The Proletariat Congress

When faced with life or death, most people unless they know that death is inevitable will choose life because they know that they have families that love them and wish them good health. To lose a family member hurts and those who are faced with this know it and display the will to live and to once again laugh and share in the merriment of life with their friends and family.

One British woman, Lorraine Allard, decided that she would rather not. Instead, she refused to accept medical treatment for a disease that decades of research and sacrifice have long since learned how to fight and nearly cure. The woman foolishly chose to not accept chemotherapy, and carried to term an unborn foetus at the cost of her life.

Either way, there was still going to be a ‘death’.

If she had accepted the treatment the doctors felt she needed, the cancer wouldn’t have advanced into the stage where it would be incurable. But, she didn’t listen to the doctors when told that she would have to abort the barely development foetus in order to be able to receive the life saving treatment that would have made the difference for the children she already had and depended on her.

Accept a medical abortion in order to allow her to fight back at the bowel cancer that had spread to her liver or bring another child into an over populated world? These were the choices.

She didn’t accept the treatment and carried the foetus as long as she could before an early labour was induced, allowing her to deliver the foetus naturally at 26 weeks, giving the child a mere 50% chance at survival.

Some forums on the internet have people praising her for a ’sacrifice’ and speak a though she were brave for her choice. As though she was truly a model human. The media (such as FOX, Daily Mail) have used positive words to describe her actions. They have chosen words that convey a noble action when the action was anything but brave.

It was foolish. Simply put, it was foolish. She left behind a husband who now has to bring up four children alone. At the time when her doctors suggested that she abort the foetus for medical reasons, she had three daughters, two of whom are old enough to remember this, to know that their mother would rather die than fight back against cancer and live to see them grow up.

Her son, the one born at the cost of her life could very well have issues over this if he cannot accept or handle the fact that he “killed mom”.

The daughters who remember could very well grow up to resent their brother, who they will associate with the death of their mother.

People are free to make their own choices, and if those choices are foolish, the rest of us are free to mock those people for such choices.  This woman made such a choice and people shouldn’t be praising her for dying and leaving the man who loves her without the mother of his children to face the world.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamentally guarantees for all Canadians the right to freedom of expression. This right is entrenched and cannot be overridden under any circumstances, as the constitution is the final law in the country when it comes to human rights. It supersedes any trivial law that would seek to circumvent basic human rights in Canada.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

The highlighted text explicitly states that we have freedom of the press. Repeatedly; ad nauseum, it has been shown through recent court rulings that blogs, such as this one, are considered another form of media communication and can constitute another form of journalism. Blogs are protected under the second article, though some would say that blogs aren’t covered because they aren’t traditional main stream media (herein now referred to as MSM).

But, more and more, MSM outlets through their websites are beginning to include blogs where the editor can make their own bipartisan comments regarding certain stories. These blogs have not come under fire from prosecutors. Blogs owned by individual citizens have been targeted, whether it is because they have posted material about upcoming elections or writing about the election results of one time zone before the polls close in another. The latter, due to an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, with the addition of Section 329, it is illegal to blog about results before 10pmEST.

No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district.

Yet preliminary results have been made available on MSM news stations, making it possible for people to see early counts before their polling stations close. People can email each other with the results (so, how many people am I limited to?)

One such MSM, CBC, with Peter Mansbridge at the helm on election night, was issuing early predictions for the outcome yet blogs were not permitted to post because we’re considered “public”. The very same station is now attempting to stifle its employees through Draconian policies that apparently were only thought to exist in countries like Iran and China, where bloggers are expected to register with the state if they want to have an “opinion”.

CBC is saying it still has to get the policy, or “guide document” approved by its Board, but still, if a Crown Corporation takes this dangerous route, other entities operating within Canada will use the precedent to issue the same kind of policies over their employees.

Further, the blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.

To start and maintain a blog of this kind, you need your supervisor’s approval.

The only thing that prevents this from being truly terrifying is the fact that CBC stated, verbatim on their website:

To be clear, this policy applies only to personal blogs where the author identifies themselves as a CBC employee. But if you’re writing a truly transparent, personal blog, sometimes you want to talk about what your job is. It’s part of who we are. But now, if you do that, you apparently fall within the scope of this document.

Before we continue, I will say this: many places of employment have you sign an agreement, which often requests that as a condition of your employment, you are not to talk to the media or disclose certain types of information related to the company. This can extend to blogs, which is why there is often this advice issued: keep your blog and workplace separate. Do not talk about it at work because what you may post could possibly come back to haunt you and even jeopardise your employment, especially if you have chosen to blog about your work.

There have been reported cases of people who use MySpace and FaceBook who find themselves without employment because they have posted material that turned off potential employers. A blog can easily do the same thing. Some things are better left separated.

Onward…

Blogs are not completely subject to one’s supervisor’s approval, unless you want to write about your work place. This is a tricky element. People can easily get caught between a rock and a hard place because one may want to write about partisan politics or other controversial topics.

What if in your profile you identify yourself as an employee of CBC, would you now require permission to keep your blog, even if you don’t write anything about your work or work place? Conversely, if you’re working on a story and even if you’ve declined to identify where you’re doing it for and only talk about the content of it, would you still be subject to the rules, even if no other clear identifiers exist? Just a couple of issues that come to mind in relation to this.

On this, I am personally torn because in principle, I fundamentally oppose this. This is an assault on the rights of Canadians who happen to work for a Crown Corporation. Why should they be forced to account for their opinions and beliefs, which they have the right to?

On the other hand, a place of employment has the right to ask that their employees don’t write about it, or at least refer to it directly in their blog. And, if one has signed such an agreement, they are obliged to honour their half of the agreement.

CBC proposes approving employees’ personal blogs

In Great Britain a battle was wage on the front of the rights of a woman to use her eggs that were fertilised by her ex-boyfriend versus his rights to not sire a child by her. The outcome was grim. The courts, after many years ruled in favour of her ex-boyfriend, and that the frozen embryos couldn’t be used.

The woman, Natalie Evans, who had been left infertile because of ovarian cancer was denied the right to use one of her six frozen embryos to have a child. She began the battle in 2001, and now at the age of 35 has lost. The courts ruled that the consent of both partners is required.

Hold on, let’s think about this for a moment…

If consent by both partners is required, then what about women involved in sexual relations that end badly and she is pregnant and wants to keep the kid but the man wants her to get rid of it, does this mean she is now forced to abort it simply because he says so?

All pro-life people will say that no, she can’t abort it because it’s a human life, even in the zygote stage. which is the stage that precedes embryonic, which is followed by foetal. Even pro-choice people are on the woman’s side, and not to protect the foetus but to protect her right, her right to choose.

So, she would be allowed to keep the child simply because it’s already inside of her.

What makes this different than with Ms Evans? Other than the fact that the embryos were frozen to be used later, nothing. Yes, the tissue wasn’t implanted in her uterus, but the embryo contains her genetic material.

Now, let’s pretend for a minute that the man’s opinion actually matters when it comes to the unborn foetus that the woman carries in her womb. And that this particular man wanted her to abort the foetus and the law requires, as does current British law regarding fertility treatment, that both parties agree to the conception and birth of this being. This would mean that her rights are being violated, thus sparking controversy amongst the pro-choice lobby because woman should be the one to make the choice. It would also cause a uproar in the pro-life front because the man would be forcing the woman to end a life that deserves a chance.

As politicians are weak before their constituents, they will rule in favour of the woman and the unborn foetus, making it so the man has no say despite that it is his genetic material that helped make the child.

In this, a double standard has been created.

Let’s also examine the concept of sperm donors. They do do anonymously and have no control over which women have access to their genetic material.  They have zero say and they cna’t determine who should and shouldn’t receive the sperm.  The clinic gives it on a first come, first serve basis.

“The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when and if I start a family,” Johnston told reporters after last year’s lower chamber ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

Ok, so he wants to be able to decide?  What about the men who sleep with a woman, break up with her then find out she’s carrying their child?  Should they have the same ‘luxury’?  By that logic, they should, but they don’t.

What Johnston seems to be forgetting is that unlike men, women are born with a pre-determined number of eggs in their ovaries, which are released from the commencement of puberty and the last one triggers menopause.  They can’t just start a family when they want; they are limited to their fertile years and older women are more prone to give birth to a child with defects if she’s older.  Yes, there are repoted cases of woman giving birth in later years, but those aren’t the norm.

By ruling in favour of such narrow thinking, the courts have opened a can of worms.  By allowing Johnston have his victory, there will be repercussions because other men who have ‘knocked up’ other women will start demanding the same thing; to be able to decide if they want her to give birth.  Even if the lobbies push against this for their own reasons, they case could be pushed forward because there is precedent.

All a case needs is precedent to garner a similar ruling.

British woman loses battle for embryos

Normally I refrain from expressing my opinion in the first person point of view. I prefer the third person point of view because it gives the illusion of impartiality and the other ‘valued’ skills of unbiased journalism (even when there is a blatantly obvious bias in the tone of the article). However, there is something that I came across today that crosses the line for me.

Some two-bit blogger (Tim O’Reilly*) has decided that we need a ‘Blogger’s Code of Conduct’. Who is he to say that we need one? What is he, the school yard teacher who is going to break up a fight between a blogger and a troll?

[* EDIT - Ok, so it seems that I’ve been corrected on a small tidbit. O’Reilly heads a large publishing company. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that he’s a moron spouting contradictory bullshit about wanting the internet unregulated while suggesting that bloggers follow his blowing-out-the-ass bullshit guidelines. ]

This blog is my playground; my sandbox. I make the rules here and I can break the rules. I don’t need someone else to make the rules for me. If I did, I’d just be another sheep keeling to the whim and desire of some authoritarian jackass who is about as charismatic as my cat’s ass.

Most bloggers are civil. We don’t need to follow a code of conduct; we have our own code of conduct had has been indoctrinated into our minds and souls from the moment we stepped onto the internet and ventured onto a political forum. There was a certain level of decorum expected and a code of conduct to follow there that was generally accepted on many different areas of the web. They are the unwritten rules of the web.

It doesn’t change that no matter where you go on the web, there is always some random twat there waiting to pounce on you and maim your delicate sensitivities with nauseating verbal diarrhoea that sounds like something you wrote in grade two and your parents kept to show the grandkids…

Just as there are trolls in real life, there are trolls on the internet. The only difference is, one is your Fred Phelps type that whores himself out on street corners, chanting antiquated slogans about how the gays are the cause of terrorism and the other cowers behind a screen name; both hocking the same cheesy wares.

Trolls are a fact. They are attention whores. And there are two ways to deal with attention whores. Treat them like the little brats they are by belittling them and mocking everything they stand for (nothing like logic to drown a troll), or ignore them. Both work, but the drowning process is gratifying because you can get the last word in and that’s what really matters.

The key with trolls is, that many are hit-and-run posters. They make their statement, but they don’t stay around to substantiate their claims and the ones that do suffer from the incurable Foot-In-Mouth Disease.

The blogger’s code also concerns itself with the protection of private data. But, if it’s already published on the internet, how do you intend to protect it with all those hackers out there, hunkering down stealthily in the bushes, watching the prey dance carefree in the meadow. The protection of data lies with the individual. You have to pick responsibly; what do you want published on the internet about you?

If you don’t want your information to be public domain, don’t post anything anywhere! FaceBook, MySpace, et cetera; ad nauseum, are social websites (part of the Web 2.0 era) where you can post and freely share information. Don’t whine when someone digs up dirt on you that you posted there. Google is another good way to find information if a person has been foolish enough to post data relating to themselves.

If you allow for comments, you should be prepared for the fact that there are people who will agree with you, people who won’t and people who are just plain jackasses with a Bachelors in Grade-A Assholery.

Yes, there is an increase in cyber-bullying and threats via blogs, nevertheless, there is a general trend amongst those who leave such comments, anonymity. If the threat comes from a known source, it’s your responsibility to report it to the right legal entity for help, if it’s proven that there is a real threat and not some nubling coming through, making a general pest of himself; trolling to get attention.

Don’t take this to mean that I condone cyber-bullying. I am only saying that if there is a threat, take it up in the real world and don’t give bloggers a series of bullshit rules for us to follow. We’re human and we can make our own judgement. Our blogs, our rules.

Blogger Jeff Jarvis said it right:

“This effort misses the point of the internet, blogs, and even of civilized behavior. They treat the blogosphere as if it were a school library where someone… can maintain order and control. They treat it as a medium for media.

“It’s a place. And when I moved into the place that is my town, I didn’t put up a badge on my fence saying that I’d be a good neighbor.”

Weblogs ‘need content warnings’

Oh and as for the warning on the content on my blog, here it is - whatever I say goes here! Read and post at your own discretion, I’m not your mother. If you don’t like what you read here, go crawl back under your rock and put on your rose coloured goggles. You’re not ready for the real world if you can’t deal with different opinions and jackasses.