Does the Sex Offender Registry Offend Justice?

Our society is full of advocates: advocates for the poor, advocates for the homeless, advocates for minorities. But where are the advocates for the sex offenders?

That’s a question that Dustin Shiers, a 20-year-old Saskatoon resident, may be asking himself right now. He was sentenced to a year in prison after downloading and sharing child pornography, and he is now waiting for a decision on whether his name will be added to a registry for sex offenders. Shiers was evaluated by a psychologist and scored very low on various intellectual tests, which is one factor that might convince the judge to leave him off the registry. But I’d like to take a slightly different approach.

Last summer, at a philosophy conference, I attended a lecture on this issue by University of Alabama psychology professor Christopher Robinson. Among other things, he argued that the sex offender registry represents an arbitrary, double punishment of sex criminals and is applicable to too many offenses. For example, depending on the area, “sex offenders” can also include those guilty of streaking, burglary, surveillance, and kidnapping. Also, the fact that we register sex offenders but not, say, murderers, doesn’t make much sense. It might be explained by the strange taboo in society regarding sex, but that doesn’t make it any less irrational.

The issue of whether a certain person should be placed on a sex offender registry or whether such a registry should exist at all is difficult because it involves a unique type of punishment. While we may agree that rapists, who deprive their victims of freedom of choice, merit jail time – also a temporary deprival of freedom – how do we decide whether their names should be put on a list for the public to see?

As I see it, the sex offender registry is both excessive and not particularly useful. Especially in the case of those who have not committed sexual assault but consume child pornography – repulsive as it may be – the label “sex offender” is not an appropriate description; it suggests someone who has committed rape or assault, not someone like Dustin Shiers, who “ha[s] never been aggressive or sexual in any of his personal relationships.” To put him on a list for 20 years is disproportionate to his crime. While it could be argued that he is supporting the industry – keeping child porn sites alive by upping their page views – this link seems too indirect to hold him responsible for the pornography itself. Even if he never visited a single child porn site, the industry would still survive.

On the practical side, his trial and conviction have already been reported in the news. And who actually looks at these lists? (I did for the first time this morning, and found a bunch of shady-looking pictures from a shady-looking town near my home in New Jersey.) In the case of young children, you would hope that parents would not leave them with adults they do not know very well. And in the case of teenagers, it is unlikely that a 15-year-old is going to pull up the National Sex Offender Registry to make sure his cool new 20-year-old friend isn’t into child porn.

A registry for rapists and those who have committed violent crimes may be justified, but I haven’t taken a stand on that issue here. But in the case of other crimes, we should ditch the list – it’s an unwarranted punishment that serves little purpose.

Update: As of April 3, Shiers was put on the sex offender registry and began his one-year sentence.

Posted at 12:30AM on Apr 30, 2009

Can You Protect Culture?

Somehow, I’ve managed to go through five months of blog posts without talking about language laws in Quebec. I propose to remedy this situation…

What I’d like to focus on are the language laws that apply to private businesses – laws about offering service in French (from the Charte de la Langue Française) and laws about signage in French and English.

My initial response to an issue like this is to examine it through the frame of individual rights (and, by analogy, rights of individuals who have assembled into a group, as in a corporation). When private businesses do transactions, they participate in free exchanges with their customers. If a company wants to sell a product or service, and customer X wants to buy it, an exchange is made, presumably to the advantage of both. Such transactions are voluntary; if I don’t like the product you are selling, I choose not to buy it. By the same token, companies choose what products to offer and at what prices.

Over the years, however, society seems to have developed the idea that customers are somehow “entitled” to receive products or services. For example, as in the taxi driver story that I wrote about, many people balk at a company refusing service to anyone except under strict, justifiable conditions. But this idea turns a voluntary process of exchange into servitude, in which companies are forced to alter their products or offer their services in a way they would not otherwise choose to.

For me, this is the most convincing and persuasive way to look at an issue like language laws. But I’d like to suggest another approach based on the notion of “culture.”

One of the purposes of many language laws is to protect Québécois culture – most importantly, the French language – from Americanization and the influence of foreign immigrant populations. But this assumes that culture is something that should be protected – or, rather, something that does not lose its meaning when laws are instituted to protect it.

I am not a sociologist and I have not studied the concept of culture, so feel free to correct me. But as I see it, culture – our habits, attitudes, traditions, food, language, etc. – is something extremely personal, albeit shared with a larger group. It is something voluntary, albeit influenced by our family and community. Perhaps most importantly, it is something that we take pride in, as a frame for sharing experiences with others and an aspect of our identity. But all of this is inconsistent with top-down, imposed culture, which language laws contribute to. Forcing people to speak French does not mean they will accept the French language as integral to their identity. After instituting a host of language laws in the 70’s, the Quebec government reported in 2001 that French was spoken less in the Montreal area.

Even further, culture is not static. There isn’t one finite, stable description of what it means to be Québécois that should be protected for all eternity. Perhaps, with the influence of a rich, diverse immigrant population, the Québec identity will change. And perhaps change is not a bad thing, if we see culture as constantly evolving through the free actions of a population.

I’m not saying that I want the French language to disappear. I love French; that’s why I’m studying in Paris now and that’s partly why I came to McGill. But I don’t love it so much that I think we should start dictating culture – and violating individual rights – to preserve it.

-Kira Newman

Posted at 04:48AM on Mar 16, 2009

Crossing the Border

This post comes to you from Paris, France, where I’ve installed myself for the semester. And I feel quite lucky to be here, considering the enormous amount of paperwork it required. So perhaps I owe a small amount of gratitude to McGill – the school that makes me pick up a student loan at one office and drop it off at another – for preparing me for this lovely experience in bureaucracy.

To get a visa, I had to submit the regular forms – application, passport, admission letter – as well as proof of finances and health insurance. The hardest part of this process was figuring out exactly what documents I needed, where to go, and why the woman at the French consulate wouldn’t speak to me in English. To stay in Paris, however, I also need a “carte de sejour,” a residency card. This requires not only my passport, admission letter, and proof of finances, but also my birth certificate in French (which cost me $45 and two trips out to Cote-Vertu) and a letter from my host mother confirming that I actually am staying with her, along with her identity card. You would think they’d realize that, if I received a visa, I’ve already submitted most of these documents. You would think.

My travel experiences bring up issues of tourism and immigration, which are admittedly difficult subjects. To tackle them, I start from the premise that the functions of government include protecting citizens from rights violations and ensuring national security. But how do you determine if potential tourists or immigrants pose a threat to these goals?

What about criminals? Is a criminal in himself already a legitimate threat, or should the government not take action against him unless he actually commits another crime? In Canada, immigrants are inadmissible (unless pardoned) if they committed an offence included in the Canadian criminal code, which even includes crimes like theft.

What about those with contagious diseases? Keeping them out of the country seems reasonable. And yet I was not required to get a medical checkup until after I got here.

Finally, what about those with radical religious beliefs? Some people have argued that large immigrant populations with values that contradict the core beliefs of a country – freedom, equality, etc. – pose a significant threat. But how prevalent do these beliefs have to be before we start restricting entry?

I don’t have the answers to all these questions. But I can suggest a few ideas. First, for tourists, the government should collect the least amount of info necessary without putting its citizens in danger. For example, I object to their asking for proof of finances; if they are worried that I will become poor or rely on welfare, they should deal with the problem when it arises instead of prying into my personal affairs and assuming that I am not responsible enough to take care of myself. For immigrants, I think it is reasonable to use higher standards, but governments should show less concern for possible threats that are not yet violating rights or harming citizens. If we release our own criminals after they have served their time, how can we justify keeping out foreign criminals?

Obviously, governments need to protect their citizens. But they also need to be wary of restricting movement in a world that is increasingly globalized and multicultural.

What do you think? Have you had any maddening experiences travelling to another country?

-Kira Newman

Posted at 09:11PM on Feb 16, 2009

In God We (Still) Trust

Welcome to the 2009 edition of “Second Opinion.”

Having railed against government violations of freedom last semester, I’d like to broaden my theme a bit to interesting issues in law and government. I’ll be on exchange in Paris starting in February, so look forward to a few posts about French laws. Although I’m tempted to complain here about the convoluted process required to obtain a student visa, I’ll spare you the mundane details.

Instead, I’d like to make a few observations on the US inauguration. Namely, on the amount of religion featured in this costly, ritualistic ceremony. It started off with an opening prayer by Pastor Rick Warren, which lasted nearly five minutes. Obama was sworn in on a Bible (the one used by Lincoln, in fact). He also referenced the Bible repeatedly in his inauguration address. Reverend Joseph Lowery offered a benediction shortly after, and Chaplain Barry Black delivered a prayer before the inaugural luncheon.

When I try to understand why the inauguration features all these religious aspects, one word springs to mind: tradition. A daily prayer is still delivered with the opening of Senate proceedings, a tradition that dates back to around 1800. Witnesses in court swear on a Bible to affirm the truth of their testimony. But tradition is not an excuse, if we deem a certain practice to be inappropriate. A government that claims to advocate no particular religion, to keep its nose out of its citizens’ beliefs, should not be scheduling prayers as part of an official event. As Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers” – many of whom do not identify with prayers by Christian leaders. If Obama wants to talk about God in his speech, he can do so; though this speaks to the state of religion in the US, it is not a systematically planned part of the ceremony but an individual’s choice.

Others support the prayers, however. Quoted in an article in the Adventist News Network, Chaplain Black said, “The Framers, despite their commitment to keep church and state separate, recognized the need for a spiritual dimension of government.” He is referring to the prayers incorporated in government events, which date back to the inauguration of the first US President. But shouldn’t we take such prayers as inconsistent with separation of church and state, not as an argument for their inclusion today? Paraphrased, Black’s quote reads something like this: “The Framers, despite their commitment to keep church and government separate, recognized the need for a spiritual dimension of government.” And even if the Framers were right then, is such a practice still appropriate for us now?

I think it shows a slight change in our culture that Obama felt the need to mention “non-believers” in his list of religious groups in the US. But God knows it’ll be a long time before we have an atheist president.

--Kira Newman

Posted at 10:41PM on Feb 02, 2009

Freedom from Religion

Since this is my last post for the semester and I’m currently stuck in Canada while all my friends enjoy American Thanksgiving, I thought I’d satisfy my taste for my home country with a few words on how ridiculous the government can be.

An atheist-agnostic organization called Freedom From Religion paid for an advertisement on a billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, CA (yes, that’s actually the name of the city) that said “Imagine No Religion,” with their name and website. According to their site, the advertisement was supposed to run for two months but was taken down after a few days. The owner of the billboard, General Outdoor Advertising, received various complaints from religious people in the area and was also contacted by Linda Daniels, Rancho Cucamonga Development Director.

As long as General Outdoor Advertising didn’t violate the terms of their contract with FFR (who apparently got their money back), taking down the ad shouldn’t be prohibited. As a private organization, the ad agency does not have to do business with everyone, but should deal with customers when the transaction is mutually beneficial. The company seems to have decided that running this ad was detrimental to them, and they decided to remove it. While I might not have taken down such an ad myself, they had every right to. On the other hand, the actions of Linda Daniels on behalf of the government, urging the company to take down the ad, are inappropriate. Ironically, the very principle that FFR stands for – separation of church and state – is what is being violated here. The government is effectively taking a positive position on religion, which it is not entitled to do. I’m sure that advertisements by Christian organizations would not incite government intervention, even if the three atheists in town complained (if there are that many). Although Daniels might argue that she is simply acting on behalf of the community, which was offended by the ad, it is a not a privilege of the majority to take away the free speech of minority groups, including atheists. If religious people are offended, I suggest they don’t look at the billboard, which is exactly what I would say to atheists who are offended by the sight of churches. Although this seems fairly obvious, what happened is less surprising considering that Rancho Cucamonga is in the same state that passed Prop 8.

One final note: “Imagine No Religion,” which hearkens back to John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” is pretty tame as far as offensive messages go. It’s just asking people to imagine, consider, think about something – and isn’t that what free speech is all about?

Check it out for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAVOSW6FTDU.

-Kira Newman

Posted at 07:12PM on Dec 01, 2008

When is a Car not a Car?

Let me start by saying that this is going to be a short post, since I find the case in question so ridiculous. If I’m being blinded by anti-government prejudice, feel free to let me know.

PickupPal, an online rideshare company, allows carpoolers to connect with one another and exchange rides for money. The company lost a case this month to the Ontario Highway Transportation Board for violating public transportation restrictions and was fined $11,336 for helping to organize a ride from Montreal to Toronto (exposed by an undercover Private Investigator). Apparently, some of the carpooling makes the cars “public vehicles” according to the Public Vehicles Act in Ontario, which means that they have to comply with government regulations. For example, they need a license to transport passengers between municipalities and must follow certain rules concerning safety and wages. Because carpoolers are not going to get licensed and generally don’t follow these regulations, this effectively means that carpooling is only permissible under very restricted conditions. The carpooling must be from home to work, within one municipality (which is problematic for commuters into the city), and with the same driver every day, and money cannot be exchanged more often than weekly.

As I mentioned, not much to say about this one. It involves a private transaction between individuals, using their own private property. PickupPal doesn’t even receive a commission for organizing the ride. But for some reason, because of the exchange of money between passenger and driver, the government sees carpooling as a business it can regulate. But government has no business sticking its nose into a voluntary arrangement between responsible adults. Plus, the rules are arbitrary – what difference does it make whether the driver is paid daily or weekly? Why must a passenger use the same driver every day? Given recent concerns over the environment, the government should be happy that individuals are doing more carpooling.

Luckily, the government seems to recognize its madness in this case. As of late October, legislation was being introduced to change the Public Vehicles Act to remove the restrictions on carpooling. Whether it will pass or not, however, is another story…

-Kira Newman

Ed: For more information on Ontario's legislation, check out Jeff Bishku-Aykul's article in today's issue of the Daily - http://mcgilldaily.com/article/6061-ontario-enforces-severe-restrictions-on

Posted at 04:55PM on Nov 24, 2008

The Right to Be Offended

It has been said that the problem with freedom of speech is that it gives people the right to be offended. Yes, we’re back to the issue of freedom of speech – but this time, I don’t have a clear-cut answer to provide and I’m focusing on hate speech in particular.

The horrors of discrimination are long-lived and shameful; thousands of years ago in ancient Greece, discrimination was the very foundation of society. The political life of male citizens was made possible by the subordination of women and slaves, who attended to household maintenance. In contrast, the twentieth century was characterized by important strides in overcoming discrimination, for women, blacks, and increasingly for homosexuals (especially in Canada; as for my home country of the States and especially California, things aren’t looking so good). The issue of hate speech is so delicate and controversial because hate speech appears to threaten the progress we have made, while reminding us that we are still far away from a truly tolerant society.

There are many examples of hate speech, some more abhorrent than others. Cross-burning and displays of the swastika are some non-verbal forms of hate speech, while verbal hate speech may be merely derogatory or actually call for violence against particular groups. How do we distinguish between what speech should be protected and what speech the government should restrict? I will suggest some basic principles to help answer this question, but, as I mentioned above, I’m not entirely sure myself.

First, speech that actually threatens violence would seem to be justifiably restricted. Threats are considered an initiation of force, because they put people in fear of physical harm. Cross-burning, for example, has a long history of association with the KKK and violence. But can an image in itself be taken to constitute a direct statement that violence will occur? Here, we might distinguish between cross-burning on private property from cross-burning, for example, on the lawn of a black family (which is often done). I think it would be reasonable to consider the latter a threat because it is directed at specific people. But it is still difficult to draw a clear line between threats and permissible forms of expression.

Another standard to apply is that of “imminence” (from the 1969 Brandenberg case); if speech causes imminent illegal action – for our purposes, stirs up violence on the spot – it can be punished. One thing to consider here might be whether the violence would have occurred without the speaker. Overall, however, the principle seems sound, and can be explained by the fact that the speaker becomes an accomplice in the crime and is profoundly involved in the act itself, though he may not lift a finger. But, as above, there will always be some difficult questions. If the speaker says, “Something must be done,” and the audience resorts to violence, is he responsible? If the audience waits an hour, should the speaker still be punished?

These should always be balanced with our consideration of individuals as independent agents. As was pointed out to me, in an ideal society, any of the above instances of hate speech would have absolutely no effect and would influence no one. In other words, there is no necessary connection between the speech and the violence. This is because it is mediated by human minds; listeners should judge what they hear, decide if the advice is wise, and then act on their own judgment. (One reason for the “imminence” standard might be that the conditions of a rowdy mob, for example, make such independent evaluation extremely difficult.) As a result, we should be hesitant to punish speakers for the actions of others, although I’m not saying that it should never be done.

Do you know any interesting cases of hate speech? Any other ways that we might determine what speech is permissible? I’d love to hear your comments.

-Kira Newman

Posted at 04:11AM on Nov 18, 2008

Calling a Spade a Spade

I have a close friend who’s into Internet gambling. He’s underage. He’s also made more money in an afternoon than I made all last summer.

For some reason, gambling is looked down upon, put into the category of other illicit activities like taking drugs and drinking alcohol (gasp!). I just saw one of those commercials offering a toll-free help line for those with an addiction to gambling – you know, dark background, guy with his hands in his pockets saying something like, “Do you gamble when you’re depressed? Is your spouse angry about the amount of money you’re losing?” Ads like these reinforce the view of gambling as something dangerous, which is almost as misleading as the classic gambling-as-temptation-by-the-devil rhetoric.

Government restrictions on gambling are numerous. In the US, opening a casino requires a license, and the number of casinos and types of games are limited. In a somewhat hypocritical move, the government forbids the opening of casinos in New York City, but allows New Yorkers to bet on horse races outside of the city at government-run off-track betting stores. In Canada, online gambling is illegal, and the types of games are restricted. Nonetheless, the government took advantage of a different form of gambling in 1976, when it used lotteries to fund the Olympics. This mix of freedom and restriction suggests that our governments aren’t really out to protect the people, but rather to use gambling to make money when it suits them – which is also witnessed in heavy taxation of casinos and high licensing fees.

There are several rather lukewarm justifications for regulating gambling. First, if indulged in excessively and recklessly, it can be detrimental not only to the individual but also to families. It’s certainly risky – you can lose a lot of money, fast. But you can also lose a lot of money investing in the stock market, especially today. And the risks of some games may not be as high as they appear; in poker, players can increase their odds by observing the behavior of other players and learning detailed systems of betting (all of which make the game much more intellectual than the anti-gambling crusaders would have you believe). But no matter what the game, the risk is assumed by the player; the flashing lights and glittery signs do not force him to lay down his money.

Another objection may be that casinos are the classic, greedy big-business monsters exploiting the little people. The odds ultimately favor the “house,” so average players will lose in the long run. But again, the response is the same: if you don’t like the odds, don’t sit down to play. We don’t need laws that limit the temptations available to us; we should be free to do what we want with our own money, and disagreements among spouses should be a private matter.

The restrictions on gambling – like limiting the number of casinos that can be opened – are an example of the government-as-parent scheme. We become the naïve children, who don’t have the willpower to resist slot machines and poker tables, and Stephen Harper covers our eyes so we won’t be tempted to evil deeds. But instead of being government-regulated, gambling should be self-regulated; at some point, we need to grow up and learn to take care of ourselves.

-Kira Newman

Posted at 02:28AM on Nov 11, 2008

Oppressing Freedom of the Press

With the American elections coming up tomorrow, I thought it only natural to write an election-related post. But instead of bashing the American candidates, I’m going to examine a Canadian issue: advertising around election day.

According to the Elections Canada website, the Canada Elections Act “bans election advertising and the publication of new opinion surveys on election day. This measure applies to registered parties, candidates, and third parties.” The purpose of this act seems to be to ensure that we make independent voting decisions and are not unduly influenced by last-minute advertising. More specifically, it guards against false or libelous ads that could negatively affect candidates. For example, skewed or manufactured opinion surveys that show one candidate very much ahead might discourage the supporters of other candidates from voting. Attack ads that provide false information might wrongly bias us against a candidate. This is especially dangerous on election day because it cannot be remedied by published retractions or responses from the candidates themselves, as in earlier stages of the campaign.

The issue here is freedom of speech. In the 1998 Thomson Newspapers case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that prohibiting the publication of surveys during the last three days before an election was an undue restriction on freedom of expression. But is the problem solved by reducing the restriction to one day?

Though I recognize the motivations behind this act, I think it is based on a paternalistic view of government and a relatively low view of citizens. It depicts us as sheep-like, unthinking creatures, guided by the opinions of others and hypnotized by the printed word. Yet so often quite the opposite argument is made; we are criticized for being too biased toward our preferred candidates, unwilling to hear any criticism or opposition. So which are we?

Ideally, as conscientious citizens, we should never automatically accept assertions we hear – whether they come from anonymous Internet sources (as professors daily remind us) or the most reputable newspapers in the country. We should question the validity of sources and demand facts to back up claims. On the other hand, we should not reject views simply because they are contrary to our own.

Of course, we cannot all live up to this standard all the time. Many voters would undoubtedly be influenced by last-minute, false advertising. But if this is the justification for the restriction, why limit it to just one day? Retractions can be published discreetly and voters may never hear their candidate’s response to a wrongful allegation, so wouldn’t it be safer to prohibit the publishing of ads altogether?

This is the problem with trying to limit rights in the name of “good” outcomes – it opens the door to further violations of rights (e.g., banning ads throughout campaigns), and ultimately represents a disrespect for those rights. Either we have freedom of expression or we do not. The harm incurred by a one-day restriction may not seem substantial, but if we are truly committed to the principle of freedom, it is monumental. So let the press keep its freedom of expression, and we’ll keep our freedom to be critical, unbiased judges of the information they give us.

Posted at 06:58PM on Nov 03, 2008

The Not-So-Good Samaritan

Having delighted in Spanish-style tapas at a Montreal restaurant called Tapeo this weekend (it’s at 511 Villeray, and quite delicious), I thought I’d venture across the Atlantic to see what legal delights the Spanish government had to tempt me. I’m a bit hesitant to write this post for fear of being called a heartless, unfeeling baby-hater…but that’s partly why I think it needs to be written.

The story is fairly simple. A taxi driver came across a pregnant woman bleeding on the side of the road, and (as the husband tells the story) refused to pick her up. As a result, he’s facing a fine of 3,300 euros. Given my intro, I’m sure you can infer that I think the taxi driver shouldn’t be fined.

The main issue here involves the extent of our duty to other citizens. Should we have a legal obligation to help others? In some cases, yes. With parents and children, it seems right to say that – because of children’s need for care and status as dependents – parents are required to provide for them until a certain age. In this case, though, the duty is voluntarily chosen, in some sense. When they decide to have children, couples implicitly accept the responsibility they are taking on. But do we have unchosen obligations to total strangers?

Let’s say for a minute that we do. How far do these obligations extend, and how is this decided? Would every single driver who passed the pregnant woman be subject to a fine? If the woman called a friend, would she too be required to come? Would a pedestrian be obligated to help walk the woman to the hospital? Lend a cell phone? There seems to be no meaningful way to decide what degree of help, effort, or expense we owe to others. Also, by saying that the taxi driver has an obligation, we open the door to a whole host of implications that might not be acceptable (this is what philosophers call a “slippery slope argument” – a very technical term, I know). For example, we could similarly say that heirs who have recklessly squandered away their money, are now poor, and refuse to get jobs are in such near-death circumstances, and thus everyone is required to invite them over for dinner once a week.

The argument for the other side, though it perhaps seems a bit cold, is much more clear. We are individuals, responsible for our own lives. To say that we have a duty to help others is to say that part of our lives belongs to others, albeit in special circumstances. To use the crudest terms, we become slaves, forced to work (or, in this case, drive) against our will.

Now, this doesn’t prevent me from calling the taxi driver a heartless baby-hater. I’m sure the woman would have paid for cleaning the blood off his backseat, if that’s what he was worried about. And I certainly would have picked her up; I’m just saying that we shouldn’t be legally obligated to. Whether what the taxi driver did is immoral is another question, but morality is not legality (otherwise, instead of being in a coffee shop at the moment, I’d be behind bars for that white lie I told last week). And in response to the objection that this makes our society unfriendly and uncaring, I’d argue quite the opposite. Instead of people being forced to “care,” they can freely and genuinely choose to do so. I’m sure many would; witness the thousands of charities and soup kitchens found all around the world. I like to think that this guy is an exception in the realm of humanity.

If you’re wondering, mother and baby are fine. Check out the full story at http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news

How would this have played out in Canada? While information about Quebec is not readily available (whatever happened to the ideal of transparent government?), the BC government website features a "taxi bill of rights"(http://www.taxirights.gov.bc.ca/drivers.html,)which outlines the transportation-related rights of passengers and drivers. It looks like the outcome would have been similar there: taxi drivers are only allowed to refuse service for four reasons (e.g., to avoid breaking a law or to protect their safety), none of which would apply in this case.

-Kira Newman

Posted at 11:00PM on Oct 27, 2008

Who wants a second opinion anyway?

As a U3 philosophy major, I’ve had opinions thrown at me for years. They haven’t all been well justified, reasonable, or even comprehensible (at the moment, I’m struggling to understand the importance of "infinite movements" and the "will to power"). So you might think I’d be sick of debate and discussion. But that’s just what I’m looking to drum up here. Although I’m the one with the blog, I’m not the only one with a "second opinion" – so feel free to comment, rant, inflate my ego, or just plain disagree.

Before we begin, however, I must play the part of the good philosopher and define my terms. As you may have gleaned from my blog summary, I’ll be looking at all the ways in which the government limits freedom. But what should count as a limit to freedom?

Do murder laws limit freedom? The political theorist Thomas Hobbes famously said yes (his freedom was the kill-your-neighbor, do-anything-you-want type). What about laws against marijuana? And online gambling? Am I not free because I can’t logon to PokerStars and play some Texas Hold’em?

Also like a good philosopher, I’m going to remain enigmatic for a little while and hold off on answering these questions now. In future blog posts, I’ll clarify my view on what we are really "free" to do, and what sorts of behavior the government can legitimately prohibit, by examining particular cases from Canada and elsewhere.

The purpose? Though you’ll find that I disagree with much of what the government does, I’m not calling for the masses to take up their torches and storm Parliament. Compared to most countries around the world, Canada does a pretty good job. What I’d really like to do is uncover objectionable laws that we take for granted, some ways the government has insidiously inserted itself into our lives when we weren’t looking. Maybe some slow change is even possible – despite the cliché, we are the leaders of tomorrow. So join me each week here at Second Opinion – if nothing else, it’s a good exercise of freedom of speech.

Second Opinion will be updated with new posts every Monday.

Posted at 06:38PM on Oct 20, 2008