False or Misleading Representations

I hate companies that prey on student's naivety.  I put them on the same level as polygamous religious cults in their callous disregard for (my subjective sense of) rightness and glee at exploiting others.

The story below won't shock you, its actually a very minor infraction, but I am angry and in need of material on which to procrastinate.

A student approached me at the SUB and asked me if I wanted to fill out a survey, implying it was for academic purposes.  After looking at the survey, the only questions were (and I paraphrase), did you work last summer? would you like a job that paid below minimum wage and was structured so you have absolutely no rights?  If so, give me your contact information.  Not cool.

I struggled to find a legal basis on which to write an angry demand letter, but the canadian advertisers association is a voluntary association, and the better business bureau doesn't have much pull with businesses that don't have, and don't care for their reputation.  Neither have any legal pull.

But I found s52 of the Competition Act (False and Misleading Representations) possibly applicable. The section sets out than an offense is committed when a person knowingly makes a misleading or false representation in the promotion of any business whatsoever.  52(2)(e) sets out that material contained in anything made available to the public is a deemed representation, and 52(4) sets out that the general impression is taken into account.

This hapless exploited student, who could barely speak English, made a representation to me that the survey was for academic reasons, I assumed it was a study for psychology.  That was misleading.  As well, the act was committed in order to promote a business interest.  It carries a fine of up to 200k for summary conviction and jail time for indictments.

I know s52 was not originally meant to apply to this situation, but these companies shouldn't be able to get away with these lies.  Fuck them.

"Sleeping Sex Slave"

Sometime in the next months (or year), the SCC will likely have to turn to this case (R. v. J.A., 2010 ONCA 226) decided a few weeks ago at the ONCA about whether consent can be given advance for sexual acts committed while the consenter is unconscious.

Quick Facts:

A long term couple with a child have on multiple occasions engaged in sex where the woman is choked to the point of unconsciousness and had sexual acts performed before and after the loss of consciousness.  A few weeks after one of these sessions, the couple had a fight and the woman filed charges against the man in a bid for custody of their son, claiming sexual assault.  She later withdrew her complaint.  The Crown nevertheless decided to prosecuted and obtained a conviction.

On appeal, the ONCA overturned the conviction in a 2-1 decision.

The Issue:

The battle now is between those fearful that a change in the idea that consent is withdrawn when the consenter loses the ability to consent, [i.e. the reading of 273.1(2)(b) that no consent is obtained when the complainant is unable to give consent to mean unconscious people withdraw consent,] would give rapists an excuse in claiming they though they obtained consent prior to slipping that roofie in the drink; and those supporters of sexual freedoms who argue the current rules are an infringement on the sexual rights of consenting adults.

In this particular situation, with explicit consent to each act performed and the history of such interactions, it would seem unfair to punish the man, especially given the ulterior motives of the complainant at the time.  However, in the opinion of this writer, the general benefit to society of setting a clear, and simple rule that protects victims of sexual crimes, and offers a strong deterrence against would be offenders, outweighs the interests of the very few unlucky chumps who will undeservedly get caught (and who would have to go through the ordeal of seeking exceptional redress).

Changing the rules, and creating a refined, holistic test that looks into a plethora of factors would create uncertainty in clear cut cases and waste precious judicial resources when cases where such care is needed are rare and far between.

I know KP disagrees with me, and hopefully will pen a opposing opinion.  Thoughts?

The Future of Freedom

At the local Chapters today, I passed by Fareed Zakaria's (Newsweek International editor) shelf.  There are dozens of copies of "Post American World" and not a single copy of "The Future of Freedom."  If you wanted the "Future of Freedom," you would have to order it and wait two weeks for the warehouse to dig it up and ship it to the store.

This is not cool.  "Post American World" is one of the dumbest books out there (though not as bad as "God's Debris" which you should only read if you hate your brain), while "Future of Freedom" is one of the awesomest, under appreciated gems of political philosophy out there.

The book is about liberal and illiberal democracies, and the thesis of the book, which deserves wider dissemination and acceptance, is that democracy is a product of liberal, responsive, and accountable societies, and not the other way around.  Thus, forcing an illiberal, poverty and famine stricken society to adopt democracy will not only fail to improve conditions (economic, political, and human rights), it will also stifle development and create severe governance disincentives that prevent natural growth and lead to an unending cycle of corruption, waste and electoral fraud.

Thus, progress will not be achieved through hegemonic force-feeding of our values, but though progressive and sustainable market and cultural integration.  And progress should not be measured through voter turnout, but rather on economic growth, institutional strengthening, and grassroots demands for accountability.

On a side note, I just picked up Dambisa Moyo's "Dead Aid," which harps on some overlapping themes, and hopefully will be an interesting read.

The Growing Wealth Gap

I came upon this series of charts on reader today about the growing wealth gap in the United States.  Some of the figures are shocking: the richest 1% control 33% of America's wealth and 50% of its capital markets.

My first gut reaction was that this is unfair, inequitable and all around terrible; what kind of society are we turning into?  But I struggled to find a unemotional rationale to this reaction.  Do we instinctively want to even things out?  How is that equality?  And is a wealth gap really a problem if no one is suffering?  Maybe we are just uncomfortable with skewed distributions.

Let's imagine a state where everyone is provided for, with a job, a home, ample food, security, good education, and all the rest, but the richest 1% control 90% of the wealth.  Why is so wrong on the face of it?

At the risk of sounding Randian: maybe so long as everyone has sustenance, basic rights and opportunity, the way wealth distributes itself isn't an issue we should be worried about (ignoring socialist  ideologic arguments).

Maybe the state's role should be to simply first, provide for these basic rights and sustenance, and second, to be a guardian for opportunity and oppression.  So long as the rich are not able to oppress, exploit, or unfairly compete with the rest using that wealth, what economic rationale is there to create taxation transfers?  Everyone benefits if that wealth is pumped into creating jobs, opening opportunities, funding research. Why should we fight against aggregations of wealth?

Of course, this is assuming everyone is provided for on a basic level.