilano Community Centre where the line-up to sign the anti-HST petition was out the door (about 20-30 people). The line-up was continuous with people showing up as others left.

While they said that they only have a few hundred signatures for Vancouver Point-Grey (my riding, which is represented by premier Gordon Campbell), they only just started collecting here on Thursday. Meanwhile, a few interior and northern ridings have already surpassed the 10% requirements.

Regardless if you like the HST in principle, or even this specific implementation of it, it is a great sign that despite dropping voter turnouts, democracy hasn’t died in Canada. This petition is especially important since this implementation was not debated or mentioned in the election last year, but was brought forward within days.

Meanwhile, businesses and the government are skirting the law attempting to defend the HST, despite the fact that none of them officially signed up to oppose the initiative. If they wanted to speak they should follow their own rules.

So it is starting to look to me like this petition may actually succeed and result in a public referendum on the legitimacy of the HST. If it makes it to that, you can bet that the government is going to lose it bad. After that, if the Liberals still don’t repeal it, they’re likely going to start losing their seats in recall initiatives (potentially including my own slim-margin winning MP).

Finally, the last thing I learned today was that the HST is coming into effect as early as May 1st for advance purchases for this summer. This includes airline and sporting tickets and community centre recreation passes.

So go find a location to sign the petition if you haven’t yet.

I guess my blog went down over the weekend. I figured out that it had something to do with my database breaking, but a quick repair seemed to have fixed it. Not exactly good timing as I was enjoying my holiday in Edmonton.

So things are back online now and there’s a bunch of new stories from the Peak.

First, we have two articles standing up for The Peak in the upcoming Graduate Student Society referendum that is asking students to discontinue funding to The Peak. “Grads must vote to keep their voice” is by Brian Labore, and “The question is biased” is by one of my friends from SFU orientation Kristen Soo. Meanwhile, Gary Lim submitted the humour/feature article “Support your student paper” which lists three creative uses for The Peak besides actually reading the paper.

The Peak also featured two news articles about the GSS elections, including on the cover page: “GSS 2010: Meet your candidates” and “GSS candidates square off in debate.”

Also on the topic of the referendum, the Teaching and Support Staff Union, which represents all TAs sent out a letter endorsing the No side of the referendum – telling students to vote to continue funding The Peak:

Dear Members,

We are writing in regards to the upcoming GSS election, and specifically the referendum question in regards to The Peak. We are asking that you vote “no” to the question and support the GSS’s continued funding.

At our last general membership meeting, a number of members expressed concerns with the potential of pulling The Peak’s funding. While we all share the GSS’s concerns with the The Peak’s content and decision-making structures, we wanted to see if the staff of The Peak would be willing to work with graduate students to make improvements so that we could continue our relationship.

As such we formed a committee and in the last two weeks, we have engaged in a fairly broad dialogue with The Peak. The main concerns we outlined to them were

1. Issues of accessibility, which included concerns we had around both the transparency and access to information in terms of how the newspaper was run, how articles were vetted, and the process for article submission. We requested that they post far more information on the website about their structures, submission guidelines, etc. and that they begin to open up the process by which students can write and get involved.

2. Graduate Student Involvement, which included our concern that graduate student voices were not being given adequate space in the newspaper or on the board and that graduate student issues were not being discussed. We requested that they create a graduate issues section, a graduate issues position, and that they begin to actively work with graduate organizations (the TSSU and the GSS) to solicit submissions and tackle graduate student issues.

3. Issues of discrimination and/or oppression, which included concerns around questionable content including potentially racist, sexist, or homophobic articles. We requested that they make anti-oppression/facilitation training mandatory for their editorial staff and, ideally through this training, start to effectively and responsibly think about how to better deal with questionable material and how to better run their meetings to ensure there is space for people who are uncomfortable with offensive material (even if it’s humorous) to express concerns and to motivate discussion on how to deal with it with sensitivity and respect.

The Peak has agreed to work with us on creating a more accessible structure, on targeting more graduate students (whether that’s just through increased content or in a dedicated position), and has indicated an openness towards anti-oppression training.

Given that we had less than two weeks to reach an agreement with The Peak, we can obviously not promise any structural change immediately, but we feel that they have taken our concerns seriously and are willing to work with us to move forwards.

In light of their commitment, and in light of our belief in the necessity of graduate students having a connection to the only student newspaper on campus, we ask that you vote “No.” Especially with bargaining coming up, which increases the importance of our continued communication and connection with undergraduate students, we feel that it is necessary to continue working with The Peak and ask that you help us make it a platform that graduate students can use as a tool of information, advocacy, and change.

The Social Justice Committee

Finally, The Peak also published another opinion piece by myself, probably my last until the summer term starts (since I’m not sure how many serious issues are left this term), this one on the anti-vaccination quackery that’s been spreading. I don’t know if any TXT MSGS were left since I haven’t been to campus yet to pick up a print edition; we’ll find out tomorrow I guess.

Anti-vax is dangerous, dishonest

By Ian Bushfield

Nineteen children in the B.C. interior contracted whooping cough in February, and just recently another 14 people in Vancouver were diagnosed with measles. Both of these diseases had been nearly wiped from the developed world by modern medicine and vaccinations; however, almost none of these people had been properly vaccinated.

This negligence can be explained by a growing anti-science sentiment among practitioners of so-called complementary and alternative medicines. This movement is fed by superstition and conspiratorial beliefs. I have little respect for supposedly harmless beliefs in naturopathy since children are getting unnecessarily sick and in some cases dying.

Despite some legitimate complaints about the unscrupulous behaviour of many pharmaceutical companies, the basic scientific fact remains that modern medicine and vaccinations work. You can thank modern medicine for life spans past 40, child mortality rates below 20 per cent, and many more advances. Our government is not out to poison us; vaccines are tested and drugs are regulated for a reason.

This backlash tends to be due to ignorance. For example, one pseudoscience specialist in the whooping cough outbreak claimed that vaccines contain “muck.”

Her argument is basically that it is okay not to vaccinate children from deadly diseases that we know exist because modern medicine involves spooky chemicals. I am not sure where on the periodic table muck is or from what molecule it is derived, but I will take my chances with it over whooping cough, cholera, tuberculosis, and any number of other diseases that we have essentially defeated through the use of vaccines.

Many of these naturopathic “doctors” further subscribe to homeopathy — the idea that diluting a toxic substance until you just have water will make it more effective in curing the disease that it would normally cause in full dosage. For example, if you got bit by a rattle snake; the homeopath would bring out a vial of water that represents the dilution of snake venom.

The water you drink is supposed to have a memory that recalls having snake venom in it and will therefore purify your body.

Never mind that homeopathy has never been shown to be more than a placebo effect or that most mixtures are so diluted as to not contain a single molecule of the active ingredient; the question is, why would you waste your money on something that shows no efficacy?

Now consider the hypocrisy of the natural medicine movement. They claim that their potions of herbs and supplements are on par or better than evidenced-based medicines. Further, natural medicine is supposedly more pure than what the supposedly evil pharmaceutical companies are selling.

Yet when the government introduces modest legislation to regulate alternative medicines, to ensure that they live up to the claims they make, Big-Natura gets up in arms and claims that government agents are going to break into your house if you give your children ginseng. If their drugs do what they say they do, they ought to have nothing to fear from rules that protect consumers from crooked practices.

It is worth remembering though, that nothing spells profit like sugar pills and snake oil. It is no surprise then that major pharmaceutical companies have already moved into the under-regulated naturopathy market, looking to score a quick dollar off the hippies who try to boycott them.

Modern, science-based medicine brought us out of the dark ages. To make ignorant assertions that witchcraft and sorcery can take us forward borders on the absurd. If there were actual evidence supporting many of the claims being made, doctors would have no quarrel with prescribing homeopathy, acupuncture, and Reiki; however, real doctors are not in the business of giving false hope.

When evidence supports an alternative medicine, it’s just called medicine.

Update: I also just noticed that The Peak picked up an Opinion piece from The Manitoban on Simon Singh winning some ground in the libel suit filed against him by the British Chiropractors Association.

A great double-feature in The Peak this week. First almost two-thirds of a page was dedicated to letters defending evolution and rebutting Isaac Seo’s poor arguments for creationism. Give it a full read.

The following TXT MSGS were also submitted in response to my article last week:

Poor Ignorant Ian Bushfield

I’m a committed atheist and even I found the skeptic’s banner offensive and tacky.

I’m not totally sure if this one was pointed at me, but either way:

Go study world religions bro, christianity ain’t the only worldview with ideas about sin.

Next, I submitted the following piece defending The Peak against the upcoming GSS referendum to cut student funding to the paper. I enjoy that they listed me as an “Associate Staff Contributor” in the issue, but I’m not sure if that’s a typo or if the job requirements are merely having x number of articles published. Either way, I’ll take it.

Grads need The Peak

By Ian Bushfield

I like being published as much as the next person. Most people enjoy seeing their words in ink. Perhaps the only thing better than having your own words published is having someone else quote you or report news about your mundane life. And yet, these are the exact privileges that graduate students at SFU are now in the position to give up.

The relatively new Graduate Student Society is holding a referendum with their upcoming elections that asks their constituents if they would like to remove their per-semester funding for The Peak, and thereby lose, not only their voice at the campus level, but also any chance to promote their views to their community.

There are several reasons that some graduate students feel they should no longer support The Peak. The first is that it currently does not represent their views. Very rarely in the past year has the GSS been mentioned in the news, although this may have more to do with the lack of controversy or scandal surrounding the organization. Also, little press has been given to all the various forms of research that is being done on campus. Few graduate students publish comics or editorials, and even fewer write specifically on topics relating to graduates.

Naturally, much of the blame for this graduate neglect rests on the shoulders of graduate students themselves. It is not difficult to get an article published in The Peak. Much like those who find it to be too “right-wing” or poorly written, the best way to change the paper is to fire up your computer and send in an article. The big challenge that is facing every graduate student’s involvement in The Peak is very simple: time.

Almost every graduate student is strapped for time. Between work ing their thesis, TA-ships, courses, and other work they are committed to, finding the time to write an editorial, let alone research and write a full article, is almost inconceivable. In undergrad, it is possible to extend one’s degree from one to an infinite number of years, so as to spend a bit more time writing for a student newspaper; whereas in graduate school the pressure is on to finish one’s degree and get on with your life.

With so little time on their hands, it is somewhat ironic that some have suggested that graduate students could instead publish their own newsletter in place of funding The Peak. It makes little sense that if students are unable to commit the time to write for The Peak that they would instead write for a newsletter with a much smaller audience. Every paper needs a minimal readership to stay interesting and viable; The Peak has those numbers, and I highly doubt that graduate students would be able to achieve anything similar.

Many graduate students, regardless of the upcoming referendum, will continue to read The Peak week after week. Rather than essentially stealing the paper, the honourable thing for graduate students to do is to vote to continue supporting the independent voice on campus, so that we can continue to have our issues discussed and represented.

The Peak may not be the greatest newspaper ever written, but it remains a strong link between all the constituents of the greater Simon Fraser community. We should vote to keep it that way.

I’m still trying to decide if I want to submit a piece on humanist ethics, homeopathy and anti-vaxxers or something else for next week. Any preferences?

Update:

I almost forgot that SFU Skeptic member Chris Lonergan got a photo of our banner published in the Community Photos section, with the title “Conflicting perspectives.”

Update-2:

I just noticed that The Peak also reposted the above article on their “Since 1965” blog. This blog has lots of links challenging the GSS referendum.

In my continual efforts to air my grievance about the upcoming SFU graduate student referendum over funding to the student newspaper, The Peak, I have a few more pieces of (mis?)information.

I left off having asked the president of the GSS why the question is phrased in the negative (“Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting…”) to which he replied:

Hi Ian,
It was decided that we would use the same referendum question as the 2007 referendum that asked the same question.  This question is identical to that one.
I hope that clears it up.
Josh

However, such questions tend to be documented and the GSS, being a relatively open organization, has all of its minutes on its website for the perusal. A quick search finds two references to this 2007 referendum. The first, in September 2007 [pdf] states:

11. New business

a. Referendum endorsement

MOVED that council endorse “yes” votes for referendum questions on membership fees and levies for the Society’s general membership fee, capital levy, health & benefit plan levy, UPass levy, Peak fee, SFPIRG fee, CJSF fee, Student Refugee Program fee, and First Nations Student Association fee.

…

CARRIED (Schroeder opposed)

And the results are reported in the February 2009 AGM [pdf] (see page 15/16):

October 2007: Referendum to set all initial membership fees of the Gss, including… Peak fee… Council endorsed a “yes” vote for all of these fees. Polling occurred online on October 29th and 30th. Between 584 and 591 votes were cast for each referendum question and all referendum questions passed.

Both of these quotes imply to me that the referendum of 2007 was not worded the same as this current one at all. I’ve sent these notes and the questions they raise back to Joshua Newman, in dwindling hopes of discovering much more from him.

Meanwhile, my council rep reported to me that most of the council discussion revolved around whether to have a referendum, and 40% of council was against any Peak referendum. Also, one of my friends on Facebook has taken to this issue too and reports from her rep a similar vote but “quite a bit of discussion regarding the wording” occurred.

While I’m pessimistic that this question will be changed, I think some noise needs to be heard so we can demand better from our council and that people realize that they need to read the questions before instinctively voting yes (especially if they read “Do you agree… the Peak funding”).

On the positive, I will have another article in the Peak on Monday that deals explicitly with this referendum, however I didn’t indulge the phrasing issue so my conclusion was to endorse voting to continue funding the Peak.

Not too long after I sent my grievance to the GSS elections committee, I got a reply letting me know that the referendum is under sole control of the President and GSS council, so my letter was forwarded to Joshua Newman. Here’s his reply, which also came very quickly:

Hi Ian,
The referendum question regarding The Peak was developed by the GSS Council, an elected body of 35 grad students representing every department at SFU.  Council determined that this was the most fair way to ask this question.
Thanks for your concern.
Joshua Newman
President
Graduate Student Society at SFU

To which I just replied,

Thanks for the quick reply Joshua,

I noticed that the agenda for the 6 March council meeting [pdf, see page 15] indicate that the proposed question was:

"Do you want to continue paying $4.90 per student per semester to support The Peak?"

May I ask, since the minutes aren’t available online yet (I assume they won’t be until after they are approved at the next council meeting at the end of April, well after the election), what discussion took place around changing the wording?

Ian Bushfield
MSc. Physics Student at SFU

I continue to urge all concerned graduate students to email Joshua Newman at president@sfugradsociety.ca and also contact their caucus reps to find out why the question was changed.

Vote NO to discontinuing funding from the Peak!

Obviously, I’m biased in the upcoming SFU Graduate Student Society elections regarding the referendum question that asks whether grad students want to continue funding the Peak, but I think anyone has to consider the following referendum phrasing to be misleading and biased against continued support:

Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting the special membership fee for the Peak Publication Society, effective Fall 2010, resulting in a reduction of $4.90 per full-time student and $2.45 per part-time student per term in the Graduate Student Society Activity fee?

Notice the negative phrasing, i.e. to support the Peak you have to vote “No,” and the unnecessary inclusion of the cost per term in the question.

So, I submitted the following grievance to the GSS election committee, except their provided email address elections@sfugradsociety.com is a dead link and instead I had to type in the proper email elections@sfugradsociety.ca. I advise you to do the same if you’re an SFU graduate student and care about honest and fair elections. Feel free to copy my letter verbatim or modify it as you see fit:

Graduate Student Society Election Committee,

I would like to submit a grievance with the wording of referendum question 3:

"3.Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting the special membership fee for the Peak Publication Society, effective Fall 2010, resulting in a reduction of $4.90 per full-time student and $2.45 per part-time student per term in the Graduate Student Society Activity fee?"

I feel it is dishonest and unfair to phrase the question in the negative and biases the referendum against continued support of the Peak. I further feel that the discussion of the cost per term is unnecessary and further meant to bias respondents against the Peak. Can the election committee explain the rationale behind this phrasing? Further, will the committee rephrase the question in a more neutral stance such as:

"Do you support the continuation of the Society collecting the special membership fee from every graduate student for the Peak Publication Society beyond Fall 2010?"

Ian Bushfield

Treasurer, Physics Graduate Caucus
MSc. Physics Student at SFU

Update:

I got a reply from the GSS Election Committee, and the wording of referenda fall under the control of the GSS President and Council. Email you concerns to Josh Newman at president@sfugradsociety.ca, also email your councillor.

People generally acknowledge that BC politics is messed up, but this push to regain the corporate municipal vote [pdf] here really takes puts the ass in asylum.

The claim is that businesses are being unfairly taxed without representation, ergo businesses ought to have a vote at the municipal level.

Never mind that every business owner and employee that actually lives in the city they operate in already has a vote.

Never mind that the only other place in the world that shills like this is the business district of London, England.

Never mind that the guy who wrote that trite in the Vancouver Sun is “known for showing up at Burnaby council meetings wearing his scoutmaster uniform.”

Just remember that democracy is, in it’s most pure form, a system of people governing themselves. In Canada, at least, corporations are not people.