Author: wdfyfe

Before WD called himself a writer, he worked at a number of different jobs from stacking lumber to interior design. He studied English at UBC and creative writing at ASU where one of his teachers, Rita Dove, taught him the importance of the tale. He has written for radio, magazines and newspapers, but never television. He’s published both fiction and nonfiction in Great Britain and the US. He reads French passably and speaks enough Spanish to get from A to B and find the toilet. He has interviewed John Cleese, Peter Ustinov, Margaret Drabble, Kenneth Branagh and enough other famous people to make him a hopeless name dropper. His not-so-secret passions are history and trivia, and he has never lost a game of Trivial Pursuit — although he did come 4th one drunken Quiz Night at the Uxbridge in Notting Hill. He lives on the Pacific Ocean, although, not close enough to see, so he spends his days looking at a computer screen. It’s a wonderful life and he has only one regret: he can’t type faster.

Free Crack Pipes: A Stupid Idea

Last week, Vancouver Coastal Health, the organization in charge of keeping me and a couple of million other people healthy, set off the stupid alarm.  They announced a pilot program, beginning in October, to provide free crack pipes to drug users (Stay with me!) as part of their Harm Reduction Program.  Their rationale is crack and crystal meth smokers are transmitting dangerous diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C when they share old and damaged pipes.  Also, they say that providing a kit with a new pipe, mouthpiece, filter and a condom to addicts will bring them into direct contact with healthcare workers who can offer health information and encourage them to seek help for their addiction.  Dr. Reka Gustafson, a Vancouver health officer, was quoted in The Vancouver Sun as saying, “We know there’s a demand and chances are what we’re going to be able to supply won’t last very long.”  So, apparently, this offer is good only while supplies last and will cost between 50 and 60 thousand dollars.  What wrong with this picture?

At the risk of being labelled an anti-crack crank, does anybody down at VCH realize these folks are smoking crack?  The Risk Reduction train has pretty much left the station, folks.  I’m no expert, but I’d wager a few loonies that smoking crack is generally detrimental to maintaining a healthy lifestyle.  And providing addicts with the implements of their own destruction simply can’t be the best strategy available for risk reduction.  I might be missing something, but I’m not following the logic here.  To me, giving these people pipes is like handing a guy with emphysema a carton of Marlboros to reduce the risk he’ll encounter walking to the store to buy his own.  Call me old-fashioned, but I remember a time when local health agencies were there to promote health and well-being, not aid in their destruction.

I have no argument with the idea of trying to control the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C among any segment of our population.  These are high-rent diseases that cost all of us a boatload of bucks to treat every year.  Nor do I have a problem with Coastal Health doling out dollars for preventive medicine programs, especially if they’re as cheap as this one seems to be.  Honestly, 50 or 60 thousand is nothing.  That kind of money doesn’t even buy a good-sized nurse these days.  Besides, I’m fairly certain that Coastal Health administrators and executives eat more than that in expense account money.  My problem is nobody in the glass towers has thought this thing through.

Here’s the deal: the entire program seems to be based on one single item of hard evidence: crack and crystal meth addicts share their pipes.  From that, experts have deduced, that chances are good, diseases like HIV, Hepatitis C and others are spread across the addicted population.  There haven’t been any studies to prove this, but it seems a logical conclusion.  Now we have cause and (probably) effect.

Unfortunately, here’s where Coastal Health turned on the stupid machine.  I hate to be rhetorical but how does providing crack addicts with brand new pipes prevent them from sharing their new toys with the less fortunate who didn’t happen to go down to Coastal Health that day?  I would venture to guess that straight-out-of-the-wrapper pipe gets infected on its first use – and re-infected forever after.  I would also venture to guess that your average crack addict is not going to discard or sterilize the new pipe they’ve just used.  It’s been my experience, that crack and crystal meth users are not the most logical of our neighbours.  They’re not going to go back to Coastal Health until they either break or lose the pipe they’ve been given — or, the cops (who are mandated to seize drug paraphernalia, regardless of where it comes from) take it away.

So, in the end, how does this Coastal Health program keep me and a couple of million other people healthy?  It doesn’t.  It’s a proven fact that addicts share their pipes; giving them new ones doesn’t add or subtract from that fact.  If HIV and Hepatitis C are spread by shared pipes, then these diseases will continue to spread.  Fifty thousand dollars later; we’re still in the same place — except by providing the necessary equipment, Coastal Health may have actually contributed to the destructive addiction of several thousand people.  They’ve continued (and perhaps even enhanced) the unholy connection between the addict and the dealer.  And they’ve probably unwittingly assisted in maintaining all the social ills — like poverty, theft and prostitution — that characterize widespread drug use.

There is a cure for addiction, even on the scale that my city faces.  However, as comedian Ron White has said many times, “There’s no cure for stupid.”

How to Ruin a Debt Crisis

Yesterday afternoon, money folks around the world exhaled.  American lawmakers, through no fault of their own, came to their senses and voted to extend the American debt ceiling to a number beyond the comprehension of mortal man.  The crisis was averted, and now we can all go about our business again.  Crap!  This is only a temporary truce.  The real war is still going on.

For the last couple of months, there’s been a media laser beam zeroed in on the House, the Senate and Barack Obama, as each one, in turn, demonstrated their inability to grasp simple economics.  As in, if Johnny has 14 trillion apples and he eats every single one of them, his kids are basically screwed on the apple front.  There have been any number of talking head solutions: stop spending my money; tax that guy over there; blame the Chinese; sell the Grand Canyon — and the etceteras just get stranger after that.  It’s hard to imagine that anybody (politicos or pundits) within limousine distance of Capital Hill has the foggiest idea of what’s going on.  Perhaps they should ask the servants – who would probably tell them you can’t borrow yourself out of debt.

Everybody knows that once money gets a nickel past a billion, it’s no longer real.  It’s figures on a page, triangles on a pie chart or bars on a graph – that’s all.  There is no real connection between Sangee’s Daycare money in Lincoln Nebraska and firing off million dollar missiles in war-torn Katphoodistan.  Try as they might, even the brainiest of America’s elected representatives can’t conceive of how much money they’re playing with.  Nor can they understand the simple dollars and cents or it.  The concept that it’s Sangee’s money they’re spending is overwhelmed by the magnitude of the mortgage.  So let’s quit with the rhetoric, folks, and get on with it.

Outside the media glare, there’s a whole different round of battles going on between the House, the White House and the Senate. (What I like to call The Axis of Feeble)  It’s these battles that are dictating the course of events in Washington, not any lawmaker’s inherent concern for Sangee, her money or her well-being.  (FYI, Senators Johanns and Nelson, I’m not picking on you.  I just think Lincoln represents America more than Miami does.)

One of these is the never-ending war between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  This firefight has flared and died throughout US history, depending on how tough the president is.  These latest skirmishes started when Richard Nixon and Rose Mary Woods destroyed 18.5 minutes’ worth of audiotape — and 184 years of White House prestige — one afternoon in 1973.  Currently, President Obama’s hands-off approach to leadership, has opened the door for crybabies like Boehner to stride around as if they’re on their way to the OK Corral.  Unfortunately, none of them could win an audition on Buffalo Bill’s Mild West Show.  This is where ineffective governance comes from: half a dozen wannabes, whine-slapping each other across the media.  Like it or not, at least Pelosi had the cojones to tell Obama what Obamacare was going to look like.  This crew is scared of their own shadows, and America is whispering because of it.  There’s enough naked power in Washington at this moment to light the entire world — and not three people in town willing to reach for the switch.  Expect more of the same until somebody quits signing pledges to do good and actual does it.  Or until somebody in the White House hotwires the podium to the teleprompter and Obama has to come up with a policy beyond, “We hope to change.”

Furthermore, for the last year or so, the only issue American lawmakers seem interested in fighting for is infighting.  The two-party system is rapidly dissolving into a four, six or eight party fiasco, bent on emulating a 1920s Balkan republic.  The beauty of the two-party system is consensus has to be reached within the party before it ever goes to the electorate.  Whether it was Republicans, Democrats, Whigs or Free Soilers, historically, parties have always fought it out among themselves, long before election time.  They came up with a coherent plan, presented it to the people and let them decide.  This allows for some pretty big umbrellas; different constituents can gather together in general agreement to advance a common purpose.  These days, every Tom, Ron and Michele has their own agenda.  Every issue is a consensus-building minefield.   Every petty opinion demands a voice in a St. Vitus Dance of disagreement.  And every time you turn around, nothing is getting done because every cockeyed notion available needs to be considered.  Propelled by deluded self-importance and an ever-present phalanx of self-serving lobbyists, lawmakers have abandoned ideals in favour of narrow topical ideas which have no connection to the common good (beyond the next election.)  They disdain compromise, in favour of self-proclaimed principles whose shelf life is tied to FOX, CNN and MSNBC.  How can I make these statements?  Easy!  I’ve witnessed the last six months of Washington tomfoolery.

Yesterday, American lawmakers raised the debt ceiling because they had to.  They had no choice.  The very best, well-informed, educated, supported, principled government on the planet ran out of time — like a sophomore with a term paper.  Why?  It’s not like they didn’t know the deadline was coming.  There are several versions of what just happened in Washington, depending on which side of the aisle your sympathies lie.  However, it was John Adams who said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”  The facts are those in America charged with maintaining and enhancing the common good have turned their considerable skills, resources and attention away from that task to fight the uncivil wars of petty politics.  They haven’t abandoned Sangee in Nebraska so much as ignored her.  Honestly, if I were
she, come November 2012, I’d shake their buttons off.

Honour Killings, Domestic Violence and Murder

Last week, a man walked into a local newspaper with a weapon.  He found his estranged wife, who worked there, and stabbed her several times.  She died at the scene of the crime, and he was arrested.  The murder was witnessed by a number of people, including one guy who suffered minor injuries when he tried to intervene.  It all seems totally straightforward to me.  However, unlike the majority of big city murders, which don’t usually survive the 48 hour urban news cycle, people are still talking about this one.  In fact, a local open line radio program speculated whether or not the victim had actually provoked the attack.  Interesting.  The difference between this and most of the other homicides around town is the media is reporting it as one of the growing number of Canadian “honour killings.”

There has been much debate recently about honour killing.  Unfortunately, the discussion has been hijacked by questions of immigration and cultural rights.  This woulda/coulda/shoulda talk has tied our hands and diverted our attention from dealing with the problem effectively.  However, if we look at the situation in a critical, objective manner we can put a stop to what’s becoming a recurring social problem before it really gets started.

The hideous thing about “honour killing” is that it now occurs so frequently in our society that we’ve imported a name for it.  It’s almost as though we consider it a subset of the act of murder.  This is not good: it presupposes acceptance.  Although we must now give honour killing a separate identity among all the other heinous acts that plague us, it is a grave mistake to think of it as anything less than premeditated murder.   If we do, we run the risk of psychologically giving it a mitigating circumstance which will only hamper our ability to deal with it.

Furthermore, we are at odds with ourselves over the nature of this form of violence against women.  We must clarify.  The erroneous assumption is that honour killings are just pumped-up domestic violence.  That is not true.  Human Rights Watch defines honour killings as:

…acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life. (“Honor Killing,” Wikipedia)

This is a very specific definition which shows us that honour killings differ substantially from domestic violence in two key ways.  First of all, honour killings are premeditated, perpetrated by what would be considered normal, peaceful people – a spike of violence, if you will.  On the other hand, statistics show that most domestic violence cases, especially those resulting in death, are the culmination of escalating episodes of abuse and brutality, usually accelerated by alcohol and/or drugs.  Secondly, honour killings are aggregated acts.  In almost every instance, they have the tacit — if not the active — approval of at least one other family member.  Conversely, the vast majority of documented cases of domestic violence involve a single person, normally a husband or a boyfriend, who acts alone, usually in secret.  As we can see, honour killing and domestic violence are two different animals that must be dealt with separately.

Finally, whether we like it or not, honour killing has a cultural base.  We must face this fact straight on.  We can’t slip/slide around, trying to fool ourselves.  At the same time, however, we must understand that just because we recognize cultural differences; that doesn’t mean the door is open to racism or cultural intolerance.  In fact, just the opposite.  These are Canadian women who are being killed – make no mistake – and they’re under the protection of our entire society.  We cannot lay the blame at the feet of “those people;” those people are us.

So where do we go to from here?  Zero tolerance.  We need to quit muddying the water with useless chatter.  The debate is about murder, not government policy, immigration or cultural insensitivity.  We also need to stop making false assumptions.  Honour killing is a new and different phenomenon which we’ve never had to deal with, in large numbers, before.  We need to remember that.   Finally, and most importantly, we need to quit conjuring up tippy-toe solutions.  It must be perfectly clear: Canadians, old and new, do not tolerate murder, regardless of the circumstances or what the media calls it.  This is non-negotiable, and our penalties must reflect the seriousness of the crime.  We have been warned.  Nationally, there have been over fifteen recognizable honour killingsmurders in the last few years.  The time to stop these horrible crimes was yesterday.