OBSERVER ob•serv•er
noun \əb-ˈzər-vər\
: a person who sees and notices someone or something
: a person who pays close attention to something
: a person who is present at something (such as a meeting) in order to watch and listen to what happens
an OBSERVER
Father Raymond de Souza finds recent concerns about people working themselves into mental illness, on Parliament Hill and elsewhere, have an ancient, Gospel solution.
This week’s Hill Times, the parish bulletin for those who work, lobby, or lounge about Parliament Hill, includes a nine-page special report on mental health. “Canada’s Politics and Government Newspaper,” as it styles itself, is reporting that many of those who work on the Hill are not altogether mentally healthy.
I know. It’s an opening for hundred punchlines. But that is part of the point of the special report, to make mental health less of a joking matter, and to give it serious attention.
There is a column by the Minister of Health, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, which opens with the acknowledgement that “at age 13, my brother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The stigma was powerful. Now, as health minister, I’m heartened to know that today my brother’s diagnosis would be seen very differently. Progress is possible.”
Indeed, at one point a minister of the Crown would have kept that part of her family history hidden, rather than a public motivation for action. Progress is possible.
I had not been in the Parliament buildings for perhaps a year, but along with my colleagues Peter Stockland and Ray Pennings, I attended the Parliamentary Forum on Religious Freedom this week, hosted for the seventh consecutive year by the indefatigable David Anderson, MP from Saskatchewan.
Getting into the Parliament buildings is now such a security hassle that it may well be some time before I return again. It was 30 years ago that I first visited Parliament, and in those days it was a much more relaxed place. Ordinary citizens, with no more bother than asking a receptionist, could head off to visit their MP’s office. And in that more gentle age, it was quite possible that an MP might entertain an unexpected visitor. The place is not that gentle, the pace not that accommodating, anymore.
One of the Hill Timesarticles that caught my attention had implications far beyond Parliament Hill. It was written by Majid Jowhari, the MP for Richmond Hill. He turns out to be something of an authority, founding the Liberal Mental Health Caucus and, later, the Parliamentary Mental Health Caucus. For such initiatives he was designated as this year’s Parliamentary Mental Health Champion by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health.
His column is choked with all the jargon of progressives in Parliament – historic “investments”, “diversity of perspectives” and “breaking the stigma.” Yet it was this striking phrase that caught my attention as he characterized a workplace “that fetishizes exhaustion and encourages staff to take pride in being overworked and under-appreciated.”
There is something to that. But is it a fetish? Or is it glamorisation of work in terms of sheer quantity: the more the better?
I recall about a decade ago being at a dinner in a restaurant near Parliament Hill, about eight or 10 of us, several MPs and Hill staff. The young lady to my left hardly ate, and engaged in no conversation at all. She was on her Blackberry the whole time, devotedly tapping away at the expense of her dinner and her dining companions.
There were plenty of interesting people at the table, so it was no loss to the rest of us, but I certainly felt bad for her. At the end of the dinner I asked what she did. She worked in the communications office for the Minister of Labour. I asked her what the crisis was – a pending strike of essential workers somewhere?
I’ll never forget her response. There was no crisis. Why would I think there was? Her constant communication with the office was just a typical night, she informed me in a slightly patronizing tone, given that I evidently did not appreciate how in demand the communications officials for the Minister of Labour were. The poor young woman did not regret that she missed out on our dinner and conversation; she was proud of it, evidence of how important she was.
I imagine with Twitter and Facebook communication, officials are even more important, more in demand, more on the job even when not at work. I suppose “fetish” is not altogether a bad term for those who celebrate such disproportionate hours.
That’s not exclusive to Parliament Hill. Certain professions – law and medicine among them – pride themselves on working their initiates to the brink of exhaustion and beyond.
More than a fetish, we have something of a cult of work. It’s not unusual to hear people boast of the vacations they do not take; their employer, their business, their world could not possibly get on without them. Is it a mental health problem, or just a lack of proper priorities, an identification of one’s self-worth that unduly depends on the hours worked, as if not working means that nobody values you at that moment?
Excess in any area does often compromise health, so I am not surprised that there are bad mental health outcomes from the idolatry of work. Interestingly, though, “workaholic” remains an ambiguous term, sometimes even complimentary, in a way that “alcoholic” is not.
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. We’ve known that for a long time. But does it also make Jack sick? Perhaps. It certainly makes Jack less than he should be, and less than he was created to be. Genesis teaches us that work is good for man, that it is suited to him. But work is made for man, not man for work, to paraphrase the words of Jesus about the Sabbath. Yes, the Sabbath, and other times set aside from work for God. It may be that this most recent of phenomena – fetishizing exhaustion – has an ancient solution.
Convivium means living together. We welcome your voice to the conversation. Do you know someone who would enjoy this article? Send it to them now. Do you have a response to something we've published? Let us know!
Jihadists and terrorists are actively planning attacks in Canada, according to a new report from the Trudeau government.
Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies claim that red tape and legal loopholes are stopping them from protecting Canadians.
On Thursday, the Federal Department of Public Safety released a report demonstrating that several terrorist groups and their supporters are active in Canada.
The chilling report tells us what we have long suspected.
We are, by no means, immune to the turmoil and bloodshed of jihadist insurgents.
At least 180 individuals with a connection to Canada are overseas fighting alongside terrorist organizations. That’s up from 130 known terrorists in 2015.
But those individuals aren’t necessarily the problem for Canada right now. A far greater security concern is the jihadists who are here in Canada.
The report discusses two types of terrorists in Canada: wannabe jihadists who have had their passports removed and therefore cannot travel to places like Syria and Iraq, and those who already went overseas to fight for the terrorists but have since returned to Canada.
Despite having significant information about these dangerous jihadists, there are major roadblocks in laying criminal charges and convicting both types of terrorists.
First, let’s look at the jihadists who are grounded in Canada.
Both men who murdered members of the Canadian Forces in Quebec and Ontario in October, 2014 were prohibited from leaving Canada.
So was Aaron Driver, killed by the RCMP in Strathroy, Ontario earlier this month.
In all three cases, the individuals were known and even monitored by authorities.
But this was not enough to stop them from planning deadly attacks.
Despite receiving significant information from agencies such as CSIS and the FBI, the RCMP are often powerless to act.
RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana told CTV News Thursday that police receive information about violent jihadists, but they “cannot proceed with criminal charges” because of legal limitations placed on them by our court system.
Known terrorists are able to plan attacks and recruit new members because our law enforcement officials are bogged down with legal technicalities that prevent them from doing their job.
The second terrorist threat to Canada is from returned foreign fighters.
The Paris attacks, as well as the Brussels airport bombing, were carried out, in part, by jihadists who had travelled to Syria and then returned home to Europe.
There are about 60 known returned foreign fighters in Canada, according to the federal government’s report.
And yet, in most cases, these individuals are living freely in Canada, without any criminal charges.
Our authorities simply don’t know what to do with them.
According to Larry Brooks, a former CSIS counter-terrorism official, it’s tough to prove to a Canadian judge that an individual participated in terrorism overseas.
In an interview with Postmedia, Brooks discussed the challenges of gathering incriminating information from a foreign combat zone.
“It’s tremendously difficult to collect credible evidence that would satisfy a Canadian court for prosecution,” said Brooks.
Believing in an extreme Islamist doctrine is not illegal.
Nor should it be, in a free society.
But traveling overseas or attempting to travel overseas to join a foreign army is against the law.
We need to remove legal loopholes that allow terrorists to stay out of jail, and we need to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to charge and convict terrorists who have broken Canadian laws.
As a citizen of a developed nation like the United States, it's easy to believe that because we enjoy much prosperity, other nations must desire to adopt our societal ways. But should other countries embrace the degrading ideas about morality and sexual ethics so prized by Western thought?
In her well-sourced book Target Africa, Nigerian activist Obianuju Ekeocha lays out a passionate defense of African tradition and thought as based in fundamental beliefs about family, marriage, and the sanctity of human life.
From an outsider's perspective, the world's second most-populous continent is both full of potential and in need of our help. As the author explains, the new colonizers of the late 20th and 21st centuries are so influenced by what they think African nations want that they completely overlook what they need. She defines this motivation as "philanthropic racism," whereby major donors bypass education of all types in favor of quick fixes that resemble Western convention.
This ideological neocolonialism is focused on introducing abortion and contraception as a regular part of African society. According to Ekeocha, organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation looking to inject themselves quite literally into African life believe they are valiantly targeting the root causes of poverty along the way.
But as the author passionately points out, instead of supplying tools that promote responsibility, they decrease the dignity of each African by suggesting harmful alternatives devoid of the most basic of ethical boundaries.
If a nation is ravaged by an AIDS epidemic, does supplying more condoms begin to safely target the root cause of the problem? If maternal and neonatal deaths sit at high rates, does encouraging the life-ending procedure of abortion save them? If absolutely essential medical care for men, women, and children is sorely lacking, why suggest that females begin taking contraception?
As the author lays out in her fiery yet measured tone, attempts to address these and other issues is failing. African nations are filled with diverse and talented individuals with rich and colorful histories.
Those born and those yet to deserve better than to be used as pawns by foreigners who want to be seen as a continuous funding source and necessity, but never an actual solution to internal ills.
Throughout the book, Ekeocha discusses radical feminism (a relatively new mindset on the continent), the desire to push an LGBT agenda, abortion as a "solution," domestic corruption, and aid addiction, among other things. Overall, she makes clear that the new colonizers must remove themselves from the equation so Africa and its many nations can rise above external pressures and blossom as healthy and as vibrantly as possible.
"...Western societies seem not to want Africans to follow the successful responsibility-based approach to human sexuality. Rather, they seem to want Africans to imitate the rights-based approach to sexuality that is causing the demise of Western societies. For Africa to have a promising future, it needs to push back on this flawed paradigm and on the Western influence that is spreading it."
I highly recommend Target Africa, an informative work that sheds light on a corner that Westerners assume to understand. As long as there are activists like Obianuju Ekeocha who defend the lives, traditions, and inherent worth of the African people, then the possibility of a bright future is in store.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog and a senior contributor at RedState.com.
Bloggers note: Comment: The Gestational approach is a NON starter: Here is the last line of Martin Patriquin's article... ...((Similarly, legislation framing the rights and certain limits on abortion
would take the air out of the debate once and for all. The air — and
the hyperbole.)) my emphasis
Gestational : The period of development in the uterus from conception until birth; pregnancy..... Gestational = RU 486, rape, incest,sex selection, all the possible reason malformation, social ,economic, any reason imaginable these decision are made normally between the 6 and 14 th week of gestation 95-97% of abortions take place before between the 6 and 20th week of gestation. Who are we to come to a table and demand that ALL children conceived be protected in Law. ALL. We are the NO exceptions, No apologies ,No excuses, we demand all be protected....and let the politicians exercise their responsibilities. Those who's strategy is gestational, arrive to parliament to propose a law (negotiate) and they represent 3 to 5 % of the now 100,000 babies being aborted and they would be responsible for the 95-97% left behind to die WITHOUT asking any protection for them ..... Again, ask and demand that ALL be protected ....IT IS NOT A GAME OF INCHES....IT IS NOT A GAME It is lives, if 100,000 are destroyed, killed under our eyes, we must stand for all of them....No exceptions No excuses No apology. THE gestational approach is A non starter. Paul Lauzon Comment is my own ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Patriquin: Canada needs a new abortion law
As an unabashed pro-choice Quebecer, let me say this: The Campaign Life Coalition finally got something right.
Martin Patriquin, Special to Montreal Gazette
Updated: August 29, 2018
As an unabashed pro-choice Quebecer, whose province was an early
home to unfettered abortion access, gay rights activism and assisted
suicide, among other bugaboos of the social conservative movement, let
me say this: The Campaign Life Coalition finally got something right.
Last
week at the Conservative convention in Halifax, supporters of Canada’s
largest anti-abortion group introduced a motion that would have struck
down the party’s pledge to “not support any legislation to regulate
abortion.”
It was narrowly defeated, by 52 to 47 per cent. That the
motion failed to pass, as well as leader Andrew Scheer’s pledge not to
reopen the debate, clearly indicate how gobsmackingly out of touch the
Official Opposition remains three decades after the Supreme Court struck
down the country’s abortion law.
We would do well to heed
Campaign Life Coalition’s call for a renewed debate on abortion law in
this country. The issue is hardly closed.
Despite its progressive
bona fides, Canada doesn’t have a liberal abortion policy. In fact, it
in effect has no policy or law at all — just a 1988 Supreme Court
judgment rendering the old law unenforceable. When it comes to one of
the most divisive issues of our time, we have lived in a legal vacuum
for 30 years. The issue endures as a result.
Of course, in
introducing the motion, it seems clear the Campaign Life Coalition seeks
only to introduce a draconian law and then whittle away further access
to abortion as time progresses. Such a method would be a carbon copy of
what anti-abortion groups in the United States have done at the state
level since abortion was legalized federally there in 1973.
Regardless
of any agenda, though, the Campaign Life Coalition is correct in saying
this country needs an abortion law. Without one, the issue remains
prone to precisely the kind of politicking and electorally driven
manipulation as practised by the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies alike.
Abortion
also remains an enduring source of division between resolutely
pro-choice Quebec and the rest of the country, where, depending on the
province, the practice is often less accepted — or, in the case of
Prince Edward Island, not even available until last year. (Tellingly,
there are no pro-life Conservative MPs from Quebec, according to the CLC
website.)
It is easy and tempting to blame pro-life types for
continually enflaming the abortion debate. Yet in never legislating an
abortion law in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and thus
allowing the issue to fester, successive federal governments are
practically as guilty.
The government of Justin Trudeau deserves
particular scorn for the way it reopened the debate earlier this year:
by asking organizations applying for summer-jobs funding to affirm they
upheld abortion rights, in effect discriminating against a handful of
mostly church groups deemed “anti-choice.”
Certainly, a law governing abortion in this country would be difficult to legislate, for many reasons, including because it
would probably have to accommodate the somewhat contradictory
reflections of Justice (and feminist icon) Bertha Wilson, who wrote one
of the court’s three concurring decisions in the case.
She believed
women have sovereignty over their own bodies, but also believed that the
state has the right to “prescribe conditions” in the case of late term
abortions, given its “compelling interest in the protection of the
foetus.”
That’s an inconvenient truth for the pro-choice camp — the current prime minister very much included.
Yet
recent precedents involving other once-contentious social issues
suggests such a law is necessary. Once fraught, the issue of gay
marriage is now settled in Canada, thanks to the Civil Marriage Act of
2005.
Ditto assisted suicide, itself the subject of a 2016 federal law.
Similarly, legislation framing the rights and certain limits on abortion
would take the air out of the debate once and for all. The air — and
the hyperbole. twitter.com/martinpatriquin
