Friday, July 19, 2019

Earlier today I received a notice about a blog posting on The Broadbent Institute's blog with regard to the securitization of Muslims through Canadian policy makers. I read the email and then the posting and decided to write this in response to both.

The blog posting which is written by Fahad Ahmad is very well written though I disagree with Ahmad's point in the posting that states that the dismantling of religious expression is a thinly veiled attempt to securitize Canadian Muslims. I would disagree in that it isn't targeting Muslims at all, but rather working to protect the foundation of our Constitution, Charter Of Rights and our Human Rights Act, all of which have been experiencing social challenge from those who'd rather see a theocratic regime or religious tribunal running our country. That isn't  a sharpened statement directed at Muslims but at many who've lost faith in Governance and would rather see our society run by the rules of religion, or more specifically to have communities of exception within Canadian territory that are run by the local and most prevalent clergy rather than our elected representatives. This includes replacing our legal system with an equivalent tribunal system based upon the most prevalent religion with distinct communities throughout Canada.

A variety of communities were seeking this during Rt. Hon. Steven Harper's time in Canadian Office and there is a continued social pressure towards such transformation of our society and Government towards the rule of religion rather than the rule of law and our social Parliamentary Democracy. The recent policies like Bill 21 that are geared towards preventing a branding of Government to any particular religion have been created not to oppress or undermine religion, but to keep our system of Government from becoming a religious brand of any kind. That's what secularism is about.

The difference between Theocratic rule and our Parliamentary Democracy is that our statues and laws can be changed in accordance through public representation of our elected officials. Our founding document is the Constitution which lays the ground work for our national identity as Canadians. From there various Acts have been instituted which uphold describe and uphold those ideals and form the back bone of our legal system and public policy. When there is discourse with any of those policies they can later be over turned. Our system can change over time to meet social challenges that occur with the progression of time.

In a Theocracy, the founding document is usually a religious text of some form, which includes all of the ideals, the laws and acts within that text, which are interpreted by a representative of that religion and without the approval of the people because religious texts cannot be changed. There is no theocratic Government in existence whereby the public through representation could transform the actual religion through discourse. The only thing that can change in a theocracy is interpretation. History has proven that with any religion that no two sects can wholly agree with their interpretation of the scripture of their particular religion because they differ through interpretation, not through adaptability in the same way that democracy is adaptable.

That doesn't mean that people should be pressured into giving up their religion. It does mean however that when it comes to how our diverse society is run, that society must represent the interests of us all. The few and the many regardless of our differences in belief. That means that Government should never become a brand of any particular religion. These steps that are being taken, are being done so in the interest of the whole of society rather than in order to target one group of society.

I could not find the case in point involving Mr. Harper's stance against tribunals but I did find this short Globe And Mail article which is proof that legally binding religious tribunals were in fact being pursued by a number of faiths in Canada. Thankfully (though somewhat unexpectedly) Mr. McGuinty banned all religious arbitrations in Ontario, not just those of Shariah.

So here is my response to that email and Fahad Ahmad's post.

Dear Brittany and  members of The Broadbent Institute,

I am writing this email in response to a notification entitled: Securitization and the Muslim community in Canada.

While it is clear that security policy should not target any specific religion, it should seek to uphold the ideals upon which our Constitution, Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and Human Rights Act are founded upon. When those ideals are violated by any group against other Canadians or citizens of the world, it reflects poorly upon the entire religious community and polarizes the public to a state of distrust. A state to which none of us are immune (your truly included). Our freedom here incurs an important responsibility that is shared amongst us all. The intersocial boundaries that we have fabricated have a growing tendency to divide us rather than to allow us to benefit from the merits of philosophical competition and meaningful debate. This is becoming more obvious as more and more public figures are targeted in attempt to rouse unbecoming reaction from them in a of circus of social puppetry. While everyone should be ready to accept the responsibility that their words and action incur, our words and actions should never be wrought from us by harassment or social abuse. There are always three sides to every conflict and the first two contribute to understanding the third, which is the truth. While I am referring to Canada in this reply, it has certain relevance in other parts of the world as well. The point being that our behavior towards others can incur responsibilities on our part as communication is a two way street. Extreme reaction to extreme treatment is therefore the responsibility of both parties.

How does this apply to religion and policy in Canada? The first way it applies is through the common social bias of our history and tradition in the new world, which has a tendency to ignore what came before it. In other words in this land, though seldom legally recognized by our 150 some odd year old Dominion, there was an indigenous population whose land and beliefs were smothered by the arrival of colonists from abroad. Though the tradition of this country in legal terms favours Christian ity and Abraham based Western religions, through expansive immigration policies we've grown in diversity to include representation from just about every faith and agnostic view from around the world. In order to operate as a modern social democracy it is of the utmost importance now more than ever that we ensure that Governance becomes entirely and remains secular so that no one religion represents the people, who are decidedly of a multitude of different religions and traditions and fairly represents those whose beliefs differ from those of organized religion.

This is exactly what Canada seems to be undergoing and rightfully so because this benefits everyone and protects our Constitution, Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and Human Rights Act from theocratic influence that would be decidedly biased. In doing this we are not turning our backs on our tradition, but rather recognizing that Canada ultimately is a place of many traditions. One of the steps to rectifying the mistakes of the past is to ensure that this takes place in order to guarantee a place in our country for the indigenous religions that our colonial ancestors replaced with Christianity. All beliefs have a place here and all should be responsible for their treatment of others in our society just as every person is according to our Constitution, our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and our Human Rights Act. That responsibility is outlined very clearly. We all have rights but those rights are only guaranteed if we protect them. If even one person is denied their rights in these matters then we've failed to live up to what those ideals cost to procure. The response by the security community is a result of those who undermine our Constitution, our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and our Human Rights Act by attempting to puppeteer others by way of harassment and abusive social treatment that is designed to radicalize the reaction and behavior of people in society. 

I believe in the Constitution, the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and the Human Rights Act. It protects me from being treated in a way that limits or shapes my freedom according to the symbolism of colours. It protects me from being mistreated by others socially because I have green eyes. It protects my love interest and myself from being mistreated because of our differences in culture (I'm Caucasian and she is Mandarin Chinese). It is stated very clearly in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights of the United Nations. It protects me from having my freedom limited according to what I eat or the colours I choose to wear. It protects me from being discriminated against based upon the people with whom I associate or choose to call my friends. It protects my rights to deny my association to or with others. It protects me from being discriminated based upon the choice of party for which I choose to vote. It protects me from having my statehood socially denied as a Canadian by others who would try to trick me into violating the very rights by which I'm protected. I'm protected from being discriminated against for being a Taoist and a Buddhist. People who would infringe those rights (or try to provoke or trick others into doing the same) are doing this country a great injustice and spitting in the face of what it cost and the people who paid to get us to the point where we are today. That includes our incredible infrastructure, our healthcare system and our social safety net. We have an innovative and diverse business and technology environment and many driven professionals to populate that workforce. Canada is amongst one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources, but that wealth has a price that we must protect the delicate natural biomes within our country from the side effects of resource extraction and refinement. All of that came to be as a result of our Constitution, our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and our Human Rights Act and the will of the people.

So removing religious symbols from places where the institution of our Government operates is the start as that is often the grounds upon which secret religious social battles are fought. This is not policy that states that people must remove religious symbols from their home. It doesn't remove anyone's freedom to their choice of religion. It isn't a public order that all Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Temples are to be destroyed and replaced with secular, institutionally friendly buildings. It is ensuring a separation between State and Religion. I am grateful for the place in communities that many religious institutions have taken in terms of their service to others while remaining secular in nature despite their ties to religious tradition. The Food Bank system is one such example whereby a person of one religion (or no religion) may enter into the Church, Mosque, Synagogue or Temple of another religion and expect to receive the same treatment and rights as the parishioners of that religion according to Canadian law. Faith and belief come from the inside of a person and not from any symbol they might wear though the idea is that in serving the Government, we must put aside our tendency towards religious bias and consider the bigger picture.

I believe that in this day and age that all religions are experiencing a social change throughout society and Islam is no exception to this. It is evident that the nature and role of religion in society is transforming from one of dogmatic and aggressive conversion of community members to one of service in the community in which they operate. Perhaps the public is coming to embrace difference and diversity while learning to balance an individual sense of tradition and the bonding of people with similar views. There is nothing wrong with having different opinions as there is having different beliefs. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a boundary between oneself, their peers and others outside of their clique. This is human nature and so it is the secularization of Government protects us all from the social or dogmatic bias of any one religion and policy founded thereupon. Instead we all live upon neutral ground and it is within our circles that we practice matters of belief and religion. I'd even go so far as to say that religion is a personal yardstick for a suggested curriculum and measure of one's spiritual progress, the key word being personal. This view is reflected in our Constitution, our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and our Human Rights Act.

It is this guarantee of rights and the public peace and safety that the security sector seek to protect. They are contending with an elusive social dynamic prevalent in society that is very difficult to quantify. The problem isn't the security sector. Its the flaws of every human being that comes into play when security policy is implemented and quite often, security is tested to the extreme for any wrongful and unjust bias, which in itself stirs up many of the contentions that result in an increased security policy. In fact this is how the Israeli/Palenstinian border security has evolved and affected Israeli security policy. The attempt by any group to rouse another group to appear as the proverbial monster. The security sector in Canada is not exempt from being targeted in this way, which breeds segregational and adversarial thinking (us versus them) and further results in a breakdown of public trust, which undermines the institution that they're protecting. The institution that resulted in the Constitution, The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and the Human Rights Act because it is that collectively that guides our future as Canadians despite our own personal biases. We must find middle ground that protects us all. Easy enough to put down in words but very hard to implement in one's life and country.

Thank you for your insightful take on this situation and for taking the time to read my reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian Joseph Johns

I know many will disagree with what I've stated here but I stand firm on this opinion and it is very well justified.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy a few video games and relax for the rest of my evening. I don't think that is unbecoming of any one who is 51 years old at all. I have to enjoy life within my means but that doesn't mean that I can't express myself with regard to the unfolding of our society and step up for rights where necessary.

Have a good evening.

Brian Joseph Johns

200 Sherbourne Street #701
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5A 3Z5



Tuesday, July 16, 2019

July 16, 1967

Preamble: Please if you can, support Wikipedia by making a donation. I believe that the Encyclopedia Galactica is beyond a measure of value and should be funded without the risk of information bias towards those who donate. That is possible and it will and is happening. Please donate generously.

On this day in 1967 at 8:32AM EST (GMT -5) Apollo 11 was lauched from Pad A at Kennedy Space Center. This launch was especially important as it heralded in the era of extra planetary body exploration, leading the way for the many later Apollo missions, the Viking missions to Mars and of course the Voyager I and II missions through which we've collected an incredible body of information about our Solar System.

Following those missions, a few nations from our milk and honey planet (meaning great abundance) have launched a variety of exploratory missions, each drawing from the era of space exploration that was heralded in by the United States and the USSR, and many other contributing countries who provided expertise, like Canada's own Jim Chamberlin and Owen Maynard and Britain's own John Hodge and Keith Wright (whom apparently tricked Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin into placing a solar panel upon the Moon upon which he'd drawn a Union Jack flag) and resources. Exploration has never quite been the same since the final Apollo mission, Apollo 17 (December 7-19, 1972).

The power of remote exploration (which includes Hubble, Chandra and many other orbital observatories) has certainly been justified and will likely lead to the commercial and private exploitation of the Solar System's resources through various near orbit lunar and asteroidal bodies but the spirit of humanity relies upon treading the soil of new lands with our own feet and touching that soil with our own hands. Even if separated from those elements by a protective suit. That statement is certainly not directed at taking away the accomplishment for successful Moon landings (or "high velocity interceptions") by the USSR (and its offspring, The Russian Federation), Japan, India, ESAChina and Israel. These nations and conglomerates of nations, each and all are pioneers and have achieved the ultimate and expanding goal of the spirit of exploration within us, every one. Remote missions are what make possible eventual human exploration. Apollo relied upon remote missions and so will the upcoming Moon and Mars missions.

This has been the case for the entirety of our existence and is a testament to our proliferation, success and failures upon this planet. It is a chance for us to make right the wrongs we've committed in the name of expansion and to learn new lessons which will ultimately find expression in our descendents who will once again have their own triumphs and (hopefully) fewer tragedies.

The importance of the Apollo missions can never be understated for they underline the need for humanity to keep humanity in exploration but not before much ground work has been laid by remote exploration. Even the Apollo missions were preceded by numerous remote missions and even some high velocity interceptions of the Moon for the sake of planning and evaluating the potential for a Moon landing.

This is a an important day. For it is the day that three human beings sat atop a tower of explosive fuel, and in a controlled explosion were propelled beyond the Earth's atmosphere, beyond the Van Allen belt and towards the Moon atop some high tech steel, silicone and other semiconductors such as gallium arsenide, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen fuel.

I don't know how many people truly appreciate that accomplishment. That's a pretty big investment and sense of trust in the other members of your planet. To ride an exploding giant matchbook (or zippo lighter if you prefer) into the stars.

Me, Brian Joseph Johns.
Yes, I have other interests
besides griping injustices. ;-)
The next time that you watch fireworks, stop and think that those Astronauts of the USA, USSR, ESA, Japan, India, China, Canada, Israel, Tesla and Virgin space programs were and are basically sitting atop giant fireworks. Has every batch of your fireworks worked 100% for you every single time?

Think about that when you imagine the risk that everyone who has taken it for the purpose of space exploration gets into a launch vehicle. They're really the ones that are taking all of the risks which allow us to broaden our future horizons and possibly save life on this milk and honey planet. That kind of courage takes the Right Stuff.

By the way, if you're in Toronto or have access to Cineplex Odeon on August 11, 2019 at 12PM EST, you might want to consider seeing the move The Right Stuff at a movie theatre. It will never be close to seeing a live rocket launch, but its pretty darn close.

Its late but I have to thank a few people. Guitarist Professor Brian May of Queen (Physics Professor). David Braben (another damned physicist, all thanks to that cellular mitosis crap). Amy Shira Teitel who should enlist herself as the program director at any Space Agency that wouldn't be foolish enough to deny her such a space.

Brian Joseph Johns

200 Sherbourne Street #701
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5A 3Z5



See-Saws And Community Life

Me, Brian Joseph Johns:
Out and about in Regent Park, Toronto
You know, most people probably want what everyone else wants. Peace. Prosperity. Predictability. Comfort. Companionship. Cash. Credit. A little bit of fire under our asses to challenge us to grow in the case we grow too stagnant. In the case where that fire arrives, then most of us want the where with all to acknowledge when we're wrong and the courage to defend when we know we're right. I honestly believe that most of us have that, except for the cash and credit part, but discipline and persistence will bring even those things despite their fleetingness.

One thing that I cannot understand and never could is how someone could take the credit for someone else's effort or work. I mean what would possess someone to concoct a scheme whereby they setup the method and illusions (lies) necessary to take from one person what they have worked long and hard to create?

Piracy is one thing for certain. It is similar but no quite nearly as horrible a thing to do as attempted theft of creative or intellectual property. Piracy hurts content creators for certain and costs the industries from which it thrives a lot of income and opportunity. Nowadays piracy is a very powerful force in society, and is quite capable of protecting itself. A case of one side of society having to give the devil his due. Piracy is a far cry from theft of creative and intellectual property and Piracy pales in comparison to the other, making piracy seem courteous when compared to creative and intellectual property theft. At least they wait until you've created something to steal it rather than stealing the concept before the final product is produced at all.

That's one challenge I deal with frequently. A group of people who attempt to take my efforts from me by implying that I was under their influence when I created whatever it is they're trying to take. Much of the stalking I experience centers around that concept and goal, with the other goal being that stalkers want to burden the people with whom I side with their burden. Quite often that means that stalkers are targeting the members of the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and Thai communities communities, all of whom I am indebted to and always will be. The same applies to the other communities with which I number myself. The music creators community. The ASMR community (of which I am a dedicated audience member). Youtube content creators. Film and television content producers and broadcasters. Game and entertainment developers and their respective gaming communities. Software application producers.

So today when I went out into the community I was met with a lot of stalking and harassment certainly geared towards an attempt to see-saw my behavior between hot and cold. Love and hate. You probably know the drill. Fortunately I was able to keep my calm and turn the tables, instead of my stalkers turning the Asian community in their garbage bag, I was able to turn the stalkers into my garbage bag. However, that's something with which I very much disagree. I don't believe that anyone should have to take responsibility for what I say or do. Even those who pit themselves as my enemies or the enemies of my friends. I'm just disgusted with the fact that that these people purposely tried to use the Asian community and their garbage bags on account of my loyalty to them, and that they attempted to steal the credit for my creative efforts. I've been working on a few things in a software development sense and recently they've come to very close to fruition.

I'm actually in the middle of field testing one, and about to do the same with the other. Field testing will likely take a month or two. The longer the better as that's the time I use to sculpt the features required in day to day use of an application. If something comes up that would improve the operation of the software or increase its potential, I implement it and add it to the most current field test version. Then I continue my testing until the next requirement emerges. Given enough time, this actually shapes the application and its feature set, all starting from a very basic set of goals for its operation. Also with more time, the application becomes more and more stable up until its initial release. That's how my development process works. Its very different from a lot of other methodologies, such as Lifecycle Development though it remains far less structured as such which can be a drawback. Regardless, it works for me and my turbulent company Shhhh! Digital Media.

So when people in the community attempt to devise the means to steal from me my creative and intellectual work and credit it to someone with whom it has no association, that naturally makes me very tense. It very nearly broke my heart to give up writing The Butterfly Dragon and A Lady's Prerogative but it was necessary with the level of social attacks I experienced.

The same thing happenes with my stories, The Butterfly Dragon and A Lady's Prerogative. I haven't worked on them for three months and going as a result of similar abuse but I'll be damned if I'm going to let a cult completely destroy my livelihood and efforts to earn a living. Luddites? They could be? Regardless they have no right to do this but we seem to be living in the society of post human rights. Where human rights have been thrown completely out the window in favour of gangster colours and religious and racist colour symbolism. I mean, apparently I can't be in a relationship with a Chinese Woman unless I'm a "red brown", or I'm German and I'm a red black and white according to this cult. If on the other hand I'm a "blue brown", I can't be in a relationship with anyone Chinese at all. Similar colour coding rules apply to my prior Korean girlfriend. So what happened to the human rights act and the charter of rights and freedoms?

I mean, read the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I've clearly highlighted the words associated with my point.

Purpose of Act

Marginal note:Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Colour would not just mean the colour of a person's skin but it would mean any use of colour and its symbolism to denote a justification outside of the law to prevent relations or interactions with members of other cultures on the basis of any of the aforemented practices in the Human Rights Act.

Most stalkers seem to be geared towards tricking their victim into violating the Human Rights Act but in the process they don't realize they're violating it themselves. It seems they're trying to break the citizenship of their victims, perhaps so they can claim that their victim is of another nationality by implication.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights unequivocally states that “everyone has the right to a nationality” and that “no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality.”

So what gives? When such violations are in progress, what is someone to do? Call the Police?

Human rights requires that we defend those rights unilaterally for that whole system to work. Instead that system is currently under attack and there is nobody to call but ourselves. We have to take responsibility for defending our rights, hopefully only with words.

I am indebted as I said to the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and Thai communities of Toronto. Members of those communities helped me onto my feet when I was at my lowest and literally had nothing. Not even a roof over my head. I would still be ad defensive for them regardless of the situation, but this at least ensures that they owe me nothing by my defense of them and their communities, and certainly in prevention of them becoming burden carriers for the rest of society. Citizenship has no such legal conditions and I'd personally be surprised if many land born Canadians could pass the Citizenship test themselves.

I will not apologize for the long winded post I made recently in response to the amount of abuse and harassment I'd experienced over the course of the prior weekend. Nothing I stated could be defined as hate speech as it did not incite any acts of violence but rather brought awareness to the issue and its source.

Likewise, today I said and did what was necessary to protect those for whom I care and deserve the same protection of rights as stated in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. I will continue to do so unconditionally and without implied debt towards anyone I protect in that manner.

Thank you and I look forward to some new releases soon.

So it looks like this storm that was brewing to hit Toronto today pictured from my balcony eventually died out and wimpered off with barely a peep. Quite picturesque though.

Brian Joseph Johns

200 Sherbourne Street #701
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5A 3Z5