Go to article index for other editions of Bob Orrick's IN RE (In the Matter of).
From Home and Abroad
By
Bob Orrick
Today, a few items culled from various news sources, each interesting for its message.
First, a report out of South Korea where the government - via the police -has cracked down on men who 'wilfully tamper with their bodies to avoid military duty.' The men have been tattooed in compliance with the Korean curse that reflects the ancient practice of using tattoos to brand thieves and slaves. Some of the modern tattoos cover the recipient's back and depict dragons, fish, birds and roses. While there is no law against tattooing, the Koreans consider tattoos symbols of disgrace; hence the reference to thieves and slaves. Most Korean regard military service as a rite of manhood, a sacred duty to be performed. The law in the Republic of Korea [South Korea] is that those who seek top government jobs or running for parliament must show not only their military service record but also those of their children. A tough law that would render most of Canada's parliamentarians and top government officials incapable of passing muster. [Yea, I like that Korean law. Bring it on in Canada, sooner than later.]
About 170 men have been arrested for attempting to avoid military duty. The crime is punishable by up to three years imprisonment.
In a second story out of South Korea we learn that two Korean scientists have come up with technology to 'take the stink out of socks.' According to a story carried in the London Daily Telegraph, these scientists have discovered a method of impregnating silver particles into the polypropylene widely used in textiles; this gives the cloth excellent antibacterial properties.
"Silver has been shown to kill more than 650 disease-causing organisms and is also a safe antibacterial agent, enabling the 'nanocomposite' fibres to be used as a weapon against malodorous feet."
A Korean cosmetics company currently uses nano silver particles in its under-arm deodorants.
From South Korea we turn our attention to the United Kingdom. The Brits have enacted legislation that makes it an offence for British drivers to talk or text-message on their cellphones while driving a motor vehicle. Fines of up to $2,250 could be imposed on drivers who chat while supposedly in control of a motor vehicle. The initial fine is a paltry $65. The fine system is on an escalating scale and increases with court appearances.
Now we go across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States where a mother was ticketed for breast-feeding her baby. Most mothers are not given a ticket for breast-feeding but in this case the mother was driving her car on the Ohio Turnpike. The Ohio police took a dim view of that and nipped her at the nipple. [Sorry about that. Summer has arrived and the sunshine does tend to make one a wee bit silly at times.]
Moving north to Canada, we learn that a British Columbia Supreme Court judge has questioned the Criminal Code and the cannabis laws. Justice Mary Southin [yes, that Justice Mary Southin and her defiance of the no-smoking laws in BC.] tossed out a charge after police used a battering ram to break down the front door of a house that was suspected of being a 'grow op.' According to Justice Southin, the police ought to have sought a search warrant; they did not and so, out went the charge. Justice Southin then mused aloud about the cannabis laws and said that 'pot' was no more of a danger to society than alcohol. As one would expect, the yeas and the nays have come out in force with letters-to-the-editors of Vancouver's two daily newspapers front and centre. Justice Southin based her opinion on having 'sat on' more than 40 cases that had something to do with marijuana. We know that she smokes carcinogenic tobacco in the form of cigarettes and that their second-hand smoke is probably far more harmful to society than either alcohol or marijuana. According to a news report of a few weeks ago, illness caused by tobacco account for a higher proportion of Canada's health care costs than is proportionate to the number who smoke the killer weed. [I can say that with a clear conscience as I am a lifetime non-smoker and I abhor cigarette, cigar and pipe smoking.]
Finally, this gem from Ottawa, Canada. Canada has a privacy commissioner. The job is to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. To do this, the commissioner is paid a handsome $210,000 per year plus a living allowance and a goody size staff. All in all, the office costs the Canadian taxpayers a tidy sum. There are some who wonder aloud if the money is well spent or just another way for parliament to throw money out the back of a truck. The paragraph's opening sentence used the present tense; now we shift to the past tense. Just a few days ago, the incumbent commissioner resigned, and the land let out a giant sigh of relief.
The commissioner got caught with his hand in the cookie jar; his expense account was greatly inflated with lunches that cost the taxpayers on average more than $100.00 per. The commissioner submitted more than 90 lunch tabs up to February this year. Moreover, the commissioner made at least seven international trips in 2002; those trips cost the taxpayers $61,000. But wait, there's more. According to a committee report of travel costs, the commissioner and his director general of communications, cost the taxpayers nearly $300,000 last year and $200,000 the previous year. No wonder Canadian taxpayers think their money was being tossed willy-nilly out the back of a large dump truck.
Well, he's gone and even in his going it cost Canadians almost $80,000 in a 'get lost' package.
That would be sufficient but just like the 'come on' television adds that urge viewers to call now and get more, there is more to the resigned commissioner's story.
It turns out that the recently departed owed Revenue Canada a hefty sum in back taxes; he had not paid income taxes and when the bill reached $540,000 the 'revenooers' came a-calling. But a funny thing happened on the way to the 'pay up.' For some reason yet unexplained, the then-private citizen managed to have his delinquent tax bill reduced to $60,000. That was the day before he became privacy commissioner. The term about something being rotten in Denmark smells mighty sweet when compared to the awful stench that comes from Ottawa and the magical sleight of hand that turned $540,000 into $60,000.
A question that has been asked by at least one political columnist is, if the privacy commissioner's annual salary was $210,000 per year why didn't Ottawa garnishee his future earnings? Revenue Canada would not hesitate to grab an ordinary Canadian's earnings if back taxes were owed; and it would not have to be half a million bucks, either. The screws at Revenue Canada will go after much, much less.
Perhaps the most galling thing in this entire affair is that the privacy commissioner failed to see that he had done anything wrong. He blamed over-zealous parliamentarians on a witch-hunt for his downfall.
One other item that needs to be addressed is that someone approved each of the submissions for lunches and travel. That someone should take heat for failing to properly scrutinise the chits. It is unlikely - but not impossible - that the culprit or culprits will never be identified and held to account.
On another note, this space will take a short hiatus. All going well and God willing, it will return on Monday, 07 July 2003. In the meantime, remember that the comments are subjective more than objective and are the musings of a suspicious, inquisitive mind.
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
