Jonathan Brun

C-10 “Stupid” Crime Bill Explained

The C-10 Bill is sitting in Senate and poised to pass. It is a really, really, really stupid bill that goes agains tall empirical research on crime, prisons and rehabilitation of criminals. Nearly every major group of lawyers, judges, right advocates and anyone else involved in the penal system has come out against it. Of couse, Harper couldn’t care less.

The video below spends some time explaining the consequences of the bill. It focuses mainly on the costs (a big issue) and does not talk much about the morality of short sightendenss of the bill; nevertheless, it is well worth a watch. And please do contact your Sentor.

Recent great books

Just wrapped up some great books worth reading.

Culture and Leisure by W.H. Auden

My friend Matt Finn recommended this short essay on the meaning of work, play and labour and why we consume so darn much material goods.

Getting to Yes by Fischer, Ury and Patton

A classic how-to book on negotiation, should be read by all.

The Law of Dreams by Peter Behrens

A beautiful tale of an irish boy who comes of age during the famine and makes his way to Montréal. Worth reading.

Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda

Money quote, “Why be elated by material profit? The one who pursues a goal of even-mindedness is neither jubilant with gain nor depressed by loss. He knows that man arrives penniless in this world, and departs without a single rupee.”. Still working on this one, should be done soon though!

Coming changes to the system – Slavok Zizek on Charlie Rose

I like the philosopher Slavok Zizek more and more. His regular Al Jazeera English interviews are always rather entertaining and over the top, but in this Charlie Rose segment he manages to stay quite resonable (by Zizek standards). I should probably read some of his books now. His point that we need to seriously re-evaluate the state of present day capitalism and democracy really hits home. With the recent NY Times piece on Apple’s production system in China making the rounds, it is becoming more and more evident that we cannot keep on the path we are on.

Zizek is quite clear he does not have the answers, but he is at least willing to have us ask questions. One of his key points in the interview below is the contradiction in our society’s position on possibilities. On the one hand, science and technology appear more and more limitless – cloning, organ transplants, cloud computing, green energy; on the other hand, whenever we propose policy changes about pressing issues such as education or healthcare reform, we proudly proclaim that we cannot change, don’t have the money or can’t find a reasonable solution people will be satisfied with. This dichotomy of attitudes is quite puzzling. Not too much to add, but do watch the interview and pay attention, the crazy Slovenian might be onto something!

Slavoj Žižek – Charlie Rose interview.27.10.2011 by laststudio

Non-violent action in Israel, the Middle East and abroad

On this Christmas break I thought it made sense to discuss the most essential part of Jesus’s teachings – non-violence. As outlined in his sermon on the mount and by his actions towards the Roman occupation, non-violence is perhaps the bravest and most powerful form of combatting injustice.

Non-violence is the active attack of injustice using a wide range of methods – boycotts, petitions, sit-ins, strikes – but with the common element of absolute refusual to use physical violence. I have no doubt that non-violent resistance and civil disobedience are by far the most effective method for the long term improvement of society.

The natural urge to use violence to right an injustice is innate to all humans. In fact, it is so innate we see the use of violence in humans right from the moment we enter this world. Studies have clearly shown that children are in fact much more violent than adults and our use of violence decreses as we age. It is in fact society that breeds violence out of us, not the other way around. This point is clearly documented in Steven Pinker’s new book, “The Better Angels of our Nature“, for which there is an excellent free summary here at the The Edge.

Today, more than ever, it is clear that society breeds violence out of us through education, law, and common justice; Hobbes was right.

It is through disciplined systems that we manage to create a society without violence. In the same way, it is through disciplined systems that social activists must maintain a non-violent course when fighting injustice. It is so easy to stray from the non-violent path – it takes a single gunshot to undermine an entire movement. When Nelson Mandela confronted the Indian Congress during the South African fight for justice with the claim that non-violence had failed the movement, JN Singh of the Indian Congress retorted that  “Non-violence has not failed us, we have failed non-violence”. In my opinion, non-violence is much, much harder to realize than violent confrontation.

The benefits of a non-violent path are however much richer. First and foremost, non-violence limits the loss of life, something worthy in and of itself. Secondly, non-violence allows you to organically build up a civil society that can progressively take over roles that a government typically plays. Once the government has either been sufficiently changed or has been completly replaced, the non-violent actors can continue to act in their societies. In contrast, an insurgency that uses violence as its principal weapon typically lacks the diversity to create an inclusive democratic government after the conflict has ended. Lastly, and in a more pragmatic sense, by using violence as your means of attaining a change you are playing to the strength of the state, which has an army, police and a monopoly on force. Non-violent action plays to the state’s weakness and allows you to build up sympathy in the population. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of the success of non-violence are the concrete examples unfolding as we speak.

In 2011, both Egypt and Tunisia changed their governments with little loss of life and Syria has made significant progress towards a new system (though it may yet descend into civil war). Other governments have recently changed dramatically due to the efforts by non-violent activists, Bahrain, Yemen and Liberia. In fact, this year’s three Nobel Peace laureates were non-violent activists. Perhaps most promising is what is happening in Israel.

Israel

Julia Bacha, director of the excellent film Bodrus, gives a compelling argument for media coverage of non-violent protests and actions.

Perhaps the most promising non-violent action today are the actions by Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. Inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia, Palestinian protesters have finally found a path to liberation: non-violence. With the mass border crossings, the freedom flotillas and regular protests in the West Bank, Palestinians and their supporters are striking fear into the heart of the Israeli establishment. It is easy to bomb armed insurgents and demonize suicide bombers, it is much harder to shoot unarmed civilians (though even a tear gas canister can kill a protestor).

For each dead protestor, Israel further isolates itself on the world stage. In fact, the only country that still stands by Israel without reservations seems to be Canada, but that is largely due to our Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that the shift towards non-violent non-cooperation and protests will lead to greater Palestinian autonomy. As with any non-violent movement, the key is willpower and discipline – can the protestors continue in the face of casualties and injury or will they resort back to violence? One simple suicide bomb would undermine the entire movement. Even Hamas (recently covered here by the Globe and Mail) has understood the power of non-violence and though they often still support violent action, there is evidence that is changing.

If the Palestinians they can match the tenacity of the Syrian protesters and if the media covers their actions, Israel may very well have to re-evaluate their options. Israel is quickly approaching an untenable situation of isolation and disrespect. We shall see what comes of it, but no meaningful change is likely to come with Netanyahu at the head of the government. Israel needs a F.W. de Klerk and Palestinians need a Mandela. Only non-violence will free the Palestinians and when they do succeed, no one fighting for injustice will be able to deny the power civil disobedience.

It is hard for me to add much to the experts in the field, so I will leave you with some fantastic resources that will hopefully convince you of a non-violent path.

Bibliography

There are no shortage of books to convince you of the merits of this method. “Non-Violence, the History of a Dangerous Idea” gives you an excellent overview of the history and various movements that have successfully employed non-violence. The auto-biographies of Gandhi and Mandela are also excellent. To better understand the philosophy behind the idea, you can read “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Tolstoy, and many more.

Beyond the philosophy of non-violence it is essential to focus on concrete actions that can lead to social change. Perhaps the most influential book in that regard is the non-violence user manual by Gene Sharp, “From Dictatorship to Democracy“. This book, with its concrete examples and clear explanations has been translated into numerous languages and has been employed by activists around the world, most recently in the arab world and middle east, where it is having a very real impact. Gene Sharp was even shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize and is being profiled in an upcoming movie, How to Start a Revolution. And of course, the young 18 year old Étienne de la Boétie’s essay Discours sur la servitude volontaire, written in 1549 is simply mind blowing.

On this Christmas break I thought it made sense to discuss the most essential part of Jesus’s teachings – non-violence. As outlined in his sermon on the mount and by his actions towards the Roman occupation, non-violence is perhaps the bravest and most powerful form of combatting injustice.

Non-violence is the active attack of injustice using a wide range of methods – boycotts, petitions, sit-ins, strikes – but with the common element of absolute refusual to use physical violence. I have no doubt that non-violent resistance and civil disobedience are by far the most effective method for the long term improvement of society.

The natural urge to use violence to right an injustice is innate to all humans. In fact, it is so innate we see the use of violence in humans right from the moment we enter this world. Studies have clearly shown that children are in fact much more violent than adults and our use of violence decreses as we age. It is in fact society that breeds violence out of us, not the other way around. This point is clearly documented in Steven Pinker’s new book, “The Better Angels of our Nature“, for which there is an excellent free summary here at the The Edge.

Today, more than ever, it is clear that society breeds violence out of us through education, law, and common justice; Locke was right, Rousseau was wrong.

It is through disciplined systems that we manage to create a society without violence. In the same way, it is through disciplined systems that social activists must maintain a non-violent course when fighting injustice. It is so easy to stray from the non-violent path – it takes a single gunshot to undermine an entire movement. When Nelson Mandela confronted the Indian Congress during the South African fight for justice with the claim that non-violence had failed the movement, JN Singh of the Indian Congress retorted that  “Non-violence has not failed us, we have failed non-violence”. In my opinion, non-violence is much, much harder to realize than violent confrontation.

The benefits of a non-violent path are however much richer. First and foremost, non-violence limits the loss of life, something worthy in and of itself. Secondly, non-violence allows you to organically build up a civil society that can progressively take over roles that a government typically plays. Once the government has either been sufficiently changed or has been completly replaced, the non-violent actors can continue to act in their societies. In contrast, an insurgency that uses violence as its principal weapon typically lacks the diversity to create an inclusive democratic government after the conflict has ended. Lastly, and in a more pragmatic sense, by using violence as your means of attaining a change you are playing to the strength of the state, which has an army, police and a monopoly on force. Non-violent action plays to the state’s weakness and allows you to build up sympathy in the population. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of the success of non-violence are the concrete examples unfolding as we speak.

In 2011, both Egypt and Tunisia changed their governments with little loss of life and Syria has made significant progress towards a new system (though it may yet descend into civil war). Other governments have recently changed dramatically due to the efforts by non-violent activists, Bahrain, Yemen and Liberia. In fact, this year’s three Nobel Peace laureates were non-violent activists. Perhaps most promising is what is happening in Israel.

Israel

Julia Bacha, director of the excellent film Bodrus, gives a compelling argument for media coverage of non-violent protests and actions.

Perhaps the most promising non-violent action today are the actions by Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. Inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia, Palestinian protesters have finally found a path to liberation: non-violence. With the mass border crossings, the freedom flotillas and regular protests in the West Bank, Palestinians and their supporters are striking fear into the heart of the Israeli establishment. It is easy to bomb armed insurgents and demonize suicide bombers, it is much harder to shoot unarmed civilians (though even a tear gas canister can kill a protestor).

For each dead protestor, Israel further isolates itself on the world stage. In fact, the only country that still stands by Israel without reservations seems to be Canada, but that is largely due to our Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that the shift towards non-violent non-cooperation and protests will lead to greater Palestinian autonomy. As with any non-violent movement, the key is willpower and discipline – can the protestors continue in the face of casualties and injury or will they resort back to violence? One simple suicide bomb would undermine the entire movement. Even Hamas (recently covered here by the Globe and Mail) has understood the power of non-violence and though they often still support violent action, there is evidence that is changing.

If the Palestinians they can match the tenacity of the Syrian protesters and if the media covers their actions, Israel may very well have to re-evaluate their options. Israel is quickly approaching an untenable situation of isolation and disrespect. We shall see what comes of it, but no meaningful change is likely to come with Netanyahu at the head of the government. Israel needs a F.W. de Klerk and Palestinians need a Mandela. Only non-violence will free the Palestinians and when they do succeed, no one fighting for injustice will be able to deny the power civil disobedience.

It is hard for me to add much to the experts in the field, so I will leave you with some fantastic resources that will hopefully convince you of a non-violent path.

Bibliography

There are no shortage of books to convince you of the merits of this method. “Non-Violence, the History of a Dangerous Idea” gives you an excellent overview of the history and various movements that have successfully employed non-violence. The auto-biographies of Gandhi and Mandela are also excellent. To better understand the philosophy behind the idea, you can read “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Tolstoy, and many more.

Beyond the philosophy of non-violence it is essential to focus on concrete actions that can lead to social change. Perhaps the most influential book in that regard is the non-violence user manual by Gene Sharp, “From Dictatorship to Democracy“. This book, with its concrete examples and clear explanations has been translated into numerous languages and has been employed by activists around the world, most recently in the arab world and middle east, where it is having a very real impact. Gene Sharp was even shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize and is being profiled in an upcoming movie, How to Start a Revolution. And of course, the young 18 year old Étienne de la Boétie’s essay Discours sur la servitude volontaire, written in 1549 is simply mind blowing.

Francois Legault’s Immigration Policy

I recently had the chance to meet Francois Legault, founder of the Coalition pour l’Avenir du Québec – a new provincial political party. The party is positioning itself as a centre-right option to the Liberals and Parti Québecois. Most notably, he proposes to put aside sovereignty – for now. So far, they have proposed some interesting changes to the education system, healthcare, and the economy. Most of his proposals make sense – reform teacher pay, use mining revenues to reduce the deficit, encourage entrepreneurs with financing and push major overhauls to the health system’s administrative apparatus.

What is most appealing to me is his focus driven platform. He does not claim to have solutions for much, but he does propose to take major action on a few items. Francois Legault is a businessman in every sense of the word, so it’s no surprise he is going for the low hanging fruit that will have the biggest impact on the bottom line. We will see if he can stick to this tiny platform through an election campaign.

All that being said, one item he proposes seems out of step with the rest. He wants to temporarily freeze immigration.

Francois Legault, under the culture et langue (culture and language) part of his platform, recommends two things:

1. Improve the amount and quality of french language instruction for immigrants to Québec.
2. Put a freeze on immigration for 2 years at 45 000 people (in 2011, we expect approximatively 53000 immigrants to Québec in 2011,up from 41 683 in 2010 Wikipedia).

From his Plan d’Action,

Les ressources consacrées à l’intégration des immigrants à la majorité francophone doivent être substantiellement bonifiées. Le nombre des nouveaux arrivants au Québec devra être limité à 45 000 pendant
deux ans afin de redéployer les politiques d’intégration.

I agree 100% with idea number 1 on improved integration and french education. Though this blog post is in english, I fully support loi 101 and mandatory french immersion courses for immigrants to Québec. State business should be conducted in French and the government should continue to ensure French is the dominant language in Québec.

Though I support improving our use of French in government and business, I fundamentally disagree on point #2. Limiting immigration to Québec is extremely dangerous. If anything, we should quadruple immigration to Québec and put in place systems to encourage family growth. The surest path to sovereignty is through population stagnation.

Québec has progressively become a smaller and smaller portion of Canada. At confederation, Québec was over 50% of Canada and today, 2011, we represent less than 25%. As our population decreases, our political weight in Canada decreases. The house of commons will likely be rejigged, as it should be, to reflect today’s population and Québec will lose seats. We see an erosion of the use of French at the Federal government as demonstrated by the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General and a unilingual Supreme Court judge.

This shift should be very concerning to all Québecers – francophone, anglophone, and allophone.

So, my proposals are quite simple:

1. Increase immigration from Francophone countries to ensure at least 150 000 immigrants are welcomed to Québec annually by 2015.
2. Increase free french immersion courses and impose a basic french test for all permanent resident requests in Québec as well as out of province canadians who move here.
3. Offer a subsidy to Québec families for every child after their second, on the order of 10 000 $ that is payable only at age 18 and can only be used for higher education. This should be modelled on the Russian program which was recently cancelled.

To those who say this would cost too much or be too much immigration, a point of reference. In 1913, Canada welcomed over 400,870 immigrants – which represented, approximatively 5% of our population (Canada had 7,632,000 citizens). In today’s terms, Québec has an estimated population of 8 008 000 and we could therefore match those peaks with 5% immigration, or 400 000 immigrants per year.

If Québec wishes to remain as a principal partner of confederation and if we want Canada to remain a bilingual partnership between Francophones and Anglophones – we must take dramatic steps today.

I am very interested in your comments and ideas surrounding this idea.

Immigration also creats jobs, see here.

A good interview with the Président du congrès maghrébin here (though the news host is not great).