September 5, 2014

 
 
VIA GOT.NEWS——
Mike Brown.’s Instagram account was located.
Brown describes himself: “My Hands My Ammunition”
mike brown sound cloud
“I’m out here to claim whats mines”
And he did. Brown was caught on camera robbing a local convenience store before his death.
Michael Brown from Ferguson posted photos of himself flashing gang signs.
mike brown instagram
Got News
The photos destroy the liberal media narrative that Brown was a nonviolent “gentle giant.”
Brown was often pictured flashing gang signs.
crips michael brown 2
Michael Brown was pictured several times flashing gang signs. The family released this photo to KSDK for a report.
crips michael brown
michael brown crips 3
One hand gesture means “What’s up blood?”
mike_brown gangs
The two pictures on the left appear to depict two different hand signs that show allegiance to a “Bloods” street gang.

September 4, 2014

FIVE WAYS GAY MARRIAGE AFFECTS YOU 

PERSONALLY–EVEN IF YOU’RE NOT GAY OR MARRIED



One of the favorite arguments of libertarians and liberals alike when it comes to the debate over redefining the institution of marriage is that when two consenting adults pledge their lives to each other it does not affect anyone else. The assertion that government recognition of same-sex marriage for someone else does not diminishyour marriage is repeated incessantly, but repetition of a lie does not make it true. Indeed, the debate is far from settled, but the LGBT movement is already showing us what the world will look like if they prevail, and from all the evidence available, it will affect you personally in several different ways, even if you’re not gay and even if you’re not married:
Freedom of Worship by Norman Rockwell, 1943
Freedom of Worship by Norman Rockwell, 1943
1) Freedom to Worship
In 2012, the legislature of Denmark passed a law requiring churches in that country to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Last year, a gay couple in Britain announced they were suing the Church of England even though the recently passed law there was drafted with strong religious freedom protections. If they win their legal battle, England will join Denmark in requiring state-sponsored churches to endorse same-sex marriage. In America, the limits of the First Amendment arealready being put to the test as gay and lesbian activists take the Catholic Church to court for upholding longstanding teachings on chastity and morality for employees. If marriage is redefined by the courts, these lawsuits will only multiply. How long will it be before your diocese is bankrupted by mounting legal bills?
Big Brother by Frederic Guimont
Big Brother by Frederic Guimont
2) Freedom of Conscience
With ObamaCare, we have already seen a hostile government aggressively force religious organizations to violate their beliefs regarding abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures, most infamously the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same tactic now poses a very real threat to any religious organization that seeks government grants under the Obama Administration’s new policy barring federal contractors who uphold the traditional definition of marriage from receiving taxpayer dollars. There is no religious exemption in the new regulation. Many religious organizations which serve the poor and vulnerable must now violate their conscience, scale back their operations, or shut down entirely. There is also the looming threat of IRS inquisitors monitoring sermons for political themes. When government agents harass and punish churches that defend marriage, will yourparish be the next to close its doors?
Patrick Henry by Thomas Sully, c. 1851
Patrick Henry by Thomas Sully, c. 1851
3) Free Speech
The well-publicized case of Brendan Eich is only one example of the chilling effect that gay marriage has on free speech. This past weekend, an angry mob of LGBT protesters gathered below a billboard in Ohio advocating holy matrimony as one man and one woman. A gay rights leader in Columbus summarized his view of free speech rights saying, “This is not OK.” That is, free speech is not “OK” if it offends LGBT activists. Fortunately in this case, the billboard company respected the anonymity of the person or organization that paid for the sign, but others have not been so lucky. Earlier this year, CatholicVote.org reported on the mob of LGBT activists that surrounded a pro-marriage campaign office in New Mexico. Supporters of marriage make their case in good faith and with goodwill but are met with tiresome catcalls of “hate” and “bigotry.” We seek free and open debate, but will the First Amendment protect your right to free speech when the demagogues roar and the bricks start flying?
Rally In Washington D.C. on September 12, 2009
Rally In Washington D.C. on September 12, 2009
4) Freedom of Assembly
This spring, the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston was the subject of a bullying campaign by LGBT groups who wanted to crash the party sponsored by numerous local Catholic organizations in honor of Ireland’s patron saint. Meanwhile, in New York, parade organizers have succumbed to similar bullying efforts and a boycott by the Guinness Company. The threat of a counter-boycott by Catholic schools in Boston saved the parade in “Southie” from becoming a completely secular drunken spectacle and it remains to be seen whether the same will happen in New York. When will you be blocked from participating in a public event that does not include a strong endorsement of the LGBT movement?
Still from "The Great Train Robbery," 1903
Still from “The Great Train Robbery,” 1903
5) Property Rights
Entrepreneurs who support the traditional definition of marriage have been hit early and hard by the LGBT assault on individual rights. In April, a baker in Colorado was ordered by “civil rights” commissars to produce cakes for lesbian couples andparticipate in state-sponsored sensitivity re-education training. A husband and wife photography business in New Mexico exhausted the final avenue of appeal when the Supreme Court denied to hear their case in July. A Catholic couple in New York was fined $13,000 for refusing to allow their property to be used for a religious ceremony between two lesbians, even though they were generously willing to host the reception and had not objected to same-sex civil unions in the past. When will yourproperty be seized or commandeered against your wishes?
This is not a slippery slope fallacy. This is not scare-mongering. This is not hate speech. These are stories straight from the news. This is the world as it is today. These are your rights and they are being attacked this very minute. Silence, anonymity, ambivalence, and apathy may protect you for a while, but if you believe marriage is the indissoluble and exclusive union of one man and one woman–even if only in the most secret depths of your heart–you will be discovered and you will be next. If we do not stand up to defend marriage now, who will defend us in the days to come?

September 2, 2014

Ferguson fundraiser mystery solved -- or is it?

CrimeLaw EnforcementLaws and LegislationElectionsMedia IndustryMichael Brown
Ferguson fundraising mystery may be solved, but some mystery remains
Tax lawyers trying to figure out how to handle contributions to Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson, official says
'The information you have been given is false,' administrator of one fundraising page cautions
Two online fundraising pages that raised more than $400,000 for the police officer who killed an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Mo., were shut down this weekend so tax lawyers could decide how best to handle the money, an official told the Los Angeles Times.
Mystery has surrounded the pages on the crowdsourced fundraising site GoFundMe since Saturday, when both were suspended by their creators without an explanatory note to donors. And some mystery persisted Monday night.
"Support Officer Darren Wilson" and "Support Officer Wilson"  -- two separate pages with similar names -- raised $235,750 and $197,620, respectively, for the Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown, 18, on Aug. 9, touching off protests and unrest.
The first page, “Support Officer Darren Wilson,” had raised the most concern because its creator was anonymous and had not received certified status from GoFundMe.
Missouri state Rep. Jeffrey Roorda, a Democrat who is helping to handle Wilson’s fundraising efforts, said the creator of that page is a teenage girl from the St. Louis area.
“I think she thought she’d raise a few hundred dollars, and she ended up raising a few hundred thousand dollars,” Roorda said in a phone interview Monday night. After her page got popular, Roorda said, the young woman started receiving “serious threats.”
Roorda said he doesn’t know how old she is or whether she’s a minor; he described her as a “teenage girl,” a “young girl.”
When The Times relayed Roorda’s story to the anonymous accountholder of the page purportedly created by the girl, however, an unidentified administrator responded: “I can tell you I have not worked with or spoken with Rep. Roorda. The information you have been given is false.”
Roorda replied, “So what part’s false?” adding that he hadn’t personally met the girl but that other police officials had met her to thank her. He guessed that perhaps the page’s creator was trying to protect herself from further threats.
Once again, however, an anonymous administrator denied the story. “We can guarantee you the information is not correct,” a subsequent email said. “We cannot control what you may choose to report/publish but we do want you to know when information is inaccurate. We appreciate your understanding regarding this matter.”
A spokeswoman for GoFundMe had previously told The Times that the service “has been in contact with the campaign organizer and has no reason to question their authenticity,” but added that the page had been stripped from the site’s search results because the creator no longer had a Facebook page attached to the fundraising page.
Also muddying matters in recent days was an anonymously run Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” with more than 77,000 likes.
In status updates over the weekend, the page’s operator had purported to know why the fundraising efforts had been halted but declined to share more information with supporters – some of whom saw their comments deleted after they raised questions about who was handling the money.
At one point, the page exhorted followers to start a petition against the GoFundMe page run by the attorneys  for Brown's family, which had raised $317,143 as of Monday evening.
“It’s a third-party thing,” Roorda said of the Facebook page. “It’s a fellow out of Texas who reached out early on, wanted to know how to help.  We told him about the young girl’s charitable efforts, he put the page up, and has promoted those efforts.”
Roorda is vice president of Shield of Hope -- the charitable wing of the Fraternal Order of Police union, to which Wilson belongs -- as well as a Democratic candidate for state Senate.
 (Earlier this year, Roorda sponsored a bill that, in addition to other changes, would have kept the names of officers involved in shootings secret unless they were charged. Roorda told The Times he is no longer pushing for that legislation.)
Roorda said Shield of Hope -- whose officers include a spokesman for the Ferguson Police Department and a Florissant city council member -- created the second Wilson fundraising page after the girl’s mom asked the union to take over.
That Florissant city council member, Joseph Eagan, said in an email: “My affiliation with the charity has more to do with my work as a police officer than as a councilman. Essentially I believe in due process.” He alluded to an incident in which he’d been shot while on duty.
 “The suspect that shot me in the face at point-blank range received due process,” he said. “I think all Americans should.” Eagen added that he would let Roorda speak on behalf of the organization.
Roorda said GoFundMe rules prevent page creators from transferring the administration of donation pages to other users, which is why two pages for Wilson came to exist side by side. Roorda said tax attorneys for the police union were trying to figure out how best to handle the hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions, since donations for legal defenses are apparently not tax-deductible.
“Before this, we were raising hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars to help pay for scholarships for children of cops, to pay for relief when an officer was hurt or killed in the line of duty,” Roorda said of Shield of Hope, which has existed for several years. “The epic proportions of this case is something that I don’t think anything was prepared for or expected.”
After a previous Times story identified Roorda as a member of the Wilson fundraising effort, social media users took note of details about his professional history.
Roorda was fired from the police force of Arnold, a St. Louis exurb, in 2001. His superiors accused him of filing a false statement against a suspect in 1997 and against his own police chief in 2001 when the chief declined to give Roorda paid paternity leave, according to Missouri court records.
The lawmaker told The Times that the 2001 dispute with his boss came after Roorda filed a police report against the chief for violating a restraining order held by the chief’s wife. The city fired the chief not long after, he said.
Roorda later became police chief of Kimmswick, another St. Louis exurb, and a business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers Assn. He now sits on the Missouri House’s public safety committee.
Asked if he had any trepidation at getting involved in the Ferguson affair as a politician running for office, Roorda responded:
“I can tell you that every single voter in my district that I’ve talked to wants to reserve judgment on Officer Wilson and on Michael Brown until the facts are out there. … The people in my district just care about getting the facts and about justice being done.”
Follow @MattDPearce for national news

August 31, 2014

THE CATHOLIC GUIDE TO SELF DEFENSE

564294_491333930877488_1084597_n
Imagine you are looking for a parking spot at the mall on a busy weekend. You finally find someone pulling out of a spot, and once it is empty, you pull into it. But because there is a lot of traffic, you didn’t see another driver who had been waiting for the same spot for 5 minutes. You took the other driver’s spot and didn’t know it.
As you and your family leave the car, the driver jumps out of the car enraged and screaming obscenities. He is well built and looks like he could do some serious damage. You try to calm him down and explain that you didn’t see him, but it isn’t working. Finally, he pulls a knife and begins brandishing it aggressively while moving closer to you. Your family is terrified. What do you do?

IS SELF DEFENSE EVER JUSTIFIED?

Hopefully the above situation never happens to you, but these and similar scenarios do happen all the time. As Catholic men, are we justified in defending ourselves and our families? Or should we meekly turn the other cheek, come what may?
The short answer is yes, self defense is justified. The Doctors of the Church and the Magisterium have made it clear that self-defense is not only a right, but in some cases, a duty. In the Catechism, the guidelines for when exactly self-defense is legitimate are presented. Let’s take a look at what it has to say.
First, the Catechism makes clear that killing a human being is always a grave issue, and it should never be taken lightly. Obviously, we should not be trigger happy vigilantes killing anyone who gives us a dirty look (2261-2262). But then, the Catechism goes on to explain that the fundamental principle of morality is love and preservation of one’s self (2264).
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.
In other words, loving one’s neighbor means nothing if you don’t first love yourself in a rightly ordered way. After all, Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The instinct of self-preservation is based on the fact that life is a good given to us by God. We have an intrinsic and fundamental right to live. Therefore, we also have a right to defend ourselves.
But what about defending others? Do we have a right to do that, too? Absolutely. In fact, defending the innocent is not only a right, it is a duty. We have the ability to lay down our own life for a greater good (as Jesus and the martyrs of the Church did), but we never have the right to lay down the lives of others. I can surrender my own life, but I can never surrender your life for you. The Catechism makes this clear (2265):
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
While this paragraph specifically refers to the defense of the civil community, it also applies to the family. If someone is presenting a clear danger to the lives of your wife and children, you have the right and duty to do whatever is necessary to render them harmless— even if it means killing them. And that leads me to my next point.

LETHAL FORCE

Now that we have established that self-defense is indeed justified, the question of lethal force arises. Can we justifiably ever kill an aggressor? There are certainly a number of good Catholics with a pacifist bent that would say no— it is never justifiable. Despite the feelings of these well meaning Catholics, however, the answer given by the Church is yes, lethal force can be justified.
But before we examine what justifies killing another human being, let me first say that the Church is and always has been the defender of common sense. The Church defends sanity in an age that has gone insane, and this sanity applies to every area of life, including self defense. What do I mean? Well, I am a former member of the Colorado Rangers, a state-wide auxiliary law enforcement agency, and I received much of the same training mandated for police officers. What amazes me is how similar the standards for using lethal force presented to law enforcement officers are to those presented in the Catechism. You can trust the wisdom of the Church, folks.
The Catechism spells out that lethal force can be justified if one is left with no other choice. Killing should be a last resort, however, after everything else has been tried. Here’s what the Catechism, citing St. Thomas Aquinas says (2264):
Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
St. Thomas, quoted by the Catechism, is basically saying, Don’t shoot someone for stealing your wallet. That is more than necessary violence. But if someone has pulled a knife on you and they by all appearances seem ready to use it, then you can respond in kind. Responding to force with like force is moderation in self-defense.
The idea of moderation in the use of force is very similar to the “use of force continuum” used by law enforcement officers. While the details of this continuum are beyond the scope of this post, it boils down to the maxim: Don’t shoot someone unless you have no other choice. If your life— or the life of someone else—is in imminent danger, you have the right to use lethal force. If there is any possibility of anything else working (verbal commands, physical combat, pepper spray, etc.), you have an obligation to try that first.

CONCLUSION

The guiding principles laid out by the Church can be summarized as follows:
  • We have a legitimate right to self defense based on rightly ordered self love
  • We have a duty to protect those in our care, such as our families
  •  Force should be used in moderation. Force should be met with like force.
  • The taking of a human life in self defense should be a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted
Self defense can be a tricky issue, especially when lethal force is involved. Life and death situations involve split second decisions that can leave someone dead and alter the course of your life. Never, ever, should a human life be taken in a careless fashion.
I will conclude with a quote from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae, on the tension between respect for human life, obedience to the 5th commandment, and self defense. It summarizes the issue perfectly.
There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself. Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. [The quotation is from # 2265 in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

August 30, 2014


Getty Images
Un-muzzle the scientists? Not so fast.



Those with the lab coats do not have a monopoly on evidence




Every so often, something happens that renews calls in this country for scientists within the federal government to have more unfettered rights to speak to media. This past week, it was the nearly comical number of layers of bureaucracy through which a request to hold a media briefing on the extent of Arctic ice erosion needed to pass. Previously, we’ve seen similar calls motivated by differences between Canadian and U.S. standards with respect to publication of research results or the presence of so-called minders at scientific conferences. I’ve hesitated to write on this despite often engaging in heated discussions on the subject, both on Twitter and in less virtual environments, because it’s not my area of expertise. It’s still not an area in which I have any formal training, and my experience is limited, but I feel that I can comment on some aspects of the debate based on the time I spent on sabbatical at Environment Canada, a department frequently attacked for the so-called muzzling of scientists.

The basic arguments in favour of loosening the controls on government scientists to speak to media often follow from one of two points: either that the research is publicly funded, and so should be accessible to the public; or, that making researchers available to the media would show that the government is hiding evidence that might otherwise undermine its policy agenda. For example, when interviewed at a protest by scientists on Parliament Hill last year, University of Ottawa professor Jeremy Kerrstated that, “the facts do not change just because the Harper government has chosen ignorance over evidence and ideology over honesty.” That’s certainly accurate, at least insofar as the facts being generally invariant to the will of the Prime Minister, but the government of Canada has no monopoly over the facts—there are plenty of entities, government-funded and otherwise, that can do a fine job of holding the government to account externally, as professor Kerr’s comments to the Star illustrate.

For me, the key questions are whether government researchers should, themselves, be able to speak out when they feel a government policy does not align with the evidence and, if so, why we would only restrict that to a particular class of government researchers? To speak out publicly against government policy is, by the current definition, fundamentally at odds with the role of a public servant in our democracy. Public servants are expected to provide impartial advice to the policy development process and loyal implementation of government policies once decisions are taken. They are not supposed to critique that policy publicly when it doesn’t align with their interpretation of the evidence or their beliefs with respect to how that evidence should be weighed. Allowing public servants to be openly critical of government decisions – whether based on scientific evidence or any other criteria – turns the relationship between the bureaucracy and their democratically elected masters on its head, undermining the trust essential to an effective working relationship.

Many would like to have you believe that there are issues for which we could live in a technocracy—where the science speaks so clearly as to the correct policy that there is no role for any other factors. I can’t think of a single instance where that would be so. Often-cited in debates on the muzzling of scientists is my University of Alberta colleague David Schindler and his ground-breaking work at the Experimental Lakes Area. What did that research tell us? It made clear, for the first time, the link between human activity, in particular industrial sulphur emissions and nutrient effluent from agriculture, and the health of lake ecosystems. It told us about the damages from pollution and was some of the most important and policy-relevant pieces of scientific work in this country’s history. What Dr. Schindler’s research alone could not tell us is what we should do about it. It did not tell us what costs we should be willing to impose on industry to prevent these damages, it did not tell us how Canadian economic activity, trade, and employment would react if certain policies were imposed, nor did it tell us how Canadians would prioritize expenses to defray these damages versus other potential uses of government and private sector resources. In other words, it gave us an important piece of the policy puzzle, but not the entire picture. You can’t prove, with science alone, what the policy should be—science isn’t normative—but only what is and what will be if you take a particular action.

In a policy department like Environment Canada, policy decisions are made through a process that involves bureaucrats from different disciplines including scientists, engineers and economists. Senior bureaucrats interact with the minister’s office, with central agencies like the Department of Finance, and with the Privy Council Office, which acts as the bureaucratic liaison to the Prime Minister’s Office. When a policy proposal is on the table, there are different opportunities for arguments to be made, decisions to be challenged, and evidence to be presented. As an economist visiting Environment Canada for the year, I was fortunate to participate in briefings at every level and to be given the opportunity to present evidence on occasion. Sometimes, that evidence carried the day. Sometimes, I came out of a briefing feeling that I’d lost—that economic evidence as to the best policy option, data on the cost of taking one action over another, or predictions of the likely outcome had been ignored in favour of evidence presented by others. In most cases, it hadn’t been ignored, but it just hadn’t been given the weight I thought it should. You might imagine that it was always those with the lab coats pushing stronger action, while the economists pushed for weaker action. It wasn’t. At the end of the day, senior public servants and elected officials did what they were paid to do: they weighed the evidence and made decisions.

The way the unmuzzlers would have you believe that the system should work is that, when senior public servants or elected officials take a decision with which the scientists in the room do not agree, these scientists should — and it is largely those in the “hard” sciences that the unmuzzlers are talking about — because they are on the side of the evidence, be free to speak up and to contest that decision in the public arena. The problem with that, as I see it, is that those with the lab coats do not have a monopoly on evidence: across the federal government, there are a variety of public servants collecting and compiling data, conducting experiments, testing hypotheses, developing numerical models, and the like. Some are scientists in the conventional sense of the word (i.e. they wear lab coats) while some are economists, sociologists, statisticians, and engineers. It’s impossible to draw clear lines between what is “scientific evidence” presented to senior decision makers and what is not.

Let’s imagine the government is considering a regulation on an industrial sector and, based on the evidence presented, senior decision-makers conclude that the costs in terms of reduced output, employment, and value-added of enacting stringent regulation are justified based on the benefits to the ecosystem and/or to human health presented by the scientists (in this caricature, you can imagine the scientists wearing their lab coats in the briefing if you prefer). Now suppose that one of the experts involved—an economist in a central agency, for the sake of this caricature—decides that this decision is simply inconsistent with the evidence he or she presented. Suppose he or she decided that, if only the Canadian people were made aware of this economic evidence, they too would side with a “weaker” policy response. Clearly, it’s in the public interest to drop a brown envelope on someone’s doorstep so that the headlines the next morning might read something like, “Government considering regulation that would halt oil sands development, cost thousands of jobs,” with the story crediting an anonymous government economist privy to the discussions, right? That would push the government to make the right decision.

In the caricature I’ve presented, the evidence would all be accurate, but it would be one-sided: the article in the newspaper would show you all of the costs of the policy and none of the benefits. The implication would be clear: that the government had ignored all these costs in reaching its decision, and Canadians should be outraged. The implication would also be entirely false. All that heroic economist would have done with his or her actions would have been to tilt the decision-making process toward their preferred weighing of the evidence. Would it be any different if the decision had gone the other way, toward the less stringent policy, and it were the scientist, clad as ever in his or her lab coat, dropping off the brown envelopes? I think not.

Should we have more open government science? Perhaps. I think the better question is to what degree government-supported research should take place in arms-length agencies (the U.S. model for agencies like NASA and the Energy Information Administration come to mind) or outsourced to universities via government granting agencies as opposed to being housed in policy departments. Research housed outside of government departments would allow elected and bureaucratic offices to determine which questions are being asked by researchers or which subject areas are being explored without having influence over the answers or controlling the message. It would also mean that researchers were not privy to the policy discussions of the day and would not necessarily be involved when their research is used to support a decision. There are also options within the public service: perhaps Statistics Canada could broaden its role to collect and publish more environmental statistics such as the sea ice coverage, which was the subject of so much consternation this week, perhaps absorbing some of the functions now performed within Environment Canada. In the same way in which no one would ask a Statistics Canada official what government should do to combat youth unemployment or to raise median incomes when those data are published, no one would ask whether the extent of sea ice coverage should influence our climate change policy choices. When you’re asking officials from the department with jurisdiction over both our domestic climate change policies and our intervention in international climate change negotiations about sea ice coverage, the implications are very different. The questions to the scientist might even be policy-neutral, but I expect most of the resulting articles would not be.

If you want to take the muzzle off government researchers, that’s fine if you want it for the right reasons. I’m all in favour of increasing the quality of information available both to our decision-makers and to the general public. However, we must do it without skewing the policy process. The only way to make sure that’s true if you want open access to researchers is to disconnect those undertaking primary and policy-relevant research from that process and from those departments. Whether that’s best done through arms-length institutions, through universities, or through agencies such as Statistics Canada is a topic for debate. Of course, there are some topics of current government research not suited to open inquiry, for a variety of reasons. Maybe you’re willing to sacrifice some of those topics for access to information? You might also find that some of our government’s best researchers prefer their seat at the policy table to the front pages of the newspaper. Maybe that’s a sacrifice you’re willing to make? Unfortunately, I doubt you’ll be able to rely on anyone in a lab coat to tell you with certainty which is best for the country.

On the other hand, if your reason for removing the muzzle is because you think policy decisions need to be skewed or the government needs to be challenged, then there’s a better process for that that doesn’t involve sacrificing our public service. Rumour has it it will happen next October, if not sooner.