SOCIAL: IS RELIGION IMPACTING SOCIETIES ACCES TO CURES TO STD'S

Is religion the reason why we don’t have cures to the most common venereal diseases? Religious organizations have amassed extensive corporate power since the inception of corporations. They control a lot of what we purchase today. Some religions have control of corporations that own pharmaceuticals. What, you may ask is the reason that one may even consider this? This is ludacris! You may say. But let me tell you. If we are to be an informed public, we must consider every possibility, whether it be negative or positive. Those who do otherwise will live in ignorance. Ignorance is death. The reason that is probable or even likely a consideration is that, a lot of these organizations want to keep people monogamous as it is the belief of their doctrine. And the way to do this is to keep people in fear. Fear of ascertaining a disease, which can possibly be cured. I encourage you to think outside the box to solve our societal problems. We all need to do our due diligence to ensure that the people are protected. And to do this we must ponder and think of others. Vindicate those that you believe may be a harm and put it out there. You can be right with the right ear.

SOCIAL: SLUTHOOD A RIGHT OF PASSAGE

Sluthood is a right of passage. It is the time when a girl becomes a women. This phase is all about the animalistic desires of human interaction. It is the time when a female can exhibit her confidence. Sluts are women who have overcome massive resistance. And they express themself through intimacy. Next time anyone that tells you that your a slut,be proud of it. Show them your talent. Don't be afraid to make that milkshake and celebrate your confidence. You have something that other girls don't.

VIP #1: IS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM DATED

In university, the way that they teach politics is that there is a left and a right. This is what is referred to as the political spectrum in political ideologies class. In their attempt to teach such concept to students, they intrigue them to align with either side. Left means communism followed to the right by socialism and then liberalism in the center which is then preceded with conservatism on the center right and then fascism on the right. It is clear that these ideologies contrast one another. In the universities attempt to teach these concepts, students fall into the trap of aligning themselves with one. But I think there is a new form of political ideology that has not been yet explored. This is because it is difficult to categorize. Hear me out. This belief likes parts from the left such as the welfare state and free medical care and parts of the right which prefers capitalism and the military. Is this the future of politics? Picking and choosing? I believe the only solution for political scientists is to individually vote on each policy that are enacted. Voting on each policy can improve political participation. This could allow politicians to not be stuck following one ideology. Of course, voting on each policy would be tedious and expensive but, perhaps we could find a way to implement this. Maybe having an online platform so people can vote for each policy could be a streamlined way of enacting such process. Imagine, that the liberal tears AKA Justin Trudeau is thinking about making university free for all citizens. What his party would do, seeing as they are the government in power, is go to the computer and create a poll so that people can vote on it. This would increase the adaptability of our political system and allow for increased political participation. Having such online platform can lead to an informed public.

Should Canada have a computerized voting system to vote for each policy?

Yes

No

Make a Poll in Seconds | Free & Unlimited | Poll Maker

INQUISITIVE: CHICK-FIL-A CLOSURE IN THE UK

SCHOLAR: STREET CRIME: MISCHIEF & VANDALISIM

SOCIAL: THE RACIST INTOLLERANCE

Is the lefts intolerance to free speech racist in America?  Well, yes an no.  For something to be racist it requires an individual from a different culture to some how be discriminatory to another person of another culture.  So therefore, that who is of the same culture as another and is causing discrimination is not racist but rather causing a tort nuisance.  But we as Canadians or any other culture for the matter, observing Americans and the way they communicate and our intolerance to some of their peoples abrasive ways can be considered racism.  Wait a minute, hold that thought.  This is because it is part of the American culture under the first amendment of their constitution and they are entitled to this privilege.  We Canadians or other who criticize the American ways of rough communications are actually being racist when we do this.  Our intolerance to their banter is racist.  Our constant judging of their manner is really disapproving them and I quite frankly find it offensive that our people could be so racist.  We publicly say, passive aggressively, “that’s not how we do it in the north,” with little disregard or consideration that our statements could be considered racist even offensive.  This is what is called prejudice.  Leftist countries act like they are so self righteous yet none of them have considered that their simple judgements are actually racist.  I believe in free speech and for those that don’t recognize their own racism, I am truly sorry.

SOCIAL: SIDE OF SCIENCE

The scientific view on humans is that we are all animals. Biology classifies each living thing into categories. The way that science has organized living things is a distinction of our intellect. We are able to think with our minds and logically come up with explanations in which could solve our societal problems. This is also the feature that us humans have rationalized as to the decision of whether life is considered to be valued. We are the only creatures on this planet that have the faculties to be able to think that one person ending another’s life is wrong. We humans, have become so sophisticated as to base our entire society on this principle. Our logic distinguishes us from other species in this world. And life, as a valuable commodity can open many doors. We humans, like animals band together to form groups with similar interest. I feel that our roots as primates give us a lineage of human development. We should therefore cherish our backgrounds and accept that we are first human and second animals. I side with the scientific view that humans are animals, for if the scientific establishment gets derailed we wouldn’t have the progress that we do today. We also do share common traits with animals such as instinct amongst others. Therefore, I urge be weary of your animalistic instincts as these lack the logic of the faculties of our mind and thus can cost a life.

SOCIAL: SOCIAL ETIQUETTE

When we communicate and build relationship with others, it is such a satisfying feeling. We cherish these feelings for our entire life time. But lets talk about those who are left to fend for themselves. Those that we forgot along the way in our journey to accomplish our aspirations. Lets talk about those that we may not necessarily like. I think that communicating and developing relationships responsibly should be everyone’s priority. This involves being a certain way. We must keep our discretion when we are out there in the places where people socialize. Although we don’t like a person and we may say negative things about this person to our friends, we must maintain civility. To do this we need to exhibit social etiquette. You keep face by being kind and helpful to a person when directly speaking or communicating with the person you dislike. You at this moment need to keep your biases in check. Ensure that these don’t interrupt your thinking and communication. You need to realize that being alone is a risk and that it is dangerous. Therefore, although we do not like a person, we must always ensure that they are not forgotten and left alone. We must always be responsible and remember what our sergeant says, “no man left behind.” This saying goes far beyond its initial meaning and we must be socially responsible in our actions ensuring that we maintain social etiquette for those that are left behind are at risk of danger whether its danger from themselves or others. We need to look at the bigger picture and realize that each and everyone of us has a place in this world.

INQUISITIVE: AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

SOCIAL: THE PROBLEM WITH IQ TESTS

The IQ test is a test administered to people to determine their intelligence. Those who score high are considered to be intelligent. The problem here is that this intelligence is only measured against the expectations of society. This results in people that are intelligent out of a pool of people within that society. I mean, the IQ test is a test to determine how someone stacks up to what the institution deems is, “smart.” They may be missing or not looking at those people whom are intelligent through their personal experience. This type of intelligence can be tested by plotting a person’s history and basing questions around their experience. This type of testing can determine those whom are intelligently specialized to their chosen task/ (s). The IQ test questions come from society and it is not necessarily the case that someone who scores a high IQ equals success. What determines success is adaptability to one’s personal trials and tribulations. Therefore, success is highly subjective, in that it is up to the person and their conquering of their personal conflicts that would determine their personal aptitude when in relation to their own battles. Just because someone scores a high IQ it doesn’t mean that they have mastered their own personal conflicts. It only means that their thinking processes are above the expectation of society. The mastery of ones own personal conflicts is the real intelligence that is not looked at in our society. It is this intelligence that would evidently lead a person to experience their subjective success.

INQUISITIVE: THE DEBATE ON VACCINATIONS

SOCIAL: WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE MEAN

Have you ever felt the need or have ever been compelled to be mean to a possible crush. This is actually common and it happens everyday. We often overlook this but I feel that it is a crucial part of understanding relations. Im not one to speak but from experience I have noticed that this can affect it in two ways. It could bode well for you or go down in flames essentially ruining what you have been working towards with that person. I have had it both ways and to the extent that someone actually threatened me that they would no longer speak or be my friend. I find that when it comes to these things you have to take the risk or stand to loose it all. This teasing actually occurs because people want to maintain control over the other person. This results in a power struggle. The reason why someone would want such control is because they don’t want to be taken for. People take advantage of those that are too nice and those that are too nice don’t recognize that they are too nice. They say, “kill em with kindness,” but I feel this is just the lefts response to oppress the other side. They do it in such a way as to censor the other person through passive aggressive means. I feel that there needs to be a balance of control when dealing with others. In my personal experience I always try to have leverage. And it is this leverage that is the saving grace of all your hopes. Having leverage allows one to be competitive and aggressive. This leverage allows one to conquer. It gives control to chaotic situations. And these situations can improve ones quality of life if the matters are dealt with elegance.

SOCIAL: THE MACHINE

I have a lot of experience. From my experience I have observed four classifications of people. People belong in one or more of these four categories; the establishment, the academy, the institution or the union. The establishment consist of government and political officials which seek to maintain law and order. These people work to accomplish government objectives. The academy on the other hand, are those people in advertising and the arts. These people entertain and provide content for mass media consumption. The institution is the realm of academia and professionals. These people are at the forefront of societal progress and they work to uncover solutions to societies problems. Lastly, we have the union. These people are comprised of workers and semi professionals. This is the category whereby most of the people are classified. They work under the government and for the institution and influenced by the academy. As you can see from this model we can clearly identify each type of person under a designated category. This according to structural functionalism is the societal machine. These groups of people cooperate with each other to be able to fulfil societal objectives. If there is a conflict these categories band together to dissolve social threats. Now that you know the classification of people from my perspective, I dare to ask, which do you fall under?

SOCIAL: SOCIETIES' PRODUCT

Ideology is a set of ideas or beliefs in which suggest how society should be or ought to be.  Whenever I think about ideology I always look at it with consideration of the political spectrum.  This political spectrum is basically a way to categorize several ideologies.  From a capitalist perspective, each of these separate ideologies are basically products.  These ideologies are created or manufactured as products of society.  Society could be looked at as a machine when in consideration of structural functionalism.  This machine produces the products known as ideologies.  We have on the left communism, proceeded by socialism to its right, liberalism in the middle, conservatism to its right and on the far right fascism.  These are products that political parties use as a framework in order to advance their political agenda.  They are products because each of these ideologies has its individual features and people subscribe to them.  Political parties sell this product and it creates macroscopic changes within our environment. From a capitalist perspective the value that is given to these ideologies by the people produces a surplus which is the increased amount of subscribers.  People also contribute their own ideals in their attempt to be a brokerage or to please the largest amount of people with the least amount of resistance.  Therefore, the ideology is only a product once people subscribe.  Essentially a parties product are the people.  This can be seen via improvements to their quality of life or standards.  The ideology and the people the subscribe to these become an interrelated product of the societal machine.  This output then expands and grows to increase the amount of people that subscribe. 

SOCIAL: THE MEANING OF, 'SLUT'

A “slut,” is a term connotated with negative meanings. It was a word used to denote an unkept women, traditionally. This word was used to degrade women and it can sometimes even refer to men. I digress however, as Amber Rose’s “slut walk,” has for me caused a certain empowerment for those being labeled this. This term has been essentially transformed from its negative roots to something a bit more positive. I really believe it is Amber Rose’s point of view that people should consider. This word for me stands for courage and strength. Those labelled with this word have gone through the tribulations of complicated interpersonal relations and they should wear this label as a badge of recognition. This is the true meaning of this word in this day an age. Funny how something which was previously negative has now been considered a sign of pride and strength. We should therefore encourage people’s passion to express themselves. This word to me means confidence and the ability to not care about what others think. This sort of personal power is priceless and I thus commend those with the fortitude to face their fears.

SOCIAL: MODERN OPS SOCIOLOGY

In sociology we have the concept of social structure.  A social structure can be defined as a hierarchy in which through consensus people subscribe.  A social structure is enacted via the beliefs and values of society.  I feel that sociology is not looking at social hierarchy more critically.  It accepts the distant view of categorizing people based on wealth.  I believe sociology should change to include hierarchy for not only wealth but, skill/ intelligence, and beauty/ charisma.  Looking at social structures from these three prongs will allow the sociologist to analyze the modern conflicts we have.  Yes wealth is a social structure but from my analysis the current view of social structures are out dated.  We need to look and emphasize skill/ intelligence and beauty/ charisma.

Skill/ intelligence can be looked at from a hierarchy of smart to dumb.  I know its quite frank but really, we need to talk about this. Those that are on top or the smartest gain scholarships, bursaries and other validation from the society.  They are looked at with such respect and dignity.  However as we go down the hierarchy we start to see that societies problem.  The negligence and the disdain for the dumb.  These people are unable to fight for what is equity.  They live in ignorance and are dismissed by society.  Someone needs to fight and represent these people.  This is where those higher in the hierarchy take it upon themselves to defend these people because they have realized that they are unable to defend themselves.  This social structure is thus supportive of the members on the bottom.  The intelligent people ensure that these dumb people are being represented equally.  However, not all intelligent people are advocates of equity.  There is a likelihood that the opposite can happen as well, just be aware.

The oldest and most known way of division was and is beauty/ charisma.  Yet, we don’t really talk about this social structure as much as we value it.  Society adores these people and through their adoration they blindly submit.  This is the thorn of this social hierarchy.  People become confused and dumb when affection hits them.  They are unable to think properly because of their feelings or emotions.  This hierarchy is the oldest and is the one of the most potent yet it is overlooked and forgotten.  Clearly those who are considered, “hot,” and, “popular,” have the ability to influence people while those that are considered, “ugly,” are left to find other channels in which they can exercise their regression. 

SCHOLAR: ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL CLEAVAGES

The structure of political parties is described in its constitution and or manifest. It also describes the parties decision making and its mission. Its mission gives people an idea of what the party intends, it is an extension of their objectives. Parties are commonly structured as follows the convention is at the top followed by the executive committee, than the party officers, branches and lastly the members. The convention identifies and pushes the parties objectives. The executive committee allocates resources and makes decisions about the parties direction. The party officers communicate with the branches who campaigns locally. They also find local donors whom are willing to donate to the party’s cause. The members are the last part of this structure, they usually are required to be above the age of 19 and also they must pay a membership fee.

There are several classifications of elections and they are as follows, maintaining elections, critical elections, deviating elections and reinstating elections. Maintaining elections occur when the party who regularly wins, wins. Critical elections are those that change the party in power. Deviating elections on the other hand are election that are temporary shifts. Lastly, reinstating elections are those that bring back the party that regularly wins. It is important to analyze these because we can get an idea of how elections in the future are going to turn out. It gives us an idea of voting behaviors which would then allow parties to identify what the people want. These also allow party researchers to segment, target and position their parties in favor of public opinion.

Social cleavages are divisions within society which allow for a diverse voting bloc. These cleavages allow for diversity. These cleavages align with parties who meet their interest. Cleavages have political, social, ideological, and institutional dimensional considerations. The literature, “Political Parties in Canada,” explains many cleavages. They are rural/ urban, worker/ owner, state/ religion, periphery, materialistic and globalization cleavages. Rural prioritizes farming incentives and tax breaks for their crops while urban cleavages preference police safety, parks & recreation maintenance. The worker cleavage looks at employment conditions and salaries while owners look for reduced taxes on their profits. The state cleavage looks to maintain its authority and its government programs. Religious cleavages look to support parties that have conservative reserved values. The periphery cleavage looks at language and ethnicity. Materialistic cleavages are concerned for the availability of goods and services. Lastly the globalization cleavages look for integration in business.

In order to parties to be successful they must be able to maintain their structure. They need to make compromises with their leaders, members and the public at large. The party must be able to look at the macroscopic environment and be able to segment them so they can meet their needs through their campaign and or platform. They need to target specific demographics so that they can position themselves as such to appeal to them. Members must be aware and conscious of the parties’ objectives and missions. Each member has a role to play and these roles should compliment rather than conflict. If there is harmony within the party it could function more efficiently however, if there is conflict, people would be less efficient and can lead to a party at peril. In todays society, membership in parties are declining. This is a result of political apathy. Perhaps people are not being mobilized or intrigued enough. Parties need to reorganize and market themselves in modern ways. This could be advertisements in radio, t.v., flyers, banners or in the paper. Further they can continue to canvas door to door. They can involve themselves in social media like twitter so that they may appeal to a larger demographic. Lowering the voting age can also benefit political participation. This would allow people to be more knowledgeable about politics. An implication to this however, is the fact that we would have ignorant voters who guess. Another tactic that political parties can implement is to collaborate with the government to provide education to students at all ages so when they grow up, thy are aware of the process.

SCHOLAR: POLITICAL PARTIES

According to Sartori factions are have a negative connotation. Factions are anti establishment. Parties are pro establishment. Parties according to this author are for accomplishing things in society. According to Downs. Parties form coalitions in order to gain support. They cooperate with their members and other parties. They also make compromises. As for Madison, she specifies that factions are parties. These are essentially different explanations of what political parties are. Parties are a group of individuals who seek to control the government through election and public office. Factions on the other hand, are really associated with political turmoil. They are a clique of people who have self serving interests.

Parties perform many tasks. They organize votes, prepare their platform, campaign, they aggregate interest, they elect leaders, implement policy and persuade the government to their interests. They are contrasted against interest groups in this way. Interest groups are a group of individuals who influence the political process. They are usually single issued whereas political parties deal with multiple issues. Ideology plays a major part in political parties.

Ideology can be defined as a set of ideas or beliefs which dictate how a society ought to be. Ideology are important to political parties because they provide frameworks I which the government can run. The ideologies are separated through the political spectrum, left or right. On the left is communism and on the right is fascism.

There are a variety of political systems. They are classified as single party system, the dominant party system, the two party system and the multi party system. We will first explain the single party system. This system is where there is only one legal party who controls the government. In the dominant party system a single party regularly wins elections and other parties play a minor role. In the two party system, two parties often vie for power and often exchange positions, other parties are also allowed to function in this system. The multi party system is a system where parties often form coalitions in order to be in power. According to Lapombara parties can be divided as competitive or non- competitive party systems. We will first explore the competitive systems. In this category we have the one party dominant system, two party system and the multi party system. Much like in the first classification the one party dominant system regularly wins elections and others are allowed to function. The two party system allows for two parties who exchange power frequently. Lastly in the multi party system we have multiple parties who share power. This can be further divided to multi party dominant wherein, one party receives more than 40% of the votes and multi party loose where not any of the parties achieve 40%. The non competitive systems according to Lapombra are regime based. They operate through a hegemonic basis. This means they use force in order to coerce rather than consent the government to their position. There are three types the one party authoritarian system, the one party pluralist system and the one party totalitarian system. The one party authoritarian system sees competitors as threats and they immediately attempt to dissolve these. The one party pluralist system operates with pragmatism and they value ideology as a basis for their cause. The one party totalitarian system seeks to enforce social and economic structures which they maintain.

Duverger further classifies political parties as elite based political parties or mass based parties. Elite bases parties seek influential, powerful and wealthy members. They are very flexible and lack structure. They receive funds from single wealthy supporters rather than many people. Mass based parties operate within a hierarchy. They have a strong structure. They use ideology in order to operate. Their funding comes from many people rather than the odd wealthy supporter.

The origin of political parties is very interesting. In the UK the popish plot enticed the development of these parties. The parliament was dissolved by King Charles II where they banned Catholics from being members of parliament because they supposedly had intentions to kill the king. In the USA the forefathers of America needed to control factions. This was done through political parties. There was a conflict between centralization and individualism. Lastly in Canada the conservatives and the liberals have roots in preconfederation. The liberals had massive Catholic support while the conservatives were supported by the Protestants.

INQUISITIVE: SEA LEVEL RISING

SOCIAL: THINK TWICE

Have you ever had someone try to tell you who you are? This is a problem people have. Labels happen because people want to maintain authority over other people. It is really a reflection of how a person can be a social threat to that whomsoever is doing the labelling. When you label someone, it causes them to self reflect and they then negotiate with themselves. In their attempt to negotiate they either improve themselves or go to despair. The average person will experience resentment. But, there are those who take it constructively. That is rare in this day and age as we are being taught to shut down people who, “trigger,” us. This is what society is teaching the youth. They are censoring those who provide criticism. They are victims also but those with the most to loose are those that are being labelled against their will. These labels cause people to change their life course. Labelling someone can change their whole way that they perceive themselves. This can then cause a person to become depressed. This person may then go to despair which can affect his whole circumstance and interpersonal relationships. So, the next time you try to even tell someone who they are, think about the implications it may cause them, the amount of grief they may experience and the pain it will cause. Do the responsible thing and realize that they need to figure out on their own, who they are. Therefore, if it is not nice, keep it to yourself. Rise above those that say derogatory statements and make a difference in a life.

SOCIAL: A NEW CONFLICT? THE RISE OF THE INTELIGENT CLASS

As you may be aware, I am here in university at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.  I am actually taking a political science degree.  Through out my time her in the university, I have been observing interactions with students/ teachers and I couldn't help myself but wonder.  Is there a hierarchal social construction of the social class, intelligence.  Through my studies of Karl Marx, I have began to ponder these things and I think that if there is an existence of an intelligent class, they must know already how to conduct themselves and further they are experts about intelligence.  I really have not observed any injustice that would be indicative of an intelligence class but in looking at some of the reviews on rate my professors, I can see a pattern developing.  There seems to be a conflict with students and some professors.  Is this the manifestation of the intelligence class or am I looking too much into this?  Also I have asked some students about what they think about that site and some respond with, "those that complain are those that get bad grades."  I believe if there is a conflict within the intelligence class they would be well fore armed to reason their actions.  Regardless, it is necessary to even consider this as there can possibly be inequalities in our education system.  Food for thought...

SCHOLAR: CRIMES AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT

Political crime can be defined as illegal acts which aim to change political order.  Crimes that are committed against the state are such examples as assassination, treason, civil disobedience and or terrorism.  Crimes can also be committed by the state and these include torture, human rights violations, and state terrorism.  When states commit political crimes, it is very likely that they may perhaps be corrupt.  A recent political crime which is still being dealt with are the residential schools for the indigenous people.  The government forced the indigenous to attend these schools wherein they were forced to assimilate into the Canadian society.  These indigenous people evidently got abused in these schools and were miss treated.  This is a dark spot in our history which to this day leaves many wounds in our society.  The sterilization and abuse of these people had led them to lose parts of their identity. Many people overlook this and or are unaware about the tribulations the indigenous underwent in order to get recognition from the state.  In current day there are still marginalized indigenous peoples, some reserves don’t even have clean drinking water.  I believe that Canada should focus on rectifying these conflicts with the indigenous people and that they should have more representation in our society.  These people have been far mistreated and we should be grateful that these people shared their lands with us.

Another contemporary example of political crime could be the event of 911, where two planes had collided with the world trade centers.  This crime was devastating and shocking.  It realized that there was a threat to the liberal values of the west.  Many people died and there is still a war on terror to this day.  This crime mobilized the government to be more aware of this type of crime.  It resulted in increased surveillance and precautions to prevent this sort of thing from happening.  Homeland security was established to prevent terrorism and today they are an integral part of American federal relations. 

SCHOLAR: LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

                Marijuana has many uses besides being a drug, it is used for such things as hemp or even paper.  Before the illegalization of marijuana, it was a very large commodity with lots of potential.  Marijuana was illegalized then legalized throughout history.  In present day Canada it is now legal.  The sale of marijuana here in Canada needs to be approved by the government. 

                The illegalization of marijuana has caused unnecessary incarceration.  People were getting charged for possession and trafficking.  The reason marijuana was illegal in the first place is because people believed that it causes brain damage resulting from a study of monkeys.  They failed to see that the brain damage was caused by the method in which the drug was administered.

During the time it was illegal had a massive black market industry.  I believe the illegalization was the cause of the crime.  Through consensus however, it has now been more widely accepted and decriminalized.  People rallied behind the Trudeau government in their attempt to legalize the drug.  There were many strategic young voters in that election. 

The movement to legalize marijuana contrasted the use of tobacco which by the way was the highest cause of death.  Then alcohol the second.  The movement pointed out that deaths related to marijuana are nil.  Mind you, tobacco at that time in the 1990’s was receiving government subsidies. The movement to legalize this drug has made strides in convincing the public that marijuana is not as bad as it is portrayed to be. 

I feel through deterrence theory the government was successful, deterring the use of marijuana up till the 1990’s.  However, through the concept of consensus theory, people fought for its legalization which resulted in just that.  I think the danger in marijuana is really that it is a gate way to other more addictive drugs.  We should, therefore, be cautious.

SCHOLAR: LARCENY A CLOSER LOOK

Theft is a crime and it can be described as stealing or larceny. It intends to take someone else property with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. Theft happens because an individual is experiencing a lack of something. According to rational choice theory people aim to maximize their pleasure. When theft is looked at from the perspective of Marxism it is clear that society is at conflict. In integrating these theories, we can then get a better grasp on the rationale for this type of crime. Theft although very common can be rectified by addressing scarcity. Theft is a result of a lack of something. There are two types of theft here in Canada, theft above or under $5000.00. Thieving could include such acts as shop lifting, forgery, car theft and the such. It is one of the most common crimes committed because it is considered low risk. People who steal operate on a risk to reward basis in which they minimize their risk and maximize their reward. People steal to be able to solve their own perceived scarcity. Scarcity means that resources are available but not enough to go around. Theft therefore is an opportunity one can take to gain something while at the same time denying another of that which they have coveted. Theft really is a reflection of a feeling of uncertainty that an individual is experiencing. This lack or absence therefore creates a feeling of scarcity. This could be a scarcity of wealth or even emotion. In an example of a lack of wealth the person directly steals to meet their quota or required need. However, when a person is jovial or even happy and they steal, they lack an emotion of self-control. These are just some examples, but the point is that the thief experiences a lack which he or she then perceives a scarcity. He or she must also value the experience of lack enough to cause the action of theft. This value is the worth that one gives the item that is to be coveted or stolen.

Rational choice theory specifies that people seek to maximize their pleasure. These people are motivated by their own goals and objectives. People also have preferences in which they attach worth. The more worth a person attaches to something, the higher the probability that he or she would thus experience a reward which then would result in pleasure. When looking at theft from this perspective, we can see that people maximize their pleasure in order to alleviate scarcity. That which a person steals always is worth something to that person which therefore aid to rectify their perceived scarcity providing them with pleasure. People will also calculate the cost of their decision to steal and as they expect utility from this crime. Therefore, as per the rational choice theory, people steal to be able to experience pleasure but this pleasure is felt by solving their perceived lack or scarcity which is the reward. For example, a kleptomaniac steals something because he or she perceives that the item he or she is stealing is worth enough to rectify their feeling of scarcity or lack thus, he or she will then experience pleasure. People also weigh I the pros and cons of theft. In their deliberation they expect the usefulness or utility of the crime and minimize their costs. Theft is a low risk crime but it is also one of the most common because of it. Marxism is a conflict theory which identifies a specific social structure. Conflict theory says that society is a conflict with various groups that have opposing interests. According to the writings of Karl Marx, society is in conflict. There are two groups with adversarial interest who vie for state power. The state is the apparatus whereby society is structured. This is done through the rule of law. This allows people to obey and abide by the society. In Marxism, the two identified groups are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Society distributes the goods and services produced within it via its mode of production. In Marxism, this is publicly owned. In this system, the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat through production. The latter sells their labour to the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, the proletariat eventually will rebel against the bourgeoisie and cause a revolution. Communism will then supersede capitalism in this way. The proletariat rebel because of their perceived inequalities. They can rebel via aggression or via peace. With relation to theft, it is evident that Marxism provides an adequate explanation of the societal conflict. Those who steal experience a lack, which as explained above, people maximize their pleasure in order to rectify this absence that they are experiencing. With pertinence to Marxism, the proletariat’s perceived inequality could cause them to resort to theft. This is because they, according to Marx, are being taken advantage of through production by the bourgeoisie. This is a possibility because the bourgeoisie earn the profits from production and that the proletariat always work for a wage that does not equal the value that they put in. From the perspective of the proletariat this is an injustice and could very well give them a reason to revolt causing a conflict to overthrow capitalism.

This comparative analysis of Marxism and rational choice theory provides the criminologist with justifiable reasons as to why this crime may occur. Marxism says that there is a societal conflict wherein people would and could experience perceived inequalities which would then promote an increased rate of theft and thus revolution overthrowing capitalism. This revolt is really explaining that people are experiencing a scarcity which then in order to solve it they resort to extremism to ascertain that pleasure. Rational choice theory on the other hand, explains that people steal in order to maximize their pleasure. Therefore, through conceptual integration we can see that there is an overlap within these theories. They seem to compliment one another providing us with a tautological explanation as to the crime of theft. Through Marxism the proletariat experiences dissatisfaction which is then relieved through the rational choice of rebellion which then provides them with the pleasure, in this case better salaries and or working conditions so they may then make purchases in the goods and services market. Through propositional integration of both theories we can take aspects of each theory to make a single unified theory which then explains the crime of theft. Therefore, we can say that the proletariat whom are considered the working class are more likely to commit crime because they have less perceived wealth and are thus more likely to experience scarcity. These people then weigh the positives and negatives or costs when considering theft. They then expect utility which then once the crime is committed, they ascertain their reward. Through propositional integration we have created a hypothesis which could then be tested. This hypothesis is non tautological which mean its not circular which makes it a valid testable concept. Further it exhibits parsimony or consideration. And lastly its scope is limited to the one group within the society. The hypothesis to be tested is therefore as follows, Theft is more common within the working class because they have a higher probability of perceived scarcity. Society in their attempt to reduce the crime of theft through deterrence must first address the concept of scarcity, one of the fundamental proponents of capitalism. This could be done through government programs, education, politics or even science. Society needs to be able to provide enough goods and services which are readily available to its citizens. These should be very accessible to each and every man, women and child. Through deterrence, laws can reflect this interest to protect those whom are in need rather than those who are wealthy. The people in need are the people who have the most potential for improvement. I feel that if society can focus this way, it can improve the quality of life of each citizen. The consideration of Marxism and rational choice theory herein provide a way in which criminologist can look at society. People are really just looking to fill the void of lack and in their attempt to fill this they weigh the costs and identify the utility in their actions so they can receive a reward thus, experiencing pleasure. Through this unified concept we can build a stronger foundation by which each and every one is represented equally. Larceny is one of the most common crimes in our modern world. People steal because they experience the feeling of scarcity. Rational choice theory teaches criminologist that people seek pleasure I their rationalized actions. Marxism on the other hand, gives us a glimpse on the conflicts in our communities. The integrative theories allowed us to be able to thoroughly analyze the crime of stealing. This is important because if this crime of theft goes ununderstood, we stand to risk it all.

SCHOLAR: LARCENY

There are many reasons as to why one might commit theft. I believe the main reason is that they experience a feeling of lack. Whether it’s the lack of wealth or the lack of a thrill, it all boils down to a lack of something. Society should focus on fixing this issue in their attempt to improve the quality of life of their citizens. Theft can be defined as, stealing or larceny. It is taking or carrying away of personal property belonging to another with intentions to permanently deprive the owner of that property permanently. There are two categories of theft and they are theft over and under $5000.00. Theft is one of the most common crimes committed in society. In attempting to understand the thief, there are several types. The amateur, professional, drug- addicted and the female thief. The amateur thief are occasional offenders and they take something from another when they have the opportunity to do so. The professional thief is the thief who takes it very seriously. This person makes a career out of it and takes pride in it. The drug- addicted thief on the other hand, steals because he or she has a lack of a, “high,” and he or she needs their, “fix”. This thief steals to support their habit. Lastly, the female thief is a female who steals for many reasons. These could be shop lifting or forgery and etc. These four different thieves have two things in common, a, they took something and b, it didn’t belong to them. These thieves steal because they are experiencing a lack of something. Shop lifting is the most common type of thieving. This is when a thief steals something from a retail merchant. This costs the industry 3 billion dollars per annum. The reason why this type of theft is so common is because it is a low- risk offense. The probability of getting caught is minimal and the act is very simple. These thieves whether they like it or not operate on a risk to reward basis. They minimize their risks in their attempt to attain a reward. This can also be explained through the rational choice theory where people receive or attempt to maximize their pleasure in that, they steal. The consensus in society is that shop lifting is a minor offense. Another type of theft is motor vehicle theft. This theft is a bit more risky. It involves an individual gaining entry into a car and then hot wiring it so that they can drive off with it. As you see, this theft requires some technical knowledge of machinery. Therefore, this practice is usually associated with the professional thief. The most common place that cars are stolen is at parking lots. It is also known that between 0600H and 1200H are the most common times of day that cars are stolen.

SCHOLAR: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A VICTIM?

Yes, I have been a victim in the past. I was on my way to the liquor store and once I had purchased my liquor, I made my way to my home. However, on my way home I had been attacked by a group of young teenagers. This was a case of assault and battery. Assault is the verbal threatening of an individual. Battery can be described as the physical attack. It was really was one of the most frightening events in my life. In my analysis of this attack, I believe that the correlates of age and gender had a role to play in this victimization. These people were teenagers and probably they were bored and had nothing else better to do. They were also boys, which means they are probably more aggressive. These two correlates along with the fact that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time were probably the cause of the attack. This attack falls in line with social disorganization theory as it was in Newton. Newton can be considered a transitional zone where marginalization and poverty are rampant. This would therefore cause people to commit crime. Once the attackers had gone, I had to seek help from a nearby home wherein they called the ambulance who then took me to the hospital. I was treated for a fracture and advised to get assistance from the Crime Victim Assistance Program. This is a program that is available in the lower mainland which helps people who have been victimized. They organize services in order to rehabilitate an individual back to the community. I feel that the Crime Victim Assistance program needs to take a closer look at the victim’s circumstance, situation and scenario. I attempted to explain this to them however, they were unable to assist me as they felt that I was no longer being victimized. They said that there needed to be a continuous threat or risk to life in order for them to do anything further. I attempted to send my appeals for assistance to them, being mindful of other potential victims. I did this in such a way that I attempted to advocate for myself and all other potential victims. I did this in a way that I requested that they consider alternative treatments for fractures such as tanning which would allow vitamin D to be absorbed which would evidently assist in the healing of the fracture. I also requested of them to commence legislation to relieve these victims of tax’s to their purchases for the duration that they are in recovery. I also requested that they take a closer look at the persons socioeconomic situation. And lastly, I also requested that they put these victims in a safe place, such as a school, in order for them to recuperate their support systems. I feel the Crime Victim Assistance Program was ineffective in my case because they were unable to provide a solution to any of my actual problems. I was essentially left alienated more than ever. This lack of assistance led me to evidently sue them in Supreme Court however, I did not have the technical know how to further my case. In my studies here at KPU I have made concessions to rectify this and I am satisfied with the progress I have made. Although, I still experience resentment for the lack of support I received.

SCHOLAR: THREE STRIKES DOCUMENTARY THE LEGACY

The film was trying to portray the, “three strikes” initiative. This initiative has increased the incarceration rates in California. This law is to ensure public safety. I feel this method of deterrence is very effective as it serves the interest of the public at large. “Three strikes,” means that if a person commits three felonies they can be jailed for 25 years even if the felony was minor. I think that laws like this, although very harsh serve to deter potential criminals. These types of law promote societal safety. The drawback to this law is the higher rates of incarceration which evidently the tax payer will suffer. We need to be able to fund laws like this and it is important to understand the repercussions of such legislations. From the tax payers perspective he or she will pay for the police that are arresting the felon, the investigation, the imprisonment including the meals and shelter amongst other expenses. This cost the tax payer money and the government has to redirect funds to these prisons rather then sending it to other sectors of government which require it. This tough criminal justice law serves as a warning for those whom look to commit felonies against the public. They, being aware, are fully informed about their wrong doings. I think that the person who decides to do a crime under these conditions risk their livelihood. The publicizing of this law should let it be known to deter possible criminals. These criminals that do the crimes regardless of the knowledge of this law can really only blame themselves for their incarceration in the event they get caught and imprisoned. I feel that people should avoid crime but rather contribute to societal progress. I also think that crime is a result of an experience of lack. People that do crime lack something or are experiencing scarcity therefore, they commit the crime. I feel if we can address this scarcity along with this, “three strikes,” legislation, we can reduce the rates of crime. We in society should be aware of this legislation but we should also be aware that those who exceed the, “three strike,” knew full well what it was they were doing and the repercussions of their three crimes.

INQUISITIVE: CIV DEV

SOCIAL: FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE OF CRIMINOLOGY

There are various ways to explain the feminist perspective on criminology. These theories aid the criminologist in assessing the rate of female crime in any given community. The naturalist thesis specifies that gender roles are derived from biological differences. This means that men and women each have different roles as according to their sex. The functional thesis explains that each sex, men and women, play a role in the functioning of society. Each of these sexes contribute to the societal, “machine.” Women in this thesis are the primary caretakers of children while men are the backbone of the family with tasks as having employment. The final thesis is the critical thesis which explains that the roles of men and women cause conflict and power struggles. In critical criminology the fact that we are all equal under the law masks inequalities, the law serves the dominant group and the poor are punished more so than the wealthy. These are the types of power struggles that occur within this thesis. Criminologist also theorize several hypothesis when considering the feminist perspective of criminology. First, is the masculinity hypothesis. As society develops it becomes inevitable that women will undertake roles which are more masculine. The cultural development in this day and age sexualizes women that in the past, only men were allowed to be this sexual. An example of this is the, “slut walk.”. The, “slut walk,” encourages, traditionally “male like,” promiscuity and empowers females to be that way. Another hypothesis is the opportunity hypothesis. This explains that as society develops, females will have more opportunities where in they will have more opportunity to commit crime. The feminist movement fought for equality in three waves wherein we now have females working traditional, “male jobs.” This has given females more opportunities in which they can commit crime. Lastly the economic marginalization hypothesis argues that females in their position become marginalized because of their roles in society. This hypothesis describes the increased marginalization of women wherein they become less able to take care of themselves and their family. An example is a divorced housewife who, therefore, becomes marginalized and unable to care for her loved ones in which case she resorts to prostitution.

SOCIAL: ANNALYSIS OF CRIME

There are three main criticisms of critical Criminology and they are as follows:  The idea that we are all equal under the law masks inequality and legitimized capitalism, the criminal justice system reflects the interest of the dominant class and the law punishes the poor and marginalized.  Crime can be dealt with via incarceration, removal of privileges, isolation, deterrence, shaming and social control.  Crime prevention through social development reduces crime rates.  This attempts to alter the conditions in which crime is bread.  These include early childhood education, community activities, job training and parental support.  There are many corelates of crime which give the criminologist perspectives on the likely hood of criminal action.  Sex, men are more likely to commit.  Age, teenagers are at a higher probability to commit crime.  Social status, poor people are highly likely to commit crime.  And relationship, people who have histories of violence are very likely to do crime.  Active precipitation says that victims provoke the crime.  Passive precipitation is when a victim possesses a characteristic the promotes the crime.  When a crime occurs victims have legal recourse they can rely on human rights legislation and provide the police with a statement so the criminal can be charged under the criminal justice system.  There are many causes of hate crimes.  Hate crimes can be defined as a legal violation based on a prejudice.  These have various causes and are not exhaustive to movement of minorities, boredom, economic recession, historical animosity or resentment of success.  Lifestyle theories indicate that high risk life styles are a cause of crime.  These include lifestyles as youth, homeless and or sex offenders.  The routine activities theory on the other hand explains that there are three variables which increase the likelihood of crime.  These are motivation, lack of guardian and a suitable target.  The equivalent group hypothesis explains that victims are also offenders.  This hypothesis explains that victims have a history of crime.  As you can see, there are many views on crime and it is very important that we keep these in mind when analyzing criminal activity within our communities.

SOCIAL: AN ANNALYSIS OF HEGEMONY

Hegemony is the idea that a person or group obtains leadership and dominance.  Hegemony is obtained through coercion or consent.  Coercion uses aggression and or force in order to be able to persuade.  Consent aims to provide concessions to be able to suggest a position.  In hegemony, people forgo their point of view for the dominant entities view.  The hegemon plays a significant role in shaping the culture of a community.  They influence the values, morals and beliefs of people.  An example of hegemony is the government.  This government apparatus is the source of power and they dictate the rules and guidelines in which people obey.  Hegemony requires a certain type of responsibility and accountability for it to be able to be sustainable as people through consensus can overthrow their dominance.  Hegemony seeks to maintain its dominance by neutralizing social threats.  They do this in many ways but parties that join forces to ascertain this position are disfavored by the hegemon.  This is essentially the idea of conflict theory.  In this theory it states that society is a conflict with multiple groups who have conflicting interest.  These groups then vie for power and control.  The proponents of social control specifies that society imposes control to suppress behaviors.  Viewing hegemony from this perspective allows one to be able to understand its idea.  As hegemony plays a main part of influencing the people they seek to dismiss view that conflict with their narrative, this therefore is an adequate explanation of its process.  I suppose hegemony maintains a social structure of society and prevents anomie or social disorganization.  Hegemony allows for people to be able to unite and in that they can mobilize together to accomplish societal objectives.

SOCIAL: CRIMINOLOGIST PERSPECTIVE ON MARXISIM

Marxism is a concept well known in Criminology. It originates from the philosopher Karl Marx who studied economy and class. Its proponents include concepts such as social class and capitalism. It explains that socialism or communism will overtake capitalism as the proletariat become frustrated with their perceived oppression by the bourgeoise. The state is the apparatus by which they interest to gain power. The state is where rules and regulations of society originate. This is essentially the source of power in any society. The state is the hegemon, the dominant power that exerts itself through the consent or coercion of the people. Consent is obtained via commissions. Coercion is gained by force. The state distributes good and services to its people.

The modes of production is how society distribute the means of production (land, machinery, etc.).  The bourgeoisie own the means of production and they use their wealth to be able to maintain the status quo within any economy. The working class or the proletariat sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in exchange for salaries. They will always receive less value than they produce as according to the writings of Karl Marx who further specified that this is the method that the bourgeoisie obtain their surplus. Marxism is considered a conflict theory wherein society is a conflict wherein different interest groups vie for power and oppose one another. It is contrasted from consensus theory that describes that the majority of people subscribe. This concept of Marxism is furthered by pluralism. Which specifies that the society consists of multiple groups wherein they join forces in order to oppose a social threat. It could be unions and the working class against the capitalist class and the production facilities. These parties all have different interest and they attempt to gain power of the state apparatus in order to fulfill their objectives. Societies norms, values and morals which shape these interest are a result of culture. The culture is created through social actions and socialization of the people. This is what is referred to as constructionism.

SCHOLAR: FREDOM OF SPEECH

Crime can be defined as any violation of law and it is contrasted against deviance in that sense.  Society through structural functionalism creates a culture from consensus.  Justice defends the current social structure of the society in order to protect and serve the people through the rule of law.  The use of language in our society has been attacked through multiple institutions.  There are modern examples of the implication of the attack on freedom of speech.  Not only are there those implications, those that were subdued remain in suffering as a consequence. Free speech is something all of us have taken for granted.  We need to speak up not for those that are too wary but those that are unheeded for if we don’t we risk the very fabric of our free and independent society, democracy. 

The origin of the labelling of crime originates from Babylon where they had an organized method in order to classify actions as such.  This method has been since expanded in multiple societies.  As civilization got more sophisticated, they then moved on to metaphysics which is where law emerged.  Through the enlightenment the free thinkers progressed society with great upheaval from authorities such as the church.  These thinkers challenged conventional ideologies at that time wherein they were prosecuted for their beliefs.  They were essentially deviants who were committing heretics.  Today, crime is handled in a methodic civilized way.  We in the west, no longer torture these criminals in such explicit ways as the iron maiden or the thumb screw.  Those are now considered violations of human rights.  Although crime and deviance are commonly associated or linked to one another, not all deviance is a crime and vise versa.  

Science and logic allowed society to methodically analyze crime and its reasons.  Through the concept of mens rea and acteus reus, we have therefore made extensive progress in our analysis of crime.  Mens rea can be described as the intent.  And actus reus literally is latin for the, “evil,” act.  Notice that the word, “evil,” is used as it is a direct link to the origin of former authority, the church.  The modern Criminologist uses the scientific method to analyze and evaluate crime.  They use both primary and secondary resources to identify causation.  Theories are developed in order to explain crime.  These are then applied to current crimes wherein innovations such as restorative justice use reintegrative shaming to promote communitarianism and interdependence within the society.

Through the consensus theory society subscribes to social norms.  This is a theory which attempts to explain social control over a population.  Social control is maintained through cohesion wherein laws serve to protect those in power.  Some criminologist argue that there is an ongoing conflict within our society where those who own the means of production take advantage of those that sell their labor in the labor market.  Regardless, both that are involved play a role in production wherein goods and services are sold in the factors market.  As you can see, this system operates accordingly where each is codependent on the other for maintenance.  This is explained through the concept of structural functionalism where society is considered a, “machine.”  This, “machine,” operates to serve the people and itself wherein those that are in power seek its continuity because they benefit from this status quo.  This is done through political socialization wherein parties that represent the government segment the population and target their supporters in order to be able to create consensus, thus the maintenance of this, “machine.

As structural functionalism provides a conceptualized explanation of the society, it is really important to understand what actually maintains this structure.  The idea of the rule of law is really the foundation of every contemporary society.  This prevents arbitrary execution of power or its abuse.  It serves to protect the people, yet it maintains the government structure.  Moreover, democracy allows consensus to be focused wherein people vote to have their rights represented in this state, “machine.” Our legal structure also serves to protect utilitarian values wherein the majority of the people are represented as such.  As you can see, the very nature of western society is built on these principles and therefore, is constantly being challenged.  One of the threats to this fair and equitable system is in disguise and its allure is to promote consensus through its appeal of the masses.

What is the purpose of communication?  Who does communication represent?  These are the types of questions we must ask ourselves in order to promote the progression of this societal, “machine.” In recent times there has been a rise in our culture with pertinence to political correctness.  People are being oppressed by a disguised, “tyrant.”  This, “tyrant,” is described in the writings of Karl Marx.  The, “tyrant,” in question serves to replace western freedom and equity with itself, communism or socialism.  This system has mass appeal because the majority of the people do not own the means of production.  This is a system where the common people seek to overthrow the societal, “machine,” referred to as capitalism.  It fails to recognize competition and seeks to shut down communication to save the, “feelings,” of people.  In our attempt of political correctness, we have essentially stopped the passion in our communications.  The fore-fathers would shed tears in their eyes if they ever were alive today because the free market they struggled so hard to create is slowly disintegrating to socialism.  Our free and independent society is being compromised in favor of saving our feelings.  The passion in our communications has been labeled as, “hate speech.”  This sensitivity in modern communications has caused many people to limit their divulgence of information which therefore prevents competition.  This limit in competition has potentially caused macroscopic effects which are contrary to adversarial innovation.  In societies attempt to, “shut down,” offensive communication in favor of, “feelings,” it has implicated the competitive nature of what our society communication is built upon, freedom of speech.  

In economics there is the idea of competition.  This competition allows for the greatest products to be released and or marketed.  It enables people to be innovative and think outside of the box.  If competition was removed, societal progress would be implicated.  The repercussions are damning as societal progress would stop and would function as a monopoly which would reduce societal efficiency.  On the other hand, if there is too much competition it would make a market that is too difficult to proliferate thus isolating people.  If we look at free speech with this lens, it becomes obvious that competition is being censored.  This is the fundamental premise of how the left lures people to support its, “machine.”  The censorship of free speech prevents people from communicating which then may potentially inhibit societal progress.  With consideration of the foregoing however, when contrasted against the USA’s first amendment we can see that their people have the ability to speak their mind without any government intervention.  Yes, of course we must operate in a civil manner but in Canada, censorship has caused a political system of oppression.  In Canada’s attempt to save the feelings of people whom they label as victims, they have essentially condemned and victimized the opposing side which today remains oppressed.  This clearly removes these people’s equity as they are unable to speak their mind.  This shut down of communication prevents critical communication from being conveyed which therefore potentially prevents societal progress.  I believe there is a time and place for every type of communication and, “locker room talk,” should not be shut down but rather analyzed.  A recent example of this distain towards this type of banter is with president Donald Trump.  He constantly gets criticized for his rash comments.  However, in my opinion his platform appeals to the common person, as that is the way people communicate and that I feel is the reason he won his election.  Another example is Rodrigo Duterte.  This president talks in a manner that is very offensive at times however, this is the type of communication that commoners don’t like to admit that they engage in but they do.  These people are protecting the freedom of speech that western society has worked so hard for.  Censorship is causing a society where people are in fear of communicating their opinion.  A more practical example is when a man took his dog to the veterinarian and wrote a negative review on yelp about the service he had received. The clinic then sued him because his opinion was not favorable.  Is this the society we want?  Are we so lost that we allow our feelings to supersede logic and free thought?  Who is the victim here?  

This upbringing or development of this type of power can be seen in regimes such as the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba.  In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin.  In China, Mau Zedong. In North Korea, the Kim’s.  In Cuba, Castro.  The people in these nations are extremely complacent and they are prevented from speaking against the government which therefore, creates or maintains their tyrannical political system.  From their perspective the victimizer is those that have the consensus as international relations prevents their communities from moving forward.  The victims here are the society and those that that are in the hot seat of censorship.  These are the people that get oppressed and forgotten.  They get forgotten because the concept of the victim encourages people to have empathy for those that are directly percieved to being victimized while neglecting to give equity to the other party.  This other party is often disintgratevely shamed for their initial insinuating comments and is then denied equity through censorship.  Although I argue this, it is also necessary to understand the opposition.  These can be examples such as in Germany, Hitler and Italy, Mussolini with the forgoing known to use slurs in his political discourse. These are the people that are attacked in favor of saving the feelings of another.  We in western society must therefore critically analyze our communication.  We must realize that indeed there is a time and place for all forms of communication.  It is important to not be lured by the left as their appeal will be the down fall of what all western civilizations have been fighting for, freedom, independence and democracy.  

In Canada forms of freedom of speech are being attacked and labelled as a crime.  Society through the consensus of saving people’s feelings is commencing the foundation of a socialist regime.  Equity is the casualty of this development.  Justice needs to reevaluate this concept of censorship as people are unfairly being oppressed.  The contemporary examples herein provide an explanation on the destruction of freedom of speech.  Those nations that have been silenced should be enough to cause an alarm. Freedom, independence and democracy are concepts that the west has promoted.  If society is to progress we must ask ourselves, are our feelings worth the sacrifice of equity?

INQUISITIVE: THE CANADIAN RACISM