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

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."

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

Remove gender from the Happy Meal

Since McDonald's started selling Happy Meals in 1977, they have been separating boy's and girl's toys. Every time a Happy Meal is ordered, a McDonald's employee asks the customer if they want a toy designed for a male or a female. Often times, the former are based off of characters from movies or television shows or vehicles, featuring blue and neutral colours. The latter are more likely to be pink and purple dolls or accessories.

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