QUESTION PERIOD :



By: John Sedgwick
Contact Email: 024018s@acadiau.ca
Class: Global Circuit

Question Period

Question Period

The recent stripping, and subsequent reinstatement, of a Canadian snowboarder's Olympic gold medal has left many unanswered questions in the minds of people around the world. It is undeniable that the athlete in question, Ross Rebagliati, has grown up in an environment which has demonstrated a more liberal view towards marijuana. Should he have been punished for this? Say for example an athlete from the Netherlands, were the consumption of marijuana has been decriminalised, receives similar test results. Assuming, as in the Rebegliati instance, that there is little reason to believe the amount, or in fact the type, of narcotic found in his blood has had any affect on his performance as an athlete. The athlete has in no way broken a law, assuming that the marijuana was consumed prior to leaving the Netherlands, and is in no way enhancing his performance. How can this possibly justify the IOC testing that exists? How can this body of sport allow itself to take on the role of global police force, and ruin the lives of the athletes who support its very existence?

It would also seem that, simply by making the issue public, the IOC has severely damaged the reputations of both Rebegliati and his sport. Given this fact, should the IOC be allowed to continue conducting testing of this nature? The International Olympic Committee cannot possibly justify the two days of tremendous grief that they undoubtedly put this athlete through by making this an issue. Not only have they damaged his personal reputation, but that of a sport in its Olympic infancy. This recent situation has lead one to believe that testing of this nature has nothing but destructive consequences. Taking that into consideration, is there any reason why the IOC should be allowed to cross the boundaries of sport, and regulate substances with no impact upon the outcome of the games they control? An average citizen attending the Olympics is not tested for marijuana, why should the athletes be?

After spending the first segment of this term in Comparative politics studying some of the many political ideologies that exist and have existed, it is clear that there are many questions to be derived from them. Each ideology that we have studied appears to have a very strong positive side, and an equally strong negative side. There does not seem to be, or have ever been, one single ideology that has gained universal acceptance, or lead to an undeniably successful existence. Is it possible to create an ideology without causing any negative repercussions? Although capitalist and democratic ideals are becoming the dominant train of thought world wide, it is clear that they too have a powerful downside. Will a political ideology ever arise that can combine all of the positives, and at least limit the negative to minor details of political life on earth?




By: Pat Hamilton
Contact Email: 025746h@acadiau.ca
Class: Digital Dove

This week's classes focused mainly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the development of "The Human Right to Peace". These are both concepts, particularly "the human right to peace", that have been developed and championed by UNESCO.

QUESTION #1:
Both the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and "The Human Right to Peace" are concepts that attempt to define "peace". Is there such thing as a universal concept of peace? Can universal peace be achieved? To what extent should local, and culturally relative concepts of peace be incorporate d into "universal" peace definitions?

QUESTION #2:
The concept of "The Human Right to Peace" is one that is heavily dependent on the moral standards of humanity. It is a concept that relies on the assumption that the majority of the people in the world want peace, and want to establish a "culture of peace" instead of the "culture of war" that currently dominates the overall mentali ty of the world. Is it true that the majority of the world wants peace? Is a concept that is so heavily reliant on the nature of humanity feasible? Is there such thing as a universal "right to peace"

QUESTION #3:
These concepts are ones that are originated by the UN, but are heavily reliant on government participation. These concepts require the implementation of not only extensive UN programs but also Government programs. It requires a serious, dramatic shift in the ethos of many nations. Is it wise for governments to support such a dramatic peace program? How much money should governments devote to a such an unproven peace plan? What action should governments take against states that do not commit to these programs?


By: Christine McNair
Contact Email: 029416m@acadiau.ca
Class: Virtual Anchor

In our lectures this week we concentrated on the role of the welfare state. My questions will be addressing this overall theme and the importance of the public sector in the policy making process.

  • 1.
    • The rise of the welfare state was preceded by the Great Depression. In an effort to energize the sluggish economy, the government instituted work creation and social provision programs. Within the past ten years, a similiar economic downturn has affected the unemployment rate as well as the economy. Why has the government changed their methods of dealing with the unemployment? Does the incorporation of the private sector into job creation programmes work well? When does government become privatized?

  • 2.
    • Since 93/94, many civil servants have left the public sector. The use of EDI (Early Departure Incentive) and the ERI (Early Retirement Incentive) have significantly thinned the ranks. Public servants need more education and specialized skills than ever before. Why does the public perception of the "massive growth" in the numb er of public servants persist? What external and internal factors have led to this misconception? How can the misconception be corrected?

  • 3.
    • The role of government is changing. The public backlash against the growth of the public sector has led to radical cutbacks. Governments are reaching towards the privatisation of key areas of government intervention such as transportation.How will the new boundaries be defined and who will decide? Will the decision makers only follow the majority or will the minority's concerns be considered? What role should government have in the 21rst century? Is the traditional welfare state the best alternative?




    By: Chris Hamilton
    Contact Email: 027081h@acadiau.ca
    Class: Digital Dove

    This week's Peace Studies classes focused largely on Unesco's concept of the right to peace. While the concept itself seems to be quite nebulous and dificult to clearly define, the base elements of the concept are clear enough for discussion. Three questions which could emerge from this discussion are:

  • 1)
    • To what extent should people be guaranteed a right to peace and what should that right entail?

  • 2)
    • Does the U.N. have the necessary support/ability to determine what the right to peace is and the way in which that right should be protected?

  • 3)
    • Does the U.N. have the right to determine unilatereally the right to peace and the right to take measueres to uphold that right?




    By: Kristi Batherson
    Contact Email: 015320b@acadiau.ca
    Class: Global CIrcuit

    Question One
    This week’s lecture on post-modernity inspired a lot of questions. As we scribbled down notes at a furious pace I wondered how one could be influenced to become a post-modernist. What I mean is that what influences the nihilistic view, yet the romantic exuberance and interest in the aesthetic as well. One writer, Patrick S. Poole, says that Americans have such a nonchalant attitude towards their politicians and their misdemeanors because of post-modernity. Post-modernity has fixated their interest on images rather than spoken words or structure. Poole writes:

    In the post-modern world, where we have lost any sense of grammar and logic, we can string any number of nouns and verbs together in an impressive array, and have the majority of the American public say, "Oh,.ok. That makes sense." The Clinton Administration could not have survived this long without having most voters thinking in post-modern terms and fixated on image.

    If Poole is correct, then how do Canadians view or appreciate their political leaders? Was it because of our post-modern identity that made us Canadians more lenient to Jean Chretien when he was accused of lying on several occasions than we were to Brian Mulroney throughout his entire prime ministership?
    Post Modernity and Politics

    Question Two
    It was a proud moment for Canada when one of its athletes, Ross Rebagliati, won gold for his performance at the first ever snow boarding competition at the Olympics. Rebagliati indeed made history that day—twice. After being tested for drug use it was found that Rebagliati had traces of marijuana in his blood stream. His gold medal was revoked temporarily while officials debated whether to grant it back to him. The medal has since been given back to Rebagliati but the debate is no where near over. Should Rebagliati have the gold? Perhaps on a personal basis Rebagliati’s marijuana use is not our concern but take this issue from a communitarian viewpoint where as members of a whole community everything we do is a contribution to the public good. Is Rebagliati setting a poor example to young Canadians everywhere? As a star athlete does he not have an obligation to his community (Canada) to act in a civilly conscious manner by abiding by the law?
    Canadian Takes First Snowboard Giant Slalom

    Question Three
    Do you know any activists? I think that I know a few. Some are interested in abolishing the MAI Treaty, some are interested in animal rights, while a few are pro-abortion activists. Since it is Black History Month I wanted to learn about an activist that no one in our generation has ever met. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. My Dad, who claims to forget what happened yesterday, saw a video clip on the news one night of Martin Luther King. My Dad said, "Jeez, I remember that day." My Dad was referringto the I Have a Dream speech when thousands convened at the Washington Monument to listen to King’s famous and historic message of ethnic harmony and peace. The fact that Dad remembered this signifies to me how profound that moment was over twenty years ago. King was a leader (an activist) of my parent’s generation. Who does Generation Next consider to be their leader(s)? The most important question is whether you consider yourself a leader in your own right? What do you believe strongly in? What will you do to promote or raise awareness to your cause?
    Tribute to Martin Luther King