________________________________________

Jenny Shutek’s comment on the banning of the full-face veil issue in France seem to miss a few key elements.

First, France has used the Euro as currency since 1999. The fine proposed for wearing a full-face veil are from 150 to 15,000 Euros, not Franc. However, my main criticism is towards the fact that the author seems to misunderstands religion in the French culture. France is a country that had centuries of religious wars. As a result of these wars, France passed very strict laws on secularism in 1905.

These laws forbid, for example, children from wearing a cross while in school. These laws have significantly reduce religious tension in France. It is in that context that one must understand the issue of the Islamic scarf in France.

Banning the full-face veil might or might not be the right answer to this issue, however for most people in France the issue is not between Christianity and Islam, but between a religious or a secular society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Respect of personality types: the next challenge of human rights?

There are as many personality types as there are people in this world. This richness is a remarkable asset for humanity. However, as we all have strengths and weaknesses, could it be possible that some social practices specifically prejudice certain types of individuals?

Human Rights have seen amazing progresses in the last few centuries. From the abolition of slavery, to women’s right to vote and the legalization of same-sex marriage, Human Rights tend to protect more and more people. These developments have allowed many individuals to contribute significantly to the society in which they live. However, beyond this statement, the gradual disappearance of discriminations has another advantage. The diversity generated from these rights, brings huge advantages to organizations, communities and nations that practice the respectful integration of differences.

However, as many forms of discrimination are no longer tolerated, there is one area where they are not only common, but probably on the rise: discriminations based on personality types.

Anyone who lives in a big family surely noted that, despite sharing many similarities with their siblings, there are key differences that appear early in childhood. For example, there is the shy brother who does not speak much, the sister who always cries before bath time, etc. In other words, we all have different personalities, with our strengths and our flaws. One could almost argue that life is about developing our talents and accepting our weaknesses. But that is another topic altogether.

Personality tests often help understanding ourselves and are generally good guides when choosing a profession for example. However, their usage can sometimes be inappropriate. For instance, many companies use them to select the right candidates for specific jobs. This practice is legitimized by the need to have a cohesive working environment. However, one danger arising from such practice is the emergence of “groupthink”. This occurs when different members of an organization have the same concerns, values and priorities. Often, the same methods are used, resulting with the same conclusions, and implementing the same solutions to a problem. The danger when “groupthink” occurs is that often the same mistakes are repeated.

A study, The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, published a few months after the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, severely criticized NASA for maintaining and even fostering a “groupthink” environment. In this case, too few engineers were in executive positions, generally filled up by managers coming from business schools. This contributed to a lack of technical discussions at management level that resulted in accumulation of errors, which killed seven astronauts and delayed significantly the U.S. space program.

The survival of the human species?

In her book, The Highly Sensitive Person (Broadway Book, 1996), Elaine Aron explains that any human society is composed of two types of individuals. The “Warrior-Kings” are risk-takers, tend to be aggressive and enable society to expand. The “Royal-Advisors” are cautious, reserved, and make sure society survives. Beyond their differences, the survival of any group depends on the cooperation between these two types of individuals. Any business, government, or neighbourhood association, etc. needs both types to survive. If not, major dysfunction occurs.

According to the author, the “Royal-Advisors” have lost influence over the “Warrior-Kings” in the last fifty years. This is because the society in which we live promotes high production in stressful environments, and gives little emphasis on reflection. In an article by Josée Blanchette in Le Devoir on October 16, 2009 on the same subject, the latter wrote: “We want compassionate doctors but, above all, they must be able to complete a consultation in five minutes. This leads to a shortage of more sensitive doctors, nurses and teachers.”

Many people are therefore victims of a subtle discrimination that even seems justified. Some practices or work environments often prevent more perceptive and insightful people to develop their capacities. The contrary is also probably true, which could explains why there are as few compassionate doctors as there are organized artists! The first step to resolve these injustices is of course to realize that such discriminations exist in the first place. If some factors affect negatively certain people, then the losers are not only those individuals, but everyone who could benefit from their contribution to society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

VANOC: Oppressing Olympic fans in both official languages

While I think that there are more pressing issues, such as the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, and the horrendous response from VANOC and the International Luge Federation, basically blaming the now-silenced victim for his own death.  Or the fact that the Olympic Cauldron is behind a fence that makes the whole site look like it’s in jail, which symbolizes perfectly VANOC mismanagement of the whole Olympic fiasco.  I’ll briefly write about the place of French-language at the Olympics.

I personally think that… it’s generally OK.  The overwhelm majority of Olympic-related signs in Vancouver are bilingual.  The Opening ceremony was in both official languages.  What many do not understand is that Vancouver, while being in Canada, is not a very francophone city.  And it is Vancouver who host the Olympics, not bilingual Canada.

Since John Furlong doesn’t speak French, VANOC could have a second person speaking in Molière’s language at the opening ceremony.  Other than minor elements such as the one previously mentioned, the 2010 games are fairly bilingual.  Or at least, as bilingual as Vancouver can get.

Of all the things that are badly managed by VANOC, the place of French at the opening ceremony, is a relatively minor mishap in my opinion.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Please find below my Statement of interest.  Good luck to all candidates, and to me too.

________________________________________

By providing a middle ground to owning a vehicle and relying on transit and cycling, the Co-operative Auto Network contributes to improving the lives of its members, our communities and the environment. It is with this vision in mind that I offer my abilities to CAN and submit my candidacy to the Board of Directors.

My priority, as a member of the board, would be to expand the Car co-op network into the suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, etc.). This would benefit not only potential members currently living in the suburbs, but also those who occasionally require a vehicle in suburbia. Other projects are to provide documentation in other languages, keeping sound financial management, providing better access to the Board of Directors and a review of the complain process.

Living in South Vancouver (Marpole) since 2001, I joined CAN before there was a vehicle in my neighbourhood. Since then, my involvement has included volunteered for a few presentation shows and working in the main office as a Call Centre Manager and a Member Care Co-ordinator, first on a full time basis, then on-call, from 2007 to 2009. Fluent in French and English, I also speak decent Spanish and basic Cantonese. I am currently completing on a part time basis a certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. I also comment on social and environmental issues in a monthly column in L’Express du Pacifique newspaper and on the web: www.vancf.net.

Thank you,

Frédéric Van Caenegem

A similar phenomenon (screaming out loud meaningless numbers) also happened recently at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. When it comes to global warming, we hear talks of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 5 years; 20% by 2020; 25% less of now; 30% based on 1990 emissions; etc. Everywhere, officials and politicians are shouting numbers and targets. These promises and numbers have no more chances of becoming reality than I respecting my New Year resolution.

My father often says that politicians that do not respect their promises should be sent to the guillotine. While the style is a bit extreme, he has a point. Politicians do not suffer punishment when promises are broken. Even worse, they regularly are re-elected. And for that no one is to blame but us.

The Kyoto Protocol had ambitious targets and look where it got us? Most of the countries that endorsed it are in no position to reach their targets. Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol under Jean Chrétien and it made his government look good. However, that same government introduced ridiculously insignificant measures when time came to be concrete about global warming. Just read for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/08/12/kyototue030812.html. The result of inaction is an increase of CO2 emissions of 26% since 1990! We were supposed to reduce them by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. At least the Bush administration was clear that they were not even going to try reaching their targets.

The problem with the Kyoto protocol was not lack of ambitions, but lack of concrete measures. A real reduction of greenhouses gases emissions requires commitment by citizens, industry and institutions. It requires money, methods and penalties. It needs money to build green transportation infrastructures, to mass produce solar panels or protect the Amazon rain forest. And it requires stiff penalties for industries or countries that do not reach their objectives, or worse, do not even try, such as Canada.

All the media focus is on meaningless numbers. While groups are pushing for concrete measures and objectives, this gets no recognitions in press time. The extremely meagre and disappointing Copenhagen Agreement has at least one positive thing that Kyoto Protocol didn’t: measures. The agreement reached in Copenhagen, while disappointing, may be a step in the right direction. In that agreement there are no targets and numbers, but funding. The funding is not enough, however, it is probably better than some ambitious toothless protocol.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

First, I was stunned by the results of the electoral change (STV) referendum last May.  Although, I respect the will of the people, I still think British Columbians were wrong.  I sometime feel that people are waiting for a simple solution that will fix everything.  In the meantime, we let go of good compromise that improve some things.  The proverb says, “loose the battle, but don’t loose the lesson”.  I have yet to learn an positive lesson from that experience.

The second, more positive and more important reason regarding my recent silence is that I am busy with studies that I started in May 2009.  I am attempting to complete a Certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University (http://www.sfu.ca/cscd/).  These studies keep me quite busy and focused so I think I have to apologized if I have not written on my blog recently.  But silence is not always negative.  In this case, silence comes from pursuing other activities.  So I guess it is true then, Silence is Golden and I hope you can stand the overwhelming sound of silence.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

If you can’t see the video, the text is available on cknw’s website here: http://www.cknw.com/blog/christys_bc_15/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10031397

Frédéric Van Caenegem

One aspect on which very little has been written on is the ridings under BC-STV and FPTP electoral systems. One quick look at the map will show one thing very quickly: the ridings are bigger under BC-STV! That being said, are they better?

The current system divides the territory into ridings that have roughly the same population. Simple right? Well not so much. Under the FPTP electoral system, democracy can be rigged by controlling the geography of ridings. This is actually very common in the United States and it is called gerrymandering.

In Canada, there is less gerrymandering. The main reason is that in Canada, independent commissions draw the ridings; while in the United States, it is the congressmen themselves that draw up these districts. After each election, these are redrawn to maximize their probability of being elected. Look here at Florida’s 3rd district for example!

Even though nothing prevents these commissions to be partisan, the situation has remained fairly civilized north of the border. But I have a feeling that with governments and political parties being less and less cautious about political manipulation, it is just a question of time before we get to that point too.

And here is another reason why I like BC-STV: gerrymandering is impossible under BC-STV ridings. Effectively, ridings being bigger and more competitive, geographic manipulation cannot assure re-election!

In addition of getting rid of gerrymandering, another thing I noticed from the BC-STV map is that these ridings make sense. Under FPTP ridings, quite often the ridings are weird, being in the middle of a neighbourhood for no reason. What makes the people living north of 49th street so different from the people living south of it?

Under BC-STV, ridings make much more sense. Burnaby-New Westminster is… Burnaby and New Westminster. Under BC-STV, ridings tend to correspond much more to geographic entities that are known to everyone. There are almost no artificial lines that have no social, regional or even municipal meaning.

Ridings under BC-STV make much more sense and correspond to real entities: regions, municipalities, etc.  That makes BC-STV impossible to manipulate through gerrymandering. The ridings under the current electoral system can be manipulated by political interests!

Remember to vote on May 12, polls are open from 8AM to 8PM. If you don’t know where to vote, contact ElectionsBC.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Few have been as honest and insightful as former Deputy Premier Christy Clark on CKNW yesterday. Here’s the video everybody needs to see before they vote in Tuesday’s provincial referendum.

As Christy says, this is the most important vote we’ll cast. Please forward this to everybody you know.

Regards,
Shoni Field
British Columbians for BC-STV