Saturday, 2 April 2016
Friday, 19 February 2016
Fraser Health FOI Request
Alyssa Laube
12666 72 Ave.
Surrey, BC, V3W 2M8
alyslaube@gmail.com
778.808.1400
February 19, 2016
Freedom of Information Office
Suite 400, Central City Tower
13450 102nd Avenue
Surrey, BC, V3T 0H1
To Whom It May Concern,
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I formally request that you provide me with:
- A copy of all complaints (as worded by the filer of the complaint) submitted to your Aboriginal Health department between the year 2014 and 2016, including their status to-date.
Please send all files electronically to my email address. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me at 778.808.1400. Thank you.
Alyssa Laube
Monday, 1 February 2016
Parent Licensing: One Step Away From Totalitarianism
Why mandatory birth control is unnecessary for 21st century North Americans.
Right now, there are over 7 billion people on the planet; that means that our population has almost tripled over the past 65 years, and Earth isn’t getting any bigger. The population growth rate continues to steadily climb in developing countries, but it is actually decreasing in North America. This could be caused by a plethora of factors: life spans are shortening, the population is aging, less importance is being placed on nuclear families, conditions on the planet are worsening, fertility rates are dropping, and more. According to the United Nations, that means that the world’s population should peak and level out at around 10 billion. It’s a high number, but it is manageable.
Keeping that in mind, enforcing mandatory contraception could make sense in developing countries where birth control and sex education is inaccessible. It’s just impractical and needless for North Americans.
Yet according to a poll on debate.org, 73% of people disagree. In a Blogger post, Bailey Wyka represents that percentage. She argues for the enforcement of “parent licensing”, the purpose of which is “to certify every person who wants to be a parent with a stamp of approval on a certificate stating [that] they will be a good parent…male or female.” Until they receive that stamp of approval, they will be forced by governments to surgically implant a contraceptive when they hit puberty age. The purpose for the procedure would ultimately be “to stop unfit people from having children,” as it could not be removed until the license was earned. An article on PBS echoes, "Imagine what our nation would be like if every child had competent parenting. This is not an unrealistic goal if we really care about our future."
Yet according to a poll on debate.org, 73% of people disagree. In a Blogger post, Bailey Wyka represents that percentage. She argues for the enforcement of “parent licensing”, the purpose of which is “to certify every person who wants to be a parent with a stamp of approval on a certificate stating [that] they will be a good parent…male or female.” Until they receive that stamp of approval, they will be forced by governments to surgically implant a contraceptive when they hit puberty age. The purpose for the procedure would ultimately be “to stop unfit people from having children,” as it could not be removed until the license was earned. An article on PBS echoes, "Imagine what our nation would be like if every child had competent parenting. This is not an unrealistic goal if we really care about our future."
This proposition raises a lot of questions. First of all, the current political model in North America does not permit government to force its citizens into physical surgery. Mandatory surgery as a concept is unavoidably illegal; if a person does not want to go under the knife, how are they to be forced? Will they be drugged, restrained, bribed or threatened? Those seem to be the only options, and none of them sound ethical, democratic, or safe.
Another important concern is how this surgery would even take place. There is no existing contraceptive that works for men and women and can be safely implanted in the way Wyka describes. If this procedure were to be enforced, the technology would have to exist, and a safe surgical method would need to be created. Right now, that hasn’t happened. Therefore, neither can parent licensing.
Wyka also argues that “the most well known people who become pregnant are teenagers,” and that “if there was to be a contraceptive placed in every child once they hit puberty then the rate of teen pregnancy would be almost nonexistent.” She cites an article on the Daily Beast to prove that “teens who get free contraception are more likely to use it and contraception that is long lasting dropped the birth rate even lower.”
First, teenagers don’t conceive, carry, and deliver babies as often as middle-aged people (anymore). The only meaningful difference is that teens are more likely to have unprotected sex. If they are more likely to use free, long-lasting contraception, it’s extremely probable that they’re doing so by their own will. The methods that the Daily Beast refers to are for willing participants, not teens forced into sterilization. Frankly, the only realistic outcome of that would be a traumatized generation.
The final portion of Wyka’s argument elaborates on the method of analyzing a person’s parenting abilities, which would lead to them being denied of or given their license.
“A certification process would be in place where professional social services representatives would analyze the person’s life and decide if they meet the qualifications of being a parent. Some characteristics of a well-fit parent would be being able to handle stressful situations, doesn't have a short temper, non-violent, and overall is a loving person. The process would include a home and family visit, checking financials, and multiple interviews over a few weeks. A child also requires two parents who are equally responsible and loving to the child. That is why not only one parent needs to be certified, but both need the licensed in order to have a baby. Once both parents have been approved by the representatives then doctors will take out the contraceptives and a baby may be created.”
The qualifications of being a fit parent would unavoidably vary from person to person, including the authorities who conduct the analysis. Personal bias would come into play and easily allow for unfair discrimination. Even if there were a perfect human who could conduct the analysis without bias, how could they measure adequate abilities? There are so many different parenting methods that it would be nearly impossible to find a uniform expectation for parents. "I can only imagine how kids would turn out if everyone was subjected to the same 'ideals' of child-rearing," says Kimberlee Bradford of Michiko Baby. If it’s a simple background check, a clear history doesn’t mean that the person will be a good mother or father. Granted, it may mean that the children will grow up with a family that can support them financially, but that’s about it. Plus, it’s a tad reminiscent of communist China’s regime to put limitations on who can have children based on government-enforced expectations. That’s not very democratic. It’s also discriminating against single parents, financially unstable parents, and likely, minorities who would suffer from the previously mentioned, inevitable bias.
The entire process of parent licensing would theoretically paid for by taxpayer dollars, meaning that it would only cost “close to $5” for each participant to print their license. However, taxpayers have no reason to fund mandatory birth control. Frankly, it’s not their problem. More specifically, it’s not a problem at all. As mentioned, overpopulation is not a primary issue in North America, ultimately rendering Wyka’s argument irrelevant.
Photo by US Army.
Boy's and Girl's Toys
 |
The notion that girls like fashion and beauty-oriented toys while boys prefer to play with machinery and action figures is outdated. Making the assumption that biological sex is directly connected to personal interest is both harmful and illogical. Every child has their own personality and preferences, regardless of their sex.
The topic of gender is a whole other issue. For children who don't feel comfortable identifying as cisgender - especially those who haven't come to terms with their identity - it would be damaging to consistently receive toys based on their sex rather than their preferences. Being forced into a floral pink girl box or a studded blue boy box could be incredibly confusing, if not traumatic. It can be difficult for fully grown adults to admit that they don't fit the traditional gender norms. For a six year old whose parents make decisions for them, it could be nearly impossible.
That's not to mention cisgender children who simply don't adhere to the traditional boy/girl stereotypes. If Brittany likes Hot Wheels and Tom likes Polly Pocket, why deny them of enjoyment and comfortability? If the purpose of Happy Meal toys is for kids to have fun, it doesn't make sense to impose such strict guidelines on Happy Meal toys.
In any other situation, it would be considered inappropriate to divide human beings based on their sex. Frankly, it would likely be considered sexist. In an article by Antonia-Ayres Brown of Slate Magazine, she recounts her decision to send a letter to McDonald's CEO regarding gendering their toys. She asks, "would be legal for McDonald’s 'to ask at a job interview whether someone wanted a man’s job or a woman’s job?'" In this context, distributing toys made for either boys or girls becomes clearly absurd.
The simplest solution is to rephrase the question, "Do you want a boy's or girl's toy?". It would be just as concise to ask, "Would you like a Hot Wheels toy or a Polly Pocket toy?", which removes the aspect of gender from the equation while still making the toy somewhat personalized. According to Brown's article, she was alerted that some managers have already begun to do so. But they seem to have done so by their own accord rather than that of the company as a whole. As a result, it is not being properly enforced.
Parents and other concerned customers have also made requests for McDonald's to start asking which type of toy the child would prefer rather than the sex of the child. Joel Newton of Playground Dad made such a request on Playground Dad, specifying that his daughter would rather have a "boy's toy". Emma Waverman recounts a similar experience, citing a petition by fellow mom Jennifer Larson that pleas, "Let kids be kids!"
It could be argued that this issue is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and the truth that it certainly is a small step forward. However, it is a step forward. In North America's progressive society, it's increasingly important to fight discrimination of any sort. It is too late in history to be shamelessly reaffirming toxic gender stereotypes, and McDonald's policy on Happy Meal toys does exactly that.
How I improved my title's SEO: When I used Google Trends to search "Happy Meal toys", I found that Mcdonald's had a higher score, so I added the company's name to my title.
Photo by SouthernWI
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Why Society Needs the News
By Alyssa Laube
As the world advances further into the technological age, news organizations continue to struggle. The threat of their extinction is imminent, since print is dying and online content is difficult to monetize. However, it is crucial that they stay afloat because of the importance of news organizations in a democratic society. Not only do they “play an important part in promoting and sustaining the arts at a local level”, but also, they act “as a source of trusted and accurate information” on more serious, breaking news. Being able to trust a news organization is incredibly valuable at a time when it is becoming increasingly easy to rewrite history via social media. While some may argue that media has offered the title of Citizen Journalist to anyone with a smart phone, therefore rendering news organizations useless, the opposite is true. More than ever, the public needs a credible, unbiased source of information amidst countless Twitter and Facebook rants. Overall, newspapers give the people “a true picture of our surroundings…enhance our knowledge and broaden our vision”.
Art is an incredibly important aspect of any vibrant, thriving community. Without them, there is little opportunity for fun in a city, and fun brings people together. However, most artists do not have the funds to support themselves and build a reputation on their own. For generations, newspapers have been giving them a platform for exposure. Journalists and reporters attend arts events such as concerts, plays, and film screenings. They interview the artists and give them much-needed press. News workers search for local and international talent to show to their audience. Without the role of news in the arts, it would be considerably more difficult to have a thriving arts scene. Artists would struggle and many would likely quit out of frustration. At the same time, the global community would miss out on the opportunity to connect to art that they enjoy.
As previously mentioned, the expansion of the internet has made it difficult to tell what's fact and what's fiction in regards to news. This is particularly true on social media such as Twitter and Facebook, where users have no obligation to tell the truth in their posts. Since "46% of people get their news online at least three times a week", this can create a lot of confusion as to what really happened, due to a lack of "editorial scrutiny". As said by Roy Greenslade, "it's the very abundance of information and news now available to everyone that makes the role of the local newspaper even more important." Certainly, official news outlets fix the problem of inaccurate online news by acting as a reliable, fact-checked, edited, and professional source. A reader can trust that a well-known paper will live up to its reputation by providing quality, accurate news.
Some argue that online news is an improvement in communication that renders traditional publications obsolete. Because it is immediately, constantly, and easily accessible, it's easy to assume that it is superior to waiting for the daily paper. However, while it is true that a blogger could theoretically spend hours sifting through the internet to fact-check their status for accuracy, very few do. Frankly, the average citizen doesn't have the time for that, which is why news workers do it for them. Teachers don't have the time, either, which is why many use newspapers in the classroom to educate their students on current events and open up class discussions. This wouldn't be possible if there was any doubt about the accuracy of the news. There is also "no hierarchy of rage, no modulation of tone, [and] no admission of uncertainty" with social media news; often, emotions get in the way of honest reporting when the citizen is under no obligation to be unbiased. Overall, while internet news is easily accessible and immediate, it just isn't trustworthy.
Some argue that online news is an improvement in communication that renders traditional publications obsolete. Because it is immediately, constantly, and easily accessible, it's easy to assume that it is superior to waiting for the daily paper. However, while it is true that a blogger could theoretically spend hours sifting through the internet to fact-check their status for accuracy, very few do. Frankly, the average citizen doesn't have the time for that, which is why news workers do it for them. Teachers don't have the time, either, which is why many use newspapers in the classroom to educate their students on current events and open up class discussions. This wouldn't be possible if there was any doubt about the accuracy of the news. There is also "no hierarchy of rage, no modulation of tone, [and] no admission of uncertainty" with social media news; often, emotions get in the way of honest reporting when the citizen is under no obligation to be unbiased. Overall, while internet news is easily accessible and immediate, it just isn't trustworthy.
It is undoubtedly a challenge to fight against the death of official publications, particularly newspapers. Their demise can be almost entirely attributed to the growing use and development of technology. Because news is being forced online due to demand, and online content is difficult to monetize, publications are struggling. However, there are solutions, some of which are already in place. In the case of many popular papers such as the New York Times, this could be putting up a paywall on their site. Smaller publications with less traffic might opt for a donation model, while news giants like CBC take tax dollars. Then there is the suggestion of a grander notion: pressuring the government into putting money into supporting papers. Supposedly, keeping them afloat would benefit the government because of newspaper's ability to maintain a healthy democracy by educating and listening to the people. In fact, it has been proven that civic engagement drops when local newspapers are closed, thereby harming the health and productivity of the community. Politicians also gain a fair portion of their support through endorsements and sponsorships with publications, so they have a reason to fight against their fall.
However, it's unlikely that any considerable donation will be made. Even if money is put into journalism, it won't be enough to salvage the papers forever. Rather, as citizens and readers, we have a responsibility to help support our favourite papers. We can donate to the publications that we believe in with money, certainly. But it's also crucial that we talk about them, encourage our neighbours to read them, and spread the name of struggling papers. The readership is truly what runs the paper, and the readership must assume a role in helping save them.
However, it's unlikely that any considerable donation will be made. Even if money is put into journalism, it won't be enough to salvage the papers forever. Rather, as citizens and readers, we have a responsibility to help support our favourite papers. We can donate to the publications that we believe in with money, certainly. But it's also crucial that we talk about them, encourage our neighbours to read them, and spread the name of struggling papers. The readership is truly what runs the paper, and the readership must assume a role in helping save them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)