Unkie Herb

Out of haste to vent my frustration with how poorly Thailand polices pedophiles, I ignored an important right.

Rereading the post some hours later, I had a moment of clarity. I heard my own tone loudly: I was implying that both suspected criminals were already convicted. I regret this. But instead of editing the post, I’ll correct myself.

The two men I spoke of are not guilty until they are tried properly. Perhaps even afterward they will remain free men. No matter the allegation, innocent until proven otherwise is a central guarantee. We’d all be pretty screwed if we lost track of it.

Share This

I never had a background check before being put in charge of a classroom of six year olds.

The recent media storm over Canadian ’sex predator’ Chris Neil has exploded the Thai sex tourism scene into the mainstream. Now Thailand appears to be cracking down, arresting a British suspect yesterday. Like Neil, this man was an English teacher, living in Asia for some seven years.

The sex industry in Thailand was never a big secret. As a teenager, I read stories from Bangkok in an issue of Maxim, my eyes as wide as my mouth. Lately, though, friends of mine here have been asking me about my time there: Did you see anything… you know… like THAT?

No, I didn’t. Sure I saw tons of dirty, dirty old men with girls waaaay too young, but most of them looked over eighteen. One thing about Asian girls, too: if they look over eighteen, they’re over eighteen. A friend of mine, a fellow teacher in Taiwan, recounted a story of when he and a travel buddy confronted a man in a Thai bar. The man was dangling a girl, perhaps 10 or 12 years old, on his knee. My friends approached him and accosted him, threatening to call the police. The man left the bar, leaving the girl behind. Whether or not he learned his lesson, though, we’ll never know.

I suggested to my friend that he should have called the police directly, instead of confronting the man. He responded that the police can do little in that situation - it isn’t illegal to be in public with a minor. Thai police complain that they can never make a conviction, usually because they need direct testimony from the children. The kids often refuse, worried about reprisals from the Thai person who persuaded them to meet the foreigner. As well, the children are sometimes offered money or gifts to change their accounts.

This highlights the weakness of the Thai justice system. One wonders how incidental this is, considering the millions of dollars generated by the questionable trade. The same is true of the loose laws in Cambodia and Vietnam. To make matters worse, Thai police state that their entire, nationwide division on crimes against children and women numbers a mere two hundred officers. I would guess that there are more than that many sex predators in Thailand right now. Does the Thai government really expect to be able to get a handle on the problem? The lack of justice in situ has resulted in many foreign governments, including in the US and Canada, to pass legislation permitting police to charge citizens with acts of pedophilia committed abroad.

Perhaps, though, it is time for Thailand to seriously address this issue. Their military government is not answerable to the people, so can they not raise the profile of their tourist industry by strengthening their justice system? A simple change would be to allow convictions without victim testimony, permitting the police to use photo or video evidence. As well, increases in funding and the number of officers to this overwhelmed division would help. Considering the size and population of the country, not to mention the over ten million foreigners who visit annually, a vast increase is necessary.

Thailand. Wake up and realize that for every dollar you gain from some twisted individual, you are losing thousands from people who don’t want to be presented with the industry while on a family vacation.

And one more thing: perhaps it is time for background checks for foreigners teaching English, as well. Even in the richer and more well-policed nations of Korea, Japan and Taiwan, there is little stopping foreign men with warped minds from getting work with children. Knowing that Neil and the British man were teaching young children makes me shudder.

Share This

Today I’m starting what (I think) will become a semi-regular theme here: Movements in Music. Essentially, I’ll examine politically and/or socially charged music. While the vast majority of music with a message tends to lean anti-establishment (hence my adoration), I will try to deal with the other side, as well.

But not today.

No, today is reserved for a figure who stands tall amongst social, political and musical movements. A man who many believe to be a religious figure, a prophet, a martyr. Bob Marley captured something in the imagination of Jamaicans and people the world over, inspiring and enlightening. He is particularly popular in Africa. His songs speak of an end to racism, to economic disparity, to war, to injustice. He cries for Africans to unite. He wails that we must get up, stand up for our rights. Not all his songs were so deeply societal, as you well know. Many of his most popular songs, the hits off the forever overplayed Legend, are love songs. Look at his lesser known tracks, however, and the trend is obvious.

In So Much Trouble in the World, Marley sings about the greed and selfishness he sees. He argues that we need to temper our desires, to “give a little, take a little.” This aligns with Rastafari beliefs, which promote harmony and equality, condemning the corruption of modern society.

You see men sailing on their ego trips
Blast off on their spaceships
Million miles from reality
No care for you, no care for me
So much trouble in the world now [repeat]
All you’ve got to do is give a little
Take a little, give a little
One more time ye-a-h! ye-ah!

In Them Belly Full, Marley speaks out against inequality. He warns that when the mob is hungry…

Cost of livin’ gets so high
Rich and poor they start to cry
Now the weak must get strong
They say oh, what a tribulation
Them belly full but we hungry
A hungry mob is an angry mob
A rain a fall but the dirt it tough
A pot a cook but you no ‘nough

Marley also addresses racism in many songs, such as Crazy Baldhead. Here Marley sings about the intentional nature of the Eurocentric education system: “We build your penitentiaries, we build your schools. You brainwash education, to make us the fools.”

Marley’s father was white, his mother black, and his personal experiences with racism ran deep. In War, a song derived from a speech given by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I, Marley sings:

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man’s skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war

Share This

Or so the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network (CACN) would like you to think.

In a “special section” on counterfeiting in Saturday’s Toronto Star, Canada’s most widely read newspaper, the CACN ran three massive, half-page ads. The first featured a portrait shot of an adorable little girl, her puppy-dog eyes moist for the camera. Next to her in bold type: “WOULD YOU RISK HER LIFE?”

Well. Would you?

The section, all six pages of it, had a similarly biased tone. Counterfeiting is evil, here’s why, end of story. One major issue for the CACN and the Star, who clearly worked hand in hand on this one, is the apparent acceptance Canadians have for rip offs. We love a deal. What’s more, Canada has become a major transition point for counterfeit goods on their way to the US. We’re even a world leader in that infamous counterfeit trend: the guy in the movie theatre with a camcorder. And who said the rising dollar would hamper the film industry, huh?

Let’s consider couple things, here. First off, is counterfeiting really as evil and dangerous as the CACN would have you believe? Secondly, is the tone of the message here - guilt tripping, fear mongering, etc - really going to be effective, considering our already blasé attitude?

Counterfeiting “risks the health and welfare of Canadians who are exposed to poorly made and often dangerous goods,” reads one CACN advert. Even without evidence to back this statement, it is a reasonable argument. We should be able to trust that certain things, such as electrical products and pharmaceuticals, be genuine. Unregulated pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous - even if they don’t have negative health effects, they do negate the positive effects which can be life-savers. That said, the biggest victims of counterfeiting - fashion, film and recording companies - cannot use the same argument. A pirated copy of Spiderman won’t poison you, and those ripoff Gucci boots won’t fall apart as you’re free-climbing in Yosemite.

I would risk my daughter’s life to save a few grand. If I had a daughter.

As well, the CACN makes no mention of legitimate items containing potentially dangerous substances. The great Chinese toy recall, involving several companies, was in regards to licensed products. The pet food scare, again, occurred in legitimate factories. How many faulty car parts have led to massive recalls? Is everything dangerous for me? Isn’t this really an issue of undercutting profit margins? Isn’t this really about huge companies used to having their way, who are suddenly confronted with a real and serious challenge to their grip on the global economy?

Herein lies the issue that these companies are ignoring: what gave rise to the counterfeit industry?

The largest corporations and industries, for all their touting of the inherent positivity of market forces, cannot tolerate the ebbing of their control. As they inflate prices further and further (you’re telling me a thousand dollars for a handbag is reasonable?) they alienate a larger and larger portion of the population. The kind of people who would NEVER spend that kind of money on a fashion item couldn’t care less about intellectual property. Making it worse for legitimate designers is the popular desire to be drenched in brands. People simply cannot afford to own the real stuff, but they also cannot be caught dead outside their front doors without sixteen logos. As you raise the price of your brand, as well as the desire for it, you invite counterfeiting. People know that your profit margins are in the hundreds of percentage points, that the twenty dollar version is only slightly inferior, and that no one can really tell the difference. Why would they spend the full amount? So screw it, if they can rock some sweet D&Gs for fifteen bucks, so be it.

With this attitude so pervasive in society, the heavy-handed message the CACN promotes will only serve to hold back their cause further. When I feel patronized, talked-down to, and generally taken to be ignorant, I usually ignore the message. One CACN message splashes the headline: “COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS FUND ORGANIZED CRIME.” So do illegal narcotics, and full-scale prohibition against them hasn’t stemmed their tide, has it? I think people have a real rationalization here:

If I could give twenty dollars to organized crime for fake sunglasses, or four hundred to some giant multinational corporation for real ones, I’ll go fake.

I can’t say I’d blame them, either.

Perhaps the fashion industry should embrace the existence of cheaper versions of their products, just as the recording industry has begun to turn a profit off downloadable music: iTunes and Napster, as examples. I’d love to see a Prada store with a discount section - cheaply made, ripoff versions of their stuff available for one tenth the price. Discerning tastes, with the wallet to match, would still toss away a small fortune on the genuine article, while us lower classes would still be able to send our money to the real thing. Wouldn’t it be better to get fifty bucks for the five hundred dollar shoes, rather than nothing?

They’ve successfully marketed their way to true need creation, without making their products accessible to the masses they’ve snared. What did they think was going to happen?

Share This

For the uninitiated out there.

I figured, what with my complaints that strangers are all too afraid to talk to one another, that I’d do my part to help people out. I can’t complain about something for too long without wondering how I can make a difference. So here goes a little instructional effort.

Oh, one more thing: This isn’t about picking up chicks, guys. This isn’t about making tons of friends. It’s about enjoying your day to day, about trusting people you don’t know because - really - the vast majority of strangers are just chilling randoms like you.

• Before you make a move, READ: As much as you know you aren’t crazy, the other person ain’t so sure. So, quickly observe the other person for telltale body language - head down, eyes glazed over, muttering to themselves - that’ll tell you to keep your mouth shut. Conversely: head up, making eye contact with other people (especially YOU), and a smile all tell you that this person might be open minded or at least in a good mood.
• Find an IN: This isn’t as hard as people make it out to be. You need to find a reason (read: excuse) to start that conversation. Is there something cute, funny, weird or beautiful nearby? A wicked sunset? Someone walking a dog? A crazy little kid? A nice bike? Notice the other person noticing it, and then point it out.
• Be (not too) FUNNY: The first line can be make or break the whole deal, but it isn’t as massive as many a sleazy guy makes it out to be. Just say something casual but amusing: “That kid’s gotta be a test case for Ritalin.” You can also use irony or sarcasm to break the ice. If the person’s dog is super huge, make a joke about a horse or bust out “What a tiny thing, I’d probably step on it in the dark.” The best lines are ones that don’t require anything but a laugh and a smile from the other person. Remember that they aren’t expecting to have a conversation at that moment, so they’ll probably be caught off guard by a question that requires thought. Just make ‘em laugh.
• Keep it CASUAL: Remember to keep the conversation about something random and harmless, at first. Asking too many questions about the other person or saying too much about yourself makes you sound weird. This, for the first little bit, is a conversation born out of convenience - a time and place coincidence. A nonchalant “How’s it goin?” will allow the person to be as open or as closed as they want to be.
• Don’t stop READING: If the other person seems totally uncomfortable, they probably are. Find a smooth out (”Anyway, I gotta be somewhere, see ya around!”) and end things before they do it awkwardly. If they seem really interested, maybe it’s time to stick out the palm and introduce yourself with something like: “Hey, sorry, my name is ______.”

Pretty much everything else you have to play by ear. Be yourself and be relaxed. If you put on some weird machismo or feminine persona that isn’t you, it’ll come off as forced and people will wonder who you really are. The best thing about not fearing strangers is the jokes you’ll share with random people all day long. That’s really the key.

I bust out jokes on random people all the time, especially as I ride passed on my bicycle. I like making people laugh, and there’s no after-conversation because by the time they’ve stopped laughing (or wondering who the fuck is that guy?), I’ve cruised away. But when I notice someone is clearly open-minded and pretty cool, I’ll try a line or two. Who gives a damn if you bomb? So they looked at you weird and walked away, who cares? You’ll never see that person again, ever, and they’ll never think about you again, ever. I laugh almost as hard when they don’t get the joke as when they do.

Give it a shot, once you get a feel for it, it’ll make your day to day life that much more amusing, even if no one else is laughing.

Share This

It’s amazing how many lefties have blinders on.

The Canadian government, led by Bush’s little Conservative buddy, Stephen Harper, has a stranglehold on  our federal politics. I won’t get into the details, but they basically have a blank cheque for the next few months, at the least. One proposal of theirs - meant to be a popular approval raiser - was to lower the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) by a single percentage point, from six to five percent.

Now, being the opinionated progressive that I am, you can imagine my frustration. Our most recent federal budget revealed a surplus of nearly $14 Billion. I have to admit that it amuses me to think that this must irk Americans with their huge deficit. Even more funny is the salting of the wound when they realize that it’s worth MORE than fourteen billion US dollars. Ha.

I digress.

When the surplus was announced, I diatribed about how that money should have been immediately dumped into social programs, rather than being wasted on paying down our (still massive) government debt. Knowing that, you’re probably expecting to hear me criticize Harper’s plan. Tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor, that sort of thing. It was my first reaction, but I’ve since reconsidered.

What I’ve realized is that, what with the playing field as tilted as it is, the left needs to press for what it can achieve. Harper is going to announce a tax cut. With the major opposition - the centrist Liberal party - basically rolling over and playing dead, there is no means to defeat any bill the government introduces. So instead of loudly beating drums for increased social spending, noise that will be ignored quite easily by the Conservatives, liberals should advocate a position that Harper might actually consider.

So I’ve decided to add my voice to the outcry against Harper’s plan, but instead of social spending I’m advocating a different tax reduction. Cuts to personal income tax, for example, will help low and middle income families save without spending. Perhaps raising the minimum amount one needs to earn before tax is applied would be reasonable. Harper still gets his banner headline on tax cuts, and the people who need help the most see real results. This isn’t ideal, I realize, but it is preferable to the GST cut. Take what you can get.

Lefty activists, though I love ‘em, can often be the blindest people you’ll ever meet. There is a path to making change, and it sometimes involves playing on skewed grounds. Take the small victories when it’s all that’s reasonable, and push for major progress when the opportunities arise.

Accept the mainstream, understand the mainstream, and work to make a difference.

Share This

As I might be the most engaged person you know on this issue, this is a serious admission.

But admission it is. I’m not dropping this heavy shit in an attempt to spark you back into action. Nope, this is just me accepting what I feared weeks ago. The world has lost its interest in the Golden Land’s crisis. Among major international media, only the BBC still seems to be reporting with any real profile, responding to the volume of public (and hence government) outcry in Britain.

To be honest, I’m a little surprised it remained so central for so long. I sort of half expected it to fade off as fast as the hoopla surrounding Meg White’s sex tape. As the coverage continued, however, I had real hope that something tangible was occurring. When over a thousand people attended our rally in Toronto, I was shocked. Ecstatic, but blown away.

We held another event today. Perhaps fifty people turned up. Whereas the leader of a major federal political party spoke then, we had a local city councillor speak today, and several of his dates we off by years.

I haven’t lost hope, though. The situation there will change. Perhaps the pressure will slowly build as the generals age. The slaughter in Sudan is an issue that seems to be maintaining its back-burner profile and, belated and slow as it may be, progress is being made. Perhaps Burma will become a similar case. When something outside the status quo occurs, it will make circulation again. UN resolutions, public statements by world leaders, that sort of thing. Lip service, but it’s a start.

I suppose that my reaction is a natural one. Inevitable when one’s cause, so suddenly launched into the spotlight, finally loses its ‘media darling’ status. I felt so hopeful, then. I had real dreams, inspired by the front page news and overheard conversations. While I knew the bloody crackdown was coming, I thought that change might be possible. That the Burmese might get the international support that was so sorely lacking in ‘88. Perhaps they will, but not in the immediate future.

Still, the fight won’t stop. I’ll keep it up, as will a vocal minority around the world. I’ll try to keep the heavy stuff to a minimum, though, and I promise not to bore you.

Share This

Unkie Herb gets a little free publicity.

Marc Emery, in a public question taking session on the Globe’s website, seemed much more lucid and articulate than in yesterday’s published interview. I asked him his first question, though admittedly it was a bit of a soft ball as I support him and his movement (see yesterday’s post for verification).

At any rate, for those looking for some controversial yet well-considered arguments in favour of full-scale legalization, reading some of his points should prove helpful.

Share This