Law, I hate you.

a. Section 7. This section states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof… When conscripted to the army, you are forced to go to a dangerous war in some remote area where you do not want to go. While you are there you are going to be risking your life when you have not chosen to do so and this means that you are being deprived of security and possibly even the right to life, a fundamental freedom. You are also not allow to desert, forcing you to stay, which deprives your of your liberty.

b. Section

c. Section 12. This section states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. A person may choose to be vegetarian for various reasons; it may make them sick, it may be part of their culture or it may even be that they are animal rights activists. Just because they have been found guilty of an offense does not mean that they should have to alter their culture or belief system.

d. Section 2. An anti-nuclear could climb on top of a nuclear smokestack saying that it is their fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly - they aren’t hurting anyone - but the government can limit these fundamental freedoms if it is reasonable, such as it is in this case. For one thing, they could be endangering the lives of themselves and others if they fall off the smokestack. Also, the nuclear plant will be private property and thus they could be stopped on the basis that it is trespassing.

e. Section 2. A high-school student should not be able to come to school nude, even if they think they are exercising their freedom of expression. They are surprising and basically forcing themselves onto others because it is not marked on signs or otherwise that people may be nude in that building or buildings. Also, most schools enforce a dress code which is required to be followed if the students want to get into class or be taught. The school has the right to suspend the student if they do not abide by the dress code. This is a reasonable limit to the freedom of expression.

f. Section 3. This section states specifically that “citizens of Canada” have the right to vote and be eligible for membership. Since illegal immigrants are not Canadian citizens, they do not have the right to vote or be eligible for membership. If they would like this right, they need to get citizen status.

g. Section 6. Section six of the Charter says that “Every citizen has the right to enter, remain in, and leave, Canada.” but Extradition laws limit these rights if you are facing criminal charges and wish to leave the country. Once again, this is a reasonable limit and if you are already in another country you may be ordered to return.

h. Section

i. Section

j. Section 2. While a person could argue that having a polygamous lifestyle is a religious freedom, or being denied polygamy be a violation based on religious discrimination, but according to Section 293 of the Criminal Code, bigamy (marrying while you are already married to another person) is illegal and thus making polygamy (having more than one husband or wife) illegal as well. This limitation was made to protect those in the relationship from a trend of child and spousal abuse. No, members of a religious group cannot have more than one (legal) wife.

k. Section 2. I do not believe that municipalities could pass a by-law banning all assemblies for a thirty-day period because it had reason to believe that the assemblies may lead to disruptions because as long as they are peaceful gatherings, they are protected by Section 2 of the Charter. This states that everyone has the freedom of peaceful assembly. I don’t believe that having the assumption that an assembly could possibly lead to disruptions is a reasonable limit to put on an entire municipality.

l. Section 3. An inmate will claim that he or she has the right to vote in an election even though he or she is in an institution on the basis that Section 3 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons. As long as the inmate is a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18, they are able to vote by special ballot as a staff member that is appointed as liaison officer helps all inmates register and vote if they so choose.

m. Section 15.1. The clause Section 15.1 would probably prevent this from happening today because it states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on… race, national or ethnic origin….” This means that even though they were of Japanese origin or descent, they are still equals unless they themselves do something criminal, no matter what is happening in Japan.

n. Section 6.2-4. The only way that the Newfoundland government could order that offshore oil rigs give preference to hiring Newfoundland residents is if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada (Section 6.4). This would allow those positions to favour local residents. If the rate of employment is equal to or over the rate of employment of Canada then they may not prefer Newfoundland people because of Section 6.2.  

o. Section 15.1. A person could claim that having the right to vote at eighteen, but being allowed to drink only at nineteen, is discriminatory by saying that this is discrimination based on age which is a violation of the equality rights. This is not the case though because it is a reasonable limitation to reduce the amount of injuries and whatnot that would come with younger people drinking.

p. Section 15.1. Yes, women will now be trained as fighter plane pilots because it is no longer possible to discriminate based on sex which is protected under the equality rights in section fifteen. As long as women have the right qualifications to be trained as fighter plane pilots, they need to be given equal opportunity to the position as men are.

q. Section . No, not all television stations will be forced to close-caption for the deaf because watching television is not a right

Ethics Notes

EUTHANASIA
Active: roughly, involves killing a patient
- this is often what people have in mind when they simply speak of euthanasia
- must distinguish between active killing (may not have intent) and murdering (always has intent)
Passive: roughly, involves letting a patient die
- "Do not resuscitate." (who has signed a DNR order)
- not providing necessary treatment
     1) Withholding of Treatment
     2) Cessation of Treatment
Voluntary vs Non-Voluntary: killing or letting die in a competent person who has expressed a desire for this (usually over a sustained period of time) VS killing or letting die when the patient is unable to express such a desire (may be in a coma or past mental abilities)
NOTE: There is a difference between involuntary and non-voluntary is that involuntary actually means that the patient in question has expressed that they do not want to be euthanized while with non-voluntary you just don't know - Involuntary euthanasia is not actually considered an option in medicine


ASSISTED SUICIDE
- Not actually euthanasia since the patient ultimately kills him or herself
- the line between the two can become very thin (eg Dr. Jack Kevorkian's "Mercitron")
The Law in Canada: says the following about euthanasia
1) voluntary passive euthanasia is legal (in fact, it is required - you have the right to refuse treatment and the doctor must respect that wish if you are mentally competent)
2) voluntary active euthanasia is illegal (although reference 'The Doctrine of Double Effect' down below)
3) non-voluntary passive euthanasia is legal (under appropriate proxy decision, and legally required)
4) non-voluntary active euthanasia is illegal (again see 'The Doctrine of Double Effect')
5) assisted suicide is illegal (see the Sue Rodriguez case) but if you attempt suicide and fail it is not illegal - but no one is allowed to counsel or aid someone on taking their own life, this will result in jail time for the one who assists
- see 'Section 14 of the Criminal Code' - even if they give consent (begging even), you cannot kill them
Continuum of Incapacity:
- Coma: brain activity but not conciousness or wakefulness
- Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): wakefulness, but no awareness
- Minimally Concious State (MCS): wakefulness and minimal awareness
- Locked-in Syndrome: full conciousness and awareness, but extreme paralysis
Doctrine of Double Effect: supposed an action (eg giving a terminally ill cancer patient morphine) has some reasonably foreseeable outcome (eg overdose or quickening the patient's death) and that it would be unacceptable to perform this action for the purpose of bringing this outcome about - this comes from Christianity from the story of where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son. - You intend to do good ( eg manage pain with opiates) but ends up doing bad (ultimately killing the patient). - The DDE claims that it may be still acceptable to perform this action, provided that the action is not performed for the purpose of bringing this outcome about. The DDE is commonly, if not explicitly, used in medical practise


THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
Premise 1) The competent patient has autonomy over his or her body, and authority over treatment choice.
- after you turn 18, and remain competent. you control what goes on with your body so long as you don't use that body to violate the rights of others
- eg. arrest, smoking, abortion
- Daniel Callaghan (1994) feels that the collective harm will be real and sufficient - people's perception of medicine as the promotion and preservation of human health will be compromised and that will effect people who should go to the hospital. (It will affect the trust people have with doctors and with medicine because they will be concerned that there will be pressure put on to euthanize the patients because it would be 'merciful', coercion?)
Premise 2) Doctors currently stop treatment in terminal cases under orders from patients or proxies.
- physicians have to respect the autonomy of patients who make this decision
Premise 3) Killing is morally equivalent to letting someone die
- this is a hot issue in philosophical circles (eg Dr James Rachels - he is a consequentialist and so he believes that morality is about outcomes, 'Death is death no matter who it came to be')
In the case of a dying patient: if the intent of removing treatment is to relieve suffering, why not adopt the quickest method (assisted suicide) rather than a slower one (withholding treatment)? But the thing is that you could say everyone is going to die, we know that, and this could lead to anyone reasoning for killing someone because it could technically prevent future unknown suffering.
- Callaghan on the other hand feels that this is totally wrong, the question for him is causation, we can work with the timing of death but we know it will happen, a physician is allowed to adjust the timing, but not the cause of it (DDE applies here)
- R v. Kitchings and Adams: victim was bounced (thrown out, left out there, landed on his face) from a bar in Manitoba, he was taken to the hospital revived but had no brain stem function, he was kept alive until kidneys were donated. The bouncers were charged but the defence claimed that the physicians killed the victim because they revived him and thus caused his death.
- see the Terri Schiavo case: P1) treatment withdrawal was approved by proxy, P2) nutrition and hydration is a form of treatment, P3) treatment withdrawal included hydration/nutrition intubations, C1) it was appropriate to remove nutrition and hydration from Schiavo - is food and water a form of treatment?
Premise 4) Killing in terminal cases would be more merciful than letting them die
- intuitively this has some appeal
- but mercy is a loaded term, mercy suggests what you do is good 'under the circumstances' ("I'm making the best of a very bad situation.") - is this making it easier for the patient, or for the proxy? who is the 'mercy' benefiting? 
Most famous case of assisted suicide in Canada is Sue Rodriguez: she had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), her logic that when her disease has progressed significantly she wants to end her life, and Canadians are legally allowed to end their life, but by the time that she wants to end her life she will be too disabled to do it herself - she is going to need to be assisted. She argued that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and her rights were being denied. (Charter, Section 7. Right to life, liberty and dignity. - Death is a part of life.) The minority agreed that this was unfair discrimination but the majority ruled that she was being discriminated against but it was just, and based on grounds that were appropriate in the name of protecting the vulnerable against devaluation. (Define precedence here)
- Devaluating the disabled? the question becomes why are you still here? people would feel themselves or others are being selfish by not killing themselves because the resources being used on that terminally ill person could be used on someone who could get better. 
- but mercy isn't justified if I'm making a situation worse

Love and Sex

- reference to Plato's Symposium
- reference to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
      - people still write letters to Juliet for advice and there are people who respond to these letters
- reference to romantic novels and in 2009, 13.2% of novels were in this genre
- Watson: love is an innate emotion elicited by cutaneous stimulation
- Swenson: love is behaviour such as giving gifts, sharing activities, and disclosing intimate information
- Rubin: love is an attitude held towards another, which predisposes on to think, fell and act in certain ways towards that person
... there were many theologians, historians, writers, etc.. that have tried to explain love but they don't really coincide with each other
- according to Gonzaga (eHarmony?) states love is a commitment device (more socio and psyhco), human survival depends on the formation of cooperative alliances, long-term mate-ships, successful reproduction, emotions help individuals form and maintain reproductive relations, commitment problem - staying with one person in the face of alternatives, love promotes commitment in two ways 1) outward expression of love in one word, deed, and gesture communicates commitment to an intimate partner, 2) experience of love motivates
- Gonzaga's study: a sample of women asked to relive experiences of love with their partners, videotaped them head-shoulders and regarded facial expressions and non-verbal behaviours, self-reports of love correlated with expressive behaviour, expressive behaviours also correlated with oxycotin release
- Oxytocin is a mammalian hormone that acts primarily as a neurotransmitter in the brain and when released Oxytocin evokes feelings of contentment, reductions of anxiety, and feelings of calmness and security
- Pair-bonding: in every known culture, formal marriage arrangements between men and women exist, Jankowiak and Fisher found that romantic love is found worldwide and over 90% of people in the world will marry at least once
- Different faces of love: Helen Fisher says there is a model of mating, reproduction and parenting, mating behaviours guided by three different emotion systems; lust, attraction and attachment
      Lust - motivate individuals to locate sexual opportunities, mainly associated with estrogens and androgens in the brain
      Attraction - directs individuals attention towards specific mates, makes people crave emotional union with this person, associated with high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine and low levels of seretonin in the brain
      Attachment: focused on maintenance of close proximity, linked with feelings of comfort and security, and feelings of emotional dependency, associated with oxytocin (mostly for women), and vasopressin (mostly for men) - it is thought that vasopressin is linked to long-term commitment for men
- Pair-bonding and Health: broken social ties or poor relationships is correlated with increased invulnerability to disease, heart attack victims are more likely to have a recurring attack if they live alone, the happiest university students are those that feel happiest with their love lives, those with better relationships cope better with general stress (including job loss, health crises, etc), married individuals are less likely to suffer from depression than unhappily or unmarried individuals, humans may therefore be designed to respond positively when a long-term mate is secured
- How long is long?: Fisher suggests that although long-term relationships have obvious reproductive and health benefits, the desire to stay in one relationship wanes as a function of the amount of time it takes and infant to become less dependent on parental investment (appox 4 years)
- Problem of Commitment - Alternatives: the more opportunites or alternatives that are available may undermine the feelings of love or commitment to your current partner, eg Charlie's Angels studies
- Derogation of alternative: derogate the attractiveness of an alternate partner - study (by Simpson, Gangestad, and Lerma) people who are in relationships rated alternatives lower than those who were not in a relationship with both men and women - they may or may not have done this by derogating the attractiveness of the alternatives in a way to protect their commitment to their partner ... to see if this was the case, a study by Lydon et al. manipulated the interest ("Hey this person thinks you're attractive") of the people and those who were in committed relationships rated alternative partners still as less appealing, while those who were not in a very committed relationship thought them even more attractive knowing they thought they were attractive
- if you spend less time looking at attractive, appealing people you are more likely to stay in a relationship, while if you spend more time looking at appealing alternatives you are less likely to stay in a relationship with that current partner (study done by Miller, 1997)
- Maner, Gailliot, and Miller (2009) found that 
- define a "(control) prime" in a study
- ovulating women pose a threat to committed men, (Miller and Maner, 2010), female confederate; tracked her menstrual cycle, interacted with male participants, men rated her attractiveness throughout her menstrual cycle, they looked at the difference between single and committed men and while single men weren't really affected by the change in the menstrual cycle, men in relationships found the women confederate much less attractive when she was ovulating - this is due to derogation of alternatives mentioned above
- The Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg, 1986), states that love has three fundamental components; Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment
      Intimacy: emotional component, feelings of closeness or boundedness
      Passion: motivational component, physical attraction and drive for sexual expression
      Commitment: cognitive component, do I feel like I could stay with this person?
 These three components can be put into a triangle and various combinations of various components of love can form different kinds of love (eg. nonlove is the absence of all three components,empty is only high commitment, romantic is intimacy and passion, companionment is high intimacy and commitment, fatuous is alot of passion and commitment, consummate love is high levels of all three components
- while Sternberg says that commitment is a part of love, Fehr (1988) says that commitment and love are related but independent  so it isn't an actual component of love
- Love vs In Love: Meyers and Berscheid (1997) looked at the social categories that people naturally use to communicate with each other, we can experience love for a number of targets (parents, siblings, spouse, dog, children, car, xbox, etc..) and made the subjects categorize the different subjects into love, in love, and sexual attraction/desire and found that if you are in love with someone then there is a 23% chance that you love them, and then if you are in love with someone then you are 87% chance likely to be sexually attracted to them or desire them or so on
- Berscheid: "How many meanings does the word love have? Legion. (legion = many)
- culmination of 30 yrs of research found that there are two types of love:
1) Passionate Love:
-heightened energy
-restlessness
-loss of appetite
-inability to sleep
-associated with cocaine use
2) Companionate Love
-intimacy
-friendship
-commitment
-attachment
- Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) links between intimacy and passion: passion is the first derivative of intimacy, when intimacy shows relatively large and rapid increases, levels of passion will be high
- Self-Expansion Theory: we are motivated to seek new knowledge and experiences to grow, relationship partners help us do this, rate of growth slows over time (slowdown in intimacy) and this can lead to boredom in a relationship
- Do increases of intimacy spark passion?: study done by Rubin and Campbell (prof) in 2011, diary study of 67 romantically involved couples where the couples asked day to day questions about emotional and sexual contact and intimacy between couple

Alphonse de Lamartine et Le lac

Biographie

Alphonse de Lamartine est un poète et l’orateur de l’âge de Romanticisme. Né a Macon, France, sur le 21 octobre 1790 (mille-sept-cent-quatre-vingt-dix) Lamartine était né a une famille de petite noblesse (relié/attaché au roi de Macon et religion catholique dans la région). Il avait commencé son éducation en collège de Lyons mais il n’était pas content là alors il a transféré à Belley et a poursuit son éducation là. Il a resté là jusqu’à 1811 puis il a voyagé à Italie ou il avait resté pour deux années.

      Dans l’année 1816, il a voyagé a Aix-les-Bains parce qu’il avait une maladie nerveuse et ça c’est ou il avait rencontré son premier amour, Julie Charles qui était là pour sa propre maladie. Tragiquement, Julia avait mort seulement une année plus tard. C’est amour qu’il avait perdu avait lui inspiré pour écrire Le lac et plusieurs d’autres poèmes qui l’a donné du respect et popularité pour son écriture. Trois années plus tard il avait épousé Marianne-Elisa Birch, une Anglaise.

Pour le reste de ces années il avait tenté les politiques. Pour quelques années il avait été secrétaire d’ambassade d’Italie puis il a transféré à Florence et Charles le dix a lui donné le titre légion d’honneur. Quand le gouvernement a évolué de royalisme à républicanisme, il avait essayé de gagner une place dans le cabinet, il a perdu lourdement et avait lui laissé sérieusement endetter.

Alphonse de Lamartine est mort en 1869 et est enterré à la Cimetière de Montpellier.

 Analyse

            Ce poème, Le lac, est au sujet de son amour perdu avec Julie Charles. Il parle de leur temps sur le lac Bourget et que ce lac lui rappelle de cet amour. Il décrit rétrospectivement la scène sur le lac et la paix et silence du lac. Et puis dans les trois dernières parties il avait entendue son amour dire comment elle déplore le passage de temps et comment vite le temps passe quand tu es en train d’aimer ta vie et elle appel ou demande pour plus de temps parce qu’elle est en train de mourir.

The bacon was dry and hard to swallow.

             While I understand that this would be a good story to try to depict on film, John Stevenson, Alan Janes and their crew did not give it justice whatsoever. “Animal Farm” was not only full of historical inaccuracies, but was not true to the dystopian novel by George Orwell either. Not to mention the grotesque animation, while I sure it was an admirable attempt at the time, makes the made-for-TV movie nothing less than ridiculous. It was filled with splatters of adultery, alcoholism, and don’t forget plenty of splatters of dribbling pig slobber. How it managed to get a Primetime Emmy absolutely dumbfounds me.

            Unfortunately, the movie did not manage to convey the fundamental directive of the 1945 novel. “Animal Farm”, while still considered a fable, isn’t supposed to be something that looks like it escaped from the pages of a child’s fairytale book. The story is meant to show how a group of farm animals overthrow their neglectful owner. Just when it seems like they have established a new, somewhat democratic way a life a group of pigs, who the rest of the animals chose to be leaders, seem to get a bit too power hungry and things end up being worse for the poor creatures than when they were in the hands of the drunkard farmer. It’s an allegorical and satirical story, referencing any totalitarian power and especially the reign of Stalin over in Russia but this movie just doesn’t get that across.

            For me the only really redeeming factor of this movie was the protagonist and narrator, a maternal and soft-spoken sheep dog by the name of Jessie, voiced over by Julia Ormond. She really was the only one who seemed to be anything even remotely like a dynamic character. And as lovable as Jessie’s character was, she wasn’t supposed to be a major role in the story. In fact, she was barely even mentioned in the book. Which leads me to how much the movie did not stay true to the book. Other than the obvious likeness to a children’s bedtime story, there seem to be an extensive amount of little inaccuracies. Mollie (Julia Louise-Dreyfus), the ditsy and shallow mare, was supposed to be a pretty white color but in the movie turned out to be a lacklustre grey appaloosa. One horse, Clover, is missing from the film altogether. Old Major, the elderly pig who starts the entire uproar, was supposed to die peacefully in his sleep, was shot, and not even in cold blood which would support the upraising but by mistake when the farmer tripped while carrying a gun. Also I’m not exactly sure where they got the idea to put narrated video clips on the television in the barn because this is nowhere in the novel. Now that I mention it, there shouldn’t have even been sound on that television historically, nor microphones for that matter. Having just recently read the book, all these little aberrations were completely distracting from even trying to enjoy this movie.

            I give this movie a one star out of five. The inaccuracies were distracting, the characters were lacklustre, the animation was just plain ridiculous, and the key message was not conveyed at all. If George Orwell was still with us, I’m sure he would cringe every time this movie is played. If I were him I might even cry. I sentence this movie off to the slaughter house.