Canadian Iconoclast

I know it’s a week late but last Friday, CFI Canada hosted Michael Shermer at the University of Toronto.

It was a sold out crowd of 500 people which is great since Richard Dawkins only attracted the same amount a few days earlier. This should be a good indication that you should consult with CFI when hosting an atheist event since they have all the contacts and volunteers with the skills and experience needed to pack the house.

The talk was ok. It was a little bit stale since Shermer has given it a few times so most of it now available online from different sources. TVO had a recording team set up, so expect to find their show as well (although the tech guy was complaining about the lighting conditions and Shermer used a lot of videos so it might not have made a very good show for television).

Shermer is a really cool guy. He has a grassroots feeling to him and didn’t mind hanging out in a pub with a few of us before the event (he likes Kilkenny beer), compared to a few of our past guests who don’t look very comfortable in a campus pub (i.e. Ron Lindsay looking ridiculous drinking a martini in an Irish pub). The after party at CFI was equally successful except I got stuck serving the booze again (curse my smartserve designation) so I couldn’t have any fun but it was nice to see the place packed with new people and everyone seemed to be having a good time. A few ladies bought Shermer drinks (hoping to get lucky?) so he had a few glasses of cheap white wine in him by the end of the evening so all was good.

Special congrats to the UTSA for their good work. It was nice seeing some new people helping to host events.

Yesterday, Richard Dawkins passed through Toronto promoting his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. It was a good thing the wife got us tickets a few weeks ago because the line up wrapped around the street an hour before the start time.

The talk was more interesting than I expected. When I caught him in Montreal a few years ago I found Dawkins to be superficial and boring so my expectations were low this time. Although he basically just read from his book, he made it interesting and had plenty of extras to keep me awake.

The book is another attempt to prove that evolution is fact so I don’t see why I need to read it and Dawkins didn’t attempt to try to convince me to buy it (which I thought was the point of a book launch). Dawkins explained that his book is targeting religious people on the fence which I suppose it an admirable goal but I doubt those people are going to be convinced by sciency sounding logic and reason so the book will likely end up as just another atheist book taking up space on our increasingly obsolete bookshelves. Since the audience was almost exclusively hardcore atheists, I expected Dawkins to tailor his talk towards his fans who likely won’t see him again anytime soon. I think Dawkins’ fanboys got their fix since the hour was filled will plenty of religious jabs and other assorted blasphemy but the rest of us were expecting something a little bit more intelligent.

I’ve never had an interest to read science books, especially ones that likely aren’t arguing anything new but I’m glad Dawkins seems to have stuck to the science this time, without trying to pretend to be a philosopher or a sociologist like in some of his previous talks and books.

The audience was a typical crowd for an atheist event. Half the people were students in their early 20’s, the other half retirees well into their 60’s and beyond. For once, I noticed a few very well dressed couples which, to me, indicates we have some potential local donors for future campaigns (if we can figure out new ways to find them and convince them to support the cause).

Indigo Books hosted the event and they clearly underestimated their target market. I was disappointed since they could have done a lot better had they co hosted with CFI. The theatre had a capacity of only 500 which was too small given the army of experienced event coordinators who could have easily filled Convocation Hall (capacity 3000) had they been consulted. Oh well. Overall, the evening was worth the trek to the city and I’m glad I attended, if only just to say I was there.

I got a request for information from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in the mail yesterday. MPAC is a Minister of Finance appointed bureaucracy that collects data on properties and homeowners to provide the different levels of government with information. Primarily, it provides property assessments according to the Assessment Act.

I was pleased to find it in the mail because it gave me the chance to officially reject the Catholic school system. By checking the box (actually mine was already checked off, how did they know?), I ensure that my tax dollars go to public schools.

Of course, it doesn’t actually work that way. Catholics like to argue that by checking off the separate schools box, they’re funding the school system themselves through their own tax dollars. And yet, school support is distributed based on the provincial funding formula, not by property assessment forms so it doesn’t matter what box you check because your local Catholic school will receive the same funds as the public school across the street.

The only purpose for these forms is to let the government know how many Catholics live in the area to best decide where to build new schools. Catholics don’t fund separate schools, everyone does.

What I didn’t expect to see were the instructions to the right that tell you what box the check. It turns out you have to be a Roman Catholic to support separate schools. I always thought anyone could support separate schools. The separate school boards like to pretend that they have a wide variety of supporters (other religions, etc) but if only Catholics can be supporters, the separate school system is clearly a discriminatory leftover of Confederation and should be abolished.

For now I’m glad to do my part. The family that used to own my house was Catholic (they had Catholics For Dummies on their bookshelf), so I figure as more non-Catholics move into any given area, it’s safe to reason that our separate schools will eventually disappear.

I’d like to look into how other provinces fund their separate schools, at least those who haven’t gotten rid of them yet.

Some recent posts by a few Canadian atheist activists have appeared examining the nature of secular activism in Canada. They’ve raised a few questions about the Centre for Inquiry that I’ve been wanting to discuss for a while.

Ian writes a piece on why he thinks CFI should become a democracy. While this is certainly a noble goal, he glosses over most of the facts and ignores the reality behind running secular activist organizations. Joe responds with a few critiques and gets in a little deeper to the issues (and shows us how not to edit photos).

I’ve been known to criticize CFI from time to time and yet I find it has the only effective method of operation and it is usually the only organization that I will consider donating any time or money to. While democratic institutions give you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, they don’t function very well if you want things done (check out our House of Commons). Democratically run secular activist organizations operate even less effectively since atheists are all assholes who don’t work very well with each other.

I’ve found that over the last few years, the only way things can ever get done is if the people doing the work make the decisions (or more accurately, the people who do the work ignore their bosses knowing the bosses are too lazy or busy to stop them) which is why people like CFI Canada’s Executive Director Justin Trottier are so successful at promoting the cause, while at the same time amassing a lot of influence and angering those left on the sidelines (especially those who share different political views, i.e. anyone who hates his blog).

CFI: Canada operates like any other corporation. There’s a board of directors that appoints executive directors to run the organization. In our case, it isn’t that simple because the current Canadian board of directors was appointed by CFI:Transnational. But you have to start somewhere, and personally I’d like to see CFI’s critics start proposing solutions rather than just whine about the things they don’t like or understand.

What the critics don’t realize is that CFI needs charitable status if it ever wants to raise any money in Canada, and to do that it will have to form an accountable board of directors according to Canadian laws (which I don’t think CFI: Transnational realizes, or if they do, is why they’ve been really slow trying to get that status). If CFI ever wants its Canadian operations to be self sufficient, it will have to be managed by and accountable to Canadians. Change is coming and it will happen without the need for backstabbing or shameful public attacks on the personal characters of activists who do all the dirty work that most other people are unwilling to do.

But in the meantime, CFI won’t be changing just to appease a few critics. Canada has a much smaller population, and invariably the power will be concentrated in a few areas no matter who’s in charge. More importantly, as I’ve already implicitly suggested, we just don’t have very many activists and there isn’t any money. So, until more people get involved and more money can be raised, it’s likely Justin won’t be going anywhere, nor should he since we don’t yet have anyone with the experience or dedication willing to replace him.

Which leads me to conclude that Canadians who criticize CFI because of its lack of democracy are usually just too full of themselves to work with others. These people think that being on a committee or voting on policies is going to make a difference when what we really need are people to get off their lazy asses and do something productive.

While it would be nice if we could all get along under one organization, atheists are far too diverse and love to spend too much time attacking each other, so it is highly likely that we will always have multiple groups competing with one another. A marketplace of competing ideas is a good thing, as long as the organizations can focus on their strengths and not get tied down trying to represent an entire movement.

For example, if you don’t like CFI, you can join the Freethought Association of Canada and get involved with some of their upcoming projects. It is entirely Canadian, a registered charity,  democratically elected, and independent of CFI, but it is also volunteer run so its capabilities are limited and action doesn’t happen very quickly. The FAC is probably a bad example because it was basically formed to work on projects that don’t interest CFI, so really the two organizations will never compete with each other. And yet CFI’s opponents aren’t gravitating towards the FAC or any other organization which leads me to believe that they want to enjoy all the successes and benefits that CFI provides but they don’t want to acknowledge the organizational methods that make it possible. Hypocrites.

Whatever happens, I’m glad people are finally talking about these issues in public. It’s a sign of maturity and success that we’re finally big enough for competing interests to break out, and it’s encouraging to know that there are more activists out there developing the skills and talents necessary to advance the movement.

EDIT: Katie Kish throws her voice in. I got called an asshole in the second line. It’ll be hard to beat that next time.

I’m actually not very new to blogging but since I haven’t posted anything in a long time I’d like to start fresh again.

I retired from the nasty world of atheist activism a few months ago, moved out of Toronto, and bought a house way out in Mississauga where I now seem to spend all my spare time cleaning and fixing things (which I suppose is inevitable when your new place is five times the size of the old).

Hopefully I can now find the time to post things that interest me and likely piss people off since I’m known for saying things that other people want to say but are unwilling for various different reasons.

I’d like to continue my activist work through other means so let me know if you have any ideas. I think the future of any type of activism lies in the ability of many people doing many things from their own homes so I’ll try to come up with a few different projects I can do in my spare time that don’t require me to go to any meetings or respond to any email lists.

I’ll focus on the issues that concern atheists the most. Activism, politics, ethics and morals, etc. Although I don’t know much about anything, my position has always been that neither does any one else so I might as well just say it.

I’ll be co-hosting the Canadian Atheist podcast once it starts up again soon so that should keep me involved in everything that goes on so keep us both on your readers because there is a lot to discuss.