A debate is raging in Toronto this week about Muslim elementary students conducting Friday prayers at Don Mills public school. The issue at hand is whether the practice of girls praying behind boys is a discriminatory practice of Islam, and if so, is the school complicit in this discrimination by allowing its Muslim students to conduct prayers on school premise during school hours.

An example of the flame war can be found in this story by Toronto Star Columnist Heather Mallick. And yes, I do recognize that this is Toronto (Fox North) Star, so I won’t claim that this is the sentiment of the majority of Torontonians.

My partner brought the story to my attention. We have a unique relationship to this story: she’s a staunch agnostic feminist, while I would describe myself as a moderate or light-practicing Muslim, born in the Middle East to a moderate Muslim family (a match made in heaven! If she believed in the existence of one). Naturally, we indulge in frequent discussions about raising kids in such a dynamic, if we ever decide to have some.

As any inter-faith couple would attest, these discussions are often… intense. I’m yet to walk away from one feeling like I’ve won the argument properly articulated my point of view. Needless to say, this particular story initiated a similar discussion, and we (ehm!) agreed to disagree. But just to be safe, I think I should send flowers tomorrow.

So here’s what I think about this story.

Is this Gender Discrimination:

We can’t call Muslim prayer line-ups discrimination when those who wish to practice differently are not prevented from doing so. This isn’t Rosa Parks being prevented from sitting at the front of a bus.

I don’t think schools or governments should get into telling entire religious groups how they should practice their religion as long as they follow the law of the land. Just because a parent or even a minority group in the same social/religious group takes issue with a practice shouldn’t lead to the annexation of the wish of the majority. At the same time, the wish of the majority shouldn’t preclude the minority from practicing and engaging fully in what they think is right, within the confines of law/policy.

So, really, if someone has an issue with Muslims conducting their prayers according to the customs observed by over 1 Billion of them around the world, we should ask two questions. First: is the person with the issue a Muslim? If not, then that person is free to voice their opinions, but their individual inconvenience or distaste of the practice should not trump the rights of an entire social group to assemble and practice their religion according to their custom.

Second question is whether a minority of members of the same social group are taking issue and feeling like this practice is precluding them from full participation. If so, then I believe that one group’s practice shouldn’t stop the other from practicing as they wish. In fact, that right is guaranteed to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If the liberal group would like to pray at a later/earlier/same time and have a co-ed prayer room with mixed rows, then this isn’t an issue of discrimination, it’s simply an issue of school policy. The school can decide to make accommodations for two prayer sessions, or not. The conservative group can come out to pray on-time following the teachings they believe in, and the smaller group of modern interpreters can have a co-ed session whenever they want.

Now, to me, this sounds like a lot of “accommodation” for a school to be making. If every religious group wanted similar arrangements this can get out of hand. My personal opinion, as a pragmatic ‘modern Muslim’, is that Friday prayers should not take place in schools of a Country that does not have existing policies to accommodate such interruptions to the school day. Islam has made an ‘accommodation’ for such cases as well, allowing Muslims to make-up for missed prayers at a later time if they are unable to practice their worship due to hardship or circumstances outside their control. Although, despite hardships, some Muslims would still go the extra mile for additional brownie points.

Kansas University junior Bazigha Tufail prays in the Spahr Engineering Library on Wednesday after her 1 p.m. structural engineering class. The Muslim student prays five times a day and often feels misunderstood by other students. Photo by Nick Krug

Therefore, the discussion should remain confined to policy. Should schools accommodate religious practices, for all religions, and how? A school shouldn’t attempt to determine whether a particular religious practice of a specific group is discriminatory. There are other avenues for that. These doctrines have been around for thousands of years and no school board should touch that land mine with a 10 foot pole.

The question in this case is not whether a particular religious practice is discriminatory or not. The question is whether prayers can happen at schools. You can’t piecemeal a religion and say “only that part of your prayer is OK with us non-Muslims, but the other part is weird and we don’t understand/like it, so you can’t do that one”. If some Muslims take offense to the way prayer line-ups are formed, they have the full right and freedom to worship as they wish (like I do), so I’m not sure how they’re being discriminated against if their rights are not withheld by anyone.

Policy or Social Engineering?

Canada is a multicultural melting pot where everyone can maintain their unique culture and religious practices while adopting Canadian values and way of life. That was the social contract that most Canadian Muslims were born or immigrated under, unlike France where the social contract clearly opposes multiculturalism when it comes to religious practice. It’s not fair to bait and switch on people who thought they can enjoy a certain amount of religious freedom and accommodation in this great country. These people are now faced with calls to change their practices, not so much because they’ve been proven as discriminatory, but because their practice has now crossed into the visible public domain and people are offended by its strangeness.

Talking in generalities is knee-jerk xenophobia. And flogging this particular religious practice as a means to score points on a larger discussion of morality, social values, student/child development, and gender issues is not fair to Muslims. Some folks are suggesting that this religious practice in Islam is an example of anti-social practices that engineer Muslim children along gender lines and affect their long-term development and integration into Canadian society, and that making accommodations for Muslims to pray in schools on a Friday assists in this negative social engineering.

There are many contributors and factors that affect the development of young adults in Canadian society, both girls and boys. Schools are but one factor. Home environments, peers, media, pop culture, and religious subscription are other factors along with many more. Weekends in Canada have been selected to accommodate Christian prayer practices, and those practices contribute to the development and social positioning of Christian teens just as much as practices of any other religious group in Canada affect the teens of that particular group.

And the hypocrisy of it all…

We don’t flog the government for instating Sunday as a holiday to allow the practice of a religion that discriminates against women even more than Islam does, and we don’t call on Catholics to abandon their subscription to the concept of “original sin” if they want to pray in publicly-funded areas like Muslims are being asked to change the way they line-up, and how they “think” about women, if they want to pray in public schools.

So why is Sunday a government-sanctioned holiday for a religion that doesn’t ordain female priests and dictates that men and women should be separated in Church? Because of Canada’s Christian heritage. And because subscribers to the faith are free to worship as they please: those who want to attend a conservative Church with separate seats for men and women can, and those who want to attend a Church the allows people to sit where they wish can do so as well. That answer is enough for me.

And why do Muslims pray the way they do? Because their heritage dictates it, and other Muslims who wish to do it differently can do so in Canada. That answer should suffice for the majority of those crying foul at how Muslims line up in their area of prayers.

Umbrella group Civic Coalition of Revolutionary Youth (CCRY) releasing list of demands for immediate transfer of power.

SANAA, YEMEN – Youth activist group Civic Coalition of Revolutionary Youth is calling for continued protests in advance of its press conference tomorrow. The group represents a coordinated large scale body of activists supported by activist parliamentarians, civil rights activists, and politicians.

“Our membership is the voice of a diverse group of activists, local influencers, professional associations, civil organizations and tribal groups,” says Husam Al-Sharjabi, Chairman, CCRY. “These groups have each expressed their aspirations, in one way or another, for freedom, democracy, and justice in Yemen. They reject tyranny and the monopolization of power and wealth.”

On March 23, 2011, CCRY will release its charter and a list of demands at a press conference on 9:30 a.m. at the “Yemeni Writers’ Union” in Raqqas Street, Sana’a. The Coalition’s charter lists one of its main objectives as the creation of a modern democratic nation for all Yemenis to enjoy equally under the rule of law.

This list of demands also includes:

• Immediate dismantling of the current regime.
• Arrest of all those involved in committing criminal acts against citizens and/or against the public’s interest through fraud and corruption.
• A constitution that transforms the governance system from presidential to parliamentarian.
• A decentralized government that ensures unity of Yemen while protecting the unique interests of different regions.
• Full transparency.

“The Coalition must warn all factions to refrain from attempts to divert the revolution from its stated goals, or try to take custody of its methods or agenda,” says Ahmed Saif Hashed, parliamentarian, CCRY. “We hereby call on all our brothers and sisters in protest squares across the country to continue their perseverance until a peaceful transfer of power to a civilian authority is completed.”

The Civic Coalition of Revolutionary Youth is headquartered in Sana’a. It brings together Yemen’s four main youth groups – Alliance for the Youth’s Revolution, Alliance of the People’s Youth Revolution, Alliance of Youth and Students for a Peaceful Revolution, and the Coalition of Change Leaders – under one umbrella. It formed in response to the January 16, 2011 uprising at the University of Sana’a by students and youth.

Friends,

You are receiving this email because you have written to me about the proposed Halifax Convention Centre.  For some of you this is the first time you’ve heard from me on this issue, and for others we have had a back and forth as the issue progresses.

First of all, thank you very much for contacting me with your thoughts, ideas and opinions.  The work that I do to represent this wonderful riding in Parliament is only as strong as the feedback and conversations I have with members of our community.

When considering the issue of the Convention Centre, it is essential that I look at the issue through the lens of being a federally elected representative.  Whenever any new issue emerges, the first question I ask myself is how this fits into the federal realm, and I try hard to take a principled position.

The NDP has always stood for the principle of local and provincial control over decisions with local scope.  If a community decides to invest infrastructure funds in a facility that benefits their community, then it is the role of federal government to support that decision. These are important local decisions that should be made in an open and transparent way.

However, as federally elected official, it is also my duty to ensure that any federally funded project reflects the needs of the community.  After hearing a lot of feedback from community that they don’t feel that this project reflects the community’s needs, I deliberately sought feedback from constituents about their thoughts, ideas and opinions on the proposed convention centre.  The feedback I received was robust, but not unanimous.  There are some who were very much opposed to the centre, some very much in favour, and others who really wanted to see their needs reflected in the design.

I have written a letter to the Prime Minister to share with him these ideas and opinions.  I have also called for public consultation on design, because I believe that if the federal government is going to fund a local project, we need to ensure that the project best reflects the needs of the community.  The only way to achieve this is through a fulsome consultation process, as we saw with the consultation on the new public library, for example.

This issue will continue to evolve, and if I become aware of any new information, I will be sure to be in touch with you.  Please do continue to be in touch with me.

Thank you for expressing you views on this issue and for your passionate civic engagement.

All the best,

Megan

 

Megan Leslie

Member of Parliament for Halifax

Health Critic and Deputy Justice Critic

519 Confederation Building, House of Commons

Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Ph: (613) 995-7614 / E-mail: leslim@parl.gc.ca

Twitter: http://twitter.com/MeganLeslieMP

Website: www.meganleslie.ca

Letter from Megan Leslie to PM Stephen Harper Re: Federal funding for the Halifax Convention Centre.

Below is the email I sent in response:

Hon. Megan Leslie

Thank you for your response. I’m disappointed in your position and bias to the opponents of the convention center. Your letter to the Prime Minister claims to be an attempt at passing along the diversity of citizen comments, but spends it’s entirety relaying only those comments from individuals who oppose this project.

As a Federal representative, you have failed to carry the wishes and interest of the community as displayed by the approval of both municipal and provincial governments of this project. Both bodies approved the project after considerable public consultation and it was determined that the benefits to the whole outweigh the concerns of the few.

Regards,

Issmat A. M. Al-Akhali
Halifax, NS

The interview notes that the current dialogue is focused, in principle, on the following six points (as agreed in a previous attempt at national dialogue in early 2006, which went no where):

1. Freedom of expression (including protesting) is guaranteed if done by peaceful means without violence.
2. Ceasing public demonstrations and attacks on the media to create a better environment for returning to dialogue.
3. Conducting a national dialogue beginning with the quartet committee, then to the committee of 30, and finally to the 200 member committee.
4. Formation of a national coalition government to oversee the parliamentary election and to guarantee its conduct in a free, fair and transparent way under local, national and international monitoring.
5. The President commits to not running in 2013 and reaffirms what he announced in the two-chamber meeting, that is no extension of his presidency, no hereditary succession and no renewal of his term.
6. The President is committed constitutionally to preserve and maintain security and stability in the homeland and to maintain the tranquility of Yemeni citizens.

The idea is that these are the broad strokes, with the details of what concrete actions to take and how/when to implement them being left to committees to figure out.

While the above six points are of merit, they are disconnected from what the Yemeni street is demanding in terms of immediate, tangible actions. In business terms, the problem is being defined through the eyes of management instead of the voice of the customer. Therefore, the solutions that continue to be proposed are management-centric and don’t address the needs of the market or the customer (though they make management feel better about having done something). So before the government and President Saleh loose their business, the customer need must be identified accurately so that the public can see, and accept, the value of proposed solutions.

What I find objectionable in the noted six-point framework of dialogue is that none of them directly address key grievances of the Yemeni “street”, such as decentralization of power, the use of state funds for the benefit of the ruling party and its leadership, and establishing the rule of law and justice by prosecuting corrupt officials at any level of government. It is disingenuous to classify these issues as “details” and bury them in discussions of the umpteen committees that have traditionally never been able to address these issues.

The above issues are at the core of public discontent and are directly correlated to the deterioration of the economy and the erosion of public revenues. Political and power inequities between the ruling party and traditional (or yet-to-be-created) opposition parties stem from the regime’s illegal monopolization of the nation’s resources, and its distribution/use of basic infrastructure and public funds as means to subvert and buy political allegiances from rural leaders and tribal Sheikhs. Having a ‘clean’ election under these circumstances (i.e. no cheating) may be possible, but having a ‘fair’ election is not. The regime is predestined to win all future elections unless it is stripped of the public tools that it uses unfairly, and illegally, to gain political favor and advantage.

An empowered justice system that punishes the use of public funds for the benefit of a party or an individual is a key point, not a “detail”. Prosecuting those who are known to have pillaged the riches of the nation is a key point, not a detail. Put those in the six points as actionable preconditions to dialogue and watch the impact on protests. There is a real value proposition there that can grab the attention of the public. One that is unique and significantly different from any of the cliche promises that the public has grown numb to.

An immediate, just, and satisfactory resolution to these issues first and foremost should be presented on a platter to the Yemeni street. Only then will the goodwill of political reconciliation initiatives may have an effect on protesters.

Artist Rendering of proposed new convention centre in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia.

I recently organized a symposium at the current convention center, where I had to cram 100 people in a room made for 80 due to lack of space. I work for a local organization and I expect to be able to conduct business and host local regional or national meetings for my industry in appropriate facilities in the city where we are located.

The scarcity of space is an issue that plagues the convention centre all through the convention season in Halifax. If even small businesses in the local community are struggling to find appropriate space in the current convention centre, I hate to imagine how much business they’re loosing from larger meetings and larger industries.

This new convention centre (ConventionCentreInfo.com) needs to be treated like any other community facility investment. It’s a place that can host events by any community group, not just businesses. We invest in libraries, hockey rinks, community centres, and other projects in the city all the time. They all have similar cost/benefit arguments to the convention centre, where the costs are clear but the benefits are largely understood (and accepted) to be social, not financial. Most people accept this, even if that rink/library/multiplex facility is not in their geographical area or doesn’t cater to their specific interests.

It’s just not fair to turn around and look at the convention centre, which is obviously not in the geographical or interest area of most opponents, and apply a different measuring stick when it comes to the benefits side of the analysis. Just because it will benefit a different slice of the community doesn’t render this an abomination.

If people are going to oppose the convention centre and argue that it doesn’t turn a profit, then why not apply the same argument to the new central library? it can be easily argued that libraries are a relic of the pre-Internet era, when information was concentrated in a few select locations that everyone had to go to if they wanted to sip from the well of knowledge.

The Library is a cost center that provides a service that the majority of people don’t use and can easily obtain through a variety of alternatives. Renting old DVDs, reading books, and flipping through magazines can be done online or through a ton of other mediums and providers. Using subsidized space for community groups to meet can be done by subsidizing existing meeting spaces (that are actually equipped for meetings, like convention centres) rather than building a library and using some of its rooms as makeshift meeting spaces.

But, we support that library investment (nearly $60 Million split between the Province and HRM). We support it because we acknowledge that there are intangible benefits to having a public library. There were some questions about how this library would contribute to the economy, but the majority accepts that the contribution can’t be directly measured in dollars and cents on a balance sheet.

So, let’s not get lost in the minutia of the numbers and demand profitability when it comes to the convention centre. Instead, let’s look at the overall impact. Is it positive or negative?

Will there be more jobs created? Yes. Does it matter if it’s 1000 jobs or 2000 jobs? Not really. Will the new center meet the needs of the community better than the old centre? Just ask the community that uses it or plans to use it. Is being able to bring more out-of-towners to Halifax a good or a bad thing for the economy? It’s a good thing.

The current facility is 25 years old and has reached capacity. Obviously, getting to capacity didn’t happen overnight. We should be happy that Halifax was able to grow it’s convention business over time until they filled the building. Let there be no expectation that a new convention centre will open it’s doors to full capacity either. However, it is crucial to invest in a larger facility to accommodate the current business as well as the inevitable growth over the next 20 years.

Nova Scotia has the highest sales tax in Canada, and the second highest income tax rates after Quebec. We are already getting charged up the nose to live in Halifax and have very little to show for it. For the high cost of living here, you’d think we have some urban public structures that we can point to and say “at least we have this world-class stadium here” or “look at that Guggenheim Museum by the waterfront. It costs money to take care of that!”

My opinion is that if it comes down to it, I don’t really mind paying a few extra dollars on top of my already sky-high tax bill to invest in something other than miles of asphalt throughout the Province or subsidizing commercial tax rates for suburban big box stores. And if that investment can create a few extra jobs and make a little money, that will be nice too.

… … …

(To support the new Convention Centre, please join the online letter writing campaign at WriteSomeone.org – Support HRM’s New Convention Centre)

Below is the report that was issued by the initiative to carry the voices of Yemeni youth to participants of the international summit on Yemen that was held in London, UK, on January 27.The report is titled “Combating Terrorism in Yemen — A Youth Perspective”. You can download an English or Arabic version of the report by clicking the appropriate image.

Midman International supported the initiative through consultations on campaigning, social media, and PR activities. A Facebook group was established and (within 10 days) became the largest Yemen-related group on the popular social networking site. Press releases were issued in English and Arabic, and were published on 7 news websites and three print newspapers.

An organized youth campaign beat the Yemeni government and was first to receive an official and comprehensive statement (in video!) from the British Secretary of State, Ivan Lewis, regarding Britain’s intent from the summit on Yemen called for by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOk-gX7LrM

With increased attention on Yemen (following the failed 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt of a US plane over Detroit), organizers of the initiative believe that discussions about combating terrorism in Yemen are missing a key partner. Since 70% of Yemen’s population are under the age of 25, there is a good argument that involving youth representatives is more than just good politics.

“When was the last time you heard of a 50-year old suicide bomber?” said Rafat Al-Akhali, the Canadian-based founder of the initiative. “Any serious discussions about tackling terrorism should always involve youth representatives from the problem regions.”

90 per cent of the September 11 hijackers were under the age of 30. The shoe bomber was 28 when apprehended, and the Christmas bomber is 23. The data overwhelmingly points to youth being the key target demographic for terrorist/jihad recruiters.

The report was delivered to The Yemen Forum at Chatham House, a center for international studies in London, the US Embassy in Yemen, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as a number of local and international NGO’s and journalists/researchers interested in Yemen. The report was also sent to officials in the Yemeni government who showed their interest and support for this initiative.

An interview about the initiative was published by the Yemen Times and can be viewed here.

The two main parties are:

1. Indian National Congress (INC, a.ka. ‘The Congress’) – Current ruling party.
2. Bharatiya Janata Party (“Indian People’s Party”, BJP)

Indian elections are monumental by nature. As one of the largest and most populated countries in the world, the numbers involved are staggering:

• Eligible Voters: 714 Million, a ‘slight’ increase of about 40 million voters since the previous elections in 2004
• Elections Budget: 176 Million Euros (approx. $280 Million CAD).
• Number of Seats: 552
• Number of competing candidates in 1st Phase: 1715 candidates (122 women).
• Voting Style: Electronic
• Number of voting machines: 1,368,430 voting machines in 828,804 polling stations across the country

With such a vast election covering vast territories, political ads in India have their own special flavour. How else would you convince the majority of 714 million voters to elect your party? The term ‘Political Song and Dance’ is taken literally here, with parties vying to capture the hearts and minds of India’s diverse population.

INC “Hand Of Congress”

In the ad above, the girl says to her uncle: “Look what I’ve done with my hands”, and afterwards he shows her what the hand of the Congress has achieved.  (Translation found on France 24 Observers web page).

In fact, the Congress party was successful in buying the exclusive rights to the “Jai Ho” song featured at the end credits of internationally acclaimed movie ‘Slumdog Millionaire’. The song, which translates into ‘Be Victorious’, won the Oscar for Best Song in the 2009 Academy Awards.The party has been using it in elections rallies across the country, along with various other Bollywood-inspired campaigns.

This did not go well with the BJP party, so they created their own anthem to remind people of the grateness of the BJP era, which ruled india from 1999 to 2004 .

BJP “Anthem For Change”

I expect nothing less from such a colourful and diverse country!

[More Indian Election ad videos available here from France 24]

Reader discretion is advised.

The purpose of this post is to expose the wretched and rancid state of a specific Metro Transit bus shelter in Halifax. This is no ordinary transit shelter; This is the main bus stop at one of the most important intersections in the city.

The corner of Spring Garden Road and Barrington Street is the core of downtown Halifax. As the nearest bus stop to two 5-Star downtown hotels (the Sheraton Four Points and the Marriott Courtyard), it is located where tourists walk up from the Waterfront to take pictures of the Saint Mary’s Basilica on their route to shopping, food, and entertainment.

It is located where workers and business people conduct their affairs in and around one of the largest business towers in Halifax (the Maritime/Aliant Building). It is located where residents from all corners of the city permeate back and forth between retail shopping and restaurants located on both streets. There is one enclosed bus shelter that services this bus stop, with 21 different bus routes aptly servicing it throughout the day.

So behold! Here is Metro Transit’s bus shelter servicing this premium intersection of the only two main streets in downtown Halifax.

(Click to enlarge. If you dare.)

I take the bus daily in this corner of the city. Five days a week at approximately 8:30 AM, I am faced with the same dilemma. Do I stand outside and battle the infamous 50km mini-hurricanes of what is known as the ‘windiest spot in Halifax’? Or do I suppress my gagging and take refuge in this urine-infested, garbage-ridden cesspool of municipal neglect?

When it is raining or snowing, it is common for transit passengers on this corner to compete for the ‘sweet spot‘ in this shelter.  That spot near the door that allows you to hide half your body inside from the harshness of the weather, while giving you the access to quickly stick your head out for precious gasps of fresh air.  We all give each other half-knowing looks to acknowledge the mutual discomfort from the stench of urine and organic decay of garbage that has been left there since last summer.

An older gentleman has secured the sweet spot today, but tomorrow I am going to wake up five minutes early and beat him to it.

Given the importance of this intersection, you would think that the city would pay extra attention to it and make sure that it reflects the best face Halifax can offer. After all, if tourists, shoppers, and business people are not really the ‘crowd’ the city should care about in the downtown district, then who exactly should we bother giving a good experience to in the heart of the business, shopping, and entertainment district?

Yet, it would seem that the universe of municipal priorities rotates differently in Halifax, specifically when it comes to Transit services.

So, this is a call out to:

• Metro Transit
• City Council (in particular our incumbent downtown councilor)
• Downtown Halifax Business Commission (DHBC)

Can you come up with a permanent solution to this embarrassment already? What is it going to take to put up and maintain a proper bus shelter in this sensitive intersection?

I realize that this is the city’s job, but the DHBC has a lot at stake here, so I’m not sure why they’re holding themselves hostage to the general mediocrity of our municipal services, Metro Transit, and city council. A small donation collected from downtown businesses can fund a fantastic structure worthy of this location and its significance. It can be a shelter that’s a joy to use and look at.

Perhaps even a bus shelter with (gasp!) a wall map of the downtown district and nearby attractions? Or (double gasp!) an electronic screen displaying bus departure and arrival information? Slap some sponsor advertising on it and Bob’s your uncle. Anything is better than the current status-quo!

(Click to enlarge photo)

CBC.ca reported yesterday (Feb 2, 2009) that Halifax Metro Transit has refused to allow Humanist Canada to place ads on Halifax buses that said “You Can Be Good Without God”.

CBC reported that Halifax bus transit spokesperson, Lori Patterson, said “the transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.”

The story has garnered close to 300 comments in less than 24 hours. A similar campaign launched in England late last year sparked an important debate across the UK. The controversy led to 326 complaints from the public to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here).

This story is obviously of major interest to the public. So why the silent treatment from Halifax newspapers?

If local residents relied on local newspapers, they would have no idea that this debate is taking place, and would have no opportunity to express their opinions about how the transit authority, a publicly funded body, should deal with issues of freedom of speech and religion that are a given right to all tax payers in Halifax who contribute to subsidize the transit authority.

The media needs to ask the tough questions. Would the transit authority allow an ad to be placed on Halifax buses that advertise a ‘Three Wisemen’ or ‘Baby Jesus’ Christmas play at the local church? What if the local Muslim association wanted to run an ad to announce the opening of their new mosque and library and inviting all interested people to join them for an opening ceremony? What about free speech?

Where do we draw the line as to what is appropriate to say, and who gets to decide what a ‘toned down’ religious statement is? Lori Patterson of Metro Transit?

The answer is that unless there are clear bylaws (that were voted on by representatives of the people in this city) against allowing religiously-affiliated advertising in publicly owned facilities and services, then separation of church and state remains the defacto rule.

If Metro Transit was a private company, then they can decide to run whatever ads they want on their buses and no one but their shareholders (and the advertising authorities) can say anything. But the transit authority is publicly funded, and therefore it must conduct itself in the best interest of the public, following the established bylaws, and removing personal opinions and religious affiliations/preferences when determining what is appropriate to be shown on the buses to the public.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms”:

• freedom of conscience and religion;

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

• freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• freedom of association.

Are we going to see the appropriate attention and debate take place regarding this issue? Will our understanding of applied freedoms be enhanced by this event? This is a call to the Chronicle Herald and other media outlets in Halifax. Please give this issue the attention it deserves. (Edit: The Chronicle Herald published the story a couple of hours after this blog was posted).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rueFzxwXaxM

The Associated Press reported today that Judge Leon ruled that a man can be held in Guantanamo for no more a reason other than being a cook for the Taliban.

Al Baihani, a citizen of Yemen, says he never fired a weapon while serving with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was an assistant in the kitchen.

Now, granted, these may just be lies spoken by a man (terrorist?) who, you know, has been imprisoned in a chicken coop for over 7 years without charge and he will say anything to get out.

But, I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the judge’s decision was not based on the possibility that the man may have been lying and was, infact, an enemy combatant who willfully held arms against the US Military in Afghanistan.

No, the judge made his ruling solely on the question of whether being a cook for ‘the enemy’ is a punishable offense. As noted below by the AP:

Leon said that Al Bihani’s work (cooking) supported the Taliban, nevertheless, and that the U.S. government has appropriately classified him as an enemy combatant. In his ruling, Leon quoted Napoleon as saying: “An army marches on its stomach.”

Ah, yes! You show them ter’rists! For some reason the theme song from Team America World Police jumps to mind.