jump to navigation

Judge sentences 11-year-old to death by tradition November 18, 2014

Posted by Ezra Resnick in Belief, Law, Superstition.
add a comment

Not in Saudi Arabia. Not in Afghanistan. In Canada.

An emotional dispute over a family’s decision to pull their cancer-stricken daughter out of chemotherapy ended Friday with a potentially far-reaching constitutional decision, as a judge ruled First Nations’ people have a legal right to seek out traditional native remedies.

Which apparently trumps the right of the child to not die.

[Ontario Justice Gethin Edward] rejected a request by the hospital that had been treating the 11-year-old girl to force the local children’s aid society to apprehend her so she could resume chemotherapy. Doctors have said her kind of leukemia has a 90% cure rate with modern treatment, but is an almost certain death sentence without it.

Earning applause from many in a packed courtroom Friday, the judge said traditional health care is an integral part of the family’s Mohawk culture and therefore protected by the Constitution.

What if beating children were also an integral part of the family’s culture? Or sacrificing them to the gods? What good is a constitution that fails to protect children from needless harm?

Evidence showed the mother from Six Nations reserve is “deeply committed to her longhouse beliefs and her belief that traditional medicines work,” said Judge Edward.

So the court relied on evidence to show that the mother’s beliefs are sincere, but didn’t care what the evidence says about whether those beliefs are true. Because everyone knows that statistics don’t apply to you if you don’t believe in them.

“This is not an eleventh-hour epiphany employed to take her daughter out of the rigours of chemotherapy,” he said. “Rather it is a decision made by a mother, on behalf of a daughter she truly loves, steeped in a practice that has been rooted in their culture from its beginnings.”

Harmful practices need to be rooted out, not perpetuated, no matter their pedigree. A child could understand that. How many more children must die just so a tradition might live?

Playing by the rules November 15, 2014

Posted by Ezra Resnick in Game theory, Logic.
add a comment

chess-cube“Want to play a game?”

“Sure! But first we need to agree on the rules.”

“Of course. I propose that we take turns proposing rules.”

“Agreed, and since you just proposed the first rule, I guess I get to propose the next one.”

“Wait a minute: I didn’t propose a rule for the game itself — I merely proposed a rule for how we ought to go about proposing the game rules.”

“Apologies; yours was indeed a meta-rule. In that case, let me propose a meta-rule of my own: Any disagreement about a proposed game rule will be decided by flipping a coin.”

“I’m not sure I agree with that.”

“Well, we haven’t yet agreed on a method for resolving disagreements about meta-rules. Do you have a suggestion?”

“How about we take turns: one of us gets to decide the first disagreement, the other decides the next disagreement, and so on.”

“OK, then: following your meta-meta-rule, I now get to decide our meta-rule disagreement about how to resolve disagreements about game rules.”

“Hold on: Who said you get to decide the first meta-rule disagreement?”

“Well, I let you determine the meta-meta-rule on how to decide meta-rule disagreements, so now it’s my turn.”

“Nice try, but we never agreed on how to resolve disagreements about meta-meta-rules. You can’t just make unilateral assumptions.”

“Well, how come you got to propose the first meta-rule to begin with? If you get to propose the first meta-rule then I should get to decide the first meta-rule disagreement.”

“Then I get to propose the first game rule.”


“First, I propose the following meta-rule: If the first rule proposal is challenged and loses the coin flip, the challenger must propose the following as his next rule: ‘The winner is whoever proposed playing the game.'”

“I don’t agree to that!”

“Noted, but according to our meta-meta-rule, it’s my turn to decide in case of disagreement on a meta-rule. And now for my first proposed game rule: The winner is whoever proposed playing the game.”

“Even if I disagree I still lose. Nicely played.”

“Thanks! That was fun.”

“Indeed. But maybe we should play a different game next time?”

“Sure! As long as we can agree on the rules…”

If gerrymandering were allowed outside politics November 2, 2014

Posted by Ezra Resnick in Politics.
1 comment so far
  • “So what if I was driving 10 mph over the speed limit? Yesterday I drove 15 below.”
  • “You may have won two out of three games, but I scored more points in the first three quarters of the first game and in the last three quarters of the last game. So I win the series.”
  • “I know you’re entitled to a refund for unused items, but since you bought four items and used two we’re considering all the items half used.”