In Edmonton, the best aquatic sports facility we have is the Kinsmen Sports Center. It was built in 1968, and played host to the aquatic sports during the 1978 Commonwealth Games. It used to be the home to the most powerful swim club and some of the best swimmers in the country.
It has been a sad slow progression over the past thirty years from the Kinsmen being a premiere high-performance sport facility to one that the City prefers to be used as a public swimming pool for kids and families. The Kinsmen is the only facility in Edmonton suitable for hosting high-performance swimming competitions, and it is the best training facility for aquatic sport clubs in Alberta. The city has a dismal record in recent years of servicing those groups, however, and instead caters preferentially to recreational use. Edmonton has a history of producing world-class swimmers, divers and synchronized swimmers, but that legacy will remain history if the city does not take a more active role in servicing competitive sporting organizations.
The Kinsmen is the only facility we have that is designed for competitive aquatic sports. Let the city’s high-performance clubs use it for that, and encourage the pubic to make use of the city’s other pools for recreation, or build a dedicated recreational pool along side of the Kinsmen.
The city should also give more time to swim clubs at the new Terwillegar pool, and stop preventing swim club access to that facility with the misguided intent of preventing clubs from competing with the city’s swimming lesson programs.
The only alternative is to kiss Edmonton’s storied history of national champion and Olympic swimmers and divers goodbye.
You can weigh in on the City’s plans for the Kinsmen on the Transforming Edmonton website. They have a survey open from February 16 -25 that you can fill out as well. Details of the City of Edmonton’s Master Planning process for the Kinsmen are available here.
The Canadian Copyright reform bill, Bill C-32, is getting close to the end of the legislative process. There is one final opportunity for Canadians to speak their minds on the bill by sending email to the Bill C-32 Legislative Committee at CC32@parl.gc.ca before the end of January.
This bill is important for culture, education, and consumer rights in Canada, so if you have an opinion on the bill, please send an email expressing your views to the committee.
Law Professor Dr. Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa has some good resources explaining the issues around the bill on his website. Go there to understand the bill and the discussion around it.
Here’s what I sent to the committee.
To the Bill C-32 Legislative Committee:
While I appreciate legislative reform for Canada’s copyright law is necessary, I oppose the digital locks provisions in the proposed Bill C-32 as written. It must not be an infringement for citizens to circumvent or remove digital locks for the purposes of fair dealing. By including such a provision, fair dealing in the Bill is trumped by the desires of the content publishers. The digital lock provisions in the final Bill should be clarified so that circumvention of a digital lock is only an infringement if it is for the express purpose of copyright infringement. This protects publishers and businesses that depend on revenue from content publication, but does not allow those businesses to jeopardize education, culture, and consumer rights by restricting fair dealing.
Thank you for your work in this matter and for your consideration of the best interests of all Canadians.
It’s time for another update about anti-vaccine kooks. Happily this will be the first positive one I get to write.
Last year, the father of the Anti-vaccine nut-brigade, Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor from the UK, who wrote the deeply flawed paper that claimed a link between vaccines and autism, had his paper retracted as unethical and erroneous by the journal Lancet, which originally published it. He had his medical license revoked in the UK for incompetence, unethical research, and conflicts of interest related to the paper.
In 2011, after a thorough investigation, he is being accused of deliberate fraud in fabricating the link between vaccines and autism. The investigations have shown that first, he had created his own, competitive vaccine for MMR that he wanted to have supplant the widely used one at the time, and second, he was paid upwards of a million dollars by predatory lawyers to “find” a danger in the vaccine to provide an opportunity for major lawsuits.
According to the investigators, it appears that his paper was deliberately fabricated to create fear and distrust of the MMR vaccine for his own financial gain. This should be the last nail in the coffin of the credibility of Andrew Wakefield, and hopefully also for the misguided belief a lot of people have in the anti-vax movement. Wakefield still has a chance to be a hero, take the fall for his alleged unethical behaviour, admit he lied, and completely discredit the anti-vax movement, but I predict he won’t show that much character.
As a result of the recent events, if you know all this, and you still haven’t gotten your kids vaccinated, I think you are behaving dangerously negligently, and you are not just endangering the lives of your kids, but everyone they come into contact with. Get it done. There’s no reason not to and every reason to do it. Stop listening to idiot b-list celebrity anti-vaxxers, and start listening to real medical professionals.
Recently James Moore, minister for Canadian Heritage, spouted off this piece of propaganda at the June 22 Conference on Copyright Reform for Canada.
This guy is either completely out of touch with what regular Canadians want, or a liar. He pretends to know the motivations of people opposed to the bill and attributes objectives to us that he paints as evil, wrongheaded, naive and obstructionist. He is wrong. We are concerned about culture and intellectual freedom, and not having our collective societal knowledge and wisdom locked up by media companies.
The copyright reform bill is necessary, and if you read the writings of the people who Moore claims are absolutists, you will discover that most are in support of many of the reform provisions, but the digital locks provision in the bill completely overrides fair and reasonable use and cannot stand. It allows rights-holders to circumvent the fair use provisions in the bill whenever they want, and criminalizes things like time shifting, device shifting, and using media that you legally obtained in any way other than on the specific device the rights-holder dictates. Criminalizing things that a MAJORITY of Canadians already do is obviously not what Canadians want, and is absolutely not in the interests of the public. Have you ever copied music from a CD to your iPod? The digital locks provision will allow BMG or Sony or Disney to put a trivial piece of software on a music CD that makes it illegal (!) for you do do that.
The United States has this kind of copyright legislation, and media companies and industry associations like the MPAA and RIAA have used the legislation to indiscriminately sue thousands of individuals, bankrupting them, causing them to lose their jobs, and causing all manner of harm, on the most tenuous of evidence. Security researchers have been persecuted as well, causing a chilling effect on intellectual pursuits. There is no net benefit to society from the digital locks provision.
James Moore clearly doesn’t understand that the overarching reason for copyright in the first place is to ensure that creative content producers have incentive to continue to produce new content, but to also ensure that content makes it into the public domain after a reasonable period. If content has digital locks on it, even after the copyright term is expired, it will still be inaccessible.
I want to give Moore the benefit of the doubt, that he is a sincere public servant trying to protect the interests of Canadians, but his position is difficult to understand except as pandering to media corporations. It is not good for Canadians, it is only good for (mostly foreign) media companies.
There is a bill in the works right now in Canada that will mimic the terrible Digital Millenium Copyright Act from the USA. The bill basically makes it illegal to take a CD or a DVD or even an eBook or digital music or movie file that you got legally, and copy it to another device for your own use, if the distributor decides not to let you do that. The current Canadian Copyright Act contains provisions that allow you to copy stuff for your own use, like moving music from a CD to your computer to your iPod, or moving movies from a DVD to your computer to your iPod, or moving eBooks from your Amazon Kindle to your Sony eReader, or backing up game discs in case your kid scratches the original. It also allows use of media in certain circumstances without permission for purposes of satire, parody, non-commercial mashups, or education.
However, the government now wants to add an onerous provision to the Copyright Act to make it illegal to circumvent content protection software, no matter how trivial, even if you are doing it to exercise your rights as listed above. That means, if the music or movie company doesn’t want you to listen to or watch content you legally obtained on a CD or DVD or legal download on your iPod, or your computer or whatever, you won’t be able to, and if somebody makes software that removes any kind of restriction protection on the media, and you use it, both they and you have committed a crime.
That, my friends, is bullshit. Canadians don’t want those restrictions. Our culture and knowledge are more and more being distributed digitally. We don’t want media companies to hold the keys to our heritage and education. Those belong in the hands of the public.
You can help by going to Michael Geist’s website and reading about what to do. I wrote a letter to my MP, the Industry Minister, and the Minister of Heritage and Languages. Here is my letter to my MP. If you are concerned about culture and education in Canada, and in not criminalizing the normal activities of everyday Canadians, please consider writing your MP. You don’t even need a stamp.
How can a government work when it is formed from three parties with mutually exclusive aims? There is no reconciling one party that wants to take money from people who earn it and give it to people who won’t earn it, another party that wants to take a successful country, strip it of it’s money and leave with most of it, and a third party that wants to take the money from everyone whether they have any or not, and give it to their families, friends and associates. I’ll leave you to guess which description summarizes my impression of the NDP, BQ and Liberals.
None of the parties that were unsuccessful in the last election are forming this coalition for the betterment of Canada. If they wanted that they would be trying to form a coalition government with the party that actually won the election. They are doing it to selfishly take power.
Here’s a letter to the editor of our local paper that I wrote this week when I read that come of the parents in the local Catholic (public) school district were considering disallowing the planned immunization program against HPV (the Human papillomavirus) for school-age girls. HPV is responsible for as many as 70 percent of reported cases of cervical cancer.
Dear Catholic Parents
I was distressed to read in the St. City News about the clearly misguided people who want to prevent young girls from being immunized at school against a widespread virus which can have deadly effects, HPV. Some Catholic school parents apparently want to allow a certain percentage of young girls to contract genital warts some time in their lives, and some percentage of those girls will get cervical cancer and die early. The parents think that by doing this they will be making sure that their daughters understand that promiscuity and early sexual activity are bad choices.
Now call me crazy, but I think the best way to make my daughter understand that becoming sexually active too early can have unfortunate and even dire consequences is to just tell her that, repeatedly. There are enough dire consequences to early sexual activity, like teenage pregnancy, other STDs, and social stigma, without us having to add preventable ones like HPV and cervical cancer.
It is a fact of life that youths make bad choices sometimes, the same as anyone else. As parents, it is our responsibility to ensure as much as possible that the consequences of bad choices made by our children are not debilitating or fatal. Presently, almost ALL people who are sexually active get HPV at some time in their lives, according to the CDC. The CDC has peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove that the vaccine is safe, effective, and will prevent HPV infections that cause seventy percent of cervical cancer cases when administered to girls who have not yet been exposed to HPV through sexual activity.
I would have failed as a parent if I were to allow my daughter to get a preventable case of cervical cancer because she might make a poor decision in the future. How about you?