Has Society Discriminated Against Elderly People?

Society has a plethora of ways to marginalize groups of people. Society often discriminates against people just because of a certain quality they have. Elderly people are commonly a victim to discrimination solely because of their age. In Britain, the government introduced a default retirement age in 2006 which allowed employers to “terminate” or deny employment to anyone over 65. Fortunately, the bill was challenged and was abolished five years later; however, if no one challenged it than this blatant oppression would have continued until it was fought against. This shows the importance of fighting for what you believe in. Additionally, actions aren’t the only way that society can marginalize people; marginalization can also take place verbally. It occurs when people openly talk about someone in a negative, berating manner based on a certain group that they belong to. In “Miss Brill” the protagonist becomes a victim to verbal abuse because of her age. The young couple that are prejudiced against her aren’t even aware of her precise range. Solely by judging Miss Brill’s appearance, all they know is that she’s old. However, before Miss Brill and the couple met, Miss Brill was blissfully happy with her loneliness. She went to the park alone every Sunday where she calmly listened to the band, innocently eavesdropped on peoples’ conversations, and harmlessly constructed her own reality. She is portrayed as a person with no mal-intentions who uses her imagination to spice up her reality. However, her fragile fantasy was completely shattered after the couple berated her, just because of her age! It just seems silly to think of someone like that simply because of the amount of time she has been alive. Miss Brill’s sense of reality was instantaneously replaced with the boy’s perspective of her which destroyed her sense of identity and self-worth. Her sensitivity permitted her mind to believe that she’s nothing but a “stupid old mug” who should just “keep her silly old mug at home.” Apathetic, his words caused her to withdraw into “[her] dark little room”. The simple use of words essentially isolated her from the rest of society. With that mindset engraved in her, she’s definitely not going back to the park or really anywhere else for that matter. The attitude of “who wants [me anyways]” seemed to be burned into her at that moment. Her life had been marginally valued which caused her to move to the edge of society.

The Marginalization of Blacks and Homosexuals

Marginalization is not a new concept. Groups of people have been marginalized in the past and are still today. For example, in America, black people had been discriminated against since as far back as the 16th century. Frequently bought and sold as slaves, they were generally disregarded of importance; mere animals to the majority. The majority just came to understand that black people were of no value. Newborns birthed by these types of parents then believed the same, stupid beliefs that these people instilled into them during their upbringing. It’s a vicious cycle that is common in the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor which typically continues until the oppressed fights back. This loop is called psychological marginalization because people are influenced into believing a negative illusion of the minority group; homosexuals have been a victim to this abuse as well. Outside forces such as religion, social conducts, and propaganda, had influenced society to hold negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Shockingly, it is illegal to be gay in some countries today. A bill was recently passed in Uganda which stated that the typical punishments for “the offense of homosexuality” are capital punishment and life imprisonment. This is just one example of a powerful influence that divides society’s majority from homosexuals. In “Life after High School”, Zachary faces the divisional pressures of religion and social conduct which lead to his maniacal despair and his eventual suicide. Born in a Christian family, he was brought up with Christian values and beliefs which restrict homosexuality. Not only his religion, but the people in his social environment also looked down upon gays. Aware of the potential marginalization, he kept quiet about his “sinful thoughts, deeds, [and] desires”; Zachary knows that he doesn’t live in a “free world” as opposed to Barbara who says that they do. He strived to be “normal” and attempted to achieve this by using Barbara to convert him into a heterosexual. He just wanted to live his life, being his true natural self. If he couldn’t be a part of the impeccable majority, then perhaps he wanted to go somewhere where he would be accepted for who he is. Perhaps the reasoning for his suicide was to reach the place where he knew he wouldn’t be judged and where he could be his authentic self – heaven. Even when he carried out his plan, he deliberately hid his homosexuality to preserve his honour and his family’s honour.

Societal Elderly Abuse & Homeless Marginalization

More so than often elderly people fall victim to abuse. Different forms of abuse, such as psychological abuse, physical abuse, and financial exploitation, ultimately lead to the marginalization of elderly people. According to the government of Canada, an estimated 4-10% of Canadian seniors face a form of elderly abuse. Statistics similar to these ^depict^ that a barrier to equality exists which needs to be broken down. In “Miss Brill”, the protagonist allows her abuser to recklessly construct her reality. His snide, thoughtless remark shattered the reality she had been happily and harmlessly creating. He rhetorically questioned why Miss Brill doesn’t just leave her “silly old mug at home”. These words deeply affected her and essentially pushed her to the edge of society. Instead of interacting with the society as she had done every Sunday, she retreated to her “dark little room” and isolated herself from the outer world. His words made her negatively re-evaluate her sense of identity and self-worth. As seen in Miss Brill’s case, marginalization can occur unintentionally and in simplistic ways.

The groups of homeless and mentally and socially challenged are very susceptible to the constructed propriety built by society. Many negative social attitudes exist towards those who are mentally and socially challenged and especially to those who are homeless. Homeless people are very often looked down upon. The homelessness issue is usually blamed on the homeless people themselves, for getting themselves into their situation. Additionally, society often dismisses them as drug addicts. Although true for some cases, in others it is uncontrollable as depicted in the story “The Safehouse”. The protagonist appears to have a number of problems working against him. His primary problem is that he’s homeless. As a result, his social skills have been damaged, his motivation has been diminished, and his mental state has been dulled as if from disuse. This could have been prevented if he was properly integrated into society. It has become a common social attitude to feel sorry for these types of people, but these people aren’t seeing them as equals. Essentially, the safehouse is just encouraging this marginalization. It’s not helping these “lost souls” integrate into society, it’s further isolating them. The shirts these people wear aid the majority in better identifying which pushes them to the edges of society. The system they have for the people who are similar to the protagonist is unrighteous; society is limiting their opportunities and quality of life. They are seen as inferior simply because of their financial state, and mental or social issues. Essentially, the motive for places like the safehouse are to ^further^ separate society from the oppressed. The safehouse is merely grouping these types of people together, so society can isolate them more efficiently.

Arguments for the Canadian Government to Bring Back the Death Penalty

Canada finally stopped using the death penalty as a form of punishment in 1976. In history, the only method that Canada has ever used for the punishment was death by hanging. I agree with the government’s decision to abolish capital punishment.

The choice to abolish capital punishment was moral, sensible, and politically correct. First, the death penalty is an infringement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment definitely qualifies as a “cruel” punishment. Also, it also robs the offender of his right to life and denies him any chance at changing his behavior for the better. Secondly, capital punishment solely causes more pain and suffering. The offender’s family will be put through unnecessary sorrow. His family will never be able to see him again; at least in a life imprisonment sentence, his family can still visit him to see how he’s doing. The execution of the offender does not bring back the victim he’s killed, nor does it provide any substantial relief to the victim’s family. The old saying of how “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies here. Lastly, the death penalty is an irrevocable punishment.  Nothing can be done if the state finds that the person who was executed was actually innocent. There’s simply no way to compensate for the unrighteous injustice. A human life is very precious; it’s too valuable to lose over an error.

Capital punishment is very inhumane and the fact that Canada solely used the hanging method makes it even more immoral. The hanging method leaves the offender conscious at his painful moment of death. If Canada did bring back the death penalty, my preferred method would be lethal injection. It’s more peaceful, in the sense that the offender drifts off into an endless sleep as opposed to gasping for your last few breathes of air through a snapped neck. However, any method of execution still remains inhumane because it is the deliberate killing of another human being. At least for the Canadian Charter’s sake, the Canadian government should continue to abolish capital punishment. 

Should the Canadian government bring back the death penalty?

I believe that the Canadian government should bring back the death penalty. First, capital punishment acts as an effective deterrent. Punishments need to be harsh in order to prevent anyone else from acting in the same way. Since a majority of people fear death, potential criminals will be discouraged from carrying out their acts; they know that their actions could cost them the ultimate price – their life. In the United States, it’s common to find that those who are sentenced to capital punishment plead for life imprisonment instead. This shows that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life imprisonment. Also, it guarantees that the offender will never commit a crime of any nature ever again. Secondly, the death penalty offers a unique method of retribution. Justice is precisely served in the sense of the old phrase “an eye for an eye”. It offers a type of peace to the victim’s family; similar to closure. The family of the victim may finally have peace of mind after the criminal is executed because they know that the murderer no longer among them. Lastly, the death penalty saves the state’s resources and taxpayers’ money. Although debated in the past, statistics show that it costs significantly less to give someone the death penalty as opposed to life in prison. The people who committed such horrible acts don’t deserve to live on Earth, let alone waste the state’s money. Criminals who deserve the death penalty but are sentenced to life in prison are simply just contributing to the prison population and are using up the prison’s resources. In conclusion, capital punishment should be brought back in order to discourage potential criminals, to serve righteous justice, and to save the state’s resources.  

Police Advise Google to Remove Protest Videos

Summary:

Certain videos on YouTube revealing police brutality have been asked to be taken down by the US law enforcement agency. Two requests have been made to Google, but both have been turned down; they’re going to remain on YouTube. However, out of about 90 previously submitted requests (submitted by different authorities in America) 73% were accepted and censored by Google. Criticisms against Google and the authorities have surfaced. They argue that the United States is basically attempting to censor the people and that the authorities are violating the people’s right to freedom of the media. Critics also say that Google shouldn’t have the ability to simply censor information; they believe that YouTube is a public platform and that neither the government nor Google should be able to block out whatever they please. Google has stated that the volume of requests for content censoring (asked by government authorities) has risen, and so has the volume of requests for removing private information (asked by Google users). This is understandable because of the “Occupy” protests.

Key Stakeholders:

1. Government – Certain videos clearly showing police brutality will continue to stay on YouTube. This will most likely defame the police department, as well as government authority.
2. Google – Was asked by government authority to censor some videos. Google has accepted some of their requests in the past, but their most recent ones have been rejected.
3. People of the state – Their opinion on the government are likely to be affected. A lot of people won’t like that the government is trying to censor this kind of information and media.

My Reflection:

I think it’s wrong that the government is trying to censor media like this. The United States is supposed to be a democratic country, not a police state; the government is violating the people’s right to freedom of the media. In the article, it has been suggested that government requests for content removal should be backed with a court order. I believe this method would be more fair and just, as opposed to the government attempting to remove any information that they’re dissatisfied with.

Questions:

1. If you were in charge of Google, would you remove these police brutality videos? Why?
2. Do you think it’s fair that the U.S. government can attempt to censor information like this?
3. Why do you think the U.S. government wants to remove videos like this?

The Development of Canadian Law

Our current laws have originated and derived primarily from the roots of our early laws which go all the way back to Canada’s birth as an independent country. Essentially, our laws are just adaptations of these root laws. However, there are of course, new laws which have been formed and added to reflect our society’s beliefs and values at a selected point in time. Our laws now are distinctly different from our laws from over 100 years ago. Obviously, this is expected because a society’s beliefs and values evolve over time, and new laws or amended laws reveal this.

To understand the roots of our laws one must understand that Canada was colonized by two different countries; typically in the past, “new” areas were colonized by one country. England and France were the two occupiers of Canada which ultimately lead to a heavy influence on Canada’s legal system. The legal systems of England and France were not, by any means, similar in nature. The bold difference between the two was that French law was written down and codified from an early point in time. Contrary to French law, written and codified English law was not developed until significantly later in England’s history.

Canada, being greatly exposed to the legal workings of England and France, was pressured to adopt their legal ways. This is why much of Canadian law is derived from the laws of France and England. Nevertheless, Canada strayed away from the bindings of France and England over time which is completely natural. The roots of Canada are still respected by Canadians and the parliamentary system. The respected roots of England are apparent through specific positions in the parliament system such as the governor general and the lieutenant general.

Canada was officially born a country on July 1, 1867. The primary factor in the success of Canada’s birth was through the British North American Act of 1867. During this time, Canada held vigorously strong ties with Britain. In fact, Canada did not have control over its affairs until 1931 – Britain did! As time progressed, these ties weakened; Canada and its citizens wanted to be a completely independent country. Many laws and amendments took place during this “identity” period.

As a democratic country, the laws of Canada exhibit the concerns of the majority of Canada’s population. Observation of a country’s laws can show a snippet of the country’s history and culture. History and culture are the primary influences on laws and punishments. It is perfectly normal and healthy for laws and punishments to change; however, a certain degree of stability should be held.