really.
you thought pierre did all those things, huh?
nope.
so...constitution?
nope. sorry. mostly jean, actually.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, February 12, 2018
https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/hp/1977-v12-n1-hp1112/030819ar.pdf
jagmeet singh must cut his beard
you don't hear this debate.
nobody asks the question any more: what were these societies like, before contact?
maybe the question is closed, but it hasn't lost it's historical value. sadly, few people seem to care about the answers to these questions...
what kind of technologies did they have to make their labour easier, or not have to make their labour harder? was the society hierarchical? was the distribution of resources fair, or were there tyrants that took more? what social norms existed in the society? were gender norms enforced, and how so? did the society accept the freedom of queer people to be queer, or did it enforce arbitrary rules around sexuality? did the society accept non-conformity and the freedom to be different, or did it enforce a conformity of thought under threat of expulsion or death?
were they some abstraction of noble savages, or would a modern mind look at the society and see the same underlying problems of salem witch trials and scarlet letters and think it is more akin to a quasi-fascism?
and, if so, should this society be destroyed?
we tend to just imagine that life is always greener, don't we? we don't really analyze this question: how free were the indigenous peoples, before contact? truly? all of them? is this a culture that should be resuscitated? or should it be taken off life support? and, how free would they be today, should they reassert sovereignty?
truly?
all of them.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
* note that the question of whether the traditional indigenous cultures were tyrannical is separate from the question of whether the colonial powers were also tyrannical, which is not ambiguous.
nobody asks the question any more: what were these societies like, before contact?
maybe the question is closed, but it hasn't lost it's historical value. sadly, few people seem to care about the answers to these questions...
what kind of technologies did they have to make their labour easier, or not have to make their labour harder? was the society hierarchical? was the distribution of resources fair, or were there tyrants that took more? what social norms existed in the society? were gender norms enforced, and how so? did the society accept the freedom of queer people to be queer, or did it enforce arbitrary rules around sexuality? did the society accept non-conformity and the freedom to be different, or did it enforce a conformity of thought under threat of expulsion or death?
were they some abstraction of noble savages, or would a modern mind look at the society and see the same underlying problems of salem witch trials and scarlet letters and think it is more akin to a quasi-fascism?
and, if so, should this society be destroyed?
we tend to just imagine that life is always greener, don't we? we don't really analyze this question: how free were the indigenous peoples, before contact? truly? all of them? is this a culture that should be resuscitated? or should it be taken off life support? and, how free would they be today, should they reassert sovereignty?
truly?
all of them.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
* note that the question of whether the traditional indigenous cultures were tyrannical is separate from the question of whether the colonial powers were also tyrannical, which is not ambiguous.
norway is, in fact, in the list of ancestor countries, but i would be quick to jump on a way to finland, while placing norway in the uk/ireland/france pile of "what's the difference?".
i'll at least concede that canada to norway is largely a sideways move, whereas canada to ireland, especially, would be a step backwards. i don't think that western europe has a good future; if i'm moving back to europe, i'm going to try to pick somewhere that is going to retain a majority indigenous population, like finland or switzerland (i don't have swiss ancestors).
all i'd get out of moving to norway is the need to learn to speak norse. finnish isn't even germanic - it would be hard to learn. but, a move to finland would legitimately be a move to the very fringes of the empire. and, i may find that my opinions are not seen there as radical.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'll at least concede that canada to norway is largely a sideways move, whereas canada to ireland, especially, would be a step backwards. i don't think that western europe has a good future; if i'm moving back to europe, i'm going to try to pick somewhere that is going to retain a majority indigenous population, like finland or switzerland (i don't have swiss ancestors).
all i'd get out of moving to norway is the need to learn to speak norse. finnish isn't even germanic - it would be hard to learn. but, a move to finland would legitimately be a move to the very fringes of the empire. and, i may find that my opinions are not seen there as radical.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
woo!
go finland!
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/2333-less-than-a-third-of-finns-believe-in-god.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
go finland!
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/2333-less-than-a-third-of-finns-believe-in-god.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
listen.
i didn't migrate here. i was born here. i have indigenous ancestors, but i reject ancestor worship, so i don't care what my ancestors did or what my ancestors thought, or think it is in any remote way binding on me - i am an individual, i am not my ancestors, nobody owns me, i am not indebted to anyone, and i have no obligation to anybody to do anything.
so, i don't feel an obligation to watch my mouth in my neighbour's house, so to speak. i was born here as much as anybody else and have the right to say what i want where i want, like everybody else does. where our individual ancestors came from and what they thought is simply irrelevant; they are dead, and nobody cares, so what i see in front of me is a competition for ideas. if my ideas are different than theirs, then we'll have to fight about it and one of us will win and the other will lose.
but, would i move to one of the places my non-indigenous ancestors came from, if some indigenous group wrote me a check and gave me a plane ticket?
i would.
well...i'd go to finland, for sure. i'd be apprehensive about italy, but, with the proper conditions, i'd go. i would not want to live in france or in the united kingdom.
if presented with a realistic option, i'd rather leave. because i'm an individual - i'm not attached to a community. i'm free, on that level of mind control.
on the level of rent, on the other hand....
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i didn't migrate here. i was born here. i have indigenous ancestors, but i reject ancestor worship, so i don't care what my ancestors did or what my ancestors thought, or think it is in any remote way binding on me - i am an individual, i am not my ancestors, nobody owns me, i am not indebted to anyone, and i have no obligation to anybody to do anything.
so, i don't feel an obligation to watch my mouth in my neighbour's house, so to speak. i was born here as much as anybody else and have the right to say what i want where i want, like everybody else does. where our individual ancestors came from and what they thought is simply irrelevant; they are dead, and nobody cares, so what i see in front of me is a competition for ideas. if my ideas are different than theirs, then we'll have to fight about it and one of us will win and the other will lose.
but, would i move to one of the places my non-indigenous ancestors came from, if some indigenous group wrote me a check and gave me a plane ticket?
i would.
well...i'd go to finland, for sure. i'd be apprehensive about italy, but, with the proper conditions, i'd go. i would not want to live in france or in the united kingdom.
if presented with a realistic option, i'd rather leave. because i'm an individual - i'm not attached to a community. i'm free, on that level of mind control.
on the level of rent, on the other hand....
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
"but, we can't separate our religion from our identity."
i agree - they can't.
but, that's not a feature. that's the bug. that's what is wrong - too much collectivism, not enough individualism.
i just don't think it's an argument. what i think it is is a diagnosis.
and, i have absolutely no interest at all in accommodating a culture that cannot separate the individual from the whole. until it can get to the point where it's members can say "i am an individual. i have a self. and i am distinct from my community. i have interests and ambitions and desires that may differ from my community and i am interested in expressing them, even if it doesn't conform with the norms in the community. i exist as an individual, to better myself, as an individual, and not merely as a corollary of the community i come from.", i just don't see anything that is worth saving. to the contrary, i might argue that such a society really ought to be destroyed, in the first place.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i agree - they can't.
but, that's not a feature. that's the bug. that's what is wrong - too much collectivism, not enough individualism.
i just don't think it's an argument. what i think it is is a diagnosis.
and, i have absolutely no interest at all in accommodating a culture that cannot separate the individual from the whole. until it can get to the point where it's members can say "i am an individual. i have a self. and i am distinct from my community. i have interests and ambitions and desires that may differ from my community and i am interested in expressing them, even if it doesn't conform with the norms in the community. i exist as an individual, to better myself, as an individual, and not merely as a corollary of the community i come from.", i just don't see anything that is worth saving. to the contrary, i might argue that such a society really ought to be destroyed, in the first place.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i agree that religiosity is primarily a function of poverty, rather than (a lack) of education, but this article is underestimating the effects of governments to maintain religion as a tool of control through demographic tinkering and immigration.
if you were to slow it down with a co-efficient such that the tipping point happens around 2050, i'd be in greater agreement.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201204/atheism-defeat-religion-2038
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
if you were to slow it down with a co-efficient such that the tipping point happens around 2050, i'd be in greater agreement.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201204/atheism-defeat-religion-2038
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you know, i don't buy it, this idea of "spiritual awakening".
i mean, consider the term. make me laugh. i'll grant that a "spiritual awakening" is what you would expect would happen to a population, after you've dumbed it down with television to the point that it can barely operate a cash register. in that context, a "spiritual awakening" would be something like "mass insanity".
but, i actually i think we're on the cusp of a paradigmatic rejection of religion in the west, and that it could be almost entirely eliminated, at least amongst white people, by the year 2100. the next generation of white americans could very well define itself by it's godlessness.
and, i welcome that.
but, i wish the left would stop trying to appeal to the dying demographics of religious observation, and key in that, by paying too much lip service to religious values, it is slowly losing what will be the dominant atheist vote to the right.
the way things are shaping up right now, the atheists will get the tipping point to seize power once the boomers seriously die off, but, when they do, they will be republicans. and, that's a problem.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i mean, consider the term. make me laugh. i'll grant that a "spiritual awakening" is what you would expect would happen to a population, after you've dumbed it down with television to the point that it can barely operate a cash register. in that context, a "spiritual awakening" would be something like "mass insanity".
but, i actually i think we're on the cusp of a paradigmatic rejection of religion in the west, and that it could be almost entirely eliminated, at least amongst white people, by the year 2100. the next generation of white americans could very well define itself by it's godlessness.
and, i welcome that.
but, i wish the left would stop trying to appeal to the dying demographics of religious observation, and key in that, by paying too much lip service to religious values, it is slowly losing what will be the dominant atheist vote to the right.
the way things are shaping up right now, the atheists will get the tipping point to seize power once the boomers seriously die off, but, when they do, they will be republicans. and, that's a problem.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
geez.
there really are a lot of religious crazies in bc, aren't there? you need to be careful when you're in the mountains, out there.
they shouldn't be doing this, either, of course. but, it's not anywhere near as bad. i would be a lot less upset if they were just giving kids pamphlets on native religion. and, the world religions courses i took were too focused on the monotheistic religions, and not really a 'world religion' course, in the broadest sense.
i'm mostly posting because i like the idea of the atheist comics. and, i would suggest that he should be allowed to distribute the atheist comics regardless, as the bibles have already been handed out.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gideons-versus-godless-abbotsford-public-schools-criticized-for-distributing-bibles-1.3514276
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
there really are a lot of religious crazies in bc, aren't there? you need to be careful when you're in the mountains, out there.
they shouldn't be doing this, either, of course. but, it's not anywhere near as bad. i would be a lot less upset if they were just giving kids pamphlets on native religion. and, the world religions courses i took were too focused on the monotheistic religions, and not really a 'world religion' course, in the broadest sense.
i'm mostly posting because i like the idea of the atheist comics. and, i would suggest that he should be allowed to distribute the atheist comics regardless, as the bibles have already been handed out.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gideons-versus-godless-abbotsford-public-schools-criticized-for-distributing-bibles-1.3514276
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
"sure.
i'm all about teaching my white kids indigenous knowledge. all of this eurocentric academic stuff might claim it's empirical, but it's really just racist.
i mean, it's what the indigenous people were raised on, right? for thousands of years? and, look how they turned out.
that's exactly how i want my kids to be."
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm all about teaching my white kids indigenous knowledge. all of this eurocentric academic stuff might claim it's empirical, but it's really just racist.
i mean, it's what the indigenous people were raised on, right? for thousands of years? and, look how they turned out.
that's exactly how i want my kids to be."
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i just remember learning at some point in grade school about the scientific definition of life. i think it provided seven criteria like growth, reproduction and movement.
i don't think a chair meets many of them. and, i would have expected a teacher to correct an indigenous student on the point, because what their parents told them about chair spirits was wrong.
"no, sweetie. chairs aren't alive. these are the criteria used to determine if something is alive."
but, maybe i've only interacted with very sneaky chairs over my life time.
given that they are teaching children that chairs have spirits, i have to wonder what the science curriculum looks like in these schools.
jagmeet singh must cut is beard
i don't think a chair meets many of them. and, i would have expected a teacher to correct an indigenous student on the point, because what their parents told them about chair spirits was wrong.
"no, sweetie. chairs aren't alive. these are the criteria used to determine if something is alive."
but, maybe i've only interacted with very sneaky chairs over my life time.
given that they are teaching children that chairs have spirits, i have to wonder what the science curriculum looks like in these schools.
jagmeet singh must cut is beard
no, seriously, i think this is why the indigenous religion is so much more widely scoffed at than others, which are not really any less stupid. i mean, i'm an atheist, as you know, i don't have time for any of it, but the indigenous stuff is particularly lame because these aren't new ideas to westerners (unlike the eastern religions, which were legitimately something different) but ideas that western culture has already deduced are wrong.
it's not an issue of relativism. it's not about seeing things from a different perspective, or making way for ideas that are different. rather, it's something more akin to a kind of orwellianism: to be respectful of indigenous religious positions, you have to open yourself up to the possibility that basic empirical facts like the shape of the earth or the effects of smoke inhalation are, actually, wrong, and on the strength of evidence that not only wouldn't hold up in a lab but wouldn't even hold up in a court.
i tossed thales out there. he was an early greek philosopher that put forth the theory that inanimate objects have spirits. this is, in fact, as western an idea as anything socrates came up with. but, that was 2500 years ago. and, it's been viewed as a disproven and false theory in the west for most of the last 2500 years.
we could take about a lot of things, here. dna. migrations. the age and size of the earth.
maybe indigenous cultural leaders should be focusing less on retaining ideas that everybody else in the world knows are wrong and more focused on finding ways to modernize and synthesize what's left of the culture, to facelift it into something that is less self-parodying.
because, i'll make fun of christians. and i'll make fun of muslims. and i'll make fun of jews. but it's never as personal as it is when i make fun of people with indigenous beliefs, because they haven't developed that distance - they haven't entered modernity.
i want to help them, not make fun of them. but they make it hard...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's not an issue of relativism. it's not about seeing things from a different perspective, or making way for ideas that are different. rather, it's something more akin to a kind of orwellianism: to be respectful of indigenous religious positions, you have to open yourself up to the possibility that basic empirical facts like the shape of the earth or the effects of smoke inhalation are, actually, wrong, and on the strength of evidence that not only wouldn't hold up in a lab but wouldn't even hold up in a court.
i tossed thales out there. he was an early greek philosopher that put forth the theory that inanimate objects have spirits. this is, in fact, as western an idea as anything socrates came up with. but, that was 2500 years ago. and, it's been viewed as a disproven and false theory in the west for most of the last 2500 years.
we could take about a lot of things, here. dna. migrations. the age and size of the earth.
maybe indigenous cultural leaders should be focusing less on retaining ideas that everybody else in the world knows are wrong and more focused on finding ways to modernize and synthesize what's left of the culture, to facelift it into something that is less self-parodying.
because, i'll make fun of christians. and i'll make fun of muslims. and i'll make fun of jews. but it's never as personal as it is when i make fun of people with indigenous beliefs, because they haven't developed that distance - they haven't entered modernity.
i want to help them, not make fun of them. but they make it hard...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you know, thales may have had some concept of a distant land beyond the oceans, from phoenician and egyptian records, and dim memories of possible contact.
he may have had an x haplotype, which has been found in strange percentages amongst indigenous people on the eastern coast.
i could imagine thales walking into an indigenous village..
"i am thales, the great sage of ionia. please bring me your greatest minds, so we can sit and contemplate existence."
*pause*
one steps forward.
"sage, huh?"
*split screen to thales, tied up, and being slowly lowered into a burning pit*
he may have had an x haplotype, which has been found in strange percentages amongst indigenous people on the eastern coast.
i could imagine thales walking into an indigenous village..
"i am thales, the great sage of ionia. please bring me your greatest minds, so we can sit and contemplate existence."
*pause*
one steps forward.
"sage, huh?"
*split screen to thales, tied up, and being slowly lowered into a burning pit*
"no, no, you're ignorant for not being open-minded. maybe thales was right, and every inanimate object does have a spirit. how do you know that that chair doesn't have a spirit? and how do you know that it isn't evil? and how do you know that evil spirits don't like burning sage? you just need to expand yourself to different possibilities.
you bigot."
gee.
i guess that's a reasonable, well thought out position. isn't it? shouldn't we all respect this deeply thought through position? i mean, isn't science supposed to be skeptical?
i guess that's it, then.
i'm just a big racist. i need to expand my horizons, to let go of my ignorance of the chair-spirits, the desk-spirits, etc and open my eyes to the broader spirit world.
sorry.
(it actually sounds to me like the teacher should have her license revoked and be sent to a psychiatric ward.)
you bigot."
gee.
i guess that's a reasonable, well thought out position. isn't it? shouldn't we all respect this deeply thought through position? i mean, isn't science supposed to be skeptical?
i guess that's it, then.
i'm just a big racist. i need to expand my horizons, to let go of my ignorance of the chair-spirits, the desk-spirits, etc and open my eyes to the broader spirit world.
sorry.
(it actually sounds to me like the teacher should have her license revoked and be sent to a psychiatric ward.)
the school system should not be encouraging children to inhale or otherwise bathe themselves in toxic chemicals to tap into some disneyfied concept of magic, it should be explaining why this "cultural practice" is both foolish and dangerous, and why the smoke of these grasses is not beneficial but harmful.
the school system is meant to educate kids, not to make them ignorant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/canada-mother-ban-indigenous-ceremonies-public-schools
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the school system is meant to educate kids, not to make them ignorant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/canada-mother-ban-indigenous-ceremonies-public-schools
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i would support a ban of this type, in the public schools. this is not educational, and does not belong in a class room - not even if viewed through a racist filter as some kind of harmless magic trick.
even taking a softer stance of informed parental consent, there should have been a consent form sent home. and, yes, i would have prevented my kids from taking part in such a farce, although i would have also taken it as an opportunity to debunk the ceremony.
"first, sweetie, you don't want to breathe in the burning sage. it's carcinogenic. that means it causes cancer. they might tell you it's some kind of medicine, but this is simple ignorance - it is, in fact, actually poisonous. you should tell the other kids that, especially the indigenous ones, because they might not know it. so, when you see them start burning the leaves, step away from smoke. don't breath it in. and, i'll be calling your teacher in the morning to talk to her about unnecessarily exposing children to dangerous levels of smoke, before i call the principal in the afternoon.
these people suggesting that there's any magic value in breathing in smoke are just making up nonsense. i've raised you well enough to see that on your own, but i'm just telling you again. excepting the combustion taking place, there's no energy being transferred in the process. science would reject their claim outright. there's just dangerous smoke that you want to get away from, and an incredibly irresponsible teacher that is unnecessarily exposing you to environmental toxins, and a lack of decent critical analysis."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/canada-mother-ban-indigenous-ceremonies-public-schools
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
even taking a softer stance of informed parental consent, there should have been a consent form sent home. and, yes, i would have prevented my kids from taking part in such a farce, although i would have also taken it as an opportunity to debunk the ceremony.
"first, sweetie, you don't want to breathe in the burning sage. it's carcinogenic. that means it causes cancer. they might tell you it's some kind of medicine, but this is simple ignorance - it is, in fact, actually poisonous. you should tell the other kids that, especially the indigenous ones, because they might not know it. so, when you see them start burning the leaves, step away from smoke. don't breath it in. and, i'll be calling your teacher in the morning to talk to her about unnecessarily exposing children to dangerous levels of smoke, before i call the principal in the afternoon.
these people suggesting that there's any magic value in breathing in smoke are just making up nonsense. i've raised you well enough to see that on your own, but i'm just telling you again. excepting the combustion taking place, there's no energy being transferred in the process. science would reject their claim outright. there's just dangerous smoke that you want to get away from, and an incredibly irresponsible teacher that is unnecessarily exposing you to environmental toxins, and a lack of decent critical analysis."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/canada-mother-ban-indigenous-ceremonies-public-schools
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
no. having remote farmers try remote farmers is not a decent summary of the idea of a jury of peers.
i don't know the facts in the case. it seems like somebody was trespassing, and they got shot after causing a commotion on the property they were trespassing on; extra-judicial, and perhaps not proportional, but without being clear on the facts, i'm not going to weigh in on it.
i'll restrict my comments solely to the idea of a jury of peers.
the idea of the jury of peers was meant to reduce bias in the court system, in an era where activists and dissidents specifically (rather than just general poor people) had to face two systemic, institutional class problems in what was essentially a racially homogeneous (if religiously heterogeneous) island, on the fringe of europe. the first systemic, institutional class problem allowed for wealthy aristocrats to essentially target people they saw as problems on trumped up charges, through relying on judges more than willing to play along, through common interests or bribes or even coerced threats. the second problem was of apathy in the judicial process, from the bottom up. what putting decisions in the hand of juries did was take the decision away from an authority that was institutionally unreliable, due to these class biases and interference, and put it in the hands of what ought to have been a neutral body.
so, juries were about talking decisions away from biased, corrupt judges and putting them in the hands of people that had no ulterior motives, and were better able to independently analyze the evidence. i know that your average tory will push back against this, but it is actually the truth of it. and, at the time, it was a good idea - not a perfect idea, but a good idea.
since then, a lot of things have happened. to begin with, the british judicial system has evolved to take itself more seriously. we can have a discussion about critical legal theory, but i think everybody can agree that it's at least gotten a lot better. another major shift is that the system has been transported from a racially heterogeneous island to a racially diverse colony on a large continent, opening up new issues of biases in the jury, itself.
i'm not a conservative. i don't see value in holding to tradition for the sake of it. i want to look at why a system existed, ask whether the tactics employed by it serve their ends and tweak it to better serve those ends. and, if the purpose of a jury selection was to eliminate systemic bias, the fact that the jury selection process today actually introduces bias makes it an open question as to whether it's something that should be continued, or if there are contexts where it should be suspended.
the most obvious context where it should be suspended is in a situation where the following three things are true:
1) the victim is of a historically oppressed minority group
2) the accused is in the dominant majority
3) it is impossible to construct a jury that doesn't also reflect the dominant majority.
that is a situation where bias is inevitable, and the system should step in to prevent it, by moving to a trial by judge.
so, i wasn't there. i don't have the facts. i'm not reacting to the decision. but, this article gets the point about juries completely backwards: it was meant to remove bias, not to introduce it. and, if a trial by jury cannot operate without that bias, as i think is true in this case, the judge should step in.
this man could not have possibly received a fair trial by jury, under the circumstances.
further, in order to prevent the judge from falling under the same bias, the judge's decision to not step in should be subject to outside judicial review before the trial, if requested; if lawyers on either side are so convinced of the impossibility of a fair trial by jury, they should have a body to appeal to before it starts.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-gerald-stanley-being-tried-by-his-peers-isnt-a-bug-its-a-feature
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't know the facts in the case. it seems like somebody was trespassing, and they got shot after causing a commotion on the property they were trespassing on; extra-judicial, and perhaps not proportional, but without being clear on the facts, i'm not going to weigh in on it.
i'll restrict my comments solely to the idea of a jury of peers.
the idea of the jury of peers was meant to reduce bias in the court system, in an era where activists and dissidents specifically (rather than just general poor people) had to face two systemic, institutional class problems in what was essentially a racially homogeneous (if religiously heterogeneous) island, on the fringe of europe. the first systemic, institutional class problem allowed for wealthy aristocrats to essentially target people they saw as problems on trumped up charges, through relying on judges more than willing to play along, through common interests or bribes or even coerced threats. the second problem was of apathy in the judicial process, from the bottom up. what putting decisions in the hand of juries did was take the decision away from an authority that was institutionally unreliable, due to these class biases and interference, and put it in the hands of what ought to have been a neutral body.
so, juries were about talking decisions away from biased, corrupt judges and putting them in the hands of people that had no ulterior motives, and were better able to independently analyze the evidence. i know that your average tory will push back against this, but it is actually the truth of it. and, at the time, it was a good idea - not a perfect idea, but a good idea.
since then, a lot of things have happened. to begin with, the british judicial system has evolved to take itself more seriously. we can have a discussion about critical legal theory, but i think everybody can agree that it's at least gotten a lot better. another major shift is that the system has been transported from a racially heterogeneous island to a racially diverse colony on a large continent, opening up new issues of biases in the jury, itself.
i'm not a conservative. i don't see value in holding to tradition for the sake of it. i want to look at why a system existed, ask whether the tactics employed by it serve their ends and tweak it to better serve those ends. and, if the purpose of a jury selection was to eliminate systemic bias, the fact that the jury selection process today actually introduces bias makes it an open question as to whether it's something that should be continued, or if there are contexts where it should be suspended.
the most obvious context where it should be suspended is in a situation where the following three things are true:
1) the victim is of a historically oppressed minority group
2) the accused is in the dominant majority
3) it is impossible to construct a jury that doesn't also reflect the dominant majority.
that is a situation where bias is inevitable, and the system should step in to prevent it, by moving to a trial by judge.
so, i wasn't there. i don't have the facts. i'm not reacting to the decision. but, this article gets the point about juries completely backwards: it was meant to remove bias, not to introduce it. and, if a trial by jury cannot operate without that bias, as i think is true in this case, the judge should step in.
this man could not have possibly received a fair trial by jury, under the circumstances.
further, in order to prevent the judge from falling under the same bias, the judge's decision to not step in should be subject to outside judicial review before the trial, if requested; if lawyers on either side are so convinced of the impossibility of a fair trial by jury, they should have a body to appeal to before it starts.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-gerald-stanley-being-tried-by-his-peers-isnt-a-bug-its-a-feature
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)